Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Guilt & Fair Trial Are Incompatible

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default Guilt & Fair Trial Are Incompatible

    I will explain my title after this article:


    On the evening of June 10, in the midst of an impromptu desecration festival in Portsmouth, Virginia, the statue of a Confederate soldier was yanked off its pedestal and crowned the unfortunate Chris Green, who stood underneath.

    Green, now in a medically induced coma, coded twice on the way to the hospital. He may not survive. Erasing the past is a dangerous business. It has been since the communists got involved in rewriting history a century ago.

    As it happens, George Floyd died exactly 100 years and 40 days after Alessandro Berardelli and Frederick Parmenter were shot to death in a payroll robbery in Braintree, Massachusetts. These men have little in common with Floyd save that none of them deserved to die and that their respective deaths set off worldwide demonstrations orchestrated out of the very same playbook.

    In the 1920s, communists had to erase some immediate history — namely, the fact that a pair of Italian anarchists murdered Berardelli and Parmenter in cold blood. The evidence that the anarchists, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, killed the pair was overwhelming. They were convicted soon after the murders.

    In 1924, as the appeals process wore on, Sacco and Vanzetti caught a break of sorts. Lenin died, and Stalin replaced him. Always the realist, Stalin had no illusions that the Soviet P.R. arm, the Comintern, could inspire an American revolution. He focused his American efforts instead on defamation.

    With Stalin's blessing, the Comintern set out to find a case that would undermine the idea of America, which at the time held great sway throughout the world. America was widely perceived as the land of opportunity, the ever beckoning home of the free and the brave. For the Soviet experiment to prevail, the American experiment had to yield. The world had to see America through fresh, unblinking eyes, not as the great melting pot, but as a simmering stew of xenophobic injustice.

    In 1925, the Comintern came looking for Sacco and Vanzetti, glass slipper in hand. Almost immediately, "spontaneous" protests sprung up throughout the world. Europe's great squares filled with sobbing, shouting protesters, declaiming the innocence of the immigrant martyrs and denouncing the vile injustice of their persecutors. These protesters donated hundreds of thousands dollars to the cause, almost none of which found its way to the real Defense Committee.

    In America, the Comintern created theater and allowed the actors to find their way to the parts. The casting call for the Sacco and Vanzetti protests attracted a who's who of literary leading lights. Prominent American authors Upton Sinclair, Katherine Ann Porter, John Dos Passos, and Edna St. Vincent Millay not only protested the seeming injustice, but also created literary works around it. Scores more picketed, protested, or signed petitions. International luminaries joined in as well. George Bernard Shaw and Albert Einstein wrote letters on behalf of the anarchists. French Nobel Prize–winner Romain Rolland sent a telegram to the Massachusetts governor.

    As the August 1927 execution date approached, the Comintern went to work. Its Berlin office arranged for material declaring the pair's innocence to be reprinted and distributed throughout the world. Protest movements swelled in major American cities and European capitals. On the night before the execution, five thousand militants roamed the streets of Geneva savaging everything from cars to movies that smelled of America.

    On the night of the execution, August 22, an outpouring of rage and grief swept the world and left common sense buried in its wake. The French communist daily Humanité published an extra edition with one word on the front cover, "Assassinés."

    Reacting to the news that the pair had, yes, been "assassinated," crowds swarmed through the streets of Paris on the way to the American embassy, ripping out lampposts and smashing windows. Only the tanks that ringed the embassy stopped them

    In London, masses of people surged around Buckingham Palace, shouting and singing "The Red Flag." Germany, meanwhile, witnessed a series of demonstrations and torchlight parades more intense than any the volatile Weimar Republic had yet seen. A half-dozen German demonstrators were killed during the course of them.

    The Comintern had pulled all the right strings in this international puppet show. True, Sacco and Vanzetti were executed, but it had never been its job to save them. In her memoir, The Never-Ending Wrong, published on the fiftieth anniversary of the pair's execution, Pulitzer Prize–winning author Katherine Ann Porter relates how she first came to understand this.

    As the final hours ticked down, Porter had been standing vigil with others artists and writers in Boston. Ever the innocent liberal, Porter approached her group leader, a "fanatical little woman" and a dogmatic communist, and expressed her hope that Sacco and Vanzetti could still be saved. The response of this female comrade is noteworthy largely for its candor:

    "Saved," she said, "who wants them saved? What earthly good would they do us alive?"

    In George Floyd, our neo-communists found their own Sacco and Vanzetti, but much better. As a black American, his death had much more frightening moral power. It was caught on camera. The offending officer was white. In 2020, these were all essential variables. Had any of three other officers at the scene — two Asians and a black American — been the one kneeling on Floyd's neck, the story would never have left the twin cities.

    The puppeteers were shrewd this time. They passed on the Georgia shooting of Ahmaud Arbery a month earlier, as it lacked the elements of high drama. Floyd made for a much more appealing victim, the most appealing since Rodney King, but the Rodney King riots, destructive as they were, never left Los Angeles.

