Corruption in the Justice System
Concealing Their Crimes
The evidence that American women file more false allegations against men for rape and sexual assault is more credible and better documented than the evidence which convicted as many as a million innocent American men
In just one year, 51,431 women nationwide filed rape charges against men which are known to have been false, while 15,562 men were CONVICTED of rape. How many women were CONVICTED for equally felonious behavior? Zero, even though it is probable that as many as 87,000 of 92,000 charges of rape are false!
In February, 2000, the Innocence Project claimed:
"the Project has represented or assisted in over thirty-six of the sixty-three cases where convictions have been reversed or overturned in the United States. Currently, the Innocence Project is handling over two hundred cases and over one thousand are pending evaluation."
In April, 2001, this claim was considerably watered down:"Over the last few years the Innocence Project has helped to obtain the release of more than eight innocent prisoners with new DNA tests and evidence which excluded them as participants in the crimes for which they had been convicted."
There have been a total of 68 innocent men released from prison because of DNA testing, which is quite a bit "more than eight". If that's not enough to completely destroy your confidence that the justice system will police itself, then please read the following exchange very carefully:
MR. SHECK: You know, I should mention because Clay is here, and if he did not know it, it is not generally a known fact, and that is, you know, the evidence provision preservation proposal in the Leahy bill is that the evidence be preserved for anyone that is incarcerated. However, law enforcement can move to destroy it and give 90 days for the, you know, upon notice to the inmate, 90 days to respond.
There may be some problems with how that would happen, but some provision like that seems, to me, a sensible solution to this. I am troubled by -- the Hatch bill says you only have to preserve it once the motion is made, you know, which, frankly, I would imagine would have been the law anyhow. You make a motion to preserve something, then they go out and destroy it.
The thing that people should know, and this was very troubling to us, is that when a guy named Kevin Bird (phonetic) was pardoned in the State of Texas in Harris County, which is the county that, if it were a state, would have the third highest number of executions in the United States next to Texas and Virginia -- that is the Houston area -- Bird was exonerated and pardoned by Governor Bush with DNA testing.
Right after that happened -- and it is lawful; I am not saying they did it illegally -- 50 rape kits were destroyed in the Harris County courthouse and then a contract was entered into with a waste disposal firm to get rid of more.
I can just regale you, and a number of them are in our book with story after story of how these samples are destroyed, you know, just bureaucratically. Some of the people that were exonerated, you know, they were exonerated by chance.
What these justice people have just revealed to you is that they actually believe that destroying the evidence that imprisoned American men may be innocent is "lawful".
You do not need to know much more
about our justice system to know that it is the last place on Earth where you can expect
justice. But there is one more thing you need to know about our justice system to
appreciate the magnitude of the crime. It has been the result of permitting jews to
become lawyers and judges in the US which caused this problem, and it is now the top
jewish university, Yeshiva University, which is conducting this coverup. http://www.yu.edu/
If you think Congress will become a part of the solution, think again:
Congress has recently passed an Effective Death Penalty/Anti- Terrorism bill which has placed serious restrictions on the availability of post-conviction measures. This harsh time restriction means that inmates with inadequate funding for counsel and who are uneducated in the law have minuscule chances to ever prove their innocence. This situation is exacerbated by the immense difficulty in finding effective counsel through the overburdened public defender system.
Though DNA testing can mean scientific and irrefutable proof of innocence, there is often resistance on the part of police and prosecutors to reopening cases, whether it be for political reasons or for the sake of finality of conviction. For the innocent person in jail, it is an almost insurmountable, but familiar, obstacle.