PROFESSOR KENNETH NUNN LIES TO YOU

In a recent article “The dangerous precedent of Crosley Green’s loss” University of Florida Professor Kenneth Nunn shamelessly lies to the reader. His most egregious lie is “the first law enforcement officers on the scene thought Hallock did it and were concerned enough about the direction of the investigation to share their concerns with the lead prosecutor.”

the first law enforcement officers on the scene thought Hallock did it and were concerned enough about the direction of the investigation to share their concerns with the lead prosecutor.

Professor Kenneth Nunn, University of Florida

The first officers on the scene were not concerned enough about the direction of the investigation to share their concerns with the lead prosecutor. The prosecutor called them in, got them to ramble a bit, and wrote down these ideas himself. It does not even make sense they would take their concerns to the prosecutor, instead of their own fellow police who actually did the investigation. This was the prosecutor’s own notes.

Nunn is referring to an investigation and notes created by the prosecutor himself – his own opinions – in preparation for trial. These notes were not written by the cops. These concerns were not shared as a result of any desire by the cops. The cops did not write any such notes, or make any requests that the prosecutor investigate. The prosecutor himself called the cops in, provoked them to ramble, and then scratched down baseless and unfounded ideas for his own use.

There is no evidence these cops made, much less recorded, any statements that they were concerned about the direction of the investigation. If they did express such concerns, they would have expressed them to the people actually doing the investigation, their fellow cops.

The only reason the cops said anything it all, is because the prosecutor himself called them in and tried to see if they had anything important to say, which they did not. The reason these cops had nothing material to say, is because they never met Kim Hallock and were not privy to the investigation and details of the case. These were not “concerns” this was brainstorming produced by the prosecutor, like cotton candy with no substance, which sifted down to nothing.

These cops’ opinions on guilt – elicited by the prosecutor without foundation, not by the motive or knowledge of the cops – were not admissible at trial, and were not based on any material facts, but rather based on their lack of knowledge or evidence. The prosecutor basically discovered that the cops didn’t understand the case because they didn’t have any of the facts, leaving nothing of interest to consider for trial.

Professor Nunn’s next most egregious lie is reciting the claim that Kim Hallock “never asked how the victim was”.

She never asked how the victim was

Professor Kenneth Nunn, University of Florida

“Never” is a strong word. Kim Hallock could have asked about Chip Flynn’s condition at any time from when Kim Hallock last saw Chip, to the present day. But in fact, lying cops Clarke and Rixey never spent even one moment with Kim Hallock in their lives, never saw her. So Clarke and Rixey cannot honestly tell you there is even one moment, one second, during which Kim Hallock was not asking about Chip’s condition, because they would not know.

The rest of Professors Nunn’s article is just more of the same stock lies and sleazy Hitler-quality propaganda from a cabal of used-car salesmen, all of which I have discredited elsewhere a dozen times. The whole thing of Crosley Green being innocent is a scam used to sell clicks, propped up by two cops Clarke and Rixey who changed their stories 20 years later, and committed perjury about what happened 20 years after the trial. And no, Kim Hallock is not similar to Mark Dean Schwab, and was not at Groveland!

There is literally no evidence of a biased investigation. Crosley was convicted based on three times the evidence it takes to convict most people, including very lengthy and very detailed testimony by Kim Hallock. Kim Hallock was a firsthand witness, and her story has far fewer holes in it than the average person’s story about anything. Her story holds up to the most thorough examination and mechanical recreation (which nobody but me has even bothered to do). Contrast Kim Hallock’s detailed and lengthy testimony, against the undocumented soundbites and talking points of Florida Today John A. Torres, 95% of which anyone who is not emotionally invested in believing it or a plain parrot, and willing to spend a few hours, can easily prove is nonsense as I have done.

Perhaps the sickest thing, is Professor Nunn’s desire that we run the courts based on whatever admitted perjuring felons demand on a given day, on top of plain perjury by police. Defense attorneys love to pay off their student loans by fixing cases based on the lies of their own felon clients, with zero concern for how many innocents are condemned. Professor Nunn asks us to embrace the biggest actual cause of false convictions, perjury by cops and felons! Professor Nunn sets the worst precedent of all, when he not only implores us to rely on the perjury of cops and felons, but brushes off any idea that cops or felons who commit such perjury, or prosecutors who hide evidence, should ever face any punishment. Should Sheila Green be in prison for breaking Florida Statute 837.02 to take her own brother’s life?

The real result of Professor Nunn’s contributions, is cops and felons and prosecutors know they can lie and hide evidence without penalty, and not even Professor Nunn will ever demand they be held accountable for it. Rather, he will run alongside them with his own lies to snow the public. And thanks to all this garbage and nonsense, legislators will be able to make plausible claims they are for justice, when they pass more laws to shut down all appeals, like the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996” and 28 US Code 2254, which recently forced the US Supreme Court to uphold the conviction of a likely innocent man Barry Lee Jones, to save the system being clogged up by murderer-hustlers like the Crosley Green crowd.

If every scumbag with a stack of perjury like Crosley Green made it to federal court, actually innocent people would be looking at a 15-year backlog, or they would have to add unqualified judges who would condemn the innocent and release the guilty at random. Meanwhile, Crowell and Moring and Nunn make no arguments that could actually help a broad class of victims of government, such as that the sovereign interest of the states in criminal justice, is by definition an interest against individual constitutional rights, which are explicitly checks on natural state interests.

Barry Lee Jones when the needle is in your arm, thank used-car salesmen like Kenneth Nunn and, above all, rapist dirtbag Crosley Green.