    No, the response to this one was planned. I would love to know who green-lit the decision to go worldwide with George Floyd. As with Sacco and Vanzetti, scores of people have been hurt and killed in the demonstrations on Floyd's behalf, the unlucky Chris Green just one of many. As with Sacco and Vanzetti, too, many donations have not gone where the donors intended.

    Unlike with Sacco and Vanzetti, however, the Floyd protests will keep on killing. After Ferguson, the police withdrawal from active policing resulted in literally thousands of black deaths]. This time, the withdrawal will result in many thousands more.

    For the organizers, it's all good. They don't care about the collateral damage. They didn't even care about George Floyd. After all, what earthly good would George have done them alive?

    June 15, 2020
    The Floyd Riots Mark a Century of Communist Agitation
    By Jack Cashill

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...agitation.html

    A police officer killed George Floyd by accident. In a few weeks television’s profits shot right up there with three years of Democrats trying to impeach President Trump. That is why I refuse to pay attention to television mouths selling the myth that non-existent racism murdered a known criminal.

    I did not waste my time on the story itself. It was Jack Cashill connecting the never-ending Communist Revolution to Sacco & Vanzetti that intrigued me.

    To begin: Presumption of innocence is a myth that is confused with a fair trial. Presumption of innocence is pretty much like the Golden Rule: UNENFORCEABLE.

    Nobody in a trial is required to presume innocence; certainly not the prosecutor, and certainly not the jury who are instructed to decide guilty or not guilty on the evidence. In short: Innocence is a moral judgement. Note that:

    Bergdahl's defense team argued that their client could not get a fair shake . . .

    Bowe Bergdahl’s sentencing delayed over Trump’s comments
    NBC News
    MORGAN RADFORD and CORKY SIEMASZKO
    Oct 23rd 2017 7:23PM

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...ents/23253307/

    Bowe Bergdahl pleaded guilty in a military tribunal. No matter. Here comes:



    Bartolomeo Vanzetti (left) and Nicola Sacco in handcuffs
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0px-Sacvan.jpg

    I read quite a bit about S & V. Even without my opinion-forming background, I would still believe they were both guilty because the liberal intelligentsia responsible for making Sacco & Vanzetti a cause célèbre were no more to be trusted back in the 1920s than is today’s army of tax dollar lawyers.

    More books, plays, commentaries, etc., were written about the Sacco & Vanzetti trial, and its aftermath, than any other case in American history. “Sacco & Vanzetti” has been a Communist rallying cry since the 1920s. Sacco & Vanzetti is the Left’s all-time favorite trial. It was the S & V trial that moved convicted criminals away from guilty —— not guilty —— into Communism’s definition of a fair trial.

    Briefly, the judge in Sacco & Vanzetti ruled on eleven discretionary points of law. Every one of those rulings went against S & V. There is no evidence that shows the jury found Sacco & Vanzetti guilty because of the judge’s rulings, yet the Left harped on those rulings to declare the trial unfair. There were additional charges of unfairness leveled by liberals of that era, but it was those rulings that Communists pounded home in order to convince the general public that Sacco & Vanzetti were innocent because they did not get a fair shake.

    Anyone interested in the case, the trial, and the executions of S & V can easily find plenty on the subject. Here is a brief account for youngsters:


    Sacco-Vanzetti Case, controversial murder case in Massachusetts that lasted from 1920 to 1927. In 1920 Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were charged with stealing more than $15,000 and murdering two men at a Massachusetts shoe factory. At the trial in 1921, the case against them was based largely on what many regarded as inadequate evidence. Witnesses gave contradictory testimony, and the judge and jurors were accused of bias. The verdict of guilty caused a worldwide outcry, as many claimed that the men had been condemned because they were immigrants and outspoken anarchists.

    Appeals for a new trial were frequently made and denied. In 1925 a man convicted of another murder confessed to having been a member of the gang that committed the crimes. Nevertheless, Sacco and Vanzetti were condemned to death and executed in 1927. In 1977 Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis signed a proclamation that cleared their names.

    The most commonly held belief today is that Sacco was guilty but not Vanzetti. Frankly, I think they were both guilty. I base my opinion on the numerous books and articles that I read decades ago. My opinion never changed regardless of then-Massachusetts Governor Dukakis signing a proclamation clearing their names posthumously. Liberals, working through Dukakis, carried the ‘fair trial’ rallying cry to its unavoidable conclusion: If you do not get a fair trial you cannot be guilty. Fair trials has been the Communist agenda, and liberal ideology, ever since Sacco & Vanzetti were convicted. No matter how much one learns about the case it will always come down to a personal opinion.

    The thing that is not opinion is the way American Communists —— a hundred years ago —— conspired to use Sacco and Vanzetti to turn the public away from the question of guilt. From day one the controversy centered on one question: Did Sacco and Vanzetti get a fair trial? Once liberals convinced people that S & V did not get a fair trial the natural assumption is that liberals are never guilty as charged.

