Thomas Mair and the Killing of Jo Cox, M.P.

[guest29835]

You think it's credible, that soon after it's announced that the Leave vote is ahead in the polls, a man responds by killing a prominent Europhile MP, while apparently shouting a really corny phrase, implicating himself as a ignorant bigot?  A local man who adopts a different walk to his own walk, as he goes about ensuring he is captured all over town on various CCTV, avoiding known short cuts that locals would use, then goes to the trouble of changing his clothes while hidden from view, then makes his way to a cul-de-sac to make his escape, where he is accosted by police, who know his name before they accost him?  Not forgetting the carrier bag of shopping he has with when he rugby tackled to the ground?  Perhaps he stopped off at Walter Wilson's for some odds and ends, after committing the brutal attack. 

Do you think Mair reasoned that the attack would increase the Leave vote?

I think Thomas Mair is crazy.  I don't think he reasoned anything much at all.  He was upset at his M.P. because she could not or would not assist him with a housing matter and he may have been treated peremptorily.  I think it likely that he was treated badly. On top of this, and contrary to what is being claimed, he was active in "far Right" politics and so was politically diametrically opposed to Jo Cox.  In the eyes of the mainstream media at least, he was indeed an "ignorant bigot". 

It sounds to me like he lost it and had a gun and a knife, and set out to kill her in a rage.  Why not?

He shouted 'Freedom for Britain, Death to Traitors' because, by this time, he was associated with a brand of politics that is a plastic and corny version of the Right, and it's the sort of phrase that a mentally-unbalanced person with those views might utter.

How can he avoid CCTV?  It's difficult.  He made attempts to disguise himself and perhaps he decided to put on a limp.  We know that after he fled the scene, he changed his clothes at a nearby house where he had been doing gardening.  This means he planned it to a rudimentary degree, despite being psychotic.

He then walked home, or in that general direction.  Presumably he was hoping that he would not be identified, having worn a disguise of some sort and changed his appearance from normal.

What happened is that somebody who had witnessed the incident then followed him and alerted the police, giving a description of him.  The police then found him, which is what the police are good at doing and what we pay them for.

Perhaps he did stop off at the shop for some odds and ends after committing the attack.  This may have helped throw suspicion off him if he had not been caught straight away, so it's not a surprise.

[Steve_uk]

I think we are either open to state sponsored deception or we are not. Like I say, the Saudi's tried their hand at in Turkey, with CCTV and body double etc. Their operation was somewhat less polished than our own forays in to these type of acts.

One of the issues that interests me regarding the trial, was the decision not to present crime scene images but to substitute them with simulated crime scene images instead. I wondered whether this had ever been done before.

I could possibly accept a scenario where Mair had been brainwashed by some agency like the Sirhan Sirhan case, but I think Richard D. Hall's thesis would involve too many people for it to have worked successfully. https://abcnews.go.com/US/robert-kennedys-killer-sirhan-sirhan-brainwashed/story?id=13029050

[David1819]

“Drawing on CCTV footage, forensics, expert witnesses and the testimony of more than a dozen eye witnesses, the prosecution left the jury in no doubt that Thomas Mair was guilty of murdering MP Jo Cox and stabbing pensioner Bernard Carter Kenny.”

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/jo-cox-trial-comprehensive-case-against-thomas-mair-611379

[Roch]

I think Thomas Mair is crazy.  I don't think he reasoned anything much at all.  He was upset at his M.P. because she could not or would not assist him with a housing matter and he may have been treated peremptorily.  I think it likely that he was treated badly. On top of this, and contrary to what is being claimed, he was active in "far Right" politics and so was politically diametrically opposed to Jo Cox.  In the eyes of the mainstream media at least, he was indeed an "ignorant bigot".

An unassuming man, not known by anyone to have ever expressed racist or even overtly political views and who had taught ESOL within the Bangladeshi community, is a secret, raving white supremacist behind closed doors?  As Louise Mensch pointed out, when she was criticised for criticising the trial and judge, there is no evidence he was actively involved in 'far right' activities at all. It's so obviously concocted bullshit. And experiencing mental health issues does not make somebody a 'lunatic'. 

It sounds to me like he lost it and had a gun and a knife, and set out to kill her in a rage.  Why not?

He shouted 'Freedom for Britain, Death to Traitors' because, by this time, he was associated with a brand of politics that is a plastic and corny version of the Right, and it's the sort of phrase that a mentally-unbalanced person with those views might utter.

The 'attacker' deliberately shouted the phrase to order.  It's a manipulation.

The police (or some other agency purporting to be police or forensics) swapped the bag for a different bag by the same manufacturer but with a newer designed handle attachment, as evidenced.  Upon comparison, the difference is blatant.  The bag was under a police tent for 14 hours.

How can he avoid CCTV?  It's difficult.  He made attempts to disguise himself and perhaps he decided to put on a limp.  We know that after he fled the scene, he changed his clothes at a nearby house where he had been doing gardening.  This means he planned it to a rudimentary degree, despite being psychotic.

