TRAVESTY OF INJUSTICE AT NUREMBERG TRIBUNALS

 

MILITARY TRIBUNALS OF NUREMBERG

 Please note: In this analysis of what took place at the NUREMBERG TRIBUNALS I have not paid any attention to the ‘Holocaust’ or all the other horrific crimes that these Nazi’s were accused of. In this analysis I am only concerned with ‘LAW’ and, the due process of ‘LAW’, in the Courts. Irrespective of the crime, accused of; every accused person is entitled to a fair trial. The Nazi’s at Nuremberg did not get that fair trial. These trials today are held up to be the epitome of legal correctness. They were nothing of the sort.

 There is one very important and serious aspect of “Nuremberg” that needs proper consideration. That needs to be properly debated and explained; in, order, to put history and the records right. The “International Military Tribunals” of Nuremberg are today held up and put forward as the ‘be all and end all’ of true law and justice, and, jurisprudence; in respect to Human Rights legislation and International Conventions and Treaties. Yet, it is the very antithesis of true and just law. The International Military Tribunals of Nuremberg had nothing to do with Law. It was merely a façade, a show trial, a corrupt and an ‘expedient way’ for dealing with the Vanquished; by the Victors.

 This is the opening address at Nuremberg:

 

MONDAY 30^TH SEPTEMBER 1946

 (AFTERNOON SESSION)

JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG

MR FRANCES BIDDLE, Member of the Tribunal for the United States:

“The Law of the Charter”

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined in the Agreement and Charter, and the crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, for which there shall be individual responsibility, are set out in Article 6. The Law of the Charter is decisive, and binding on the Tribunal.

 The Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the victorious nations, but in the view of the Tribunal, as will be shown, it is the expression of international Law existing at the time of it’s creation, and to that extent is itself a contribution to international Law. The Signatory powers created this Tribunal, defined the Law it was to administer and made the regulations for proper conduct of the Trial.

 In this very first speech by Mr. Francis Biddle, two essential criterions were established:

A. The Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the victorious nations,

B. for which there shall be individual responsibility,

 Yet, ‘B’ is a direct contradiction of, ‘A’

If the Tribunal was not “an arbitrary power on the part of the victorious nations” then the Tribunal was required to hear all the cases, all the evidence of the entire trial, before it could be in a position to judge whether, ‘B’, is applicable.

Yet, here, before the Tribunal has even sat for a day in judgment; before it has heard any evidence at all; the Tribunal has already decided the guilt of all the accused; in its determination of, ‘B’.

‘B’ in law; in true and just law; can only be determined, in respect of each and every defendant after all the evidence has been heard.

That is why Nuremberg was and is corrupt. It was a sham from its beginning to its very end. It was merely, the ‘expedient’ way of the VICTORS dealing with the vanquished.

But, it was also a grave travesty of LAW; because at Nuremberg the entire prosecution, of every defendant, and, the judgment of every defendant, refused to accept a truthful defence. At, Nuremberg, every prosecutor and every Judge did their very utmost to, “Put Rain back in the Sky.”

 They completely erased “Nazi Germany” from the brain; and, they pretended that what had happened in Germany from the time that Hitler came to power and throughout World War II; did not happen at all. They tried to, “put the rain back in the sky”, by determining that, that “Germany” of that period, had not existed at all. Every prosecutor and every Judge completely and corruptly ignored the,

"Fuhrerprinzip"

Quote:

