I spoke to Gareth Icke for his Gareth Icke Tonight program about the evidence revealing the so-called Manchester Arena bombing was a hoaxed false flag.
I'd like to add that the courts ability to ignore or disregard evidence is not new. I'm in Canada, and during my trial, evidence was presented that clearly demonstrated that Crown witnesses lied, and that I was innocent. The evidence were documents pulled from the Crown's own disclosure files.
In the judgment by the court after my appeal hearing, the first sentence read that it is the right of any judge to ignore or disregard any evidence they do not wish to consider.
I referenced this fact in the opening pages of my book, which I published in 2012 called Summer Camp for the Anarchist.
A few decades ago I was selected for jury duty on two occasions.
But I was able to get out of jury duty by writing to the court that I new that the jury has to make there decision based on the evidence that is presented to them. But that the judge will decide what evidence is admissible. The police and prosecution can also decide what evidence to present to the judge. Also the police can decide what evidence to gather who to question or not question plus there may be other evidence that they are not aware of.
So the Jury can not know if they have all the facts when deciding on a verdict.
Often as in the Manchester event the government find a way to avoid a proper coroners examination and an inquest. But it is a mistake to think a coroner or inquest would reveal the truth although they might show how the truth is being avoided.
When an inquest was held into my brothers death it was held by a temporary magistrate without a jury. Before the inquest we had inform the coroner of our suspicions around my brothers death that were partly supported by the Hospital inquiry. I was not told in advance I would be able to question the witnesses, Few witnesses were selected and very few questioned asked by the judge. When I questioned the pathologist he said that not tests had been done and no samples kept. The evidence that we had and that of the hospital inquiry were not raised. So Coroners and inquests can not be relied on.
More regurgitating the same old excrement, while evading any potent resonance & insight then ?🙄😂 Keep your audience in frustrated indignation Iaini .
I will have a checklist ready & see how many predictable boxes you tick , while you are busy promoting fake court theatre threats= that is your mission these days, & that is also your curse it appears.
Or maybe I will not, as it is more money parasite games of having to pay to listen to misery
🙄😂😆😂
who TF pays to listen to this crap, only family, friends & controlled ops on the payroll?
Cheers Ian
Excellent interview. Well done.
I'd like to add that the courts ability to ignore or disregard evidence is not new. I'm in Canada, and during my trial, evidence was presented that clearly demonstrated that Crown witnesses lied, and that I was innocent. The evidence were documents pulled from the Crown's own disclosure files.
In the judgment by the court after my appeal hearing, the first sentence read that it is the right of any judge to ignore or disregard any evidence they do not wish to consider.
I referenced this fact in the opening pages of my book, which I published in 2012 called Summer Camp for the Anarchist.
Yes, it is shocking. No, not new.
I feel for Richard, cause I've been him.
Kangaroo trials are the norm when the state is pursuing those it considers dangerous.
Lol should read the transcript from my trial. Incredible stuff.
A few decades ago I was selected for jury duty on two occasions.
But I was able to get out of jury duty by writing to the court that I new that the jury has to make there decision based on the evidence that is presented to them. But that the judge will decide what evidence is admissible. The police and prosecution can also decide what evidence to present to the judge. Also the police can decide what evidence to gather who to question or not question plus there may be other evidence that they are not aware of.
So the Jury can not know if they have all the facts when deciding on a verdict.
Often as in the Manchester event the government find a way to avoid a proper coroners examination and an inquest. But it is a mistake to think a coroner or inquest would reveal the truth although they might show how the truth is being avoided.
When an inquest was held into my brothers death it was held by a temporary magistrate without a jury. Before the inquest we had inform the coroner of our suspicions around my brothers death that were partly supported by the Hospital inquiry. I was not told in advance I would be able to question the witnesses, Few witnesses were selected and very few questioned asked by the judge. When I questioned the pathologist he said that not tests had been done and no samples kept. The evidence that we had and that of the hospital inquiry were not raised. So Coroners and inquests can not be relied on.
Great interview well done Iain
Good to see Ikonic highlighting the issue of Manchester
More regurgitating the same old excrement, while evading any potent resonance & insight then ?🙄😂 Keep your audience in frustrated indignation Iaini .
I will have a checklist ready & see how many predictable boxes you tick , while you are busy promoting fake court theatre threats= that is your mission these days, & that is also your curse it appears.
Or maybe I will not, as it is more money parasite games of having to pay to listen to misery
🙄😂😆😂
who TF pays to listen to this crap, only family, friends & controlled ops on the payroll?