These are a few excerpts, the entire piece may be read at the link below.
So let’s return to Patty Hearst, and do our own mop-up on this story. I draw your attention to Patty’s life since then. Those who don’t think she was just an actor in this little story should go to IMDB and type in her name. They will see that little old Patty has been in seven films and six TV shows since 1990, including Frasier, Boston Common, and a movie called Pecker. She was an actor in all of them. She also has two writing credits and a producer credit.
Here’s something funny from the Wikipedia page. Remember how the SLA demanded the Hearst family distribute $70 million worth of food to the needy in California? Well, we are told Patty’s father took out a loan and arranged for $2 million to be distributed in the Bay Area. “Took out a loan”? Do you really think the Hearsts needed to take out a loan for $2 million? Patty’s father could have paid the entire $70 million immediately in cash and never missed it. The Hearsts spend that much each year on bottled water, or on electricity for their hair dryers.
Then they tell us the distribution of that food in San Francisco “descended into chaos.” Of course it did. That was part of the plot—an important part. To start with, Papa Hearst didn’t want to lose $2 million to a bunch of beggars, so he no doubt had to be sure to steal the food back before it hit anyone’s lips. But the whole point of this subplot was to show people that direct charity doesn’t work. Feeding people doesn’t work, because they will always riot. Better to put them in private jails first: that way they get fed but they can’t cause any trouble. You may think I am joking, but I’m not. This is exactly what these “philanthropic” rich families have done. Using their pawns in the government, they shut down free distribution of food by churches or other nice people, in the name of sanitation or something, then pass more ridiculous laws by which poor people can be thrown into jail for almost nothing— private jails invested in by the same rich people. This has happened and continues to happen, and it isn’t a joke.
That isn’t a joke, but here’s something funny:
Those are supposed to be Patty Hearst’s booking photos, also known as mugshots. Has anyone ever asked why she looks like a silent film starlet there? The story is, she was kept in a closet, beaten, threatened with death, then repeatedly raped. Then she lived in squalor for months, sleeping on floors and robbing banks and hiding in crawlspaces. So you might want to ask when she had time to get her hair coiffed and her eyebrows waxed and to have her eye make-up professionally applied? I was not aware that the local police station offers such services. Then there is the matter of the background. That is another reason these photos look like period pieces, though I doubt many others have noticed it. Those look like fluted columns behind her, with some sort of art deco capitals on them. Do you think the booking rooms at the police station look like that? I encourage you to study a thousand or so real booking photos. They are shot in front of blank screens, usually white or gray, or they are shot in front of a height gauge. As with passport photos, they don’t wish for the background to compromise the likeness in any way. Also notice the quality of the light. This is another reason she looks so good: the light is soft and even. In booking photos, the light tends to be glaring. They don’t have filters on their bulbs at the police station. But in these photos of Patty, we have professional studio lighting, with filters on the bulbs and the lights arranged at the proper angles. My guess is Patty is at home here, lounging around the Hearst Castle. They simply faked the San Mateo Sheriff’s plaque.
That’s Robert Downey’s mugshot. Note the glaring light and the gray background. Doesn’t look too good, does he? That is how real prisoners look. They don’t look like they are just about to shoot a reel with Errol Flynn.
As more indication of that, a real Sheriff’s plaque would have movable letters below for the prisoner’s name and numbers, but the top line wouldn’t need to be movable, would it? The words “San Mateo Sheriff” would always be the same, wouldn’t they? So they would be printed on the plaque permanently.
Here’s a real mugshot: (Contained in original post)
See how the name and numbers are written in, but the top line is printed? The top line is permanent, so it doesn’t need to be movable or changeable.
Now let us look at the trial. As with the other trials we have studied—like the Simpson trial, the Manson trial, the Chicago 8 trial, the Johnny Hovey trial and others—this one was faked. It was a show trial, in the fullest sense of the word. We can tell this by the way Patty Hearst was first railroaded into a conviction and a very long sentence, and then quickly let out. The long sentence was well publicized, but her sentence reduction, commutation and pardon were not. Why? Because the conviction and long sentence were part of the script. This is one of the ways they keep you in line. They want you to think you are going to get an extremely long sentence for any crime you commit, even if there are extenuating circumstances. “The Law is a stern judge” and all that old rot. They also want to be sure the hippies and extremists get what they have coming to them, as in the Dirty Harry movies. Acquitting Hearst would have sent the wrong message in that regard. Remember, Hearst’s role was the bad girl here, and she was expected to play it to the end of the trial.
