What’s The Case Against Minuteman Shawna Forde?

Every time someone is accused of a heinous crime, the media constantly bleat the government’s position, and repeat the charges against the defendants endlessly in every article. This is propaganda of the lowest kind, akin to advertising, and is based on the assumption that the more times something is repeated, the more likely others are to remember it, so when the time comes, everyone who has been exposed to media lies will remember and repeat them. (Watch other criminal cases proceed through the justice system, and judge for yourselves.)

What does the prosecution have against Shawna Forde?

Let’s review what they DON’T HAVE first:

They have no one as the eyewitnes who can identify her as being present at the crime; no physical evidence, like DNA or fingerprints; no admission of guilt on her part. What did they have?

Jason Bush’s confession, which placed Shawna and Albert Gaxiola at the scene. This went to what was likely an extremely prejudiced grand jury and was the basis for their indictments and subsequent arrests. A legal observer would then ask:

how was the confession obtained?

If it was obtained by violating the rules of evidence, then it cannot be admissible. Was the defendant coerced, was he placed under duress, was he under the influence, was he in pain, was he promised some reward in exchange for making it (like medical treatment), was the confession, in other words, INVOLUNTARY? It any of these are correct, then it is not admissible at trial. In fact, once Gaxiola’s and Forde’s cases were severed from Bush’s, then I believe the confession was made inadmissible.

The prosecutor has nothing but hearsay witnesses! And hearsay, I’ve heard, is not admissible in court. There is a reason why The Committee for Justice for Shawna Forde has said the Shawna Forde case is like a Ginsu knife commercial: just when you think you’ve gotten to the end, “but wait–there’s MORE!”

Once the cases were severed, and it was known the confession could not be used, then up pops the prosecutor with the lie that some of the victims’ jewelry was found in Shawna’s purse when she was arrested! The fact is, Shawna spent half the year traveling, and when she left home she brought all the other things any woman would bring with her for a long trip: several changes of clothes, makeup, jewelry, shoes, etc. There is no PROOF (which is required at trial) that the jewelry belongs to anyone other than Shawna. There is the first lie exploded.

Many of you casual observers are not aware, having not read the Pima County Sheriff’s 150 page Media Release (which was later WITHDRAWN from circulation) that the FIRST SUSPECT in the murders was Oin Oakstar. He was living with his girlfriend at the time, Sandy Stroup, and their Arivaca home was raided by the Pima County SWAT9 hours after the murders were committed! Oakstar is a twice-convicted drug dealer, a lifelong substance abuser, and he was found in possession of firearms, which would automatically send him back to prison. He spent 6 months in Pima County Jail before he decided to accept a deal which gave him his freedom in exchange for testimony against the defendants. Why did he spend so much time in jail if he knew something? Wouldn’t he likely have “given up” the defendants much earlier to save his own skin? This was the second piece of “evidence” trotted out by the prosecution, after Oakstar and all the defendants had spent half a year in jail. Yet what did Oakstar say when first asked by detectives about Shawna Forde? “Who the f*** is Shawna Forde?” The fact that he didn’t know her at all will come out at trial.

The surviving victim, Gina Gonzalez, has claimed that the woman accompanying the trigger man the night of the murders was a “short, fat white woman.” Shawna doesn’t fit that description, but Sandy Stroup, Oakstar’s girlfriend, does. Yet Gonzalez cannot identify the “short, fat white woman,” and when she was shown a lineup of women including Shawna Forde, she could not pick her out! And some wonder why, in what was obviously a drug cartel hit, Gina Gonzalez survived, and was NOT shot in the head, execution-style, just like the other 2 deceased. The 911 tape which was released to the media was heavily edited and does not portray an accurate chronological flow of events.

Shawna Forde’s attorney has said, “there is no evidence against my client.” He’s a veteran felony murder lawyer with 20 years experience, and I think he knows what he’s talking about. So the only question I have is, why is Shawna still in jail, if there is no case? I thought when there was no evidence, defendants were let go! Oh, but wait–there’s MORE! Pima County can’t allow Shawna Forde to be released, as it would interrupt their railroading of her! They have to make their point that no American citizen is welcome on the border, especially if they are against the government corruption which permits drug smuggling and human trafficking (the sexual exploitation of women and children)!

This case is living proof of the incredible bias of the media, as they do not truthfully report any of the news which would tend to exonerate Shawna Forde; all they carry is the damning propaganda put out by the prosecutor’s office. Let’s all do what we can to help Shawna through this difficult time:support her websites at: http://justiceforshawnaforde.com, http://shawnaforde.blogspot.com, and http://shawnaforde.com. Come ot the Benefit concert we are putting on for her in Tempe, AZ on October 2. And for those of you who remain unconvinced: save your judgment for January 2011, the date of her trial, as all defendants, according to American justice tradition, are assumed to be innocent prior to trial.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply