Letters from Bill appear to have picked up in speed – but despite his period of ‘no telephone’ being supposed to end, it hasn’t. As we move closer to trial, I’ll be putting LESS of the letter content online. These are just my own speculations. Here is my second stage of in-depth case analysis and thus far everything is proceeding exactly as I expected it would.
1) The first US attorney has been pulled off the job or decided to quit. This is no surprise, because if it were my job I would be quick to abandon a case with no physical evidence (save for flimsy a posteriori arguments using ad hominems which I will expand on soon) and allegations of prison torture for the making of anonymous blog posts. The second attorney has his work cut out here, and quite frankly I think the first one has had a lucky escape from having to be assigned to this horrendous mess.
2) Moving on to point two. The second US Attorney, quite predictably, has opted for a straight out a posteriori stratagem based on a few spurious ad hominems. For those of you not versed in strategy and debate, this means there is no evidence at all and he’s going to base his entire argument around Facebook posts and ten year old internet comments from the original Overthrow. This means the whole case rests on a premise of “because you said something ten years ago, you might have said this too”. Obviously, this is a dubious technique which suggests that there is actually no real evidence of any kind.
3) The strategy is all wrong. As I said before, the very worst thing that could happen to the US Attorney’s case would be for Bill to fall silent. They think it would be a good thing – it saves on those anonymous jury expenses – but if Bill actually really does have no followers as I keep saying then all it prevents is Bill actually leaking any information about himself on the internet – which provides everything with a certain element of je ne sais quoi on all fronts. It would have been in their interest to let him keep talking.
4) The actual a posteriori points. Some of these are a bit ridiculous. The evidence the US seeks to introduce revolves around his taste in music (which is a bit like saying that if someone watches spiderman, they will put on a red suit and start shooting webs everywhere) – ipso facto instant absurdism. Even worse, he clearly doesn’t have any knowledge of the music cited. Death in June, for example, is evidence of being a ‘White Supremacist’. Death in June are actually homosexual Jews, and openly so. Everyone knows this. Boyd Rice is apparently another one – Boyd Rice has no political affiliations at all and is part of the Church of Satan. Not connected to anything political at all – he simply uses Fascism as a ploy to offend people because being offensive is apparently ‘Satanic’.
Apparently Bill’s writing will also be used as evidence. I don’t recall reading anything he’s written that relates to the content of the emails. Everything I’ve seen is stuff on mythology and the Catholic Church. I know the Catholics have had their criminal moments, but how can Catholicism be connected to facetious internet comments?
And of course Facebook will be back. So, all Bill’s friends with FB content will get misquoted again, not consulted and presented as evidence without even so much as being notified that they were involved in court case, as was the case with Roanoke where non-US residents were quoted without their knowledge or permission and evidence was also cited from a man who doesn’t even exist. Great investigative work there – quite frankly I’m appalled that a person who does not even exist can be quoted from Facebook in a trial. How can that even be legal?
5) Internet posts. This just says it all. Even if some guy was drunk surfing the internet pretending to be Charles Manson, no one is going to take that seriously. Yet apparently high ranking officials in the US were terrified of some nut making random comments on the internet. I find it very hard to believe that experienced judges and FBI officials would be intimidated by a couple of nutty emails.
6) The last point I have to make in relation to the US Attorney’s premise is that he seems to indicate from his argument, that the actual charge is ‘white supremacism’ – an interesting development from the original charges, but sadly not all connected with them. If the actual charge was ‘white supremacism’ then it may be relevant – however it is not and the point simply becomes an argument based on retrospective ad hominems.
7) Just for the record, I don’t listen to Boyd Rice, am not a ‘white supremacist’ or a Nazi and I think Charles Manson was a stupid hippy twat. Since Manson himself was an utter failure at everything, I fail to see why anyone would emulate him.
8) Oh and someone located in Orlando Florida keeps giving me crank phone calls – rather suspicious all things considered (even more so because I don’t even live in the USA).