Court Systems Should use Existing Truth Technology Now
Our civilization as we know it is based upon laws. Laws that protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
In the Bible there are two kinds of ministers. The ministers of the gospel that preach God’s word to all that would hear it, and the ministers of justice that enforce the laws that God has created. In our modern world these ministers of justice are the judges, lawyers and law enforcement personnel of our court system. These officers of the court spend many years of study in their chosen professions. They sacrifice money, homes and family lives to protect you and me.
The majority of these men and women are unknown and unrecognized for their contribution to our society. You and I could not go to work every day and see the human race at their worst. You and I could not patrol dark places alone, the only protection a piece of body armor. You may have always wondered how these people can do their job day after day, year after year. High stress, broken families, little pay, injury and death. The Bible says that these select individuals were personally chosen by God Himself to serve and protect us. So now you know. We owe much to these ministers of justice.
However our court systems have a major problem – they are based on 16th Century technology and 16th Century society. The system was based on the assumption that people would tell the truth when they swore on the bible. In those days, swearing on the bible meant something. As we all know, this is not how it is today. So, we need a new SYSTEM in the courts to help us to know what is the truth. These ministers of justice need the necessary tools to perform their job.
Technology now exists which can increase our chances of knowing if someone is telling the truth or not. It is time we use and develop these technologies.
Two Innocent Men Jailed for 13 Years because of a Lie
The front page of the Virginia Pilot of August 26 2001 reported an age-old story – two men who had spent nearly 13 years in jail were finally found to be innocent. They had been sent to jail for life mainly on the word of just one lying witness.
Faison worked in a construction job with his closest friend Charles Shepherd. When a local druggie named Roper asked for a job recommendation, they turned him down cold.
A cabbie was shot outside Faison’s apartment. Homicide detectives approached Roper who pointed them to a woman named Van Buren. She said she saw Faison shoot the cabbie in a holdup, with Faison as lookout. Although Van Buren had a drug problem and had TEN beers on the night of the shooting, her testimony sent Faison and Shepherd to jail for life.
Faison asked for a sentencing delay to marry his pregnant girlfriend, but this was refused He took to writing individual hand-written letters asking for help and maintaining his innocence. One of 62,000 letters reached ex NYPD detective named Michael Race. Something about the 4 page letter spoke to Race.
In his reply to Faison, Race said “I want you to read this letter while sitting down: SHE ADMITS THAT THE WHOLE STORY IS A LIE!” Van Buren admitted wrongfully identifying the pair for a $1,000 police reward, which she split with Roper. The retraction was backed up by physical evidence. The witness said Faison was standing on the driver’s side of the cab, but the driver was shot on the right side of the face (passenger’s side). Race got Roper to admit coaching Van Buren because he was bitter about the job-application snub.
Word of another suspect surfaced that month. A man named Cheston wrote to his girlfriend about “two guys that were doing time for a murder he committed.” The driver refused to hand over money to Cheston. Two fingerprints on the cab’s glass partition matched Cheston’s prints. Finally, Faison and Shepherd were released. After 13 long years.
Hypnosis can easily make people Lie or Commit Crimes
In the above case, there was a person who lied CONSCIOUSLY. Unfortunately, people who consciously lie are not the only problem.
The use of hypnosis is much more powerful and much more widespread than most people realise. If you read the excellent book “Secret, Don’t Tell – The Encyclopedia of Hypnotism” you will know this. This book took ten years to research and is VERY extensive. The site for the book is www.hypnotism.org. In the book, the author Carla Emery gives many stories, some from court proceedings, showing how people committed serious acts against their will.
Emery claims that a hypnotist can easily get 10% of the population to do anything they want, purely through hypnosis. The other 90% of the population can be hypnotised once they have been given a drug, for example in orange juice.
In opposite to what most people believe, it is relatively easy to get hypnotised people to perform unethical actions, including murder, prostitution and robbing banks through hypnosis. And if you think that you can never be hypnotized, think again! According to Carla Emery, the more intelligent a person, the more likely it is that they can be hypnotized.
The unfortunate truth is – no longer can we condemn a person on the say-so of an eyewitness, at least, not until we find methods to verify that they are consciously telling the truth and have not been hypnotised.
