Direct Link to Latest News


Media Trials - A Covert Attack on Jury System?

July 2, 2013


Are "Innocent" verdicts discrediting the jury system?
Excessive media coverage suggests this may be deliberate. 

 "If I had to guess, and I certainly may be wrong, the jury is going to find George Zimmerman innocent.  And the media will then cry: "Once again, the jury system has failed!"

By James Perloff

In what was called "the trial of the century," a jury declared O. J. Simpson innocent of a double murder in 1995, despite powerful evidence of his guilt.  It was hard to believe Simpson's famous escape attempt in his blood-stained Ford Bronco was the act of an innocent man.  I recall feeling anger toward the jurors who freed him.

More recently, many trials have received disproportionate attention.  In 2011, the Casey Anthony case became the subject of furious media coverage.  Initially, I wondered if Anthony was a celebrity.  But no, she was just a party girl accused of duct-taping her two-year-old daughter's mouth and suffocating her, so she could enjoy her lifestyle unhampered by child care.  While the crime was heinous; it did not seem to merit the extravagant media blitz.

During the trial, the media painted an increasingly unsavory portrait of Anthony.  But as the verdict approached, I began getting an uneasy feeling: namely, that an "innocent" verdict had been prearranged and would be used to provoke anger toward the jury system, especially among conservatives sympathetic to family values.  After the "innocent" verdict was rendered, AOL ran this headline: "Casey Gets Ready to Party."

As in the OJ case, nationwide outrage followed, and new laws--collectively dubbed "Caylee's Law," in honor of Anthony's daughter--were proposed to criminalize parents who failed to report missing children within a mandated time period.


The latest case to earn undue national publicity is that of George Zimmerman, on trial for the 2012 shooting of 17-year old Afro-American Trayvon Martin.  The media is missing no opportunity to fan flames of racial bitterness.  For example, this past week, criticisms of the mumbling testimony of witness Rachel Jeantel have been denounced as originating with "racists" who fail to appreciate Black English.

 If I had to guess, and I certainly may be wrong, the jury is going to find George Zimmerman innocent.  And the media will then cry: "Once again, the jury system has failed!"  This time it will be the Afro-American community's turn to get angry at juries.  Here's a little "preview" of a CNN panel discussion:

CNN Anchor:  "What does this case mean for America?"

Pundit No. 1:  "Clearly, the time has come to reexamine the relevance of the jury system--a system designed for the horse and buggy era.  Today's criminology methods involve cutting-edge technology, such as DNA testing and cyber-detection, which were unknown to the so-called Founding Fathers.  Today, your average jury member simply does not have the expertise necessary to digest these methods.  It's time we took these verdicts out of the hands of "Joe Schmo" and turned them over to bona-fide experts."

Pundit No 2:  "I agree!  We would not have these spontaneous race riots (taking place in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict) had the decision not been placed in the hands of unqualified individuals.  Justice and common sense simply cry out for an end to this antiquated system."

Pundit No. 3:  "And let's not forget that CNN's new poll shows that Americans don't like the disruption to their lives caused by participating in juries.  We're a democracy!  Should we ignore the will of the people?  Forty-five years ago, participation in military--the "draft"--was required for all young American men.  Wisely, we dispensed with that unpopular system and replaced it with an army of professionals.  It's high time the jury system went down the same path!"

 CNN Anchor: "Well, there you have it, folks.  A clear-cut consensus of expert opinion that the time has come to begin the process of rethinking the jury system.  Indeed, at a press conference in Washington today, Nancy Pelosi suggested a new law that would..."


The entire Bill of Rights is currently under intense assault.  Freedom of speech is increasingly disallowed if "politically incorrect."  Freedom of religion now takes a back seat to the new civil right called "gay rights."  A strangely exponential increase in gun crimes over the past year has led to demands to banish the right to bear arms. 

Does anyone think the Illuminati would overlook the right to trial by jury?  Nothing becomes a nationally celebrated media case without Illuminati approval--which means these show trials must have a place in their agenda.  And of course, these trials also take our attention off the worst criminals--the Illuminati themselves.


James Perloff, is the author of The Shadows of Power. His new Kindle book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior examines the methods used by the Illuminati to create a satanic New World Order. New interview with Perloff.

Let me make it clear that I am not lumping George Zimmerman with OJ and Casey in terms of personal guilt or credibility.  A due finding of "not guilty" in the Zimmerman trial would certainly not discredit the jury system.  However, the media will call the verdict racist and use it to fan race riots.  This, I believe, is part of a broader scheme of using "show trials" to provoke demands for reevaluation of the jury system, just as shootings are being used to incrementally repeal the Second Amendment.  The Illuminati know that the best way to make people give up their rights is to make them think their rights are dangerous.  