Simulating a repetitive limp in a consistent manner all over town is one thing, but simultaneously simulating a consistent, pigeon-toed gait (noticeable only upon closer inspection) in addition to the simulated limp?  Come on.  It's a different assailant.

He then walked home, or in that general direction.  Presumably he was hoping that he would not be identified, having worn a disguise of some sort and changed his appearance from normal.

What happened is that somebody who had witnessed the incident then followed him and alerted the police, giving a description of him.  The police then found him, which is what the police are good at doing and what we pay them for.

Yes a single witness gave a description.  And the police claim Mair wore two baseball caps on top of each other (why didn't they just suggest he had a second cap in his sports bag?).  Nobody recognised him. It was only discovered by accident that the police knew his name before they arrested him. 

By a strange quirk of fate, one of the plain clothes men who arrives at the scene when Mair has been accosted, has what appears to be an identical gait to the assailant who attacked Jo Cox.  He comes and checks the area where Mair's bag was on the road.

Perhaps he did stop off at the shop for some odds and ends after committing the attack.  This may have helped throw suspicion off him if he had not been caught straight away, so it's not a surprise.

Where's the CCTV footage of him doing so?  He was caught straight away because it was planned in advance that he would blamed for the killing. Re the remote garden he was supposed to have ditched his clothing etc.  No witnesses saw him leave or enter that property.  It's speculated that he would have been took out, if he'd entered that garden.  Then there would be no need for a trial.  'The loner with mental health issues found dead with self inflicted gunshot wound' (or it could have been 'death by cop' i.e. in the event there was a stand-off).

They couldn't kill him because he didn't go to the remote garden, so they organised a sham trial, with a stand-in for Mair, who didn't speak a word and could not be identified by any family members in the court - because they were not allowed to attend court.

This is the state, blatantly taking the absolute piss out of everyone.. and getting away with it, with ease.

[Roch]

“Drawing on CCTV footage, forensics, expert witnesses and the testimony of more than a dozen eye witnesses, the prosecution left the jury in no doubt that Thomas Mair was guilty of murdering MP Jo Cox and stabbing pensioner Bernard Carter Kenny.”

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/jo-cox-trial-comprehensive-case-against-thomas-mair-611379

  look at the physique of Mair, seated in the road where he was forced to the ground.  Now look at the physique of the attacker, striding on CCTV in the suit jacket.   

[guest29835]

An unassuming man, not known by anyone to have ever expressed racist or even overtly political views and who had taught ESOL within the Bangladeshi community, is a secret, raving white supremacist behind closed doors?  As Louise Mensch pointed out, when she was criticised for criticising the trial and judge, there is no evidence he was actively involved in 'far right' activities at all. It's so obviously concocted bullshit. And experiencing mental health issues does not make somebody a 'lunatic'. 

This is not true.  There are photographs of him recent to the killing in which he is involved in far-Right activities.  Furthermore, he was on an obscure neo-Nazi mailing list earlier in life.  I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, good or bad, I merely observe the fact that he was involved in that milieu and the person who attacked Jo Cox shouted a slogan that could be associated with such a person.  What those types of people say often is plastic and corny.

The 'attacker' deliberately shouted the phrase to order.  It's a manipulation.

Thomas Mair shouted it because he was a sad, vulnerable man who was seeking comradeship and an outlet for his resentments.  And it could be that his resentments were legitimate and valid, but he killed Jo Cox.

The police (or some other agency purporting to be police or forensics) swapped the bag for a different bag by the same manufacturer but with a newer designed handle attachment, as evidenced.  Upon comparison, the difference is blatant.  The bag was under a police tent for 14 hours.

What bag?  I've no idea what you are talking about.  There's no particular reason I should know.  Perhaps you could explain?  What is your source?

Simulating a repetitive limp in a consistent manner all over town is one thing, but simultaneously simulating a consistent, pigeon-toed gait (noticeable only upon closer inspection) in addition to the simulated limp?  Come on.  It's a different assailant.

It may well be.  Have you asked Thomas Mair?  Isn't that the first port of call for an investigator?

Yes a single witness gave a description.  And the police claim Mair wore two baseball caps on top of each other (why didn't they just suggest he had a second cap in his sports bag?).  Nobody recognised him. It was only discovered by accident that the police knew his name before they arrested him.

My understanding is that the witness who followed Mair didn't know him, but was able to identify him to the police, and they then traced and found him, which stacks up to me.  What is a bit strange is that nobody at the incident recognised him, but there again, I'm not sure how busy Birstall is.  It may attract people from all over.

What is your source for the part in bold?

By a strange quirk of fate, one of the plain clothes men who arrives at the scene when Mair has been accosted, has what appears to be an identical gait to the assailant who attacked Jo Cox.  He comes and checks the area where Mair's bag was on the road.

If you could put the video up here, we can all look and decide that for ourselves.

Where's the CCTV footage of him doing so?

