February 16, 2011
Jury Convicts Forde!
The Truth Is Out There...Why Didn't The Jury Acquit?
2-14-2011, after only 7 hours of deliberation, a jury voted unanimously to
convict Shawna Forde on all counts in her double murder trial. After a further discussion of 45 minutes,
this same jury voted to give Shawna the death penalty. This was in spite of defense attorney Eric
Larsen taking apart nearly every component of the prosecution's case. Valentine’s day is a sad day for all innocent
criminal defendants holding politically-incorrect views who’ve been tortured as
pre-trial detainees. It is a crime to
be a white, Christian, conservative woman who loves your country if you’re
caught in drug smuggler-loving Pima County.
Under the US Constitution, all defendants are presumed innocent unless they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s case fell far short of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A biased jury, composed of a majority of jurors with Hispanic last names, chosen without following the recommendations of an excellent jury consultant, saw its duty and did it. The most frustrating part of this was that the Committee for Justice for Shawna Forde knew from the very beginning that “the fix was in,” and Pima County’s agenda was to railroad Shawna Forde to death row, yet despite all our efforts, the railroad continued unabated, and the desired political result was achieved. One of the early goals was achieved easily: to keep a Minuteman in jail for as long as possible.
several factors which contributed to this miscarriage of justice. Securing a change of venue was
critical to ensuring a fair trial for the defendant. Shawna likely would not have even been tried in any other county
in Arizona. The judge denied change of
venue, that denial was not appealed to a higher court, and this move was
critical to accomplishing the railroading of Forde. The jury
consultant was hired to help select a fair and reasonable
jury, and donated most of her time. Without the help of Jan Spaeth and Margaret DiFrank, Shawna would have been forced to wear a black and white striped jail uniform to court and would have had no makeup.
There is a saying among jurists to the effect that we would rather see a hundred guilty men go free than allow a single innocent man to be falsely convicted. The Tucson jury that convicted Forde is sending America a message: when it comes to white conservatives, we would rather convict a hundred innocent people than let one guilty person go free. It was known from the beginning that Shawna was a victim of malicious prosecution.
In America, accused murderers like Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Black Panther Huey Newton, as well as O. J. Simpson, have been acquitted in cases where there was far more evidence of guilt than there was in the Shawna Forde case. Newton and Simpson are black. Ayers is white but hates America. Forde is white and loves America. That makes her a viable scapegoat in today's politically correct atmosphere.
The defense asserted that Shawna's cell phone was not in her possession when an incriminating exchange of text messages occurred between her phone and accused conspirator Albert Gaxiola's cell phone shortly after the crimes. They also maintained that jewelry that Forde allegedly stole from shooting victim Gina Gonzalez actually belonged to Shawna Forde all along. And DNA from one piece of jewelry only showed it could have belonged to a white woman, although the media twisted that to say it was Shawna’s. No evidence was presented to establish Gonzalez' ownership of the jewelry other than her say-so.