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Media Trials - A Covert Attack on Jury System?"

Simplicity said (July 4, 2013):

hi henry, prescience is good.

Some of us could use a little perspective to see this significance.(of jury)
Red beckman's presentations on the fully informed jury are priceless.
as are the constitution man's presentation, carl miller. titled "know your constitution-carl miller"

"red beckman's fully informed jury training part 1"(on youtube) or

Michael said (July 3, 2013):

Very interesting and observant article. Given who owns and controls the US media, seems hardly accidental. I am having the occasion of giving a young black high school graduate driving lessons, but explained he would learn more than just how to drive. I asked him if he'd heard of Trayvon Martin.

"Yes" of course, was the answer. Then I asked if he had heard of April Gallop, or
Sherry Jackson. "No" was the answer to those names, who happen to be two courageous BLACK Americans, the devious US media is silent about.

I am sure your readers know the story on each, they both are still sticking to their
guns. April, injured at the Pentagon and crawled out the damage hole, and seeing no evidence of an aircraft, let alone a 757, is still challenging the USG's false 9/11 tale, though warned not to.

And Sherry, CPA, Christian wife
and mother, the former IRS agent in Arron Russo's "America Freedom to Fascism", was unusually persecuted while unjustly stuck in prison for three years, including 5 months in solitary confinement. Never a peep from the
lap-dog media. Yes, this is a good article.

John said (July 2, 2013):

Here is a link to the publication, "The Citizen's Rule Book", in which the power of the jury is explained.

Juries can nullify laws by acquitting the accused. This is what needs to happen all over America with 'Obongo Care", the communist grab of one-sixth of the US economy.

Dan said (July 2, 2013):

Everybody, read Kafka's "the Trial'. (Der Process).

For Americans with a knowledge of history, the notion of trial by 'experts' is anathema. It used to be well understood in this country that trial by a jury of ordinary citizens like you is the only way to get a fair trial. A panel of 'experts' amounts to a kangaroo court.

If you google 'jury failure' or words along those line you do indeed get a plethora of articles like these:

"Should We Abolish the Jury System?" It may initially surprise that this idea is promoted on so-called "Right" sites.

This one, 'PATRIOT POST' features such mainstream "patriots" as Dennis Praeger and David Limbaugh. Shills that wrap themselves in the flag and Constitution, while in fact dismantling it.

Andrew said (July 2, 2013):

Disagree with Perloff's well written essay arguing that the current Zimmerman trial is calculated to discredit the US Constitutional right to trial by jury.

How can anyone feel the slightest bit of outrage to discredit trial by jury when the Seminole County, Florida jury acquits Zimmerman? We already know the Seminole County DA refused at first to even indict Zimmerman, because the evidence against him was so weak.

Wiki says, "Zimmerman has stated that while in his vehicle on a personal errand, he noticed Martin walking inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, stating "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about" and "looking at all the houses".[7][8]"

Remember, this is not a murder trial but a manslaughter trial where the prosecutor will admit that Zimmerman acted in self-defense but argue that he used excessive force. Also the prosecutor will admit that Zimmerman was flat on his back with a much larger black male , Trayvon Martin, the deceased, sitting on his chest beating him unmercifully.

Zimmerman will testify that without using his handgun to free himself, he was fearful Martin may have killed him. Duh!

How else could Zimmerman freed himself?

No, this trial is about distraction or disinformation since real news doesn't reach the American TV viewing audience.

And for many Americans this is better entertainment than 4th of July fireworks.

Also, it's definitely a show trial of a dime a dozen incident that doesn't rate national attention.

Last year, I though it was used to whip up psychological racial tension to energize black voters back to Obama in time for the 2012 election.

Robert said (July 2, 2013):

Experience teaches that the "specialists" are as liable to criticism as the "profane" (jury members) may be. In Canada one need only recall the conduct of the Olson, Bernardo/Homulka, Pickton, Air India, etc., multiple/mass murder cases to conclude that the authorities are often prone to (to be generous) error. Allowing the specialists to determine the question of guilt or innocence, without scrutiny by disinterested parties, would inevitably lead to ever more grave miscarriages of justice deriving from insider cronyism.


Dear Robert

I think this is Perloff's point.


JG said (July 2, 2013):

You never know, the jury might find Zimmerman guilty. This would totally throw a "wrench" in the MSM's plans. No outrage, no chaos, and no big stories for the networks.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at