CROSLEY GREEN SUPPORTERS ARE AS LOST AS BLIND POSSUMS

Any time police and prosecutors lock someone up, this is the question they want the public to ask: Do you think he is guilty? He was once arrested with heroin. He was once convicted of breaking into someone’s house. The sheriff told the paper this guy did it, and the paper reprinted it. Do you think he is guilty?

The public has been trained by the executive branch to answer the wrong question, “do you think this person is guilty”, rather than “did this person get a fair trial”. This is how the executive branch gets public approval to conduct unfair trials where they decide who is guilty, and railroad people. They convict them in the media.

They grease off the public by letting the public think they are letting the public pick who is guilty. But only after lying to the public which they are legally immune to do. They then fix the trial outcome with lies, which lies judges and jurors are legally forced to base their decisions on, if the public approves.

So along comes Crosley Green. And 20 years after telling the public Crosley is guilty, the newspaper decides to tell the public Crosley is innocent. William Dillon was exonerated by DNA, Mark Dean Schwab claimed another person did the crime. So this was the popular genre at the time, a “who really did it” mystery.

So the public says now we think Crosley is innocent, so you have to let him out. The state says the jury convicted Crosley based on the testimony of the victim, which they are totally allowed to do. You have to show how it was an unfair trial. This throws the people of Brevard who don’t know what a fair trial is, for a loop.

The people of Brevard say there was a Brady violation. There are some cops who said on TV 20 years later, they think Kim did it. The jury should have known that. It is not just our opinion that Crosley is guilty. It is that the prosecution hid evidence. Evidence of our opinion that Crosley is guilty.

Florida Today printed a story that literally asked the question “If jurors were told that people who never met Kim Hallock thought she did it – people who never saw the evidence or heard the 911 call and invented it all in their crazy heads – don’t you think that might have changed the jurors’ minds?”

The appeals court judges of course shake their heads, because your opinion is not evidence. This is not a witch trial of Kim Hallock. The opinions of deputy sheriffs of who is guilty, have not been allowed since the Magna Carta of 1225. You need an actual witness. And the actual witness, Kim Hallock, said Crosley did it.

Then the people of Brevard say there were no fingerprints. There have to be fingerprints to convict someone, I saw it on TV. Never mind that there are almost never fingerprints except on TV. Whether a trial was legal or not has nothing to do with whether TV viewers think Crosley is guilty based on whether there were fingerprints.

The people of Brevard are so accustomed to convicting the innocent – and being happy when they do – they have no idea what a fair trial even is. They therefore cannot possibly come up with a strategy to prove Crosley’s trial was unfair. All they know how to do is parrot “we think this person is guilty” like trained seals.

What the people of Brevard never think to ask – because Florida lawyers don’t want them to – is “Was Crosley protected from the jury being lied to?” Florida lawyers don’t want you to ask, because fixing cases with their own clients lying is how lawyers avoid trials and make a profit. As long as the public is parrots.

It seems pretty simple to ask: Was the jury protected from fake dog-tracking evidence, basically a witch-pricking device? Was the jury instructed that coerced witnesses often lie? But the people of Brevard say “We know the dog tracking evidence was fake, we know the coerced witnesses lied, isn’t what we think enough?”

The people of Brevard cannot think how to argue it was not a jury of peers. A jury of peers convicts you for what you did, not who you are. But the people of Brevard like to convict undesirables for who they are, as long as it is not based on race. So you are left with a bunch of white people complaining “the jury was white”.

The appeals court says “Kim Hallock said Crosley did it, it is legal for the jury to believe her and convict him.” This leaves the people of Brevard totally powerless. Because they only know how to produce fake testimony. They have no idea how to attack the fake testimony they have then produced, they never wanted a way to.

What should Crosley’s jury have been told? Should Crosley’s jury have been told that coerced witnesses lie, that the dog tracking evidence was a complete scam? Or should Crosley’s jury have been shown another liar, a deputy Clarke who never met Kim Hallock and made numerous false statements about what Kim actually said?

The people of Brevard cannot think in terms of due process and fair trials, only of getting what they want. The people of Brevard have never yet objected to their own government using lies. The only thing they have objected to, is the government not using lies to get the result they want, and convict whomever they think is guilty.

MANDI MAY JACKSON

When I tell someone my friend Mandi May Jackson was convicted based on lies (and if they care at all rather than being happy), the first thing they will do is look up newspaper stories to find out for themselves what really happened and if she is innocent. (The truly self-congratulating may even read the trial opening statements.)

And if it says in the newspaper she is guilty – which can be all lies – they will not see any problem. Usually they will not even get past the fake incorrect story that she was once arrested with GHB. Once they read that, they will accept as valid based on nothing else that she should be locked up for life.

So they have just moved the locus of decision-making of guilt, to a trial before the public in the media based on gossip. Doesn’t matter if the person is a law professor who has studied law for 50 years. His impulse is never to do what the public is actually supposed to do: determine if there was due process.

Not even a lawyer or law professor feels a compelling intrigue to discover: Was there a fair trial? His first impulse is to discover whether she is “really innocent”, meaning whether he has any reason to doubt she is guilty, which is all that matters. If she is guilty – if he thinks she is – then an unfair trial is fine.

So someone who wastes his time studying law – I guess as sort of a vain hobby to look important, like wearing a fancy tattoo – is never happier than when the locus of determination of guilt is moved to his own casual opinion. And he will then reelect anyone who convicts whomever he spends a moment to conclude must be guilty.

Doesn’t get any better in appeals courts. The appeals court looks and sees a liar did tell the jury this person was guilty. So it is totally legal for the jury to find guilt based on what they heard. All the appeals court is determining, is was the executive branch able to produce a liar to put in front of the jury.

So the appeals court approves of moving the locus of decision-making to the executive branch. The jury is supposed to be the finder of fact. But appeals courts begin with the premise “if we assume this testimony is true, was it legal for the jury to find guilt based on these statements.”

Tricking a jury or the public with lies, is not a jury trial. What the appeals court is supposed to do, is figure out was the accused protected from the jury being tricked with lies. That is due process. It is not was a liar produced, it is was the accused protected from liars being produced.

Maybe just once, the people of Brevard should think of something other than tricking the jury with lies to get what they want. The easiest fix is for a jury to know that the people of Brevard will lie to them, and will elect anyone who puts liars in front of them to get what they want.

Appeals courts can ask: Was there anything to stop the jury being lied to? Was there a process for either a) screening out liars before they got to the jury, or b) telling the jury there was no such process, and that there was a reward and no penalty for the government producing liars?