Lies the government told you by Andrew Napolitano (big screen ebook reader .TXT) 📕

that “in a capital case, a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence made after trial would render the execution of the defendant unconstitutional . . . the threshold showing for such an assumed right would necessarily be extraordinarily high.”15

First the court held that killing an innocent man is not unconstitutional, then it declares that even if it was, the man must prove his innocence under the most extraordinary of standards of proof to be able to invoke the natural right to live.

Government Lies About Guilt

The Herrera v. Collins decision is especially frightening when considered in the light of the falsely convicted persons who have been proven innocent through DNA analysis. It only shows how indisputably false is the idea that our system protects the innocent. And while the government can continue to preach what it wants us to believe, it is widely apparent that the innocent, especially after they have had their day in court, no longer matter, even when they have incontrovertible evidence of their innocence.

The Innocence Project, a nonprofit organization created by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, strives, through DNA analysis, to free the innocent who have been wrongly convicted and incarcerated. Unsurprisingly, one of its discoveries was that governmental misconduct was a factor in 50 percent of their first seventy-four DNA exonerations. The majority included suppression of exculpatory evidence by the police and prosecution, knowing use of false testimony, coercing witnesses, and fabricating evidence.16 These are the actions of the same governments whose schools so strongly claim to believe in “innocent until guilt is proven.”

The prosecutors and police officers, who are supposed to enforce the law, are actually ensuring that the innocent are proven guilty, all the while claiming that their suspects are presumed innocent. The question is though, if they believed their lies, why would they suppress and fabricate evidence? Why would they feel the need to coerce witnesses? Either they want the innocent to be jailed or they actually do not believe in the presumption, and feel that those whom they suspect are “guilty” are indeed guilty, no matter what the law says and no matter what evidence contradicts their beliefs.

The examples of this type of conduct are wide-ranging; but one extreme example lies in the case of Jeffrey R. MacDonald, M.D. Dr. MacDonald was a twenty-six-year-old Army captain living on base with his wife and two young daughters and leading a very fulfilling life. Having accomplished the goals he had set for himself, Jeffrey was a successful and happy man. But that happiness was shattered on February 17th 1970. Intruders broke into his home, brutally murdered his wife and two daughters, and attempted to murder Jeff himself. Resuscitated by the military police, he was rushed to the hospital, where he remained in the Intensive Care Unit for over a week for treatment of his multiple stab wounds, as well as a collapsed lung. While on the way to the hospital, Jeff described the intruders as a woman with long, blond hair covered by a floppy hat, and two other males, one white and the other black. With these descriptions he provided to police, he hoped that justice would be served and those responsible for the killings would be held responsible. Yet, rather than follow up, the government focused on Jeff as its prime suspect from the beginning of the case, even when the Army had investigated and cleared him and had given him an honorable discharge.

It took them nine years, until one of the Army lawyers assigned to the case, Brian Murtagh, was transferred to the Department of Justice and realized that the case had not yet been closed. As there were no suspects, Murtagh decided to refocus attention on Jeff. And his witch hunt led to what amounted to a story backed by only the most minute of circumstantial evidence. Unfortunately for Jeff, the one witness who could have helped, Helena Stoeckley, who had testified for the prosecution so many times in many other cases and had herself confessed to the crime, was determined to be an “unreliable witness,” and therefore those persons to whom she had confessed were not permitted to relate that testimony to Jeff ’s jury. During her testimony, Helena admitted to owning a blond wig and floppy hat but had destroyed them, because they connected her to the murders. Still, the jury convicted Jeff, and he was sentenced to three life terms. His conviction was originally overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and he had a taste of freedom, until in 1982, when the Supreme Court reinstated his conviction and returned him to prison.

Of course, Jeff filed multiple appeals, but the trial judge denied them all. Helena Stoeckley continued to confess to various individuals her role in the murder. Jeff also found out that the prosecution had hidden exculpatory evidence and lied to the jury, claiming that no signs of intruders were found even though Jeff found case file notes stating that long, blond wig fibers had been found, as well as black wool fibers not linked to the house. He also learned that a crime lab tech had falsely testified that the synthetic blond hair found at the scene did not come from a wig. This same crime lab tech would later be fired from the lab when evidence was found of multiple deceptions in various cases.

One of the prosecutors on the case, James Blackburn, was later disbarred and charged with twelve counts of dishonesty, including embezzlement and changing court documents. A former U.S. Marshal came forward twenty-six years later (How could he live with himself—waiting so long before coming forward—while Jeff was in a federal prison?), avowing and passing a polygraph stating that he had witnessed a conversation between Helena Stoeckley and the prosecutor, wherein she confessed to committing the murders, and the prosecutor threatened to indict her for murder if she testified to that.

Even when DNA results were finally available in 2006, eight-and-a-half years after they had been ordered, and