There are numerous issues left hanging
in the wind in reference to the list of people that have testified
for the Paul Bergrin defense in this trial. We can only imagine the
level of abuse each witness has dealt with from agents, prosecutors,
and their minions for having the nerve to stand-up and offer the
information each has in defense of an innocent man suffering a false
prosecution. Do not take it lightly - that would be a serious
mistake.
I know little or nothing about most of
the defense witnesses. No newspapers have covered this trial
thoroughly and the one that has covered it lightly has an obvious
bias in favor of prosecutors. One thing I learned many years ago is
that a direct quote is believable and anything else stated is
questionable and may be altered entirely by an editor. Example:
Gallas said, "Blah blah blah and
blah." = believe that this person actually stated this in the
exact words.
Gallas said blah blah blah and blah. =
DO NOT believe it. The person could have stated absolutely anything
and the words may, or may not, have been changed by the editor.
The Orlando Sentinel taught me this in
reference to my own trial. When I called the reporter to state my
objections to how I was portrayed and what the article claimed I
stated, he went into defense mode and informed me that since
quotations were not used, I couldn't file a law suit. Well hell, I
didn't want to file a damn lawsuit - I just didn't understand how
they could omit facts that were truly important and then claim I
stated something that I never said. The above example is how this is
accomplished legally.
Let's take a look at the one article
published yesterday by a NJ newspaper concerning the testimony of
Lemont Love and the telephone call recording that prosecutors played
for the court. First the article and then a quote from the article:
After a final witness, Bergrin rests his case in murder, racketeering trial
On the recording, Love told someone he called “little brother” that he had information that could “bury” Bergrin but he wasn’t going to reveal it because “I ain’t never been no [expletive] snitch.”
Do you see how deceiving that quote can be? The only thing that we know is that Love stated the word "bury" and was talking to someone he refers to as "little brother" and he's not a snitch. It is more than possible that he stated the government wanted to bury Paul Bergrin to little brother on the other end, but a read of the entire article leaves the impression that Love had some sort of plot in mind when the conversation took place. The next paragraph accomplishes this mission when in reality it quotes AUSA John Gay in its entirety.
The reader has been deceived and doesn't even realize it. The impression is different than the reality of what Lemont Love actually stated in this long ago telephone conversation.
Now take a look at Lemont Love's statement to the attorney and investigator that visited him in prison back in July of 2012:
I was told that in person Lemont Love
is personable, soft-spoken, articulate and comes across as completely
honest. He was doing good in life until his brother died and then he
went off the deep end. He has always been a straight "A"
student and is a truly good human being that made mistakes after a
serious disaster in his life. He was close to his brother. He has
literally risked his life to testify truthfully in this trial. The
jury must weigh his testimony with all other testimony that they've
heard.
No doubt that the feds have seriously
scared this man. Anyone that dares to expose their true statements
and clear intent of false prosecution in this case would be despised
by the lot of them. Mr. Love is only one of many witnesses that the
defense has called and I will discuss the others in a late-night
post.
I feel that it is important for the
general public reading news about this trial to understand how
mainstream news will plant an idea regardless of the truth and
reality. This is the reason that I post all documents available to me
on this blog.
3 comments:
A bit speculative, don't you think, vicky?
What do you call speculative? My personal experience with the Orlando Sentinel and my knowledge of how editors use quotes or lack of quotes? My statement about the government treatment of defense witnesses? What specifically is speculation to you???
No, I do not think anything in the post is speculative.
I will go ahead and add that it was the Sentinel reporter that informed me that it was not in his control how the article was published. The editor edited it to present the viewpoint that she wanted for the newspaper. Both days of Sentinel stories on my trial were a misrepresentation of the facts and what actually happened in the courtroom. The parts that attributed specific statements to me, but without quotation marks, were outright lies and I had a witness to that fact: my attorney. The reporter approached us as we sat on a bench in the hallway talking.
The same way that the Sentinel has always had a clear bias in favor of the MBI and never published anything negative about the agency, the newspaper we are discussing in reference to the Bergrin trial, has a clear bias in favor of the government and never prints anything negative about its prosecutors, no matter what outrageous crap they do.
True investigative journalism is the baby that was thrown out with the bathwater long ago. At least this blog is clear as to the direction it takes - just read the blog title. Newspapers pretend to be presenting an impartial viewpoint of events as they actually happened, but really it's all BS. Anyone that has attended the Bergrin trials could tell you that much.
Post a Comment