Jailhouse witnesses are a complete scam. The idea that people are even having a debate about them is like having a debate about Santa Claus. I have proved in the pages of my book how the jailhouse witnesses in Mandi Jackson's case told stories that are not possible. But that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about ALL jailhouse confessions in EVERY case. You don't know, this is the first you have heard of this, prosecutors tell you they are a great thing. I do know. Anybody who takes the time to look into it knows.

You have read the US Constitution, right? Do you remember from history class, the part where the colonists wanted independence from Britain, so that criminals could escape justice? Remember where it says that in the Declaration of Independence, the part about forming a new government so that murderers can get away with it? Actually it says the exact opposite. One of their grievances against the King was mock trials where murderers were getting away with it.

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

And yet right there in the new Constitution it says:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

Thomas Jefferson, who was best friends with James Madison and had a large influence on the Constitution, proposed the following punishments for the crime of oral sex:

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.

You can drill a hole through a girl's nose for licking pussy, but you can't ask her if she did it!

Did people like that really want to make it harder to convict criminals, by making it harder to coerce confessions? No. They knew jailhouse confessions are worse than useless, a complete scam. They are used by police and prosecutors to put over a fraud.

People think you can't be forced to testify against yourself, that is deep! But it's not so much that it is you, it's that anyone accused of a crime is likely to be chained to the floor. When people are chained to the floor, you would be surprised, they say whatever someone wants them to say. So it could just as easily be someone else who is accused of a crime and locked up, and forced to testify against you.

Back when they wrote the Constitution that was not such a big deal. Every town didn't have a ready supply of 100 people locked up facing life sentences for heroin at all times, whom they could coerce to claim someone confessed. And letting guilty people out of prison as a reward for lying about someone else, would have rubbed the hole-in-nose crowd wrong. They tended to be serious when they locked people up.

Our Founders could not have imagined someday we would have a million people in prison, and any one of them would gladly swear another inmate confessed to get out. Our Founders came from places that were tough on prisoners. They probably imagined any prisoner who did such a heinous thing would be hanged alongside of the person he accused, not let out and given a free pizza. And of course nobody needed another inmate to claim the accused confessed, when they could just wring it out of the accused himself.

Jailhouse confessions are not something new that cheezy car salesmen like State Attorney Phil Archer dreamed up. Coerced confessions are a very old scam, sold to a gullible public who is too busy with bread and circuses. The end run around the Constitution is to coerce other inmates to claim people confessed. Prosecutors will say it is a valuable tool to solve and prevent crime. But it is just the opposite. It is the first resort of lazy hucksters who wish to put up a mirage of solving crime, and get credit for it, without doing any actual work.

The authors of the Constitution knew that giving more tools to prosecutors, giving them absolute power, does not increase solving crimes and punishing criminals. How can it be that removing the option of obtaining confessions, and taking away tools, results in more crimes being solved and punished? Here are some passages from the Wikipedia entry for serial killer Andre Chikatilo, who lived in the USSR where police had absolute power:

a witness had given police a detailed description of a man closely resembling Chikatilo, whom she had seen talking with Zakotnova at the bus stop where the girl had last been seen alive.[48] Despite these facts, a 25-year-old labourer named Aleksandr Kravchenko (who had previously served a prison sentence for the rape and murder of a teenage girl)[49] was arrested for the crime. A search of Kravchenko's home revealed spots of blood on his wife's jumper: the blood type was determined to match both Zakotnova and Kravchenko's wife.

Kravchenko had a watertight alibi for the afternoon of 22 December: he had been at home with his wife and a friend of hers the entire afternoon, and neighbours of the couple were able to verify this.[50] Nonetheless, the police, having threatened Kravchenko's wife with being an accomplice to murder and her friend with perjury, obtained new statements in which the women claimed Kravchenko had not returned home until late in the evening on the day of the murder.[51] Confronted with these altered testimonies, Kravchenko confessed to the killing.[51] He was tried for the murder in 1979. At his trial, Kravchenko retracted his confession and maintained his innocence, stating his confession had been obtained under extreme duress. Despite his retraction, Kravchenko was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death.[52] This sentence was commuted to 15 years' imprisonment (the maximum possible length of imprisonment at the time) by the Supreme Court in December 1980.[53] Under pressure from the victim's relatives, Kravchenko was retried and eventually executed by firing squad for Zakotnova's murder in July 1983.

