|
In Reply to: Nice work, Researcher! posted by Quality Control Freak on April 07, 2005 at 10:32:16:
The phrase you used, 'criminal liability for obstruction of justice' really stood out to me. I've heard of (tho never been in) what were later called 'shredding parties' where Family members sat around in a Home shredding incriminating lit, burning it, cutting it with sissors & marking it with felt pens. Most of the lit & stuff that seems to be around these days is of the 'purged' variety.
There was a tremendous lot of destruction of evidence & I'm wondering if people who participated in those things should write up affadavites for the FBI. I'm sure that could be covered by the immunity clause John & Jim LaMattery were extending. If enough people wrote about it it would establish a credibility there for why more incriminating evidence is not forthcoming. I mean, when the Swiss banks began shredding documents 20 years ago it made worldwide headlines. Caught in the act! People lost jobs over that! Banks became crmininal accomplices. I wonder why the Lit Purges aren't seen as the huge crime they are?
Thinking about it, someone who never sexually abused a child or beat a teen in a retraining camp might still be 'guilty' of the lesser crime of covering up & destroying evidence, but I'm sure immunity would be extended for people who did that who were willing to testify about it. And I notice the actual BAR pubs are online now to back up people's testimonies.