    As I said, I read quite a bit about S & V in my youth. Even without that opinion-forming foundation, I would still believe they were both guilty because liberalism’s intelligentsia responsible for making Sacco & Vanzetti a cause célèbre were no more to be trusted back in the 1920s than today’s pundits who cheer for criminals.

    NOTE: In the unlikely event Hillary Clinton is ever convicted the words “fair trial” will appear in every sentence television mouths spout.

    Parenthetically, Bruno Hauptmann was tried and executed for kidnapping and killing Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. in 1932. He was executed in 1936.

    In 1954 - 55, I came to know, rather than worked with, a retired cop who had been one of the lead detectives on the Bruno Hauptmann Case. He once told me that not one detective working that case thought Hauptmann was guilty. American Socialists/Communists drummed up so much anti-German sentiment, Hauptmann’s goose was cooked without real evidence.

    Should another defendant like Hauptmann come along you can bet that the intellectual effete of today will not be writing plays, making speeches, and all the rest of that passionate, caring, choked with emotion, garbage they reserve for one of their own.

    Guilt aside, the left-leaning intelligentsia is very selective in deciding when justice is being perverted. S & V were as guilty as hell back then, but they did not get a fair trial to hear liberals tell it. Apparently, Hauptmann did get a fair trial because I never saw a Democrat governor of New Jersey signing a proclamation clearing Hauptmann’s name posthumously.

    NOTE: Anna Hauptman did not have the political clout Sacco & Vanzetti had going for them:

    Defiant Widow Seeks to Reopen Lindbergh Case
    By WAYNE KING,
    Published: October 5, 1991

    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/05/ny...ergh-case.html

    And how much influence does the Sacco & Vanzetti controversy have with today’s judges in deciding what is and what is not fair? Answer: Not enough if you believe liberals and the ACLU.

    American Communists used Sacco & Vanzetti very effectively in order to acquire political power back in the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s. So why is S & V important after all of those years?

    Since Sacco & Vanzetti, how many convicted criminals have been released years after they were convicted because they did not get a ‘fair trial’? Knowing that a conviction is imminent, smart criminals without the resources to hire the best lawyers look for the dumbest lawyers available they can find. Nowadays, nobody can claim there was a fair trial when the defendant’s lawyer was a drunk or flagrantly incompetent. Winning on appeal is almost as good as beating the rap.

    Question: Is there such a thing as a trial being excessively fair? The result of the O. J. trial suggests that very possibility. O. J. should have thanked Sacco & Vanzetti when he walked. His murder trial, our courts, are about fair trials —— not the crime itself, and certainly not the victims.

    Let me close with a fictional military court-martial. The message in the entire movie was summed up in this brief scene:




    The message is clear. The U.S. military should fight for the U.N.’s global government agenda not fight to defend this country.

    p.s. If you saw the entire movie you will remember that Colonel Jessup was the villain because he put the country first.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    “Sacco & Vanzetti” has been a Communist rallying cry since the 1920s. Sacco & Vanzetti is the Left’s all-time favorite trial. It was the S & V trial that moved convicted criminals away from guilty —— not guilty —— into Communism’s definition of a fair trial.

    Cosby owes his release to Sacco & Vanzetti:

    Cosby's 2018 conviction of sexual assault in the case of Andrea Constand was overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that the former TV star had not been given a fair trial. They did not say that he was innocent, although Cosby has maintained that stance, even after scores of women accused him of sexual misconduct.


    Janice Dickinson felt like she had been 'kicked in the stomach' when Bill Cosby was released from prison
    Raechal Shewfelt
    July 2, 2021, 3:18 PM

    https://www.aol.com/entertainment/ja...191839497.html
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    1,417
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 71 Times in 70 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    37,798
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,805 Times in 13,108 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 825 Times in 784 Posts

    Default

    In Cosby's case, he made a deal with the DA's office and the prosecutor agreeing to plea out to civil cases against him by various women and pay the penalties for those civil cases. As part of that, Cosby gave testimony to the various claims made in those civil cases.
    That prosecutor retired and his replacement, seeing those statements and the resolution of the civil cases, decided to hit Cosby with criminal charges ignoring the previous deal Cosby had made with his predecessor.

    What the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania found was that this amounted was an abuse of power and that the plea deals Cosby had made in good faith should have been upheld. Thus, they tossed out his convictions. The prosecutor in this case fucked up because he didn't honor the deal Cosby had made with his office prior to his appointment that still held valid.

Similar Threads

  1. Question for JPP fair trial enthusiasts
    By Darth Omar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2020, 08:27 AM
  2. If the Senate allows a fair trial...
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 664
    Last Post: 12-24-2019, 02:20 PM
  3. Fair Trial Impossible in D.C. for Manafort
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-13-2018, 08:25 AM
  4. Was his trial fair?
    By Legion Troll in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-10-2015, 01:50 PM
  5. Did Eichman get a fair trial?
    By wolfspinne in forum Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-04-2011, 04:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •