Open Letter to Jennifer Ford Parts 1 & 2: What She Missed During The Trial

Open Letter to Jennifer Ford Part 1: What She Missed During The Trial
Posted on August 17, 2011 by Lynda Benigno

Excerpt:

Really, thank you for doing a few interviews. As you complain about the subsequent back lash from coming forward, we the people in the United States, that disagreed with your verdict, have listened very closely to what you had to say. Your own words have fueled the theory that something was very wrong it that deliberation room. Your excuses for rendering a not guilty verdict not only contradict the facts presented in the case, but they also prove you were napping or daydreaming while the evidence was presented.I will start with a short list, that is something you can follow, isn’t it Miss Ford? I will then follow with some questions . I will use small words so that you fully understand what I am talking about. Tomorrow, you can return for part two of my evaluation on why your logic and verdict was not only wrong, but reeks of a stupidity and ignorance. However, I want to give you time to soak some of this in, you don’t seem to do well when you have to comprehend large amounts of information.

More: http://worldinfohub.net/2011/08/17/open-letter-to-jennifer-ford-part-1-what-she-missed-during-the-trial/

Open Letter To Jennifer Ford Part 2 What She Missed During The Trial.
Posted on August 18, 2011 by Lynda Benigno

Excerpt:

Miss Ford, I hope you have taken what I have said into consideration in the past 24 hours. I know how hard it must be for you to realize how much you missed while napping during the presentation of the states case. Today were are going to resume revising the facts presented by the prosecution as well as address your statement given during the Greta Van Susteren interview when you stated,and I quote “They didn’t prove the cause of death. If you don’t know what the crime was, you can’t punish someone for that crime. That makes sense to me. I mean….. “. Your second statement during the ABC Interview, “If you’re going to charge someone with murder, don’t you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone, or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered.” . Does any of this ring a bell ? These particular statements raise important questions by the public and speak volumes to your ability to render a verdict that coincided with the law.This is going to be a bit long so brace yourself. Are you ready to begin ?

More: http://worldinfohub.net/2011/08/18/open-letter-to-jennifer-ford-part-2-what-she-missed-during-the-trial/