22. THE LURING NARRATIVE - 1980 to present The prosecution in J ackson's case ultimately used what seems to be a common device, to overcome evidence that did not fit their narrative. They said the evidence does not fit the accusation because the defendants were at first faking what they were doing. And then their plot went sour. In other words, at no point did it look like they were doing what they were accused of. But things which are not what they seem, are much more sinister! Consider a couple who asks a stranger to take their picture. The stranger runs off with their camera. The boyfriend of the couple chases the fleeing stranger, whereupon the fleeing stranger falls and hits his head. The camera is smashed when the stranger falls. So the boyfriend grabs the stranger’s wallet and takes all the money out, leaving the broken camera on the ground, and leaves. The stranger goes to the hospital claiming he was attacked, and later dies from his head injury. Prosecutors charge the girlfriend with capital felony murder, for conspiring as a principal in a robbery attempt. They have video of the couple handing the stranger the camera, and posing. This is far different from what they would be doing if they had a plan to rob the guy. You would expect them to run right up and knock the guy down and take his wallet. There is no need to pose for a picture. But these defendants are actually more evil than the plain robbers. Because what these defendants are doing is tricking and deceiving the target. They are setting him up. These conspirators who use deception to set someone up, by appearing to pose for a picture, are 100 times more sinister than the plain robber. The fact that they do not appear to be executing a planned robbery does not make them innocent, it makes them 100 times more evil and more guilty. And why would a robber leave the smashed camera on the ground, why would he leave the wallet and credit cards, and take only the cash? That is easy, things didn't go as planned so he panicked. What you are looking at does not fit a robbery plan. But that is not because there was no robbery plan. That is because things didn't go as planned. Because these are reckless, dangerous, out-of-control criminals, who are violent and careless with the lives of others. And they are typical dumb sloppy violent criminals, who cannot exercise any kind of rational restrained behavior and need to be in prison. Their evil plots always go sour. The crime might even start out with the victim pursuing the co-conspirator. He might follow her for blocks through the city. The co-conspirator, the principal in the robbery, may even appear to be fleeing the victim. But that was her plan, to dress up pretty and look defenseless and lure him. The victim can appear to be the aggressor. He made the phone call and set up the date. He came to the address to serve the warrant. But he was being led into a trap. That is all part of the game of luring and tricking, which is 100 times more sinister than someone who openly appears to be committing a crime. And if the whole supposed plan makes no sense whatsoever, that is because these criminals are bad planners, and the plot went sour. Why do I say this prosecution device started in the 1980's? That is when I was told a lot of these felony murder and co-conspirator types of laws were written. It was no longer enough just to prove a murder. The new sport was to rope innocent bystanders into the crime, by saying there was some kind of plot, some sinister conspiracy. And if the co-conspirator does not tell anyone she is planning a robbery (no one except complete strangers who conveniently need sentence reductions), and does not appear to be engaged in any kind of dangerous behavior at all, that is because she is deceptive, she is luring the target. All this depends on never having actually met Mandi May Jackson. It is quite incredible. III-71