Scream: Mary Surratt Edition

Mary Surratt. You've probably heard her name before. She was the first woman to hang in the United States. She was convicted of conspiracy to murder Abraham Lincoln. Bad person, yes?

Except her *military* trial was rigged. Basic rights were grossly denied her. She shouldn't have even had a damn military trial, she should have had a civil trial with a jury of her peers, not a bunch of generals- good friends of Lincoln, angrily grieving their loss.

Still, she was just a bad person who just got the harsh treatment she deserved, right?

Her attorney, Mr. Aiken, asked a DC court for a writ of habeus corpus with the argument that the military tribunal had no jurisdiction over his client. The writ was issued at 3 AM. President Johnson cancelled the writ at 11:30 AM. She was walked out to hang at 1:15 PM. From the scaffold, one of the others set to hang (Powell) said, "Mrs. Surratt is innocent. She doesn't deserve to die with the rest of us." She complained that the bindings about her arms hurt, and the officer preparing her said, "Well, it won't hurt long."

Bitches be bitches.

Why do we not learn of occasions such as this in history class? Is it because that may spoil our allegiance to the flag? We are being indoctrinated into the national cult, the history of which we are not even fully aware.

Please, take your time to learn a little about the hell some have gone through at the expense of liberty before you go around declaring America to be the greatest country in existence.

Amanda Knox Trial (How Strong is that Evidence, Really?)

As many of you know, American exchange student Amanda Knox was recently found guilty of the first-degree murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher. However, upon reading the different points of view on the trial, I'm not so sure she really is.

Excerpt from TIME:

In what is surely a well-rehearsed demonstration by now, Bremner goes on to address the case against Knox, point by point. The prosecution, she says, is most likely relying on a knife found at the house of Knox's then boyfriend and fellow accused Rafaelle Sollecito. That knife has Knox's DNA on the handle and what some forensic scientists say is Kercher's DNA on the tip. But Bremner dismisses the idea that it is the knife that killed Kercher: "They never found the murder weapon." Bremner claims that a bloody print on the bed linens conveys the shape of the actual murder weapon and that the knife in question "doesn't match an outline of the knife on the bed." Additionally, Bremner says, expert testimony has already indicated that at least two of the wounds on Kercher's neck couldn't have been made by that particular blade. That aside, she points out, it's not surprising that Knox's DNA would be on its handle; she prepared dinner with Sollecito in his apartment.

I agree with the woman. From what I've watched, this doesn't seem to be very strong evidence. There are many other discrepancies, which I implore you to check out (the title of this post will take you to the TIME article).

No, it isn't a conspiracy theory. I just think that the jurisdiction could have done a better job of sticking to the facts, rather than depending on the media.