When Conspiracy Theories Become Prima Facie Evidence
juni 19, 2007 Legg igjen en kommentar
by John J. Albanese
PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE – Latin for «at first view.»
Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.
I have a simple question for our media.
When does the collective evidence associated with any crime cease to be a “conspiracy theory”, and rise to the level of Prima-Facie evidence actionable in a criminal court of law?
I submit to you that the words “conspiracy theory” are meaningless within the realm of professional journalism and law. Virtually all crimes investigated by journalists, and actionable in a court of law, starts with prima-facie evidence and theories. The commonly perceived notion that Richard Nixon, and his staff, were actively covering-up complicity in the Watergate break-in did not constitute a “conspiracy theory.” It was just good old-fashioned investigative journalism based on the available evidence and whistle-blowers.
Although we are all afforded an assumption of innocence by our legal system, prima-facie evidence and prosecutorial theories are the backbone of any criminal case.
So what does constitute Prima Facie evidence?
How many high-ranking whistle-blowers from within our own military and governmental institutions is an acceptable number of witnesses, before our journalists begin to recognize that a prima-facie threshold for investigating 9/11 has been reached?
How many accredited researchers must meticulously detail every lie, distortion, omission and intentional cover-up by this administration before our journalists stop referring to “conspiracy theories” and begin acknowledging that a prima-facie threshold for action has been reached?
How much expert testimony and foremost authorities on national defense and counter-terrorism and geopolitics and history and law must officially step forward and challenge the official story, before our journalists accept their expert opinions, on a prima-facie basis, as making a credible case for opening an investigation?
How much physical evidence must be accumulated and laws of physics defied?
It is a relatively easy shortcut for the media. Summarily dismiss the meticulous research of accredited researchers and experts in their fields. Summarily dismiss the mountains of evidence and contradictions. Summarily dismiss all the whistle-blowers. Simply call it all “conspiracy theories.”
On August 2, 2006 the Washington Post reported that the 9/11 Commissioners considered criminal charges against NORAD for knowingly providing them with false information. (Uthevelse tilføyet) Yet, the 9/11 commissioners went ahead with their report anyway, and five years after 9/11 the American public still does not know what is the truth.
And our media refers to us as “conspiracy theorists?”
Where does accountability fit into this equation?
Conspiracy theories are the last tragic refuge of a society that has been utterly abandoned by its journalists. Conspiracy theories are the product of cover-ups and lies and magic bullets and commission reports that never quite all adds up.
But 9/11 is different. I witnessed myself the thousands of protestors who attended the 9/11 anniversary at ground zero in New York City. I saw the growing anger and frustration with my own eyes.
I suggest that our media takes a break from their work and casts an eye out of the windows of their ivory towers. The American public is gathering down below, in ever-increasing numbers, and they appear to be sharpening their knives.