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
No comments:
Post a Comment