Government insiders reveal how the United States Government finds, chooses and creates “Sleepers”, mind-controlled, programmed zombies, also known as Manchurian Candidates
Unfortunately, it gets worse. Private citizens can cause people to lie or commit crimes through hypnosis. But in addition, the government has set programs to do just this. Read the 5 steps to creating a Manchurian Candidate, as revealed by one government insider at “Operation Open Eyes” at http://www.rumormillnews.com/operation.htm
It’s Time for a Positive Change in Court Systems for Identifying Truth
- One technology that should NOT be used at any time is the lie detector. It’s too inaccurate.
Some technologies that could be used in the courts to help to identify what is the truth and what is not are:
- The clearing biofeedback meter. This is a “truth detector”. Volney Mathieson presented his ideas about a biofeedback meter to Ron Hubbard, the inventor of Dianetics in 1952. The e-meter of scientology is similar to the clearing biofeedback meter which is used by people today outside the Church of Scientology. (Note: The difference between clearing and hypnosis is that in clearing you are aware of time going by – hence fully conscious. In hypnosis, people have no idea how much time has gone by – hence are not fully conscious). For more information on clearing see http://freespiritjournal.com.
- Computer Voice Stress Analysis. See http://web.umr.edu/~police/cvsa/cvsamenu.htm This looks like wonderful technology for helping us to identify the truth
- BEST OF ALL: Brainwave Fingerprinting – The Future is NOW – Invented by Dr. Larry Farwell – Farwell Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new technology for investigating crimes and exonerating innocent suspects, with a record of 100% accuracy in research on FBI agents, research with US government agencies, and field applications. www.brainfingerprinting.com If we had Brainwave Fingerprinting in the courts now, many of the injustices that happen would not be.
We are now in the 21st Century. Our courts are based on technologies that are hundreds of years old. For the sake of hundreds (thousands?) of people like Faison and Shepherd, and maybe even for your own sake one day, it is time we instituted methods of identifying what is said in court is the truth and what is not.
Iowa Supreme Court Reverses Harrington Murder Conviction after 24 Years
Brain Fingerprinting Supports Innocence
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:00:46 -0600
From: “Dr. Larry Farwell” <Larry@BrainFingerprinting.com>
Subject: Brain Fingerprinting – Harrington Conviction Reversed
To: Stephanie Relfe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Organization: Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc.
X-Mailer: GoldMine [5.00.041]
Please see attached press release, also reproduced below.
Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc.
Phone: (641) 209-6000
Fax: (208) 692-5884
FAIRFIELD, IOWA (February 26, 2003) – Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc. announced today that that the Iowa Supreme Court has reversed the murder conviction of Terry Harrington and ordered a new trial, capping a 24-year-quest for justice by the Council Bluffs, Iowa man.
Following a hearing on post-conviction relief on November 14, 2000, an Iowa District Court held that Dr. Farwell’s Brain Fingerprinting® test results met the prevailing Daubert standard for admissibility of new scientific evidence. Nevertheless, the District Court denied Mr. Harrington’s petition for a new trial. Today, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s decision on constitutional grounds and left undisturbed the law of the case establishing the admissibility of the Brain Fingerprinting evidence.
In the Iowa Supreme Court’s 22-page decision, the court found that police had failed to give Harrington’s defense lawyers eight separate police reports that could have cast doubt on testimony that linked him to the murder of a Council Bluffs night watchman in 1978. One justice wrote that he was “outraged” by the suppression of the police reports. The witness against Harrington has since recanted. Harrington remains in prison while prosecutors decide whether to re-try him.
Mr. Harrington has maintained his innocence throughout the 24 years of his imprisonment. His friend, Anne Danaher, has worked tirelessly for his exoneration. Ms. Danaher recruited defense attorneys Mary Kennedy and Tom Frerichs of Waterloo, Iowa, who prevailed in the Iowa Supreme Court.
