Implications within statements
What are ‘implications within statements’?
‘They are a perception that within every statement there are hidden implications’.
Just after a court case ends with the individual being found to be ‘innocent’ by either a ‘partial’ or ‘unanimous verdict’ your solicitors who defended you and are all too aware of the level of your ‘innocence’ will be examining everything you say. The intention is to uncover ‘implications of guilt’ within any ‘statement or sentence’ of words you string together. Anything within anything you say that may on some level be used to imply ‘you are guilty’ or ‘actually committed the offence’.
This is not being done to have you ‘rearrested’ or ‘retried’ but to ‘prevent you’ from seeking justice against ‘failures’ within the ‘judicial system’ or against the authorities themselves. It is in most cases a ‘discreditory tactic’ with those who defended you knowing beyond question you are ‘innocent’. They are just as aware as you as to the level of evidence supporting your innocence, remember they where there in that court therefore they are ‘witnesses’ and a ‘testament’ to your ‘innocence’. If your accuser ‘admitted guilt’ or ‘proofs’ were supplied ‘supporting innocence’ then they are ‘aware’ of this to include the ‘scale of those evidences’.
Yes! It is a terrible thing to think never mind state but it is ‘true’.
It is an ‘unlawful practice’ certainly against those whom are found to be ‘innocent’ by a ‘unanimous verdict’ and where the ‘sum of all the evidences’ is ‘overwhelming’. Most solicitors even know that the training given to them relating to ‘implications within statement’s is unstable’ and that it is a question of time before it is discredited. However until people take responsibility and deal with the issues there is nothing that can be done.
It is arguable that individuals are being taken advantage of whilst they are in a mentally and emotionally weakened state of mind with most having left that court suffering from shock, overwhelming emotions and long term stress.
Understand it does not matter to your solicitors whether you are ‘guilty’ or ‘innocent’ they are just doing their job and that job is to ‘defend’ you as best they can. All solicitors and barristers are professionals therefore they stand as best they can impartially and without prejudice, that is what a professional is. To them and within the nature of their employment; whether or not you committed a crime is of no relevance they exist to ensure you get every opportunity within the confines of the law to receive justice. As a human being I am confident that we can all agree there are many people they would like to see behind bars.
There are probably an equal number they would like to see released.
You have to understand part of their job is to defend you whether they like you or not and another part is to defend the justice system as a whole since without that system the public (being yourself and others) would lose confidence and trust. It is also fair to say they rely on the justice system in order to survive and gain employment. It is not anything personal and they are not out to betray you intentionally; it is simply a fact that they are not aware in most cases of all the facts and issues relating to the training they are given with those courses being ‘flawed’.
Certainly it is a ‘fact’ that on the surface there do appear to be implications within statements (i.e.: when you state something you imply something else or there are hidden suggestions within your statement). That does not necessarily mean that what you ‘stated’ and what you ‘implied’ are ‘different’ or ‘even that you implied anything at all’ since that is all ‘speculative’ and down to individual interpretation ‘which within itself is a point of prejudice’.
Just because somebody else suggests there is an implication in something you stated does not mean there actually was an implication in something you said.
It would be unlawful to rule on or support a speculation despite who made that suggestion as it is still a speculation or a personal interpretation or opinion. Additionally that implication may be biased by the ‘desire to find’ which would impact upon the perspective of the individual suggesting ‘subliminal desire’ thereby ‘prejudice’ through their unique point of view. Within this it is fair to state that the implication may actually be on the part of the person ‘seeking it’ with them ‘impressing their own interpretation’ or ‘opinion’ upon what was actually stated.
With reference to the above it is reasonable to imply that how you interpret an implication is debatable since to ‘seek to find them’ suggests ‘motive’ and a desire to find. For instance: if you are looking to find an implication within an individual’s statements, arguments, sentences or general use of vocabulary (structure of sentences or use of wording) then that denotes ‘bias’ (a prejudicial intention); you are ‘motivated’ to find with ‘deliberate intent’ (this highlights hidden prejudice) whatever that motive is it impacts upon that interpretation.
It is clearly visible that shock and stress impacts upon the structure of thought patterns therefore sentencing and the way people define or express themselves through speech as in what they mean.
Evidence of this is clearly available since the same symptoms appear in victims of sleep deprivation. Stress and tiredness cause imbalances within the brain which affect the individual’s ability to think rationally this affects their motor function which is disrupted as the body tries to cope with overtiredness and stress induced pressure. This being expressed within the individual’s inability to cope both mentally and physically; even the most basic function can become impossible hurdles as the brain gets tired eye to hand tasks become challenged.
Thought processes impact upon eye and hand motion with these being disrupted through chemical imbalances within the brain brought about by exhaustion. Speech and thought processes are clearly affected as is the brains ability to retain perspective within and upon reality.
Substantial evidences exist within psychological testing of individuals within the military in relation to this.
Evidence of the above is available and evident through the use of psychological torture brought about through sleep deprivation coupled with intensive questioning. Restricting sleep induces tiredness which stresses the body and pressurises the brain which then struggles to cope. Prolonged exposure induces compliance, loss of perspective, irrational behaviour, speech impediments, memory loss and motor dysfunctions even psychological shock. Many other issues also arise; prolonged sleep deprivation clearly impacts both mentally and physically the results for which are apparent.
Within the issues raised (above) it becomes an question of relating victims of circumstances such as ‘falsely accused people’ to ‘victims of torture’ and this becomes a point of perspective ‘for’ or ‘against’. Some people may argue ‘torture victims’ undergo prolonged periods of ‘intense physical’ and/or ‘intense psychological’ pressure whilst ‘others do not’ and within this no one is trying to state that one victim is the same as any other or that all crimes are equal.
Victims of many crimes undergo ‘similar pressures’ but in contrast they occur under ‘different circumstances’ and at different ‘rates of applied pressure’ so it becomes a question of ‘perspective’ with the individual psyche relating to the incidents individually. What appears on the surface to be ‘normal’ to one individual may be perceived as ‘extreme’ to another. How we interpret the impact of each event from an outsider’s point of view is exploratory since how can we perceive in all reality what another individual has endured.
