Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other cases => Topic started by: guest29835 on July 26, 2020, 10:18:PM
-
This is a thread for discussion of the Thomas Mair case.
Briefly, Helen Joanne "Jo" Cox ((née Leadbeater) was a Labour politician and Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen, a West Yorkshire constituency.
On 16th. June 2016, Cox was shot and stabbed several times in a street of the village of Birstall, West Yorkshire, within her constituency.
A suspect was quickly identified and apprehended. This suspect was later revealed to be Thomas Alexander Mair, a gardener, then 53, who I understand lived nearby.
In November of the same year, Mr Mair was convicted of:
(i). Jo Cox's murder;
(ii). grievous bodily harm with intent for the assault of a passerby, Mr Bernard Kenny;
(iii). possession of a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence; and,
(iv). possession of an offensive weapon, being a dagger.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment and is subject to a whole life order.
Whatever view one takes about Thomas Mair's politics, whether for or against or something else, it seems to me that he committed this killing and he has been convicted.
There are, however, people who believe Thomas Mair is wrongly convicted or they think there is something not quite right about what happened.
Roch brought the subject up in another thread, so let's discuss it here. I am sceptical, but I am willing to consider possibilities.
Let me start by replying to Roch's reply to mine on the other thread (there's no need to read my earlier post for context, as I cover the same ground in my reply here):
I suspect he may be a 'patsy'. I doubt there's a need for there to be anything special about him, however he may have conveniently met certain criteria which placed him in that position.
The glaring question is: Why hasn't he protested his innocence? He is held in a high security prison, but he is not held incommunicado. He is not mute. He is in the general prison population with access to the same communication opportunities and legal rights as other prisoners. Why haven't we heard from him or heard about him claiming he didn't do it?
Or do you not accept he is in prison at all? If you don't accept this, what proof would you require that he is in custody for these offences?
Jo Cox may well have been killed.
Do you accept that she was killed?
If you don't accept this, what manner of proof would you require?
In the aftermath of the killing, I immediately considered the incident was linked to an attempt to manipulate the Brexit vote.
It manifestly was. You are correct. Even if only subconsciously, Thomas Mair was attempting to influence the referendum. As was everybody else, including organs of state. But isn't the idea of powerful people killing a Member of Parliament a bit much? Would they really have so much riding on the referendum to be motivated to do that, with all the risks it entails?
Nothing has changed my mind on that, however there may be more strands to it. Although Jo Cox was not well known to the UK public or even within Westminster, she had at a relatively young age held some arguably prominent positions.
Lots of people hold prominent positions. What specific reason would anybody have to kill her? And who? And why?
I hope it's not his trial lawyer.
Do you think he had effective assistance from counsel?
I think his mam has visited him.
I thought his mother was already dead, but maybe I'm mistaken. That brings me to a relevant point. My understanding is that he was in a council house living with his mother (or some other relative) and his mother (or relative) died. The council then wanted him out. He went to Jo Cox for assistance and he was disappointed with her. I'm not suggesting he killed her for that reason, but I am suggesting that this would have set him off.
I may have got my facts awry here, though. I haven't looked into the case too carefully.
If you write to him to discuss the circumstances of his case and trial, there's a good chance you will receive a visit from plain clothes officers, ostensibly to check for any 'right wing' leanings - but in reality to warn you off.
I've already had that - a visit from the Special Branch. Don't worry, they already know about me.
I may write to him.
If he attempted to do so, it may break whatever arrangement / agreement that he was coerced in to, thereby placing either himself or his family at risk in some way or form.
What hold would they have on him, though? His mother is already dead (though I may be mistaken about that fact - possibly it's a different relative he was living with).
-
Roch I have to say I think this is a conspiracy too far. https://in-this-together.com/thomas-mair/
-
Roch I have to say I think this is a conspiracy too far. https://in-this-together.com/thomas-mair/
I haven't seen that website Steve. I will give it a read. You must be a fast reader, to come to your conclusion so quickly. The thread was only started at 10.18pm.
-
I haven't seen that website Steve. I will give it a read. You must be a fast reader, to come to your conclusion so quickly. The thread was only started at 10.18pm.
You raised this subject last night (Saturday), which is when I sought out the information and found the above webpage.
-
You raised this subject last night (Saturday), which is when I sought out the information and found the above webpage.
'The British' have been labelled as 'the masters of deception' since WW2. The Saudi's recently turned their hand to it but it blew up in their faces.
-
lol
-
lol
That's a bit puerile David.
-
That's a bit puerile David.
Yes, it is, isn't it.
Have you seen the Richie Hall documentary? I did, and I wasn't convinced, but there is one point that bothered me: There was a man using binoculars stood in the street where Thomas Mair is said to have fled (this was to reach a house where he changed clothes and hid his weapons). The presence of that man has never been explained. But that's the only oddity about it I am aware of that has any plausibility.
-
Yes, it is, isn't it.
Have you seen the Richie Hall documentary? I did, and I wasn't convinced, but there is one point that bothered me: There was a man using binoculars stood in the street where Thomas Mair is said to have fled (this was to reach a house where he changed clothes and hid his weapons). The presence of that man has never been explained. But that's the only oddity about it I am aware of.
Did you watch all four episodes? I think the differences in walking style and the differences in the bag stuck out for me. Yeah I noted the man with binoculars. It's interesting that Gareth Bamsey hasn't issued a denial. He's started a new life in France but that may be due to the Stephen Kinnock incident.
-
Yes, it is, isn't it.
Have you seen the Richie Hall documentary? I did, and I wasn't convinced, but there is one point that bothered me: There was a man using binoculars stood in the street where Thomas Mair is said to have fled (this was to reach a house where he changed clothes and hid his weapons). The presence of that man has never been explained. But that's the only oddity about it I am aware of that has any plausibility.
Richard D Hall? The guy who thinks George Bush destroyed the twin towers with a laser from space?
-
Did you watch all four episodes? I think the differences in walking style and the differences in the bag stuck out for me. Yeah I noted the man with binoculars. It's interesting that Gareth Bamsey hasn't issued a denial. He's started a new life in France but that may be due to the Stephen Kinnock incident.
Do you have them Roch?
-
Do you have them Roch?
If its made by the guy I think it is, don't bother.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brnRy-568ww&feature=youtu.be&t=2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brnRy-568ww&feature=youtu.be&t=2s)
How can anyone take this guy seriously?
-
Richard D Hall? The guy who thinks George Bush destroyed the twin towers with a laser from space?
This thread relates to Thomas Mair and his conviction re the alleged murder of Jo Cox. I'm not being drawn in to a discussion about 9/11.
-
Did you watch all four episodes? I think the differences in walking style and the differences in the bag stuck out for me. Yeah I noted the man with binoculars. It's interesting that Gareth Bamsey hasn't issued a denial. He's started a new life in France but that may be due to the Stephen Kinnock incident.
I can't remember how many episodes it was, but I did watch it all. I am open-minded, but I struggled through it. To be honest, it's not my cup of tea. I just found it a bit too far-fetched.
-
I can't remember how many episodes it was, but I did watch it all. I am open-minded, but I struggled through it. To be honest, it's not my cup of tea. I just found it a bit too far-fetched.
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 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.
Do you have a source for this?
-
Do you have them Roch?
Hi Steve, it seems only the first episode is available on the link to that site you posted further up. All FOUR episodes can be watched from this link: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=266&part=1&gen=99
There are a further three videos featuring the researcher John Aspray, asking for help to 'Find Tommy': https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=276&part=1&gen=99 The inference being that he seems to have 'disappeared' from within the prison system.
-
Do you have a source for this?
Off the top of my head, I believe the researcher and activist Nick Kollerstrom attended the trial and has subsequently spoken about the trial on several occasions. He is featured in one of the four episodes of the RDH investigation, discussing the trial.
The former MP Louise Mensch has expressed concerns about the trial but I cannot find her article. She was criticised for speaking out.
-
Off the top of my head, I believe the researcher and activist Nick Kellerstrom attended the trial and has subsequently spoken about the trial on several occasions. He is featured in one of the four episodes of the RDH investigation, descussing the trial.
The former MP Louise Mensch has expressed concerns about the trial but I cannot find her article. She was criticised for speaking out.
I will entertain anything as long as there is evidence.
Do you have a hypothesis? Or would you prefer to start from the evidence and work back? It can be done either way.
I think this is one of those cases where it probably would be better to start with the facts and known evidence and work backwards and see what we come up with.
I 'start from the start', so in the Mair case, the first pieces of evidence I'd need are:
- official confirmation that Jo Cox died, how she died, when and where - i.e. death certificate;
- official certificate of conviction for Thomas Mair.
The next piece of evidence is Thomas Mair's version of what happened and maybe permission from him to access the case files.
Anyway, that's the way I would approach it.
-
I will entertain anything as long as there is evidence.
Do you have a hypothesis? Or would you prefer to start from the evidence and work back? It can be done either way.
I think this is one of those cases where it probably would be better to start with the facts and known evidence and work backwards and see what we come up with.
I 'start from the start', so in the Mair case, the first pieces of evidence I'd need are:
- official confirmation that Jo Cox died, how she died, when and where - i.e. death certificate;
- official certificate of conviction for Thomas Mair.
The next piece of evidence is Thomas Mair's version of what happened and maybe permission from him to access the case files.
Anyway, that's the way I would approach it.
I will have to get back to you on this.
The four episodes are not available in the link provided by Steve UK. I have placed the proper link above.
Thomas Mair is not communicating. Attempts to communicate with him resulted in plain clothes intervention. Thomas Mair did not communicate at his trial or during police interviewing. His family were not allowed to attend his trial and the court portraits of him at his trial, do not look like him - something which family members have noted.
-
I will have to get back to you on this.
The four episodes are not available in the link provided by Steve UK. I have placed the proper link above.
Thomas Mair is not communicating. Attempts to communicate with him resulted in plain clothes intervention. Thomas Mair did not communicate at his trial or during police interviewing. His family were not allowed to attend his trial and the court portraits of him at his trial, do not look like him - something which family members have noted.
Are you saying you've tried to write to him and then had a visit from the police?
-
This is just silly. The guy was seen in broad daylight committing the crime.
-
This is just silly. The guy was seen in broad daylight committing the crime.
Don't cramp my style, David. My bet's on the Hunched Man for this one. He gets all over and he's been at it for years.
-
Are you saying you've tried to write to him and then had a visit from the police?
No, as per second link in post 18 above (this time a three parts video), the researcher John Aspray attempted various methods to contact Tommy but was unsuccessful. It triggered a visit from plain clothes police, ostensibly to assess Aspray for 'far right' leanings - though he suspects this was not their real motive.
RDH attempted to contact the main prosecution witness, which triggered a warning from police.
This is just silly. The guy was seen in broad daylight committing the crime.
Was he?
-
No, as per second link in post 18 above (this time a three parts video), the researcher John Aspray attempted various methods to contact Tommy but was unsuccessful. It triggered a visit from plain clothes police, ostensibly to assess Aspray for 'far right' leanings - though he suspects this was not their real motive.
Well that won't worry me, they've already been to my house.
attempted to contact the main prosecution witness, which triggered a warning from police.
I'm not worried by that. I'll contact who I like.
Was he?
To be fair, David is correct: he was witnessed in broad daylight. Of course, eye-witness evidence is going to be quite unreliable unless somebody who knows him sees him do it. If it's people who don't know him, then there will be huge variations in the physical descriptions given, simply because the poor old witnesses can't have known they were about to see somebody get shot and stabbed in the middle of the high street of a placid West Yorkshire village. It must have been quite a shock, and having to remember whether he had a beard or a moustache must have been quite low down on their list of priorities.
That brings me to an interesting point. If I understand correctly, Mr Mair lived in Birstall, and I think he was generally known and recognised, having lived there for many years and volunteered locally. He was also a local gardener. So why didn't anybody recognise him? Or did they recognise him and we just don't know that aspect of the case?
Would you accept that if it turns out he was positively identified as the assailant by somebody who knew him, then it's case closed?
-
To be fair, David is correct: he was witnessed in broad daylight. Of course, eye-witness evidence is going to be quite unreliable unless somebody who knows him sees him do it. If it's people who don't know him, then there will be huge variations in the physical descriptions given, simply because the poor old witnesses can't have known they were about to see somebody get shot and stabbed in the middle of the high street of a placid West Yorkshire village. It must have been quite a shock, and having to remember whether he had a beard or a moustache must have been quite low down on their list of priorities.
No offence meant .. but I interpret your first sentence as being at odds with the rest of the paragraph.
That brings me to an interesting point. If I understand correctly, Mr Mair lived in Birstall, and I think he was generally known and recognised, having lived there for many years and volunteered locally. He was also a local gardener. So why didn't anybody recognise him? Or did they recognise him and we just don't know that aspect of the case?
There can only be two answers: either nobody present knew Mair; or he couldn't be recognised, on account of not being involved in the incident.
Would you accept that if it turns out he was positively identified as the assailant by somebody who knew him, then it's case closed?
It's a bit late for that isn't it? Have you seen the footage and court portraits? Something has gone very awry here.
Are you certain you have seen all four episodes? The would account for approximately 3 hours viewing.
-
Don't cramp my style, David. My bet's on the Hunched Man for this one. He gets all over and he's been at it for years.
If its being mentioned by Richard D Hall then you can safely say its crazy baloney. The guy has made a career out of entertaining the intellectually disabled and mentally ill.
-
No offence meant .. but I interpret your first sentence as being at odds with the rest of the paragraph.
What I'm getting at is that, officially, he was seen (but not necessarily witnessed) doing this, which diminishes (but doesn't entirely undermine) the plausibility of what you are driving at. However, without knowing more about the case, I can't say to what extent witness evidence was considered probative.
By the way, it's a paradox to say this, but it's also true that just because witness evidence is inherently unreliable in the sense of a wont of accuracy, it needn't follow that it is lacking in credibility. If I say, 'Yes, that's the man', I may not be able to remember if he had a beard or green eyes or whatever, but I may still pick him out.
There can only be two answers: either nobody present knew Mair; or he couldn't be recognised, on account of not being involved in the incident.
There's a third and a fourth possibility:
(iii). He was recognised by a witness who knew him and thus he was positively-identified as the assailant.
(iv). He was followed by a witness who did or did not know him, and thus he was positively-identified as the assailant.
It's a bit late for that isn't it? Have you seen the footage and court portraits? Something has gone very awry here.
Are you certain you have seen all four episodes? The would account for approximately 3 hours viewing.
I see a flaw in your reasoning here, which is that you are starting from the tendentious assumption that it wasn't him in the dock.
Let's consider three further facts:
1. As he attacked poor Jo Cox, the assailant shouted, "Freedom for Britain, Death to Traitors."
2. At his first appearance before Dewsbury Magistrates (I think it was Dewsbury, I'm going from memory), when asked to confirm his name, the man stood in the dock said or shouted: "Freedom for Britain, Death to Traitors".
3. A man known as Thomas Alexander Mair has not been seen in Birstall since 16th. June 2016. He was - apparently - a socially withdrawn man in some respects, but he wasn't a hermit. Lots of people knew him and he had friends, family and acquaintances.
Points 1 and 2 tell me there is a link between the man in the dock and the tragic killing of Jo Cox. Not that it proves anything, but it tells me that the man arraigned was the man suspected of the killing.
Point 3 tells me that Thomas Mair has gone somewhere. Where has he gone? On holiday?
-
If its being mentioned by Richard D Hall then you can safely say its crazy baloney. The guy has made a career out of entertaining the intellectually disabled and mentally ill.
This discussion reminds me of that souciant and pretentious, but I have to say rather good, Jean Baudrillard book, 'The Gulf War Did Not Take Place' - today's recommend reading.
I don't agree that this is a waste of time. I consider that this is actually a very useful 'thinking exercise'.
How do we prove something happened?
Can we believe what we're told?
-
What I'm getting at is that, officially, he was seen (but not necessarily witnessed) doing this, which diminishes (but doesn't entirely undermine) the plausibility of what you are driving at. However, without knowing more about the case, I can't say to what extent witness evidence was considered probative.
By the way, it's a paradox to say this, but it's also true that just because witness evidence is inherently unreliable in the sense of a wont of accuracy, it needn't follow that it is lacking in credibility. If I say, 'Yes, that's the man', I may not be able to remember if he had a beard or green eyes or whatever, but I may still pick him out.
There's a third and a fourth possibility:
(iii). He was recognised by a witness who knew him and thus he was positively-identified as the assailant.
(iv). He was followed by a witness who did or did not know him, and thus he was positively-identified as the assailant.
I see a flaw in your reasoning here, which is that you are starting from the tendentious assumption that it wasn't him in the dock.
Let's consider three further facts:
1. As he attacked poor Jo Cox, the assailant shouted, "Freedom for Britain, Death to Traitors."
2. At his first appearance before Dewsbury Magistrates (I think it was Dewsbury, I'm going from memory), when asked to confirm his name, the man stood in the dock said or shouted: "Freedom for Britain, Death to Traitors".
3. A man known as Thomas Alexander Mair has not been seen in Birstall since 16th. June 2016. He was - apparently - a socially withdrawn man in some respects, but he wasn't a hermit. Lots of people knew him and he had friends, family and acquaintances.
Points 1 and 2 tell me there is a link between the man in the dock and the tragic killing of Jo Cox. Not that it proves anything, but it tells me that the man arraigned was the man suspected of the killing.
Point 3 tells me that Thomas Mair has gone somewhere. Where has he gone? On holiday?
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
“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 (https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/jo-cox-trial-comprehensive-case-against-thomas-mair-611379)
-
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.
-
“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 (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.
-
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)?
-
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.
(https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/images-a.jpimedia.uk/imagefetch/http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/Prestige.Item.1.85915104!image/image.jpg?width=640)
(https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/images-a.jpimedia.uk/imagefetch/http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/Prestige.Item.1.85915114!image/image.jpg?width=640)
-
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.
(https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/images-a.jpimedia.uk/imagefetch/http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/Prestige.Item.1.85915104!image/image.jpg?width=640)
(https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/images-a.jpimedia.uk/imagefetch/http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/Prestige.Item.1.85915114!image/image.jpg?width=640)
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?
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
To who, Tommy or the old man at the scene?
Mr Thomas Mair, the man himself.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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 :)).
He is in his home village, so he disguises himself. What's the mystery? It may or may not have been a good disguise.
And in the event, nobody recognises him anyway, despite his ingenious disguise. But the police know who he is when they arrest him.
I'm not sure about that. I've been re-watching some of Richard Hall's videos about this. It's mostly junk, but in the absence of more useful studies of the case, it helps because Hall summarises important facts. I think Mair was recognised at some point - probably the third party description 'clicked' with somebody, or somebody has put 2 and 2 together.
Mr Playford, the witness who followed Mair after the incident, didn't know him. (Interestingly, Playford says that at first Mair was behind him - which I assume was a coincidence, maybe because Mair was heading in the same direction as Playford, and Playford surmised that Mair was the perpetrator, but it does seem like an odd thing to say).
There were other witnesses, and I think what has happened is that the police have figured out that the perpetrator was Mair, based on his familiarity locally, and probably at the prompting of somebody who has spoken to a witness at the scene and then alerted police.
The reality is that no matter how well disguised you are, people will recognise you if they know you well or you're a familiar local character, which Mair was. This, furthermore, explains Mair's pronounced 'limp': he was trying to divert inquiries, knowing there would be CCTV footage, but he obviously hasn't appreciated the limitations of a physical disguise in the Real World.
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?
He went to the cul-de-dac because that was part of some sort of plan he had to change clothes, maybe hide, and possibly dispose of the weapon. Maybe he realised he was being followed, or maybe he panicked and carried on walking. Maybe he was having a psychotic episode and didn't know what he was doing.
I'm not sure he had a "library Himmler would be jealous of". He has some neo-Nazi books, but he didn't have an extensive corpus in his possession. To be fair, I don't believe the police or the prosecution or the trial itself could have put much stall in what books he had. That sort of information is propaganda that the police put out for half-wits who rely on mainstream news.
If the police looked at my library at home, they'd be utterly baffled and confused. They'd find National Socialist material alongside communist books alongside libertarian pamphlets alongside books on gardening. They'd probably come away thinking that I was some sort of political schizophrenic, or maybe a esoteric anarcho-Strasserite.
In any event, it's not evidence.
-
Some basic information:
Full name:
THOMAS ALEXANDER MAIR
Date of birth; location:
12 August 1963; Kilmarnock, Scotland (it seems he lived in Birstall, West Yorkshire from being a small boy).
Prisoner number:
A7176DT
Currently held as a category 'A' prisoner at HMP Frankland, Brasside, Durham DH1 5YA.
-
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 has gone full conspiratard
https://jo-cox.fandom.com/wiki/Bernard_Kenny (https://jo-cox.fandom.com/wiki/Bernard_Kenny)
-
I've been watching the Richard Hall-John Aspray videos. He keeps saying he has no confirmation that Thomas Mair is in prison, or any particular named prison, but then he produces a letter from HMP Frankland confirming that the author of that letter, a senior prison officer at HMP Frankland, one "G. Wigham", has spoken to Thomas Mair about John Asprey's letters! Thus, Thomas Mair is in HMP Frankland, or at least was at the date of that letter (22nd. August 2019).
I genuinely don't get where this Mr Aspray is coming from. He actually has the confirmation he claims not to have. He's directly contradicting himself. I appreciate the letter doesn't actually say that Mr Mair is in that specific prison, but the implication is obvious.
He says he got a visit from plain clothes police officers, but that wasn't because he just sent one letter to Thomas Mair. He was sending letters here, there and everywhere. Don't misunderstand me: I do agree that a visit from the police is bit much. Nevertheless, Mr Aspray misrepresents things when he says it was because somebody thought he had "far-Right" leanings. In fact, they weren't assuming this. The stated reason was that they wanted to find out whether he had extreme political associations at all.
-
I've been watching the Richard Hall-John Aspray videos. He keeps saying he has no confirmation that Thomas Mair is in prison, or any particular named prison, but then he produces a letter from HMP Frankland confirming that the author of that letter, a senior prison officer at HMP Frankland, one "G. Wigham", has spoken to Thomas Mair about John Asprey's letters! Thus, Thomas Mair is in HMP Frankland, or at least was at the date of that letter (22nd. August 2019).
I genuinely don't get where this Mr Aspray is coming from. He actually has the confirmation he claims not to have. He's directly contradicting himself. I appreciate the letter doesn't actually say that Mr Mair is in that specific prison, but the implication is obvious.
He says he got a visit from plain clothes police officers, but that wasn't because he just sent one letter to Thomas Mair. He was sending letters here, there and everywhere. Don't misunderstand me: I do agree that a visit from the police is bit much. Nevertheless, Mr Aspray misrepresents things when he says it was because somebody thought he had "far-Right" leanings. In fact, they weren't assuming this. The stated reason was that they wanted to find out whether he had extreme political associations at all.
That’s because conspiracy theorists always contradict themselves and have no critical thinking skills.
From the conspiracy theorists handbook -
“ Contradictory - Conspiracy theorists can simultaneously believe in ideas that are mutually contradictory. For example, believing the theory that Princess Diana was murdered but also believing that she faked her own death. This is because the theorists’ commitment to disbelieving the “official“ account is so absolute, it doesn’t matter if their belief system is incoherent.”
-
That’s because conspiracy theorists always contradict themselves and have no critical thinking skills.
From the conspiracy theorists handbook -
“ Contradictory - Conspiracy theorists can simultaneously believe in ideas that are mutually contradictory. For example, believing the theory that Princess Diana was murdered but also believing that she faked her own death. This is because the theorists’ commitment to disbelieving the “official“ account is so absolute, it doesn’t matter if their belief system is incoherent.”
I do not wish to be unkind to Mr Aspray, someone I've never met and don't know, but I rather suspect he is not being fully honest with us concerning the real reason he got a visit from the police. I think it likely that Dorset Police have better things to do than door-step obscure letter-writers. It may be entirely innocent: one can imagine someone like him being a little over-strenuous in his correspondence with the prison's governing staff and they may have reached the point of contacting the police in an effort to deter him, not because they're hiding something, but simply because he is an irritant.
As for Richard Hall, he does like to twist things, doesn't he. I've been watching his body language very carefully in these videos and I notice he keeps himself very stiff, but there's the odd slight smirk now and then. I draw no firm conclusions at this point, but I wonder if we can say that people like him are today's equivalent of the old fairground charlatans with their quick remedies and magic tricks?
-
Just got to the end of those videos. This Richard Hall now thinks that Jo Cox and Thomas Mair were both in on it and are living under new identities elsewhere. Thomas Mair may be living in New Zealand. Jo Cox may be living in Israel.
-
Just got to the end of those videos. This Richard Hall now thinks that Jo Cox and Thomas Mair were both in on it and are living under new identities elsewhere. Thomas Mair may be living in New Zealand. Jo Cox may be living in Israel.
lol
How does this nutter account for the other guy that got stabbed, survived and implicated Mair? 😂
-
lol
How does this nutter account for the other guy that got stabbed, survived and implicated Mair? 😂
Haven't had a chance to get on here today, but what does 'implicated Mair' mean exactly, with regard to the old do-gooder?
-
lol
How does this nutter account for the other guy that got stabbed, survived and implicated Mair? 😂
Maybe the old geezer was in on it too? You never know.
Maybe he didn't die of cancer and he's been sent away to a secret base in Antarctica to live among a satanic cult of elitists like in that John Carpenter film and he's been given a transfusion of children's blood to revitalise him and he's now living in a 30 year old's body and.....I'll stop.
-
Haven't had a chance to get on here today, but what does 'implicated Mair' mean exactly, with regard to the old do-gooder?
Possibly Mr Kenny could not identify Mair (I don't know enough about the case to be sure), but the late Mr Kenny was a witness to the attack on Cox having taken place, if not her death. Thus, what Hall says at the end of his video is absurd.
-
Possibly Mr Kenny could not identify Mair (I don't know enough about the case to be sure), but the late Mr Kenny was a witness to the attack on Cox having taken place, if not her death. Thus, what Hall says at the end of his video is absurd.
I think you're referring to the three part Hall video that includes Aspray, as opposed to the four part Exit from Brexit video, where Hall leaves open the possibility that Cox was indeed killed. However, I still don't know how the authorities can get away with showing simulated injuries instead of genuine crime scene images.
It wouldn't surprise me if it soon gets announced that Mair has died in prison. I think Hall's investigation has caused a problem for the authorities behind this incident. I'm not sure why Bamsey hasn't initiated legal action against Hall. You would think he would do so, after being suggested as a potential murderer, if he is in fact innocent of any involvement? Perhaps Bamsey can see from the footage, that his gait and posture might be recognised by people who personally know him; and has decided that 'discretion is the better of valour'?
-
I think you're referring to the three part Hall video that includes Aspray, as opposed to the four part Exit from Brexit video, where Hall leaves open the possibility that Cox was indeed killed. However, I still don't know how the authorities can get away with showing simulated injuries instead of genuine crime scene images.
It wouldn't surprise me if it soon gets announced that Mair has died in prison. I think Hall's investigation has caused a problem for the authorities behind this incident. I'm not sure why Bamsey hasn't initiated legal action against Hall. You would think he would do so, after being suggested as a potential murderer, if he is in fact innocent of any involvement? Perhaps Bamsey can see from the footage, that his gait and posture might be recognised by people who personally know him; and has decided that 'discretion is the better of valour'?
Or, Bamsey has been advised by solicitors that Richard Hall is a nutter, and for that reason, there is no libel, as no reasonable person would believe anything he says in the first place.
-
Or, Bamsey has been advised by solicitors that Richard Hall is a nutter, and for that reason, there is no libel, as no reasonable person would believe anything he says in the first place.
Dismissive terms like 'nutter' and 'conspiracy theorist' don't aid in improving accountability and transparency in the world we live in.
-
Dismissive terms like 'nutter' and 'conspiracy theorist' don't aid in improving accountability and transparency in the world we live in.
I'm not saying he is a nutter. I'm making a legal point.
The argument that something must, or could, be true because the person hasn't sued is very poor reasoning.
It's especially poor here because Richard Hall is not a serious thinker or commenter. He's an entertainer only. A bit like a musician or juggler, just a bit more intellectual.
He produces entertainment videos. When I was watching some more of his videos earlier, I was greatly entertained, but at the same time, I immediately recognised all the traits of the fairground charlatan, including selection of facts, muck-raking, and erroneous assumptions, which are then used to support wild allegations and suppositions.
If I was Richard Hall's lawyer and defending him in an action for libel or slander, I would capitalise on this. The first point I would make to the court is that his videos on YouTube and wherever else are produced for the purposes of entertainment and no reasonable person could believe anything he says, thus there is no libel, or if there is, damages must be nominal.
If that didn't work, then I'd argue that Mr Hall's output mostly consists of wild nonsense that nobody with their head screwed on right would believe.
And if things got really desperate, I'd just say: 'Look, my client's nutter. Nobody believes anything he says anyway'.
I have been notorious and known publicly for black deeds. Some of the things that people said about me were unreal and ridiculous and bear no relation to the facts and reality of the matter. Why didn't I start suing people? Do you realise what's involved in suing for defamation? It's not an area of the law that lends itself to actions pro se. For one thing, the burden of proof is on the claimant in such actions under English law.
True, in this case Bamsey could simply produce Mair's certificate of conviction and argue that Hall has virtually libelled him per se, and since the civil courts must generally defer to the criminal courts where there is a more stringent burden of proof, that may work; but there's no assurance that it would, for the reasons I provide above. Richard Hall is an entertainer. He is not serious, thus he shouldn't be taken seriously.
-
Anyway, I have now written to Thomas Mair. I don't expect a response at all, but if I do receive one, I'll let you know.
I suspect the reason Mr Mair is remaining coy or silent is because he has received advice from responsible people within the prison, and maybe even from fellow prisoners, that he needs to keep his head down, do some time, and be forgotten.
In Mair's case, there's a good chance that in a few years from now, when he's not on the public radar any more, they might quash the whole life order or there might be a change in the law that ends whole life terms, if there's enlightened thinking at the top.
If Mair buckles down and makes something out of his time in the prison, he may get out.
Hence, replying to letters about the offending that put him in prison may not be the best strategy for him in the long run.
-
I'm not saying he is a nutter. I'm making a legal point.
The argument that something must, or could, be true because the person hasn't sued is very poor reasoning.
It's especially poor here because Richard Hall is not a serious thinker or commenter. He's an entertainer only. A bit like a musician or juggler, just a bit more intellectual.
He produces entertainment videos. When I was watching some more of his videos earlier, I was greatly entertained, but at the same time, I immediately recognised all the traits of the fairground charlatan, including selection of facts, muck-raking, and erroneous assumptions, which are then used to support wild allegations and suppositions.
If I was Richard Hall's lawyer and defending him in an action for libel or slander, I would capitalise on this. The first point I would make to the court is that his videos on YouTube and wherever else are produced for the purposes of entertainment and no reasonable person could believe anything he says, thus there is no libel, or if there is, damages must be nominal.
If that didn't work, then I'd argue that Mr Hall's output mostly consists of wild nonsense that nobody with their head screwed on right would believe.
And if things got really desperate, I'd just say: 'Look, my client's nutter. Nobody believes anything he says anyway'.
I have been notorious and known publicly for black deeds. Some of the things that people said about me were unreal and ridiculous and bear no relation to the facts and reality of the matter. Why didn't I start suing people? Do you realise what's involved in suing for defamation? It's not an area of the law that lends itself to actions pro se. For one thing, the burden of proof is on the claimant in such actions under English law.
True, in this case Bamsey could simply produce Mair's certificate of conviction and argue that Hall has virtually libelled him per se, and since the civil courts must generally defer to the criminal courts where there is a more stringent burden of proof, that may work; but there's no assurance that it would, for the reasons I provide above. Richard Hall is an entertainer. He is not serious, thus he shouldn't be taken seriously.
You present an interesting and well put argument. However, my take on Hall (and by no means do I believe or agree with everything he claims or speculates on), is that he's a lot more clued up than you, with regard to state sponsored acts of terror and related subterfuge.
I particularly like your posts on the Bamber case, precisely because you seem inherently to explore every individual or collective's position and the challenges and dilemmas they might encounter, before you pass judgement on their actions etc. However, for all your protestations of lacking biases, I would argue that you possess a considerable unconscious bias in favour of 'the state' and its various authorities / agencies. I think you believe they are 'correctly functioning' rather then malignant, compromised, open for abuse or manipulation.
I've noticed on this thread in particular, the jocular way you and David have teamed up and it doesn't surprise me, as I think David has a poor understanding of how the British state operates. If a senior British detective informed David that the moon was made of cheese, he would respond by asking whether it was Cheddar or Cheshire?
-
If this trial hearing photo is genuine, why did Mair purchase oversized gardening shoes? His feet are like Geisha's.
-
You present an interesting and well put argument. However, my take on Hall (and by no means do I believe or agree with everything he claims or speculates on), is that he's a lot more clued up than you, with regard to state sponsored acts of terror and related subterfuge.
I particularly like your posts on the Bamber case, precisely because you seem inherently to explore every individual or collective's position and the challenges and dilemmas they might encounter, before you pass judgement on their actions etc. However, for all your protestations of lacking biases, I would argue that you possess a considerable unconscious bias in favour of 'the state' and its various authorities / agencies. I think you believe they are 'correctly functioning' rather then malignant, compromised, open for abuse or manipulation.
I've noticed on this thread in particular, the jocular way you and David have teamed up and it doesn't surprise me, as I think David has a poor understanding of how the British state operates. If a senior British detective informed David that the moon was made of cheese, he would respond by asking whether it was Cheddar or Cheshire?
Believing that institutions are, overall, correctly functioning is not a bias. It's just an evaluation.
I think you've confused, on the one hand, loyalty to institutions, which is a manifestation of bias, with on the other hand, a favourable evaluation of the competence of institutions to meet their goals, which is not necessarily indicative of bias.
If, for instance, I were to say that I think the police are always right and the authorities should be allowed to fit people up who they think are guilty, that could be an example of a form of bias. I've noticed those very sentiments have been expressed on here in the past by a pro-guilty poster. I do not have any such bias.
My evaluation of the system is mixed. The system is creaky and blundering and often gets things wrong; underlying traditional principles that date back centuries and provided essential protections for the individual against state abuses have been abandoned in the face of shrill calls for vengeance justice from half-witted politicians and malignant journalists. It is difficult to say that the system meets its own goals, never mind those of justice. Whether those goals are right or wrong is an entirely other matter and beyond the scope of this Forum, or at least this specific discussion. And what is justice anyway? If it was my will, I would invent a completely different system for dealing with criminal behaviour, but to a large extent, it would be a reaction rather than a revolution. Sometimes you have to go backwards rather than forwards. The past seems more enlightened in some respects, and we seem to live in darker times now.
The only pertinent bias I have is in favour of justice and law - which is not the same thing as bias for the state and the authorities.
My view is that if Jeremy Bamber is guilty, then he has already been rightly punished, he's already lost his life, he is not a general danger to the community, and I think it's now time for him to be released. Personally, I would have considered hanging him - though that would depend on a fair trial and a rigorous assessment of his mental state to establish if his actions were truly premeditated (I am not sure they were).
But we are where we are. We do not have the moral backbone to hang murderers, but that does not give us the right to keep people confined in closed prisons for decades - which is cruel and inhumane, in my view.
Moreover, if there is any question as to the legal safety or satisfactoriness of his convictions, then the matter must be put back to the appeal courts for further consideration. What's wrong with that? It seems reasonable to me.
If I was looking at, let's say, the case of a police officer accused of corruption, I would say similar - there must be a fair trial, without prejudices and undue assumptions being made.
Justice is for all or it is for nobody. Justice isn't just for people I like or approve of. Justice must be blind.
-
Believing that institutions are, overall, correctly functioning is not a bias. It's just an evaluation.
I think you've confused, on the one hand, loyalty to institutions, which is a manifestation of bias, with on the other hand, a favourable evaluation of the competence of institutions to meet their goals, which is not necessarily indicative of bias.
If, for instance, I were to say that I think the police are always right and the authorities should be allowed to fit people up who they think are guilty, that could be an example of a form of bias. I've noticed those very sentiments have been expressed on here in the past by a pro-guilty poster. I do not have any such bias.
My evaluation of the system is mixed. The system is creaky and blundering and often gets things wrong; underlying traditional principles that date back centuries and provided essential protections for the individual against state abuses have been abandoned in the face of shrill calls for vengeance justice from half-witted politicians and malignant journalists. It is difficult to say that the system meets its own goals, never mind those of justice. Whether those goals are right or wrong is an entirely other matter and beyond the scope of this Forum, or at least this specific discussion. And what is justice anyway? If it was my will, I would invent a completely different system for dealing with criminal behaviour, but to a large extent, it would be a reaction rather than a revolution. Sometimes you have to go backwards rather than forwards. The past seems more enlightened in some respects, and we seem to live in darker times now.
The only pertinent bias I have is in favour of justice and law - which is not the same thing as bias for the state and the authorities.
My view is that if Jeremy Bamber is guilty, then he has already been rightly punished, he's already lost his life, he is not a general danger to the community, and I think it's now time for him to be released. Personally, I would have considered hanging him - though that would depend on a fair trial and a rigorous assessment of his mental state to establish if his actions were truly premeditated (I am not sure they were).
But we are where we are. We do not have the moral backbone to hang murderers, but that does not give us the right to keep people confined in closed prisons for decades - which is cruel and inhumane, in my view.
If there is any question as to the legal safety or satisfactoriness of his convictions, then the matter must be put back to the appeal courts for further consideration. What's wrong with that? It seems reasonable to me.
If I was looking at the case of a police officer accused of corruption, I would say the same thing - there must be a fair trial, without prejudices and undue assumptions being made.
Justice is for all or it is for nobody. Justice isn't just for people I like or approve of. Justice must be blind.
Noble sentiments. I have to ask firstly, was justice blind for Tommy Mair? Simulated crime scene images at court, with his defence barrister not cross examining witnesses and instead, twiddling with his phone? Nobody could even confirm the man in the dock was actually TM.
Secondly, have you tried putting yourself in the shoes of MI5 et al? What resources will you need, if you are to successfully complete nefarious acts on a national stage?
-
Noble sentiments. I have to ask firstly, was justice blind for Tommy Mair? Simulated crime scene images at court, with his defence barrister not cross examining witnesses and instead, twiddling with his phone? Nobody could even confirm the man in the dock was actually TM.
Who says the crime scene images were simulated?
Who is your source? Who are you relying on for an account of the trial?
Has a book been written about the case, with an index, sources and references, or are you relying on YouTube videos and blogs? The problem with the latter is that these media lend themselves more to controversy and sensation than a sober consideration of the facts.
Jo Cox died. People saw her stabbed and shot, multiple times, by an attacker. People with no vested interest in the matter confirm it happened, right in front of them.
Secondly, have you tried putting yourself in the shoes of MI5 et al? What resources will you need, if you are to successfully complete nefarious acts on a national stage?
The first thing they'd need is a total lack of any moral conscience, decency or humanity to kill an innocent person in the middle of the street, MP or not.
That being the case, I can think of a few candidates. Which specific agency are we talking about? And what is the motive? And why Jo Cox? And how would they find out about Thomas Mair? How would they even know about him? I have not heard mention of any criminal record or military service, or really anything that would bring him to official attention.
-
You present an interesting and well put argument. However, my take on Hall (and by no means do I believe or agree with everything he claims or speculates on), is that he's a lot more clued up than you, with regard to state sponsored acts of terror and related subterfuge.
I particularly like your posts on the Bamber case, precisely because you seem inherently to explore every individual or collective's position and the challenges and dilemmas they might encounter, before you pass judgement on their actions etc. However, for all your protestations of lacking biases, I would argue that you possess a considerable unconscious bias in favour of 'the state' and its various authorities / agencies. I think you believe they are 'correctly functioning' rather then malignant, compromised, open for abuse or manipulation.
I've noticed on this thread in particular, the jocular way you and David have teamed up and it doesn't surprise me, as I think David has a poor understanding of how the British state operates. If a senior British detective informed David that the moon was made of cheese, he would respond by asking whether it was Cheddar or Cheshire?
And Richard Hall who thinks Bush destroyed the twin towers with a secret space weapon and Aliens go around abducting sheep knows better?
-
And Richard Hall who thinks Bush destroyed the twin towers with a secret space weapon and Aliens go around abducting sheep knows better?
Does he really say that? How entertaining! Can we see the video?
I hope the aliens aren't my lizard friends. They've been slandered enough over the years.
-
Who says the crime scene images were simulated?
Who is your source? Who are you relying on for an account of the trial?
Has a book been written about the case, with an index, sources and references, or are you relying on YouTube videos and blogs? The problem with the latter is that these media lend themselves more to controversy and sensation than a sober consideration of the facts.
Jo Cox died. People saw her stabbed and shot, multiple times, by an attacker. People with no vested interest in the matter confirm it happened, right in front of them.
The first thing they'd need is a total lack of any moral conscience, decency or humanity to kill an innocent person in the middle of the street, MP or not.
That being the case, I can think of a few candidates. Which specific agency are we talking about? And what is the motive? And why Jo Cox? And how would they find out about Thomas Mair? How would they even know about him? I have not heard mention of any criminal record or military service, or really anything that would bring him to official attention.
Jo Cox as a europhile MP with globalist credentials, and a mother to boot, would be a perfect target to use to manipulate the up and coming Brexit vote and garner horror from the 'woke' Remainer Left, who always fall for the 'far right' card, when it's played. I worked that out for myself, without any recourse to anyone, Hall or otherwise. I worked it out immediately.
I have no reason to disbelieve those who attended the trial in a monitoring capacity, as they were aware games were afoot the moment the incident happened. However, I take your point regarding indexed and sourced books etc. The attendee I have in mind had produced work of that ilk, in a previous incident.
My source for the simulated crime scene images is a media source but not a very reliable one, in my opinion.
-
Does he really say that? How entertaining! Can we see the video?
I hope the aliens aren't my lizard friends. They've been slandered enough over the years.
Yes he does.
“Hall investigates the evidence to determine if the sheep abduction could be UFO related”
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=124&part=1&gen=15 (https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=124&part=1&gen=15)
😂
-
Jo Cox as a europhile MP with globalist credentials, and a mother to boot, would be a perfect target to use to manipulate the up and coming Brexit vote and garner horror from the 'woke' Remainer Left, who always fall for the 'far right' card, when it's played. I worked that out for myself, without any recourse to anyone, Hall or otherwise. I worked it out immediately.
There is another way of looking at it.
I think the terms Remainer and Left are virtually synonymous. There are only a tiny few people on the true Right of politics who would favour staying in the European Union. Most of those on the "Right" who are also pro-EU on closer examination tend actually to have leftist leanings. I mention that to emphasise that while the Left are a minority of the general population-at-large, they are influential, powerful and broad-based, extending into even the Conservative Party and its parliamentary contingent. You could plausibly argue the Prime Minister himself is a sort of cosmopolitan cultural Leftist. In England, I would say the Left/Remainers are mostly metropolitan types, live in London or places like Manchester, and they look down on provincial people.
The Left control the media and during the campaign, the Remainers/Left were quite smug and insulted and patronised basically half of Britain, calling normal ordinary people bigots, racists and so forth.
This got some people very worked up and angry in response. There is also quite a lot of bottled-up anger among ordinary people anyway, who aren't listened to and are talked down to and don't have an outlet.
Thomas Mair associated himself with what I would characterise as the 'plastic' end of the "far-Right": people who have corny and sentimental ideas and play along with certain received notions about what an 'extreme right-winger' is supposed to be like. That in itself raises some questions. Maybe this is how Thomas Mair came to the notice of the authorities, to answer my own question? (Maybe he was working for the authorities? I should research for Richard Hall, I could come up with a good conspiracy theory for him).
Anyway, it is not far-fetched to suppose that Mair was very angry - I do mean ANGRY - at people like Jo Cox, who as a vocal and prominent Europhile and pro-immigration politician, was diametrically-opposed to him politically and socially. Into that mix is also the fact that she is a woman standing over Mair and men like Mair. Immigration does harm the working class. (Which raises the question of why a Labour politician would favour immigration. Aren't Labour supposed to be the party of labour, as the name suggests?).
In that situation, Mair also had a more specific grievance with Cox, or so I've heard. What I've heard (or read) somewhere is that Mair had a housing issue and Cox wasn't much help. It wouldn't surprise me if he did come away feeling that she had been a bit dismissive about his situation.
From there, it's not hard to image Thomas Mair killing her. He had no motive to kill her, but that doesn't matter. This is more about the type of person he is. What we're saying is that he was an unstable man who became angry.
-
Yes he does.
“Hall investigates the evidence to determine if the sheep abduction could be UFO related”
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=124&part=1&gen=15 (https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=124&part=1&gen=15)
😂
I honestly think he's pulling our plonkers.
-
I honestly think he's pulling our plonkers.
Rochs idea of a “clued up“ guy ::)
-
Rochs idea of a “clued up“ guy ::)
I knew that Hall would be targeted by you for his UFO related interests. For me it doesn't detract from his research in or spotlight on to other areas that do hold my interest. If you look at the different guests he has on his website, they tend to specialise in certain areas of research, ie the UFO related guests will no doubt stay within those remits. Mockery on this basis is a distraction from the topic in hand.
-
I knew that Hall would be targeted by you for his UFO related interests. For me it doesn't detract from his research in or spotlight on to other areas that do hold my interest. If you look at the different guests he has on his website, they tend to specialise in certain areas of research, ie the UFO related guests will no doubt stay within those remits. Mockery on this basis is a distraction from the topic in hand.
Maybe the emergency operator who Nevil rang was abducted by UFOs shortly after the event? That’s why nobody said anything?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpqffgak7To (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpqffgak7To)
:o
-
Maybe the emergency operator who Nevil rang was abducted by UFOs shortly after the event? That’s why nobody said anything?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpqffgak7To (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpqffgak7To)
:o
Wait a minute.....
You're stealing my theory, David. I was mentioning to Adam about my Crispy theory and how he should have put me forward for the CT, as it's a mouldbreaker.
It includes a 999 'barking' call by Crispy, followed by the intervention of aliens.
You're not taking credit for that, David. It's all my own insight.
-
Wait a minute.....
You're stealing my theory, David. I was mentioning to Adam about my Crispy theory and how he should have put me forward for the CT, as it's a mouldbreaker.
It includes a 999 'barking' call by Crispy, followed by the intervention of aliens.
You're not taking credit for that, David. It's all my own insight.
I don’t read most of Adams posts or what people reply to him :)
-
He is in his home village, so he disguises himself. What's the mystery? It may or may not have been a good disguise.
I'm not sure about that. I've been re-watching some of Richard Hall's videos about this. It's mostly junk, but in the absence of more useful studies of the case, it helps because Hall summarises important facts. I think Mair was recognised at some point - probably the third party description 'clicked' with somebody, or somebody has put 2 and 2 together.
Mr Playford, the witness who followed Mair after the incident, didn't know him. (Interestingly, Playford says that at first Mair was behind him - which I assume was a coincidence, maybe because Mair was heading in the same direction as Playford, and Playford surmised that Mair was the perpetrator, but it does seem like an odd thing to say).
There were other witnesses, and I think what has happened is that the police have figured out that the perpetrator was Mair, based on his familiarity locally, and probably at the prompting of somebody who has spoken to a witness at the scene and then alerted police.
The reality is that no matter how well disguised you are, people will recognise you if they know you well or you're a familiar local character, which Mair was. This, furthermore, explains Mair's pronounced 'limp': he was trying to divert inquiries, knowing there would be CCTV footage, but he obviously hasn't appreciated the limitations of a physical disguise in the Real World.
He went to the cul-de-dac because that was part of some sort of plan he had to change clothes, maybe hide, and possibly dispose of the weapon. Maybe he realised he was being followed, or maybe he panicked and carried on walking. Maybe he was having a psychotic episode and didn't know what he was doing.
I'm not sure he had a "library Himmler would be jealous of". He has some neo-Nazi books, but he didn't have an extensive corpus in his possession. To be fair, I don't believe the police or the prosecution or the trial itself could have put much stall in what books he had. That sort of information is propaganda that the police put out for half-wits who rely on mainstream news.
If the police looked at my library at home, they'd be utterly baffled and confused. They'd find National Socialist material alongside communist books alongside libertarian pamphlets alongside books on gardening. They'd probably come away thinking that I was some sort of political schizophrenic, or maybe a esoteric anarcho-Strasserite.
In any event, it's not evidence.
So, Mair leaves home in his normal attire, but prior to appearing on CCTV, he adopts a suit jacket. He then purposely criss-crosses back and forth on various roads in the town, which ensures he is captured on numerous CCTV cameras, some of which capture him on several occasions. Presumably he must have thought that by adopting a simulated walk, including a slight limp, it would be better to create more CCTV footage rather than minimise it. He goes to the trouble of his disguise, which causes him to be described as an 'old man'. He is supposed to be in a rage but is described as being calm when carrying out the attack, even to the point where his stabbing is expressed in terms similar to 'slow and deliberate in targeting'.
After making his escape, without faltering in his simulated walk, unseen, he changes back in to his normal attire?
Although he is known as quiet, friendly, unassuming and not known to express political views, he is apparently recognised by people putting 2 + 2 together and the police are subsequently tipped off - but for reasons unknown, the police have not identified the person who recognised him and tipped them off. The fact that his identity was known by police before they arrested him was only let slip, when two bobbies were receiving plaudits on morning TV, for having pole-axed him in the cul-de-sac with a rugby tackle. This is the tackle that separated him permanently from the Puma sports bag, which from that point on was totally in the control of police or other agencies at the scene.
Between changing his cap and top (while unseen), he somehow manages to change in to black reinforced toe-capped gardening shoes. Where did his brown loafers go?
Could his plan be to wait in the cul-de-sac with the bag of incriminating evidence, until suspicious neighbours alert police? Maybe he was tired of changing clothes and shoes and thought, 'I've had enough'.
-
Just got to the end of those videos. This Richard Hall now thinks that Jo Cox and Thomas Mair were both in on it and are living under new identities elsewhere. Thomas Mair may be living in New Zealand. Jo Cox may be living in Israel.
I think that was tongue in cheek, with a little dash of food for thought. Like some Tobasco and Worcester in your Bloody Mary.
-
Thomas Mair associated himself with what I would characterise as the 'plastic' end of the "far-Right": people who have corny and sentimental ideas and play along with certain received notions about what an 'extreme right-winger' is supposed to be like. That in itself raises some questions. Maybe this is how Thomas Mair came to the notice of the authorities, to answer my own question? (Maybe he was working for the authorities? I should research for Richard Hall, I could come up with a good conspiracy theory for him).
Anyway, it is not far-fetched to suppose that Mair was very angry - I do mean ANGRY - at people like Jo Cox, who as a vocal and prominent Europhile and pro-immigration politician, was diametrically-opposed to him politically and socially. Into that mix is also the fact that she is a woman standing over Mair and men like Mair. Immigration does harm the working class. (Which raises the question of why a Labour politician would favour immigration. Aren't Labour supposed to be the party of labour, as the name suggests?).
In that situation, Mair also had a more specific grievance with Cox, or so I've heard. What I've heard (or read) somewhere is that Mair had a housing issue and Cox wasn't much help. It wouldn't surprise me if he did come away feeling that she had been a bit dismissive about his situation.
From there, it's not hard to image Thomas Mair killing her. He had no motive to kill her, but that doesn't matter. This is more about the type of person he is. What we're saying is that he was an unstable man who became angry.
Where are you getting this character assessment of Mair? I certainly doesn't sound like it's from anyone who knew him personally. The assailant who attacked Jo Cox was calm. From all accounts, he was in control of the situation and there is only one witness testimony that describes him as having panicked just before he took off, walking. I don't think he was concerned about police turning up. He gave himself something like a three minute window to commit this assault and was not overly fazed by the presence of witnesses.
The same people who are trying to sell you the far right library clap trap, are the ones selling you the Puma bag. But they cant explain how brown loafers miraculously changed in to gardening shoes. It's a joke.
-
Since this Bamsey person has not officially issued a denial, it would be poetic justice if he has been outed in any way linked to his walk. On his Linked-In page, he describes himself as a 'Muscular skeletal podiatrist', with 'years of experience in Biomechanical analysis'.
Now that really is the irony of ironies..
-
Can you provide me with a link to your source for accounts of the attack from witnesses? I can then decide for myself what you mean when you say he was calm and in control of the situation. It sounds quite subjective to me, whereas if I say that Mair had to be angry about something in order to kill Jo Cox, that sounds less subjective because he would need to be angry. Murderers do tend to be angry (or something similar, like hateful). Murderers don't normally act out of a sense of goodwill.
Anger forms part of his motivation, but I do not suggest that he is constantly angry all the time to everybody he meets. I was angry the other day with the electricity company, but I don't necessarily scream and shout down the phone at them. Anger does not necessarily manifest in being out of control. An angry person can be manifestly calm and in control. Being angry does not necessarily mean he would not be calm at the point he executes his plan.
Since this Bamsey person has not officially issued a denial, it would be poetic justice if he has been outed in any way linked to his walk. On his Linked-In page, he describes himself as a 'Muscular skeletal podiatrist', with 'years of experience in Biomechanical analysis'.
Now that really is the irony of ironies..
I can only think the boring Anglo-Saxon idea of proving things and presumption of innocence, and that tedious thing of having a fair trial, is beneath Richard Hall.
-
Maybe Jo Cox witnessed aliens abduct a sheep and Mair is an alien assassin in disguise?
-
Maybe Jo Cox witnessed aliens abduct a sheep and Mair is an alien assassin in disguise?
You could have mentioned that before I wrote to him. They might come after me now.
-
Yo could have mentioned that before I wrote to him. They might come after me now.
;D
-
A passage from Jean Baudrillard's long essay, 'The Gulf War Did Not Take Place' [p.43]:
"The idea of a clean war, like that of a clean bomb or an intelligent missile, this whole war conceived as a technological extrapolation of the brain is a sure sign of madness. It is like those characters in Hieronymus Bosch with a glass bell or a soap bubble around their head as a sign of their mental debility. A war enclosed in a glass coffin, like Snow White, purged of any carnal contamination or warrior's passion. A clean war which ends up in an oil slick."
Thomas Mair stabbed and shot Jo Cox multiple times, but when Thomas Mair was arrested, it appeared there was no blood on his clothes or hands. His head was bloody, but this was due to the injuries inflicted to himself by the police officers when they tackled him. His hands, arms and clothing appear clean. Why the absence of blood?
To an extent, this can be explained because he did change clothes in the immediate minutes after the incident. But then the questions arise: How did he change and where? Did he discard the blooded clothes? Were these found? How did he clean himself? I could go on, but I'm sure it's obvious what I'm getting at.
I ought to make it clear that I think he's guilty and unless Thomas Mair replies to my letter and tells me something to the contrary, I'm mainly going to treat this thread as a philosophical exercise. The overarching question is: How do we prove that something has occurred? Nevertheless, I do wonder why I don't see any blood on Thomas Mair other than his injured head?
-
A passage from Jean Baudrillard's long essay, 'The Gulf War Did Not Take Place' [p.43]:
"The idea of a clean war, like that of a clean bomb or an intelligent missile, this whole war conceived as a technological extrapolation of the brain is a sure sign of madness. It is like those characters in Hieronymus Bosch with a glass bell or a soap bubble around their head as a sign of their mental debility. A war enclosed in a glass coffin, like Snow White, purged of any carnal contamination or warrior's passion. A clean war which ends up in an oil slick."
Thomas Mair stabbed and shot Jo Cox multiple times, but when Thomas Mair was arrested, it appeared there was no blood on his clothes or hands. His head was bloody, but this was due to the injuries inflicted to himself by the police officers when they tackled him. His hands, arms and clothing appear clean. Why the absence of blood?
To an extent, this can be explained because he did change clothes in the immediate minutes after the incident. But then the questions arise: How did he change and where? Did he discard the blooded clothes? Were these found? How did he clean himself? I could go on, but I'm sure it's obvious what I'm getting at.
I ought to make it clear that I think he's guilty and unless Thomas Mair replies to my letter and tells me something to the contrary, I'm mainly going to treat this thread as a philosophical exercise. The overarching question is: How do we prove that something has occurred? Nevertheless, I do wonder why I don't see any blood on Thomas Mair other than his injured head?
I’m sure it will all add up if you obtain the trial transcripts. No reasonable members of the public see any need to scrutinise the evidence. Only a guy who claims UFO abduct sheep.
-
I’m sure it will all add up if you obtain the trial transcripts. No reasonable members of the public see any need to scrutinise the evidence. Only a guy who claims UFO abduct sheep.
Hall's videos refer to a 17-minute gap after the incident in which Mair is unaccounted-for. I suspect Mair was changing into different clothes and cleaning himself. He was a gardener. Maybe he knew of an outside tap in somebody's garden and changed behind a shed, or something along those lines. I assume the police must have found clothing with both Jo Cox's blood and Mair's DNA. If so, case closed.
-
I’m sure it will all add up if you obtain the trial transcripts. No reasonable members of the public see any need to scrutinise the evidence. Only a guy who claims UFO abduct sheep.
The most 'reasonable members of the public' are the ones who realise how the UK is run. We are the land of Jimmy Savile. According to Jimmy Savile's official employer, they didn't know what he was up to.
-
The most 'reasonable members of the public' are the ones who realise how the UK is run. We are the land of Jimmy Savile. According to Jimmy Savile's official employer, they didn't know what he was up to.
Are you certain Jimmy Savile was guilty, though?
-
Are you certain Jimmy Savile was guilty, though?
I think it unlikely he would be guilty of all posthumous allegations. If you are not certain, maybe a thread could be started. There was one on here I think. It might have been started before revelations came to light.
-
I think it unlikely he would be guilty of all posthumous allegations. If you are not certain, maybe a thread could be started. There was one on here I think. It might have been started before revelations came to light.
Better to start a new thread, if it interests you. I don't doubt that on occasion he acted in a way that today, in our more politically-correct and prurient times, would be considered inappropriate, but I think the evidence against him on the more serious matters was quite thin.
-
Can you provide me with a link to your source for accounts of the attack from witnesses? I can then decide for myself what you mean when you say he was calm and in control of the situation. It sounds quite subjective to me, whereas if I say that Mair had to be angry about something in order to kill Jo Cox, that sounds less subjective because he would need to be angry. Murderers do tend to be angry (or something similar, like hateful). Murderers don't normally act out of a sense of goodwill.
Anger forms part of his motivation, but I do not suggest that he is constantly angry all the time to everybody he meets. I was angry the other day with the electricity company, but I don't necessarily scream and shout down the phone at them. Anger does not necessarily manifest in being out of control. An angry person can be manifestly calm and in control. Being angry does not necessarily mean he would not be calm at the point he executes his plan.
I can only think the boring Anglo-Saxon idea of proving things and presumption of innocence, and that tedious thing of having a fair trial, is beneath Richard Hall.
Hall reads from witness statements in the E from B videos. The Anglo Saxon idea has been abused for centuries. There was no genuine presumption of innocence for Mair. He was set up to take the fall either willingly or unwillingly, either before or after the fact, either paid or unpaid. You can make a mock up of virtually anything. Making a mock up trial is as doable as throwing a boxing match.
-
Hall reads from witness statements in the E from B videos. The Anglo Saxon idea has been abused for centuries. There was no genuine presumption of innocence for Mair. He was set up to take the fall either willingly or unwillingly, either before or after the fact, either paid or unpaid. You can make a mock up of virtually anything. Making a mock up trial is as doable as throwing a boxing match.
Does Richard Hall publish these statements or any primary documents? The problem is that a lot depends on interpretation, and it seems to me that's especially the case with Mr Hall who likes to sex things up, if I may put it that way. He does it for entertainment purposes. You have to understand what he is really up to and why before you go down this road of taking his ideas seriously. He isn't meant to be taken seriously. That's not the idea. His motivation is to earn money by providing an entertainment service. Some people watch rugby league on the TV. Some people watch porn. Some people watch Richard Hall videos.
I appreciate that the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is less-than-perfect in practice, but it is a noble idea and my point stands: the system is, at least in the formal sense, based on the presumption of innocence, contested trials and tested evidence. Anything else I can't take seriously, especially some geezer on YouTube coming up with wild and contradictory theories. It's always a red flag when you get somebody who jumps off the deep end. Instead of saying: 'Oh, it might be a case of mistaken identity', we have the allegation that Jo Cox is still alive.
However, I've raised a question above about the case: the absence of blood on Thomas Mair's clothes and arms. That may lead us down useful avenues.
I also await a reply from Thomas Mair.
-
Here is an 'unreliable' source re the CGI of Jo Cox's injuries being shown to the jury.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38027972
Note the pathologist is regarded as being at the top of his game. I think he gets a lot of work thrown his way, in certain situations.
-
Here is an 'unreliable' source re the CGI of Jo Cox's injuries being shown to the jury.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38027972
Note the pathologist is regarded as being at the top of his game. I think he gets a lot of work thrown his way, in certain situations.
I don't see what the issue is. Isn't the purpose of the CGI presentation similar to how the jury in the Bamber case will have been given anatomical diagrams showing the location of wounds to victims? It's just a method for explaining things.
From that same link, I find this:
"Forensic scientist Hilary Parkinson, a DNA profiling and blood pattern analysis expert, told the jury that Mr Mair's and Mrs Cox's DNA were found on the gun and the dagger.
She said "blood spots" from Mrs Cox found on the gun showed that she had been very close to it and she said her findings were consistent with the dagger having been used to stab the Labour MP."
What is your explanation for the blood and DNA evidence?
-
I don't see what the issue is. Isn't the purpose of the CGI presentation similar to how the jury in the Bamber case will have been given anatomical diagrams showing the location of wounds to victims? It's just a method for explaining things.
From that same link, I find this:
"Forensic scientist Hilary Parkinson, a DNA profiling and blood pattern analysis expert, told the jury that Mr Mair's and Mrs Cox's DNA were found on the gun and the dagger.
She said "blood spots" from Mrs Cox found on the gun showed that she had been very close to it and she said her findings were consistent with the dagger having been used to stab the Labour MP."
What is your explanation for the blood and DNA evidence?
The claim is that the CGI was shown instead of crime scene images. I sincerely don't believe the man in the lighter cap is Mair. He had the bag which had the gear in it. The authorities had Mair's bag. No offence, but I think it's a piece of piss to present that evidence, given these circs.
-
The claim is that the CGI was shown instead of crime scene images. I sincerely don't believe the man in the lighter cap is Mair. He had the bag which had the gear in it. The authorities had Mair's bag. No offence, but I think it's a piece of piss to present that evidence, given these circs.
Are you basing your accusations against the police on evidence or is the accusation just a deus ex machina due to a lack of evidence to support unsupportable suppositions?
-
Are you basing your accusations against the police on evidence or is the accusation just a deus ex machina due to a lack of evidence to support unsupportable suppositions?
I don't understand what that means. The people running the operation have clearly used somebody other than Mair, while simultaneously using Mair to take the blame. A non sham defence could have presented the footage in a similar way to how Hall has, where necessary, frame by frame, to show the instep and limp differences. However, that was never going to happen. The bags were swapped. Light cap's bag was switched for Tommy's.
-
I don't understand what that means. The people running the operation have clearly used somebody other than Mair, while simultaneously using Mair to take the blame. A non sham defence could have presented the footage in a similar way to how Hall has, where necessary, frame by frame, to show the instep and limp differences. However, that was never going to happen. The bags were swapped. Light cap's bag was switched for Tommy's.
Theories >>> Lack of evidence >>> Deus ex machina (i.e. conspiracy)
I start from the evidence.
-
Theories >>> Lack of evidence >>> Deus ex machina (i.e. conspiracy)
I start from the evidence.
You have been presented with evidence. You choose to ignore it. I cant help that, it's your decision.
In a thrown boxing match, what is the evidence? The defeated boxer is supposed to be evidence of who lost. The victorious boxer is supposed to be evidence of who won.
-
You have been presented with evidence. You choose to ignore it. I cant help that, it's your decision.
In a thrown boxing match, what is the evidence? The defeated boxer is supposed to be evidence of who lost. The victorious boxer is supposed to be evidence of who won.
I don't dispute that you've presented some evidence. I do, however, dispute your belief that your conclusions are valid, in view of this evidence.
I think you would have to admit that you have a tendency to jump wildly off the deep end in your conclusions.
-
I don't dispute that you've presented some evidence. I do, however, dispute your belief that your conclusions are valid, in view of this evidence.
I think you would have to admit that you have a tendency to jump wildly off the deep end in your conclusions.
I'll get back to this later.. But for now, I enjoyed this little Tommy update, especially about the snaps for mam.
Think the Hogmany link is overdoing it though. But you never know..
https://youtu.be/9P8WWimVoNc
-
Ooooooh Craig! Chase me!
-
Ooooooh Craig! Chase me!
Have the aliens come after you yet?
-
Have the aliens come after you yet?
Don't mention that, I've had three visitations already and one of them wanted to have experimental sex with me.
-
Don't mention that, I've had three visitations already and one of them wanted to have experimental sex with me.
When will you be appearing on Richard Halls show?
-
When will you be appearing on Richard Halls show?
Soon, soon, just be patient David.
My showbiz agent, Adam, is lining it all up for me. He's even producing a book, '86 Pieces of Evidence That Prove Chevalier Was Visited By Aliens Three Times: The Authoritative Account'.
It's all in the works. Thanks Adam.
-
Soon, soon, just be patient David.
My showbiz agent, Adam, is lining it all up for me. He's even producing a book, '86 Pieces of Evidence That Prove Chevalier Was Visited By Aliens Three Times: The Authoritative Account'.
It's all in the works. Thanks Adam.
Does this confirm Tom Mair is an alien assassin who who killed Joe Cox because she witnessed a sheep abduction? ;D
-
Does this confirm Tom Mair is an alien assassin who who killed Joe Cox because she witnessed a sheep abduction? ;D
How did you know...?? We've been keeping it all under wraps.
Nothing gets past you David.
-
How did you know...?? We've been keeping it all under wraps.
Nothing gets past you David.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/07/66/070766b5eecc3b4cd866f45cfea80be8.gif)
-
Thanks David. Looks like it's all out in the open and I've missed my chance at an exclusive.
Oh well, back to square one.
-
Ooooooh Craig! Chase me!
Yes, it was a good start. After his head had been stotted off the ground, I bet Mair thought 'by 'eck as like did I agree to this!' (thick yorkshire accent).
-
I think this thread has run its course and should be removed. It’s embarrassing and can’t be taken seriously.
-
I think this thread has run its course and should be removed. It’s embarrassing and can’t be taken seriously.
Re this thread, it is your posts that are embarrassing. Either go and properly educate yourself on the case and its' detractors' concerns or just dont post on it. Your choice. Go educate your self on UK politics, state and security services, or don't bother. Choice is yours. It is you that is embarrassing your self.
-
Re this thread, it is your posts that are embarrassing. Either go and properly educate yourself on the case and its' detractors' concerns or just dont post on it. Your choice. Go educate your self on UK politics, state and security services, or don't bother. Choice is yours. It is you that is embarrassing your self.
OK who can I trust to "enlighten" me? Richard Hall who thinks aliens abduct sheep or Nick Kollerstrom who thinks the holocaust never happened?
-
OK who can I trust to "enlighten" me? Richard Hall who thinks aliens abduct sheep or Nick Kollerstrom who thinks the holocaust never happened?
I don't see how the Jo Cox case is directly connected either with a revisionist view of the holocaust or with alleged alien visitations upon animal herds etc. I don't see the relevancy of your argument, which is peurile.
The footage used in the Rich Hall movie was probably the footage used to convict T Mair. I don't see how aliens or sheep have interfered with it. Kollerstrom is Cambridge educated researcher, activist and author. He attended Mair's trial and provided his recollections of it. I don't see how that is relevant to his research on the holocaust per se.
-
Off the top of my head, I believe the researcher and activist Nick Kollerstrom attended the trial and has subsequently spoken about the trial on several occasions. He is featured in one of the four episodes of the RDH investigation, discussing the trial.
The former MP Louise Mensch has expressed concerns about the trial but I cannot find her article. She was criticised for speaking out.
According to Nick Kollerstrom - quote
"Zyklon B is a buzz word for the claimed Nazi mass murder, but all non-anecdotal evidence proves that this chemical was merely used as a pesticide in order to improve the inmates' health and reduce, not increase, camp mortality"
lol
"A British archaeological team looked for traces of the claimed 800,000 victims of the Treblinka camp-and came back empty-handed."
Does he not realize the bodies were incinerated? What a moron.
-
I don't see how the Jo Cox case is directly connected either with a revisionist view of the holocaust or with alleged alien visitations upon animal herds etc. I don't see the relevancy of your argument, which is peurile.
