EYEWITNESS THIS:

The primary problem with the lawyer's system is well known and even admitted to by progressive-minded cops, lawyers and politicians who have read studies on this matter: FALSE IDENTIFICATION BY EYEWITNESS. What they refuse to admit, though, is the fairly obvious fact that false identification by eyewitnesses is assisted by the cops and prosecutors. Yes, cops, having inside information on everyone as a result of their investigations and their secret files on citizens, actively steer eyewitnesses toward their target of choice. Sometimes the eyewitness is right, and sometimes the eyewitness is wrong. In a minimum of 15% of cases, the witness is wrong, the cops are wrong, the prosecutor is wrong, and the wrong man is convicted and caged. The actual culprit is thus encouraged by his escape from justice to commit more, WORSE crimes. He eventually gets caught due to sheer repitition of crime, and the cops, lawcrats, politicians and media hacks smugly point to this and proclaim, "THE SYSTEM WORKS:"

Hundreds of studies prove several things that the authorities refuse to act on; eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable even under the best of circumstances; eyewitnesses are easily manipulated; cops often deliberately steer witnesses onto preferred targets when no clear culprit is uncovered after a short investigation, and; police and prosecutors ACTUALLY PREFER eyewitnesses to physical, scientific proof because they are easily manipulated and their pointing fingers are swiftly, deeply believed by jurors.

Crime is hard to solve. Most crimes cannot be properly solved, but, plenty y of possible, convictable targets can be generated by simply consulting the cops' crime computer. Overuse of this crime computer results in a recycling of old criminals rather than the conviction of new criminals. This practice is the main reason that criminology suffers such an unacceptably high number of false-positives. Elementary statistical analysis shows us that the cops and lawyers are only correct 85$ of the time. Worse, this is an absolute minimum figure. There are undoubtedly many more innocents who are verbally bludgeoned into accepting plea "bargains" though they are innocent because the cop/prosecutor/judge/public defender teams and politicians have made a mockery of the juror/trial system. (See my treatise, "Innocent's Guide to Avoiding False Conviction".). .

How do we force corrections upon these systems that have been allowed to run amok due to citizen apathy? The primary way the system is corrupted is through an unchecked police force. Police suffer almost ZERO quality control, no citizen oversight, are allowed to shirk or bypass any scientific controls and suffer no real punishment when they are caught creating witness perjury, caught stealing or destroying evidence, or caught lying in court under oath to jurors. We have known for many decades that the easiest, most often used way that cops create false convictions is through their manipulations of witnesses. This being the case, the correction is to force police to adopt elementary scientific controls with regard to witnesses. Witnesses and the one cop who would be allowed to interview her would be videotaped. No prompting of the witnesses by the cops would be permitted, only a straightforward description of events and culprit by the witness. These initial, most accurate and truthful descriptions would thus be nailed down and certified. In this way we would be most assurred that cops could not later return and trick or coerce witnesses into changing their stories to suit cop ends. This ability of cops to later return and manipulate witnesses is well-known to be the major cause of false conviction of innocents and the escape of the guilty. If this one simple effort at quality control is ever implemented, there is every likelihood that actual crime rates would drop slightly, because when the guilty escape punishment, they are encouraged to perform more, worse, criminal acts.

Cops routinely find one witness, then trick, coerce or steer other witnesses to agree with the cops' preferred witness. This is called "witness enhancement" in cop/prosecutor parlance, and this method of bolstering credence in otherwise shakey or false witnesses is a secondary cause of false convictions.

A very subtle and yet universal shenanigan pulled in courtrooms daily nationwide is the use of mere fingerpointing to substitute for an actual, factual identification of a culprit. We've all seen this nonsense, either in court or in cheap, Hollywood depictions of "court". Prior to trial, the prosecution witnesses are told to arrive early for a secret confab where their trial testimony is rehearsed. The FIRST thing that the cops and prosecutors do is make absolutely certain that every witness they use knows two things: WHERE the target of their accusations will be sitting and EXACTLY WHAT he looks like. Over the many decades of perpetrating this scam and never getting caught or punished for it, cops and prosecutors have become very lax about this. Now they don't usually have their witnesses salivate over a police mugshot picture of their target. They usually just take prosecution witnesses out to the courtroom prior to trial and point out the EXACT CHAIR that their target will be made to sit in. The judge/prosecutor team usually have configured their courtrooms to place this "CHAIR OF CONVICTION", as they sometimes laughingly call it, directly in front of the witness' chair, or as close as possible. This is purposely done so as to create the absolute shortest distance between the pointing finger and its target, for best dramatic effect. (Court and trial is mere theatre, and cases are often won at the very moment that this finger of accusation is thrust. For many jurors, this single act is enough for them to start . squirming in their seats, wishing that the lawyers would just step aside and shut up long enough for them to vote for guilt and bail out. At trial, this flagrant fraud of allowing rehearsed, engineered fingerprinting to masquerade as real identification of a culprit is the largest cause of false conviction, above even perjury by cops, the second most flagrant, common fraud perpetrated at trial by courtcrats.

To show you how almost totally worthless is eyewitness identification of strangers, just look up Miscovsky v OK (circa 1970: I don't have the actual citiation). This is a case where lawyer George Miscovsky was cited for contempt of court because he dared to show up eyewitness identification for the flagrant FRAUD it is.