We may deduce that the ‘falsely accused’ under go long term ‘stress’ brought about by the ‘allege’ coupled with ‘intense scrutiny’ upon the part of the ‘police’ and other ‘authorities’. Their ‘torture’ through ‘discrimination’ and ‘cross examination’ takes place ‘publicly’ which induces ‘humiliation’ and ‘degradation’ of the ‘victim’ who in this case is the ‘innocent accused’ with this happening over a period of considerable time. We also may accept that the pressure over this period is synchronized being constant but increasing over the duration of time in keeping with the climaxing of the event (the trial).
After which ‘profound relief’ if they are ‘acquitted’ and ‘demoralisation’ if they are not; the impact either way will be ‘immense’.
Realistically we can see how this individual suffers from the allegation right through to the court case. We can perceive the pressure and stresses the individual endures along with the long term physical and psychological impacts.
Under these conditions if you are analysing every word somebody says in anticipation of discrediting them (which is a conscious or sub-conscious intention) then this is clearly ‘highlighted’ since their state of mind at this time is irregular at best. This then highlights an intention upon your part to take advantage of a weaker state of mind and one which is unable to defend or express itself.
There is scientific evidence to support the fact that chemical releases during shock and stress impact upon thought processes and individuals both mentally and physically. Medical research supports the physical and psychological effects these reactions and chemical imbalances have on patients. There are tests available for discerning the impact of shock and stress, they are an accurate diagnostics tool for measuring chemical imbalances; for more on this refer to the previous chapter or consult your doctor.
Possibly psychological interpretations are founded upon the speculation and association of those suppositions in relation to other cases thereby ‘generalising’ these issues however this would be flawed through ‘prejudice’ since each individual undergoes different ordeals thereby experiences different effects and variables of pressure and stress.
Perhaps this is an issue of prejudice since you are clearly showing bias through an intention to discredit. In that case it becomes highly likely that you will succeed in finding an implication because any implication or misuse of words will do. Compounding this is the abuse of a position of trust as the person’s defender since this is now being re-directed in a manner to which your victim cannot afford any defence.
It is fair to say that the nature of circumstances in which you ascertain these implications are questionable so then is the use of them to the detriment of others.
This may be compounded by the fact that your own counsel is directed against you so as to overt recognition of prejudice upon the part of the state that funds the avenue of investigation relating to ‘implications within statements’.
How do implications within statements impact upon non-completed or disrupted statements?
If an individual fails to complete a sentence but you base your implication upon an uncompleted sentence how then does this impact upon your implication. Firstly the individual and victim suffering from shock and stress who fails to finish their sentence cannot prove their sentence or statement was not complete. They cannot prove their state of mind was affected even though the individual supporting implications within statements was present and a witness. They cannot support the fact that no implication conscious or sub-conscious was made or intended. As a discrediting tactic this individual who is already a victim and vulnerable having been compromised once is targeted again in such a manner that they cannot support a defence.
Clearly you cannot defend yourself against the individual making the implication within statements since they are the individual/individuals who just defended you. This supports an implication of guilt with the implication within statements being justified. If you were to defend yourself against them it would look detrimental so you are caught in a catch twenty-two situations (you lose either way).
Another fact is that it is now well documented and accepted that most people leaving a court of law after participating within a trial are affected by the experience. This does not only relate to the accused and accuser but also the jury and witnesses. Furthermore those people at the centre of the court case are affected much more deeply and experience numerous psychological impacts. These manifest themselves in numerous ways with the most obvious being upon the individual’s sense of reasoning and their speech patterns. If their ability to think and string sentences together is affected then this not only casts doubt upon the use of implications within statements under those circumstances but also upon the ethics behind such a use of them.
Clearly taking advantage of people who are in emotional turmoil (an unstable state of mind) suffering from shock, stress and overwhelming emotions incapable of expressing themselves coherently is ‘predatory’.
“Implications within statements” although they carry some merit to support them are flawed in as far as they are really only ‘suggestions of implications’.
These suggestions of implications besides being interpretive may just as easily be conscious as sub-conscious therefore debatable. The interpretation of these implications is speculative even when argued or interpreted by psychiatrists and psychologists. It is not a question of disputing their expertise but ‘arguing their interpretation of a suggestion of an implication’ which would be ‘biased by the perspective of the individual’. Arguably each individual may recognise and interpret different aspects and meanings from within different perceptions of a statement. Thus the individual despite their professional background would be biased as each would be looking from individual perspectives and each looking to find individual interpretations or meanings; compounded via ‘a direction to find’.
Psychologists are trained in psychology whilst solicitors are trained within the law to which a three or five day psychological course relating to implications within statements would be inadequate to qualify that individual within this complicated field of science.
It is fair to argue that if individuals are under the direction of others and are purposefully seeking to find ‘implications within statements’ with that denoting a purposeful intention to act or to project bias (intentional prejudice). It would be a questionable result since the analyst is seeking under these circumstances to find a specific hidden meaning with intent (an intention to discredit) through the use of that meaning all be it that the meaning is interpretive based on perception it becomes realistic to suggest that their desire to find coupled with their individual opinion impacts upon that interpretation with that opinion being compounded by the intention and direction of another (external influences).
Perceive it as being instructed to look for a specific thing (as in you are directed through prejudice) this being in opposition to discerning through clinical extrapolation (a general and undirected intention to find). By being directed to look for a specific thing you are highlighting prejudice via an intention to find that specific thing you therefore highlight bias with this impacting upon your desire to find by blanking out all but what you seek. If you are searching for specific words you are going to find them and any structured part of any sentence meeting your criteria will do. To this end you will block out ‘implications of innocence’ so as to support and project ‘implications of guilt’ since you are directed solely to uncover evidences relating to guilt.
There is an issue here since implications within statements are only used to ‘imply guilt’ fundamentally failing to recognise or support issues of ‘innocence’.
Clearly if you are undirected then your mind is exposed to a greater scope with that wording being open to variable interpretations. This approach highlighting a genuine scientific approach to understanding since it is conducted ‘without prejudice’.
In actuality we see a similar pattern to this within our interpretation and understanding of the truth; is it the actual truth, is it our perception of what is the truth, is it what others perceive to be the truth, is it what we are directed to understand and are told is the truth (as in what we are led into believing is the truth). In reality we are all prejudiced within our perception and perspectives of the truth with that truth being speculative since it is based upon individual acuity? We all perceive the truth as being what we assess it to be from our own unique points of prejudice. Is it fair to say that anyone who states they are not prejudiced within their own unique perspective is not telling the truth? Actually we are all prejudiced through individuality therefore that and actuality is the truth.
The truth like anything else can be perceived in many ways and it is always in somebody’s interest to prejudice it, the same applies to ‘implications within statements’.
Perhaps the implication is not within what ‘some person says’ but within the reasoning behind ‘seeking to find it’ and the ‘prejudicial argument’ it is ‘used to make’.
Why are they used and what purpose do they serve?
Implications within statements are something which stemmed from an admittance made by someone who evaded justice for a crime he actually committed. He actually admitted to his guilt upon the steps of a court of law after being found to be innocent, having lost his employment he studied psychology and wrote a paper pertaining to ‘implications within statements’. The police and the justice system jumped on this as an opportunity to evade justice themselves by evading responsibility for their own failures through what are discreditory tactics. Realising that there may actually be implications within statements they hoped and succeeded in discrediting anyone who has sought justice after being proven to be innocent in law since (despite the sum of all the evidences). For the record I do believe that man was and still is employed by the ‘Police’.
It is fair to say that ‘implications’ on the surface ‘do appear to exist’ within ‘statements’ and in cases whereby an individual is proven to be ‘innocent’ by a ‘partial verdict’ they may have some level of ‘credence’. However this cannot be the case for ‘individuals’ whom are ‘proven in law’ to be ‘innocent’ by a ‘unanimous decision’ where by the ‘sum of all the evidences’ support that ‘innocence’ since this by its very nature undermines the ‘legitimacy of law’ as well as that of the ‘judicial system’ itself.
Within this scenario, ‘implications within statements’ conflict with the ‘legality’ of ‘justice’ through the ‘discrediting’ of ‘all physical evidences’ projecting them along with those ‘forensic investigators’ and ‘police officers’ to which gathered those evidences as being ‘unlawful’. This action ‘undermining’ the ‘judicial system’ through the recognition that ‘implications within statements’ carry greater merit than ‘physical evidences’ thereby ‘undermining justice’ and the ‘process of law’.
Furthermore there is a clear conflict between ‘the lawful evidences’ and the ‘implications within statements’. Clearly all lawful evidences are ‘forensically gathered’ and ‘scrutinised’ prior to their presentation ‘as evidence’; within this they have to be ‘acquired’ using ‘legitimate processes’ following guidelines that establish these ‘evidences’ as being ‘non-corrupted’. It is fair to argue that by supporting ‘implications within statements’ undermine as a process the ‘legitimacy of police investigations’ by casting ‘doubt upon their credibility, authenticity and legitimacy’.
The issue is that police investigations are ‘not credible’ and do not follow ‘set procedures’ in relation to the ‘gathering of evidences’ with this clearly impacting upon ‘Physical evidence’ which in all actuality is ‘primary evidence’ therefore ‘Physical Proof’. Clearly if that is the case then ‘implications within statements’ are founded since the ‘forensically gathered evidences’ along with those officers responsible for gathering these evidences are undermined through ‘unlawfulness’ of or within their own actions.
Within this acknowledgement the police no longer serve a legitimate purpose as ‘professional impartial investigators’ with them becoming ‘dissolved in law’. This argument establishes ‘implications within statements’ to be ‘legitimate’ thereby having ‘merit’ whilst ‘police investigations’ and ‘Physical evidences’ are ‘discredited’.
Alternatively if the police are established as being bound through ‘lawful processes’ thereby gathering ‘evidences using set procedures’ with these supporting ‘authenticity of evidences’ then ‘implications within statements’ are not founded. This can be argued through the ‘establishment of physical’ and ‘other lawful evidences’ such as ‘witness statements’ along with the ‘process’ of ‘gathering information’s’ as being ‘lawful’ thereby having greater merit in relation to the ‘True facts’.
By this line of argument ‘Physical evidences’ along with ‘police investigations’ are proven to be ‘legitimate’ whilst ‘implications within statements’ are ‘disproven’.
Fact: either you are judged via the evidence with them being the physical Proofs or you are judged upon any implication you suggest within any statement you make.
“Justice is built on ‘reasonable argumentation’ and ‘lawful evidences’ all of which have to ‘stand up’ to the ‘scrutiny of cross examination’ which establishes legitimacy. That in turn ‘legitimises the sum of all the evidences’ and the ‘lawfulness of the court’ as being a ‘legal’ and lawful institution”.
An issue worth considering here is that if there is any truth within ‘implications from within statements’ then not only are all ‘physical evidences’ ‘false’ every ‘physical witness, testimony, police officer and admittance’ are also ‘illegitimated’.
A court of law’s credibility stands upon the legitimacy of the regulations that govern it, those rules direct every system and official operating within it. The whole system stands upon the understanding that for a person to be proven ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’ requires ‘proof’ all of which is governed by the ‘rule of law’.
“There has to be legitimacy within the law”.
So within this were in all actuality is the ‘legitimacy’ within ‘you’ or ‘any other person’ (despite yours or their qualifications) stating that ‘you have the right’ to determine the meaning within ‘any other persons’ statements more than ‘that person has themselves’; it being their statement?
Any individual proven to be innocent by a unanimous decision within the eyes of the law “is innocent” it would be a crime to suggest otherwise. It is fair to argue that no ‘implication’ or ‘personal interpretation’ can outweigh the ‘sum of all the evidences’ as they ‘equate to physical proofs’ and ‘Witness statements’ all of which have stood up to the ‘scrutiny of cross examination’ with them in this case being “overwhelming”. It is reasonable to state that any individual found to be ‘innocent’ by a ‘unanimous decision’ has presented sufficient evidence so as to ‘remove any and all doubts’ as to his or her ‘innocence’.
Whereby the ‘sum of all the evidences are overwhelming’ in their favour and ‘supporting their version of those events’. Furthermore it may also be the case that ‘physical’ and ‘actual proofs’ of ‘innocence’ are or were available or perhaps the ‘accuser’ admits under oath to ‘Guilt, perjury, deception, collusion and more’.
How could ‘implications within statements’ carry any weight if the ‘accuser’ admits to ‘Guilt’ or even making a ‘false allegation’? Under these circumstances would it be lawful to imply ‘guilt’ through ‘implications within statements’ since the ‘overwhelming’ level of ‘evidences’ supports the ‘opposite’. Furthermore any pursuit on the part of authority relating to implications within any statement could be viewed as not only ‘unlawful’ but ‘deliberate’ and ‘predatory’. Within this the state would be ‘preying’ upon the ‘vulnerability of victims’ after the event whilst being ‘fully aware’ of their actions. The implications within such activities would be an unquestionable human rights ‘violation’.
To victimise someone who has just been proven in law as being a ‘victim’ whilst they are defenceless and weakened is intolerable, the level of humanity it portrays would be a disgrace, this clearly would not be justice. Not every person whom is ‘accused’ is ‘guilty’; we live in a world of escalating prejudices, increased social and economic impacts where ‘false allegations’ can command substantial rewards; people are driven into crime, drugs, alcohol, gambling and much more.
I have written ‘prey’ on people because I genuinely believe that this is what the state is doing and at a time when people are most vulnerable. Suffering from shock and distressed after enduring a long term highly stressful situation, the crown, state and the police know this. It is they who fund the psychological courses solicitors undertake in order to recognise implications within statements. I know the authorities are going to vigorously deny this but it is ‘true’ and they are the ones who actually arranged through university and government funding for the research to commence in order to provide specialists within this field.
The argument is: Those specialists are reliant upon that research in order to support their qualifications; this is undeniable since without this field of research would these psychologists or psychiatrists be qualified to support the argument for ‘implications within statements’. Based upon this there is an argument for stating that government and the authorities are funding the training given to solicitors for the recognition of implications within statements as being legitimate. Compounding this is that ‘Lawyers’ are being directed through ‘Government Funded Research’ to act ‘Racially’ within the pursuit of ‘Implications within Statements’ this being through the recognition of the fact that they are being ‘Directed to find’.
Implications within statements are built upon the concept that there are hidden suggestions and meanings within what someone says. None of those implications are actual statements they are merely individual interpretations of the hidden meanings read into anything an individual states after an event (the court case). They are speculative at best therefore unreliable and biased through a direction to find furthermore implications may not in actuality be ‘suggested inferences’ but ‘desired interpretations’.
It is fair to state that ‘you impact’ upon the ‘statement’ through your ‘own perception’ of what is stated, so ‘is it what was actually stated’ or is it what you ‘perceive’ or ‘desire’ as having been stated? Reasonable argument, isn’t it?
A judge makes a statement as ‘matter of fact’ but how other people interpret that statement is ‘interpretative’ being based upon ‘points of prejudice’.
These implications read into statements are in no way actual statements merely interpretations of those statements they are therefore ‘speculative’ and ‘predatory’. I can say predatory since there is growing evidence to support the fact that most people leaving a court of law having being proven ‘innocent’ whilst having experienced the deeply emotional turmoil related to a trial ‘suffer from shock and/or stress’. These people are ‘vulnerable to predators’ who wish to ‘take advantage’ of their ‘emotionally and mentally weakened state’.
Clearly if the authorities were to implement protocols such as this against other victims who were proven in law as being the victim there would be a public outcry.
There is an issue here since if this were to happen to a ‘genuine victim’ of rape or other ‘legitimate victim’ of serious crime outside a court of law whereby that individual was ‘proven in law’ as being the ‘true victim’ via the ‘sum of all the evidences’ there would be an uprising. To ‘prey’ on any person who is ‘proven’ to be the ‘victim in law’ is a ‘horrific crime’ it is compounded by the ‘fact’ that this is done with ‘deliberate intent’ by the state so that ‘those authorities’ can ‘evade justice’ themselves.
‘False allegations happen’ with peoples lives being devastated as a result of them, some people ‘prove their innocence beyond question’ where by the ‘sum of all the evidences is overwhelming’. That within itself ‘protests’ to an individuals ‘innocence’ and to imply or suggest to the contrary undermines the ‘legitimacy of the law’, it also undermines the ‘innocence’ or ‘guilt’ of every other individual across the board since ‘evidences’ are ‘provable points’. Casting doubt upon the ‘legitimacy of evidences’ which have ‘stood up to scrutiny’ during the ‘process of law undermines’ the ‘reasonability of rational argumentation’ and the ‘legitimacy’ of ‘lawful Justice’.
The problem is that if you undermine ‘due process’ which is founded upon ‘rational argumentation’ and ‘factual evidences’; then in doing so you undermine ‘your own argument’ since ‘your argument’ is based upon the ‘same processes of deliberation’. So within this how can you ‘legitimate’ your ‘evidences and findings’ when it is built upon the same platform in relation to ‘legitimacy’?
Potentially it may be in the interest of the police and other authorities to utilise implications within statements in order to cover up their own negligence’s, misconduct and failures thereby evading justice or responsibility for miscarriages, errors and failings within the system against members of the general public. However that compounds their ‘Failure’ as ‘Lawful representatives’ of the ‘Law’ since ‘Implications within Statements’ undermine the legitimacy of ‘Authority’.