Today when we hear the word, "fuhrer" we mostly apply it only to Hitler. The Fuhrer, now in the vernacular means the despotic leader of Germany in WWII. The term however has a broader meaning and concept in the context of the German military and society of the day. "Fuhrer" literally, means 'leader'. There were many 'fuhrers' in Germany at the time, in fact the term is incorporated in the military rank names (e.g.oberfuhrer), to indicate the rung of leadership. Fuhrerprinzip reads literally, "fuhrer principle" and has to do with the structure of the order of obedience to authority in the Third Reich. Early in the development of the National Socialists one theme ran strong: law and order. Germany had disintegrated into a weak country from a strong Prussian military sovereignty, and the problems of a weak republic were rampant: crime, social upheaval and unemployment. But law & order meant more to the Nazis than to most: it meant a system in leadership and society in which everyone was answerable to 'orders from above' in a hierarchal arrangement. Additionally, the leader, held the responsibility of the actions and decisions of his underlings. Therefore one of the premiere moral values in ‘Third Reich Germany’ was loyalty and obedience, even above concepts of right and wrong This meant that if a person especially in a government position or military position was asked by a superior to do an unconscionable act, such as order the death or deportation of Jews, the highest moral value to the Nazis was to obey orders, even above conscience. In the thinking of the indoctrinated ‘Third Reich’ members, even if they were troubled by the decision, the responsibility for the action would rest upon their superior, and therefore, they were not accountable for moral reasoning or wrongdoing. This was one of the primary 'defences’ of the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg. And, also, of, Eichmann, on trial in Israel.

Befehlnotstand: Blind Obedience & 'Orders from Above'

The "Fuhrerprinzip" had to do with the order of leadership and is reflected in Military rank: there were under-fuhrers and over-fuhrers (uberfuhrer & oberfuhrer) even in the naming of the ranks. The concept of Befehlnotstand had more to do with the blind obedience: orders were to be obeyed at all cost, without question, and the penalty for non-obedience in many cases was death. German participants in the ‘Third Reich’ at first had difficulty with the utterly blind obedience required (although the principle was ingrained in the German family dynamic and workplace), but facing death for disobedience, the principle became a defence mechanism allowing many to commit abominable acts and pass responsibility on to their superiors, who in turn, passed culpability upwards. In the end, no one was ultimately responsible, as the leadership would claim they had no idea what was going on while the underlings claimed 'orders from above' and 'befehlnotstand'" The, oft repeated principle of "the fuhrers words have the force of law" also served to overwrite even legal concerns in immoral acts, leaving the German military and domestics barrier-free in committing unconscionable cruelty.

© 2003,5 Elizabeth Kirkley Best Phd

 

Unquote.

 

The very instant that Hitler came to power the “Fuhrerprinzip” was established. It was adopted first by the Nazi hierarchy; but it quickly was imposed on all the German military. Every sailor soldier and airman was obliged to swear the “Oath of Allegiance” to Hitler. Swearing to ‘obey’, on pain of death.

Later, in the early war years, the “Fuhrerprinzip’ applied to every German citizen as well. To disobey an order in Nazi Germany meant instant arrest and trial, concentration camp, and even death. Many a German was executed for even criticizing the regime, or expressing doubt that Germany would win the war. All of Germany was locked into the Fuhrerprinzip.

For the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg to determine and declare that, “for which there shall be individual responsibility”, on the very first days of the trials, was to shut one’s eyes and brain to the ‘Fuhrerprinzip’; and, to declare it did not exist at all. It, was, ‘Putting the rain back into the Sky’.

Prosecutors and Judges attempted to prove – and, convince everyone else - into believing that what had happened in Nazi Germany, had not happened at all.

The International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg was nothing but the vengeful vindictiveness of the Victorious Nations over the Vanquished.

Every defendant at Nuremberg claiming in defence that they were only obeying an order: Spoke the truth.

It was Nuremberg itself – and it’s Judges; that was, and is, the lie.

If the Nuremberg principle, that, “for which there shall be individual responsibility”, applies; then every ‘prosecutor’ and ‘Judge’ must put himself or herself into each defendants shoes. They must return to the precise moment and time when the order was given, and decide, virtually in an instant, that they will not obey.

And, they are unable to do that unless they are prepared to ‘accept’ the consequences.

In ‘hindsight’ at the Tribunal (and even today) many will claim they would disobey and accept all the consequences. But, there are none who can prove, now; that they actually would. Faced with their own death as a consequence of disobeying; few would refuse to disobey. It is only the liar and the hypocrite; that in the safety of ‘present day hindsight’; that would insist that he would.

