posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:45 AM
Originally posted by jsobecky
It begs the question as to why he or his lawyers didn't produce this so-called 'evidence' at his trial or during his 8-year imprisonment.
It is important however to acknowledge that we don't really know anything at all. Aside from eye-witness and first hand accounts, all we know is
whatever the court allowed to be known.
He will probably use this opportunity to indict the legal system which subjected him to imprisonment in the first place. We may see either
testimonial or evidenciary motions that were not officially part of his case because the court so deemed it, disallowed it, or censured it. And
therein will lie his case.
Thus those with bias will always be able to stand on the grounds of it's not being legitimate. While those contrary to the position will always
stand on the grounds of the failings, inadequacies, or inherent bias, in the legal machinery.
Either way, politicians win.
I suspect there was a diplomatic quid-pro-quo which contributed heavily to this mans life, as he became a pawn in a much more theatrical show; the
kind we don't get to find out about until a generation later.
[asbestos suit on]
[edit on 22-8-2009 by Maxmars]