AMANDA KNOX the travesty of retrial's

Amanda Knox, and, the travesty of retrial's..

Whenever the 'double jeopardy' rule is overturned, it always results that in, subsequent trials, there is always the verdict of, GUILTY.

This is essentially because, Media publicity, and. Media bile, waged against the accused always denies a fair trial. The bile and hatred, such as regularly displayed by newspapers like, the Daily Mail, so attack the accused, that they can never receive a fair trial. The prosecution has only to keep putting the accused, up for trial, and, eventually, they will secure a jury, that will deliver the verdict they want.

Amanda Knox was acquitted on Appeal; after wrongfully serving several years in prison. This present corrupt 'Italian Supreme Court', in determining that she must be tried again; is merely upholding, its very own legal profession, which so, badly 'lost', last time. In sheer vindictiveness they 'overturn' and quash the previous acquittal verdict.

Stand by, for the inevitable verdict of, GUILTY.

Before anyone rushes to judgment over the right and wrongs of this matter; and, before they reach any notion, of their assessment of, GUILTY; they, should read, the most extensive investigation and examination of the trial of Amanda Knox; provided by, Mark C. Waterbury PhD, in his book, "The Monster of Perugia" - "The Framing of Amanda Knox".

This book provides the most extensive analysis of the forensic evidence presented in the trial, demonstrating in stark vivid detail where it is corrupt; and, it also proves that, Prosecutor Mignini was so corrupt, and, yet, so intent, on convicting Amanda Knox; that he rigged much evidence presented in the trial.

The American Government should fully ensure that Amanda Knox never ever leaves the United States again, to face Italian 'Justice'. Because, it is so rotten and corrupt,

Overturning 'Double Jeopardy' and 'Retrials' always results in conviction.
A further case in point:

The retrial of Dobson and Norris charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
Acquitted, in a civil trial brought by the Lawrence family. On the 25 April 1996; a Court of Appeal 'quashed' this ‘acquittal’ verdict, on the 18 May 2011. Yet, from their acquittal in April 1996, and, all the way through to the actual conviction by a jury, on the 3rd January 2012; the Daily Mail newspaper persistently kept up a vicious campaign against them, asserting that they were guilty of this crime. This, newspaper, published photographs of the five boys on its front page and accused them of the murder of, Stephen Lawrence, challenging those boys to sue. Yet, at that very time, there was not a shred of 'evidence' of their guilt. In the retrial, the jury returned the 'verdict' of GUILTY; that, both the Prosecution and the Daily Mail, wanted.
Dobson and Norris did not get a fair trial. Just, as in the Amanda Knox trial, the forensic evidence, was rigged.

From May of 1993 right the way thru to November 1997 the police and forensic scientists examining the clothing and other articles belonging to the accused found nothing incriminating. Then, miraculously, following the, announcement of the, 8th November 1997, that the police were re-examining scientific evidence; forensic scientists then, announce, that they have 'found' a, "tiny speck if blood" on the collar of Dobson's jacket. And, they assert, that, this blood, is the blood of, Stephen Lawrence.

This is the forensic evidence presented in the trial. It is the evidence that the jury, believed; in order to deliver their verdict of, GUILTY.

But, true examination of this 'evidence', claiming that this "Tiny speck of Blood" was Stephen Lawrence's blood; and, that it proved, Dobson was in close proximity with Stephen Lawrence when he was stabbed; and, that, this proved, Dobson was in consequence, GUILTY, of his murder; Is seriously flawed.

Because, if, Dobson, had been that close to Stephen Lawrence when he was stabbed; it was wholly impossible for the collar of his jacket to only receive one, "Tiny speck of Blood". Had he been that close to Stephen Lawrence, when he was killed, blood would have been pouring from the wound, all over the place. It is well known and recognized that when someone is stabbed blood gushes out in a 'spray'. Spraying, "tiny specks of blood", over anyone or anything, who is that close.

Had there been many, "Tiny specks of Blood" or 'Smearing of Blood' on Dobson’s clothing; that would be believable. But, when only one, microscopic, "Tine speck of Blood", is found; that is the clear indication of a, PLANT. The, clear indication that this, evidence has been planted.

CONCLUSION:
I have no evidence to refute with certainty that both AMANDA KNOX and DOBSON and NORRIS did not carry out these crimes; but, the one thing I am positive about; is that not one of them received a fair trial. In both trial’s the 'forensic evidence' and, other 'evidence' was so complex and so complicated; that, no one could deliver a verdict of GUILTY; beyond all reasonable doubt.

Jury Essential 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 the AMANDA KNOX and DOBSON and NORRIS trial’s, no 'intelligent' Jury, could possibly have established that 'guilt', beyond all reasonable doubt. They were each convicted solely on the corruption of the 'evidence'; the, incompetence and negligence, of the Jury. And, by a campaign of vicious Media's bile; waged against, the accused.
Gordon J Sheppard

Understanding British Monarchy

Prince Charles meddling again....
Press and politicians frequently declare, in respect to Prince Charles that, "We should know what he is discussing, what subjects he is pushing and why, and, whether it is influencing government policy."