If we accept that most people in society are innocents and have little or no experience of the law since you do not within the day to day course of your lives come into conflict with it. These people are going to be overwhelmed by the process of law on every level; it is fair to state that the initial allegation would have an immense impact upon you. The immensity of the system and the involvement of the police treating or accusing you of being criminals would be psychologically devastating. There are many processes you go through before you reach a trial with these including your arrest, being formally charged by the police, local court appearances where the formal allegations are made.
A trial unless you have actually experienced one is both terrifying and overwhelming with the constant thought that you could be found guilty of a crime you probably did not commit. You will sit in an enclosed space within the court under guard for the duration knowing that the corridor behind you takes away your freedom.
This entire process from the moment the allegation is made to the time of the trial itself takes ten months at least with the emotions over that period ranging from total shock and disbelief to anger and disappointment. The trial itself can take any amount of time depending upon the allegation and the scale of the evidences. There are normally more than one charges made against you since the police intend to support guilt on one level or another (within my own case there was only one charge which was ‘unusual’ within itself). The trial was supposed to last ‘three days’ but because of other issues and undisclosed factors it went on to last ‘eight days’, the duration of a trial is ‘not fixed’.
Any one including the person reading this book can be accused they do not have to commit a crime or indeed do anything that warrants an allegation being made. In reality all it takes is for one individual (for whatever reason) to compromise you by detaining you on their own for five or ten minuets whereby there are no witnesses to support a defence. Your character will be brought into question and you will be discredited by every means available since in all actuality there is little or no need to present physical evidences within a court of law so as to support the allegation or to gain a verdict of ‘guilty’.
There are times in your life when you place yourself in positions of vulnerability without thinking about the consequences, if you are lucky no-one will ever know because there is no-one there to take advantage. If you are unlucky there is a predator out there just waiting for an opportunity to victimise someone, you are simply unlucky.
It is not the allegation that does the damage or has the biggest impact upon you it is the state and the authorities you trusted and had confidence in. They let you down because it is much easier to believe you are ‘guilty’ and to ‘discredit you’ than it is to act ‘without prejudice’; gathering evidences clinically so as to establish the ‘actual facts’. To that end some evidences which would ‘prove your innocence’ may be ‘omitted’ or simply ‘not investigated’ by the police; other evidences may be ‘falsified’ in order to gain a conviction. The main weapon of the police is to ‘discredit’ you so anything that can be used in that manner will be included within their case or used against you; ‘implications within statements’ fulfil these criteria.
There are numerous other avenues and issues we could pick up on relating to implications within statements however lets relate to one in particular.
‘God exists’! Is that a question or a statement since it can be taken both ways?
If I were to make the statement ‘God exists’ but you interpret it as being a question or suggestion ‘does God exist’ who is being prejudiced through implications and suggestions ‘you’ or ‘me’. Certainly I meant it as a statement however you interpreted it as a question with your interpretation of my statement casting doubt upon my credibility and I cannot support my intention. So who gets the benefit of the doubt ‘you’ for interpreting my statement as being a question and undermining my statement through implication or ‘me’ since it was my statement? It is a fair comment and one that is relevant; do I get the benefit of the doubt because it was my statement and I know how it was intended or do you get the benefit of the doubt for interpreting it as you did.
One of these arguments clearly highlights prejudice coupled with an intention to pervert the statement through implication; as in you are trying to superimpose your interpretation upon my statement.
Judges make numerous statements during their summing up and evaluations; do we take these upon their merit and as they were intended or do we read implications into the statements. For instance one may conclude that an implication within a judge’s statement is implicative of prejudice for or against the accused. If this is the case does that undermine the legitimacy of not only the court but the entire process of law? Clearly within judges statements there are implications and this cannot be denied. So how do we evaluate them ‘upon their merit’ which is the way the judge ‘intended them to be taken’ or upon their ‘implications’ which is what ‘we read into them’?
I would like to run with this since it is a real issue and does affect the outcome of the course of justice.
A jury can easily read implications into judge’s statements as I know from personal experience. It is within the manner in which the judge uses issues and evidences within a case and the numerous times he includes them.
Within my own case the judge related to a shaving cut I had upon my face numerous times recounting it as having happened during a struggle with my accuser. However it occurred 18hrs prior to meeting this person on the morning of my mother’s funeral where it was captured on CCTV. He also related to issues of bruising (a single scrape) from a different time frame and one which was discredited since it could not possibly have been caused by myself a week prior to the alleged offence. In addition to this ‘other bruising’ from when my accuser was ‘arrested’ for being ‘drunk and disorderly whilst resisting arrest’. She was arrested three days before making the allegation; the bruising being consistent with the manner of ‘her arrest’ and ‘restraint’.
An issue which was concealed from the Judge, the Jury, Defence and Prosecution by the police officers involved within this case.
The point within this is that these ‘Bruises’ were used numerous times by the judge during his summing up and evaluations of the case implying to the jury that they were indeed caused by me and were therefore related. However ‘they were not’ so the issue is why include or mention them if they were inconclusive or speculative since they were not supported.
I could argue ‘fraudulent’, ‘implication’, ‘suggestion’ or perhaps it was simply a ‘correlation’ of the case up until that point.
These are just a few issues, there are others and they clearly highlight ‘implication’ however am I being dramatic was it the intention of the judge to ‘influence the jury’ with these ‘suggestions’. On the other hand was it merely his intention to use them as part of his ‘evaluations and summing up of the case to that point’ and meaning them ‘without prejudice’. Clearly there is an argument ‘for’ and ‘against’ depending upon your ‘perspective’ or that ‘unique point of prejudice’.
I could argue that the shaving cut was not investigated by the police with them admitting to ‘non-disclosure’ upon entering it at the last minute as evidence. This evidence being ‘Withheld without Investigation’ then entered with the ‘Deliberate Intention’ of casting doubt upon my credibility; so should the judge have accepted it or used it within his summing up since the evidence was ‘physical’ also ‘not proven’ or ‘supported’ through ‘lawful investigation’. Any implications read into his ‘reiteration’ or ‘use of that evidence’ by the jury would clearly have been ‘detrimental’ and through that action ‘unlawful’.
