KB,

You sound like a paranoid schitzophrenic to me.  Why give a hoot about he
says she says?  You've clearly stated your position in this matter, leave it
alone brother!  This constant bickering won't ever get you anywhere.  Why do
you have to disagree first to agree?  Look in the mirror and unmask yourself
from this whatever psychotic torment/therapy you're subdued under.  I hope
we're not losing a brother here.

My best regards,

Essa


>From: Dampha Kebba <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Attn: List Managers --- Complaint Against Jaiteh
>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:33:22 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Originating-IP: [204.71.174.14]
>Received: from [149.68.45.24] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
>MHotMailBCFB50C500B04004315695442D18120C4; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:34:54 -0700
>Received: from maelstrom.stjohns.edu (149.68.45.24) by
>maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id
><[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 9:34:06 -0500
>Received: from MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU by MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>(LISTSERV-TCP/IP          release 1.8d) with spool id 660631 for
>[log in to unmask]; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:33:59 -0500
>Received: from hotmail.com (216.33.237.35) by maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP
>for          OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id
><[log in to unmask]>; Thu,          21 Jun 2001 9:33:49
>-0500
>Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
>Thu,          21 Jun 2001 07:33:22 -0700
>Received: from 204.71.174.14 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu,
>21          Jun 2001 14:33:22 GMT
>From [log in to unmask] Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:35:42 -0700
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2001 14:33:22.0716 (UTC)
>  FILETIME=[1FB4E5C0:01C0FA5F]
>Message-ID:  <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender:       The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>
>Mr. Camara, thanks for your response. I hope you realize that the reason I
>did not respond to you as soon as possible yesterday was because I went
>past
>my limit as a non-managing subscriber. I tried replying but got a message
>informing me that I was past my limit for the day. Mr. Camara, I will save
>you and the List Managers the trouble of going through the archives again
>by
>laying out here what I found offensive about Dr. Jaiteh's postings. After
>that, I will also save you the trouble of contemplating 'delisting' one of
>your own. I hope by the time you finish reading this posting you (List
>Managers) and Jaiteh in particular will have NO doubts about the point I am
>trying to make.
>
>As soon as the Cautionary Statements were posted on G_L and people started
>discussing them, Jaiteh sent a mail to G_L querying that discussion. I am
>not a mind-reader but I can deduce from Jaiteh's subsequent conduct that he
>himself even realized that it was ill-advised to do what he did. After
>sending the initial query, he sent another mail to G_L saying that he made
>a
>mistake when he sent the query to G_L. He meant to send it to me privately.
>I took Jaiteh's explanation in good faith and sent him a 'mild' response
>explaining my position on G_L. The past month or so, I had numerous cordial
>(private) exchanges with Jaiteh regarding the monitoring of Kujabi's
>account. The last such exchange occurred on Monday, June 18, 2001. If
>Jaiteh
>has a 'life and death issue' (as he called it) what was stopping him from
>contacting me in private this time around to set me straight?
>
>Instead, what he did was come to G_L for the second time on June 19, 2001
>(the day after our last private exchange on Kujabi) still questioning the
>wisdom of discussing this case in a public forum like G_L. As I said on
>numerous occasions, there is nothing wrong in Jaiteh questioning this
>tactic. Even if Lalo was not his family member, he has a right to express
>his beliefs in a public forum like this. Bamba laye expressed beliefs more
>or less similar to that of Jaiteh. I responded to Laye and I was not miffed
>about what he said. I am NOT miffed about Jaiteh's 'belief' either.
>
>What bothered me is the way Jaiteh was going about what he is doing. He
>throws accusations at people, i.e. discussing the case in public would hurt
>the accused and when you ask him how what I said would hurt the accused, he
>does NOT provide responsive answers. He gives a vague answer saying that
>accused persons and their lawyers get advantages over prosecutors when they
>'surprise' prosecutors in court. The reason I said that this answer is not
>responsive is, Jaiteh still CANNOT tell me what secrets I gave to the
>prosecutors or I would give them if I keep discussing this case in public.
>I
>have posed him this question on numerous occasions. What did I say that
>would jeopardize the lives of these people any further? He said it is a
>life
>and dead issue.
>