The footage used in the Rich Hall movie was probably the footage used to convict T Mair. I don't see how aliens or sheep have interfered with it. Kollerstrom is Cambridge educated researcher, activist and author. He attended Mair's trial and provided his recollections of it. I don't see how that is relevant to his research on the holocaust per se.
Its called Crank magnetism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism)
-
According to Nick Kollerstrom - quote
"Zyklon B is a buzz word for the claimed Nazi mass murder, but all non-anecdotal evidence proves that this chemical was merely used as a pesticide in order to improve the inmates' health and reduce, not increase, camp mortality"
lol
"A British archaeological team looked for traces of the claimed 800,000 victims of the Treblinka camp-and came back empty-handed."
Does he not realize the bodies were incinerated? What a moron.
If you want to start a thread about revisionist holocaust claims then you know how to do so. I have not developed an interest in such matters, so couldn't comment.
-
Its called Crank magnetism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism)
I doubt that it is 'crank magnetism'. It is probably people questioning and calling out bullshit. We no longer have real investigative journalists who might normally do this.
-
I doubt that it is 'crank magnetism'. It is probably people questioning and calling out bullshit. We no longer have real investigative journalists who might normally do this.
If you look at all the things Hall and Kollerstrom believe. Its a persistent pattern of crazy stuff.
Hall and Kollerstrom both believe no planes hit the world trade center and the planes were holograms. Its not the work of investigative journalists to come up with batshit crazy ideas.
-
If you look at all the things Hall and Kollerstrom believe. Its a persistent pattern of crazy stuff.
Hall and Kollerstrom both believe no planes hit the world trade center and the planes were holograms. Its not the work of investigative journalists to come up with batshit crazy ideas.
Many people have said, suspected, believed many things about 9/11. So what. I think you'd have to be bat shit crazy to believe the official version of events. But I prefer to discuss about Tommy Mair.
-
Many people have said, suspected, believed many things about 9/11. So what. I think you'd have to be bat shit crazy to believe the official version of events. But I prefer to discuss about Tommy Mair.
There is no such thing as an "official version". There's the event that took place in reality and then there are imagined/fictional theories.
What you are subscribing to is not healthy skepticism.
-
There is no such thing as an "official version". There's the event that took place in reality and then there are imagined/fictional theories.
What you are subscribing to is not healthy skepticism.
Are you a robot or something? You sound like a stepford wife.
-
OK let's keep things civil. I apologise for using insulting terms towards David.
-
So who is supposed to be the “real killer” and why did TM not seem to deny any involvement?
-
So who is supposed to be the “real killer” and why did TM not seem to deny any involvement?
TM didn't admit or deny involvement. Either TM (or the person impersonating TM) didn't enter a plea. A plea of not guilty was entered on TM's behalf.
A person has been suggested as the 'killer' by RDH but RDH claims he cannot prove the person is the 'killer'. The person alleged to be the 'killer' is the same person who was sent down for eight weeks for issuing veiled threats about shooting and stabbing to another MP and friend of Jo Cox. He is apparently now living in France.
-
According to Nick Kollerstrom - quote
"Zyklon B is a buzz word for the claimed Nazi mass murder, but all non-anecdotal evidence proves that this chemical was merely used as a pesticide in order to improve the inmates' health and reduce, not increase, camp mortality"
lol
"A British archaeological team looked for traces of the claimed 800,000 victims of the Treblinka camp-and came back empty-handed."
Does he not realize the bodies were incinerated? What a moron.
Actually, cremated remains are recoverable, even after great lengths of time. And an archaeologist who affirms the official Holocaust narrative has claimed that the remains are still there. A TV programme was broadcast in which the claim was made. It would not just be human remains, either, it would also be things such as metals that can be found with human remains. It later turned out that the TV archaeologist was erroneous and incompetent in her findings. Not that I necessarily agree with Mr Kollerstrom about much, but he is perhaps right on this occasion to point out the failure to recover forensic traces of what is alleged to have happened.
I have to say that I am not entirely convinced by mainstream claims about industrial mass killings of civilians (a 'Holocaust') instigated by the Third Reich. I think it is a legitimate area for further investigation and discussion, though to be fair, it's probably beyond the scope of this Forum. Possibly a thread about individual German officers and political activists suffering miscarriages of justice as a result of the legally-enforced Holocaust narrative would be justified.
As for 9/11, it seems to me that the official narrative about what happened holds up reasonably under scrutiny, but where there is a huge question mark is over who was ultimately behind it. I strongly suspect Israeli involvement.
Turning back to this thread topic, for me the usefulness of this thread is exploring 'The Gulf War Did Not Take Place' thesis. Philosophically, how do we prove that something took place?
-
I have to say that I am not entirely convinced by mainstream claims about industrial mass killings of civilians (a 'Holocaust') instigated by the Third Reich. I think it is a legitimate area for further investigation and discussion, though to be fair, it's probably beyond the scope of this Forum. Possibly a thread about individual German officers and political activists suffering miscarriages of justice as a result of the legally-enforced Holocaust narrative would be justified.
Himmler made a speech admitting to the whole thing.
"the extermination of the Jewish people. It's one of those things that is easily said: 'The Jewish people are being exterminated', says every party member, 'this is very obvious, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it, hah, a small matter.'"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRO04q_lQi4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRO04q_lQi4)
As for 9/11, it seems to me that the official narrative about what happened holds up reasonably under scrutiny, but where there is a huge question mark is over who was ultimately behind it. I strongly suspect Israeli involvement.
BinLaden and his inner circle all admitted to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tSy2Qi8mr0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tSy2Qi8mr0)
None of these subjects are even questionable (to any reasonable person)
-
I think there might be a 9/11 thread on here, if anyone wants to discuss that event. Personally I don't see the relevance of Kollerstrom's revisionist holocaust book in the context of the Jo Cox / Tommy Mair case. Regarding this thread, I am interested in Kollerstrom's recollections from having attended Mair's trial.
-
Himmler made a speech admitting to the whole thing.
"the extermination of the Jewish people. It's one of those things that is easily said: 'The Jewish people are being exterminated', says every party member, 'this is very obvious, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it, hah, a small matter.'"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRO04q_lQi4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRO04q_lQi4)
Unfortunately for you, I am fluent in German and I take the view that the translation given of Himmler's speech in that video is unlikely to be contextually accurate. One needs to have some historical knowledge to appreciate why it's unlikely to be a faithful translation. The word 'Ausrottung' and its verb 'ausrotten' have varied meanings.
and his inner circle all admitted to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tSy2Qi8mr0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tSy2Qi8mr0)
No, they didn't admit to it. In fact, Bin Laden denied involvement on several occasions. In regard to the video above, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the report of Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg.
Also, even if Bin Laden was involved, that does not preclude the possibility of Israeli involvement as well. Al Qaeda were not necessarily antagonistic to the Israelis. It was a complex relationship in which there was, at one point, an alliance between Al Qaeda and the West. I don't pay much attention to Middle Eastern politics, to be honest, but it seems to me we're now back in alliance with Al Qaeda again!
None of these subjects are even questionable (to any reasonable person)
I think they are actually! If you don't like it or you're offended, you're free to ignore such discussions.
-
None of these subjects are even questionable (to any reasonable person)
This is the same kind of reasoning that caused Darwin to massively delay publishing his findings. Fear of the reaction from the Victorian, Christian orthodoxy.
-
Unfortunately for you, I am fluent in German and I take the view that the translation given of Himmler's speech in that video is unlikely to be contextually accurate. One needs to have some historical knowledge to appreciate why it's unlikely to be a faithful translation. The word 'Ausrottung' and its verb 'ausrotten' have varied meanings.
Then you should know better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches#Holocaust_denial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches#Holocaust_denial)
"Holocaust deniers will also offer erroneous translations of ausrotten by analysing the word's compounds, on the basis that "aus" and "rotten" are cognate with the English "out" and "root". To native German speakers, this is simply wrong. Critics compare this attempted etymological explanation to an attempt to cite the Latin origins of "ex" (out of) and "terminus" (borders) and on that basis, claim that "exterminate" means deportation, which would be equally nonsensical to native English speakers.
Critics point out that German Holocaust deniers do not dare suggest a translation to a German audience where ausrotten does not mean physical extermination, citing instances of German deniers dismissing failed etymological analysis by English speakers by responding to confirm that ausrotten means complete destruction, and material written by German deniers where, in the context of people, ausrotten and vernichten are used synonymously.
Germar Rudolf and Udo Walendy have claimed that the recording of the first speech is a forgery: Himmler's voice was actually that of a 1945 Allied voice imitator. However, the discovery of the second Posen speech in the Koblenz Bundesarchiv rendered allegations of falsification completely irrelevant. Himmler's explicit statements, such as making the decision to make the Jews "disappear from the earth", leave no room for alternative interpretation."
No, they didn't admit to it. In fact, Bin Laden denied involvement on several occasions. In regard to the video above, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the report of Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg.
Yes they did.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654
(https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654)
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/09gitmo.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/09gitmo.html)
-
Then you should know better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches#Holocaust_denial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches#Holocaust_denial)
"Holocaust deniers will also offer erroneous translations of ausrotten by analysing the word's compounds, on the basis that "aus" and "rotten" are cognate with the English "out" and "root". To native German speakers, this is simply wrong. Critics compare this attempted etymological explanation to an attempt to cite the Latin origins of "ex" (out of) and "terminus" (borders) and on that basis, claim that "exterminate" means deportation, which would be equally nonsensical to native English speakers.
Critics point out that German Holocaust deniers do not dare suggest a translation to a German audience where ausrotten does not mean physical extermination, citing instances of German deniers dismissing failed etymological analysis by English speakers by responding to confirm that ausrotten means complete destruction, and material written by German deniers where, in the context of people, ausrotten and vernichten are used synonymously.
Germar Rudolf and Udo Walendy have claimed that the recording of the first speech is a forgery: Himmler's voice was actually that of a 1945 Allied voice imitator. However, the discovery of the second Posen speech in the Koblenz Bundesarchiv rendered allegations of falsification completely irrelevant. Himmler's explicit statements, such as making the decision to make the Jews "disappear from the earth", leave no room for alternative interpretation."
Again, sorry David but you're just wrong - in my view. I've stated the truth: ausrotten has varied meanings, the exact meaning will depend on context. What you've posted is a small extract from a lengthy speech. Just like in English, words in German have varied meanings depending on what is intended.
For instance, a Marxist may give a speech saying: "We demand the destruction of the capitalist class!" This doesn't necessarily mean that he wants to actually kill all capitalists as a class of people.
This is quite complicated! Posting stuff from YouTube and Wikipedia isn't going to convince me. Not that I need convincing that the Nazis disliked Jews. I take that as a given, though there are nuances even to that.
Yes they did.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654
(https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654)
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/09gitmo.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/09gitmo.html)
Again, you quote mainstream sources and here you ignore what I said, including that Bin Laden had denied involvement repeatedly and a German expert on Arabic has produced a report ripping that video to shreds.
You can of course believe what you like.
I'd prefer to get back to Thomas Mair, please.
-
Again, sorry David but you're just wrong. I've stated the truth: ausrotten has varied meanings, the exact meaning will depend on context. What you've posted is a small extract from a lengthy speech. Just like in English, words in German have varied meanings depending on what is intended.
No, I am not wrong. Ausrotten has varied meanings yes. However considering the context and the fact its coming from the head of the SS, leaves no room for any alternative interpretation.
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/ausrotten.shtml (https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/ausrotten.shtml)
Again, you quote mainstream sources and here you ignore what I said, including that Bin Laden had denied involvement repeatedly and a German expert on Arabic has produced a report ripping that video to shreds.
The video is not the only evidence. What some intellectually dishonest crackpot has to say about it is rather moot. Nor would any of the detained members of BinLadens terror group agree with him either.
-
No, I am not wrong. Ausrotten has varied meanings yes. However considering the context and the fact its coming from the head of the SS, leaves no room for any alternative interpretation.
Actually, it does leave room for alternative interpretation. The problem is that your mind is closed, David.
The video is not the only evidence. What some intellectually dishonest crackpot has to say about it is rather moot. Nor would any of the detained members of BinLadens terror group agree with him either.
Again, your mind is closed. This is not a discussion. This is you just coming on here and calling people names because they take a different view to you.
The video is evidence, but it is open to analysis and interpretation. Your refusal to consider alternative viewpoints is your own limitation. It is not our problem.
-
9/11 thread created :)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10324.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10324.0.html)
-
Unfortunately for you, I am fluent in German and I take the view that the translation given of Himmler's speech in that video is unlikely to be contextually accurate. One needs to have some historical knowledge to appreciate why it's unlikely to be a faithful translation. The word 'Ausrottung' and its verb 'ausrotten' have varied meanings.
No, they didn't admit to it. In fact, Bin Laden denied involvement on several occasions. In regard to the video above, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the report of Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg.
Also, even if Bin Laden was involved, that does not preclude the possibility of Israeli involvement as well. Al Qaeda were not necessarily antagonistic to the Israelis. It was a complex relationship in which there was, at one point, an alliance between Al Qaeda and the West. I don't pay much attention to Middle Eastern politics, to be honest, but it seems to me we're now back in alliance with Al Qaeda again!
I think they are actually! If you don't like it or you're offended, you're free to ignore such discussions.
So am I, and your claims are offensive and unfounded.
-
So am I, and your claims are offensive and unfounded.
What 'claims' have I made, Steve? So far, I have said that the translation is potentially inaccurate because the word has varied meanings, there is an historical context to the speech, and only a small part of the speech is extracted. You seem to be claiming that you, too, are versed in the German language, so you must know that what I say about the word having varied meanings is true.
You are supposed to be a TEACHER! You are supposed to be an educated person. It seems all the time we spend on here I am educating you. It's very ironic.
And how can what I have said be "offensive"? Offensive to who?
Isn't it rather typical of people like you - priggish, middle-class people - that you insult people and hide behind 'free speech' (having no educated understanding of what the expression means), and when others say things you don't like, you seek to deter speech by calling it "offensive" or launching into moralising shame-based attacks on them.
-
What 'claims' have I made, Steve? So far, I have said that the translation is potentially inaccurate because the word has varied meanings, there is an historical context to the speech, and only a small part of the speech is extracted. You seem to be claiming that you, too, are versed in the German language, so you must know that what I say about the word having varied meanings is true.
You are supposed to be a TEACHER! You are supposed to be an educated person. It seems all the time we spend on here I am educating you. It's very ironic.
And how can what I have said be "offensive"? Offensive to who?
Isn't it rather typical of people like you - priggish, middle-class people - that you insult people and hide behind 'free speech' (having no educated understanding of what the expression means), and when others say things you don't like, you seek to deter speech by calling it "offensive" or launching into moralising shame-based attacks on them.
You have either forgotten or didn't know in the first place that the Holocaust was perpetrated in utter clandestinity, euphemisms being used in the process of systematically killing millions of Jews and other minority groups. It's therefore not totally unsurprising that the word "Ausrottung" was used ("Evakuirung" was another). As David has pointed out successfully, you are totally mistaken in your questioning of this, and if this wasn't your intention then you failed to make that intention clear.
It's offensive because it's anti-Semitic, pure and simple.
-
You have either forgotten or didn't know in the first place that the Holocaust was perpetrated in utter clandestinity, euphemisms being used in the process of systematically killing millions of Jews and other minority groups. It's therefore not totally unsurprising that the word "Ausrottung" was used ("Evakuirung" was another). As David has pointed out successfully, you are totally mistaken in your questioning of this, and if this wasn't your intention then you failed to make that intention clear.
It's offensive because it's anti-Semitic, pure and simple.
So you admit that the word used has different meanings? And you admit that the meaning of a word will depend on the context in which it is used? You accept that to understand what people say we have to look at the situation in which they spoke? Thus, it seems that the point I have been making is in fact correct in principle. I therefore wonder what all this fuss is about, especially since I didn't bring the topic up in the first place.
"Destruction of the Jews" or "extermination of Jews" does not necessarily mean industrialised killing of Jews, does it. It may mean that to somebody who is of average understanding who just assumes that what they are told by mainstream historians, etc. is correct. I think a bit more deeply about things and I do not necessarily simply believe what I am told.
You say that it was all done clandestinely. It must have been, since the only real evidence we have for it is witness statements from people who were there yet who survived - which raises all sorts of questions in itself. I am not, of course, suggesting it didn't happen and I already know what the Nazi attitude to Jews was. It could also be that some neo-Nazis today, far from being Holocaust deniers, are Holocaust affirmers and are proud of what happened and want it to happen again. But I would first like to know what happened.
Anyway, it is not offensive to ask questions. It is not anti-Semitic to ask questions. That is all I have done, so far. Please stop preaching and hectoring people because they want to ask questions.
-
So you admit that the word used has different meanings? And you admit that the meaning of a word will depend on the context in which it is used? You accept that to understand what people say we have to look at the situation in which they spoke? Thus, it seems that the point I have been making is in fact correct in principle. I therefore wonder what all this fuss is about, especially since I didn't bring the topic up in the first place.
"Destruction of the Jews" or "extermination of Jews" does not necessarily mean industrialised killing of Jews, does it. It may mean that to somebody who is of average understanding who just assumes that what they are told by mainstream historians, etc. is correct. I think a bit more deeply about things and I do not necessarily simply believe what I am told.
You say that it was all done clandestinely. It must have been, since the only real evidence we have for it is witness statements from people who were there yet who survived - which raises all sorts of questions in itself. I am not, of course, suggesting it didn't happen and I already know what the Nazi attitude to Jews was. It could also be that some neo-Nazis today, far from being Holocaust deniers, are Holocaust affirmers and are proud of what happened and want it to happen again. But I would first like to know what happened.
Anyway, it is not offensive to ask questions. It is not anti-Semitic to ask questions. That is all I have done, so far. Please stop preaching and hectoring people because they want to ask questions.
QC please go back to bed. You are far from the (sometimes attained) standard you set yourself, or maybe you're just having a bad day.
-
QC please go back to bed. You are far from the (sometimes attained) standard you set yourself, or maybe you're just having a bad day.
Thanks [Nursery] Teacher Steve. Can I take my teddy bear with me too?
-
Thanks [Nursery] Teacher Steve. Can I take my teddy bear with me too?
Yes and stab it, for all I care..
-
Yes and stab it, for all I care..
Thanks Steve. Another one for the archives.
-
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.
(https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/images-a.jpimedia.uk/imagefetch/http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/Prestige.Item.1.85915104!image/image.jpg?width=640)
(https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/images-a.jpimedia.uk/imagefetch/http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/Prestige.Item.1.85915114!image/image.jpg?width=640)
Where has the bloke gone from top image? Is it a glitch?
-
Just to add a quick note to say that I never received a reply from Thomas Mair (or the prison, or anybody else) to my letter.
-
Just to add a quick note to say that I never received a reply from Thomas Mair (or the prison, or anybody else) to my letter.
Wouldn't surprise me of he's been bumped off. Still don't understand why the above top image is now minus the perpetrator.
-
Where has the bloke gone from top image? Is it a glitch?
It's still freely available on the web, showing him walking in different positions. Some examples below:
-
i think her husband killed hes dodgy as fuck i am sure he had a hand in it.
-
i think her husband killed hes dodgy as fuck i am sure he had a hand in it.
The conviction of Tommy Mair is laughable. It's very, very clear that this was an operation. Tommy must have been compromised in some way or form, to the extent where he agreed to go along to some extent. He possibly then bottled his instructions (probably in turmoil) which resulted in him being pole-axed in the cul-de-sac. I'll be amazed if he is still alive. I'm even more amazed Covid wasn't used to announce his death.
-
im not saying marr is innocent but others were involved and im pretty sure her husband was one of them
-
Mair was seen committing the murder in broad daylight buy half a dozen witnesses.
His plea at trial was “Death to traitors”.
#conspiratard
-
Mair was seen committing the murder in broad daylight buy half a dozen witnesses.
His plea at trial was “Death to traitors”.
#conspiratard
Scoff all you like David, but I think it's aliens. Or so my alien girlfriend told me.
You're just jealous that me and Nugnug are intergalactic sex gods.
-
Mair was seen committing the murder in broad daylight buy half a dozen witnesses.
His plea at trial was “Death to traitors”.
#conspiratard
Absolute rubbish. Mair wasn't even at his own trial. Not going round in circles. Conspiracies do happen. What on earth do you think security services are for, if not to practice deception? Naive-itard.
-
Absolute rubbish. Mair wasn't even at his own trial. Not going round in circles. Conspiracies do happen. What on earth do you think security services are for, if not to practice deception? Naive-itard.
If this was a government operation it would involve Mair being a government agent living under the facade of a far right extremist, who was then tasked and paid to carry out the killing. They then had a show trial and have now released him with a new identity and is now in another government agent position. Not only does this match all the evidence we know of, its also a much easier way for the government to carry out this operation.
-
Mair has written to journalists as of 2019 by the way.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/06/bedsit-nazi-man-killed-jo-cox-thomas-mair (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/06/bedsit-nazi-man-killed-jo-cox-thomas-mair)
-
If this was a government operation it would involve Mair being a government agent living under the facade of a far right extremist, who was then tasked and paid to carry out the killing. They then had a show trial and have now released him with a new identity and is now in another government agent position. Not only does this match all the evidence we know of, its also a much easier way for the government to carry out this operation.
that isnt how they operate the way they operate is by triking some sado. into doing there dirty work for them that way it can never be linked back to him the guy nhas no idea hes working for so he even if he does talk he cant implicate them.
-
Mair has written to journalists as of 2019 by the way.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/06/bedsit-nazi-man-killed-jo-cox-thomas-mair (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/06/bedsit-nazi-man-killed-jo-cox-thomas-mair)
I haven't had a chance to read this article. Too many beers tonight. But what I will say, is that the 'Tommy Mair' scenario is like mother's milk to Guardian readers. It fulfills all of their unconscious bias. His (security services planned) story is like a footballer refusing to take the knee; a person refusing Covid jabs.. etc.
-
that isnt how they operate the way they operate is by triking some sado. into doing there dirty work for them that way it can never be linked back to him the guy nhas no idea hes working for so he even if he does talk he cant implicate them.
Nobody in the prison he was supposed to be in has ever heard of him being there, let alone seen him. His name was only added to a list of notable prisoners at that prison, after it was pointed out his name wasn't listed. I notice the article doesn't mention that he had been an ESOL teacher among the Muslim community. Nor that on the day before the incident, he took carrier bags of old photos to his mam's home. His court likenesses are a joke - it's clearly somebody else. But the Guardian doesn't do investigative journalism in these types of unconscious bias cases. If the people of Batley and Spen truly believed that Mair had killed Jo Cox and truly believed in the whole mythical hate agenda surrounding it... her sister would have won the election with a landslide. Instead, she was lucky to scrape over the line.
-
If this was a government operation it would involve Mair being a government agent living under the facade of a far right extremist, who was then tasked and paid to carry out the killing. They then had a show trial and have now released him with a new identity and is now in another government agent position. Not only does this match all the evidence we know of, its also a much easier way for the government to carry out this operation.
Quite how Mair was ensnared will probably never be known. He obviously wasn't the killer - he was clearly a patsy. He may have been vulnerable or had vulnerabilities.
-
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7dcqm2 (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7dcqm2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZgJVhVL33w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZgJVhVL33w)
-
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7dcqm2 (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7dcqm2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZgJVhVL33w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZgJVhVL33w)
Seen it before.
-
Seen it before.
In the second video they interview witnesses who saw Mair commit the killing. Are they all in the conspiracy also?
-
In the second video they interview witnesses who saw Mair commit the killing. Are they all in the conspiracy also?
Nobody from the scene specifically identified Mair.
-
'Will the real Thomas Mair please stand up?'
-
Nobody from the scene specifically identified Mair.
she was killed in her office wasnt she.
-
she was killed in her office wasnt she.
Nope, she was on her way to her Surgery
-
Nobody from the scene specifically identified Mair.
Taxi driver Rashid Hussain told the court he saw Jo's killer shoot her twice before taking a step back and firing again outside Birstall Library in West Yorkshire
The man accused of killing Jo Cox shouted 'move back or I'll stab you' at onlookers before shooting the Labour MP in the head - a court has heard.
The evidence against Mair, a 53-year-old gardener, was "overwhelming," The Guardian reported. "[W]itnesses to the attack included people who had known him all his life," and "the incident was also captured on CCTV, as was his escape
He also stabbed a brave ex mines rescue man, A man who risked his life to try to save Jo Cox is a veteran of the mines rescue service that operated when the area in which the Labour MP was killed was at the centre of the coal industry.
Bernard Carter-Kenny, who turns 78 next week, was stabbed in the abdomen as he grappled with the Cox’s attacker in Birstall, West Yorkshire, In March 1977 Carter-Kenny was a member of the team that tried to save seven men trapped in nearby Lofthouse colliery. All seven died when the coalface on which they were working was flooded.
In an interview with the Yorkshire Evening Post on the 30th anniversary of the disaster, Carter-Kenny said: “The conditions we had to work in were rough. We never gave up. We went on with it. It was your duty to try and help them and it was sad when it had to be called off.”
-
Taxi driver Rashid Hussain told the court he saw Jo's killer shoot her twice before taking a step back and firing again outside Birstall Library in West Yorkshire
The man accused of killing Jo Cox shouted 'move back or I'll stab you' at onlookers before shooting the Labour MP in the head - a court has heard.
The evidence against Mair, a 53-year-old gardener, was "overwhelming," The Guardian reported. "[W]itnesses to the attack included people who had known him all his life," and "the incident was also captured on CCTV, as was his escape
He also stabbed a brave ex mines rescue man, A man who risked his life to try to save Jo Cox is a veteran of the mines rescue service that operated when the area in which the Labour MP was killed was at the centre of the coal industry.
Bernard Carter-Kenny, who turns 78 next week, was stabbed in the abdomen as he grappled with the Cox’s attacker in Birstall, West Yorkshire, In March 1977 Carter-Kenny was a member of the team that tried to save seven men trapped in nearby Lofthouse colliery. All seven died when the coalface on which they were working was flooded.
In an interview with the Yorkshire Evening Post on the 30th anniversary of the disaster, Carter-Kenny said: “The conditions we had to work in were rough. We never gave up. We went on with it. It was your duty to try and help them and it was sad when it had to be called off.”
Nobody from the scene identified Thomas Mair. There was an incident involving a male and Jo Cox, which was witnessed by several people... absolutely none of whom identified Thomas Mair.
-
Who on earth is this?
-
Nobody from the scene identified Thomas Mair. There was an incident involving a male and Jo Cox, which was witnessed by several people... absolutely none of whom identified Thomas Mair.
He lived in Birstall and witnesses to the attack included people who had known HIM all his life. The incident was also captured on CCTV, as was his escape.
-
He lived in Birstall and witnesses to the attack included people who had known HIM all his life. The incident was also captured on CCTV, as was his escape.
Justice, you are falling in to a trap mate. It's the way the article is written. It's very poor journalism from the Guardian. There were no witnesses from the incident who identified Mair. The CCTV is a mix of Mair and of the person who actually carried out the incident. The two individuals have different walks and wear different clothes. The police running the operation tried to account for this by suggesting Mair got changed in the grounds of an empty house - for which there are no witnesses. They are two separate people. A name has been suggested for the other person 'Gareth Bamsey'. As far as I am aware, Mr Bamsey has stayed quiet.
-
Justice, you are falling in to a trap mate. It's the way the article is written. It's very poor journalism from the Guardian. There were no witnesses from the incident who identified Mair. The CCTV is a mix of Mair and of the person who actually carried out the incident. The two individuals have different walks and wear different clothes. The police running the operation tried to account for this by suggesting Mair got changed in the grounds of an empty house - for which there are no witnesses. They are two separate people. A name has been suggested for the other person 'Gareth Bamsey'. As far as I am aware, Mr Bamsey has stayed quiet.
Relatives of 41-year-old Mrs Cox — including sister Kim, mother Jean and dad Gordon — watched as film of the two-minute attack was played.
Another witness was named as Jack Foster. Mr Whittam said: “He saw Thomas Mair standing with a gun. He saw him raise the gun and shoot Jo Cox. He shouted, ‘F****** leave her alone’. He saw him reload or re-cock the gun and he shot Jo Cox again. He remembers the shooter shouting, ‘Britain First’.”
Mair was arrested, holding up his hands and saying: “It’s me — I am a political activist,”
Prior to her killing he researched Jo Cox and how to kill.
-
Relatives of 41-year-old Mrs Cox — including sister Kim, mother Jean and dad Gordon — watched as film of the two-minute attack was played.
Another witness was named as Jack Foster. Mr Whittam said: “He saw Thomas Mair standing with a gun. He saw him raise the gun and shoot Jo Cox. He shouted, ‘F****** leave her alone’. He saw him reload or re-cock the gun and he shot Jo Cox again. He remembers the shooter shouting, ‘Britain First’.”
Mair was arrested, holding up his hands and saying: “It’s me — I am a political activist,”
Prior to her killing he researched Jo Cox and how to kill.
What that means is the prosecutor said he (ie the witness) said he saw a man attack Jo Cox. The prosecutor wants you to believe that that man, was Thomas Mair (who actually wasn't present in the dock). If the prosecutor is purporting to read witness testimony in that manner - was it because the witness wasn't present at trial?
-
Mair was arrested, holding up his hands and saying: “It’s me — I am a political activist,”
Prior to her killing he researched Jo Cox and how to kill.
I don't believe this happened. There is a witness to Thomas Mair's arrest and this is not what he stated. People filmed what happened and the police took their mobiles off them.
As for the claims Mair searched for those terms, firstly who exactly is making those claims and on what evidence?
-
I don't believe this happened. There is a witness to Thomas Mair's arrest and this is not what he stated. People filmed what happened and the police took their mobiles off them.
As for the claims Mair searched for those terms, firstly who exactly is making those claims and on what evidence?
I don’t know Roch, I don’t know enough about the case, I though it was a closed case before, but if you have got evidence to suggest otherwise i can’t argue. Didn’t they find DNA or a hair on the sawn off shotgun or something? I’ll try and find it later.
-
I don’t know Roch, I don’t know enough about the case, I though it was a closed case before, but if you have got evidence to suggest otherwise i can’t argue. Didn’t they find DNA or a hair on the sawn off shotgun or something? I’ll try and find it later.
Sorry Roch it was blood on the barrel of the gun they found with him?
Earlier in the trial, the jury was shown an image of a sawn-off .22 Weihrauch bolt-action rifle, alleged to have been recovered when Mr Mair was arrested. They were told Mrs Cox's blood was on the barrel.
-
I don't believe this happened. There is a witness to Thomas Mair's arrest and this is not what he stated. People filmed what happened and the police took their mobiles off them.
As for the claims Mair searched for those terms, firstly who exactly is making those claims and on what evidence?
The Police are making the claims Roch, they raided his home. The court heard on Monday that when police raided the defendant's home after his arrest they found an SS officer's book on race theory and mate selection, along with other white supremacist texts.
Mr Mair had also allegedly collected a dossier on Mrs Cox in his home, including stories about her in newspapers.
And he had a printout of Mrs Cox, who was MP for Batley and Spen and a mother of two, from her website, jurors were told.
-
I don’t know Roch, I don’t know enough about the case, I though it was a closed case before, but if you have got evidence to suggest otherwise i can’t argue. Didn’t they find DNA or a hair on the sawn off shotgun or something? I’ll try and find it later.
It is a closed case. This is a crazy conspiracy theory invented by someone who thinks Aliens go around abducting sheep.
-
It is a closed case. This is a crazy conspiracy theory invented by someone who thinks Aliens go around abducting sheep.
I think the jury took 90 mins to convict him, the evidence was overwhelming?
-
I think the jury took 90 mins to convict him, the evidence was overwhelming?
Correct
-
It is a closed case. This is a crazy conspiracy theory invented by someone who thinks Aliens go around abducting sheep.
Another deliberately closed minded and puerile remark. I suppose you believe the police on Daniel Morgan also?
-
I think the jury took 90 mins to convict him, the evidence was overwhelming?
So overwhelming, they had to get a stand-in to act the Mair part and stop his relatives from attending, so they didn't notice it wasn't him. None of the witnesses were asked to identify Mair, in fact there were hardly any witnesses present. They also had to use computer graphics instead of real images, for Jo Cox's wounds. They also presented the wrong design of holdall.
-
It is a closed case. This is a crazy conspiracy theory invented by someone who thinks Aliens go around abducting sheep.
Be quiet David. Me and Nugnug are on to a good thing here with our intergalactic sex escapades. I don't want Fake Justice getting a look in.
-
I think the jury took 90 mins to convict him, the evidence was overwhelming?
Thanks Charleen. Oh and put another shrimp on the barbie?
-
Thanks Charleen. Oh and put another shrimp on the barbie?
Ok Champion!
-
Ok Champion!
Thanks Charleen?
-
So overwhelming, they had to get a stand-in to act the Mair part and stop his relatives from attending, so they didn't notice it wasn't him. None of the witnesses were asked to identify Mair, in fact there were hardly any witnesses present. They also had to use computer graphics instead of real images, for Jo Cox's wounds. They also presented the wrong design of holdall.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
-
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Care to explain?
-
So overwhelming, they had to get a stand-in to act the Mair part and stop his relatives from attending, so they didn't notice it wasn't him. None of the witnesses were asked to identify Mair, in fact there were hardly any witnesses present. They also had to use computer graphics instead of real images, for Jo Cox's wounds. They also presented the wrong design of holdall.
Didn't he decline to give evidence in Court Roch?
-
Care to explain?
You claim they had a "stand in to act as Mair". And you base this on nothing but the work of the courtroom sketch artist not being to your liking. ;D ;D ;D
-
Care to explain?
Later DNA analysis of the items would find blood stains that were a “billion-to-one” match to both Mrs Cox and Mair on the rifle and dagger.
-
Later DNA analysis of the items would find blood stains that were a “billion-to-one” match to both Mrs Cox and Mair on the rifle and dagger.
The holdall that Tommy dropped when he he was rugby tackled by uniformed officers, was not the same holdall presented as evidence by police. The executors of the operation were unable to find exactly the same holdall as Mair's. So they tried the next best thing, which was to use one similar to Mair's. If a murderer had tried the same thing (ie swap bags but get caught out), you and David would exclaim that this was evidence of guilt. But If the police do it...
