Engels

MINISTERIE VAN ONDERWIJS EN VOLKSONTWIKKELING EXAMENBUREAU

UNIFORM EINDEXAMEN MULO tevens

TOELATINGSEXAMEN VWO/HAVO/NATIN 2008

DATUM:VRIJDAG 04 JULI 2008 TIJD : 07.45 – 09.15 UUR

DEZE TAAK BESTAAT UIT 1 TEKST EN 35 VRAGEN.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

She was the spoiled rich kid who, strange enough, helped her own kidnappers start and continue a campaign of robbery and violence, a careless young upper-class woman whom you would expect to go to fashionable social events. Instead, she got involved with criminals. And when she went on trial for taking part in a 1974 San Francisco bank robbery, Patty Hearst’s attempts to explain it away were ignored by prosecutors and rejected by the jury: she was convicted and served nearly two years in jail.

Twenty-five years later, Hearst has changed from leftist wanna-be to earnest victim. Now 47 and the mother of two daughters, Hearst has established a fairly successful acting career and last year won a full pardon from Bill Clinton. Soon her rehabilitation will be complete–when she appears in a California courtroom to testify against four of her old friends from the Symbionese Liberation Army who will be on trial for murder, in a case that will depend largely on her truthfulness.

The accused are Emily Harris, William Harris, Sara Jane Olson and Michael Bortin, all of whom supposedly took part in a 1975 bank holdup in Carmichael, Calif., in which a customer, Myrna Opsahl, was shot and killed. All four are expected to plead not guilty. Because the Carmichael robbers wore ski masks, the prosecution will depend on Hearst to prove that the accused were there. Hearst, who had become an SLA member calling herself “Tania”, has admitted taking part in the robbery, although she said she was only driving a getaway car. In her version, Emily, Olson and Bortin were inside the bank and William was stationed outside with another SLA member, Steven Soliah. Hearst says Emily directed the stickup and that Emily, carrying a shot-gun later said she shot Opsahl by accident.

The question now is whether Hearst, with her admitted involvement in the SLA’s campaign of armed violence, will be a credible witness. The Carmichael case has been gathering dust for 20 years precisely because prosecutors thought her testimony was unreliable. In her book and at her trial in 1976, Hearst said she was forced to become an SLA member because she was beaten and raped while imprisoned for months in a closet in an SLA safe house. Prosecutors didn’t buy it, and neither did the jury that convicted her. James L. Browning, the former federal prosecutor who tried Hearst, says, “It was pretty plain from the evidence that she did everything without being forced. That’s the way I feel about it, and probably her testimony [in the new case] is going to be somewhat unreliable.”

William Harris, now in jail, said that Hearst was never hurt physically or mentally, raped or forced. Thinking back, Harris said he thought Hearst’s supporting the SLA cause was a good example of the Stockholm syndrome, in which hostages feel that they can understand and share the feelings of their captors. “We’re accused of brainwashing her,” Harris said. “That’s ridiculous–we didn’t know how to do that.” He said gang members loved Hearst’s change and no one understood what had caused the change in the relationship between the prisoner and her captors. “It was beyond our control and hers,” he said. “We were all swept up in the thing.”

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

members to Timothy Mc Veigh and Charles Manson and said they were conducting “their own little jihad” against the United States. Stuart Hanlon, the San Francisco attorney who is representing Emily Harris, says Hearst’s performance was a dishonest attempt to portray herself as a victim. “She has continually used her money, her position, to try to rewrite history,” Hanlon said. “She took no responsibility for anything she ever did.”

Hearst’s attorney did not respond to NEWSWEEK’s request for comment. But Michael Latin, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted Olson in a separate case, says he thinks Hearst will be very effective on the stand. For one thing, her credibility problems have diminished over the years–and in this case, unlike her own trial, she does not need to persuade the jurors she is innocent. “She knows the truth,” Latin says. “That is really all that is required.” Because California had no death penalty when the crime was committed, the accused will not face execution if convicted. But they could spend the rest of their lives in prison if the jury believes the woman they call Tania.

