You are correct that you are silly and rude. And, after all, I’m not the one hiding behind anonymity — you are, even while singing your own praises and skills as a writer and analyst of my writing. Your errors are not typographical, and your writing is, by definition and legal precedent, publication, as you have posted on the World Wide Web.

This is all silly. I have no idea whether you’re telling the truth or not, as what you’d say would be the same in either case. But there’s also no reason why you should care what I think. I’m 2000 miles away and not connected in any way to the case. And there’s no reason why I should care what you think about my writing; I’m confident enough that I don’t need your imprimatur.

I apologize for my rudeness in the last post. Go your way, and make sense of your life in peace, and I’ll do the same with mine.

Thanks for playing, and come on back when you’re actually capable of defending yourself.

The affidavit is my statement UNDER OATH, of my own experiences and knowledge, for the purpose stated in the affidavit.

Obviously, I can’t dispute that it’s Ms. White’s affidavit. However, I note that while the first three pages of the affidavit are clearly her personal experience, beginning at the bottom of page three, the affidavit leaves the clear personal narrative and launches into a discussion of state politics that begins like this:

Intermingled with these times were other ominous incidents involving US Attorney Alice Martin and Bettye Find Collins. For a number of years, it has been widely known within political circles that Ms. Martin desires an appointment to a federal judgeship. In pursuit of that goal, she has, unfortunately for Americans, allowed her office to be used for political purposes, initiating and carrying out prosecutions based upon political considerations…

Now, here, I’m intrigued. The first three pages were clearly her experience. This clearly is not; it’s political analysis. Ms. White has no special knowledge of Alice Martin’s motives, career aspirations, or political machinations; this is speculation on her part. If I were a judge reading your affidavit, I would take the first three pages as meaningful testimony, and what follows as her opinion about political matters, which is of no interest to the court. That was the point of my criticism.

I’m a writer; I noticed not only a clear break in the narrative at that point, but a clear change in the tone, style, and vocabulary of the writing. I don’t know if my analysis would stand up in court, but I doubt that the author of the first 3 pages was the author of the rest. The second author is crisp and precise, and uses words like “intermingled,” “evocative,” and “coerced.” The first author rambles, makes errors in sentence structure, and uses simpler words. How that gets done legally, with Judy White’s signature on the entire, notarized document, we can only speculate — but that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

Ms. White also says:

… speculating that someone “sat silently” is meaningless.

She brought this up twice, and I have no idea what she’s talking about. The speculation I’m talking about is the speculation about Alice White’s political aspirations, collusion with Republican operatives, and plan to corrupt justice — none of which can properly be said to be things that she “experienced” or “know,” except as hearsay or analysis.

Could you respond also to Brian’s statement:

“The Gary White connection you point out is so tangential that it scarcely merits a response. Why did his wife, or even Mr. White himself, wait until after he was convicted to issue such an affidavit? It seems to me that one might want to report attempts to coerce testimony at the time it happened. Mrs. White is effectively saying that her husband had evidence (or at least their word) that the government was trying to coerce his testimony and they sat silently while two ostensibly innocent men were convicted and sentenced. Give me a break.”

It seems like the Judge certainly felt it was worthy of a response.

Many questions have been raised that remain unanswered. For one, “Why has Siegelman been denied the most basic right of an American citizen—that is, to appeal his case?”