The time for wrangling is past. We are no longer convinced the documents drafted and furnished to us, after the fact, by bureaucracies whose very existence and credibility is challenged, can be relied upon. We ask for an order compelling production of all the raw notes and all the reports and materials requested, not some sanitized version that is presented to us in an attempt to persuade us to join with the government in disputing a story which increasingly appears to be absolutely truthful. Not only this court, but especially the defense, are interested in candor from the prosecution. The defense cannot be required to accept a definition of words as interpreted by the prosecution when apparently it has the only copy of the dictionary.
Common sense dictates no other conclusion.
We think on the eve of trial, that the district court has expressed its view of the prosecutors' duty clearly enough and that they have told the court that they understand it, but partial compliance, delayed disclosures, and discovery information which cannot reasonably be found because of egregious misspellings are inconsistent with that duty. The order to produce should issue and this foolishness should end. Statements to the court by the prosecution that it cannot connect Strassmeir and Mahon to the bombing are hardly surprising. They did not try very hard to connect them because had they been connected, and Carol Howe's previous warning disclosed, the resulting furor would have been unimaginable. Copyright 1997 Media Bypass magazine.