Gordonj                                                                                                      December 5, 2013

 

RIGGING THE VOTE...

Rigging the Vote

Much furore in the press and Media recently all accusing the UNITE UNION of ‘rigging the vote’ in the Falkirk by-election. Members of Parliament and the leaders of the political parties scream the loudest complaining of the abuse.

Yet, they are more guilty of ‘rigging the vote’ than anyone else. They, ‘rig the vote’ in Parliament, all of the time. Every week of the year, when Parliament is sitting, the political party WHIPS, issue political party ‘diktat’ and instructions to Members of Parliament instructing them on how they must behave in Parliament and on how they must vote.

This political party activity, ‘prejudice the people’; and, this flouts and breaches the ‘precedent of law’ set out in the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

The WHIPS ‘prejudice the people’ because this political party activity overrules and supplants all ‘rightful influence’ placed upon ‘elected’ Members of Parliament, by the Constituent. Constituents can influence their Member of Parliament upon any issue they like until they are ‘blue in the face’; but, their rightful influence is overruled by the instructions issued to Members of Parliament, by the WHIPS. This, ‘rigging of the vote’, in parliament’ is both unlawful and corrupt.

Parliament claims its legal right to its “Supremacy” by relying upon “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”. This reads as follows:

That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”.

But, for Parliament to ‘enact’ or apply “Article 9” or. any of the other “Premises”, of the entire, “Bill of Rights 1689”; Parliament must comply with the ‘conditions’ that are set out in the paragraph of the Bill, known as, “The Said Rights Claimed”.

This paragraph within the Bill; set out directly below the thirteen “Articles”, that parliament claimed as its ‘protection’ from the King; specifically instructs parliament that in the ‘enactment’ or application of any of the ‘Premises’ of the Bill; that nothing should prejudice the people. Here is the actual wording of that paragraph:

The, “Said Rights Claimed”:
“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

Now, whereas, the ‘rigging of the vote’ in parliament, is both unlawful and corrupt; that very same activity is ‘lawful’ in any political election, in respect to the UNITE UNION. Because, the union has every legal right to try and influence any election, in order to get their own Members, or supporters elected; in order to promote the Union’s policies, in parliament.

The UNITE UNION had every right to try and get their own people elected to parliament, by using and utilizing every resource and tactic that they may care to use.

Ed Milliband may court TORY and Media favour, by condemning such tactics; but, he should be reminded that it was the UNIONS that created the Labour Party in the first place. UNITE wanted to protect its, ‘socialist’ principles. The Labour Party betrayed SOCIALISM, and, those principles years ago; the very day it abandoned, “Clause Four”.

Before any Member of Parliament condemns or criticizes the UNITE UNION and accuses it of rigging the vote; they should be fully aware, that every time they comply with the ‘diktat’ of the WHIPS; they, actually, break the LAW. Because, the political party WHIPS in Parliament, has no ‘legality’ at all.

The interesting thing is this: that every time ELIZABETH THE SECOND grants the “Royal Assent” to any ‘Act’ or ‘Bill’ passed by parliament, yet was created, under the influence of the WHIPS; she actually gives her consent to, illegal and unlawful, legislation.

The very last time a ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England actually refused the “Royal Assent” was 11th March in 1784, when Queen Anne refused to grant the “Settlement of the Militia in Scotland” Bill.

Ever since then, the British Monarchy has abandoned its proper role of ‘Absolute Monarchy”, protecting its Subjects; and, it has settled for the far lesser role of, CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY; abandoning the honouring of the “Original Contract”; and, it has given up, the protection of the people. Today, the “Reigning Monarch” of England, merely acts like a village sub-postmistress, franking and stamping, every piece of legislation placed before her, as created by the WHIPS. Whereby, today, the British People have no protection of law at all.

Sign this petition to end this travesty: https://www.change.org/petitions/government-parliament-and-judiciary-recognize-the-statute-in-force-bill-of-rights-1689-the-said-rights-claimed-and-abolish-the-illegal-activities-of-the-political-party-whips

Gordonj

Clarion call to the People of the UK...

