And to put it another way: the government is supposed to be deliberately handicapped at trial by the provisions set out in the Bill of Rights, the presumption of innocence of the defendant on trial, and by the burden of proof imposed mostly on the government.
Any outwardly perceived resulting "balance" in the the legal process at trial is always/only a direct result of that deliberate pre-handicapping of the government's case - if that handicapping was not/is not firmly in place both before, during and after that trial, then the trial itself would be a criminal scam, it seems to me.[ "a miscarriage of justice", in polite language :-) ]
I would urge you[again] to take a close look at the illustration that heads this article to get the idea, I am trying to put across here.
Why Is The Automatic Imbalance/"Handicapping" Against The Government's Case At Trial Always Supposed To Be In Place?
This automatic pre-bias against the governments case and all of its alleged evidence exists because the individuals who wrote the BoR all those years ago fully understood [from personal experience at the hands of King George and the British Empire], just how easy it was for the government, with its enormous power and almost unlimited finances,to wholly manufacture any/all evidence and witnesses it needed against those it wished to silence and imprison, and to operate "kangaroo courts", and secret courts that would carry out the King's and the British Empires agenda via 100's [1000's?] of fraudulent convictions of American colonist's and their sympathizers.
Which is, of course, exactly what he/it did, on a daily basis, for years - hence, the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, "and all that jazz".
Foreigners Don't "Get It"?
Now, why it might not be expected for the average foreign, non-US born 9/11 investigator to understand that deliberate in-built, pre-bias against the governments case and all its supposed evidence for any/all real-world criminal trials, you'd maybe think that at least some current American 9/11 investigators would themselves understand these ultra- important, systemic legal concepts. Yes?
NO - Most Americans Don't "Get It" Either!
Well sadly,you'd be wrong- in point of fact, at this time there appears to be not one name US 9/11 investigator who has even the faintest idea of these simple concepts , including of course, yours truly, Prof. Fetzer, who boldly claims:
"I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years......you can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us." **
Forget Prof. Fetzer's Pro- Government "Burden of Proof" Assertion!
And so, even without yours or somebody else's 9/11 criminal trial on the horizon [I would hope], and assuming you still have some respect for the legal process/methodology and principles I have attempted to briefly outline here, I would humbly suggest that for your very own personal 9/11 investigations conducted outside of a courtroom, that it might be exceedingly wise of you to completely disregard the decidedly pro-government "burden of proof" assertions of credentialed, supposed "authority figures" such Prof. Fetzer, and to not just [like him] go ahead and blindly trust, outside of a courtroom trial, without extremely close, detailed examination/re-examination of any/all alleged possible "evidence" that the government might conceivably try to use in the future, inside a courtroom, including :
1] any/all alleged "live" MSM video footage.[regardless of alleged source]
2] any/all other alleged videos and photos[regardless of alleged source]
3] any/all alleged "eye-witness testimony"[regardless of alleged source]
4] any/all alleged official government reports [ e.g. U.S.G.S. and D.O.E.];
..... and for you to remain extremely doubtful as to the authenticity of any part of any of them, either collectively or individually, unless and until such time as you can definitively and independently establish its/their authenticity and accuracy.
Question: Where Is _YOUR_ Personal Burden of Proof Going To Be Mostly Imposed In Your Own Ongoing 9/11 "Search For Truth" - On The Government, or On Those Who Seriously Question Any/All Of It's Alleged "Evidence"?
Knowing/understanding what you now hopefully do about the true legal status of all unexamined evidence that might be presented by the government at your own future criminal trial [or somebody elses], and failing such a trial; and for your own private investigations outside of a courtroom, are you really willing to just go ahead and blindly trust any alleged possible "evidence" that the government might, in the future , conceivably try to use to convict 9/11 defendants, just like Mr Fetzer and others apparently do and would, without ever bothering to closely examine it, and to thereby completely ignore basic, systemic common law principles, safety measures and pre-biases against any/all possible government evidence both present and future; common law principles and procedures that, after a revolution was fought and won, were deliberately incorporated into the US legal criminal process all those years ago?
You tell me.
