veganxjen ([info]veganxjen) wrote,
@ 2008-04-13 02:19:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
FBI. informant "anna" speaks. article contained.
Below is the scanned images of the Elle interview "Anna" did recounting her time as an FBI informant working to gather (entrap) information on Eric McDavid. Most of the information is the same that came out in the trial if you read the transcripts but nevertheless it's interesting to see her twisted side of things.
(note: if the text is too small try saving the images and opening them in photoshop, paint, preview, word... etc and then going to edit and zooming in on them)

After reading the article please visit www.supporteric.org to find out how you can help Eric McDavid. Eric has been the victim of not only incredulous FBI entrapment but also a dodgy trial and now he sits in jail waiting for his sentencing as well as his appeal.
You can write to Eric at the following address:
MCDAVID, ERIC X-2972521 4E231A
Sacramento County Main Jail
651 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

And the article....

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

with love and liberation.
SNITCHES GET STITCHES.

(Post a new comment)


[info]wallynotorious
2008-04-17 05:15 pm UTC (link)
I got a link here from a local listserv. Thank you so much for posting this! Do you mind if I link to this in [info]anarchists? Or maybe just repost the images independently? Thanks! :)

(Reply to this)

[info]wallynotorious
2008-04-17 05:29 pm UTC (link)
Also, what issue was this in?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]veganxjen
2008-04-18 09:21 am UTC (link)
yeah you can repost it but wait until i scan in page 272 which i`ll do tomorrow.

its in the latest issue of elle magazine, it has madonna on the cover. costs 5 bucks at the drug store.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
pages 271 too?
(Anonymous)
2008-04-21 02:07 pm UTC (link)
got to this page form the pix forum.. great article so far, but are you going to scan page 271 too? or am i somehow missing where to go after 270?

thanks! Doug

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 02:53 am UTC (link)
May 2008.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]huckleberryred
2008-04-17 06:51 pm UTC (link)
Wow. That's fucking scary.

(Reply to this)
Anna is unethical.
[info]yakmilk
2008-04-17 11:02 pm UTC (link)
Some day she's going to wake up and realize exactly what she's done and why and she's going to feel absolutely horrible. It may take a very long time but it is GOING to happen.

(Reply to this)
missing a page
(Anonymous)
2008-04-18 12:03 am UTC (link)
hmmmm.... page 272 is missing, yes?

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: missing a page
[info]veganxjen
2008-04-18 09:21 am UTC (link)
yeah i`ll scan it in tomorrow.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: missing a page
(Anonymous)
2008-04-18 06:52 pm UTC (link)
It's tough to get stories like this in the glossies. But it will increase awareness and possibly support. Write to the magazine and tell them what you think of the story, positive and negative.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: missing a page
[info]veganxjen
2008-04-23 08:33 am UTC (link)
posted.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]iliketohangout
2008-04-18 07:33 pm UTC (link)
up t3h punx

(Reply to this)
Let me get this straight
(Anonymous)
2008-04-22 02:28 pm UTC (link)
She drove them across country, got them a place to meet, got them plans on how to make a bomb, encouraged them to continue when they were losing focus--and it wasn't entrapment?

What a load of crap. None of this would of happened if the FBI had not paid for it, provided the plans, driven activist across the country, provided a hot chick for the activist men to drool over, rented a cabin for them to be in--hell, why didn't they go ahead and hire some activist?

All of this to entrap some tree huggers from a movement that has never caused a scratch on a human being. Meanwhile the KKK and Nazis rally at will, you can buy crack cocaine on any street corner in America--you can go to any gun show/flea market and buy weapons--what a load of crap.

J Edgar Hoover must be smiling in his grave.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: Let me get this straight
[info]kennethsime
2008-04-23 04:41 am UTC (link)
There was an interesting amount of information withheld from the jury. When questioned afterwards, knowing other bits of information, particularly about her relationship with Eric, most of the "guilty" jury said they would've voted "not guilty."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Let me get this straight
[info]veganxjen
2008-04-23 08:48 am UTC (link)
let's just hope Eric wins on appeal. Please write!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Let me get this straight
[info]kennethsime
2008-04-23 08:55 am UTC (link)
Actually, appeal has been denied.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Let me get this straight
(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 09:26 pm UTC (link)
the appeal was not denied. A petition to dismiss the case was, by the judge who presided over the trial. As it would (duh) be. Not unexpected.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: Let me get this straight
(Anonymous)
2008-04-24 02:48 pm UTC (link)
Entrapment is hard to use successfully. Usually you have to prove that the plant (1) held themselves out as a law enforcement officer or government authority, and (2) told you very clearly that what you wanted to do was not against the law.

So, encouraging unlawful activity, even to the extent here, would not meet the requirements for entrapment. This is why there are so many stings where a cop poses as a 12-year-old on the internet and gets someone to meet them for sex, and the cases hold up in court.

- Law student

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Let me get this straight
(Anonymous)
2008-04-24 05:47 pm UTC (link)
That is absolutely incorrect. I ssume that signing your email as "Law Student" was intended to give an authoritative imprimatur to your wildly erroneous statement. I suggest you study for your first-year criminal law exam more carefully.

You are thinking of what is known as "entrapment by estoppel" which is actually a kind of mistake of law defense; a sort of exception to the "ignorance is no excuse" maxim. See Raley v. Ohio. That defense has never been recognized in a published opinion in California.

Entrapment, as discussed here, depends upon predisposition to commit an offense. California follows an objective test: was the conduct of the law enforcement agent likely to induce a normally
law-abiding person to commit the offense? People v. Barrazza. Unless the agent presented more than an opportunity to act unlawfully (overbearing conduct is usually the buzz word), the courts take a dim view. The belief is that a normally law-abiding individual will resist the opportunity to behave unlawfully unless manufactured outrageous conduct by the agent induces them to behave otherwise.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Let me get this straight
(Anonymous)
2008-04-29 03:52 am UTC (link)
Entrapment is partly based on predisposition. And it was predisposition in the McDavid case the jurors struggled over.Seven wanted to acquit, but the judge messed with the predisposition date--instead of it being "first contact" he instructed jurors to consider predisposition from the first mention of criminal activity. Not constitutional and if McDavid gets the right three judges for the appeal (in SF, I believe) he very well may get his client's new trial.
I get the feeling a lot of people who posted about this article didn't read it. I mean, sure, it's from Anna's perspective, but it's pretty balanced, if not incomplete. It IS a long article --for a fashion magazine--and there are many mentions of how improperly the FBI behaved, as well as an awfully sympathetic interview with McDavid. And the juror is quoted at the end as saying she felt these kids were at least trying to do something about the envoironment.
You have to remember: this article is for mainstream America, and I think it might convince many of them to reconsider FBI tactics toward "fighting terrorism", especially so called "eco-terrorism." You have to take that into consideration.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
missing page
(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 03:35 am UTC (link)
Any progress on that missing page?

Can someone else scan it in and post the link please?

I'm not in the U$ so can't rip out the page from the newsstand, otherwise I ould...

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: missing page
[info]veganxjen
2008-04-23 08:33 am UTC (link)
i just made a new posting with the full article.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: missing page
(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 10:44 am UTC (link)
thank u so much!!

(Reply to this)(Parent)
pdf of article
(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 04:19 pm UTC (link)
Great scans, but the pdf is easier to read. The pages are in order and easy to print: http://worcester.indymedia.org/node/25687

(Reply to this)
corrections
(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 04:58 pm UTC (link)
two things:

one, the appeal hasn't even started - so obviously it hasn't been denied. the whole process, unfortunately, will probably take a couple of years.

two, eric has a new mailing address:

McDavid, Eric x-2972521 7E128
Sacramento County Main Jail
651 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…