AWAKE UK AWAKE

 When are the British going to awake from their slumbers and, the tyranny of the dark ages, to emerge into the bright sun light era of the, 21^st Century?

When are they going to escape from the chains of their ‘subjugation’? And, begin to learn, how to govern themselves?

When are they going to smash the illegal powers of the political parties? That, presently dominate and control the ‘people’s elected parliament’; by the, illegal powers, of the political party, WHIPS?

When are they going to create, a true, PEOPLES DEMOCRACY?

The British people do not even like or respect the political parties. As, can easily be proven, by the total number of people who are, at present, Members, of the political parties.

According to the census there are 48,085,800 adults (over the age of 20) in the country. Yet, in all of the political parties, all lumped together that there are in the country; the total Membership is less than, 400,000. It is difficult to be precise about this, because, both the Conservatives and the Liberals refuse to disclose their Membership numbers.

The Labour Party responded with alacrity to the request for the number, reporting that the total Membership was 193,300. But, similar requests made to both the Conservatives and the Liberal parties provided a very different response. They both treated their ‘Membership’ numbers, as a “State Secret”. Even, “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION” requests, were refused; demonstrating, the sheer arrogance; of these two, political parties.

Why, then, should this tiny minority of less than 400,000 total membership; control and dominate every aspect of life, of more than 48 Million adults in the land. Less than 1 per cent dominating and controlling 99 per cent, is both absurd and obscene. Yet, that is what is happening in the UK today. Bear in mind, also, that in reality, it is not even the 400,000 that exercise this domination and control. In, reality, it is only the “National Executive” of those political parties where the true powers lay. And, that is the tiniest minority of all.

Now let’s examine the legality of all this abuse?

Each political party controls and dominates parliament by the offices, procedures and practices, of the political party WHIPS. The, WHIPS, of each political party, each week, issue instructions to their, Members of Parliament, as to how they must behave in parliament, and, on how they must vote. But, this political party WHIPS activity, and, their ‘diktat’ and ‘instruction’, is wholly unlawful; because, such instructions, ‘prejudice the people’; which is wholly proscribed by the ‘precedent of law’ set out in the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

The, WHIPS, ‘prejudice the people’;  because, the political party ‘diktat’ and ‘instructions’ that they issue to their Members of Parliament each week; overrules and supplants, all ‘rightful influence’ placed upon those Members, by the Constituent. Constituents can influence their ‘elected’ Members of Parliament on any issue until they are, ‘blue in the face’. Yet, they, and, their influence, are completely overruled by the WHIPS and the political parties.

Parliament claims and secures its “Supremacy” relying for the legality upon “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”. This reads:

“That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”

And, both Parliament and the British Judiciary has always ‘interpreted’ this literally; without any consideration, at all, being given; as to any other, ‘interpretation’, within the “Bill of Rights 1689”, that, might determine otherwise; that, might actually, permit, the testing, questioning, or challenge to parliament, in the British Courts. Thus, both Parliament and the Judiciary has always read this sentence in the Bill, as though it is, sacrosanct; and, that it cannot be interpreted otherwise.

But, for three hundred and twenty four years, ever since the “Bill of Rights” was first created and, was granted, the “Royal Assent”; (in December 1689); both, Parliament and the Judiciary has always ‘interpreted’ and ‘applied’ this, “Article 9”; wholly, incorrectly.

 Because, within that very same Bill, there is another, ‘interpretation’, of the Bill; and, that, ‘interpretation’, overrules, “Article 9”.

The “Bill of Rights 1689” was created by the “Rights Committee” of the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, solely, in order, to protect Parliament from the interferences’ of a King. The CONVENTION had removed King James the Second from the throne, because, he had “Broken the original contract betwixt King and People”; and, Parliament did not want the same troubles it had experienced with, King James; when, offering the throne to a new King, Prince William of Orange. So, Parliament required ‘protection’ from the King. Hence, the need for the “Bill of Rights 1689”; But, this Bill, was never ever created, in order to protect Parliament, from, “The People”.