Ms.Danaher also recruited Dr. Lawrence Farwell, Chairman and Chief Scientist of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, to conduct a Brain Fingerprinting test on Mr. Harrington. In the preparation for the Brain Fingerprinting test, Ms. Danaher obtained additional information on the crime scene, including suppressed police reports that would have helped Harrington at his trial. The Iowa Supreme Court held that keeping this information from Harrington’s lawyer denied him due process and requires the reversal of his conviction.
The suppressed reports were first brought to light in 2001 as Harrington prepared to take a Brain Fingerprinting test to establish his innocence. Brain responses showed conclusively that the record stored in Harrington’s brain did not match the crime scene and did match his alibi, according to Dr. Lawrence Farwell, the inventor of the Brain Fingerprinting technology.
Dr. Farwell comments that, “We were glad to help with this case. Should the State retry Mr. Harrington, we are ready to assist the defense in presenting Brain Fingerprinting evidence to a new jury.”
Confronted with the Brain Fingerprinting test results exonerating Harrington, Kevin Hughes, the key prosecution witness, recanted his testimony and admitted that he had lied in the original trial, falsely accusing Harrington to avoid being prosecuted for the murder himself.
Iowa Attorney Thomas H. Makeig filed an amicus curiae, friend of the court, brief on Dr. Farwell’s behalf in the course of the appeal. The brief supported Harrington’s contention that Brain Fingerprinting testing provided new evidence of his innocence.
The Iowa Supreme Court determined that its constitutional finding made it unnecessary to examine the newly discovered evidence; however, the Court stated that the Brain Fingerprinting evidence —
“was introduced through the testimony of Dr. Lawrence Farwell, who specializes in cognitive psychophysiology. Dr. Farwell measures certain patterns of brain activity (the P300 wave) to determine whether the person being tested recognizes or does not recognize offered information. This analysis basically ‘provide[s] information about what the person has stored in his brain.’ According to Dr. Farwell, his testing of Harrington established that Harrington’s brain did not contain information about Schweer’s murder. On the other hand, Dr. Farwell testified, testing did confirm that Harrington’s brain contained information consistent with his alibi.” (Harrington v. State of Iowa, footnote 6)
Details of the Harrington v. State of Iowa, Iowa Supreme Court No. 01-0653 case are available at www.judicial.state.ia.us/supreme/opinions/20030226/01-0653.asp#_ftnref6.
The Harrington case first received national attention in December 2001 when CBS 60 Minutes featured Dr. Farwell’s Brain Fingerprinting test of Mr. Harrington. TIME Magazine recently selected Dr. Farwell for the TIME 100: The Next Wave, the 100 Innovators who may be “the Picassos and Einsteins of the 21st century.”
Brain Fingerprinting testing was also “instrumental in obtaining a confession and guilty plea” from serial killer James B. Grinder, according to Sheriff Robert Dawson of Macon County, Missouri. In August 1999 Dr. Farwell conducted a Brain Fingerprinting test on Grinder. The test showed that the record stored in his brain matched the details of the crime. Following the test results, Grinder faced an almost certain conviction and probable death sentence. Grinder pled guilty to the rape and murder of Julie Helton in exchange for a life sentence without parole. He is currently serving that sentence. In addition, Grinder subsequently confessed to the previously unsolved murders of three other young women. Brain Fingerprinting testing has been proven accurate in over 170 tests to date. For more information on Brain Fingerprinting, log onto http://www.brainfingerprinting.com.
WHEN WILL BRAINWAVE FINGERPRINTING BE IMPLEMENTED IN ALL COURTS?
Permission is granted to use this article in whole or part if you acknowledge the author and quote and link to http://www.relfe.com
Copyright ©: Stephanie Relfe - 1998 - 2020
DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. This information is not backed up by scientific evidence. This is just for your information. This information and these products have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products and information are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. Results are not typical. Individual results may vary. Because every person's situation is different , the author of this article will not be held responsible for any negative results which come from reading or acting upon the information in this article. Use at your own risk. We make no medical claims for any products, nor do we sell them or offer them for the treatment for any ailment.
Up to 1/3 of this article may be copied as long as no alterations are made, you mention the author and link to www.Relfe.com
Disclosure: The owner of this website is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon properties including, but not limited to, amazon.com, endless.com, myhabit.com, smallparts.com, or amazonwireless.com.