Miscovsky was a rich, influential lawyer who had been at the profession of lawyering for many years. He had made many friends within the lawyers' system, and was known by many as a "fix-it" lawyer for those wealthy enough to afford him. Just such a wealthy client found him. She had been lightly "arrested" for mere shoplifting. Nothing much was going to happen to her-she would only have to pay the head courtcrat a fine. Trouble was, though, she was an ignorant rich lady who was terrified of going to jail. The arresting cop and the merchant she stole from both took much evil pleasure in torturing her with visions of years in a prison cesspit.

She believed it all, and was determined to buy the BEST lawyer for the BEST defense and make sure he had PLENTY of money to get her JUSTICE.

Miscovsky saw how rich and terrified she was. He assurred her that he was the BEST, most COMPETENT lawyer for the job. This standard legal boilerplate of plenty of platitudes, but no substance or promises, was not enough. Miscovsky had seen her fear and charged accordingly, meaning outrageously. She did not flinch at the price, but Miscovsky had not detected her bargaining ability. She wrote the huge check for cash, but unlike 99% of all the usual dupes who purchased lawyers, she refused to let go of the check. She demanded that he promise to get her completely off the cops' and lawcrats' hook. For the huge price she was paying, she would accept no less. Miscovsky knew there was a way, and to get the money, he made the promise in writing. (He was forced to do this through the virtue of escrow. If most people were as shrewd as this woman, and forced lawyers to NAME the EXACT SERVICE they would have to perform to get the money, the lawyers' system would get a LOT more honest very quickly.)

Miscovsky took the deal. Soon as he got her off, the escrow company would pay him her money. If not, she paid nothing. Miscovsky ran to his pal, the prosecutor, to get a favor. For unknown reasons, the prosecutor was not going to let the woman escape justice. Miscovsky ran to his OTHER courtcrat buddie, the judge. Perhaps Miscovsky didn't offer any of the woman's pie-he only asked for a favor. The judge wasn't giving out any free favors either. Even the cop who was called by the merchant and the merchant would not submit to Miscovsky's coy persuasions.

So he would have to do it the "bad" way-Miscovsky had sold law long enough around the courthouse to figure he could get away with it, one time. The plan was simple and easy, and so extremely effective that it is never portrayed on TV-showing this sly trick to the public at large would give them too many big ideas. Plus it would cause the lawcrats too many tons of trouble. The lawcrats are so terrified that the public may learn their dirty little secret flaw in their dirty little eyewitness system that the judges have OUTLAWED the pulling of this simple trick in their courtrooms. But don't look for this outlawry to be printed anywhere inside their written books of court rules. OH NO: THIS trick is so dangerous to the lawyers' system and its "justice" that it is never written down, and never even mentioned verbally-it is not even spoken of until it is needed to outlaw this specific "crime" at the very instant that it is discovered to have occurred.

The court date approached; "trial" began. The merchant testified that he had seen the woman stealing from his shop, and pointed at her in court. "That's her!" he denounced. Next, the arresting cop was brought in. He testified under oath that the shoplifting woman had confessed to him after her arrest and during his driving her to his jail for criminal processing. Could he see this woman in the courtroom today? "Yes:" he said loudly, pointing at the woman next to her defense lawyer. "That's her", he shouted confidently, "right there. Yes, I'm absolutely positive."

"That's odd," commented Miscovsky during cross examination. "Because my client is over there, in the empty seats reserved for the public. Judge, I call for dismissal of charges, because neither the victim nor the arresting officer has identified my client as the culprit."

The judge's head nearly exploded with his rage. He shrieked at this Miscovsky about courtroom "ethics" and "(unwritten) rules". He had a hissing "conference" with Miscovsky at his throne-like "bench" out of hearing of the non-courtcrats, then he, the prosecutor and Miscovsky retired to the secrecy of the judge's luxury apartment "chambers" so they could both shout at Miscovsky. The major portion of this "trial" (hearing) is not recorded anywhere, and it takes quite a bit of sleuthing, courtcrat ass-kissing and warehouse searching even to find this "public" record. After this gets published, the lawcrats may decide that they will take the trouble to look it up themselves and make it unfindable. No matter-the judge slammed Miscovsky with CONTEMPT OF COURT, and this record was published in the caselaw books. Miscovsky appealed the charge, and within this appeal are a few details of the original basis for the judge's apoplexy.

It turns out that "Defendant Switching" is verbally outlawed by the judges it is pulled on exactly because it is nearly 100% effective in forcing the cop/prosecutor/judge team to stop their conviction efforts. Eyewitness identification of strangers is almost totally useless as a means of convicting the guilty if done as it should be-scientifically, as a doubleblind exercise in which no one is permitted to supply the fingerpointer with clues or hints as to who she should pick.

Yes, because Miscovsky was such an arrogant, distasteful, unpleasant man who couldn't get a free favor from cop, prosecutor, judge or merchant, (he once publicly called fellow lawcrat David Boren a homosexual when they were fighting over the Oklahoma Governor's seat) we now possess incontrovertable proof of the casual legal corruption involved in the fraud of courtroom "identification " of the "guilty".

It is ASTOUNDING that such flagrant and obvious deceits and frauds as these of lawcrats, cops, eyewitnesses and judges can be perpetrated thousands of times daily in this nation's courtrooms without anyone noticing and crying FOUL! (Of course we can't expect the media to do this, though they have to sometines glimpse these frauds, because they are in bed with the courthouse crooks themselves, "for the common good" so to speak, but more probably because if they grew some ethics and independent thought, and decried these frauds, they would not be invited to enjoy courtroom or other government largesse ever again.)

And we have the arrogance to call ourselves intelligent and civilized!