Thanks to the powerful "tools" given to police in the USSR to coerce witnesses and solve crimes, Chikatilo went on to kill 56 people! Here is more from Wikipedia:

Beginning in September 1983, several young men confessed to the murders, although these individuals were often intellectually disabled youths who admitted to the crimes only under prolonged and often brutal interrogation. Three known homosexuals and a convicted sex offender committed suicide as a result of the investigators' heavy-handed tactics.[82][83] However, as police obtained confessions from suspects, bodies continued to be discovered, proving that the suspects who had confessed could not be the killer the police were seeking. On 30 October 1983 the eviscerated body of a 19-year-old prostitute, named Vera Shevkun, was found in Shakhty.

Jailhouse witnesses who claim inmates confessed are not a tool for getting convictions in tough cases. They are a pure scam pushed by lazy evil prosecutors on a gullible public. People who actually break the law know one thing better than their own birthday: Keep your mouth shut. Is it really possible that anyone doesn't know this? No. The number of inmates who actually confess to their fellow inmates is probably 0%. But even if it is 1% or 5%, those "confessions" are certain to be completely filled with misinformation to suit the immediate agenda of the confessor. The inmate is not saying something true like he is under oath in court. He is saying something designed to get an immediate effect or result from his fellow inmate at the immediate moment.

The amount of hearsay that is admissible at trial is 0%. Inmates did not ask to talk to fellow inmates. They were locked in a box with them. It is not exactly a courtroom setting. It is documented to produce lies on all sides, false convictions, and millions in costs to the taxpayer, not to mention whole generations of voters with no faith in the system. Trust me, nobody confesses, it is the oldest scam. It is even in the fucking 10 Commandments:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Was God telling Moses it is okay to bear false witness against people from across town? Or it is not so bad with total strangers, is God totally inane? No. God is saying that when there are only two people there, and nobody else knows what the truth is, spreading malicious gossip about your neighbor is one of the greatest temptations and oldest sins of humanity. Because nobody can prove you are lying. Nobody else was there. You have a solemn responsibility.

It is not just about lying, it is the setting. God is saying you shall not abuse your presumed position of superior information, to incite a mob against someone you are forced to live with. God is saying you have a responsibility to provide accurate information about the things only you can know. And not allow yourself to weigh the truth lower than personal issues, that are likely to arise with someone you live next to. But now people who commit violent crimes get out of prison, if they also commit this additional sin.

It was even in the Stela of Hammurabi:

If a man has borne false witness in a trial, or has not established the statement that he has made, if that case be a capital trial, that man shall be put to death.

4,000 years later white-trash dirtbags come along, and creepy noodles like State Attorney Phil Archer, and say no, this is not the worst sin of man, suborned by Satan himself. This is an important tool at the disposal of law enforcement! Even for atheists, the concept of "satan" is an abstract metaphor for false prophets like Phil Archer and their gullible minions.

The one in a million actual jailhouse confessions, if any even exist, are more likely to come from innocent people, who should not even be in jail. They are the ones who, when surrounded by criminals, feel the need to say "I am a criminal too." Criminals feel uncomfortable and threatened by squares who never jaywalked. Non-criminals don't want to be exposed as a perceived threat, or a disapproving outsider, to the criminals they are locked in a room with. They don't know or care about the religion of "always deny, never admit to anything, always keep your mouth shut" because they don't do crime and don't think about crime every day. Jailhouse confessions are a tool for convicting the dumb and the innocent.

Mandi Jackson was not a member of the high school science club. She was a teenage hooker. She knew more than anyone the rule of keeping your mouth shut, and keeping secrets from people around you, about what is really going on. When she finally got me to have sex with her, she didn't say "take your clothes off so we can have sex." She said "get comfortable." Mandi was still thinking I was a cop. Scott Love is the one who had been in jail before, because he is an idiot. But here are some clips from Scott's police interview. He actually carried on talking to police for 12 minutes!