-
The holdall that Tommy dropped when he he was rugby tackled by uniformed officers, was not the same holdall presented as evidence by police. The executors of the operation were unable to find exactly the same holdall as Mair's. So they tried the next best thing, which was to use one similar to Mair's. If a murderer had tried the same thing (ie swap bags but get caught out), you and David would exclaim that this was evidence of guilt. But If the police do it...
Seriously though Roch, I don’t know how much more evidence you need?
Reports from the court noted that Mair had researched Cox’s Twitter account at the local library in Birstall in the days before the attack, and had researched where the MP was due to hold her surgery. Jurors were told by the prosecution that items from Mair’s house showed he had “strong political and ideological interests,” and that he had recently viewed websites relating to Nazi material and the Ku Klux Klan before Cox’s murder.
The jury was shown photographs of a .22 Weihrauch bolt-action gun and a knife, with the prosecution noting that blood matching the DNA profile of Cox was found on both weapons. The prosecution also said that there were many witnesses at the scene, with 77-year-old passerby Bernard Carter Kenny sustaining injuries as he attempted to intervene
The Old Bailey also heard from the two members of the West Yorkshire police who arrived on the scene having been instructed to search for the man involved in the attack. Constable Craig Nicholls said that he and colleague PC Jonathan Wright saw Mair near the scene and told him to drop the black holdall that he was carrying, which contained a sawn-off .22 rifle. Mair then told the two policeman that “It’s me,” and “I am a political activist,” according to Nicholls.
-
nobody is saying mair is innocent thats not what is being cliamed we suspect that he dident act alone and more people were involved.
-
nobody is saying is innocent thats not what is being cliamed we suspect that he dident act alone and more people were involved.
Oh so Roch knows he’s guilty then 👍. No argument then, keep him locked up and throw away the key.
-
well acording to david and roch he is not under lock and key and if he is theres a few people who need to join him.
-
well acording to david and roch he is not under lock and key and if he is theres a few people who need to join him.
As far as I’m aware he’s in Frankland prison in County Durham, he’s got a single cell and he hardly talks to anyone?
-
nobody is saying mair is innocent thats not what is being cliamed we suspect that he dident act alone and more people were involved.
I don’t think you know enough about the case to accuse others of being involved, you hadn’t a clue of the location she had been shot and it was captured on CCTV. If there are witnesses present saying it was him and his blood and Joe Cox’s blood was on the sawn off shotgun found with him and he told police he’d done it and you and Roch know he’s guilty, it’s case closed then.
-
You claim they had a "stand in to act as Mair". And you base this on nothing but the work of the courtroom sketch artist not being to your liking. ;D ;D ;D
Thomas Mair's relatives and friends cannot recognise him from the court sketches in question. They were told they couldn't attend the trial. The man in the dock barely uttered a word during the trial. Obviously, any stand-in for Mair would be recognised as such by friends and relatives. Similarly, any stand-in on camera with audio, could potentially implicate themselves as such, if they spoke (ie their voice would need to exactly match Mair's).
Regarding The Guardian. If a black person or person of colour were tried for murder, without proper legal representation, after having remained silent during interviewing, with relatives and friends barred from the trial, with no crime scene or PM images of victim wounds shown at trial, with most prosecution witnesses absent from trial, and depicted by court sketches of somebody else.. The Guardian would be up in arms.
-
Thomas Mair's relatives and friends cannot recognise him from the court sketches in question. They were told they couldn't attend the trial. The man in the dock barely uttered a word during the trial. Obviously, any stand-in for Mair would be recognised as such by friends and relatives. Similarly, any stand-in on camera with audio, could potentially implicate themselves as such, if they spoke (ie their voice would need to exactly match Mair's).
Regarding The Guardian. If a black person or person of colour were tried for murder, without proper legal representation, after having remained silent during interviewing, with relatives and friends barred from the trial, with no crime scene or PM images of victim wounds shown at trial, with most prosecution witnesses absent from trial, and depicted by court sketches of somebody else.. The Guardian would be up in arms.
Serious Roch, are you saying they brought a stand in for the murder of Jo Cox? Your basing this claim on a artist impression?
-
Serious Roch, are you saying they brought a stand in for the murder of Jo Cox? Your basing this claim on a artist impression?
Are you deliberately misreading my post RJ? If you were on trial and your own friends and relatives were not allowed to be present, couldn't recognise you from the artists' impressions and couldn't hear you speak, would they be wrong to feel alarmed or uneasy about that? Suspicious?
-
Apologies for snapping RJ :))
-
Are you deliberately misreading my post RJ? If you were on trial and your own friends and relatives were not allowed to be present, couldn't recognise you from the artists' impressions and couldn't hear you speak, would they be wrong to feel alarmed or uneasy about that? Suspicious?
Roch I don’t mind one bit how you post with me I promise, I’m trying to get my head around the fact Nugnug says you all know he’s guilty but there are others involved and I thought I read where David said you believed he had a stand in? If he didn’t attend the trial would still go ahead without him they wouldn’t need a stand in, they could have just said he refused to attend rather than risk putting a ringer up there. It would be a first I’ve ever heard where someone stood in for someone but not a first for refusing to attend? Why set him up, the evidence was overwhelming in the first place. So my apologies if your not suggesting he had a stand in mate 👍
This was Nugnug’s post, I take it he’s speaking for himself when he says We?
nobody is saying mair is innocent thats not what is being cliamed we suspect that he dident act alone and more people were involved.
-
Apologies for snapping RJ :))
No problem mate, it was my fault I read David’s post after yours and jumped to conclusions 👍
-
They were told they couldn't attend the trial.
What is your source for this claim?
Mairs mother is Mary Goodall.
"Speaking after today's conviction, Ms Goodall said she had been shocked by what had happened. She told ITV News: 'It's a sad day. It's a sad, sad thing from beginning to end. I never saw any of this coming.' "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3966698/Police-hunt-accomplice-gave-murderer-sawn-German-rifle-used-kill-Jo-Cox-MP.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3966698/Police-hunt-accomplice-gave-murderer-sawn-German-rifle-used-kill-Jo-Cox-MP.html)
-
What is your source for this claim?
Mairs mother is Mary Goodall.
"Speaking after today's conviction, Ms Goodall said she had been shocked by what had happened. She told ITV News: 'It's a sad day. It's a sad, sad thing from beginning to end. I never saw any of this coming.' "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3966698/Police-hunt-accomplice-gave-murderer-sawn-German-rifle-used-kill-Jo-Cox-MP.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3966698/Police-hunt-accomplice-gave-murderer-sawn-German-rifle-used-kill-Jo-Cox-MP.html)
I wasn't referring to his mam David. She's an old lady probably living in fear.
-
Are you deliberately misreading my post RJ? If you were on trial and your own friends and relatives were not allowed to be present, couldn't recognise you from the artists' impressions and couldn't hear you speak, would they be wrong to feel alarmed or uneasy about that? Suspicious?
Elizibeth Cook the court room artist Roch, Google her and see some of her drawings, look at the one of Ryan Giggs 🙈🙈🙈. I couldn’t recognise him.
-
I wasn't referring to his mam David. She's an old lady probably living in fear.
What is your source for his family and friends not being allowed to the trial?
-
Elizibeth Cook the court room artist Roch, Google her and see some of her drawings, look at the one of Ryan Giggs 🙈🙈🙈. I couldn’t recognise him.
She may have done some but not all.
-
What is your source for his family and friends not being allowed to the trial?
All of the press parrot the official case, including the Guardian. Richard Hall interviewed one of his relatives as well as his neighbour and one of the neighbors whose house overlooked the arrest. I would have to travel through about three hours of footage to find the recordings. What are yours and the Daily Mail's sources that they were allowed?
-
All of the press parrot the official case, including the Guardian. Richard Hall interviewed one of his relatives as well as his neighbour and one of the neighbors whose house overlooked the arrest. I would have to travel through about three hours of footage to find the recordings. What are yours and the Daily Mail's sources that they were allowed?
Richard Hall is your source? ;D ;D
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/d9/68/22d9689453caf1cd8e4da60495038966.gif)
-
He also claims to haven spoke with friends of T Mair, regarding CCTV footage / images from the day of the incident and from the police interview and the arraignment. Also regarding the route taken across town and other aspects. However, these friends were not filmed, unlike the above.
-
Richard Hall is your source? ;D ;D
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/d9/68/22d9689453caf1cd8e4da60495038966.gif)
It could be argued the interviewees were my source. What are the sources in all the newspaper articles?
-
He also claims to haven spoke with friends of T Mair, regarding CCTV footage / images from the day of the incident and from the police interview and the arraignment. Also regarding the route taken across town and other aspects. However, these friends were not filmed, unlike the above.
Didn't his mum recognise him on TV, THE devastated mum of MP murder suspect Thomas Mair saw him being arrested on TV and sobbed: “My God, that’s my son.”
As Mary Goodall saw police surround him after the slaying of Jo Cox , she collapsed in shock adding: “It IS him…that’s Tom’s bag and that’s Tom’s cloth
The same bag contained, A knife with a seven-inch blade was found in gardener Thomas Mair's backpack along with the adapted gun when he was arrested, it is alleged, with .22 ammunition also found in his pockets
After admitting it was him that had done it? The same gun and knife that had his and Joe cox’s DNA on?
The court heard Mr Mair was arrested following the attack and told officers he had a knife and gun in a black holdall he was carrying.
Jurors were shown photographs of a German-made .22 Weihrauch bolt-action weapon and were told Mrs Cox's blood was found on the barrel during forensic examination.
Mr Whittam told the court a knife found in Mr Mair's backpack also had blood on the handle which contained "a major DNA profile matching that of Jo Cox and a minor DNA profile of the defendant".
-
Didn't his mum recognise him on TV, THE devastated mum of MP murder suspect Thomas Mair saw him being arrested on TV and sobbed: “My God, that’s my son.”
As Mary Goodall saw police surround him after the slaying of Jo Cox , she collapsed in shock adding: “It IS him…that’s Tom’s bag and that’s Tom’s cloth
The same bag contained, A knife with a seven-inch blade was found in gardener Thomas Mair's backpack along with the adapted gun when he was arrested, it is alleged, with .22 ammunition also found in his pockets
After admitting it was him that had done it? The same gun and knife that had his and Joe cox’s DNA on?
The court heard Mr Mair was arrested following the attack and told officers he had a knife and gun in a black holdall he was carrying.
Jurors were shown photographs of a German-made .22 Weihrauch bolt-action weapon and were told Mrs Cox's blood was found on the barrel during forensic examination.
Mr Whittam told the court a knife found in Mr Mair's backpack also had blood on the handle which contained "a major DNA profile matching that of Jo Cox and a minor DNA profile of the defendant".
The real Tommy Mair was arrested, in a cul-de-sac. So his mam would have recognised him. Tommy Mair was from Birstall. It's therefore puzzling why he would walk in to a cul-de-sac while attempting to evade police.
The Puma holdall presented as evidence, is not the same puma holdall dropped by Tommy when he was arrested.
-
The real Tommy Mair was arrested, in a cul-de-sac. So his mam would have recognised him. Tommy Mair was from Birstall. It's therefore puzzling why he would walk in to a cul-de-sac while attempting to evade police.
The Puma holdall presented as evidence, is not the same puma holdall dropped by Tommy when he was arrested.
Roch,
My friend, I think there is probably an explanation for all the things you say, and having studied the case (I admit, not in depth), there are explanations for your own various expressed doubts.
But I think you are right to ask questions and you should carry on.
For me, this discussion is more of philosophical value. I call back my post #85 from this very thread:
A passage from Jean Baudrillard's long essay, 'The Gulf War Did Not Take Place' [p.43]:
"The idea of a clean war, like that of a clean bomb or an intelligent missile, this whole war conceived as a technological extrapolation of the brain is a sure sign of madness. It is like those characters in Hieronymus Bosch with a glass bell or a soap bubble around their head as a sign of their mental debility. A war enclosed in a glass coffin, like Snow White, purged of any carnal contamination or warrior's passion. A clean war which ends up in an oil slick."
Thomas Mair stabbed and shot Jo Cox multiple times, but when Thomas Mair was arrested, it appeared there was no blood on his clothes or hands. His head was bloody, but this was due to the injuries inflicted to himself by the police officers when they tackled him. His hands, arms and clothing appear clean. Why the absence of blood?
To an extent, this can be explained because he did change clothes in the immediate minutes after the incident. But then the questions arise: How did he change and where? Did he discard the blooded clothes? Were these found? How did he clean himself? I could go on, but I'm sure it's obvious what I'm getting at.
I ought to make it clear that I think he's guilty and unless Thomas Mair replies to my letter and tells me something to the contrary, I'm mainly going to treat this thread as a philosophical exercise. The overarching question is: How do we prove that something has occurred? Nevertheless, I do wonder why I don't see any blood on Thomas Mair other than his injured head?
-
The real Tommy Mair was arrested, in a cul-de-sac. So his mam would have recognised him. Tommy Mair was from Birstall. It's therefore puzzling why he would walk in to a cul-de-sac while attempting to evade police.
[/quote is it possible he turned into this Close because they had a Police car waiting for him and he would have seen this, they was tracking his movements on CCTV and a Police car was sent to wait for him, so why did he turn into this close if he had nothing to hide? At the back of the houses in this close are some Units, maybe he planned to go through the housing estate and reach these, then cross the A62 which takes you to Birstall?
-
so one day this guy just decides on his own his going to shoot his local mp shes been his mp for a long time hes wanted to shoot her beforeso what changed.
were did he get the gun from sombody must of suplied him with it.
-
so one day this guy just decides on his own his going to shoot his local mp shes been his mp for a long time hes wanted to shoot her beforeso what changed.
were did he get the gun from sombody must of suplied him with it.
Nobody supplied him with any weapons. Mair's holdall was switched with the assailant's holdall.
-
so one day this guy just decides on his own his going to shoot his local mp shes been his mp for a long time hes wanted to shoot her beforeso what changed.
were did he get the gun from sombody must of suplied him with it.
He didn’t just decide in one day, he pre-planned the killing. In the days before Mrs Cox's murder, Mair would visit his local library and use the internet to work out how he was going to kill her. Days before killing her, he asked one of the members of staff about Mrs Cox's constituency surgeries at the library.
No need to make an appointment, just turn up, the librarian said, pointing Mair towards a poster displaying the details.
Prior to the killing, he had watched a number of American videos showing men firing a similar sawn-off rifle to the one he obtained.
He also looked at web pages about members of the Ku Klux Klan and people murdered in the US because of their civil rights work.
He worked his way through a list of political assassinations, including that of John F Kennedy and the 1990 IRA killing of Conservative MP Ian Gow.
He read up on matricide, the crime of killing one's mother, political prisoners, "lying in state", coffins and arrangements for a pauper's funeral.
His timings on CCTV all coincide before and after the attack. The two police officers who eventually caught him had just done a routine call to a woman’s house with dementia, they were about to go for lunch when they got a radio call about the killing, at first they thought it was a road traffic accident until they was told there had been a shooting, Mair would be walking along Brookroyd Lane when they first sighted him from the description after the CCTV picked him up walking from the Library, HE then decided to turn into Jon Nelson close, when the police told him to stop he dropped the bag and held his arms out and Said “it was him he was a political activist” or words to that effect, he moved his arms and they thought he was going for a gun/knife ect, so they rugby tackled him to the ground.
If anything, this shows truly brave police officers tackling an armed killer. They found the sawn off rifle and the knife in his bag, they found the clothing he switched from and discarded.
I personally think he was a lone wolf, there isn’t any history of him attending Rallies or Marches of the Far Right ect, he read up on it and was brainwashed by the books he had in his possession, as for the rifle, it was stolen the year before from a car and the owner identified, they don’t believe or there isn’t any evidence that Mair sawn the shotgun down, finding the person who supplied it is still a mystery and I suppose will be until Mair confession of how he got it.
-
He didn’t just decide in one day, he pre-planned the killing. In the days before Mrs Cox's murder, Mair would visit his local library and use the internet to work out how he was going to kill her. Days before killing her, he asked one of the members of staff about Mrs Cox's constituency surgeries at the library.
No need to make an appointment, just turn up, the librarian said, pointing Mair towards a poster displaying the details.
Prior to the killing, he had watched a number of American videos showing men firing a similar sawn-off rifle to the one he obtained.
He also looked at web pages about members of the Ku Klux Klan and people murdered in the US because of their civil rights work.
He worked his way through a list of political assassinations, including that of John F Kennedy and the 1990 IRA killing of Conservative MP Ian Gow.
He read up on matricide, the crime of killing one's mother, political prisoners, "lying in state", coffins and arrangements for a pauper's funeral.
His timings on CCTV all coincide before and after the attack. The two police officers who eventually caught him had just done a routine call to a woman’s house with dementia, they were about to go for lunch when they got a radio call about the killing, at first they thought it was a road traffic accident until they was told there had been a shooting, Mair would be walking along Brookroyd Lane when they first sighted him from the description after the CCTV picked him up walking from the Library, HE then decided to turn into Jon Nelson close, when the police told him to stop he dropped the bag and held his arms out and Said “it was him he was a political activist” or words to that effect, he moved his arms and they thought he was going for a gun/knife ect, so they rugby tackled him to the ground.
If anything, this shows truly brave police officers tackling an armed killer. They found the sawn off rifle and the knife in his bag, they found the clothing he switched from and discarded.
I personally think he was a lone wolf, there isn’t any history of him attending Rallies or Marches of the Far Right ect, he read up on it and was brainwashed by the books he had in his possession, as for the rifle, it was stolen the year before from a car and the owner identified, they don’t believe or there isn’t any evidence that Mair sawn the shotgun down, finding the person who supplied it is still a mystery and I suppose will be until Mair confession of how he got it.
Was he deep under cover, when he taught ESOL to the local Muslim community? The bloke on CCTV with the light coloured cap isn't Mair.
-
Was he deep under cover, when he taught ESOL to the local Muslim community? The bloke on CCTV with the light coloured cap isn't Mair.
I don’t think he was working with anyone Roch, who knows why or what motivates these people to commit such Heinous crimes, all his searches and material in his possession beforehand point to what his beliefs were and when he first appeared in Court for the first time, he Was asked to give his name, he answered: “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.” This is rather in line to what witnesses heard the assailant shout when Jo was attacked, “Britain First” this is for Britain, “Britain will always come first” as he shot and stabbed the MP it’s also in line with his confession to the Police “I’m a Political Activist”
The CCTV I admit is rather grainy, the Jury was shown his movements before, during the attack and after the attack all on CCTV, The prosecution alleges after leaving the scene, Mair walked into John Nelson Close, a small street behind the Vaults pub.
The jury is told he disappeared wearing a cap and light jacket but re-emerged wearing a dark cap and without the jacket, this is obviously when he was picked up?
The cap and jacket were later allegedly found in an overgrown garden with gunshot particles consistent with the gun used in the attack and DNA belonging to Jo Cox on them.
-
I don’t think he was working with anyone Roch, who knows why or what motivates these people to commit such Heinous crimes, all his searches and material in his possession beforehand point to what his beliefs were and when he first appeared in Court for the first time, he Was asked to give his name, he answered: “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.” This is rather in line to what witnesses heard the assailant shout when Jo was attacked, “Britain First” this is for Britain, “Britain will always come first” as he shot and stabbed the MP it’s also in line with his confession to the Police “I’m a Political Activist”
The CCTV I admit is rather grainy, the Jury was shown his movements before, during the attack and after the attack all on CCTV, The prosecution alleges after leaving the scene, Mair walked into John Nelson Close, a small street behind the Vaults pub.
The jury is told he disappeared wearing a cap and light jacket but re-emerged wearing a dark cap and without the jacket, this is obviously when he was picked up?
The cap and jacket were later allegedly found in an overgrown garden with gunshot particles consistent with the gun used in the attack and DNA belonging to Jo Cox on them.
It's a pre-prepared backstory RJ. He volunteered and taught ESOL to members of the Muslim community. It's not included in the backstory because it isn't required. The incident had nothing to do with putting 'Britain First'. It's a construct. A diversion. A cover. The bloke in the white cap shouted it, as part of the pre-prepared backstory. He was operating in accordance with a scripted scene.
-
It's a pre-prepared backstory RJ. He volunteered and taught ESOL to members of the Muslim community. It's not included in the backstory because it isn't required. The incident had nothing to do with putting 'Britain First'. It's a construct. A diversion. A cover. The bloke in the white cap shouted it, as part of the pre-prepared backstory. He was operating in accordance with a scripted scene.
I know it’s not the exact same Roch, Sex offender’s like to work and teach Children, it doesn’t stop them attacking them, it’s sometimes a front for these People to throw a disguise.
-
I know it’s not the exact same Roch, Sex offender’s like to work and teach Children, it doesn’t stop them attacking them, it’s sometimes a front for these People to throw a disguise.
I get what you're saying, however, that is usually in the context of the perpetrator's own needs. I don't think it works in this case. There two men on CCTV RJ. Light Cap and Mair.
-
I get what you're saying, however, that is usually in the context of the perpetrator's own needs. I don't think it works in this case. There two men on CCTV RJ. Light Cap and Mair.
I read from someone who wrote to him, Mair had sent three A4 pages back from Frankland Prison, he said “ IN SEGREGATION for his own Protection” every inky comma carefully considered. But the further three pages of thoughts Mair said he had composed for me had been blocked by the censor on what he complained were “SPURIOUS GROUNDS”. “I AM AT A LOSS TO SEE HOW WE CAN HAVE A ‘DIALOGUE’,” Mair wrote. “IF YOU STILL WANT TO TRY, THEN THAT IS FINE BY ME. BUT I DON’T KNOW IF EVEN THIS SHORT NOTE WILL MAKE IT PASS [sic] THE CENSOR.” A notice from HMP Frankland, attached, informed me that Mair’s letter had been stopped for “the protection of the reputation of others”.
Is it because he was tried as a terrorist (Which I don’t agree with) he’s had to sacrifice certain privileges Roch?
-
He volunteered and taught ESOL to members of the Muslim community.
What is your source for this?
-
What is your source for this?
Ive only picked this up about him, I suppose helping one Asian woman might count?
In 2007, he joined what would become known as the Electronic Village in Dewsbury, a centre teaching IT and other communication skills to improve the job prospects of disabled and disadvantaged people. Most clients were middle-aged and almost half came from the most deprived postcodes of Dewsbury and Batley. Mair spent some nine years learning new skills and then passing them on to others as a voluntary helper.
A year later Mair was back at the Electronic Village, this time as a volunteer assistant. For a few hours every Friday afternoon he led a Flexible Learning Group which included a member with schizophrenia and an Asian woman with a history of self-harm. “He had a lot of time for her, he was like a guardian,” Wilkinson recalled. She remembered Mair making balloon animals in one session for light relief.
-
What is your source for this?
You're asking the wrong questions. What you should be asking your self, is why you're taking the official line hook line and sinker. I never believed it from day one. I didn't look in to it, I just wrote it off as rubbish.
-
You're asking the wrong questions. What you should be asking your self, is why you're taking the official line hook line and sinker. I never believed it from day one. I didn't look in to it, I just wrote it off as rubbish.
So you decided it was all a conspiracy before you even looked at the evidence?
-
it almost certanly is a conspriacy if you understand the meaning of the word conspiracy somone must of suplied him the gun knowing what he was going to do with it that counts as conspriacy in law.
the involvment of at least one other person is beyound dispute.
-
So you decided it was all a conspiracy before you even looked at the evidence?
I knew it was bullshit the moment it happened. I actually paid no heed to it. It's a classic case of relying on people's unconscious bias and tropes, to act as a cover for whatever ends.
-
it almost certanly is a conspriacy if you understand the meaning of the word conspiracy somone must of suplied him the gun knowing what he was going to do with it that counts as conspriacy in law.
the involvment of at least one other person is beyound dispute.
I would say it would only be a conspiracy if the person who supplied the firearm was aware of the intentions of Thomas Mair to shoot Jo Cox or murder someone and entered into an agreement or planning to do so? If Mair bought the firearm off the Criminal network he wouldn’t have to tell them of his intentions to purchase the firearm, the person who supplied the firearm would be committing a criminal act not a conspiracy act? They still haven’t ruled out that Mair himself could have stolen the firearm from the back of the car, they think it’s unlikely
Originally it belonged to an ex Jockey who set up a pest control business, he had it stolen from his car and he lost his gun licence after, The police rang him a day after Jo Cox was murdered and said they had found his rifle and asked him to describe it.
“They said it had been sawn-off.”
-
I would say it would only be a conspiracy if the person who supplied the firearm was aware of the intentions of Thomas Mair to shoot Jo Cox or murder someone and entered into an agreement or planning to do so? If Mair bought the firearm off the Criminal network he wouldn’t have to tell them of his intentions to purchase the firearm, the person who supplied the firearm would be committing a criminal act not a conspiracy act? They still haven’t ruled out that Mair himself could have stolen the firearm from the back of the car, they think it’s unlikely
Originally it belonged to an ex Jockey who set up a pest control business, he had it stolen from his car and he lost his gun licence after, The police rang him a day after Jo Cox was murdered and said they had found his rifle and asked him to describe it.
“They said it had been sawn-off.”
well if they stole it from somones car there intentions couldent of been good.
-
I knew it was bullshit the moment it happened.
No, you wrongly assumed it was a looney conspiracy the moment it happened.
-
well if they stole it from somones car there intentions couldent of been good.
Of course their intentions wasn’t good, but it doesn’t make it a conspiracy like your suggesting, it was stolen a year before it was used to kill Jo Cox, it could have been used in other crimes as well. Maybe someone else was involved who supplied the gun to Mair and pre-planned it with him, I don’t think we will get to know that unless Mair tells us!
-
No, you wrongly assumed it was a looney conspiracy the moment it happened.
I don't believe that all conspiracies are looney. We live in a bad world. The author of 'Gommorah' has described the UK as the most corrupt country in the world. These kinds of operations are carried out probably the world over. The Saudi's tried something similar with Kashoggi but the Turkish government were having none of it. If something happens now, it's usually easy to tell whether it's kosher or fishy. I believe it can be either. Your problem is that you believe everything is kosher.
-
I don't believe that all conspiracies are looney. We live in a bad world. The author of 'Gommorah' has described the UK as the most corrupt country in the world. These kinds of operations are carried out probably the world over. The Saudi's tried something similar with Kashoggi but the Turkish government were having none of it. If something happens now, it's usually easy to tell whether it's kosher or fishy. I believe it can be either. Your problem is that you believe everything is kosher.
Isn't he under Police Protection? He says the UK is the most corrupt, It’s not the bureaucracy, it’s not the police, it’s not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital. 90 per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.
-
so tomas mair broke into a car found a riffle and said oh ive found a riffle i know what will do ill shoot mp with it.
that story doesnt ring true to me.
or did say ill break into that car on the off chance there might be a riffle in it that also doesnt ring true.
there is no posble way this happend without the involment of at least one other person.
-
Isn't he under Police Protection? He says the UK is the most corrupt, It’s not the bureaucracy, it’s not the police, it’s not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital. 90 per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.
According to the Corruption Perceptions Index. The UK is in the top 20 least corrupt countries. With the most corrupt contries being Sudan, Syria and Somalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index)
But I'm sure Roch believes there is a conspiracy behind the rankings. And Aliens are involved.
-
so tomas mair broke into a car found a riffle and said oh ive found a riffle i know what will do ill shoot mp with it.
that story doesnt ring true to me.
or did say ill break into that car on the off chance there might be a riffle in it that also doesnt ring true.
there is no posble way this happend without the involment of at least one other person.
If he did break into the car he broke I in with the intention of stealing the rifle because it was on the back seat of his vehicle in FULL view, his back passenger door had been broken into and his dog had been let out. But the Police don’t think it was Mair, they think it was someone else who stole it. So like I said, the Rifle was in FULL view on the back seat and it wasn’t an off chance. The guy lost his gun Licence for being so stupid as to leave his rifle in the car.
It’s not rocket science that firearms get stolen and moved about on the criminal Network, if Mair was to buy one do you think a criminal would ask him his intentions, a criminal just wants his money, of Course like I said there was another person involved if Mair didn’t steal it himself, but I’ve already pointed out to you it doesn’t make it a conspiracy like your saying, unless it can be proved the person who stole it or gave it to Mair was part of the plan. You have to remember, the rifle was stolen a year before Jo Cox was Murdered.
-
If he did break into the car he broke I in with the intention of stealing the rifle because it was on the back seat of his vehicle in FULL view, his back passenger door had been broken into and his dog had been let out. But the Police don’t think it was Mair, they think it was someone else who stole it. So like I said, the Rifle was in FULL view on the back seat and it wasn’t an off chance. The guy lost his gun Licence for being so stupid as to leave his rifle in the car.
It’s not rocket science that firearms get stolen and moved about on the criminal Network, if Mair was to buy one do you think a criminal would ask him his intentions, a criminal just wants his money, of Course like I said there was another person involved if Mair didn’t steal it himself, but I’ve already pointed out to you it doesn’t make it a conspiracy like your saying, unless it can be proved the person who stole it or gave it to Mair was part of the plan. You have to remember, the rifle was stolen a year before Jo Cox was Murdered.
whoever stole it suplied it to mair they couldent of been a reputable gun dealer or they would breal into peoples cars now i dont see how mair ould of aforded a black market gun so that means itmust of been given him in other words aco conspireter.
mairs motive is allegdly that she was supporting refuges but she had been supporting this couse for several years before he killed her so why would it suddenly be a problem to him.
-
whoever stole it suplied it to mair they couldent of been a reputable gun dealer or they would breal into peoples cars now i dont see how mair ould of aforded a black market gun so that means itmust of been given him in other words aco conspireter.
mairs motive is allegdly that she was supporting refuges but she had been supporting this couse for several years before he killed her so why would it suddenly be a problem to him.
Reputable gun dealer, of course he wasn’t he was a thief who stole it and sold it, they was selling them on Snapchat, buying guns on the dark web was as easy as buying on eBay a report claimed.
-
According to the Corruption Perceptions Index. The UK is in the top 20 least corrupt countries. With the most corrupt contries being Sudan, Syria and Somalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index)
But I'm sure Roch believes there is a conspiracy behind the rankings. And Aliens are involved.
Yes I read that some while back.
-
mairs motive is allegdly that she was supporting refuges but she had been supporting this couse for several years before he killed her so why would it suddenly be a problem to him.
I don’t think anyone will know the true motive until Thomas Mair tells us, there is all sorts of theories regarding her death, but like you said, we know he isn’t innocent.
-
I don’t think anyone will know the true motive until Thomas Mair tells us, there is all sorts of theories regarding her death, but like you said, we know he isn’t innocent.
There was no motive on the part of Thomas Mair. He was inveigled in to an operation and was probably supposed to die as a result of that involvement. He didn't and that's why there had to be sham trial. It would surprise me if he was still alive. He may be.
-
According to the Corruption Perceptions Index. The UK is in the top 20 least corrupt countries. With the most corrupt contries being Sudan, Syria and Somalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index)
But I'm sure Roch believes there is a conspiracy behind the rankings. And Aliens are involved.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/10/uk-corrupt-nation-earth-brexit-money-laundering
-
whoever stole it suplied it to mair they couldent of been a reputable gun dealer or they would breal into peoples cars now i dont see how mair ould of aforded a black market gun so that means itmust of been given him in other words aco conspireter.
mairs motive is allegdly that she was supporting refuges but she had been supporting this couse for several years before he killed her so why would it suddenly be a problem to him.
It's a load of bullshit mate. It's paper thin. The fact that people buy it so readily, is quite frankly depressing. He was not known to express any strong political views by those who knew him. Nor was he a loner. Private, yes. He volunteered teaching ESOL to the Muslim community. The press printed images of somebody doing a nazi salute and claimed it was him. That was a deliberate act by the press. It was of course recognised that the image wasn't Tommy but the intended damage had already been done.
-
Isn't he under Police Protection? He says the UK is the most corrupt, It’s not the bureaucracy, it’s not the police, it’s not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital. 90 per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.
Finance has tentacles in to everything. And anyway, the Met has just been described as institutionally corrupt. Even now in 2021, regarding a case from yonks ago.
-
There was no motive on the part of Thomas Mair. He was inveigled in to an operation and was probably supposed to die as a result of that involvement. He didn't and that's why there had to be sham trial. It would surprise me if he was still alive. He may be.
What do you know about this witness Roch? Stephen Lees grew up on Fieldhead estate and was best friends with Mair’s younger brother. He was also witness to the events of 16 June 2016 and gave evidence at the Old Bailey.
-
Finance has tentacles in to everything. And anyway, the Met has just been described as institutionally corrupt. Even now in 2021, regarding a case from yonks ago.
Corruption is everywhere mate, the Mafia was/is one of the biggest.
-
What do you know about this witness Roch? Stephen Lees grew up on Fieldhead estate and was best friends with Mair’s younger brother. He was also witness to the events of 16 June 2016 and gave evidence at the Old Bailey.
I can’t make out if he witnessed it or he witnessed the lead up to the killing?
-
It's a load of bullshit mate. It's paper thin. The fact that people buy it so readily, is quite frankly depressing. He was not known to express any strong political views by those who knew him. Nor was he a loner. Private, yes. He volunteered teaching ESOL to the Muslim community. The press printed images of somebody doing a nazi salute and claimed it was him. That was a deliberate act by the press. It was of course recognised that the image wasn't Tommy but the intended damage had already been done.
I wouldn’t call paper thin evidence, researching Jo Cox and enquiring if you needed an appointment to see her, being in the vicinity and witnesses seeing him commit the act, admitting he’d done the killing to Police and being in Possession of the firearm and knife that was used to kill Jo Cox along with his and her DNA on them. I’ll leave out the rest, being captured on CCTV and the material found in his home, his internet searches in the Library and his political beliefs.
-
What do you know about this witness Roch? Stephen Lees grew up on Fieldhead estate and was best friends with Mair’s younger brother. He was also witness to the events of 16 June 2016 and gave evidence at the Old Bailey.
If Stephen Lee’s gave evidence at the Old Bailey, a guy who knew Mair extremely well and witnessed the events, surely he would have said that’s not Mair in the cctv, that’s not how I seen him on the morning before the killings and during the killings?
-
I wouldn’t call paper thin evidence, researching Jo Cox and enquiring if you needed an appointment to see her, being in the vicinity and witnesses seeing him commit the act, admitting he’d done the killing to Police and being in Possession of the firearm and knife that was used to kill Jo Cox along with his and her DNA on them. I’ll leave out the rest, being captured on CCTV and the material found in his home, his internet searches in the Library and his political beliefs.
The UK government is brainwashing you to believe that. With the help of Alien technology!
