Paul P., you sound so passionate. Unfortunately, you are so wrong. All "evidence" is refutable in a court of law. "Evidence" must be proven to be relevant. As far as your comment that Scott was guilty "beyond a shadow of a doubt," I have already shown that one allegation in which Scott was convicted on was completely bogus (36 CFR Sec. 261.16). Sec. 261.16 is only valid within a Wilderness Area.

Scott's job was not to interpret the law, that was his attorney's job who appears to have been very negligent in not properly explaning it to him.

Most hikers traveling along the Pacific Crest Trail carry toilet tissue. Being in mere possession of tissue doesn't warrant a conviction for possession of a hazardous pollutant. If Scott's attorney had simply asked the prosecutor for proof that Scott's mere possession of tissue polluted the environment, that count would have been rapidly dropped. No trier of fact would likely have convicted Scott on such a count.

That's the bum problem with court appointed attorneys; many try to dispose of their assignments as fast as possible. I'm sure that there is more to his case than that which has been disclosed on this board; and Scott may not be a desirable person, but under our justice system, that doesn't mean that there should be a feeding frenzy violating his due process rights.

You are naturally entitled to your bias opinion about Scott; but do realize that your comments consists of negative prejudgments.