For contrast, this is a clip from Mandi's police interview. She talked to them for 40 seconds. It consisted mainly of "no, no, no" and "I want to speak to my attorney."

This is Mandi on a call to her mother from jail. Listen at 8:00 to Mandi saying she is not going to talk to ANYBODY because "anybody could be the police" or a snitch or confidential informant:

You don't need to study Mandi Jackson's psychology, to solve the hard problem of whether Mandi Jackson really confessed. The stories the other inmates said she confessed to are impossible. They are also the only evidence that Mandi Jackson did what she was convicted of.

But here is what people who have never sat in a murder trial with jailhouse witnesses don't know: It doesn't matter if the other inmates' stories are obviously totally wrong, and they were obviously coerced to invent them. Prosecutors can still use them to take over and destroy a trial like throwing a bucket of spaghetti on the jurors' heads. It's a trick, it's a scam which convicts the innocent. People who write about jailhouse witnesses say they "taint" the jury with suggestions and suspicions and ideas, even if they are obviously lying, or known to be paid, or whatever. But it is much worse than that.

For the prosecution to try to prove what happened, they normally have to spend 5 days with 10 witnesses such as fingerprint experts and video technicians, and 100 pieces of evidence. A jailhouse witness can tell a whole story of a crime, with every detail, in a single breath.

To disprove what the jailhouse witness said, the defense has to spend time and money on experts, and deposition transcripts. They need a witness and a few pieces of evidence for every detail they can disprove, spread across several days of trial. The jury can't absorb it like that, all spread out and broken up by a bunch of rules and lunch breaks and court procedures. They can only absorb it the way only the jailhouse witness tells it.

Plus, the jailhouse witness is a colorful character, with a unique background. So it is the only part of the trial that half the jurors even wake up for.

There are crazy perverted rules governing almost every type of evidence. A jailhouse witness claimed my friend ransacked an apartment to steal things. The judge wouldn't let the defense show drugs that were in the apartment that nobody stole. Case law won't let you say what the jailhouse witness was convicted of, or anything about the type of person they are, other than the number of felonies and misdemeanor crimes of dishonesty, and that they were offered a benefit. If the jailhouse witness was charged with the exact same crime, and instead tells the exact story of her own crime, you are not allowed to point that out.

You are not allowed to say anything unpleasant about witnesses who are felons, because left-wing judges didn't want juries to be biased against criminals as defense witnesses. This was designed to balance the false presumption the prosecution wouldn't put liars up there. But when a felon testifies for the prosecution, both their fake credibility is summed, not balanced out. You are not allowed to use the words "lie" and "liar" in front of the jury.

You are certainly not allowed to tell the jury 50% of murder convictions exonerated by DNA in the State of Florida involved jailhouse witnesses. Jailhouse witnesses are produced by a process. But unlike other processes such as ballistics matches or DNA, you are not allowed to have experts elucidate and question that process in front of the jury.

Any witness or evidence that might *confuse* the jury is blocked. Hearsay is blocked. But the jailhouse witness can go up and tell a crazy story that contradicts every piece of physical evidence! The jailhouse witness can say anything about anything, including the defendant, so long as she claims the defendant confessed to it. Those are the rules of evidence produced by case law.

The jury is under the false impression there is some penalty or consequence for lying. Real life is not TV, people commit perjury in trials every day and there is no consequence. For jailhouse witnesses, there is a reward for perjury.

Worse than not telling the jury things, is what jurors assume because you don't tell them otherwise. Jurors don't know the rules of evidence are stopping you from showing them and telling them things about the jailhouse witness that they assume you would tell them. You are not allowed to tell the jury, that you are not allowed to use the word liar! So the jury gets the false impression that all the lawyers have been fooled by this witness and believe he is telling the truth, and it is up to them to wonder for the first time if it is a liar. The rules of evidence give special favor to jailhouse witnesses over every other type of evidence.