I didn't say there is any.  You brought up the idea of him going to the shop, not me.

He was caught straight away because it was planned in advance that he would blamed for the killing.

How have you come to that radical conclusion?  Could you take us through your methodology and provide us with your sources?  If it consists of watching a Richie Hall presentation, I'm afraid I can't rely on what Richie Hall says.  He has an agenda and he twists things to develop conspiracies.  It's not that I believe there are no conspiracies, it's more that I think such theories should be based on sound evidence.  Ironically, Richie Hall could be considered a conspiracy in his own right.

Re the remote garden he was supposed to have ditched his clothing etc. No witnesses saw him leave or enter that property.

But isn't that the whole point?  If nobody saw him enter or leave, it sounds like any plan he had formed in his head was going quite well.  Maybe he selected that location on purpose?  The only problem was the CCTV and the witness who was following him.

'The loner with mental health issues found dead with self inflicted gunshot wound' (or it could have been 'death by cop' i.e. in the event there was a stand-off).

On the other hand, isn't a loner with mental health issues more likely to do something like this?  It fits the profile because that is a likely type of person.

They couldn't kill him because he didn't go to the remote garden, so they organised a sham trial,

If I have you right, you're saying the police were trying to lure him to a suburban garden so that they could kill him on the pretext he had killed Jo Cox?  It all sounds terribly complicated.  Why don't the guys and galls at MI5/Special Branch/MI5/GCHQ [CIA?] just kill Jo Cox themselves?  What do they need a 53 year old gardener for?  Anyway, I assume that's why the man with the binoculars was there?  Was he looking out for him?  How did they know that Thomas Mair would be in that particular road, given that he lived some distance away (I think a mile or two)? 

[Roch]

Not only do these two men have entirely different walks, they have different physiques.  I suggest that Mr white cap looks after himself. He has a 'physique'. 

No disrespect to Tommy but aside from gardening, I don't think he works out.

[guest29835]

Not only do these two men have entirely different walks, they have different physiques.  I suggest that Mr white cap looks after himself. He has a 'physique'. 

No disrespect to Tommy but aside from gardening, I don't think he works out.

It could be the same person.

In the first image capture, he's clearly wearing a disguise. 

In the second image, he's not because he changed out of his disguise earlier. 

His physique in the second image seems normal to me.  He may have a bit of belly fat, but he would pass for slim if you saw him walking.

Sorry I'm just not convinced.  If you still think there is something wrong, then why don't you start by writing to him?

[David1819]

He was seen murdering the victim for god sake. He also stabbed someone who tried to help. That person survived and said it was TM. This is stupid!

[Roch]

He was seen murdering the victim for god sake. He also stabbed someone who tried to help. That person survived and said it was TM. This is stupid!

What on earth are you on about?  Where is his trial testimony?

And are you blind?

[guest29835]

What on earth are you on about?  Where is his trial testimony?

And are you blind?

Assuming you're not on a wind-up or partaking in drink, here's how we're going to resolve this:

I will write to him.  I'll let you know roughly what I say in the letter and, roughly, what he says in the reply - assuming he replies at all.

Post to follow.

[Roch]

Assuming you're not on a wind-up or partaking in drink, here's how we're going to resolve this:

I will write to him.  I'll let you know roughly what I say in the letter and, roughly, what he says in the reply - assuming he replies at all.

Post to follow.

To who, Tommy or the old man at the scene? 

[guest29835]

To who, Tommy or the old man at the scene?

Mr Thomas Mair, the man himself.

[Roch]

Let me get this straight.. A local man from a small town attacks an MP in the town centre, where he could be easily recognised by numerous townsfolk. He goes to the trouble of disguising himself by wearing brown loafer type shoes, two different coloured baseball caps, one atop the other (so the under rim of his cap and its peak would be visble as black to anyone looking up to his face or is it the other way round, after the attack, the under rim and peak would be white? ). And he wears a suit jacket? That's his disguise, that's supposed to ensure that he doesn't get recognised in his home town  .  And in the event, nobody recognises him anyway, despite his ingenious disguise. But the police know who he is when they arrest him. He goes to all the trouble of creating this disguise but forgets to remove the Jo Cox material from his home, before attacking her, so that it's conveniently available for discovery by police, with a library Himmler would be jealous of.   He goes to all the trouble of visiting the remote garden without being seen by any neighbours and then heads to a cul-de-sac?

[Roch]

It could be the same person.

In the first image capture, he's clearly wearing a disguise. 

In the second image, he's not because he changed out of his disguise earlier. 

His physique in the second image seems normal to me.  He may have a bit of belly fat, but he would pass for slim if you saw him walking.

Sorry I'm just not convinced.  If you still think there is something wrong, then why don't you start by writing to him?

Write to him by all means. But check the three videos featuring John Aspray in post 18 first (I suggest). I also suggest, that the man in the white cap, can carry off wearing a suit better than Tommy could. I think white cap has better posture (as well as the evidenced difference in gait).