Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site lzwi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!pegasus!lzwi!cja
From: cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: The Dotson Case
Message-ID: <167@lzwi.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 18:54:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: lzwi.167
Posted: Thu Jun  6 18:54:28 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 04:11:22 EDT
References: <2220@decwrl.UUCP> <1030@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <448@ttidcc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft
Lines: 27

In article <448@ttidcc.UUCP>, hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes:
> In article <1030@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) writes:
> >Should she be sentenced to jail on a perjury charge?  Should she be forced
> >to serve as much time as the man she falsly accused?  Or should she have her
> >"hand slapped"?
> 
> I expect the statute of limitations has long since run out on her  actions,
> so  she  probably  can't be prosecuted for them at all.  Perhaps that's why
> she waited so long to come forward?

The statute of limitations for felony as serious as perjury is usually 
7 years. The news said Dotson was only in for six. The reason
Webb hasn't been prosecuted for perjury committed at Dotson's
trial is that it is the opinion of the state of Illinois (as
expressed by its governor & top law enforcement officials)
that she didn't commit perjury THEN, she's committing it NOW.
Since they've said that in public, they'd be hard pressed to
turn around & prosecute her for it, wouldn't they?
As to why they don't prosecute her for her current testimony,
I don't know. Maybe they decided that anyone sick enough to
make up a story like hers (which hurts primarily herself)
deserves compassion. Would you feel that justice had been
served if she were prosecuted for perjury now?

C. E. Jackson
...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above 
[lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)