top of page
the jblog poster.png

Craig Saunders | Unshackled 7 | Guilty by Association. Because Most People Will Believe All The Lies

False Eyewitness Testimony Takes the Life of Another Victim of the State and the Un-Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Gets A Shiny Badge of Dishonor.

1 December 2022 | Imran Siddiqui | Justice News | Washington D.C.

A Fallacy - can be described as - “A failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid” - It can further be said that - “A logical fallacy is any kind of error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. They can involve distorting or manipulating facts, drawing false conclusions, or distracting you from the issue at hand”.

Guilty by Association, in an Inductive Fallacy - An example of inductive reasoning is surveying 1,000 people about their favorite type of drink and extrapolating their answers to speak for the whole population. Related to this, an inductive fallacy happens when comparing the part to the whole is inaccurate.

It can also be determined that - “A fallacy of defective induction is a conclusion that has been made on the basis of weak premises or one which is not justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence.

So when the United States government convicts a citizen on the basis of a proven fallacy and then goes out of its way to change alibi witness testimony, you must know something is terribly wrong, especially when that person has already spent 20 years of his life because they convicted him on a known, unproven, false, fallacy - Guilt by Association - and on the basis of two eyewitness testimony 18 months after the crime occurred, only because the witnesses pointed Craig Saunders out of a photo lineup.

The elephant in the room here is "witness memory" and the problem with convictions based on proven fallacies like false eyewitness testimony is that when assholes search for the records on the internet, they either themselves misidentify people because of haste, memory loss, or confused photo lineups and are met with hearsay or flat-out lies mashed up with state-sponsored conviction records, alleging a crime but failing to prove that crime in a court of law using facts as evidence, or laws and ethics of a due process of their own criminal justice system.

Most people don't have any moral compass and will run with the shit peppered across the internet, they won't sift for the truth and quickly swallow the garbage just to get back at you and then decide, even before putting all the data together, if the person is guilty or not. And in most cases, you're already guilty.

Like this asshole - at this comment thread - This dude probably confused another Craig, this Craig Saunders, with this Craig Saunders, but nonetheless, he took it upon himself to leave a comment stating a falsehood about Craig while so eloquently but arrogantly and blindly acting as if he wrote some truth.

Maybe I'm wrong. If you're the person who wrote the above comment and you're reading this then you can always correct me and I'll accept my mistake and rectify it. Until then - Screw you.

Craig Saunders was at work on the day and time of the crime and his HR representative testified. Craig says the truth was covered up and alibi witness testimony tampered with while people like you looked the other way.

So why would anyone care?

Because the truth does not depend on if people care or not.

What matters is if you are on the side of the truth.

The truth always comes out.

Because the truth is unstoppable.


| Imran Siddiqui is the managing editor at Justice News and the author of The JBlog.

Imran's podcast FairPlay Challenging Wrongful Convictions is on J107 Justice Radio

bottom of page