As always, in the end, it's your choice. [Related question: if you truly understand the enormous power of the US government, do you really want it to have "a level playing field" in its very own courts , where its own, government-paid judges preside, let alone for it to be able to have non-defense-examined alleged evidence ruled as "genuine" by the presiding federal judge?]
Ignore These Principles ? Then Don't Complain About a "Guilty" Verdict at Yours, Your Spouse's,Your Children's, or Your Best Friend's Possible Future Trial - "You Made Your Bed- Now Lay In It"?
But remember, if you agree with Mr Fetzer and [it seems] 99.9% of the "9/11 Truth Movement", regarding the unexamined, "prima facie" truthfulness of much of the so-called 9/11 evidence, if you yourself, or your wife, children, or close friend ever in real life find yourselves facing criminal prosecution in the US at the state or federal level [for whatever "crime"- it does not have to be 9/11 related], and if the defense is not allowed to thoroughly examine in the courtroom any/all of the alleged evidence that the prosecution tries to use to try to prove your/their guilt at such a trial, then you really cannot complain, should a guilty verdict against you or them ever be reached now, can you?
After all, you "made your bed, so now lie in it", as the saying goes.
Afterword: The Terrifying Truth In The U.S.
The terrifying truth of the matter [to a "madman" like me, at least], is that in the good ole' USA, by his/their own admissions, Mr Fetzer and many others similarly indoctrinated have apparently been "teaching" the exact opposite of those very easy to understand legal principles to their students - in effect teaching them that in their own private "criminal" investigations of whatever [carried out outside of a courtroom,of course], that it is perfectly OK for them to simply trust practically any/all supposed current or future "evidence" that the government and media feeds the public - with almost no questions asked, and that, failing an actual trial, outside of a US courtroom, that in these types of instances the burden of proof must always fall heavily on the individual investigators contesting the reliability of any/all parts of the governments possible "evidence" that it might in future use at trial, and not instead at all times on the government itself and all of its alleged evidence.
It's "Politically Incorrect" To Be Pre-Biased Against Any/All Possible Government 9/11 [ or Other] "Evidence"?
And that subsequently, according to those same "teachers", there is never any real need for that "serious", "honest" 9/11investigator to ever start their own private investigation from the "politically incorrect" position of pre-doubt and pre-bias against any/all of the governments alleged story and it's present or possible future "evidence", and therefor, failing an actual trial, it is perfectly OK for that individual investigator to never take the time necessary to closely examine any/all types/categories of that alleged governmental or media "evidence" that might conceivably be used by it at any imagined future trial, and for them to ever try to make a sincere attempt at trying to determine for themselves whether or not any part of such government "evidence" is in fact genuine.
"You Say You Want [Another] Revolution, Yeah"
Such is the sorry state of "9/11 Truth Research" and "truth research" in general, it seems - and, more importantly, such is the sad state of the average Americans understanding of the original concepts, biases and protections of the Bill of Rights and common law vis a vis state and US federal [and state]criminal trials - principles for which a revolution was fought more than 200 years ago.[What a waste of time that apparently was.]
These days, most [including,it would seem, nearly all "serious" 9/11 investigators], believe that almost anything the government and/or the MSM feeds them, either inside or outside of a courtroom, is practically "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", and that most of its "evidence" either before, or at trial, should never,ever be seriously questioned by an individual researcher, especially not when starting from that "terrifying", "politically incorrect" pre-assumptive, philosophically biased position that that government's "evidence" is either miserably inept, simply mistaken in nature, or even worse, deliberately falsified .
Well, I wish them all "good luck" with their, er......"politically correct" "ideas", at their own trials,[should they occur]. Luck- they are going to need plenty of it - "so help them, God".
Regards, onebornfree.
So the defense might well be forced to accept as genuine "evidence" , "evidence" against the defendant [you? me?] that it has never had the opportunity to thoroughly examine in front of the jury!
If you think that that would be "OK" with you [Prof Fetzer and others "too numerous to mention"probably do] you might want to be reminded that the judge him/herself is always a federal employee, and that the trial always would take place inside a government owned/operated courtroom. How's that for a pre-bias for the defense to overcome?