They developed their hypnosis ray buy experimenting on all those sheep they abducted.
-
If Stephen Lee’s gave evidence at the Old Bailey, a guy who knew Mair extremely well and witnessed the events, surely he would have said that’s not Mair in the cctv, that’s not how I seen him on the morning before the killings and during the killings?
Maybe they killed the real Stephen Lee and got a stand in? ;D ;D
-
Maybe they killed the real Stephen Lee and got a stand in? ;D ;D
Well this guy chatted to him or tried to chat to him just before the killings and gave evidence to the fact at the old Bailey. Sex offenders don’t openly express their likes or tendencies just like killers don’t, so it’s Hardly surprising he kept it a secret. It’s always the same, “I’d have never have thought it”
-
Well this guy chatted to him or tried to just before the killings and gave evidence to the fact at the old Bailey. Sex offenders don’t openly express their likes or tendencies just like killers don’t, so it’s Hardly surprising he kept it a secret. It’s always the same, “I’d have never have thought it”
Another witness at the Old Bailey who rang 999, In the 999 call played to the jury, Mr Playford said: "He's shooting everyone."
The operator said: "Who's shooting everyone?"
He replied: "The gunman. Outside the library in Birstall."
He said the man had "stabbed a lady", adding: "He's following me at the moment. I'm just trying to get away from him. If you sent the helicopter up he's walking towards Huddersfield Road." Mr Playford then kept talking to the operator and kept them informed about the man going behind the Vaults pub and changing his clothes.
He said: "If you hurry up you'll get him. There's hell on. It's chaos, he's stabbed and shot people."
One witness told jurors Mair seemed 'so peaceful - like he hadn't done anything wrong. So Mair was recognisable to loads of witnesses.
So Playford gave a running commentary from the killing until Mair was captured by Police, even seeing him change his clothes and watching his every step.
So lots and lots of witnesses to the killing, Mair’s face is plastered everywhere in the press and on view even while they gave evidence and not one of them has said “you’ve got the wrong man it was someone else”
-
Another witness at the Old Bailey who rang 999, In the 999 call played to the jury, Mr Playford said: "He's shooting everyone."
The operator said: "Who's shooting everyone?"
He replied: "The gunman. Outside the library in Birstall."
He said the man had "stabbed a lady", adding: "He's following me at the moment. I'm just trying to get away from him. If you sent the helicopter up he's walking towards Huddersfield Road." Mr Playford then kept talking to the operator and kept them informed about the man going behind the Vaults pub and changing his clothes.
He said: "If you hurry up you'll get him. There's hell on. It's chaos, he's stabbed and shot people."
One witness told jurors Mair seemed 'so peaceful - like he hadn't done anything wrong. So Mair was recognisable to loads of witnesses.
So Playford gave a running commentary from the killing until Mair was captured by Police, even seeing him change his clothes and watching his every step.
So lots and lots of witnesses to the killing, Mair’s face is plastered everywhere in the press and on view even while they gave evidence and not one of them has said “you’ve got the wrong man it was someone else”
This is a reference to light cap. I have tried to explain but you're not listening.
-
I wouldn’t call paper thin evidence, researching Jo Cox and enquiring if you needed an appointment to see her, being in the vicinity and witnesses seeing him commit the act, admitting he’d done the killing to Police and being in Possession of the firearm and knife that was used to kill Jo Cox along with his and her DNA on them. I’ll leave out the rest, being captured on CCTV and the material found in his home, his internet searches in the Library and his political beliefs.
As I've already said, the internet story is a pre-prepared backstory. A bit like consultants employed by the govt preparing reasons why a pit should close, then publishing those reasons in the press and broadcasting them on the news. Everyone who works at the pit instantly knows that the reasons are bullshit. But your average Mrs Miggins from Cheam and visitor Mr David1819 from Eugene, Oregon will soak it up like mother's milk. The physical evidence was in the bag carried by the assailant. The bag dropped by Tommy was a different bag.
-
As I've already said, the internet story is a pre-prepared backstory. A bit like consultants employed by the govt preparing reasons why a pit should close, then publishing those reasons in the press and broadcasting them on the news. Everyone who works at the pit instantly knows that the reasons are bullshit. But your average Mrs Miggins from Cheam and visitor Mr David1819 from Eugene, Oregon will soak it up like mother's milk. The physical evidence was in the bag carried by the assailant. The bag dropped by Tommy was a different bag.
Its not internet story Roch, it’s The Old Bailey story, Sixteen eye witnesses gave evidence against Mair, they even played a recording of Darren Playford’s 999 call at the trial, he gives a running commentary of Mair’s movements during the stabbing and walking away and even tells the 999 operator when Mair changed clothing from a Light cap to a Black cap right up to his arrest. It’s these people you are calling into Question, not me or David we didn’t witness it like these people did.
Sixteen eye witnesses appeared in court facing Thomas Mair, including a woman who hit him with her handbag, a guy who watched him kill Jo and called 999 to the point of changing clothing (light cap to black cap) to his arrest, a guy called Stephen Lee’s who knew him very well, yet everyone of them all got the wrong guy.
-
Its not internet story Roch, it’s The Old Bailey story, Sixteen eye witnesses gave evidence against Mair, they even played a recording of Darren Playford’s 999 call at the trial, he gives a running commentary of Mair’s movements during the stabbing and walking away and even tells the 999 operator when Mair changed clothing from a Light cap to a Black cap right up to his arrest. It’s these people you are calling into Question, not me or David we didn’t witness it like these people did.
Sixteen eye witnesses appeared in court facing Thomas Mair, including a woman who hit him with her handbag, a guy who watched him kill Jo and called 999 to the point of changing clothing (light cap to black cap) to his arrest, a guy called Stephen Lee’s who knew him very well, yet everyone of them all got the wrong guy.
They didn't give evidence against Mair because nobody identified Mair at the scene. They gave evidence about the man in the light cap. The police then said this was Mair. The blaming of Mair was a pre-arranged event, hence the backstory. The statements of prosecution witnesses were read out in court by the prosecutor. I think very few were actually present in court. What exactly is Stephen Lee's testimony? Playford didn't see anyone actually change caps and there are extracts of his phone call missing. His character has also been called in to question and when a researcher tried to interview him, they were warned off.
-
This is a reference to light cap. I have tried to explain but you're not listening.
Light cap changed to black cap as per 999 call witness, I’ve listened to the audio tape. Light cap clothing was then found along with discarded other clothing. So unless light cap miraculously morphed into Thomas Mair during the change, Thomas Mair appears in a black cap and is arrested?
-
They didn't give evidence against Mair because nobody identified Mair at the scene. They gave evidence about the man in the light cap. The police then said this was Mair. The blaming of Mair was a pre-arranged event, hence the backstory. The statements of prosecution witnesses were read out in court by the prosecutor. I think very few were actually present in court. What exactly is Stephen Lee's testimony? Playford didn't see anyone actually change caps and there are extracts of his phone call missing. His character has also been called in to question and when a researcher tried to interview him, they were warned off.
Oh, so your saying Jo Cox was a pre planned killing by the Police and that Mair was set up for it within 30 minutes to his arrest, or he was set up for it in advance? The two police officers who caught Mair, just happened to have the bag and knife in their possession ready to plant with Mair on his arrest and Playford was in on it too during the 999 call? How has his character been brought into question, he’s making a 999 call that’s being recorded and the killer is tracked via this 999 call. Was he lying?
-
Light cap changed to black cap as per 999 call witness, I’ve listened to the audio tape. Light cap clothing was then found along with discarded other clothing. So unless light cap miraculously morphed into Thomas Mair during the change, Thomas Mair appears in a black cap and is arrested?
If Light cap changed in to dark cap, then not all of light cap's clothing was found by police, which is very strange. You are just simply parroting the official case, which I have repeatedly told you is a construct.
-
Oh, so your saying Jo Cox was a pre planned killing by the Police and that Mair was set up for it within 30 minutes to his arrest, or he was set up for it in advance? The two police officers who caught Mair, just happened to have the bag and knife in their possession ready to plant with Mair on his arrest and Playford was in on it too during the 999 call? How has his character been brought into question, he’s making a 999 call that’s being recorded and the killer is tracked via this 999 call. Was he lying?
No, this is not what I am saying.
-
They didn't give evidence against Mair because nobody identified Mair at the scene. They gave evidence about the man in the light cap. The police then said this was Mair. The blaming of Mair was a pre-arranged event, hence the backstory. The statements of prosecution witnesses were read out in court by the prosecutor. I think very few were actually present in court. What exactly is Stephen Lee's testimony? Playford didn't see anyone actually change caps and there are extracts of his phone call missing. His character has also been called in to question and when a researcher tried to interview him, they were warned off.
What evidence do you have about his character Roch? Of course the sixteen witnesses are giving evidence against Mair, he’s the one on trial, they are giving evidence for the prosecution, if any of the sixteen witnesses thought that Mair was the wrong guy they would say so.
Stephen Lee’s gave evidence at trial, a reporter spoke to him a while after the trial where he said he was an eye witness? It’s still a little grainy that part though and not 100 per cent that he witnessed the killing.
-
No, this is not what I am saying.
The police then said this was Mair. The blaming of Mair was a pre-arranged event, hence the backstory.
Oh, i must have read it wrong. So it was pre-arranged by someone else then and Thomas Mair just happened to be there and was caught in possession with the firearm and knife?
-
Oh, so your saying Jo Cox was a pre planned killing by the Police and that Mair was set up for it within 30 minutes to his arrest, or he was set up for it in advance? The two police officers who caught Mair, just happened to have the bag and knife in their possession ready to plant with Mair on his arrest and Playford was in on it too during the 999 call? How has his character been brought into question, he’s making a 999 call that’s being recorded and the killer is tracked via this 999 call. Was he lying?
Sorry, I should have said you are getting warmer.
-
The police call handler who took the 999 call from an eyewitness to the attack on MP Jo Cox has recalled how “time seemed to stand still” during the 20-minute call.
Deborah Griffiths was two months into her job in West Yorkshire Police’s control room when she took the call that made her a critical part of the police response to the attack.
Mr Playford had seen Thomas Mair’s attack and was tracking the assailant as he left the scene.
It was Deborah’s job to keep the caller calm and focused, ensure he was safe, and relay vital information to police officers as they raced to the scene.
It was a job she carried out for 20 minutes, keeping police updated on the suspect’s description and movements continuously until officers were able to apprehend the killer.
He was able to tell us what he had seen, gave a good description of the man who carried out the attack and the direction he took in leaving the scene. That helped the police to locate, identify and arrest the suspect.
So, Playford not only seen the attack, he followed the attacker for 20 mins giving Police vital evidence to his arrest, even telling the Police when Mair switched clothing and where this took place. At what stage could the change take place from someone else who killed Jo Cox into Thomas Mair? Who happened to have the rifle and knife in him?
-
If Light cap changed in to dark cap, then not all of light cap's clothing was found by police, which is very strange. You are just simply parroting the official case, which I have repeatedly told you is a construct.
The prosecution alleges after leaving the scene, Mair walked into John Nelson Close, a small street behind the Vaults pub.
The jury is told he disappeared wearing a cap and light jacket but re-emerged wearing a dark cap and without the jacket.
The cap and jacket were later allegedly found in an overgrown garden with gunshot particles consistent with the gun used in the attack and DNA belonging to Jo Cox on them.
-
The prosecution alleges after leaving the scene, Mair walked into John Nelson Close, a small street behind the Vaults pub.
The jury is told he disappeared wearing a cap and light jacket but re-emerged wearing a dark cap and without the jacket.
The cap and jacket were later allegedly found in an overgrown garden with gunshot particles consistent with the gun used in the attack and DNA belonging to Jo Cox on them.
Aliens must have planted the cap and jacket complete with the gunshot particles!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/d9/68/22d9689453caf1cd8e4da60495038966.gif)
-
Aliens must have planted the cap and jacket complete with the gunshot particles!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/d9/68/22d9689453caf1cd8e4da60495038966.gif)
Two different holdalls.
-
So it was pre-arranged by someone else then and Thomas Mair just happened to be there and was caught in possession with the firearm and knife?
Yep. Just like when those two Russian GRU agents using false documents and false identities happened to be in Salisbury the same day the government staged the Novitchok attack in the same exact same place.
Whenever our government pulls off a huge conspiracy, the perfect patsy is always close by. ;D
(https://cdn.dribbble.com/users/2256562/screenshots/4775069/ufo.gif)
-
Yep. Just like when those two Russian GRU agents using false documents and false identities happened to be in Salisbury the same day the government staged the Novitchok attack in the same exact same place.
Whenever our government pulls off a huge conspiracy, the perfect patsy is always close by. ;D
How could we forget such a classic British sting operation..
-
Yep. Just like when those two Russian GRU agents using false documents and false identities happened to be in Salisbury the same day the government staged the Novitchok attack in the same exact same place.
Whenever our government pulls off a huge conspiracy, the perfect patsy is always close by. ;D
(https://cdn.dribbble.com/users/2256562/screenshots/4775069/ufo.gif)
exept there is abslutly no evedence they were agents.
-
Yep. Just like when those two Russian GRU agents using false documents and false identities happened to be in Salisbury the same day the government staged the Novitchok attack in the same exact same place.
Whenever our government pulls off a huge conspiracy, the perfect patsy is always close by. ;D
(https://cdn.dribbble.com/users/2256562/screenshots/4775069/ufo.gif)
Don’t like going off topic but, is that the two individuals traveling under the names of Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov who go to the UK from Russia. CCTV and other evidence records their travel to and from Salisbury and there are images which clearly places them in the vicinity of the Skripal’s house at 11:58 A.M. on Sunday, 4 March.
Didn’t they test the hotel the pair stayed in in London revealed the presence of traces of the Novichok substance in their hotel room. Wasn’t their passport details (numbers) only three digits apart from each other an it was shown that these numbers passports fall into Russian Military?
Sorry David it’s all a coincidence nothing in it, they were lost that’s all.
-
Aliens must have planted the cap and jacket complete with the gunshot particles!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/d9/68/22d9689453caf1cd8e4da60495038966.gif)
Stephen Lee saw Mair in Market street just before the killing, Lee got off the bus and Mair was stood near the bus stop the bus CCTV picks him up, Lee spoke to him but he didn’t answer and Lee thought Mair was going to get on the Bus but he didn’t. Lee described Mair as wearing a suit jacket. He was Milling about and it gave him a perfect vantage point looking down towards the Library.
He was also picked up in the morning minutes from his house on Lowood lane by CCTV walking towards Dark Lane, wearing a light cap and Jacket
The day before he was in the Library at 16.55pm till 17.53pm, CCTV picked him up and his Library card would have shown what Computer he looked at, times ect because you have to enter this number along with a PIN number to access the Computer, his searches the night before included information about Hitler’s Waffen-SS and the Ku Klux Klan. He looked up the Wikipedia page for the antisemitic and white supremacist publication the Occidental Observer. Two days earlier, at the same library, he also viewed Cox’s Twitter profile. His His online searches also concerned .22 ammunition. He found an online page which answered the question: “Is a .22 round deadly enough to kill with one shot to a human’s head?”
His house searches revealed he had books on display show an obsessive interest in Nazi Germany, German military history and white supremacist, Fascism in Britain ect
An earlier Photo of him wearing a light cap is available online.
https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/thomas-mair-secret-solitary-life-man-who-murdered-mp-jo-cox-611455
-
Stephen Lee saw Mair in Market street just before the killing, Lee got off the bus and Mair was stood near the bus stop the bus CCTV picks him up, Lee spoke to him but he didn’t answer and Lee thought Mair was going to get on the Bus but he didn’t. Lee described Mair as wearing a suit jacket. He was Milling about and it gave him a perfect vantage point looking down towards the Library.
He was also picked up in the morning minutes from his house on Lowood lane by CCTV walking towards Dark Lane, wearing a light cap and Jacket
The day before he was in the Library at 16.55pm till 17.53pm, CCTV picked him up and his Library card would have shown what Computer he looked at, times ect because you have to enter this number along with a PIN number to access the Computer, his searches the night before included information about Hitler’s Waffen-SS and the Ku Klux Klan. He looked up the Wikipedia page for the antisemitic and white supremacist publication the Occidental Observer. Two days earlier, at the same library, he also viewed Cox’s Twitter profile. His His online searches also concerned .22 ammunition. He found an online page which answered the question: “Is a .22 round deadly enough to kill with one shot to a human’s head?”
His house searches revealed he had books on display show an obsessive interest in Nazi Germany, German military history and white supremacist, Fascism in Britain ect
An earlier Photo of him wearing a light cap is available online.
https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/thomas-mair-secret-solitary-life-man-who-murdered-mp-jo-cox-611455
After his visit to the Library he went to the Well-being centre and arrived at 6.30pm, to ask for advice on how to control his mental health. Centre manager Rebecca Walker told how Mair arranged to return the next day for further talks after hearing the range of alternative therapy treatments offered by the centre. She was waiting for him the next day and he never turned up because he’d carried out his plan, a plan that was obviously playing on his mind, The Murder Of Jo Cox.
-
Stephen Lee saw Mair in Market street just before the killing, Lee got off the bus and Mair was stood near the bus stop the bus CCTV picks him up, Lee spoke to him but he didn’t answer and Lee thought Mair was going to get on the Bus but he didn’t. Lee described Mair as wearing a suit jacket. He was Milling about and it gave him a perfect vantage point looking down towards the Library.
He was also picked up in the morning minutes from his house on Lowood lane by CCTV walking towards Dark Lane, wearing a light cap and Jacket
The day before he was in the Library at 16.55pm till 17.53pm, CCTV picked him up and his Library card would have shown what Computer he looked at, times ect because you have to enter this number along with a PIN number to access the Computer, his searches the night before included information about Hitler’s Waffen-SS and the Ku Klux Klan. He looked up the Wikipedia page for the antisemitic and white supremacist publication the Occidental Observer. Two days earlier, at the same library, he also viewed Cox’s Twitter profile. His His online searches also concerned .22 ammunition. He found an online page which answered the question: “Is a .22 round deadly enough to kill with one shot to a human’s head?”
His house searches revealed he had books on display show an obsessive interest in Nazi Germany, German military history and white supremacist, Fascism in Britain ect
An earlier Photo of him wearing a light cap is available online.
https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/thomas-mair-secret-solitary-life-man-who-murdered-mp-jo-cox-611455
I had a feeling that this was the lad who claims he saw Mair at a bus stop. The internet searches are part of pre-prepared backstory, as are the books. The operatives running the operation will have known all about caps. I think Mair messed up the operation by wearing a black cap on the day. If the man in the white cap got changed, where are his shoes?
-
I had a feeling that this was the lad who claims he saw Mair at a bus stop. The internet searches are part of pre-prepared backstory, as are the books. The operatives running the operation will have known all about caps. I think Mair messed up the operation by wearing a black cap on the day. If the man in the white cap got changed, where are his shoes
As far as well know he didn’t change them, I know what your referring to though and what picture Roch, sorry it’s not a conclusive photo to me especially against the backdrop of evidence against him.
-
Richard Hall is your source? ;D ;D
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/d9/68/22d9689453caf1cd8e4da60495038966.gif)
He would have fit in perfect to Richard D Hall’s portrait of innocence, Mair had books on Conspiracy theories in his house.
-
As far as well know he didn’t change them, I know what your referring to though and what picture Roch, sorry it’s not a conclusive photo to me especially against the backdrop of evidence against him.
The man in the white cap obviously didn't change his shoes, otherwise they would have been found. He wore brown loafers. Mair wore black gardening shoes, which were a bigger size than the brown loafers that white cap wore. White cap would have been picked up and ferried away from the scene, at a certain point. You are doing what you did re the wounds on Sheila's right hand. You are denying what your own eyes are seeing, in favour of written claims, because you feel more comfortable in accepting the framework of written claims, than you do accepting what your eyes are seeing. If you run with what your eyes are seeing, you have to then question the framework of written claims..and you don't want to do that.
-
He would have fit in perfect to Richard D Hall’s portrait of innocence, Mair had books on Conspiracy theories in his house.
Mair was a gardener who had experienced unemployment and depression. He lived by himself but had friends. He had volunteered to work with the local Muslim community teaching ESOL. His neighbour was interviewed and seemed annoyed about how he was being portrayed, she contradicted some of the claims. Those who knew him claim he did not express any strong political views. If Mair was an extremist, he is unlikely to have supported 'Remain'. The incident occurred very shortly after 'Leave' were announced as being ahead in the polls. After the incident, during the vote, 'Remain' closed the gap to 48/52. If Mair was responsible for the Jo Cox incident, his actions make no sense in the context of putting 'Britain First'. They in fact have the opposite effect, by purporting to link 'Leave' with hate and nationalism, thereby swaying wavering voters towards 'Remain'. This is the opposite to a 'Reichstag' incident, were the Nazis instigated a fire to blame on other factions, for their own benefit. The causes of 'Britain First' and Brexit do not benefit from the Jo Cox incident. Support-wise they are diminished.
We will never know which books were in his house as a result of his own previous actions and which books were there as part of a pre-planned backstory. We do not know how or why Mair was compromised or what he was offered or promised, for cooperation in the days events. It is likely though, that whatever it was, the plan was to have Mair shot dead. It could then be claimed that Mair either committed suicide or was shot by police. Whatever was threatened or offered to Mair, it was sufficient for him to bring carrier bags full of old photographs to his mam's house, before the incident. The chances are, Mair for some reason did not follow his instructions to the letter; and consequently, those running the operation were forced in to the position of having to conduct a sham trial with a live person. His mam is probably now living in fear that her son will be killed (if he is not already dead).
-
Mair was a gardener who had experienced unemployment and depression. He lived by himself but had friends. He had volunteered to work with the local Muslim community teaching ESOL. His neighbour was interviewed and seemed annoyed about how he was being portrayed, she contradicted some of the claims. Those who knew him claim he did not express any strong political views. If Mair was an extremist, he is unlikely to have supported 'Remain'. The incident occurred very shortly after 'Leave' were announced as being ahead in the polls. After the incident, during the vote, 'Remain' closed the gap to 48/52. If Mair was responsible for the Jo Cox incident, his actions make no sense in the context of putting 'Britain First'. They in fact have the opposite effect, by purporting to link 'Leave' with hate and nationalism, thereby swaying wavering voters towards 'Remain'. This is the opposite to a 'Reichstag' incident, were the Nazis instigated a fire to blame on other factions, for their own benefit. The causes of 'Britain First' and Brexit do not benefit from the Jo Cox incident. Support-wise they are diminished.
We will never know which books were in his house as a result of his own previous actions and which books were there as part of a pre-planned backstory. We do not know how or why Mair was compromised or what he was offered or promised, for cooperation in the days events. It is likely though, that whatever it was, the plan was to have Mair shot dead. It could then be claimed that Mair either committed suicide or was shot by police. Whatever was threatened or offered to Mair, it was sufficient for him to bring carrier bags full of old photographs to his mam's house, before the incident. The chances are, Mair for some reason did not follow his instructions to the letter; and consequently, those running the operation were forced in to the position of having to conduct a sham trial with a live person. His mam is probably now living in fear that her son will be killed (if he is not already dead).
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/d9/68/22d9689453caf1cd8e4da60495038966.gif)
-
You're not really adding much here David. Is it your belief that Mair thought the cause of 'Britain First' and the Leave campaign would be furthered by killing a europhile MP?
-
I think there's always been more to this case than meets the eye ---as is nearly always the case when a politician has been murdered/ assassinated, etc.
-
I think there's always been more to this case than meets the eye ---as is nearly always the case when a politician has been murdered/ assassinated, etc.
According to David, we should take everything the police and press say, at face value. So a man who hasn't entered a plea, who remains completely silent in police interviews and doesn't look up to the camera, isn't identified in court where he is depicted in a manner wholly dissimilar to his appearance in real life and where he barely utters a word, is convicted without the presence of key prosecution witnesses (none of whom identified him from the scene), or the presence of his own family members (who were told to stay away), in a trial where his defence barrister did nothing but sit and play with his mobile phone, and during which, no post mortem or crime scene images of wounds were shown (merely alternative computer graphics images). But David thinks we should just soak it up like mother's milk. He is clearly somebody who is very very pro police and pro authorities, to the point where he is totally trusting. It is puzzling.
-
The man in the white cap obviously didn't change his shoes, otherwise they would have been found. He wore brown loafers. Mair wore black gardening shoes, which were a bigger size than the brown loafers that white cap wore. White cap would have been picked up and ferried away from the scene, at a certain point. You are doing what you did re the wounds on Sheila's right hand. You are denying what your own eyes are seeing, in favour of written claims, because you feel more comfortable in accepting the framework of written claims, than you do accepting what your eyes are seeing. If you run with what your eyes are seeing, you have to then question the framework of written claims..and you don't want to do that.
I think in fairness Roch I’ve studied the Bamber case for a considerable while, I’m not letting my eyes run with anything to avoid seeing anything that you say is obvious. I’ve always said, if I could see the cuts I would openly say so and if they are cuts I would hold my hands up Roch. I’m trying not to get personal and to be honest I think they are two great topics you’ve brought up Re-Cuts and Thomas Mair 👍
-
Mair was a gardener who had experienced unemployment and depression. He lived by himself but had friends. He had volunteered to work with the local Muslim community teaching ESOL. His neighbour was interviewed and seemed annoyed about how he was being portrayed, she contradicted some of the claims. Those who knew him claim he did not express any strong political views. If Mair was an extremist, he is unlikely to have supported 'Remain'. The incident occurred very shortly after 'Leave' were announced as being ahead in the polls. After the incident, during the vote, 'Remain' closed the gap to 48/52. If Mair was responsible for the Jo Cox incident, his actions make no sense in the context of putting 'Britain First'. They in fact have the opposite effect, by purporting to link 'Leave' with hate and nationalism, thereby swaying wavering voters towards 'Remain'. This is the opposite to a 'Reichstag' incident, were the Nazis instigated a fire to blame on other factions, for their own benefit. The causes of 'Britain First' and Brexit do not benefit from the Jo Cox incident. Support-wise they are diminished.
We will never know which books were in his house as a result of his own previous actions and which books were there as part of a pre-planned backstory. We do not know how or why Mair was compromised or what he was offered or promised, for cooperation in the days events. It is likely though, that whatever it was, the plan was to have Mair shot dead. It could then be claimed that Mair either committed suicide or was shot by police. Whatever was threatened or offered to Mair, it was sufficient for him to bring carrier bags full of old photographs to his mam's house, before the incident. The chances are, Mair for some reason did not follow his instructions to the letter; and consequently, those running the operation were forced in to the position of having to conduct a sham trial with a live person. His mam is probably now living in fear that her son will be killed (if he is not already dead).
Funnily enough I watched Reichstag' incident last night again, I think every politician uses this phase as a means or Metaphor? I don’t go by the books He had Roch, it’s more to do with the Internet searches he was involved with, he was well known in the Library and like I’ve already stated, his Library card number would be against all the searches he’d made on the internet, how long he was on and the topics he had searched. I think you can go on as a guest for 20mins in one session, but again they could link him with CCTV times ect and the Computer he used?
-
Mair was a gardener who had experienced unemployment and depression. He lived by himself but had friends. He had volunteered to work with the local Muslim community teaching ESOL. His neighbour was interviewed and seemed annoyed about how he was being portrayed, she contradicted some of the claims. Those who knew him claim he did not express any strong political views. If Mair was an extremist, he is unlikely to have supported 'Remain'. The incident occurred very shortly after 'Leave' were announced as being ahead in the polls. After the incident, during the vote, 'Remain' closed the gap to 48/52. If Mair was responsible for the Jo Cox incident, his actions make no sense in the context of putting 'Britain First'. They in fact have the opposite effect, by purporting to link 'Leave' with hate and nationalism, thereby swaying wavering voters towards 'Remain'. This is the opposite to a 'Reichstag' incident, were the Nazis instigated a fire to blame on other factions, for their own benefit. The causes of 'Britain First' and Brexit do not benefit from the Jo Cox incident. Support-wise they are diminished.
We will never know which books were in his house as a result of his own previous actions and which books were there as part of a pre-planned backstory. We do not know how or why Mair was compromised or what he was offered or promised, for cooperation in the days events. It is likely though, that whatever it was, the plan was to have Mair shot dead. It could then be claimed that Mair either committed suicide or was shot by police. Whatever was threatened or offered to Mair, it was sufficient for him to bring carrier bags full of old photographs to his mam's house, before the incident. The chances are, Mair for some reason did not follow his instructions to the letter; and consequently, those running the operation were forced in to the position of having to conduct a sham trial with a live person. His mam is probably now living in fear that her son will be killed (if he is not already dead).
Did you know Roch the FBI had him on their Radar back in the 2000’s?
But convincing evidence is being published outside the UK which shows Mair was such a long-term far-right political activist he was known even to the FBI for his political activities.
A paid FBI informer who infiltrated far-right groups in the UK in the late 1990s and early 2000s has revealed he had several meetings with Mair and other far-right UK activists who were at the time making links with US extremists.
The US based Southern Poverty Law Centre has also published two letters by Mair to a far-right publication which show he was lucid and extremely clear in his hatred of what he refers to as “white liberals and traitors”.
The Letters have got Thomas Mair on them from Batley?
-
Did you know Roch the FBI had him on their Radar back in the 2000’s?
But convincing evidence is being published outside the UK which shows Mair was such a long-term far-right political activist he was known even to the FBI for his political activities.
A paid FBI informer who infiltrated far-right groups in the UK in the late 1990s and early 2000s has revealed he had several meetings with Mair and other far-right UK activists who were at the time making links with US extremists.
The US based Southern Poverty Law Centre has also published two letters by Mair to a far-right publication which show he was lucid and extremely clear in his hatred of what he refers to as “white liberals and traitors”.
The Letters have got Thomas Mair on them from Batley?
It's all highly suspicious mate. I will post why later this weekend.
-
In the meantime, where are the brown loafers that white cap wore?
-
It's all highly suspicious mate. I will post why later this weekend.
👍👍
-
You're not really adding much here David. Is it your belief that Mair thought the cause of 'Britain First' and the Leave campaign would be furthered by killing a europhile MP?
Not much else I can do but laugh.
-
It's all highly suspicious mate. I will post why later this weekend.
Ive read what your going to post mate 🙈🙈🙈👍
-
Not much else I can do but laugh.
You have no answers for anything stated. You have no input. Just low level childish mockery. Your mind is completely closed. I on the other hand believe that some official stories are true, while others are not.
-
In the meantime, where are the brown loafers that white cap wore?
Ive seen the picture and what was said Roch, the picture is very very inconclusive, they’ve added a pair of each to make a point, but any witness could get black or brown mixed up in shoes from a distance, if we’re arguing over the fact of grainy CCTV pictures being Thomas Mair or white cap, surely we can’t make out the shoes?
-
Ive seen the picture and what was said Roch, the picture is very very inconclusive, they’ve added a pair of each to make a point, but any witness could get black or brown mixed up in shoes from a distance, if we’re arguing over the fact of grainy CCTV pictures being Thomas Mair or white cap, surely we can’t make out the shoes?
White cap isn't wearing black gardening shoes RJ.
-
Ive seen the picture and what was said Roch, the picture is very very inconclusive, they’ve added a pair of each to make a point, but any witness could get black or brown mixed up in shoes from a distance, if we’re arguing over the fact of grainy CCTV pictures being Thomas Mair or white cap, surely we can’t make out the shoes?
If the CCTV show him wearing different clothes. That corroborates the witnesses saying he went behind the pub to change clothes.
-
If the CCTV show him wearing different clothes. That corroborates the witnesses saying he went behind the pub to change clothes.
In which case the police would have recovered his shoes.
-
Btw, nobody said Mair went behind a pub to get changed. Playford followed a man with a white cap (the man who wasn't wearing black gardening shoes). Furthermore, there are gaps in disclosed version of Playford's recorded phone call. Extracts missing.
-
Btw, nobody said Mair went behind a pub to get changed. Playford followed a man with a white cap (the man who wasn't wearing black gardening shoes). Furthermore, there are gaps in disclosed version of Playford's recorded phone call. Extracts missing.
They found the clothes in an overgrown garden in John Nelson close from where Mair emerged. Playford makes no mention of his shoes. Why did Mair emerge from Jon Nelson close, he doesn’t live there, did he visit someone or have friends in there? If you look at White cap he’s got a grey shirt on, have you got a close up CCTV picture of Mair (white cap) wearing brown shoes or Loafers Roch or the witness statement from someone saying he had Brown shoes on?
-
They found the clothes in an overgrown garden in John Nelson close from where Mair emerged. Playford makes no mention of his shoes. Why did Mair emerge from Jon Nelson close, he doesn’t live there, did he visit someone or have friends in there? If you look at White cap he’s got a grey shirt on, have you got a close up CCTV picture of Mair (white cap) wearing brown shoes or Loafers Roch or the witness statement from someone saying he had Brown shoes on?
I will have a look when I get the chance. But first of all, I would argue that there is no evidence of Mair emerging from the overgrown garden at John Nelson Close.
-
If the CCTV show him wearing different clothes. That corroborates the witnesses saying he went behind the pub to change clothes.
Mr Playford then kept talking to the operator and kept them informed about the man going behind the Vaults pub and changing his clothes. This Pub is next to John Nelson close, so he went behind there and could have changed in an overgrown garden and dumped the clothes there, later Mair emerged.
-
I will have a look when I get the chance. But first of all, I would argue that there is no evidence of Mair emerging from the overgrown garden at John Nelson Close.
I didn’t mean to say he emerged from the overgrown garden sorry Roch, the clothes were found there and Mair emerged from this area or close and continued walking down Brownhill rd
-
It seems a bit unreal to suggest over a dozen witnesses to the attack, one that fought him and one that asked him He said: "'What are you doing? What's wrong with you?' He said: 'Move back, otherwise I'm going to stab you.'
"He was standing there with two ladies and another man. He said 'better move back'. He shot twice. He moved back and shot again."
Her assistant stepped in and hit the man with her handbag, while 78-year-old Bernard Carter-Kenny desperately tried to intervene but was stabbed too, the trial has heard.
All got the wrong man?
-
It seems a bit unreal to suggest over a dozen witnesses to the attack, one that fought him and one that asked him He said: "'What are you doing? What's wrong with you?' He said: 'Move back, otherwise I'm going to stab you.'
"He was standing there with two ladies and another man. He said 'better move back'. He shot twice. He moved back and shot again."
Her assistant stepped in and hit the man with her handbag, while 78-year-old Bernard Carter-Kenny desperately tried to intervene but was stabbed too, the trial has heard.
All got the wrong man?
None of them identified Mair.
-
It seems a bit unreal to suggest over a dozen witnesses to the attack, one that fought him and one that asked him He said: "'What are you doing? What's wrong with you?' He said: 'Move back, otherwise I'm going to stab you.'
"He was standing there with two ladies and another man. He said 'better move back'. He shot twice. He moved back and shot again."
Her assistant stepped in and hit the man with her handbag, while 78-year-old Bernard Carter-Kenny desperately tried to intervene but was stabbed too, the trial has heard.
All got the wrong man?
The person who did this was confident and assertive. He was calm under pressure. The presence of bystanders did not deter him. In fact, his actions were not rushed.
-
It seems a bit unreal to suggest over a dozen witnesses to the attack, one that fought him and one that asked him He said: "'What are you doing? What's wrong with you?' He said: 'Move back, otherwise I'm going to stab you.'
"He was standing there with two ladies and another man. He said 'better move back'. He shot twice. He moved back and shot again."
Her assistant stepped in and hit the man with her handbag, while 78-year-old Bernard Carter-Kenny desperately tried to intervene but was stabbed too, the trial has heard.
All got the wrong man?
And the the only news outlet to get the story right, tells its audience that Aliens go around abducting sheep?
-
And the the only news outlet to get the story right, tells its audience that Aliens go around abducting sheep?
Complete irrelevance regarding Hall's views on disparate subjects. It's possible to have a brilliant mathematician who also happens to be a creationist. Should we disregard their mathematics because of their religious beliefs. There are probably architects who personally believe they have had psychic experiences and have associated gifts. Should they be banned from designing buildings?
-
In which case the police would have recovered his shoes.
How do you know they didn't?
-
Complete irrelevance regarding Hall's views on disparate subjects. It's possible to have a brilliant mathematician who also happens to be a creationist. Should we disregard their mathematics because of their religious beliefs. There are probably architects who personally believe they have had psychic experiences and have associated gifts. Should they be banned from designing buildings?
Hall is a professional conspiratard. All his theories reflect his professional work.
-
Mair was a gardener who had experienced unemployment and depression. He lived by himself but had friends. He had volunteered to work with the local Muslim community teaching ESOL. His neighbour was interviewed and seemed annoyed about how he was being portrayed, she contradicted some of the claims. Those who knew him claim he did not express any strong political views. If Mair was an extremist, he is unlikely to have supported 'Remain'. The incident occurred very shortly after 'Leave' were announced as being ahead in the polls. After the incident, during the vote, 'Remain' closed the gap to 48/52. If Mair was responsible for the Jo Cox incident, his actions make no sense in the context of putting 'Britain First'. They in fact have the opposite effect, by purporting to link 'Leave' with hate and nationalism, thereby swaying wavering voters towards 'Remain'. This is the opposite to a 'Reichstag' incident, were the Nazis instigated a fire to blame on other factions, for their own benefit. The causes of 'Britain First' and Brexit do not benefit from the Jo Cox incident. Support-wise they are diminished.
We will never know which books were in his house as a result of his own previous actions and which books were there as part of a pre-planned backstory. We do not know how or why Mair was compromised or what he was offered or promised, for cooperation in the days events. It is likely though, that whatever it was, the plan was to have Mair shot dead. It could then be claimed that Mair either committed suicide or was shot by police. Whatever was threatened or offered to Mair, it was sufficient for him to bring carrier bags full of old photographs to his mam's house, before the incident. The chances are, Mair for some reason did not follow his instructions to the letter; and consequently, those running the operation were forced in to the position of having to conduct a sham trial with a live person. His mam is probably now living in fear that her son will be killed (if he is not already dead).
iI honestly don’t know what your driving at Roch, who was going to shoot Mair dead, no one was in the vicinity to shoot him dead, he walked for 20/30 mins after, he walked away, there was no pre-plan from anyone else, luckily a guy followed him and directed Police to him otherwise it would have been a while longer.
His Barrister can only advise and act on his behalf, I think with the evidence available his Barrister would have advised Mair to plead guilty, he had no answers to the charges brought against him, he had admitted beforehand that it was him, they had 16 eye witnesses and he was caught in possession of the weapons that killed Jo, they had CCTV of him and when he was asked for his name at the Magistrates hearing he replied “death to traitors, freedom for Britain!” It was Mair who refused to give evidence to the Court and if you don’t want to defend yourself, although it’s not a sure sign of guilt the jury will surely draw conclusions from this stance.
-
How do you know they didn't?
Its this photo I think Roch is referring to?
https://steemit.com/informationwar/@oyddodat/was-thomas-mair-wrongly-convicted-part-1
-
Hall is a professional conspiratard. All his theories reflect his professional work.
If you have a look at the 7 mins long CCTV footage they have Mair going into the Library the evening before looking at Klu Klux Klan ect, the next day they pick Mair (white cap) up early in the morning dressed the same going to a retail park. He’s on Lowood Lane where it first starts which is very near to where Mair Lives, he moves on to Dark Lane etc next, he even dumps his rubbish in a black bag on a grass verge on route to the retail park in the morning.
-
Hall is a professional conspiratard. All his theories reflect his professional work.
Bit of a sweeping statement.
-
How do you know they didn't?
If you look at the CCTV video, Hall says this, CCTV showed him apparently waiting outside a shop called the Vape Lounge on Market Street, approximately 30 meters from the Library. He was clearly wearing brown shoes and had relatively small feet.
About 4 mins 30 seconds shows Mair outside the Vape shop, how he deduces this I will never know. You can tell it’s the vape lounge from the orange/ yellow banner sign as shown in Google, I can’t put the video up for some reason.
https://www.google.com/local/place/fid/0x487be00416583d35:0x91dcc95a8ed224d3/photosphere?iu=//geo0.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid%3DE4oenGWEf2fulHU4Ei0fBA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dlu.gallery.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D160%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D184.48032%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100&ik=CAISFkU0b2VuR1dFZjJmdWxIVTRFaTBmQkE%3D
-
If you look at the CCTV video, Hall says this, CCTV showed him apparently waiting outside a shop called the Vape Lounge on Market Street, approximately 30 meters from the Library. He was clearly wearing brown shoes and had relatively small feet.
About 4 mins 30 seconds shows Mair outside the Vape shop, how he deduces this I will never know. You can tell it’s the vape lounge from the orange/ yellow banner sign?
https://www.google.com/local/place/fid/0x487be00416583d35:0x91dcc95a8ed224d3/photosphere?iu=//geo0.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid%3DE4oenGWEf2fulHU4Ei0fBA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dlu.gallery.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D160%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D184.48032%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100&ik=CAISFkU0b2VuR1dFZjJmdWxIVTRFaTBmQkE%3D
Hall is a fully certifiable nutcase. Is this the same Hall that claims the people in the twin towers on 9/11 jumped out the windows because George Bush was roasting the buildings with a space laser?
Anything he says or claims can be discarded and ignored en-masse.
-
Hall is a fully certifiable nutcase. Is this the same Hall that claims the people in the twin towers on 9/11 jumped out the windows because George Bush was roasting the buildings with a space laser?
Anything he says or claims can be discarded and ignored en-masse.
Oh dear, I’ve no really read much about him, what I do know his assessment of the Jo Cox Killing is filled with holes. I’ll have to look at him tomorrow.
-
Its this photo I think Roch is referring to?
https://steemit.com/informationwar/@oyddodat/was-thomas-mair-wrongly-convicted-part-1
This is hilarious mate. Enlarge the right-hand-side photo of him in the shop.. and check his nose out.
(https://steemitimages.com/1280x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmSVhSVvUnnRAmw6UcM65NW1Quhic3FpYokL68ePaJnDyP/2hats.JPG)
Then compare that with the alleged image of him some time after his arrest.. and check his nose out
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/branded_news/0C3B/production/_92613130_hi036515198.jpg)
-
This is hilarious mate. Enlarge the right-hand-side photo of him in the shop.. and check his nose out.
(https://steemitimages.com/1280x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmSVhSVvUnnRAmw6UcM65NW1Quhic3FpYokL68ePaJnDyP/2hats.JPG)
Then compare that with the alleged image of him some time after his arrest.. and check his nose out
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/branded_news/0C3B/production/_92613130_hi036515198.jpg)
Quite compelling, he’s got the same beard and Moustache 🙈. And the same cap he was wearing here
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/23/thomas-mair-slow-burning-hatred-led-to-jo-cox-murder
-
Quite compelling, he’s got the same beard and Moustache 🙈
RJ, you do realise that anyone playing the part of Mair, needs to look like him? Hence tash beard, nappa etc. I thought you would understand that as a given.
The bloke in the top image has a boxer's nose... surely you can see that?
-
BTW, re the bottom image where he has the head injury... his friends have questioned the size of his feet. The man in the full shot has small feet.
-
RJ, you do realise that anyone playing the part of Mair, needs to look like him? Hence tash beard, nappa etc. I thought you would understand that as a given.
The bloke in the top image has a boxer's nose... surely you can see that?
I’ll give ground there Roch, it does look flat 🙈🙈👍. But that could be camera angle ect
-
BTW, re the bottom image where he has the head injury... his friends have questioned the size of his feet. The man in the full shot has small feet.
I can’t quite see it plain Roch, I’m using my phone 👍
-
I’ll give ground there Roch, it does look flat 🙈🙈👍. But that could be camera angle ect
Fair play to you for giving it consideration. Look at all the different trial sketches. There's no way there is one single man either being caught on image or sketched, in this case.
-
Even taking in to account angles, I think the man in the top image has a more 'Desperate Dan' chin?
-
Fair play to you for giving it consideration. Look at all the different trial sketches. There's no way there is one single man either being caught on image or sketched, in this case.
I think with the court sketches Roch, they are all done by Elizabeth Cook I’ve not seen one from anyone else, she has to draw them from memory, she can’t draw them live in Court? I think the Judge can allow live drawing sometimes, but on what grounds I’m not sure. They allow Court artist because they don’t allow Camera’s.
-
I think with the court sketches Roch, they are all done by Elizabeth Cook I’ve not seen one from anyone else, she has to draw them from memory, she can’t draw them live in Court? I think the Judge can allow live drawing sometimes, but on what grounds I’m not sure. They allow Court artist because they don’t allow Camera’s.
RJ, what about this one. I don't think boxer-nose would be very happy about being depicted like this?
If this bloke fell forward, he'd come up in Australia.
-
RJ, what about this one. I don't think boxer-nose would be very happy about being depicted like this?
If this bloke fell forward, he'd come up in Australia.
😂😂😂😂
-
This was Mairs bookshelf
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5835921c1a00000b03cc9759.png?cache=igmTueZu1y&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale&format=webp)
-
This was Mairs bookshelf
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5835921c1a00000b03cc9759.png?cache=igmTueZu1y&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale&format=webp)
very convenient. Who set it up for him? The lad with the boxer nose?
-
How do you know they didn't?
Because there's no mention of them.
-
This is the puma holdall dropped in the street by Mair when he was arrested. Look at where the handle attaches to the bag. It is not a symmetrical shape. Please tell me whether the shape is narrow at the top and broader at the bottom - or - is it broad at the top and narrow at the bottom?
-
This is the puma holdall dropped in the street by Mair when he was arrested. Look at where the handle attaches to the bag. It is not a symmetrical shape. Please tell me whether the shape is narrow at the top and broader at the bottom - or - is it broad at the top and narrow at the bottom?
Roch your using different camera’s, different angles and different light sources to try and prove a point. Each camera would have different pixel rating, all that’s happening, his supporters are taking stills off CCTV footage to create Fake news the only high quality video footage I’ve seen was him standing outside the Vape shop. Just changing a camera angle can lead to distortion and it gives out a deception view. That’s why CCTV footage alone wouldn’t have been enough for conviction of Mair.
-
Roch your using different camera’s, different angles and different light sources to try and prove a point. Each camera would have different pixel rating, all that’s happening, his supporters are taking stills off CCTV footage to create Fake news the only high quality video footage I’ve seen was him standing outside the Vape shop. Just changing a camera angle can lead to distortion and it gives out a deception view. That’s why CCTV footage alone wouldn’t have been enough for conviction of Mair.
I'm asking a question regarding a bag attachment. You're answering it like a politician ;) Pixels, CCTV and cameras cannot physically alter a bag handle attachment. And they can't make a pointy nose in to a boxer's nose :))
-
I'm asking a question regarding a bag attachment. You're answering it like a politician ;) Pixels, CCTV and cameras cannot physically alter a bag handle attachment. And they can't make a pointy nose in to a boxer's nose :))
Roch it’s a well known fact camera angles and shadows can change appearance, camera height and camera lens can also change any view of a subject. That’s why passport photos of individuals could look so ‘strikingly different’ from one photo to another, most people would hardly recognise them as the same person.
-
Roch it’s a well known fact camera angles and shadows can change appearance, camera height and camera lens can also change any view of a subject. That’s why passport photos of individuals could look so ‘strikingly different’ from one photo to another, most people would hardly recognise them as the same person.
Come on mate, you're on the run here, if you have to resort to that. You're happy enough to take as gospel that the figure seen in all CCTV is the same individual, even labelling him with a name, when in fact no prosecution witnesses from the incident did so.
-
Come on mate, you're on the run here, if you have to resort to that. You're happy enough to take as gospel that the figure seen in all CCTV is the same individual, even labelling him with a name, when in fact no prosecution witnesses from the incident did so.
Sorry Roch I think only run I’m on is on my bike, I’m out on a ride at moment mate😂👍
-
Sorry Roch I think only run I’m on is on my bike, I’m out on a ride at moment mate😂👍
Enjoy it. 👍🙂
-
Come on mate, you're on the run here, if you have to resort to that. You're happy enough to take as gospel that the figure seen in all CCTV is the same individual, even labelling him with a name, when in fact no prosecution witnesses from the incident did so.
I think with the CCTV footage the only two possible sightings I can make out are, the one at the Vape shop where Stephen Lee said he was wearing a blue jacket and the one as he appears in the grey shirt, you have to remember the jury was shown the actual killing so what did they see, the sixteen eye witnesses who saw the actual attack and jury would have a better sighting and vision of Mair in the attack and on the stand than any of us. You keep saying they didn’t name him, they didn’t have to, he was in front of them and on trial for the murder, why would they have to name him he’s the accused.
-
I think with the CCTV footage the only two possible sightings I can make out are, the one at the Vape shop where Stephen Lee said he was wearing a blue jacket and the one as he appears in the grey shirt, you have to remember the jury was shown the actual killing so what did they see, the sixteen eye witnesses who saw the actual attack and jury would have a better sighting and vision of Mair in the attack and on the stand than any of us. You keep saying they didn’t name him, they didn’t have to, he was in front of them and on trial for the murder, why would they have to name him he’s the accused.
They witnessed a person in a light/white cap, attack Jo Cox, carefully and without rushing. They witnessed this from different angles and distances. From shop doorways, across the road, top of the street etc. Some closer than others. He was not on trial in front of them, unless they attended the trial, and I think hardly any witnesses did. Instead their testimony was read out - and bear in mind, none of them had identified Mair. Then you have to add the further component that the man sitting in the dock during trial, looks nothing like Mair in real life and looks nothing like the man with the Desperate Dan chin and boxer's nose in the shop CCTV footage.
Now back to the bag RJ. This is from official footage. It's still online. How would you describe the shape of the handle attachment area? (where the handles are stitched and studded to the bag).
-
They witnessed a person in a light/white cap, attack Jo Cox, carefully and without rushing. They witnessed this from different angles and distances. From shop doorways, across the road, top of the street etc. Some closer than others. He was not on trial in front of them, unless they attended the trial, and I think hardly any witnesses did. Instead their testimony was read out - and bear in mind, none of them had identified Mair. Then you have to add the further component that the man sitting in the dock during trial, looks nothing like Mair in real life and looks nothing like the man with the Desperate Dan chin and boxer's nose in the shop CCTV footage.
Now back to the bag RJ. This is from official footage. It's still online. How would you describe the shape of the handle attachment area? (where the handles are stitched and studded to the bag).
Oh I get what you mean now, it looks like it’s attached by a tab/stub in the police photo and it doesn’t appear to have one in the shop photo, is that what you mean Roch?
Re CCTV the witnesses would not have seen the CCTV only the jury, so their recollection is of the man in front of them. Your putting into question the knowledge of people at trial Roch, witnesses gave evidence against Mair and appeared in Court.
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.
Kenny didn’t appear and I’ve learned he has now passed away.
-
Oh I get what you mean now, it looks like it’s attached by a tab/stub in the police photo and it doesn’t appear to have one in the shop photo, is that what you mean Roch?
Re CCTV the witnesses would not have seen the CCTV only the jury, so their recollection is of the man in front of them. Your putting into question the knowledge of people at trial Roch, witnesses gave evidence against Mair and appeared in Court.
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.
Kenny didn’t appear and I’ve learned he has now passed away.
Which witnesses from the incident scene attended court and identified Mair? No mate, not referring to missing studs as such, just after opinions on the shape of the handle attachment.
-
Which witnesses from the incident scene attended court and identified Mair? No mate, not referring to missing studs as such, just after opinions on the shape of the handle attachment.
Bernard says he was pulled into a nearby shop and claims he saw Mair “going beserk with the knife” and continue to attack Jo before running off. Bernard was treated in hospital for his stab wound after his liver was damaged, and later gave a statement to police.
Sandra has told the court Mair said something similar to “British independence” or “keep Britain independent” while attacking Jo.
She added that Jo said to her and Fazila “let him hurt me, don’t let him hurt you two”.
Aswat has told the jury about Jo’s attack. She says Mair approached them with a knife and begun to attack the MP.
Fazila claims Mair then fled the scene down the hill away from the library, as she held Jo waiting for the ambulance to arrive.
The defence says they have no issue with Fazila’s statement, and she has now been given permission to leave the witness box.
The jury will next hear from Jo’s other colleague Sandra Major.
There are others as well Roch
-
Bernard says he was pulled into a nearby shop and claims he saw Mair “going beserk with the knife” and continue to attack Jo before running off. Bernard was treated in hospital for his stab wound after his liver was damaged, and later gave a statement to police.
Sandra has told the court Mair said something similar to “British independence” or “keep Britain independent” while attacking Jo.
She added that Jo said to her and Fazila “let him hurt me, don’t let him hurt you two”.
Aswat has told the jury about Jo’s attack. She says Mair approached them with a knife and begun to attack the MP.
Fazila claims Mair then fled the scene down the hill away from the library, as she held Jo waiting for the ambulance to arrive.
The defence says they have no issue with Fazila’s statement, and she has now been given permission to leave the witness box.
The jury will next hear from Jo’s other colleague Sandra Major.
There are others as well Roch
Their testimonies were read out in court. None of them could have personally stated that Mair did any of these things, as none of them identified Mair at the scene and nobody was asked to indentify Mair in court. Are you not quoting how newspapers reported it, rather than verbatim testimony from the witnesses?
Fazila may have been present. Prior to the incident, she was given the mobile number for the copper who lead the investigation against Mair. When the incident took place, instead of ringing 999, she rang the copper's mobile number.
-
Their testimonies were read out in court. None of them could have personally stated that Mair did any of these things, as none of them identified Mair at the scene and nobody was asked to indentify Mair in court.
What is your source for this?
-
What is your source for this?
What is your source for their attendance?
-
Their testimonies were read out in court. None of them could have personally stated that Mair did any of these things, as none of them identified Mair at the scene and nobody was asked to indentify Mair in court. Are you not quoting how newspapers reported it, rather than verbatim testimony from the witnesses?
Fazila may have been present. Prior to the incident, she was given the mobile number for the copper who lead the investigation against Mair. When the incident took place, instead of ringing 999, she rang the copper's mobile number.
Her last words urging her staff to go and let her be hurt instead of them sent ripples through the packed courtroom. PACKED court Room.
In one day, 16 Birstall residents travelled down to London to give their versions of how Mair killed their MP in front of them in broad daylight
-
Her last words urging her staff to go and let her be hurt instead of them sent ripples through the packed courtroom. PACKED court Room.
In one day, 16 Birstall residents travelled down to London to give their versions of how Mair killed their MP in front of them in broad daylight
Steven Connolly said he saw Thomas Mair shoot #JoCox in the head then 'coldly walk away'
@itvcalendar
Thomas Mair denies murder
-
What is your source for their attendance?
In other words, you are making this up.
-
Her last words urging her staff to go and let her be hurt instead of them sent ripples through the packed courtroom. PACKED court Room.
In one day, 16 Birstall residents travelled down to London to give their versions of how Mair killed their MP in front of them in broad daylight
That is a newspaper, stating that witnesses are giving their version of how Mair killed Cox. It's not witnesses stating Mair killed Cox. Where are the statements from the witnesses, that Mair killed Cox? None of the witnesses knew him or recognised him from the scene.
-
Her last words urging her staff to go and let her be hurt instead of them sent ripples through the packed courtroom. PACKED court Room.
In one day, 16 Birstall residents travelled down to London to give their versions of how Mair killed their MP in front of them in broad daylight
Some appeared startled to arrive at the historic Central Criminal Court to find a large bank of around 30 photographers and TV crews camped outside waiting for them.
-
That is a newspaper, stating that witnesses are giving their version of how Mair killed Cox. It's not witnesses stating Mair killed Cox. Where are the statements from the witnesses, that Mair killed Cox? None of the witnesses knew him or recognised him from the scene.
Steven Connolly said he saw Thomas Mair shoot #JoCox in the head then 'coldly walk away'
-
Steven Connolly said he saw Thomas Mair shoot #JoCox in the head then 'coldly walk away'
That means he saw the assailant shoot Jo Cox in the head and then calmly walk away. It will be the newspaper that has added Mair's name.
-
That means he saw the assailant shoot Jo Cox in the head and then calmly walk away. It will be the newspaper that has added Mair's name.
Roch, you wanted proof the court room was Packed, I’ve given it, it was moved to the Old Bailey and I’ve seen several reports of a packed court room. You wanted proof that witnesses gave evidence, I given it, they gave evidence against Thomas Mair the accused stood before them who they witnessed killing Jo Cox, not by CCTV or photo’s by actual eye contact and some physical contact, you said none of them Named Mair, they have, now they name him you say it’s someone else naming him. You have to pay thousands of pounds to get the trial statements, I’m not prepared to do that for a case with such overwhelming evidence 🙈
-
Roch, you wanted proof the court room was Packed, I’ve given it, it was moved to the Old Bailey and I’ve seen several reports of a packed court room. You wanted proof that witnesses gave evidence, I given it, they gave evidence against Thomas Mair the accused stood before them who they witnessed killing Jo Cox, not by CCTV or photo’s by actual eye contact and some physical contact, you said none of them Named Mair, they have, now they name him you say it’s someone else naming him. You have to pay thousands of pounds to get the trial statements, I’m not prepared to do that for a case with such overwhelming evidence 🙈
Roch is too emotionally invested in this conspiracy theory. Its a fools errand to spend time trying to convince him otherwise.
He even had the murderers court sketch as his profile avatar! Court sketch that he contradictorily believes was a stand in and not actually Mair. ::)
-
Roch, you wanted proof the court room was Packed, I’ve given it, it was moved to the Old Bailey and I’ve seen several reports of a packed court room. You wanted proof that witnesses gave evidence, I given it, they gave evidence against Thomas Mair the accused stood before them who they witnessed killing Jo Cox, not by CCTV or photo’s by actual eye contact and some physical contact, you said none of them Named Mair, they have, now they name him you say it’s someone else naming him. You have to pay thousands of pounds to get the trial statements, I’m not prepared to do that for a case with such overwhelming evidence 🙈
I never once said, that the court was empty. What I expressed was, key witnesses didn't attend and that witness statements were read out and that no witnesses were asked to identify Mair. The trial was monitored. I have shown you that the man on the shop CCTV has different facial features to Mair, which you are reluctant to accept on the grounds of 'camera angles'. I've asked about the shape of the handle attachment on Mair's Puma holdall, and you have declined to answer. Without watching approximately 3-4 hours of programs, I can't go over to recap regarding exactly what was researched - and at present I don't have time. I have shown you that various images and depictions of Mair do not indicate one individual suspect, but several different people. Even in an image where he is shown profile with the head injury, his friends have expressed that his feet are too small. There is footage available which has been studied by an expert on walking gaits etc. His considered opinion, is that the assailant's gait and walking characteristics are different to Tommy's. In order for Tommy to be the assailant, he would have to put on a made up walk and sustain it for the entire time he was on camera with the light cap and then change back to his normal walk when donning the black cap. He's Thomas Mair not Keyser Soze! Clearly, no attempt has been made by the defence to properly represent Mair. No attempt has been made to study footage for any anomalies. If the person who is Mair changes every time you see him .. and is silent, how are you supposed to put up a defence? There wasn't supposed to be a defence, which is exactly why there isn't one.
-
Roch is too emotionally invested in this conspiracy theory. Its a fools errand to spend time trying to convince him otherwise.
He even had the murderers court sketch as his profile avatar! Court sketch that he contradictorily believes was a stand in and not actually Mair. ::)
That was why I used the avatar. It was an attempt at irony. The assailant of Jo Cox was confident and assertive and cool under pressure. He had a different posture and walk to Thomas Mair. He wore different clothes and shoes. He had a different bag to Thomas Mair. Thomas Mair's character has been misrepresented in order to make him fit the bill, which clearly he doesn't. Nobody who knew him has stepped up expressed concerns regarding his character or political interests. He was smeared in the press after the incident and even incorrectly shown giving a Nazi salute. There has been no questioning of the official narrative by any investigative journalist from a 'reputable' press organisation or media outlet, because nobody is willing to question a 'hate crime' trope. 'Hate crime' is a godsend for the security services. As are a compliant, non questioning press. Not forgetting there were no crime scene or PM images of Cox at trial for evidence. Only CGI. Her body was taken straight to London, instead of Leeds.
-
I never once said, that the court was empty. What I expressed was, key witnesses didn't attend and that witness statements were read out and that no witnesses were asked to identify Mair. The trial was monitored. I have shown you that the man on the shop CCTV has different facial features to Mair, which you are reluctant to accept on the grounds of 'camera angles'. I've asked about the shape of the handle attachment on Mair's Puma holdall, and you have declined to answer. Without watching approximately 3-4 hours of programs, I can't go over to recap regarding exactly what was researched - and at present I don't have time. I have shown you that various images and depictions of Mair do not indicate one individual suspect, but several different people. Even in an image where he is shown profile with the head injury, his friends have expressed that his feet are too small. There is footage available which has been studied by an expert on walking gaits etc. His considered opinion, is that the assailant's gait and walking characteristics are different to Tommy's. In order for Tommy to be the assailant, he would have to put on a made up walk and sustain it for the entire time he was on camera with the light cap and then change back to his normal walk when donning the black cap. He's Thomas Mair not Keyser Soze! Clearly, no attempt has been made by the defence to properly represent Mair. No attempt has been made to study footage for any anomalies. If the person who is Mair changes every time you see him .. and is silent, how are you supposed to put up a defence? There wasn't supposed to be a defence, which is exactly why there isn't one.
Right Roch my mistake I thought you meant the Court was unattended.
CCTV has been shown of Mair near his home in Birstall. The court have also heard the statement from a bus passenger called Julia Nelson, who was on a bus nearby when she saw Mair walk past that morning, who she knew from living across the street.
Julia saw Mair outside the Pheasant Pub just along the road from the Birstall Retail Park. Mair was seen going into the WHSmith store at the retail park. He was directed to the newspaper section and opened one newspaper to look inside.
So he would have had his white cap on at this stage and that’s the picture Roch has of boxer nose in WH Smith.
Another resident seen him on Lowood Road (the same road that white cap is picked up on by cctv)
The court is also hearing from a resident of Lowood Lane, Birstall. Resident David Thomas said Mair was known as a “quiet man” with “few friends”.
He has told the court he would often see Mair come and go and saw him leave on the morning of Jo’s killing carrying a shopping bag, although he isn’t sure there was anything in it.
-
Right Roch my mistake I thought you meant the Court was unattended.
CCTV has been shown of Mair near his home in Birstall. The court have also heard the statement from a bus passenger called Julia Nelson, who was on a bus nearby when she saw Mair walk past that morning, who she knew from living across the street.
Julia saw Mair outside the Pheasant Pub just along the road from the Birstall Retail Park. Mair was seen going into the WHSmith store at the retail park. He was directed to the newspaper section and opened one newspaper to look inside.
So he would have had his white cap on at this stage and that’s the picture Roch has of boxer nose in WH Smith.
Another resident seen him on Lowood Road (the same road that white cap is picked up on by cctv)
The court is also hearing from a resident of Lowood Lane, Birstall. Resident David Thomas said Mair was known as a “quiet man” with “few friends”.
He has told the court he would often see Mair come and go and saw him leave on the morning of Jo’s killing carrying a shopping bag, although he isn’t sure there was anything in it.
Mair will be on CCTV. As will white cap, who was pretending to be Mair. The person on the shop CCTV with boxer's nose isn't Mair. This is the image were police claim, 'Mair' is wearing a black cap underneath his white cap. In actual fact, it's just white cap and there is no black cap underneath white cap's white cap. There is a witness who saw Mair leave his home that morning and he wasn't dressed like white cap. When Mair was arrested, he was carrying a shopping bag.
-
Mair will be on CCTV. As will white cap, who was pretending to be Mair. The person on the shop CCTV with boxer's nose isn't Mair. This is the image were police claim, 'Mair' is wearing a black cap underneath his white cap. In actual fact, it's just white cap and there is no black cap underneath white cap's white cap. There is a witness who saw Mair leave his home that morning and he wasn't dressed like white cap. When Mair was arrested, he was carrying a shopping bag.
Do you think white cap was following Mair from early morning then Roch, how do you know he wasn’t dressed like white cap, all they say is they saw Mair early morning rather conveniently at the same time as white cap was picked up on CCTV. So When white cap was pretending to be Mair and did the killing he must have known where to go and walk and in what direction so at the same time Thomas Mair would appear at the same time or a few minutes later and the same place just after white cap dispersed his clothes in the overgrown garden and poor Thomas Mair just happened to be out walking at that exact time so white cap could do a switch and lay the blame on him?
-
Do you think white cap was following Mair from early morning then Roch, how do you know he wasn’t dressed like white cap, all they say is they saw Mair early morning rather conveniently at the same time as white cap was picked up on CCTV. So When white cap was pretending to be Mair and did the killing he must have known where to go and walk and in what direction so at the same time Thomas Mair would appear at the same time or a few minutes later and the same place just after white cap dispersed his clothes in the overgrown garden and poor Thomas Mair just happened to be out walking at that exact time so white cap could do a switch and lay the blame on him?
Will get back on later mate.
-
Do you think white cap was following Mair from early morning then Roch, how do you know he wasn’t dressed like white cap, all they say is they saw Mair early morning rather conveniently at the same time as white cap was picked up on CCTV. So When white cap was pretending to be Mair and did the killing he must have known where to go and walk and in what direction so at the same time Thomas Mair would appear at the same time or a few minutes later and the same place just after white cap dispersed his clothes in the overgrown garden and poor Thomas Mair just happened to be out walking at that exact time so white cap could do a switch and lay the blame on him?
Must have been a clever switch and well planned, Darren Playford had seen the appalling attack and was tracking the assailant as he left the scene, he tracked him all the way till he got arrested and described him and yet didn’t recognise him switching into Mair? The perfect look alike just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
-
Must have been a clever switch and well planned, Darren Playford had seen the appalling attack and was tracking the assailant as he left the scene, he tracked him all the way till he got arrested and described him and yet didn’t recognise him switching into Mair? The perfect look alike just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
There's gaps in Playford's recording. He was also extremely cagey about speaking to RDH during his enquiries in to the case. I think the police got involved. John Asprey who enquired about Mair's welfare and raised concerns regarding his whereabouts in prison was also visited by police as a result. Hall claims he was contacted by somebody who raised concerns about Playford's reliability as a witness. Now I do not know if that is true, but where are the gaps in Playford's recording? Might be worth looking in to.
-
There's gaps in Playford's recording. He was also extremely cagey about speaking to RDH during his enquiries in to the case. I think the police got involved. John Asprey who enquired about Mair's welfare and raised concerns regarding his whereabouts in prison was also visited by police as a result. Hall claims he was contacted by somebody who raised concerns about Playford's reliability as a witness. Now I do not know if that is true, but where are the gaps in Playford's recording? Might be worth looking in to.
What are your sources for all these claims?
-
This is who Roch is getting all these ideas from.
https://youtu.be/E2MGrB4yhSc?t=636 (https://youtu.be/E2MGrB4yhSc?t=636)
-
What are your sources for all these claims?
The original four part Exit from Brexit films and the subsequent episodes where Mair/Cox is discussed, ie updates.
There is some Aspray stuff here.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/john_aspray
-
This is who Roch is getting all these ideas from.
https://youtu.be/E2MGrB4yhSc?t=636 (https://youtu.be/E2MGrB4yhSc?t=636)
Surely he is allowed to have a broad range of interests. If this is one of them, then best of luck to him. In my opinion, it does not detract from research on other areas. Should we instead place all our trust in journalists who are constrained from any real investigative journalism, if it clashes with state chennanigans?
-
This is who Roch is getting all these ideas from.
https://youtu.be/E2MGrB4yhSc?t=636 (https://youtu.be/E2MGrB4yhSc?t=636)
And here
https://youtu.be/brnRy-568ww (https://youtu.be/brnRy-568ww)
-
And here
https://youtu.be/brnRy-568ww (https://youtu.be/brnRy-568ww)
Do these links have any relevance to research in to an alleged hate crime / security services operation in Birstall 2016?. There is already a 911 thread and possibly even a UFO one.
-
According to neighbour Diana Peters.. Mair volunteered:
in Dewsbury, to teach ESOL to members of the Muslim / Asian community, two to three days per week.
At Oakwell Hall (post civil war house and gardens) where he learned gardening
At Pathfinders, a community care hub.
She describes him as somebody 'who wanted to help people'. He 'never spoke about politics'. She said, 'he's never been racist' ... 'never seen him angry' ... 'never heard him swear' ... 'a more mild mannered man you couldn't wish to meet'.
This is how he was shown in the papers:
-
There's gaps in Playford's recording. He was also extremely cagey about speaking to RDH during his enquiries in to the case. I think the police got involved. John Asprey who enquired about Mair's welfare and raised concerns regarding his whereabouts in prison was also visited by police as a result. Hall claims he was contacted by somebody who raised concerns about Playford's reliability as a witness. Now I do not know if that is true, but where are the gaps in Playford's recording? Might be worth looking in to.