Though, the “Rights Committee”, in creating this Bill, were fully aware that it might be misinterpreted or misused in that way. And, so, after listing the thirteen ‘Articles’ or ‘Rights’ Parliament was claiming from each, ‘Reigning Monarch’; directly, below that list, the “Rights Committee” inserted another paragraph into the Bill; in order to ensure the ‘protection’ of, “The People”. And, that paragraph is, “The Said Rights Claimed”; which, reads as follows:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

Thereby, when Parliament ‘enacts’ or ‘applies’, “Article 9”, or any of the other “Premises” of that, “Bill of Rights 1689”; Parliament must comply with the conditions as determined by the ‘precedent of law’, set out in, “The Said Rights Claimed. And, if, and, when, Parliament, ‘prejudice the people’; “The Said Rights Claimed” overrules “Article 9”; and, Parliament, then, loses all its claims to the, Supremacy.

The, “Said Rights Claimed”, overrules, all the “Premises” of the entire Bill of Rights 1689.

 CONCLUSION

The political party WHIPS, in the People’s elected Parliament, is wholly unlawful.

Therefore, if you want to smash the illegal power and the control and domination of ‘your elected parliament’ by, the political parties, and, their WHIPS; then sign the petition located here:

https://www.change.org/petitions/government-parliament-and-judiciary-recognize-the-statute-in-force-bill-of-rights-1689-the-said-rights-claimed-and-abolish-the-illegal-activities-of-the-political-party-whips

 

 Gordonj

UNITED KINGDOM'S ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT

UK’s illegal “Coalition Administration”,

Masquerading, as Government;

That, was not ‘elected’ at all.

 And, the, negligence of the, ‘Reigning Monarch of England’, Elizabeth the Second; who failed to protect, Subjects of the Crown.

 

 I defy everyone in the United Kingdom, to produce the 'legal instrument' verifying the true 'legality' of this absurd 'pretentious' administration, governing Great Britain today. I defy everyone, to produce the ‘legal instrument’, that allows the leaders of political parties to ignore or overturn the democratic vote of ‘The People’ cast in a General Election; and, then to create a new governing administration, entirely on their own.

In the General Election of 2010, the, democratic election, calling for the vote of the British people; 'The People' voted and, determined, that there should be a, "Conservative led Minority Government". And, this was the only true RESULT of that election. Yet, the leaders of the political parties (elected to parliament in that election) did not like that, 'vote of the people'; so they decided that they could, IGNORE THE PEOPLE'S VOTE, and, then proceed to negotiate with each other to create this 'coalition administration', entirely on their own.

In, IGNORING THE PEOPLE'S VOTE IN THIS WAY, they, "Prejudiced the People"; and, that is wholly unlawful as determined by the 'precedent of law' set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

Parliament secures its lawful "Supremacy", from "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689"; but, in order for parliament to 'enact' or 'apply' "Article 9" or, any of the other "Premises", of that Bill; parliament must comply with the conditions set out in the paragraph of that Bill, known as, "The Said Rights Claimed". This, paragraph, specifically, determines, that when parliament enacts "Article 9" or, any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; that, NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.

IGNORING THE PEOPLE’S VOTE IN A DEMOCRATIC GENERAL ELECTION DOES PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE

AND, THEREBY, THIS COALITION ADMINISTRATION HAS NO LEGALITY AT ALL.

It is also interesting to consider the 'negligence' of the present "REIGNING MONARCH",     "ELIZABETH THE SECOND", in this regard: Each, "Reigning Monarch of England", is required to honour the "Original Contract" requiring them to act as "Head of Government", in order to protect Subjects of the British Crown. And, in order to carry out that role, each 'Reigning Monarch' is provided with two legal 'instruments' to make that possible. They are, "The Royal Assent" and "The Royal Prerogative". Both are solely designed, for the protection of "The People".

ROYAL ASSENT provides the right to grant or refuse 'assent' to the laws and bills passed by parliament.

ROYAL PREROGATIVE provides the 'Reigning Monarch' with three options: to encourage Ministers of Government; to warn Ministers of Government; and, "Whenever the wishes of the people directly conflict with the actions of the Legislators", (Parliament), "to order the immediate dissolution of parliament".

In the aftermath of the General Election of 2010, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, knew very well that, (1), “the wishes of the people were in direct conflict with the actions of the leaders of the political parties”. (2), She also knew that the, 'coalition administration', that they created, was unlawful; because, in 'ignoring the people's vote’, they had breached and flouted the 'precedent of law' set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, knew all of this. She also knew that it was her, DUTY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE ABUSE OF PARLIAMENT; yet, she did nothing at all. She should have used the Royal Prerogative to order the immediate ‘dissolution’ of Parliament.

In consequence, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, is guilty of, "Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People";  and, in exactly the same manner as, KING JAMES THE SECOND; who in 1688, did likewise; she, just like him, abdicates the throne.

The British People do not endure their imposed, ‘subjugation', to the 'Reigning Monarch, for nothing. Allegiance, requires, both the giving and the receiving.  “Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord, for the protection of the Liege Lord”.

The British People do not endure their ‘subjugation’  for as long as a 'Monarch' shall reign; in order that their, 'Reigning Monarch', may officially open various establishments; host garden parties; and, travel the Globe, promoting British goods, products, and prestige. The 'Reigning Monarch' of England, sits upon the throne, for one purpose alone: THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE.

Due entirely to the negligence of this 'Reigning Monarch'; the, British people now, are obliged to endure, a wholly illegal coalition administration; MASQUERADING AS GOVERNMENT.

Gordonj

MICHAEL LE VELL NOT GUILTY

Michael Le Vell Jury says,

‘Not Guilty’, of any Sexual Abuse.

Congratulations, superb. He should never have been charged at all.
Throughout the entire criminal trial that he has been forced to endure, the Crown Prosecutors could not produce one shred of, corroborative evidence, proving, that he committed any sexual abuse.

Michael Le Vell must now sue the police, the, Crown Prosecution Service, and, his accusers for all the stress, trauma, and public opprobrium that he has been forced to endure.

He is free today, but, the mere 'whim' of a Jury might have been very different. He was placed 'at risk' of spending many years in prison; and, the virtual destruction, of his life. Today, he could have been sitting in a prison cell. Someone, must pay, for all that risk, and, all, the trauma, he has been forced to endure.

This should be the very end of the 'sexual abuse' hysteria; that has in recent years been sweeping our land. There should be no more arrests, the, invading of people’s homes on. fishing expeditions, searching for evidence of guilt; no more the, taking away and the confiscation of documents, computers, iPod's, mobile phones, etc. Based, solely, on the, 'word', of those alleging sexual abuse.

No one should be arrested, or charged with anything. Without, the, corroborative evidence, of proof.

In 'sexual abuse' this 'evidence' must be either be by:

A. The forensic evidence of the suspects DNA found on the body, or, within the body, of the alleged victim. Or,

 B. The 'Statements' of those who actually witnessed, the actual sexual abuse. Backed up with the evidence of time, date, etc., and, other information, proving the allegations being made.

THIS HYSTERICAL PAEDOPHILE 'WITCH HUNTING' THAT HAS BEEN TAKING PLACE IN OUR LAND, BY THE POLICE, MUST NOW CEASE.

Furthermore, when alleged 'victims', make their allegations, being, quite prepared to ruin lives and reputations; and, intending, to send anyone to prison, for a very long time; in making those allegations; they should not be granted the privilege of, ANONYMITY.
When they make those allegations, they must be prepared, for their name, to be made public, and, to back up those allegations, with firm evidence. Which, will be tested, by 'extensive examination', in a Court of Law.

The sheer tyranny and abuse existing at present ruining people’s lives; should all be swept away.

MICHAEL LE VELL NUST SUE, BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN DAMAGED.

He will never be able to erase from the minds of those who will always believe, that, there can be no smoke without fire.

Gordonj

Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial

Forensic Evidence;

Metropolitan Police must have something to hide....

 

I am concerned that there might have been a grave travesty of justice.

The Metropolitan Police must have something to hide because the Freedom of Information request that I submitted to the Metropolitan Police Service on the 3^rd April 2013, has on this day the, 7^th September 2013, still not been complied with. On the 20^th June 2013, I received an email in reply advising me that the request had been refused as the MET had determined that the costs of collating the information required exceeded the threshold of costing, that the Freedom of Information Act had stipulated and allowed. I then registered and submitted a complaint about this ‘refusal’ to the “MET Public Access Office”, which receipt was acknowledged, and, they therein advised me, that the request would be handled in due course. Since that date, the 20^th June 2013; no further information has been received.

Here follows the details of my Freedom of Information request; and, a copy of the email contents I sent to Tessa Jowell. My Member of Parliament.

From:	james.young2@met.police.uk
Sent:	08 April 2013 09:59:47
To:	Gordon j Sheppard

Dear Mr Sheppard,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013040000452

I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/04/2013.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Re. STEPHEN LAWRENCE MURDER INVESTIGATION. LGC FORENSICS carried out scientific analysis and investigation of suspects clothing and other materials. How much money, in total, was LGC FORENSICS paid for carrying out this work? This is, and, should be, public information. Because all payments made by the MET POLICE in this regard, were paid out of the public purse.

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

 ------------------------------------

 

From:   Gordon J Sheppard

Sent:     16 April 2013

To:        jowellt@parliament,uk

 

Dear Tessa

 Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial

 I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan Police as follows:

 

Re. STEPHEN LAWRENCE MURDER INVESTIGATION. LGC FORENSICS carried out scientific analysis and investigation of suspects clothing and other materials. How much money, in total, was LGC FORENSICS paid for carrying out this work? This is, and, should be, public information. Because all payments made by the MET POLICE in this regard, were paid out of the public purse.

My motivation for requesting this information is that I am truly concerned over the conviction of GARY DOBSON and DAVID NORRIS, convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I do not know whether they murdered him or not; but, I do know, that they did not get a fair trial. I set out my reasons why in the message (below) which I sent on 2nd April to both you, and, Sky News. I want to see the extent of the 'financial inducement' paid to the forensic scientists and the forensic company, for them to 'produce' the evidence; the police both wanted and required.

Tessa, please write to the Commissioner of the MET police, inquiring into why this 'Freedom of Information' request has been so long delayed, or, refused.

 Regards

Gordon J Sheppard

 

 From: Gordon J Sheppard

Sent: 02 April 2013

To: News@Sky (bews@sky.com); Tessa Jowell MP (jowellt@parliament.uk)

 

It was announced today that the JILL DANDO murder investigation is to be dropped.
The organisation, LGC FORENSICS has been paid £587,383,00 to examine the forensics in the case; but they have produced nothing.

I ponder how much they were paid to 'fabricate' evidence in the "Stephen Lawrence" murder trial?  How much were they actually paid? How large was the financial inducement? To rig and create false evidence, in the creation of, "just one tiny micro speck of blood”, which they allege, they found, on the collar of GARY DOBSDON's shirt ?

Now, this 'evidence' must have been fabricated, because it was wholly impossible for only, "just one tiny micro speck of blood", to have got on that shirt, in the manner in which they claimed.

The injuries Stephen Lawrence received:
There were stab wounds to a depth of 5 inches (13cm) on both sides of the front of his body, in the chest and in the arm. Both of these stab wounds severed auxiliary arteries. The deep penetrating wound of the right side of his body also caused the partial collapse of the lung.

With these wounds the 'evidence' that only, "just one tiny micro speck of blood", was found on GARY DOBSON's shirt, is an absolute impossibility.

