Replies

I wonder if too much may be made of the "Mohammed" moniker.

I've noticed a weird behavior of many blacks in my city, Columbus, Ohio. There is a large black population here and many are poor. Anyway, it's remarkable that many blacks will be seen wearing University of Michigan sportswear. Around these parts, that's wearing the uniform of the enemy. It's become a huge fad among Columbus blacks.

Now, I'm a U of M alum, so when I saw a guy a work with a Wolverine jacket and big "Go Blue!" signs in his office, I said, right on, did you go to Michigan? He did not, was not related to any who did, in short, there was no reason for this "in your face" display other than to "Fight the Power" so to speak. This same guy, by the way, was a big advocate of the OJ-is-innocent line, and when I recapped the facts of the case as I knew them which incontrovertibly point to OJ's guilt, he couldn't articulate any defense, and lamely said, "Well, maybe I would have thought differently if someone had explained it to me that way." All I did was give the rudiments of the case and it was as if he hadn't thought of them before! There was no thought process behind it at all.

I believe that many blacks, in particular the snipers, feeling disenfranchised and powerless, reactively adopt the symbols of whatever sticks a finger in the eye of The Man, even in things as banal as sports, and there isn't a lot of point in figuring out the deeper meaning of it. The fact that this guy changed to name to "Mohammed" immediately after 9/11 underscores the point. Like many blacks, he gets a lift associating himself with the opposite team.

Now, these guys escalated into the field of mass murder, but the motive is evidently simply money. Their scheme to demand money credited to the stolen credit card, and to demand that they have nationwide ATM access to it, might even have worked, as I think it would be difficult to chase down hit-and-run so to speak withdrawals on ATMs across the country.

This same guy, by the way, was a big advocate of the OJ-is-innocent line, and when I recapped the facts of the case as I knew them which incontrovertibly point to OJ's guilt, he couldn't articulate any defense, and lamely said, "Well, maybe I would have thought differently if someone had explained it to me that way."

Did you perhaps see Mark Furman (sp?) when he was asked the value of pi? "Isn't it about three?" he replied.

This, from the scientific head of the LA police crime lab, would have been enough to make this white guy have a reasonable doubt. Was he guilty? You betcha. Was there reasonable doubt? You betcha.