The scrape was clearly not connected due to time constraints yet it was related within his evaluations of the case on numerous occasions as were the remaining bruising to my accuser. These again being unconnected with details of the alleger’s arrest (and probable cause of those bruising) being concealed from the Court, Prosecution and Defence by the police. Ultimately these are issues which were used by the judge during his summing up of the case and being repeated on numerous occasions. It may be fair to suggest ‘bias’ however would that be reasonable since ‘my own perception of their inclusion may be biased’?
It is unfortunate that so few people are clinical or stand without prejudice.
The judge may defend himself by stating ‘he did not intend to portray prejudice through implications’ and ‘such implications are misreading of his intention’. It is fair to say that ‘reading implications’ into any statement may be a ‘desire’ upon the part of the person ‘seeking to find’ an implication. This being a prejudice upon their part and implicative of such; it is indeed possible that implications within statements are ‘false’ and it is a desire and a prejudice upon our part in seeking to find them.
If the judge has a case and it is a misreading then that must also apply across the board with those implications read into other peoples statements being misunderstood.
If we accept implications within statements to be founded then it must apply across the field and being implicative of ‘implications within all statements’ official or not as having ‘merit’. In this instance do we consider every statement made by every official, politician or individual as containing distortions, hidden truths and agendas? The problems arising from this are considerable since the implication within this itself is that ‘we cannot trust’ or ‘believe in anything’ or ‘anyone’ to ‘include ourselves’.
Clearly implications within statements cannot only impact upon the acquitted as that would prove prejudice and an intention to discredit so this would indeed be unlawful.
That aside the biggest impact upon the use of ‘implications from within statements’ is the ‘FACT’ that they are often at ‘odds’ with the ‘Physical Evidences’. The problem being; how can you ‘realistically’ infer someone is ‘guilty’ of an offence when they are caught on CCTV being ‘innocent’?
Facts relating to: Implications from within statements.
It is a ‘FACT’ that no one who is an individual can claim to be ‘non-prejudiced’ since as an individual you are ‘prejudiced’ by ‘your own unique point of view’, it is called ‘a point of perspective’ or ‘point of prejudice’. Not one single person on Earth sees through your eyes, stands in your shoes, feels what you feel, thinks or perceives what you consider, interpret or notice since ‘you are unique’ whilst standing within your own ‘unique point of perception’ and within that uniqueness you are trapped within a ‘unique point of prejudice’.
It is a ‘FACT’ that this ‘Point of prejudice’ impacts dramatically on ‘implications’ drawn from ‘statements’ since despite the implication within the statement it is ‘your prejudicial point of view’. Compounding this is that through external sources and influences you are being directed to find and that denotes ‘deliberate intention’ which compounds your ‘point of prejudice’ ultimately ‘undermining the implication you seek’ as being ‘by design’.
This is where ‘implications within statements’ fall down since:
1. Is there an implication within that statement?
2. Is it ‘you’ who is projecting your prejudice into that statement.
3. Or are you being ‘prejudiced within the suggestion’ that there is an ‘implication within that statement’.
4. Are you being ‘directed’ through ‘external influences’ and prejudices to ‘extrapolate an implication’ from within those statements?
Everyone is bound within his or her unique point of prejudice and that is a ‘fact’, it is also a fact that ‘we interpret everything individually’ with those interpretations being ‘prejudiced via our own perspectives’. These points of prejudice are compounded by ‘external influences’ and that is another ‘fact’ since in all actuality you are being ‘directed to act with a deliberate intention’. Although it may be fair to say there are implications within statements it is just as likely to recognise an intention on some parts to ‘imply an implication’ within statements (political motives) as ‘abuse through a point of prejudice’.
Possibly it is not the individual making the statement that makes the implication ‘it is the individual searching for the implication who implies intention’.
Realistically if someone wishes to read something into a statement another makes they will whether it is there or not. Additionally anyone seeking to find an ‘implication’ expresses ‘desire to find’ with this highlighting ‘prejudice’; clearly not every person is ‘guilty’ and this is a ‘provable point’ so we can envisage plenty of motives for looking to discover implications within statements. It is fair to argue ‘some’ may have ‘credibility’ however it is clear that every single case of ‘innocence’ cannot support implications of ‘guilt’.
If we do accept implications within statements then we must also accept that the judge set out to prejudice the jury through the inclusion of unrelated evidences within his statements; the implication being that they were related. This would have been ‘untrue’ since they were ‘not connected’, to suggest that the bruising from ‘different’ and ‘unrelated time frames’ were caused by my-self would have been a ‘prejudicial distortion’ of the truth therefore a ‘crime’ since in all actuality the bruises were not caused by me. Any suggestion made by the judge to the contrary would have been unlawful so ‘there is an issue’ within the use of such references and the numerousness of their inclusions within those statements (hence the implication) ‘you decide’.
The fact that he was unaware of these evidences being unrelated therefore ‘illegally introduced’ is irrelevant since ‘ignorance is no excuse’ within the eyes of English law.
A further argument ‘for’ implications within statements relating to the ‘acquitted’ is a ‘sub-conscious desire to admit’ to their crime.
This may be well and good if the individual is ‘truly guilty’ of committing a crime however it ‘cannot be true’ if the individual is ‘actually innocent’. Clearly every individual leaving a crown court of law after being ‘acquitted cannot be guilty’ of committing crimes (it suggests the system is either prejudiced or has failed).
I know from personal experience that some people (myself included) are indeed genuinely innocent so we have a problem.
Compounding this problem is the fact that in most cases relating to ‘unanimous innocence’ there is the issue of ‘overwhelming evidences’ all of which have ‘stood up’ to the ‘scrutiny’ of ‘cross examination’. CCTV evidences are ‘actual recordings’ of events ‘unfolding in all actuality’ and ‘discrediting them’ through ‘implications within statements’ only ‘undermines’ the ‘individuals making the implications’. Ultimately ‘implications’ are based upon ‘individual interpretation’ whereas ‘physical evidences’ are based upon ‘actuality’.
