Damn good film that, based on the events of the 'Guildford Four'.
It is based on the true story of the Guildford Four, four people falsely convicted of the 1974 Guildford pub bombings that killed four off-duty British soldiers and a civilian
Giuseppe's lawyer Gareth Peirce, who had been investigating the case on Giuseppe's behalf, discovers vital evidence related to Gerry's original alibi with a note attached that reads, "Not to be shown to the defense." Through a statement made by Charlie Burke, at a court appeal, it totally exonerates Gerry and the rest.
Might differ slightly IRL but the events of the film play out that the lawyer only finds out about the note because she keeps going in almost every day to review the case and the day she gets lucky is because when asking for the same evidence lot as always, [something like "the Conlon case" as both father and son were imprisoned], the normal guard [who is "on the take"/in on the framing and holding back the son's case notes], is off sick or something.
At this point I believe the father had already died in custody and it was his case notes she was [only] allowed to see, so when the stand in guard who isn't aware of the conspiracy asks which set of Conlon evidence she is asking for out of the father and son, she seizes the moment and asks for the son's case notes instead, which is where the aforementioned alibi has been since the start.
The film ends with the current activities of the wrongly accused, but also that the police who investigated the case were never prosecuted for any wrongdoing. The real perpetrators of the Guildford Bombing have not been charged with the crime.
On more than one occasion I was directed by the Travis County Attorney’s Office to remove exculpatory evidence that I had intended to present to the grand jury during my testimony. At that point, I specifically asked if there would be “ramifications” if I did not do so. I was told by assistant district attorney Guillermo Gonzalez that he would ask elected District Attorney, Jose Garza, what would happen if I refused to agree to the limitations I was being ordered to comply with. I was later sent an email simply reaffirming the exculpatory evidence subjects I was forbidden from mentioning during my testimony. Of my original 158 slide PowerPoint presentation, the presentation was reduced to 56 slides with almost all of the exculpatory evidence ordered removed. I felt like I did not have any other options but to comply with their orders.
In my mind, after this directive from Jose Garza, is when the conduct of the District Attorney’s Office when from highly unethical behavior to criminal behavior.”
What's he gonna do, prosecute himself? Have someonr in his offce do it? Special prosecutors require the agreement of the accused. Think he'll agree to anyone who would seriously pursue the charges?
There are plenty of remote islands in the world, I'm sure someone knows just how many people can survive on them due to land area and resources present.
Call it a "Free-range Affluent Government Guided Operations Training Site" and all the Wokie vegans will eat it up, [because they don't eat anything else huehuehue].
Grand juries do not get exculpatory evidence. The prosecutor doesn't appear to be wrong if the allegation only applies to the grabd jury. If that never made it to trial that would be a whole new kettle of fish. (That would never be prosecuted because of how the system is set up.)
Is open leftist corruption considered brazen when they don't give a shit about being caught?
Isn't there a law movie considered a goddamn masterpiece where revealing this sort of foul play was the climax?
Are you thinking of Presumed Innocent?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100404/
No, I think it was In the Name of the Father.
Damn good film that, based on the events of the 'Guildford Four'.
Might differ slightly IRL but the events of the film play out that the lawyer only finds out about the note because she keeps going in almost every day to review the case and the day she gets lucky is because when asking for the same evidence lot as always, [something like "the Conlon case" as both father and son were imprisoned], the normal guard [who is "on the take"/in on the framing and holding back the son's case notes], is off sick or something. At this point I believe the father had already died in custody and it was his case notes she was [only] allowed to see, so when the stand in guard who isn't aware of the conspiracy asks which set of Conlon evidence she is asking for out of the father and son, she seizes the moment and asks for the son's case notes instead, which is where the aforementioned alibi has been since the start.
Cuuunts.
That sounds like a good movie. Off to the high seas to see if I can find a copy!
I hear there is a good place for movies2watch such as this.
Yes indeed. Searching for movies2watch during the evening is very relaxing.
Shit like this is why I support vigilante justice.
how is that not an immediate arrest of him?
What's he gonna do, prosecute himself? Have someonr in his offce do it? Special prosecutors require the agreement of the accused. Think he'll agree to anyone who would seriously pursue the charges?
Life sentence in prison for the DA, the judge, and every member of the jury in that case.
And who's going to carry that out?
There are plenty of remote islands in the world, I'm sure someone knows just how many people can survive on them due to land area and resources present.
Call it a "Free-range Affluent Government Guided Operations Training Site" and all the Wokie vegans will eat it up, [because they don't eat anything else huehuehue].
Tell some Q guys that the judge knows where JFK Jr. is hiding, it'll work itself out.
"Siri, what are the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?"
Grand juries do not get exculpatory evidence. The prosecutor doesn't appear to be wrong if the allegation only applies to the grabd jury. If that never made it to trial that would be a whole new kettle of fish. (That would never be prosecuted because of how the system is set up.)