I respectfully suggest that this is none of their business.

As the next 'Reigning Monarch' he will have the duty and the responsibility of honouring the ORIGINAL CONTRACT; requiring the 'protection' of Subjects of the British Crown. Thus, it is the Monarchy's duty to 'meddle' and 'interfere' with any aspect of the 'life of the nation'; that he wishes to influence or explore. The 'Reigning Monarch' of England is required, by the terms of the 'Original Contract' to act as 'Head of Government' monitoring Parliament in the interests of Subjects of the British Crown. All 'Reigning Monarchs' in the line of succession are obliged to protect 'Subjects' from the tyranny of the 'abuses' and 'prejudice' of Parliament. And, in order that the 'Reigning Monarchs' can carry out that role, they are provided with two legal and lawful instruments to make that possible: the "ROYAL ASSENT" and the "ROYAL PREROGATIVE".

Both of these two 'legal instruments' are specifically designed for the protection of "The People".
They have no other purpose or intent at all. The 'Royal Assent' is specifically designed in order that the 'Reigning Monarch' may grant or refuse to grant, the 'laws' and 'bills' passed by Parliament. And, the 'Royal Prerogative' provides, the 'Reigning Monarch', with the right and responsibility to (a), encourage Ministers of Government, (b), to warn Ministers of Government, and, (c), in any circumstance, where the, “Wishes of The People are in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators”, to wield the 'Royal Prerogative', to order the dissolution of Parliament.

Sadly, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has not honoured the 'Original Contract' all of the time she has occupied the British throne. As a 'Reigning Monarch' she has been hopeless and a complete failure and disaster. In consequence, therefore, and, thereby; and, in truth and reality, she abdicates the throne.

The British throne is a 'vacant' today as it was in the days of 1688 when KING JAMES II was removed from the throne. The CONVENTION (Parliament) determined that 'he' had "Broken the Original Contract betwixt King and People" and, that thereby he had abdicated the throne. The CONVENTION declared the throne was vacant; and, PRINCE WILLIAM OF ORANGE became the next King.

However, the CONVENTION declared even, further, in respect to the 'Lineal Descent' by declaring that,

"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the Contract, they too can be Deposed."

ELIZABETH THE SECOND is well aware that the British People have no 'protection' of LAW.
The British have no access to: a written constitution, or, a proper 'Bill of Rights' setting out the rights and responsibilities of 'Subjects'; and, they have no "Supreme Court of Law", whereby they can test, question, or challenge Parliament from within LAW.

Aware, that the 'Original Contract' protection of the 'Reigning Monarch', is the only protection of LAW that the British have, ELIZABETH THE SECOND has failed miserably and, has provided no protection at all. She must be aware of these facts:

A. That, the Offices, Procedures, and, Practices of the political party WHIPS in Parliament 'prejudice the people' wholly flouting and breaching the 'precedent' of LAW set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed"; which makes it abundantly clear that in Parliaments 'enactment' of its "Supremacy"; NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.
The WHIPS 'prejudice the people' by overruling and supplanting all 'rightful influence' placed upon Members of Parliament, by the Constituent.

B. That, the present 'coalition administration' masquerading as government, was not elected by "The People" at all. That, the corrupt leaders of the political parties, created this 'coalition administration' entirely on their own. That, the voting results of the General Election of 2010 determined that there should be a "Conservative led, Minority Government"; and, that, here, was the clear 'evidence' where the, "Wishes of the people were in direct conflict with the 'actions' of the Legislators"; making it the duty of the 'Reigning Monarch', to intervene.

Whereby, in both instances shown above; ELIZABETH THE SECOND, in complying with the 'Original Contract', providing the 'protection' of Her People; should have intervened. In respect to (A) above, She ought to have 'warned' Her Ministers that the WHIPS in Parliament are wholly illegal and unlawful. And, in respect to (B), she ought to have used the 'Royal Prerogative', to order the immediate dissolution of Parliament.

SHE ACTUALLY DID NOTHING AT ALL.

Prince Charles with his frequent 'meddling' makes it abundantly clear that he knows where his duty lays in 'protecting' the British People. IT IS VERY EVIDENT, IN STARK VIVID DETAIL, WHY THE 'ESTABLISHMENT' FEARS HIM SO MUCH.

For my FREEDOM I do not rely on Parliament. Though, Parliament is 'elected', it is not a "People's Parliament". It is wholly corrupt, dominated, by the political 'diktat' of the political parties.
Throughout the entire nation there are less than 400,000 Members of 'all the political parties' heaped together. So, it is positively obscene that this tiny minority, should dominate every aspect of the lives of nearly, 50 Million Adults, that there are in the country today.

No, Parliament is rotten and corrupt. For my FREEDOM, I rely on the BRITISH PRESS, the INTERNATIONAL PRESS; and, the, FREE EXPRESSION INTERNET.

Sincerely
Gordon J Sheppard

VICKY PRYCE: Perverting the course of Justice; and, the sheer travesty of a rigged criminal trial....