Additionally; it is a ‘questionable tactic’ when relating to cases such as my own where by my ‘accuser admitted’ to ‘committing so many improprieties’ including ‘perjury’ (where do you begin). It does not matter that I was proven to be innocent the fact is I actuality was innocent since no ‘crime took place’. Despite that there was actual evidences supporting innocence it is just a shame the police failed within their duty to investigate without prejudice because if they had done; my ordeal would never have happened.
After my acquittal the jury stood up and commented upon the level of justice I received as being inadequate (their actual comments are related elsewhere in the book). The case against me myself was unlawful and full of improprieties and system failures ‘that is the truth’; when that volume of evidences and irregularities occur with the outcome being so definite there is ‘an implication’. However that does not mean every other case is the same so we have to keep a handle on reality. The main issue here is that it should not be lawful to ‘discredit individuals through implications within statements’ in order to cover up system failures, which is what it is really all about.
I must point out that: neither my solicitors nor the justice system has implied on any level that there were any implications within any statements I made. Nor have they stated or implied they searched for any. Indeed the only authority suggesting ‘guilt’ on any level since being ‘acquitted’ has been the ‘Cumbria police’ who attempted to associate me to another incident 260 miles away from where I live, I just thought I should mention that.
I think it is fair to say that when three police officers ‘admit under oath’ to ‘colluding’ with your ‘accuser’ for three to five days ‘prior’ to the allegation being made within a ‘Police station’. ‘Concealing evidence, perjury, malpractice, passing on official information’ etc; with your ‘accuser admitting equally as much’ with this just being the ‘tip of the iceberg’, there being many more improprieties I suggest you look at the “facts of the matter” which is the next chapter.
Evidences are provided in part however I am retaining some for now.
Compounding the above are the issues of the Chief constable of
Cumbria (at that time) and his ‘ Superior from ’ who perverted the course of justice by holding a ‘secret meeting with the judge’. The prosecution where informed and ordered to attend to discover or establish whether or not they knew about the relationship between my accuser and the police. London
My barrister and solicitors where ‘omitted’ from this meeting with this highlighting ‘prejudice’ and an ‘intention’ upon the part of the ‘crown’ to enter a ‘racial argument’ (Fraudulently). Not only did the defence council have a ‘lawful right’ to be informed about this meeting prior to it taking place they had a ‘lawful right to attend’. That failure by the crown ‘denounced me, my solicitors and barrister in law’ as not being ‘Equal in law’ therefore having ‘NO lawful Human Rights’; that was a crime within itself.
“A Denouncement of Citizenship is a Relinquishment of Jurisdiction’ since you are ‘Denouncing this person in law’ so as to ‘Deny them’ their ‘Right in Law’ to ‘Receive Fair, Impartial and Equal Justice’. That denouncement of their rights in law is a relinquishment of any and all jurisdiction over that individual with them no longer being bound to, from or within your laws and authorities,
Above are the ‘facts’ and after being found to be ‘unanimously innocent’ the jury stood up in my ‘defence’ commenting upon the ‘level of justice I received’ as being ‘sub-standard’ (juries don’t do that very often); so how convinced would you have to be?
Fact: “Every individual is unique and within that solitary and different perspective there is prejudice”.
What implications do we read into this?
Is it possible such improprieties took place prior to and during the process of law in Carlisle Crown Court in-between 9th-17th September 2002 that I was ‘unlawfully accused’, ‘Illegally Detained’, with my ‘DNA being stolen’; ‘my accuser conspiring with the authorities to commit a serious crime’ and then to be ‘denied my right to receive fair and impartial justice’? Would there be a ‘motive within this’ for the ‘justice system or authorities’ to imply an ‘implication’ within any ‘statement I made’ outside that court. If they did would it be ‘lawful’ after everything I endured and having been found to be so ‘clearly innocent’ (My case is not unique).
To be honest you have to stand and ask honest questions thereby facing the truth and dealing with the issues by taking responsibility.
The fact is: ‘Implications within statements’ only really serve to highlight intentions upon the part of the state to cover up their own negligence’s?
If implications within statements are being used or applied to every individual proven in law as being ‘innocent’; then this with itself highlights an ‘intention’ to use implications for the soul purpose of ‘discrediting’ members of the general public who are proven in law as being ‘innocent’. In that case there are ‘real issues’ and ‘failures’ within and throughout the entire justice system. Clearly this would imply the whole process of law including the justice system and the police has failed. Furthermore the ‘implications of prejudice’ would extend far beyond the measure of the law and that would be a serious issue indeed.
Many people have sought justice and damages for ‘false allegations’ within the
however all have been discredited through ‘implications within statements’. Not one individual to date has been recognised in law as being the ‘innocent victim’ of ‘false allegations’ with that recognition of ‘innocence’ being based upon the ‘sum of all the evidences’ and whereby the authorities have ‘recognised’ that in order for the individual to be ‘proven innocent’; ‘injustices or failures within the system must have occurred’. United Kingdoms
The implication within the above paragraph relates to the ‘recognition’ and ‘reconciliation over negligence’s’.
It is fair to state that it is a question of time before implications within statements are discredited as being ‘prejudicial and predatory’. More and more experts within the fields of psychology and psychiatry are recognising issues within these implications and statements. Furthermore they are acknowledging the fact that they are predatory since they are ‘taking advantage of vulnerable people’ who have already suffered with this being a ‘punishment’ and a ‘victimisation of victims’.
It is only right to recognise physical and psychological pressures placed upon ‘unlawfully accused’ people and to recognise them as being ‘the victim’ of serious crimes. The impact such cases have upon the individual involved is overwhelming and the fallout long-term. It is a horrific crime for any authority to encourage any individual to be persecuted and clearly solicitors need to be informed of the damage they do by ‘implying implications within statements’ especially when the training provided is flawed or incomplete.
