posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:20 AM
I spend a lot of time on this subject and I am reminded of what I saw on 20/20 a long time ago. A man was convicted of murdering his girlfriend and
sentenced to something like 800 years in prison. Only thing is, there was no proof that his girlfriend was even dead. The evidence they had was the
fact that his girlfriend was missing, there were some tracks coming from a pond that looked like someone had drug something out of it, and a neighbor
said she saw the boyfriend wearing a bloody shirt at 3 in the morning the same night the last time anyone had seen the girlfriend. That's it! That
was all the evidence, and a jury convicted this guy of first degree murder! I will reiterate, NO PROOF THIS PERSON WAS EVEN DEAD!
I feel the need to compare this to "My Cousin Vinny" as well. Neither the witnesses nor the prosecution harbored ill intentions towards the
defendants, yet they were willing to fully digest the "official story". It wasn't until Joe Pesci contested the witness accuracy that the jury's
"faith" in the "official story" started to dissipate. Then he finally found the "smoking gun". Incontrovertible proof that the defendants'
car could not have made the tire tracks at the crime scene. So then, they knew that the defendants' could not have done it. I could go on, but I
would just like to see some comments at this point. Thanks for the feedback