The police have all the recording of the 999 call and all of the recording was played at trial, only extracts were released to press. I personally wouldn’t speak to RDH if he came and tried to speak to me if I’d witnessed what Playford witnessed, some people like to try and forget about events like that. He’s a Plumber and did a great service for the public and put his own life at risk whether it be Mair or White cap, he witnessed a killing and he did a great job he risked his life following an armed offender, it’s rubbish and scandalous for Hall to suggest anything otherwise of this guy.
The last I heard of Mair he was in Franland Prison, he’s been convicted as a terrorist, so his normal prison rules will be different and I would think he’s been isolated, his correspondence to the outside world will offer much more scrutiny than other inmates, maybe that’s why Asprey might have got a visit from the Police?
-
According to neighbour Diana Peters.. Mair volunteered:
in Dewsbury, to teach ESOL to members of the Muslim / Asian community, two to three days per week.
At Oakwell Hall (post civil war house and gardens) where he learned gardening
At Pathfinders, a community care hub.
She describes him as somebody 'who wanted to help people'. He 'never spoke about politics'. She said, 'he's never been racist' ... 'never seen him angry' ... 'never heard him swear' ... 'a more mild mannered man you couldn't wish to meet'.
This is how he was shown in the papers:
Thats Press being Press, it’s what they normally do Roch, look how they hounded Christopher Jefferies in the Joanna Yates Murder.
-
in 2017 which put in place the regime under rule 46A for a special separation regime for extremist prisoners that would;
‘provide a statutory basis for the separation from the mainstream prison population of certain prisoners who are assessed to pose particularly serious risks (relating to national security, planning of terrorism, disseminating views encouraging terrorism, or using harmful views to undermine good order and discipline) by removing them from the mainstream population. This will assist in the effective management of prisons and prisoners, to ensure the maintenance of control, security and discipline within prison and to manage terrorism related risks posed by certain prisoners’.
Explanatory Memorandum to the Prison (Amendment) Rules 2017.
The source added: “Mair does very little and barely comes out of his cell. “He will respond if spoken to but will make little attempt to interact with staff or prisoners.
“And he never comments if asked why he did it. He just walks away.”
Mair is caged in a wing away from Frankland’s so-called “Jihadi Jail”.
Nearly a dozen terrorists are being held there in a “separation centre” to stop them brainwashing other inmates
He has been housed to ensure there is little chance of him coming into contact with Islamist prisoners.”
-
Thats Press being Press, it’s what they normally do Roch, look how they hounded Christopher Jefferies in the Joanna Yates Murder.
Come off it, that's a deliberate attempt to fool the public by showing a false image purporting to be Mair. That stuff doesn't get done by accident. How come neither of Mair's brother's knew anything about racist views or strong political views?
-
Come off it, that's a deliberate attempt to fool the public by showing a false image purporting to be Mair. That stuff doesn't get done by accident. How come neither of Mair's brother's knew anything about racist views or strong political views?
Im not saying it’s the right thing to do, I’m saying that the Press do these sort of things and it’s wrong.
-
How come neither of Mair's brother's knew anything about racist views or strong political views?
Maybe he never shared his views with them? ::)
-
Maybe he never shared his views with them? ::)
So why did he volunteer ESOL two to three days per week among the Asian / Muslim community?
-
So why did he volunteer ESOL two to three days per week among the Asian / Muslim community?
What is your source for this? Some benefit claiments have to do community work to get their benefits.
Also people with extreme views often lead double lives.
https://www.channel4.com/news/neo-nazi-national-front-organiser-quits-movement-comes-out-as-gay-kevin-wilshaw-jewish-heritage (https://www.channel4.com/news/neo-nazi-national-front-organiser-quits-movement-comes-out-as-gay-kevin-wilshaw-jewish-heritage)
-
What is your source for this? Some benefit claiments have to do community work to get their benefits.
Also people with extreme views often lead double lives.
https://www.channel4.com/news/neo-nazi-national-front-organiser-quits-movement-comes-out-as-gay-kevin-wilshaw-jewish-heritage (https://www.channel4.com/news/neo-nazi-national-front-organiser-quits-movement-comes-out-as-gay-kevin-wilshaw-jewish-heritage)
See above, a few posts. Volunteering has nothing to do with state benefits entitlement in the UK.
-
What is your source for this?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10307.msg494661.html#msg494661
-
So why did he volunteer ESOL two to three days per week among the Asian / Muslim community?
He didn’t murder a Muslim he murdered Jo Cox, a Muslim woman (Jo’s aid) came to help and he had chance to kill her but he didn’t. Mair was tried for murder, rather than terrorism, but the judge in his case made it clear when delivering a whole life sentence that he considered this to be a terrorist murder.
Terrorism comes in many forms, why target a member of the British Parliament, obviously they had some sort of problem with what Jo stood for?
He never helped himself with the things he said both in the attack and at the Magistrates hearing, that’s not taking into account his proven internet searches and material in his possession.
None of my Neighbours Know what I read or my political views, they haven’t a clue what books I read and I don’t know theirs, just appearing nice doesn’t mean nothing and if I’d done the same I bet all my neighbours would say, He 'never spoke about politics'. 'he's never been racist' ... 'never seen him angry' ... 'never heard him swear' ... 'a more mild mannered man you couldn't wish to meet'.
It’s a little confusing the Pre Trial hearings ect, I don’t know if NGB could help, can the judge just change it to terrorism at his discretion, I know he was initially going to be tried for Terrorism, but I don’t think they used that word at trial?
When Thomas Mair’s trial began, many people queried why he was not being prosecuted as a terrorist. A frequent comment, on social media, was that he would have been, had he been a Muslim.
The answer is that Mair was indeed prosecuted as a terrorist, and this was made clear during preliminary hearings. This is the reason that he was tried in London, rather than Yorkshire.
But he was charged with murder, a common-law offence, rather than with an offence under counter-terrorism legislation.
Crown prosecutors did not use the word “terrorism” during the trial because they believed the jurors should be asked simply whether they believed he committed the crime or not, rather than also be expected to consider his motives. The killers of Lee Rigby were prosecuted in the same way.
During the trial, the crown did tell the jury that its case was that the murder was politically or ideologically motivated.
Following the guilty verdict, this allowed the judge to sentence Mair as a murderer who is also a terrorist.
Immediately after the case, the Crown Prosecution Service said that Mair had been convicted “of the terrorist murder of Jo Cox”.
-
He didn’t murder a Muslim he murdered Jo Cox, a Muslim woman (Jo’s aid) came to help and he had chance to kill her but he didn’t. Mair was tried for murder, rather than terrorism, but the judge in his case made it clear when delivering a whole life sentence that he considered this to be a terrorist murder.
Terrorism comes in many forms, why target a member of the British Parliament, obviously they had some sort of problem with what Jo stood for?
He never helped himself with the things he said both in the attack and at the Magistrates hearing, that’s not taking into account his proven internet searches and material in his possession.
None of my Neighbours Know what I read or my political views, they haven’t a clue what books I read and I don’t know theirs, just appearing nice doesn’t mean nothing and if I’d done the same I bet all my neighbours would say, He 'never spoke about politics'. 'he's never been racist' ... 'never seen him angry' ... 'never heard him swear' ... 'a more mild mannered man you couldn't wish to meet'.
It’s a little confusing the Pre Trial hearings ect, I don’t know if NGB could help, can the judge just change it to terrorism at his discretion, I know he was initially going to be tried for Terrorism, but I don’t think they used that word at trial?
When Thomas Mair’s trial began, many people queried why he was not being prosecuted as a terrorist. A frequent comment, on social media, was that he would have been, had he been a Muslim.
The answer is that Mair was indeed prosecuted as a terrorist, and this was made clear during preliminary hearings. This is the reason that he was tried in London, rather than Yorkshire.
But he was charged with murder, a common-law offence, rather than with an offence under counter-terrorism legislation.
Crown prosecutors did not use the word “terrorism” during the trial because they believed the jurors should be asked simply whether they believed he committed the crime or not, rather than also be expected to consider his motives. The killers of Lee Rigby were prosecuted in the same way.
During the trial, the crown did tell the jury that its case was that the murder was politically or ideologically motivated.
Following the guilty verdict, this allowed the judge to sentence Mair as a murderer who is also a terrorist.
Immediately after the case, the Crown Prosecution Service said that Mair had been convicted “of the terrorist murder of Jo Cox”.
There is lots of info regarding Mair which contradicts the racist extremist mantle that has been forced upon him by police and media. None of which was reported in the media. That should be alarm bells for you mate. A big alarm bell was the picture you were shown, which still even years after the event, was regarded as actually being Mair.
-
There is lots of info regarding Mair which contradicts the racist extremist mantle that has been forced upon him by police and media. None of which was reported in the media. That should be alarm bells for you mate. A big alarm bell was the picture you were shown, which still even years after the event, was regarded as actually being Mair.
Ive only seen that picture in Newtekworld Roch, are they a newspaper edition and where are they based? I’ve not seen it in the other major Tabloids? Not saying it isn’t though and like I’ve said “it’s wrong that they should do this”
Just read it’s a small Yorkshire Company based in Hull and it’s just online.
-
Ive only seen that picture in Newtekworld Roch, are they a newspaper edition and where are they based? I’ve not seen it in the other major Tabloids? Not saying it isn’t though and like I’ve said “it’s wrong that they should do this”
Just read it’s a small Yorkshire Company based in Hull and it’s just online.
I would have to check. Very suspicious that it went viral so to speak. Why have the press nor reported that nobody who knew him, knew of any aggression, racism, strong political views etc? Family member, neighbours and friends. Sorry mate, it doesn't add up. And the press should have given voices to these people, to question the official narrative.
-
I would have to check. Very suspicious that it went viral so to speak. Why have the press nor reported that nobody who knew him, knew of any aggression, racism, strong political views etc? Family member, neighbours and friends. Sorry mate, it doesn't add up. And the press should have given voices to these people, to question the official narrative.
You only have to read the Tabloids, from the Mail
Thomas Mair, 53, lived a 'quiet existence' tucked away on his own in a two-bed semi in the West Yorkshire village of Birstall.
Neighbours described him as a shy man who had no visitors. One said he kept his garden very tidy and spent a lot of time in it
From the Guardian
The picture that emerged of the man known as Tom or Tommy from those who knew him best was of a quiet and caring loner. His half brother, who is mixed race, claimed he had been volunteering at a school for children with disabilities for several years and had never expressed any racist views. Duane St Louis, 41, described his brother as a devoted son who shopped for their mother twice a week and who had visited her on Wednesday night to help tune her TV.
There are lots of these Stories, the photo your Questioning comes from a small online news article company based in Hull. I’ve not seen any major Newspapers print it. Online is different to Tabloid, anyone prints what they like online or they did.
-
You only have to read the Tabloids, from the Mail
Thomas Mair, 53, lived a 'quiet existence' tucked away on his own in a two-bed semi in the West Yorkshire village of Birstall.
Neighbours described him as a shy man who had no visitors. One said he kept his garden very tidy and spent a lot of time in it
From the Guardian
The picture that emerged of the man known as Tom or Tommy from those who knew him best was of a quiet and caring loner. His half brother, who is mixed race, claimed he had been volunteering at a school for children with disabilities for several years and had never expressed any racist views. Duane St Louis, 41, described his brother as a devoted son who shopped for their mother twice a week and who had visited her on Wednesday night to help tune her TV.
There are lots of these Stories, the photo your Questioning comes from a small online news article company based in Hull. I’ve not seen any major Newspapers print it. Online is different to Tabloid, anyone prints what they like online or they did.
Fair point on the first bit but doesn't go far enough. And it should have been unearthed that family and friends are saying they can't recognise him from CCTV footage, stills, and court sketches.
-
in 2017 which put in place the regime under rule 46A for a special separation regime for extremist prisoners that would;
‘provide a statutory basis for the separation from the mainstream prison population of certain prisoners who are assessed to pose particularly serious risks (relating to national security, planning of terrorism, disseminating views encouraging terrorism, or using harmful views to undermine good order and discipline) by removing them from the mainstream population. This will assist in the effective management of prisons and prisoners, to ensure the maintenance of control, security and discipline within prison and to manage terrorism related risks posed by certain prisoners’.
Explanatory Memorandum to the Prison (Amendment) Rules 2017.
The source added: “Mair does very little and barely comes out of his cell. “He will respond if spoken to but will make little attempt to interact with staff or prisoners.
“And he never comments if asked why he did it. He just walks away.”
Mair is caged in a wing away from Frankland’s so-called “Jihadi Jail”.
Nearly a dozen terrorists are being held there in a “separation centre” to stop them brainwashing other inmates
He has been housed to ensure there is little chance of him coming into contact with Islamist prisoners.”
So basically, if you have framed a patsy, put them or pretend to put them on this rule - and it can just be used to shut them away from enquiries. Very handy.
-
So basically, if you have framed a patsy, put them or pretend to put them on this rule - and it can just be used to shut them away from enquiries. Very handy.
Im not with you on the framing bit, but he will still have visitation rights etc, but his posts will be monitored and judged, I think it’s Mair who keeps himself to himself and refuses to talk about it, I think it’s him that chooses not to have visitors.
Mair, 53, has a single cell in the high-security jail and “barely speaks”. In some respects he is a model prisoner – always obeying commands and giving no trouble. He has no interest in other inmates or officers and categorically refuses to speak about his crime.
“Plenty have tried to talk to him about it but he just walks away.”
The source added: “Mair does very little and barely comes out of his cell. “He will respond if spoken to but will make little attempt to interact with staff or prisoners.
“And he never comments if asked why he did it. He just walks away.”
So it seems people have tried to talk to him, but he just doesn’t want to.
-
Im not with you on the framing bit, but he will still have visitation rights etc, but his posts will be monitored and judged, I think it’s Mair who keeps himself to himself and refuses to talk about it, I think it’s him that chooses not to have visitors.
Mair, 53, has a single cell in the high-security jail and “barely speaks”. In some respects he is a model prisoner – always obeying commands and giving no trouble. He has no interest in other inmates or officers and categorically refuses to speak about his crime.
“Plenty have tried to talk to him about it but he just walks away.”
The source added: “Mair does very little and barely comes out of his cell. “He will respond if spoken to but will make little attempt to interact with staff or prisoners.
“And he never comments if asked why he did it. He just walks away.”
So it seems people have tried to talk to him, but he just doesn’t want to.
Hardly and independent source RJ. Somebody who is not Mair, is hardly going to want Mair's relatives to visit him. And given the concerns raised, the onus is on the authorities to prove he is exactly where they say he is; and show he is exactly who they say he is.
-
Mail received by Mair has been postmarked in Newcastle. Is this normal for Frankland?
-
Hardly and independent source RJ. Somebody who is not Mair, is hardly going to want Mair's relatives to visit him. And given the concerns raised, the onus is on the authorities to prove he is exactly where they say he is; and show he is exactly who they say he is.
I don’t want more I can add Roch, if your that concerned follow it up mate, I’m sure there are channels to go down try your MP or write to him? Yes know one Journalist got a response, very limited though.
-
I don’t want more I can add Roch, if your that concerned follow it up mate, I’m sure there are channels to go down try your MP or write to him? Yes know one Journalist got a response, very limited though.
Did you check those links I put on above, from John Aspray? FOI requests and the like? There are people who monitor these kinds of cases, precisely because of justifiable concerns RJ. It's not because there are no concerns. If there were no concerns, people would be taking the same line as you.
-
Did you check those links I put on above, from John Aspray? FOI requests and the like? There are people who monitor these kinds of cases, precisely because of justifiable concerns RJ. It's not because there are no concerns. If there were no concerns, people would be taking the same line as you.
Conspiratards will always be conspiratards.
-
Conspiratards will always be conspiratards.
Just silly, silly comments. No attempt to deal with the assessment of the footage regarding stride / gait / body movement etc.
-
Conspiratards will always be conspiratards.
I suppose it took off more through the Internet, I know it’s always been there but as the saying goes, Social Proof is a much more effective persuasion technique than purely evidence-based proof, which is of course why this sort of proof is so popular in advertising. It’s so easy for them to twist anything, Oh he was unreliable, he had history, he walked Pigeon Toed and with a limp, none of them knew his name or named him, it wasn’t Mair in the dock, Jo Cox’s body wasn’t shown to the jury, theirs no telling if she died etc, it’s like if you stand alone in a street and stare upwards, hardly anyone will stop, if you get several people to stop and stare you will get the rest to stop and look.
-
I suppose it took off more through the Internet, I know it’s always been there but as the saying goes, Social Proof is a much more effective persuasion technique than purely evidence-based proof, which is of course why this sort of proof is so popular in advertising. It’s so easy for them to twist anything, Oh he was unreliable, he had history, he walked Pigeon Toed and with a limp, none of them knew his name or named him, it wasn’t Mair in the dock, Jo Cox’s body wasn’t shown to the jury, theirs no telling if she died etc, it’s like if you stand alone in a street and stare upwards, hardly anyone will stop, if you get several people to stop and stare you will get the rest to stop and look.
With respect RJ, ...
Have you watched all of the CCTV footage where the two figures' walking habits are assessed?
When was Jo Cox's injuries shown to the jury? It's a fact that they were not.
Have you watched the interview with Tommy Mair's relative regarding the court sketches and family members being refused court attendance?
Have you watched the interview from his neighbour?
Have you answered the question I asked you about the handle attachment stitching area on the holdall?
The claims that nobody was asked to identify the man in the dock come from trial monitoring.
Who specifically identified him from the incident scene?
Why is is difficult to understand the concept, that if a real assailant (ie a physically trained one) was made to look like Mair (and was wearing a baseball cap), it would be easier to pin the incident on Mair? The cap partially hides features. It's clear from the shop CCTV that the facial features of the assailant are different to Mair's. Those witnessing the incident are not looking at a CCTV still, they're witnessing a real life event, from different angles and distances.
-
With respect RJ, ...
Have you watched all of the CCTV footage where the two figures' walking habits are assessed?
When was Jo Cox's injuries shown to the jury? It's a fact that they were not.
Have you watched the interview with Tommy Mair's relative regarding the court sketches and family members being refused court attendance?
Have you watched the interview from his neighbour?
Have you answered the question I asked you about the handle attachment stitching area on the holdall?
The claims that nobody was asked to identify the man in the dock come from trial monitoring.
Who specifically identified him from the incident scene?
Why is is difficult to understand the concept, that if a real assailant (ie a physically trained one) was made to look like Mair (and was wearing a baseball cap), it would be easier to pin the incident on Mair? The cap partially hides features. It's clear from the shop CCTV that the facial features of the assailant are different to Mair's. Those witnessing the incident are not looking at a CCTV still, they're witnessing a real life event, from different angles and distances.
So what your saying then, they got a Pigeon-Toed assassin who walked with a limp, to impersonate Thomas Mair and to kill Jo Cox and then to miraculously time everything to the minute, the killing, the walking away from the scene to the exact same spot to an unsuspecting Thomas Mair, who just happened to be out walking, carrying the same sort of bag in an area he didn’t live and switch the blame to Mair, hoping that the 16 witnesses fail to spot the difference in Mair and the assassin. This trained assassin who also grappled with an old chap and stabbed him as well, all this to get rid of JO and frame Thomas Mair, a nobody.
I’ve already answered you on court sketches, they don’t do them live, they have to do them by memory so they’re bound to be different and in some cases not true to like.
The handle in question I did answer you, I thought you meant the stud/fastening and you said no, I can’t make anything else out you meant.
Why the need to see pictures of Jo, the defence offered no defence and you’ve got 16 eye witnesses all saying she was shot and stabbed by the man in front of them. The Pathologist was on hand to answer any questions and he had computerised images. What difference would it make showing JO’s body, it probably would have convinced the jury more.
If you’ve got the interview from the Neighbour and family, please put them up.
Stephen Lee saw Thomas Mair with a blue suit jacket on in the market Square bus stop, just like Hall said he had on in the same area near the Vape shop, he spoke to him and thought he was getting on the bus.
-
So what your saying then, they got a Pigeon-Toed assassin who walked with a limp, to impersonate Thomas Mair and to kill Jo Cox
'They' know full well that average Joe/Joanne isn't going to check the footage in that much detail, slowing frames down and comparing stuff etc. 'They' also know that somebody from an intelligence / military background might notice the anomalies, if they paid attention to the footage. Perhaps also a podiatrist might notice. But who is going to put their head above the parapet?
and then to miraculously time everything to the minute, the killing, the walking away from the scene to the exact same spot to an unsuspecting Thomas Mair, who just happened to be out walking, carrying the same sort of bag in an area he didn’t live and switch the blame to Mair, hoping that the 16 witnesses fail to spot the difference in Mair and the assassin.
Are you 100% certain that the official timings are kosher? They don't seem to be. There is a significant gap in Playford' phone recording. We don't know exactly what instructions Mair had on the day. Obviously if Mair is being set up, he's going to be out walking in relevant locations. He's not going to be sat at home is he? One theory is that he was supposed to attend the overgrown garden at John Nelson, where he could have been shot. You keep going on about these 16 witnesses. It's as if you believe there were 16 witnesses who were directly around the incident, staring at the part of the assailant's face that was visible under his cap. But that's not the case is it. They were scattered about and had different vantage points from different angles, from different distances.
This trained assassin who also grappled with an old chap and stabbed him as well, all this to get rid of JO and frame Thomas Mair, a nobody.
What evidence is there that he was stabbed? Did he claim criminal compensation? Where was he treated? and even if he did, how is that Tommy's fault?
I’ve already answered you on court sketches, they don’t do them live, they have to do them by memory so they’re bound to be different and in some cases not true to like.
You've already been told that CCTV footage clearly shows the two men had different walks. You've been shown the image from the shop where the assailant has different facial features (nose, chin). You are aware that relatives and friends have questioned the authenticity of three different forms of images: CCTV footage; still images and court sketches - yet instead of combining that info, you choose to run with 'court artist has poor memory'.
The handle in question I did answer you, I thought you meant the stud/fastening and you said no, I can’t make anything else out you meant.
No, I asked you for the shape of the handle attachment. It is visible in outline, against the bag.
Why the need to see pictures of Jo, the defence offered no defence and you’ve got 16 eye witnesses all saying she was shot and stabbed by the man in front of them. The Pathologist was on hand to answer any questions and he had computerised images. What difference would it make showing JO’s body, it probably would have convinced the jury more.
This is a dangerous precedent to set. 'he had no defence - so why the need for crime scene images'? If there was any chance of him obtaining a genuine defence, he would have 'committed suicide' in custody. It was never going to happen.
If you’ve got the interview from the Neighbour and family, please put them up.
I don't know how to segment the videos to put excerpts up.
Stephen Lee saw Thomas Mair with a blue suit jacket on in the market Square bus stop, just like Hall said he had on in the same area near the Vape shop, he spoke to him and thought he was getting on the bus.
Two witnesses saw Tommy leave his house and stated he didn't have a suit jacket on. Stephen Lee was visited by Hall at his stated address. Hall claims that the door was answered by a woman who had lived there for years and had never heard of Stephen Lee.
-
https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/parties/labour/jo-cox-witness-says-no-one-shouted-britain-first-1/
-
https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/parties/labour/jo-cox-witness-says-no-one-shouted-britain-first-1/
Ha Ha yes I seen it, obviously frightened of repercussions 🙈
-
One theory is that he was supposed to attend the overgrown garden at John Nelson, where he could have been shot.
Honest Roch it gets better as it goes along
-
Hall claims that the door was answered by a woman who had lived there for years and had never heard of Stephen Lee.
No need to go and look for him, there’s a video of him saying it. So what if Lee has moved or left, doesn’t mean he’s making it up.
-
One theory is that he was supposed to attend the overgrown garden at John Nelson, where he could have been shot.
Honest Roch it gets better as it goes along
Isn't that where they claim some of the items were found? Mair was a gardener and the house was empty.
-
Ha Ha yes I seen it, obviously frightened of repercussions 🙈
Why has he underlined at any time?
-
Found another article. I've not seen this one before'
http://www.frombehindenemylines.org.uk/2016/12/thomas-mair-all-by-himself/
-
https://barristerblogger.com/2016/11/23/footnotes-conviction-thomas-mair/ (https://barristerblogger.com/2016/11/23/footnotes-conviction-thomas-mair/)
-
https://barristerblogger.com/2016/11/23/footnotes-conviction-thomas-mair/ (https://barristerblogger.com/2016/11/23/footnotes-conviction-thomas-mair/)
Do a litmus test. Go and speak to the people of Birstall and find out how many have doubts about T Mair conviction and the official story.
-
Do a litmus test. Go and speak to the people of Birstall and find out how many have doubts about T Mair conviction and the official story.
What would I achieve by doing that? There are many people on our planet who have doubts about the "official story" of Earth being spherical.
https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/ (https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erA3WQE9Zes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erA3WQE9Zes)
-
This was Mairs bookshelf
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5835921c1a00000b03cc9759.png?cache=igmTueZu1y&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale&format=webp)
very convenient. Who set it up for him? The lad with the boxer nose?
::)
(https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mair_order-4.png)
(https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mair-order-6.jpg)
-
::)
(https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mair_order-4.png)
(https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mair-order-6.jpg)
Would be piss easy to reproduce, as part of a back story.
-
Would be piss easy to reproduce, as part of a back story.
I see. The Southern Poverty Law Centre based in Alabama USA is in on the conspiracy also. They made up receipts to corroborate the UK authorities planting a bookshelf full extremist literature in Mairs house!
"According to records obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center Mair was for decades a dedicated supporter of the National Alliance (NA), the once premier neo-Nazi organization in the United States. Mair purchased a manual from the NA in 1999 that included instructions on how to build a pistol."
-
I see. The Southern Poverty Law Centre based in Alabama USA is in on the conspiracy also. They made up receipts to corroborate the UK authorities planting a bookshelf full extremist literature in Mairs house!
"According to records obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center Mair was for decades a dedicated supporter of the National Alliance (NA), the once premier neo-Nazi organization in the United States. Mair purchased a manual from the NA in 1999 that included instructions on how to build a pistol."
Read the article that RJ posted up, about the very same.
-
Read the article that RJ posted up, about the very same.
This is getting comical Roch.
You have the UK authorities hiring an assassin to pretend to be Thomas Mair. Making sure they were both in the same place at the same time and seen by witnesses and CCTV, yet never seen together. Authorities planting a bookshelf full of Nazi literature with an American charity fabricating a paper trail.
Then they used a "stand in" who looks like Mair in court and nobody notices. All to frame a guy who then miraculously never denied committing the crime.
-
This is getting comical Roch.
You have the UK authorities hiring an assassin to pretend to be Thomas Mair. Making sure they were both in the same place at the same time and seen by witnesses and CCTC, yet never seen together. Authorities planting a bookshelf full of Nazi literature with an American charity fabricating a paper trail.
Then they used a "stand in" who looks like Mair in court and nobody notices. All to frame a guy who then miraculously never denied committing the crime.
Tbh mate, I can see where you're coming from. But I think you're approaching it from wrong angle, and pardon the pun, 'framing' the circumstances erroneously. I'm busy at work so can't really respond properly.
-
Its worth noting that if the books in Mair's house reflect his political views. He would not be against Muslims or Islam per say.
From Hitler's table talk -
"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."
Look into the relationships between Al Husseini, Hitler and Himmler.
More insight into this phenomenon can be read here.
https://www.police1.com/archive/articles/strange-bedfellows-the-neo-nazi-movement-and-radical-islam-V92AxpF1oBvA5SD8/ (https://www.police1.com/archive/articles/strange-bedfellows-the-neo-nazi-movement-and-radical-islam-V92AxpF1oBvA5SD8/)
https://www.justsecurity.org/71470/the-surprising-convergence-between-neo-nazis-and-jihadis/ (https://www.justsecurity.org/71470/the-surprising-convergence-between-neo-nazis-and-jihadis/)
-
This is getting comical Roch.
You have the UK authorities hiring an assassin to pretend to be Thomas Mair. Making sure they were both in the same place at the same time and seen by witnesses and CCTV, yet never seen together. Authorities planting a bookshelf full of Nazi literature with an American charity fabricating a paper trail.
Then they used a "stand in" who looks like Mair in court and nobody notices. All to frame a guy who then miraculously never denied committing the crime.
Not only that, he walks with a limp and he’s got Pigeon-Toes and he’s got a boxers nose, yet none of the sixteen Witnesses said he had these or Playford who followed him for 20 minutes, like you Said it’s comical and not worth discussion.
-
Not only that, he walks with a limp and he’s got Pigeon-Toes and he’s got a boxers nose, yet none of the sixteen Witnesses said he had these or Playford who followed him for 20 minutes, like you Said it’s comical and not worth discussion.
This is knee-jerk stuff to get a bite, because I've dared to question an elderly man's testimony. It is slightly amusing that you're angered at me comparing his reliability to that of Ann Eaton.
-
This is knee-jerk stuff to get a bite, because I've dared to question an elderly man's testimony. It is slightly amusing that you're angered at me comparing his reliability to that of Ann Eaton.
Its got nothing to do with Anne Eaton mate, he’s different to Anne’s testimony, he was there, he fought with him and he was on the receiving end. If you can’t see a difference Roch or the tact of your post, it’s god help any other person that comes to the aid of others. I’m not angry, I’m shocked mate, I don’t know the man but he’s got my utter most Respect for his bravery which is shared by the Country.
-
Its got nothing to do with Anne Eaton mate, he’s different to Anne’s testimony, he was there, he fought with him and he was on the receiving end. If you can’t see a difference Roch or the tact of your post, it’s god help any other person that comes to the aid of others. I’m not angry, I’m shocked mate, I don’t know the man but he’s got my utter most Respect for his bravery which is shared by the Country.
I am more cautious than you regarding taking his testimony at face value. If he's genuine and his injuries were genuine, I think your ire should be directed at whoever was behind employing the assailant.
-
I am more cautious than you regarding taking his testimony at face value. If he's genuine and his injuries were genuine, I think your ire should be directed at whoever was behind employing the assailant.
Mair was unemployed and nobody paid him to do it.
-
Mair was unemployed and nobody paid him to do it.
Clearly, the only evidence you are interested in, is that presented by the prosecution, in the context of the prosecution. Your opinion is therefore null and void.
-
Clearly, the only evidence you are interested in, is that presented by the prosecution, in the context of the prosecution. Your opinion is therefore null and void.
I'm interested in the facts.
The defence never produced any evidence or called any witnesses. Or is Russell-Flint QC in on the conspiracy also?
-
I'm interested in the facts.
The defence never produced any evidence or called any witnesses. Or is Russell-Flint QC in on the conspiracy also?
Why on earth would a security services operation want a patsy to have a meaningful defence?
The only 'facts' you are interested in are part of a micromanaged prosecution case and a pre-prepared back story.
-
Why on earth would a security services operation want a patsy to have a meaningful defence?
The only 'facts' you are interested in are part of a micromanaged prosecution case and a pre-prepared back story.
What "security services operation" are you talking about?
-
What "security services operation" are you talking about?
David, I will only attempt to answer serious questions from you. Not silly ones. Like I asked on the off topic thread, you need to ask yourself whether or not you believe UK security services are capable of carrying out operations on home soil. Your posting and the posting of RJ suggests you do not believe they have that capability. If that is the case, then you should say say so outright.
-
David, I will only attempt to answer serious questions from you. Not silly ones. Like I asked on the off topic thread, you need to ask yourself whether or not you believe UK security services are capable of carrying out operations on home soil. Your posting and the posting of RJ suggests you do not believe they have that capability. If that is the case, then you should say say so outright.
It's not a silly question. You mention a "security services operation" in the case. Be more specific and show evidence of its occurance.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1WgcvuRqXg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1WgcvuRqXg)
-
i simlar thing happend to a politicion in sweedon when they were having a refrendom
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1WgcvuRqXg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1WgcvuRqXg)
funny hes supposed to have far right opions but none of his neoubors ever heard him exepress them.
and theres no record of him ever being a member of a far right group.
-
It's not a silly question. You mention a "security services operation" in the case. Be more specific and show evidence of its occurance.
I can't believe you have just posted that instruction.
-
she was shot and stabbed thats another thing that suggests more than one person,
-
funny hes supposed to have far right opions but none of his neoubors ever heard him exepress them.
and theres no record of him ever being a member of a far right group.
None of his neighbours (who didn't have a bad word to say about him) have ever heard him express racist or strongly political views. None of his family. None of his friends. How many 'far right' people volunteer as ESOL teachers to Muslim/Asian community. Nugnug, it's laughable. I actually cannot believe how naive some members are. Who had access to his house, after he was arrested? I've already explained about 17 times that his friends and relatives don't recognise him from footage; stills; and sketches. Mate, it's like posting to a brick wall.
-
10 seconds to 29 seconds: Watch the black car that has pulled up to the left of the scene. Passenger door opens. Watch the plain clothes gentleman with the bald head get out and walk towards the arrest site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKDkxrWgiGk
-
his friends and relatives don't recognise him from footage; stills; and sketches.
Source?
PS: As far as I know, he didnt have any friends.
-
Source?
You are starting to behave like Adam.
-
10 seconds to 29 seconds: Watch the black car that has pulled up to the left of the scene. Passenger door opens. Watch the plain clothes gentleman with the bald head get out and walk towards the arrest site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKDkxrWgiGk
Oh my god! A bald guy had to stop his car because police cars blocked the road in-front of him. He then got out to get a closer look at was going on.
-
ive met left-wing extremists and right-wing extremists or people who could be labelled as such none of them were shy about telling me there opinions.
mair is probably the only nazi in history who has never expressed any right-wing views publicly.
-
You are starting to behave like Adam.
In other words you don't have one.
-
In other words you don't have one.
There's videos of neighbours being interviewed.
-
In other words you don't have one.
well the the source for what i have said is in the clip you posted.
-
Oh my god! A bald guy had to stop his car because police cars blocked the road in-front of him. He then got out to get a closer look at was going on.
It's only a portion of the clip. If you are intent on being silly, I can't be arsed.
-
There's videos of neighbours being interviewed.
Where are these videos of friends and neighbours saying what you state.
-
Where are these videos of friends and neighbours saying what you state.
I didn't say there were videos of friends. I said there was videos of neighbours. They're on the internet. The assertion he had no friends is derived from what exactly?
-
Where are these videos of friends and neighbours saying what you state.
one of his neoubours said it very clearly in the clip you posted you have allready provided a source yourself.