Clearly if ‘implications within statements’ had merit they would apply across the field and not only to the falsely accused ‘acquitted’ but also to the falsely accused ‘committed’. In that case it is fair to suggest that the system is clearly aware of numerous ‘innocent people’ being held and persecuted by them ‘unlawfully’ when ‘implications within statements’ prove their ‘innocence’.
It is fair to state either ‘implications within statements’ have merit in that case people found to be ‘guilty’ in law need to be released from unlawful prosecutions and persecution or there is no merit within ‘implications within statements’ in that case the authorities need to stop using them as a means of discrediting people ‘proven in law as being innocent’.
These people have been victims once and it is unethical and unlawful to victimise them again for any reason (victim’s equal crime and state crime is not only a crime against the nation, it is a crime against humanity).
The medical fraternity needs to take control and partial responsibility for addressing these issues through the provision of more detailed information not only for the legal and judicial bodies but also the public in general. The physical and psychological effects suffered by victims of persecution are all too apparent; ‘falsely accused people are victims of crime’. These people do not need to be victimised twice in order to cover up wrongful prosecutions, misconduct and malpractice.
It is psychologists, doctors, nurses and other medical related personnel who have to mop up after the incompetence’s of others, they are the ones who deal with and face these issues in an attempt to repair the damage done to victims.
‘Innocent accusers’ and ‘Innocent accused’ they are all victims of crime.
It is a recognisable fact that a professional will stand without prejudice as best they can to address any issue he or she faces. They will take in and digest all the facts of a matter without prejudice whilst retaining their professional standing. By that I mean they will not shrink away from a problem or any issue placed before them, they will not conduct themselves in anything other than a clinical and impartial fashion ‘without prejudice’. That is what a professional is, somebody clinical and detached who retains their composure by remaining un-biased, non-prejudicial. Only by recognising issues and taking responsibility for them can we hope to resolve those issues.
‘Implications within statements’ are a prejudicial point of view.
Ultimately if allegations are ‘false’ then everyone supporting them is ‘guilty’ since the ‘accused‘ is ‘actually innocent’ with them being the ‘victim’.
· To this end the police are ‘guilty’ for aiding and abetting the ‘guilty accuser’ by supporting and endorsing a ‘false allegation’. The ‘evidences’ and the ‘case’ are clearly ‘false’ since the ‘accused’ is in all actuality ‘innocent’.
· The prosecution are ‘guilty’ since they also support the ‘guilty accuser’ through the introduction of a ‘false allegation’ coupled with ‘unlawful evidences’ relating to an ‘unlawful and unfounded case’.
· The court of law is ‘illegitimated’ through the ‘presentation’ of this ‘case’ which is based around the ‘persecution of an innocent’.
· The judge is ‘compromised’ through the ‘introduction and reiteration’ of all ‘evidences, police and witness statements’ all of which are ‘unlawful’ since if the ‘accused is innocent’ then ‘the case is false’.
The above highlights many reasons for discrediting the ‘innocent accused’ through the use of ‘implications within statements’.
It is a ‘fact’ that we are all prejudiced within the uniqueness of our own perspectives it is therefore within the interest of the ‘authorities’ and the ‘guilty accuser’ to ‘support’ these implications as having merit so as to evade recognition and responsibility for their own ‘Guilt’. Additionally we must recognise that it is equally in the interest of the ‘guilty accused’ to ‘discredit’ implications within statements so as to evade recognition of ‘Guilt’.
However a fair point worth noting here is that the only ‘true victims’ are the ‘innocent’ whether they are the ‘Innocent accuser’ or the ‘Innocent accused’ who are trapped on both sides by the unlawfulness of the ‘Guilty parties’ whether they be the ‘guilty accusers’ or the ‘guilty authorities’ both of whom support ‘false allegations’ through unlawful processes and for ‘personal gain’ with that not necessarily relating to money.
If we cannot recognise the facts of the matter clinically therefore without prejudice how can we evolve legitimately?
We are each one of us individual’s who are trapped within our own unique points of perspective, the sum of which interprets information exclusively with this impacting upon our understanding of the data. Within this it is reasonable to argue that implications within statements are implicative of prejudice since they are in all actuality our desired interpretations of other people’s statements.
We therefore ‘superimpose our interpretations’ of ‘other people’s statements’ over theirs as a ‘means’ or ‘point of domination’ which ultimately ‘demeans and discredits’ them through the ‘destruction of their credibility’.
Ultimately it is a ‘Point of prejudice’ and just as ‘Good’ opposes ‘Evil’ and ‘Right’ must oppose a ‘Wrong’ the ‘Truth’ is corrupted through ‘Prejudicial deceits’ however none of those ‘Corruptions’ are the ‘Truth’.
Everything presented above as ‘Chapter Seven’ (Implications within statements) is taken from the book: ‘The State of
Author and Copyrights: Christopher D, J, Maylor
© 2005 – 2012 (All rights are reserved).
This complete chapter is offered as is the book with best intentions due to the interest within this aspect of the ‘Blog’; I genuinely hope this will help someone win some measure of ‘Human Justice’. The chapter includes references to the case however these are included so as to ‘Project the Issues’ of ‘Implications’ read into ‘Statements’ (General or Organised) and in such a manner that you may perceive a ‘Relevance’ of how they may be applied through ‘Prejudice’ and/or ‘Distortion’. It is worth noting that even ‘Meticulously planned and Highly structured statements’ hide or carry ‘Implications’ within them and these can be found within ‘Official Addresses’ by ‘Senior Officials’ whom may or may not write their own ‘Statements’. Therefore it becomes apparent that even ‘Carefully Worded statements’ may carry ‘Implications’ all of which ‘Discredits their Use’ as being ‘Predatory’.
I hope this helps.
Christopher © Copyright 01/06/2012 (All Rights Reserved)
“Wisdom is found within the depths of understanding
Sentience through the awareness
That each step you take and each action you commit too
Impacts upon others”
By: C. D. J. Maylor © Copyright 2010 (All Rights Reserved)