INNOCENT PERSONS ARE EASIEST TO CONVICT
How can innocent people defend themselves from the accusations
of the entrenched, hereditary elite? Only by proving a negative preposition, it
would seem. "I swear I was not where you say I was two months ago:" The
trouble with proving a negative preposition is that it is impossible. The
accuses can only say, "I don't know" or "I was somewhere else." Usually
the only possible 'defense' is the "I dunno" defense- because the cops and
prosecutors usually don't attack with their accusations until months after
the crime was committed. Also, once they choose their target, cops and
their 'experts' contrive to expand or shift the time of the crime to dodge the
alibi of their target, if he has one. (Special judge-imposed, prosecutor-favoring
disclosure laws force the targeted accusee to reveal his defense at least ten days
before trial. This facilitates the prosecutor and cop efforts to nail their target by
allowing them to switch the 'facts' to their benefit.)
Because the cops enjoy a monopoly of all the 'facts', the crime
scene, even the type of accusations, it is virtually impossible for the
victim of their accusations to escape conviction once targeted. (The
lawyer's system enjoys approximately a 99% successful conviction rate for
just these reasons. As I've said before, to be this good, you have to
cheat. As previously explained, the much over-hyped 'alibi' defense only
works in Hollywood and TV fantasies. The public, and especially jurors, are
subtly programed to disbelieve alibi witnesses because they are usually
friends or relatives of the target. Jurors automatically assume that
they lie for the accuses due to this closeness and fail to realize or
take into account the fact that most people spend little time with
strangers or enemies.
Another way cops and prosecutors screw innocent persons on alibi
defenses is by hiding the expanse of time in which an alibi is required
for as long as possible, and by being able to shift the expanse of time
by a maximum extent of hours, sometimes even days. This way
the prosecutor can increase the number of possible opportunities that
their target could have 'slipped away' to perform crime. Jurors love to
believe any kind of 'Master Criminal!' v. 'Sherlock Holmes' nonsense the
prosecutors and cops typically serve up to them. Worse, furors love
especially to thwart such supposed master criminals 6y convicting them
despite a complete lack of real evidence. The prosecutor's titillating
story is 'evidence' enough for most jurors. Jurors erroneously believe
cops and prosecutors are somehow more honest and worthy of belief than
other citizens. Also jurors are universally ignorant of common lawcrat
conviction tricks such as lying-by-omission, preservation of ignorance,
etc. (I e, when cops lie to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor chooses to
believe the lie and weaves it into his conviction stories, the
prosecutor, technically, is not himself lying, at least according to
common lawyer's system thought. Lawcrats have many such ruses.)
Guilty persona have the advantage over innocent accusees in so far as
they have some idea of what occurred despite the cop and courtcrat
monopoly of the crime scene, the evidence and the accusations. Because of
this knowledge the guilty have a much better possibility of dodging cop
and prosecutor/judge shenanigans. They know something of what to ex-
pact from the cope and courtcratas and thus can plan a real defense that
beats the Hell out of "I dunno" and "What the Hell ar you talking about!?"
defenses.
Yes, innocent persons make much easier targets than the guilty. They
are easy to convict for the above reasons and because they believe the absolute
horse shit of "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear." Innocent persons
have the most to fear: because they are programed to believe no evil is possible
of the cop and lawcrat crew, fully 10% of all convictees are
innocent. Cops and lawcrats have absolute power to become absolutely corrupt
with time. The system is not evil; the Gluttons of Privilege who control it ARE!