We can see the outcome of the trial was predetermined by the very odd actions of the judge, which we will study in a moment. But first, this judge Oliver Carter is odd even before the trial, since his page at Wikipedia has anomalies of its own. We are told he was nominated by Truman in 1950 for a new seat authorized by statute. We are then told he was confirmed by the Senate. But if we take the link, we find this strange admission at the Federal Judicial Center: “No Senate vote.” How does a judge get confirmed by the Senate without a Senate vote? Isn’t a confirmation done by voting? How else would a Senate confirm a judge, if not by voting?
Judge Carter allowed testimony by the prosecution of Hearst’s “willful sexual behavior since the age of 15.” But in a real trial such testimony would be considered both hearsay and external, and thereby inadmissible. He allowed tapes from jail, of Hearst speaking with a friend, in which “she used profanities and spoke of her radical and feminist beliefs.” To start with, feminist beliefs are neither radical nor illegal, and could have no bearing on any legal matter. That was as true in 1974 as it is now. Beyond that, these tapes were clearly planted, since no one on trial for bank robbery would be mouthing off to a friend in front of guards and cameras. This fake evidence was scripted for the express purpose of blackwashing any and all progressive sentiments by any and all progressive persons, whether they were hippies or blacks or otherwise. The lesson you were supposed to learn by watching the trial or reading about it was this: using profanities, talking of your beliefs, or questioning authority in any way is illegal and may be used against you in a court of law. When just the opposite is true, of course. None of those things is illegal in any way. You have the right to talk about whatever you wish, in jail or out of it.
Then there is the question of putting Hearst on the stand, only to have her refuse to answer questions. Alan Dershowitz criticized F. Lee Bailey for allowing Hearst to do this, since it made her look guilty. But all this is part of the charade, since Bailey did it on purpose, and Dershowitz knows that. Both Bailey and Dershowitz are further actors in the play. Bailey blew her defense on purpose, because that is what he was paid to do.
To give you clear evidence of that, we are told that Judge Carter appeared to indicate Hearst would have Fifth Amendment privilege, and then changed his mind. What? It is either one way or the other. There should be no confusion on a point like that, and if Judge Carter had really simply changed his mind, Bailey would have used that as the perfect hook for an appeal. Nothing that happened during the trial made any legal sense.
For more indication of that, we find that Dr. Harry Kozol testified that Hearst had been “a rebel in search of a cause.” In a real trial, Bailey would have objected and that would have been stricken from the record, with the jury instructed to ignore it. Why? Because it is absurd. It implies Hearst had been asking to be kidnapped, and was happy when she was. Even if she had been a rebel in search of a cause, it is unlikely the cause she was searching for included being kidnapped by criminals, beaten, raped, and threatened with death. The whole idea is nonsense.
Then we get this:
Prosecutor James L. Browning, Jr. asked the other psychiatrist testifying for the prosecution, Dr. Joel Fort, if Hearst was in fear of death or great bodily injury during the robbery, to which he answered “No” as Bailey angrily objected.
The problem there isn’t whether Hearst was or was not in fear of death, or that Bailey objected. The problem is that we are supposed to believe a psychiatrist would be asked such a thing in the first place. A psychiatrist is supposed to give professional testimony on psychiatric matters. A psychiatrist would not and could not be asked to give his opinion as to what a defendant thought or did not think. What Hearst was feeling during the robbery is not a psychiatric matter, and it is simply ridiculous to imply that anyone would be asked such a question in a court of law, much less a psychiatrist. A real judge wouldn’t just uphold Bailey’s objection, he would reprimand the prosecutor and might even move for his disbarment. But this kind of thing just doesn’t happen, except in Hollywood movies. In a real court of law, the only person you could ask that question of is Hearst, since only Hearst could possibly know if she was in fear of death at the time. Any other person would just be speculating wildly, and testimony is not the same as wild speculation.
Convicted by the jury of bank robbery, Hearst was sentenced to the maximum of 35 years. Mysteriously, the sentencing judge Oliver Carter (allegedly) died before the final sentence hearing could convene. The new judge William Orrick immediately reduced the sentence to 7 years. After allegedly serving 22 months, Hearst found her sentence commuted by President Carter and she was released. President Clinton later granted her a full pardon. Despite that, Wikipedia maintains this quote from California Attorney General Evelle Younger: “If there was a double standard for the wealthy it was the opposite of what was generally believed.”
I take that to mean Younger was saying the jury was harder on Patty Hearst because she was rich. However that may be, we see the jury was ignored. Orrick and then Carter and Clinton basically nullified the jury finding of guilty. So to say that there is a double standard against the wealthy is doubly rich.
But all that hardly matters here, since everything was faked. No one needed to commute or pardon Patty Hearst, since—in my opinion—she never spent one day in jail. They say she did, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe it. I have the rare and uncanny tendency to believe only what is believable, and absolutely nothing about the Hearst event is believable. I have shown you pages of clear evidence it was faked, and you can easily find more if you wish.
Return to Miles Mathis updates
Other Miles Mathis articles I have linked