Editorials
Tuesday, June 3, 1997CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence was all the government could produce in the trial of Timothy McVeigh. That evidence turned out to be more than adequate for a jury to find McVeigh guilty of setting off a 4,000-pound fuel-and-fertilizer bomb that turned the Oklahoma City federal building into rubble, taking the lives of 168 people, including 19 children. No one saw McVeigh ignite the bomb, but his guilt became obvious. Evidence in McVeigh trial
was overwhelmingA California jury's acquittal of O.J. Simpson last year shook many Americans' faith in the judicial system when jurors are presented "only" circumstantial evidence. Without eyewitness testimony, they concluded, any criminal prosecution is imperiled by jurors' subjective judgments about the inexact standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Simpson case, most people were outraged that a jury could find mountains of physical evidence implicating Simpson to fall short of that standard.
In 18 days of court, federal prosecutors called people close to McVeigh who told of the detailed plans he had made -- and told them about -- to bomb the building. Rental documents, phone records and witnesses proved conclusively that he had rented the Ryder truck that was used to transport the bomb to the building. The key to the truck was found in an alley that McVeigh had shown to a friend as the place where he intended to set off the explosion.
In much the same way as Simpson's attorneys tried to imply that the murder of Simpson's estranged wife and her friend could have been committed by Colombian drug dealers, McVeigh's attorneys wanted to speculate that the bombing could have been staged by overseas terrorists. U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch would have none of it, barring them from presenting such a wild and baseless theory.
The jury arrived at its verdict after nearly 24 hours of deliberations spread over four days, including the weekend. The verdict should put to rest the belief that circumstantial evidence necessarily results in a weak prosecution. It has also brought great relief to the victims' families and friends who feared that the judicial system would somehow exonerate the perpetrator of such a horrendous crime.
THE devastating critique of Hawaii's economy by Forbes magazine is along the lines of earlier reports in the national media in recent years. In brief, the reports say, the business climate here is lousy, thanks to overregulation and high taxes. As evidence, one need only look at the state's stagnant economy at a time when the national economy is booming. Certainly there are other factors related to Hawaii's specific circumstances, but the basic indictment is correct. Forbes' criticism
With elected officials who kowtow to the unions at every turn, it's no wonder that Hawaii has an anti-business reputation. When they complain how unfair it is, remind them about workers comp and privatization.
THE Republic of the Marshall Islands is reported to be studying the feasibility of allowing storage of low-level nuclear wastes on one or more of its atolls and an unconfirmed report says it has actually reached an agreement for storage with a U.S.-mainland firm. Marshalls' plan
Nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere, and low-level waste is not highly lethal. But the Marshalls would have to make a very persuasive case to win approval of its neighbors for this project.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