Adapted from: NEWSWEEK February 4, 2002

Notes:

(Line 5) prosecutor – lawyer who leads a case against an accused in a court of law. (Line 7) leftist – a person who supports political parties in favor of social change. (Line 9) rehabilitation – helping somebody to have a normal, useful life again after having been imprisoned for a long time.

1

Lines 1-2: “She … woman …”

Which of the following statements about Patty Hearst is NOT true?

A Her parents probably pampered her. B Her parents were probably wealthy.

C She planned and staged her own kidnapping. D She was taken away and kept as a prisoner.

2

Lines 1-3: “She … criminals.”

The phrase “strange enough” in line 1 suggests the following about Patty Hearst.

A It came as a surprise that she had stopped going to fashionable social events.

B It came as a surprise that she had taken part in criminal activities.

C It came as no surprise that she had been kidnapped.

D It came as no surprise that she had started and continued a criminal campaign.

3

Lines 3-4: “And when … robbery … .”

These lines indicate that Patty was accused of … a bank robbery. A joining B leading C planning D witnessing 4 Lines 4-5: “…Patty…away…” “it” in line 5 refers to

A Patty being a careless person. B Patty being involved in a crime. C the bank robbery.

D the trial.

5

The word “rejected” in line 5 is similar in meaning to

A refused to accept. B refused to approve of. C refused to hear.

D refused to listen to.

6

Line 7: “Twenty-five … victim.”

From this line we may conclude that Patty Hearst used to … her leftist kidnappers. A advise

B defend C imitate D support

7

Line 7: “Twenty-five … victim.”

This line tells us that after twenty-five years Patty

A considers herself to be a victim.

B has her role changed from wanna-be to victim.

C refuses to consider herself a victim. D refuses to have her role changed from wanna-be to victim.

8

Lines 7-9: “Now … Clinton.”

Which of the following statements about Patty is NOT true?

A Her acting career can be characterized as rather successful.

B Her acting career can be characterized as very impressive.

C She has a family. D She is an actress.

Bill Clinton had probably granted Patty full pardon because

A she had been a kidnapping victim. B she had mended her ways.

C she had suffered very much.

D she had two daughters to look after.

10

Lines 9-12: “… last year …truthfulness.” The pardon Patty received from Bill Clinton may be considered

A a step closer towards Patty having a normal, useful life again.

B a step closer towards proving Patty’s innocence.

C the final step to complete Patty’s rehabilitation.

D the final step to restore Patty’s reputation.

11

Lines 9-12: “Soon … truthfulness.”

Patty had to appear in a California courtroom A as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

B as a witness to a murder by four old friends. C to reveal the crimes committed by four old friends.

D to reveal the crimes committed by the Symbionese Liberation Army.

12

Lines 9-12: “… when she appears … truthfulness.”

These lines indicate that Patty’s truthfulness when testifying in the murder case is

A doubted. B expected.

C important. D unimportant.

Emily Harris, William Harris, Sara Jane Olson and Michael Bortin had to stand trial for A a bank holdup.

B establishing the Symbionese Liberation Army. C joining the Symbionese Liberation Army. D murder.

14

We may say the following about Myrna Opsahl. A She was an easy target for the Carmichael robbers.

B She was an important customer of the Carmichael bank.

C She was targeted by the robbers of the 1975 bank hold-up.

D She was unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time.

15

Lines 15-18: “All four … car.”

Why did the prosecution depend on Hearst to prove that all four were guilty?

They knew that

A she could know, being accidentally in the bank during the robbery.

B she had seen them wearing ski masks. C she should know, having taken part in the robbery.

D she was able to recognize them.

16

The robbers wore ski masks in order to A confuse the prosecution.

B hide their identity. C look like skiers.