>As you demonstrated by saying that you looked at Jaiteh's postings but did
>not see anything that might offend me, what Jaiteh did to offend me might
>not be obvious to the naked eye. What Jaiteh did was lay the ground work
>for
>people to blame me if and when Dumo et al lose this case. Ah! KB and others
>were discussing the case on G_L giving prosecutors all these points and
>that
>is why the government won the case. Nothing wrong with this conclusion if
>it
>is the TRUTH. That is why I want Jaiteh to prove that I am indeed helping
>the prosecution in any way. I am sure you will agree with me that this
>problem needs to be tackled by me at this stage. Later, when everything is
>said and done and the finger-pointing begins in earnest, I might not have
>the opportunity to reach people and tell them that it is a malicious and
>false allegation to say that I did anything to jeopardize the lives of
>these
>innocent and defenseless citizens. I hope you get my point. If Jaiteh
>genuinely believes that we are hurting the defense, let him show us how. If
>he does not want to discuss strategy on G_L, he knows our private email
>addresses. Let him contact us in private rather than sending these stealth
>attacks and this grandstanding. The last thing I want hanging on my
>conscience is the notion that I in any way, shape or form helped to put
>Dumo
>et al in jeopardy. Anybody that makes the remotest suggestion to that
>effect
>will have some explaining to do. I will ask them to show me how my conduct
>negatively impacted Dumo et al. That is all I am asking Jaiteh to do. If he
>cannot do that, then he has to retract his statements.
>
>Like I said yesterday, ordinarily I would not make a big meal about such an
>issue. I would forcefully express my ideas and would not ask for a
>retraction or an apology. But we are dealing here with Jaiteh (the self
>appointed custodian of ethics on G_L). I wanted to show him that what is
>considered as 'offensive' is very subjective from person to person. To me,
>it is very offensive for anyone to insinuate that I am hurting Dumo et al's
>case and putting these citizens' lives in jeopardy. It is doubly offensive
>for the maker of those accusations to then sit back and not show me where I
>am actually hurting the case.
>
>Forget me for a moment. There are other people (including genuine victims
>in
>this case) that partook in the discussions we have had about this case on
>G_L. Did Jaiteh stop to think about those people before he sent his
>ill-advised mails to G_L? How would you feel if you are tirelessly trying
>to
>help your brother or your friend to get out of jail and have someone like
>Jaiteh come on G_L (for the whole world to see) and tell you that you are
>going about it the wrong way; thus laying the ground work for you to be
>blamed when things go wrong later? Worst still, Jaiteh does not back up
>what
>he is saying. I hope Jaiteh reads between the lines of what I am trying to
>say. I hope he realizes that there are other victims in this case that do
>not need further grief; people that do not need to live with the guilt that
>they helped incarcerate their friends and family members. Both George Sarr,
>Kabir and Ebrima Ceesay can attest to the fact that I do not discuss
>everything about this case on G_L. I am NOT trying to give the impression
>that I know anything bombastic about the case. What I am trying to say is
>that I think about the repercussions of my postings on the case before I
>dispatch them. In other words, Jaiteh is NOT dealing here with an
>irresponsible person that is indifferent to the plight of Dumo et al.
>Nothing in my writings suggest that I have jeopardized this case or would
>do
>so in future. So, Jaiteh's fears are unfounded.
>
>Granted, defense lawyers do benefit from an element of surprise in
>courtrooms every day. But touting this advantage at this stage of this
>case,
>tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. We do NOT have a trial
>yet.
>We are fighting to get one; a very tough fight in lawless Gambia. Now, in
>order to win that fight, the combatants fighting on behalf of the accused,
>have to be convinced of the accused innocence. How can we do that by
>allowing only the government's side to be conveyed to the people? Accused
>people pay millions of dollars to have people to put across their side long
>before any trial. I gave Jaiteh an example by reminding him of the OJ
>Simpson case. From day one, the defense were saying that Mark Furman was a
>racist. What the defense NEVER said in public was that the Gloves will not
>fit OJ if they are tried on him. If they did that, they would have given
>the
>prosecution an advantage and they would not have tried the gloves. Jaiteh's
>'element of surprise'. I am cognizant of what Jaiteh is trying to say.
>While
>the racist label on Mark Furman has an analogy in our discussions, the
>gloves does not have an analogy in our discussion.
>
>Again, I hope I made my point to you and Jaiteh in particular. Consider the
>matter settled on my part.
>KB
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your
>full name and e-mail address.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------