On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:05:37AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> What's the difference between that, and someone claiming that a
> certain piece of text decrypts to a sinister message?
What's the difference between this and claiming that a certain
drop of blood has DNA characteristics that match a particular
person? In the O.J. Simpson trial, the government took over
a month to explain to the jury the similarities between the
blood collected from the crime scene and the defendent; and
the defense lawyers rebutted the evidence by claiming that
it may have been contaminated or planted by the police.
Since my only legal education was from watching that trial, it
seems to me that only a jury can decide whether a particular
message was written by a particular individual and that it
is the government's responsibility to provide evidence "beyond
a resaonable doubt" to that effect.
I don't see how the government can take this responsibility
away from the jury.
Martin Minow
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