Had the forensic investigators found several or many 'tiny specks of blood' or, the "smearing of blood" there might have been some element of truth; but to claim that only, "one tiny micro speck of blood", was found; indicates 'fabrication' of that evidence.

When someone is stabbed so seriously inflicting the wounds to Stephen Lawrence as shown in the 'injuries' described as above; blood would have been gushing from those wounds in a solid stream, or, in a very fine spray. Blood, being pumped out continuously, until, the heart stopped beating. Furthermore, the injury 'evidence' indicates that his lung had been penetrated; so it is highly likely Stephen Lawrence would have been gasping for breath, and, at each gasp, he was likely to be coughing up blood in a spray.

From the injuries he received, anyone being very close to him would have been spattered with this fine spray.

It is therefore absolutely impossible for only, "one tiny micro speck of blood" to be found on that shirt.
 

JURY CRITERIA

 “Every one of the twelve might feel morally certain of guilt; but moral certainty is not legal certainty; and unless there is the legal certainty, that, certainty of proof, which removes every reasonable doubt; a prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.”

In this,"Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial", absolutely no one can establish, GUILT, beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is quite possible and, possibly even feasible, that these 'accused' did murder Stephen Lawrence.

But, they cannot be found GUILTY, of the crime, where there is any evidence to prove; that there is 'reasonable doubt'. The forensic evidence produced in this trial, motivated, considerable doubt.

 GARY DOBSON and DAVID NORRIS did not get a fair trial.

The Jury found them GUILTY because all the publicity about the 'accused' urged the conviction of DOBSON and NORRIS. The vicious pre-publicity of the trial, mounted, in a calculated campaign against them, by newspapers such as the 'Daily Mail', were intent on conviction. And, it was this corrupt 'influence' upon the Jury; that, caused the jury, to be so 'negligent' in considering the evidence.

 All my life I have loathed 'injustice'. For me, even, ADOLF HITLER, would deserve a fair trial.

This "Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial" was a travesty of, JUSTICE.

Gordon J Sheppard

 

CONCLUSIONS:

 Without any doubt whatsoever there are reasons for “Reasonable Doubt” in respect to the forensic evidence presented to the Jury in this case. If, the twelve persons making up that Jury, could not see this, they, were very negligent, in respect to their responsibilities, required of a Jury.

Fact 1.  The Metropolitan Police had carried out extensive investigations including very extensive forensic investigation into the lives, activities, and clothing of the accused. The MET reported that they did not uncover any incriminating evidence; and, therefore, they were unable to charge anyone with the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Fact 2. But, due to the enormous pressures put upon the MET by,

 

1. The Daily Mail newspaper publishing the photographs of the accused and charging them with the ‘murder’ of Stephen Lawrence (Yet, producing no ‘evidence’ at all).
2. The enormous pressures put upon the MET by, Mrs Doreen Lawrence (His mother), and the Anti-Racist brigade; all clamouring for convictions.
3. All the pressures of vested interested politicians, likewise, demanding, convictions.

 The Metropolitan Police announced they would ‘reopen’ and ‘resume’ their investigations again.

 Then, within a very short time thereafter; the MET proudly announced: That entirely due to new specific advances in technology, forensic evidence had been, now, miraculously obtained, revealing, that, ‘one micro tiny speck of blood’, containing the DNA of Stephen Lawrence had been found on the collar of GARY DOBSON’s shirt.

 

“Miraculous” indeed;

 It was so pat, so cut and dried, and, so amazing and convenient, that, it established for me, reasons to doubt. Being, suspicious, I wanted to see the extent of the financial inducement that might have been made available to the forensic scientists and their Company, to produce this ‘evidence’ that the MET badly needed, in order to charge anyone, with the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

This is the reason I submitted the, Freedom of Information, request, to the MET.

 The fact that the MET now refuses to provide this information, re-enforces the doubt that I have. The ‘veracity’ of the evidence of that, ‘One micro tiny speck of blood’, is highly questionable indeed.

 Gordon j