17

Hearst’s share in the bank hold up was

A helping the robbers to escape after the hold up.

B helping the robbers to leave the bank unnoticed.

C sending a getaway car to drive them around. D sending a getaway car to pick them up.

18

Lines 18-19: “In her version …”

From Hearst’s version of the bank robbery we learn the following EXCEPT:

A a woman was cold-bloodedly murdered. B a woman was in charge of the robbery. C somebody had to wait outside the bank. D somebody was said to have been shot by chance.

19

Lines 22-23: “The question … witness. These lines suggest that it is doubted whether Hearst

A had connection with the SLA.

B was involved in a campaign of armed violence.

C would give further information. D would give trustworthy information.

20

Lines 23-24: “The Carmichael… for 20 years…” These lines tell us that the Carmichael case was not A dealt with. B discussed. C publicized. D talked about. 21

The case had been gathering dust for 20 years because prosecutors

A doubted the testimony of the one available witness.

B had difficulties finding credible witnesses. C had difficulties persuading Hearst to tell the truth.

D wanted to review the testimony of Hearst.

22

Lines 25-27: “In her book… safe house.” These lines tell us that Hearst had said that she A had chosen to appear in court in 1976.

B had no choice but to become an SLA member. C had volunteered to become an SLA member. D had written a book in 1976.

23

“it” in line 27 refers to the fact that Hearst was A abused by SLA members.

B forced to become an SLA member. C was kept in an SLA safe house. D was kept in prison for months.

24

Line 27: “Prosecutors didn’t buy it…” means that they

A could not be bought. B could not be trusted. C did not believe it. D did not reject it.

Lines 28-30: “ … ‘It was …unreliable.’ ” With these words James L. Browning expresses his …

Which of the following does NOT fit? A determination.

B distrust. C doubt. D suspicion.

26

Line 30: “ … [in the new case] …” What is precisely the new case? A the Carmichael bank robbery

B the involvement of Hearst in the SLA’s campaign

C the murder of Myrna Osahl in 1975 D the San Francisco bank robbery

27

Lines 31-32: “William …forced.”

These lines tell us that William Harris … everything that Hearst had said.

A accepted B believed

C denied D supported

28

Lines 32-34: “Thinking …captors.” In these lines Harris tries to … why Hearst supported the SLA’s cause.

A discover B explain

C figure out D find out

Lines 31-34: “William Harris … said.”

The accusation mentioned in line 34 probably came from A Hearst. B Hearst’s friends. C the jury. D the prosecutors. 30

Line 35: “…– ‘we didn’t know how to do that.’ ” “that” in line 35 refers to

A accusing Harris and his colleagues. B brainwashing Hearst.

C hurting Hearst.

D taking Hearst hostage.

31

Line 37: “We … thing.”

What thing were they swept up in?

A the change Hearst wanted in the relationship with her captors

B the change in the relationship between Hearst and her kidnappers

C things getting out of control D things taking a turn for the worst

32

What did Hearst’s attorney probably have to comment on?

A Hanlon’s criticism on Hearst’s performance B Hanlon’s representing Emily Harris

C Hearst’s hate for the SLA members D the comparison made by Hearst

33

Lines 44-46: “Hearst’s attorney ….stand.” From these lines we may conclude that Michael Latin

A disagreed with Hearst’s attorneys. B doubted Hearst’s credibility.

C unwillingly reacted to Newsweek’s request for comment.

D willingly reacted to Newsweek’s request for comment.

34

Lines 46-51: “Hearst … Tania.”

Having read these lines we may say that Michael Latin thinks that Hearst can make a (n) … contribution in the case against the accused. Which of the following does NOT fit? A important

B useful C valuable D worthless

35

Lines 49-51: “Because … Tania.” These lines tell us that the accused

A could be executed.

B could be sentenced to life-imprisonment. C will be convicted.

D will be sentenced to life-imprisonment.