The jailhouse witness has secondary effects. Suppose the jailhouse witness says "Everything I tell you is a lie. The defendant killed the victim with a knife." Now the prosecution is allowed to show the jury knives all day, knives found in another county three days earlier with jello on them. Even if there is no other evidence of a knife or knife injury. And the defense is no longer allowed to give the jury an instruction to use caution in a circumstantial case. Because it is no longer a circumstantial case if the jailhouse witness claims there is a confession.

The jury doesn't remember all the little fragments of evidence and testimony, to pay any attention when the defense lawyer starts telling the jury the claimed confession is inconsistent with some little thing they heard a few days earlier. All it does is remind them what the jailhouse witness said. But sometimes it works in reverse, the judge only allows evidence which is consistent with what the jailhouse witness claims the inmate confessed to.

Like suppose there is weed in a house, and the defendant went there to smoke weed. Suppose there was also a gun buried under floor the defendant didn't know about, and an inmate claims the defendant confessed to going there to get the gun. The judge will allow the prosecution to show the jury the gun, and won't allow the defense to show the jury the weed. This is out of fear that an appeals lawyer will claim the weed had nothing to with the actual crime of getting the gun, and biased the jury unnecessarily. Yes, it really is that perverted, and worse.

They literally tell inmates "Anyone who can find out what this other inmate is accused of and claim he confessed to it gets out of prison." Then they put a newspaper in the day room with the story of what the inmate is accused of. Or they let other inmates into a person's cell to look at that person's paperwork, while that person is in court. Or they do a surprise search and throw an inmate's police report on the floor in the day room, when they don't have any other evidence and need someone to read it and claim the inmate confessed.

I have spoken to girls whose cases were settled, who I knew were best friends with other girls in the jail, because they told me. And when I mentioned the other girl after their case was settled, they denied having heard of the other girl. Because they were afraid if they admitted knowing the other girl, the State would bring their charges back, and threaten them with life if they didn't claim the girl they knew confessed.

Finally, the judge tries to offer the jurors a cautionary instruction about jailhouse witnesses. Despite what judges may imagine about their own beauty, jurors don't listen to instructions! They are coddled and live like dolphins! They are just a mob of idiots. The jury instructions contain more hard reading than they have all done, combined, in the last 10 years.

Nobody who was just dragged off the street gives a fuck what the judge says or even remembers. They just wanted to get out of having to listen to their regular boss for a day. They sure as hell did not report for jury duty because they wanted to work, or to listen to a bitchy white girl in a robe. The majority of case law and rules of evidence are based on the assumption that jurors can't weigh information rationally. They don't even know which way is up, they just remember that one story that somebody told them clearly.

That is why the prosecution used a jailhouse witness whose story of the crime contradicted every other witness and piece of physical evidence in the case. And Mandi Jackson got life without parole.

You can read here how violent carjacker Kaylee Simmons got out of prison for claiming Mandi Jackson confessed to something that contradicts every other witness and piece of evidence:

Kaylee Simmons

One of the biggest lies is that cheezy car salesmen like State Attorney Phil Archer are actually solving violent crime like this. If we stop doing this, rapists and carjackers will get your family! It will be the 1970's all over again!

There is someone stealing the lives of your innocent neighbors and meticulously covering up his crime. It is State Attorney Phil Archer. They don't teach you in high school civics class, that the government can pay felons to lie and take your life away and nobody cares. This may be the first you are reading about it right here. Believe it. It is a sinkhole that can suck in you or your child or your neighbor.

Mock trials are the norm, not the exception, in human history. Because people are a mob, people are gullible, people are suckers. The fallen nature of man creeps like weeds. Mock trials are as old as prostitution, and like prostitution they will turn up anywhere you don't make an effort to stamp them out. Mock trials are not some abstract thing from history. Like murder and prostitution, they are something in the present day. And unlike sodomy, we have not entered some new age where mock trials have become acceptable.

Mock trials are something in the present time, in your neighborhood, which you need to guard against. It is not for someone else to fix, there is not someone else who will look into it and take care of it. We live in a democracy, it is for you to fix, it is your responsibility. It is something that was worth fighting the British over, and it should be a concern for you also.

Deliver us from evil.

Read how the sad Florida Supreme Court decided to continue letting sheriffs and prosecutors take the lives of innocents for political theater.