MR. JUSTICE SWEENY today lectured, admonished, and condemned VICKY PRYCE for, "Perverting the course of Justice"; and, he sentenced her to eight months imprisonment, in what has turned out to be, naught but a sheer vindictive travesty of a criminal trial. A rotten and corrupt trial, where, in spite of a first jury, in a first trial, who could not agree a verdict; both, Judge and the Crown Prosecution Service, would not accept that verdict; because, they were hell bent on securing a conviction; in order to set an example.
VICKY PRYCE was accused of accepting speeding penalty points on her driving licence even though it was her husband, CHRIS HUHNE, who was driving the car. She claimed in her defence 'marital coercion' and presented evidence in court demonstrating that her husband had forced her to admit that it was she who was driving the car.

MR. JUSTICE SWEENY in his sentencing of VICKY PRICE specifically proclaimed that he did not believe her. He said, specifically, referring to this assertion by her, that, "The Jury had seen thru this", indicating, that this was the reason they had found her "GUILTY".

But, this jury were not able to "see through anything"; their verdict of 'guilty' was a wholly corrupt verdict because whilst the trial was in progress and whilst 'evidence' was being submitted to the Court; at one point, the Judge even had to suspend that progress of the trial, in order to open windows and doors to permit more air to enter the Court; because Members of that Jury had been seen sleeping. This means that, during the giving of this 'evidence', some Members of the Jury had not even heard what had been taking place. The Judge ought to have dismissed the Jury and stopped the trial.
Now, the interesting thing is this: To, any that, asserts and claims, that, the verdict of this jury is correct and valid; then, that very same assertion, must also apply, to the first Jury hearing the trial. That, first Jury, could not agree a verdict; which means, that in stark vivid reality some Members of that first Jury were wholly convinced that VICKY PRYCE was innocent of the charge. If the second Jury's verdict has the validity of truth; then, so does the verdict of the first Jury.

IN ANY CRIMINAL TRIAL UNDER BRITISH LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST INSTRUCT THE JURY IN THE SUMMING UP OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL, THAT, JURORS MAY ONLY RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY IF THEY ARE SATISFIED OF THAT GUILT, "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT".

In the first Jury some Members could not deliver a verdict, “beyond all reasonable doubt”; and, therefore, that benefit of doubt, ought to have been given to the accused. Thus, there was no need or right for a 'retrial' at all. VICKY PRYCE should have been immediately been set free, to go home.

The only reason, at that point, for the Judge to order a retrial, was because, both Judge and the Crown Prosecutions Service, were disappointed by the first Jury's failure to deliver a verdict; and, they were both hell bent on securing a conviction, in order to set an example.

The rationale being: "Keep putting her up for retrial until a Jury delivers the verdict we require"
This case places the bright beam of a searchlight upon an anomaly in the British Courts and Jurisdiction system. Once a Judge has summed up in a trial and the Jury has been instructed that they must deliver a verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt'; NO RETRIAL SHOULD EVER TAKE PLACE. Because, the sole criterion of, 'innocence' or 'guilt', then, lies entirely in the Jury's hands. If the Jury fails to deliver a verdict; the accused should go free.
RETRIALS should only be ordered by a Judge, if at any stage in the trial, important new evidence comes to light, which was not heard before the Jury left to consider the verdict; or, where there have been grave legal technical errors during the trial.

VICKY PRYCE has been entirely 'stitched up'. In the days immediately following the first trial the entire press and media in the country turned heavily against her, hurting, wounding, and vilifying her at every opportunity. The reporters and female columnists of the 'Daily Mail' tore her to pieces. All the politicians and 'all the boys' of the establishment, were expressing sympathy for CHRIS HUHNE's plight. It was a guaranteed certainty; the second Jury would find her guilty.

Finally, there is one other aspect, in respect of this trial: VICKY PRYCE has been forced to stand trial accused of "Perverting the course of Justice". Well, I assert that, no British Judge has the right to make a judgment on that matter; because, every British Judge in the entire British Judiciary has been "CONSPIRING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE" for more than three hundred and twenty four years. Ever, since the, "Bill of Rights 1689", first was granted the, "Royal Assent"; on the 13th day of December 1689.
For three hundred and twenty four years the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other to "pervert the course of justice"; by repeatedly and constantly denying the British People access to the Courts in order to test, question, or challenge ‘elected’ Parliament from within, LAW. And, for this denial, the entire British Judiciary has conspired with each other, in order to deceive the British People, that, true valid and just "LAW"; is the reason for that denial.

YET, CORRECT READING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE "BILL OF RIGHTS 1689" PROVIDES THAT, ANYONE MAY CHALLENGE PARLIAMENT IN THE COURTS, WHENEVER PARLIAMENT 'PREJUDICES' THE PEOPLE.

How is it right that any Judge of the British Judiciary shall try anyone for "Perverting the course of Justice"? When every Judge, throughout three hundred and twenty four years of British history, has been guilty of committing the same offence?

READ YOUR HISTORY. CHECK OUT THE, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".


Gordon J Sheppard