-
well the the source for what i have said is in the clip you posted.
That is his neighbour saying they never knew of his political views. Which makes sense since he kept himself to himself. Roch is saying these people could not recognise him from the video footage. That's the source I am asking for.
Furthermore people with white supremacist views in this country seldom broadcast their views openly. As a white person myself talking from my own experience, these people tend to only be honest about their political views once they build rapport with you and think you may see eye to eye with them.
-
That is his neighbour saying they never knew of his political views. Which makes sense since he kept himself to himself. Roch is saying these people could not recognise him from the video footage. That's the source I am asking for.
Furthermore people with white supremacist views in this country seldom broadcast their views openly. As a white person myself talking from my own experience, these people tend to only be honest about their political views once they build rapport with you and think you may see eye to eye with them.
White supremacists are unlikely to volunteer to work with foreign speaking Asians / Muslims. Unless I'm missing something here?
There are no videos of his friend's. But there is a video of a relative who references two other relatives. It's the media who interviewed his neighbours.
I believe Hall's claim that he spoke with Tommy's friends and people who knew both him and his mam, because Hall spent months researching the case and attempting to interview people. That's what Hall does. He studies, he visits places, he interviews. I suspect there will be plenty people unwilling to go on camera: not everyone is confident or comfortable with that type of exposure. Nobody can be forced to cooperate on camera. It's voluntary. He's not like Roger Cook, trying to doorstep and blindside people with TV cameras in their face.
-
stabing her and shooting wanted to make bloody sure she was dead dident he.
-
stabing her and shooting wanted to make bloody sure she was dead dident he.
It's difficult to properly make out the crime scene from images online. There should be significant blood deposits where she was attacked. There is debris in the road and it may be covering blood. But I thought she was attacked in between two parked cars and couldn't see any blood in that vicinity.
-
It's difficult to properly make out the crime scene from images online. There should be significant blood deposits where she was attacked. There is debris in the road and it may be covering blood. But I thought she was attacked in between two parked cars and couldn't see any blood in that vicinity.
do you know how many bullets were fired from the gun i cant see why you would go to the trouble of buying a gun if your that handy with a knife.
and i also cant see why if you had a gun and knew how to use it you would bring a knife as well.
-
do you know how many bullets were fired from the gun i cant see why you would go to the trouble of buying a gun if your that handy with a knife.
and i also cant see why if you had a gun and knew how to use it you would bring a knife as well.
It's like somebody was trying to put on a show? Whoever did it was assertive and cool headed. Unflappable.
-
It's like somebody was trying to put on a show? Whoever did it was assertive and cool headed. Unflappable.
or could it be possble there were 2 of them one with a kinife one with a gun.
-
or could it be possble there were 2 of them one with a kinife one with a gun.
Sandra Major's testimony is different to most other witnesses. That is, her description of the assailant.
-
or could it be possble there were 2 of them one with a kinife one with a gun.
Aliens could be involved also!
-
Aliens could be involved also!
i really dont know david maybe until the acomplice is found i cant rule out anything for certan.
if you look in the daily telgraph it says that the police were hunting for an acomplice so it is an undistutable fact that more than one person was involved do you know what that is called in law its called a conspriacy.
-
i really dont know david maybe until the acomplice is found i cant rule out anything for certan.
if you look in the daily telgraph it says that the police were hunting for an acomplice so it is an undistutable fact that more than one person was involved do you know what that is called in law its called a conspriacy.
They were looking for whoever provided him with the weapon. Not someone who was at the murder scene with him. Its only a conspiracy if the gun provider knew what Mairs intention was.
Here it what was written in that article
"The far-Right 'terrorist' who assassinated Labour MP Jo Cox may have had a sympathetic accomplice who provided him with the murder weapon, it has emerged.
A major manhunt was underway on Wednesday night for the person who handed the 53-year-old loner the modified bolt-action rifle, which was stolen almost a year before the murder."
-
i really dont know david maybe until the acomplice is found i cant rule out anything for certan.
if you look in the daily telgraph it says that the police were hunting for an acomplice so it is an undistutable fact that more than one person was involved do you know what that is called in law its called a conspriacy.
Is that not a pretend hunt for whoever is supposed to have supplied 'Mair' with the firearm?
There are two smoking guns. The bag handle attachment on the holdall and the CCTV footage analysis of the different body movements of the two individuals...
If this had have been a real trial, whereby, say, the police had put the wrong man on trial and that man has a genuine defence, the defence could have driven a coach and horses though the prosecution case. It would have been left in tatters. Those running the operation have possibly done best they could do, with whatever resources they had and time constraints they may have faced. And they have pulled it off, with a decent backstory.
As soon as somebody in authority or in the press uses the phrase 'there was overwhelming evidence'.. with one stroke, millions of people will from that point be utterly convinced of guilt.
-
Is that not a pretend hunt for whoever is supposed to have supplied 'Mair' with the firearm?
There are two smoking guns. The bag handle attachment on the holdall and the CCTV footage analysis of the different body movements of the two individuals...
How is that a smoking gun? He was in possession of two holdalls. Any perceived change of body movements can be explained by the fact that after he killed someone and got into an altercation with that older man he was injured and full of adrenalin/anxiety.
-
Is that not a pretend hunt for whoever is supposed to have supplied 'Mair' with the firearm?
There are two smoking guns. The bag handle attachment on the holdall and the CCTV footage analysis of the different body movements of the two individuals...
If this had have been a real trial, whereby, say, the police had put the wrong man on trial and that man has a genuine defence, the defence could have driven a coach and horses though the prosecution case. It would have been left in tatters. Those running the operation have possibly done best they could do, with whatever resources they had and time constraints they may have faced. And they have pulled it off, with a decent backstory.
As soon as somebody in authority or in the press uses the phrase 'there was overwhelming evidence'.. with one stroke, millions of people will from that point be utterly convinced of guilt.
how could an unployed gardner aford to buy an ilgal gun he couldent that gun must of been given to him he dident buy it.
-
how could an unployed gardner aford to buy an ilgal gun he couldent that gun must of been given to him he dident buy it.
I doubt it was ever in his possession (unless by some kind of temporary pre-arrangement with a handler, ie to obtain forensics etc). The firearm was in the possession of the man with the white cap.
-
How is that a smoking gun? He was in possession of two holdalls. Any perceived change of body movements can be explained by the fact that after he killed someone and got into an altercation with that older man he was injured and full of adrenalin/anxiety.
I don't understand your point about the two bags David. With regards to differences in body movement, I don't think that would be plausible. In the first instance, the man with the white cap is on CCTV both before and after the incident. His limp may be somewhat accentuated after the incident, perhaps as you say, due to the exertion, which has worsened his underlying injury. However, his limp is detectable in the pre incident footage.
-
I don't understand your point about the two bags David. With regards to differences in body movement, I don't think that would be plausible. In the first instance, the man with the white cap is on CCTV both before and after the incident. His limp may be somewhat accentuated after the incident, perhaps as you say, due to the exertion, which has worsened his underlying injury. However, his limp is detectable in the pre incident footage.
CCTV the day before shows him carrying two hold all bags. We also know he had a white/ivory cap that can be seen on both CCTV and the widely published photo of him wearing camo.
-
CCTV the day before shows him carrying two hold all bags. We also know he had a white/ivory cap that can be seen on both CCTV and the widely published photo of him wearing camo.
Yes there's no denying he had a white or ivory cap. The fact he didn't have it on, on the day of the incident, probably caused nightmares for the team running the operation. Still not getting you re the bags mate.
-
Yes there's no denying he had a white or ivory cap. The fact he didn't have it on, on the day of the incident, probably caused nightmares for the team running the operation. Still not getting you re the bags mate.
Ah yes. The team running this major operation couldn't provide their agent with multiple hats. ::)
-
I have found and uploaded an hour long documentary on this case.
Here is the download link. Its not a large file :)
https://ufile.io/v7kci5iz (https://ufile.io/v7kci5iz)
-
Ah yes. The team running this major operation couldn't provide their agent with multiple hats. ::)
Well if Tommy nearly always wore a white/ivory cap, it might have been assumed that he would on the day. I wonder whether he disobeyed instructions because he became anxious.
-
Well if Tommy nearly always wore s white/ivory cap, it might have been assumed that he would on the day. I wonder whether he disobeyed instructions because he became anxious.
Mair was wearing a black cap the day before the crime. ::)
-
Mair was wearing a black cap the day before the crime. ::)
Then I would go with the latter as opposed to the former. But I agree with you to some extent. It's a fair point.
-
Then I would go with the latter as opposed to the former. But I agree with you to some extent. It's a fair point.
So you know Mair had both a black cap and ivory/white cap in his possession.
Do you agree that he could easily have swapped them round? ::)
-
So you know Mair had both a black cap and ivory/white cap in his possession.
Do you agree that he could easily have swapped them round? ::)
In theory yes. But it's irrelevant to me. As the person wearing the light cap is not the same person as Mair. Do you agree that the man in the light cap, is not wearing black gardening shoes - the kind that have a reinforced toe cap?
-
the witness said he thew the hat and coat if thats true how could the hates be found in his possion they couldet be the same unless the witness got it wrong.
and having the same color as the killer is hardly damming evdence.
the gat i belive was found a week later in sombodys garden so if that is case how can it also of been in mairs possion.
my source for this is the daily mail.
-
did youmairs brother is mixed race.
your right roch is family say he never expressed any rightwing veiws.
source for this is rt news.
-
did youmairs brother is mixed race.
your right roch is family say he never expressed any rightwing veiws.
Yeah. I wonder how he got ensnared / inveigled in to it all. Hall's initial investigation seems to have Mair as an unaware victim. But his follow up investigations reveal that Tommy handed in carrier bags of old family photos to his mam's home just prior to the incident, as if he knew he would be going away somewhere very long term. I can't imagine him volunteering for a long prison sentence, unless it was the lesser of two evils. Did he think he was going away to somewhere for ever, that wasn't prison? Or did he know he was going to have to take a fall? Did he get cold feet on the day? Did he realise he could be at risk of being bumped off?
-
Do you agree that the man in the light cap, is not wearing black gardening shoes - the kind that have a reinforced toe cap?
No I don't. He is wearing black shoes in all CCTV films. The footage is 352 x 288 pixel quality and you cannot possibly ascertain what shoes he is wearing from that.
-
did youmairs brother is mixed race.
your right roch is family say he never expressed any rightwing veiws.
source for this is rt news.
Mair's parents split when he was 8 years old. His mother then started dating a black man. This probably played a key role in his race hate.
-
Mair's parents split when he was 8 years old. His mother then started dating a black man. This probably played a key role in his race hate.
this race hate he never once expressed publically to any og his friends or family or neubours.
that motivated him to shout out the name of a rightwing group that he was never a member of he was so brianwashed by these rightwing groups that he never joined one of them.
-
this race hate he never once expressed publically to any og his friends or family or neubours.
that motivated him to shout out of a rightwing group that he was never a member of he was so brianwashed by these rightwing groups that he never joined one of them.
I have already posted the evidence of him ordering race hate material and photos in his home full of race hate books and Nazi ornaments. It's not really open for dispute. Unless you want to go full conspiratard and claim the police planted a whole bookcase of Nazi books and a Nazi Eagle in his house.
-
I have already posted the evidence of him ordering race hate material and photos in his home full of race hate books and Nazi ornaments. It's not really open for dispute. Unless you want to go full conspiratard and claim the police planted a whole bookcase of Nazi books and a Nazi Eagle in his house.
And it's already been explained to you that those running the operation, via the guise of police, would have had access to his house, between arrest and trial. And it's already been explained to you that it's easy for receipts to be knocked up. Even if any purchases were genuine (a big if), the receipts were from 17 years before the incident.
-
Mair's parents split when he was 8 years old. His mother then started dating a black man. This probably played a key role in his race hate.
Mair got on well with his mixed race brother, who was as shocked as everyone else regarding the allegations. It was a white female MP who was attacked. Mair volunteered two to three days per week, teaching ESOL to foreign speaking Muslim / Asian community, as has been tediously explained to you about 18 times now. West Yorkshire has a high percentage of Asian / Muslim immigrants. If Mair was a 'Britain First' racist, he would hardly be trying to help them settle in would he?
-
No I don't. He is wearing black shoes in all CCTV films. The footage is 352 x 288 pixel quality and you cannot possibly ascertain what shoes he is wearing from that.
There's various footage from different CCTV cameras. So you are now claiming that the man in the blue suit jacket and white cap, was wearing black gardening shoes with a reinforced toe cap? ;D
-
There's various footage from different CCTV cameras. So you are now claiming that the man in the blue suit jacket and white cap, was wearing black gardening shoes with a reinforced toe cap? ;D
All the CCTV is around 352 x 288 pixels. I cant tell you what shoes he was wearing other than they were dark/black.
-
And it's already been explained to you that those running the operation, via the guise of police, would have had access to his house, between arrest and trial. And it's already been explained to you that it's easy for receipts to be knocked up. Even if any purchases were genuine (a big if), the receipts were from 17 years before the incident.
And Aliens had access to his house 24/7!
The receipts show Mair ordered National Vanguard magazines. They were all found in his house. These Magazines are from the 80s and 90s and no longer in print. The publisher is long gone. Did the police who framed him wait all this time? :))
(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fc847783a-b185-11e6-9c37-5787335499a0?fit=scale-down&source=next&width=700)
-
All the CCTV is around 352 x 288 pixels. I cant tell you what shoes he was wearing other than they were dark/black.
Dark is your way of saying brown. You're perfectly happy to use 352 x 288 pixels to unquestionably identify Mair, even though no witness from the incident identified Mair and court observers advised that no witness was asked to confirm the identity of the man on trial.
-
And Aliens had access to his house 24/7!
The receipts show Mair ordered National Vanguard magazines. They were all found in his house. These Magazines are from the 80s and 90s and no longer in print. The publisher is long gone. Did the police who framed him wait all this time? :))
(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fc847783a-b185-11e6-9c37-5787335499a0?fit=scale-down&source=next&width=700)
How do you know they weren't planted as a back story? It's not like there was no time between arrest and trial to do so. Were there any independent observers when operatives / police went in to the house? How do you know they were not sourced from a collector, for the very purpose? And in any event, even if Mair had held an interest in such matters, how old was he in the 80's and 90's? Jo Cox was white and her incident occurred in 2016.
-
Dark is your way of saying brown. You're perfectly happy to use 352 x 288 pixels to unquestionably identify Mair, even though no witness from the incident identified Mair and court observers advised that no witness was asked to confirm the identity of the man on trial.
There were a dozen or so witnesses that identified Mair. Justice has already debunked this BS.
They are black/dark shoes.
-
There were a dozen or so witnesses that identified Mair. Justice has already debunked this BS.
They are black/dark shoes.
No he hasn't. He has posted up newspaper excerpts which insert Mair's name as poetic licence. That's one still. Not the entire CCTV. The man in that picture doesn't even share Mair's posture, nevermind walk.
-
How do you know they weren't planted as a back story?
How do you know they weren't put there by aliens?
-
No he hasn't. He has posted up newspaper excerpts which insert Mair's name as poetic licence. That's one still. Not the entire CCTV. The man in that picture doesn't even share Mair's posture, nevermind walk.
Then obtain the trial transcripts and see for yourself. This claim that the walk and posture is different is just embarrassing.
-
Then obtain the trial transcripts and see for yourself. This claim that the walk and posture is different is just embarrassing.
This is a strange remark to post up on a forum. How would two visibly different sets of body-movements be embarrassing?
-
How do you know they weren't put there by aliens?
David1819: 'I don't believe that UK security services have the capability to carry out an operation on home soil'. Just say it David. Be open.
-
David1819: 'I don't believe that UK security services have the capability to carry out an operation on home soil'. Just say it David. Be open.
Roch: "I'm a conspiratard and I have no critical thinking skills whatsoever"
Just say it Roch. Be open.
-
Then obtain the trial transcripts and see for yourself.
RJ hasn't got the trial transcripts and neither have you. Nobody from the scene of the incident identified Mair. One witness claims to have identified him at a bus stop nearby. The papers by in large, print the official line. Officially the man in the dock was Thomas Mair (debatable in reality). Therefore, when paraphrasing the witness testimony, the papers use the name of Mair. It's not brain surgery David. Nobody from within the mainstream media has investigated the incident. They simply print what they are told. That is not investigative journalism David.
I'm too busy for this.
-
RJ hasn't got the trial transcripts and neither have you.
And neither have you.
-
Roch: "I'm a conspiratard and I have no critical thinking skills whatsoever"
Just say it Roch. Be open.
Simply isn't the case, as there are some cases where I wouldn't question the official version. Unlike you, I am not tied to any fixed dogma on the veracity of cases, preferring instead to keep an open mind.
Answer the question, do you believe UK security services have the capability to carry out operations on home soil? Or do you only believe that the security services of foreign powers do this type of thing?
-
And neither have you.
I didn't research the case. Nor examine the CCTV. Nor speak to neighbours / associates / family. Nor visit the area.
-
Answer the question, do you believe UK security services have the capability to carry out operations on home soil?
Of course I do. That what MI5 is for. MI5 covers domestic intelligence and MI6 covers foreign intelligence
Or do you only believe that the security services of foreign powers do this type of thing?
I am not aware of any foreign government framing someone on the magnitude you believe Mair has been framed. The closest I can think of is the Dreyfus affair.
-
Of course I do. That what MI5 is for. MI5 covers domestic intelligence and MI6 covers foreign intelligence
I am not aware of any foreign government framing someone on the magnitude you believe Mair has been framed. The closest I can think of is the Dreyfus affair.
Ok this is the last post today. Until tonight maybe. How would an operation of this type look?
Would it be advertised as such, out in the open, for all to see and report on?
Or
Would it be made to look like an accident; a suicide; a crime; a hate crime?
Hate crime is a godsend for security services. It opens up lots of possibilities.
Why would you be aware of all the operations carried out the world over?
-
Ok this is the last post today. Until tonight maybe. How would an operation of this type look?
I have already explained this.
If this was a government operation it would involve Mair being a government agent living under the facade of a far right extremist, who was then tasked and paid to carry out the killing. They then had a show trial and have now released him with a new identity and is now in another government agent position. Not only does this match all the evidence we know of, its also a much easier way for the government to carry out this operation.
BTW I have just noticed one of the court sketches you believe is a "stand in" also has a small mole on his right cheek in the exact place "the real" Thomas has a small mole also! For an operation that supposedly got the wrong hat and shoes also meticulously created a mole for their Mair "stand in" ;D ;D
-
I have already explained this.
BTW I have just noticed one of the court sketches you believe is a "stand in" also has a small mole on his right cheek in the exact place "the real" Thomas has a small mole also! For an operation that supposedly got the wrong hat and shoes also meticulously created a mole for their Mair "stand in" ;D ;D
Are you referring to this? Who on earth is he? He looks like some radgie.
-
Are you referring to this? Who on earth is he? He looks like some radgie.
No, this one.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10307.0;attach=57738)
-
No, this one.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10307.0;attach=57738)
Look at his sneck mate. You can't be serious.
-
Look at his sneck mate. You can't be serious.
His neck is between his head and torso as one would expect. ::)
-
I guess Taylor Swift had a "stand in" also. ::)
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-08/8/17/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-02/sub-buzz-21187-1502227127-20.png)
-
His neck is between his head and torso as one would expect. ::)
Sneck in this particular sketch = beak = proboscis. It's northern English slang for nose.
-
I guess Taylor Swift had a "stand in" also. ::)
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-08/8/17/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-02/sub-buzz-21187-1502227127-20.png)
Not really comparable. Tommy Mair is unlikely to deploy different hairstyles.
-
Not really comparable. Tommy Mair is unlikely to deploy different hairstyles.
Wayne Rooney? His "stand in" seems to have a larger chin and shorter nose. ;D
(http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/rooney-courtroom-sketch.png)
-
Wayne Rooney? His "stand in" seems to have a larger chin and shorter nose. ;D
(http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/rooney-courtroom-sketch.png)
Agree that is terrible 🤣.
-
What about this one?
-
Agree that is terrible 🤣.
I guess Rooney had access to the government Trial Stand In Service. ::)
Anyway. I have nothing more to add here. I will leave you to indulge in your conspiratardism.
-
I guess Rooney had access to the government Trail Stand In Service. ::)
Anyway. I have nothing more to add here. I will leave you to indulge in your conspiratardism.
You've never had anything to add to the thread since you started posting on it. How long did it take for you to find Rooney's sketch? You must have searched day and night to find an example like that. You're welcome to swan off to your world of naivity ;)
-
Roch,
Where is Thomas Mair right now?
-
Roch,
Where is Thomas Mair right now?
Hi QC. I have been meaning to ask you, what exactly did you write to Thomas Mair?
-
Roch,
Where is Thomas Mair right now?
Supposed to be in Frankland mate.
-
Supposed to be in Frankland mate.
But where do you think he is? If what Richard Hall says is in the proximity of the truth, then Thomas Mair can't be in HMP Frankland, or any prison, because he must have been in on it. It also can't be a double serving the sentence for him. Why would anybody do that? Why would Mair himself agreeably serve such a sentence if he is innocent? It's perfectly obvious he wouldn't.
If we follow your theory to its logical conclusion, then either Thomas Mair is now living under a different identity or he is dead. Which do you say it is?
-
Hi QC. I have been meaning to ask you, what exactly did you write to Thomas Mair?
I can't go into details, because I don't want to make my true identity obvious. All I will say is that it was a fairly anodyne letter because I have in the past come to the attention of the authorities myself, and I don't want a repeat of it.
He has not replied and I suspect the reason for this is that he wants to keep a low profile and not make waves by writing to random people about his crimes.
-
But where do you think he is? If what Richard Hall says is in the proximity of the truth, then Thomas Mair can't be in HMP Frankland, or any prison, because he must have been in on it. It also can't be a double serving the sentence for him. Why would anybody do that? Why would Mair himself agreeably serve such a sentence if he is innocent? It's perfectly obvious he wouldn't.
If we follow your theory to its logical conclusion, then either Thomas Mair is now living under a different identity or he is dead. Which do you say it is?
Thanks for raising the level of responses. Some proper questions in there and a good few variables to consider. Will respond accordingly when I have time 👍
-
I thought he was locked up in your neck of the woods, Roch---Durham ?
-
I thought he was locked up in your neck of the woods, Roch---Durham ?
That's right Lookout, less than 20 miles away. Though, God knows who would be wheeled out in front of me, if I tried to visit him 😏. If I had my laptop, I'd respond to QC's post. Bit of a chew on, on my phone.
Anyway Lookout, for the real Thomas Mair to be guilty, he would have to employ a completely different walk, for the entire time he was on CCTV dressed in suit jacket / light cap etc.; then swap his old Puma holdall for a new Puma holdall (after he had dropped the original at the arrest scene); and in between all this, lose a pair of shoes along the way, while he was being followed by an informant on the phone to police.
-
I have already posted the evidence of him ordering race hate material and photos in his home full of race hate books and Nazi ornaments. It's not really open for dispute. Unless you want to go full conspiratard and claim the police planted a whole bookcase of Nazi books and a Nazi Eagle in his house.
it certanly open for dispute ive got a bible in my house but im not a christion ive books by karl marx but im not a marxist owning a bookmeans abslutly nothing.
-
it certanly open for dispute ive got a bible in my house but im not a christion ive books by karl marx but im not a marxist owning a bookmeans abslutly nothing.
Quite right, nugs.
-
it certanly open for dispute ive got a bible in my house but im not a christion ive books by karl marx but im not a marxist owning a bookmeans abslutly nothing.
Exactly. And they had access to his house, so they had perfect opportunity to put on a ridiculous display.
-
he atended the pathways dy centeer and was a volunteer gardner.
-
he atended the pathways dy centeer and was a volunteer gardner.
Yes, his neighbour said he wanted to help people. Another neighbour said they didn't have a bad word to say about him. Another one expressed she didn't believe he had it in him (to do what he is supposed to have done).
-
so hardly the loner wierdo there trying to portray.
-
it certanly open for dispute ive got a bible in my house but im not a christion ive books by karl marx but im not a marxist owning a bookmeans abslutly nothing.
Yes having one or a few books means nothing. But that is not the situation with Mair. Mair had a whole bookcase and drawers full of books on Nazism over 200 books it seems, complete with Nazi decorations and other memorabilia.
-
You see, the security services who framed Mair, had this all planned out. First they identified someone who would not deny murder charges he did not commit and passively allow the state to lock him up for life without him objecting. Then they waited until Mair and Cox would both be in close proximity to each other at the local Library so they could send in their Mair lookalike to murder Jo Cox.
Then they had the Mair lookalike assassin walk into Market street to change clothes and disappear. All to coincide with the real Thomas Mair walking away from Market street and towards Leeds street. Then they took all the local CCTV footage so they could cut out Mairs journey prior to the killing. So only the fake Mair appears before he changed his clothes and only the real Mair appears shortly after the killing. Then they planted Mairs DNA on the bloody jacket found behind the pub where the fake Mair was seen changing his clothes.
But all this carefully engineered manufactured evidence wasn't enough. They needed some more circumstancial evidence to go with it. So they planted a big bookcase full of race hate books and Nazi ornaments in his house. Then they got the SPLC to manufacture a false paper trial to back it all up.
Now that we know what happened in this case, it's obvious that no conviction buy the state is safe, since any evidence they present must/could be faked. We might as well get rid of jury trials altogether - if the accused remains silent and never admits guilt, that alone is enough doubt!
-
Yes having one or a few books means nothing. But that is not the situation with Mair. Mair had a whole bookcase and drawers full of books on Nazism over 200 books it seems, complete with Nazi decorations and other memorabilia.
Then, as you have pointed out, what would be the point of showing that he had 'one or a few books'?
-
You see, the security services who framed Mair, had this all planned out. First they identified someone who would not deny murder charges he did not commit and passively allow the state to lock him up for life without him objecting. Then they waited until Mair and Cox would both be in close proximity to each other at the local Library so they could send in their Mair lookalike to murder Jo Cox.
Then they had the Mair lookalike assassin walk into Market street to change clothes and disappear. All to coincide with the real Thomas Mair walking away from Market street and towards Leeds street. Then they took all the local CCTV footage so they could cut out Mairs journey prior to the killing. So only the fake Mair appears before he changed his clothes and only the real Mair appears shortly after the killing. Then they planted Mairs DNA on the bloody jacket found behind the pub where the fake Mair was seen changing his clothes.
But all this carefully engineered manufactured evidence wasn't enough. They needed some more circumstancial evidence to go with it. So they planted a big bookcase full of race hate books and Nazi ornaments in his house. Then they got the SPLC to manufacture a false paper trial to back it all up.
Now that we know what happened in this case, it's obvious that no conviction buy the state is safe, since any evidence they present must/could be faked. We might as well get rid of jury trials altogether - if the accused remains silent and never admits guilt, that alone is enough doubt!
Maybe in the immediate aftermath of the operation, those running it should have stepped back and said, 'we would like independent investigators to gather and examine all available CCTV footage, from every possible source, and mobile phone footage'...'furthermore, we are happy for those independent investigators to report on their findings, without restriction and without interference'... And... 'we urge the media and press to fully cooperate in reporting the findings of the independent Investigators' and... 'we are happy to take our cue from these findings, in order that an accurate visual account of what happened can be included in evidence that we are considering'.
-
Yes having one or a few books means nothing. But that is not the situation with Mair. Mair had a whole bookcase and drawers full of books on Nazism over 200 books it seems, complete with Nazi decorations and other memorabilia.
whats sort of books about nazi germany having books it doesnt mean you support it can mean the complete reverse.
ive got books onthe history of nazi germany there not pro nazi boooks they are quite the reverse.
-
whats sort of books about nazi germany having books it doesnt mean you support it can mean the complete reverse.
ive got books onthe history of nazi germany there not pro nazi boooks they are quite the reverse.
There's images on the thread nugsy. They even topped the display off with a Nazi eagle. Just for good measure.
-
There's images on the thread nugsy. They even topped the display off with a Nazi eagle. Just for good measure.
im sure everybody here has plenty of books about muderers god know what could be made out of that if the police ever diced to search your book shelves.
-
im sure everybody here has plenty of books about muderers god know what could be made out of that if the police ever diced to search your book shelves.
At one point, I had a book on Nazism and one on Witchcraft. Gawd knows what they would make of me.
-
Roch,
You still haven't answered my question: Where is Thomas Mair now?
In fact, this is the second time I have put the question to you, as I also asked it much earlier in the thread, and you ignored it that time.
Let me see if I can assist. Do you accept that if what Richard Hall says is more or less true, then it must follow that Thomas Mair was involved in the killings?
Do you also accept that if must follow that there are two possibilities. Either:
(i). Mair was willingly framed; or,
(ii). Mair carried out the killings, as alleged (with or without assistance, perhaps of his own volition and on his own initiative, or maybe having been systematically programmed/brainwashed).
Do you also accept that it follows from this that Thomas Mair was tried, sentenced and imprisoned and is now in custody at HMP Frankland?
No other explanations seem credible. If we suppose the authorities have killed him, how could a blatant lie that he is still alive be sustained when numerous prison officers and prison staff and legal people and so on could expose it? If the authorities have not killed him, then who is imprisoned at HMP Frankland?
Why would anybody willingly take the place of Mair and serve such a sentence? Why wouldn't that person protest? If you accept that it is Mair in custody, then wouldn't Mair himself be protesting his innocence, if in fact he is innocent?
Do you also accept that of the two possibilities above, (ii) is much more likely - indeed, very likely to be the truth - because it is rather difficult to conceive of a situation where somebody would willingly go to prison for life for something that he has not done? If he was being threatened in some way, he would surely go to the police. You will say that the police are the ones who set him up, but Mair would go to ordinary police officers who would have no knowledge or involvement in such a conspiracy. Perhaps the conspirators planted child pornography on his computer, or something similar happened, and then blackmailed him, but I still have a deal of trouble accepting that somebody would go along with such a conspiracy, even in that situation. Possession of child pornography does not normally result in a life sentence, and the conspirators would be taking a risk themselves remember, as any independent technical interrogation of Mair's computer devices could well surely reveal when and under what circumstances the material had been downloaded to his hard drive.
There's nothing clever about any of this. I ask only that you use simple logic and think realistically. Of course, logic and realism don't provide all the answers. Some conspiracy theories are true, and maybe this one is, but you and Richard Hall don't seem to have fully-explained Mair's involvement, so we are entitled to be sceptical. The onus is on you, I think, if the thread is to continue along the same lines, otherwise we are going round in circles.
-
Roch,
You still haven't answered my question: Where is Thomas Mair now?
In fact, this is the second time I have put the question to you, as I also asked it much earlier in the thread, and you ignored it that time.
Let me see if I can assist. Do you accept that if what Richard Hall says is more or less true, then it must follow that Thomas Mair was involved in the killings?
Do you also accept that if must follow that there are two possibilities. Either:
(i). Mair was willingly framed; or,
(ii). Mair carried out the killings, as alleged (with or without assistance, perhaps of his own volition and on his own initiative, or maybe having been systematically programmed/brainwashed).
No other explanations seem credible. If we suppose the authorities have killed him, how could a blatant lie that he is still alive be sustained when numerous prison officers and prison staff and legal people and so on could expose it? If the authorities have not killed him, then why wouldn't Mair himself be protesting his innocence?
Do you also accept that of the two possibilities above, (ii) is much more likely - indeed, very likely to be the truth - because it is rather difficult to conceive of a situation where somebody would willingly go to prison for life for something that he has not done? If he was being threatened in some way, he would surely go to the police. You will say that the police are the ones who set him up, but Mair would go to ordinary police officers who would have no knowledge or involvement in such a conspiracy. Perhaps the conspirators planted child porn on his computer, or something similar happened, and then blackmailed him, but I still have a deal of trouble accepting that somebody would go along with such a conspiracy, even in that situation. Possession of child porn does not normally result in a life sentence, and the conspirators would be taking a risk themselves remember, as any independent technical interrogation of Mair's computer devices could well surely reveal when and under what circumstances the material had been downloaded to his hard drive.
There's nothing clever about any of this. I ask only that you use simple logic and think realistically. Of course, logic and realism don't provide all the answers. Some conspiracy theories are true, and maybe this one is, but you and Richard Hall don't seem to have fully-explained Mair's involvement, so we are entitled to be sceptical. The onus is on you, I think, if the thread is to continue along the same lines, otherwise we are going round in circles.
Apologies, I am just never on my laptop at the moment. And your questions require a detailed response which is awkward via a mobile phone. I will get back to you.. rest assured.
-
Apologies, I am just never on my laptop at the moment. And your questions require a detailed response which is awkward via a mobile phone. I will get back to you.. rest assured.
I have edited it further, but my comments are just elaborations. The question is very simple: Where is Thomas Mair?
-
when arested mair is supposed to have said i am a political actervist but he didint say what he was an activist for rather strange.
when confronted by a policeman its not the first i would think of saying i mean its hardly a defence is it not even mitigation
and all his history shows he was never active in any political campaghn so it seems a rather strange thing for him to have said.
-
when arested mair is supposed to have said i am a political actervist but he didint he was an activist for rather strange.
when confronted by a policeman its not the first i would think of saying i mean its hardly a defence is it not even mitigation
and all his history shows he was never active any political campaghn so it seems a rather strange thing for him to have said.
It's all a load of shite. The bag dropped by Mair is not the bag paraded as such.
-
I have edited it further, but my comments are just elaborations. The question is very simple: Where is Thomas Mair?
I have read your posts and can answer relatively easily. I understand the points you make. It's just I want to take time to answer fully and my current circs are making that difficult.
-
the other is neo nazi are not freely avaible you wont find them in a bookshop or at the libray you can only order them online and mair dident have an internet conection so how would he have got hold of such books.
-
the other is neo nazi are not freely avaible you wont find them in a bookshop or at the libray you can only order them online and mair dident have an internet conection so how would he have got hold of such books.
He ordered them via postal order in the late 90s
(https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mair_order-4.png)
(https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mair-order-6.jpg)
-
Richard Hall has waited for a split second where Mairs front shoe appears brighter, to claim that they are different shoes. When its simply just the reflection of the sky on the shoe as its no longer in Mairs shadow.
::)
-
the other is neo nazi are not freely avaible you wont find them in a bookshop or at the libray you can only order them online and mair dident have an internet conection so how would he have got hold of such books.
By post. People in that milieu still sometimes use snail mail for ordering books and what not.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Mair was involved in dissident Right activity. Not much, but enough to indicate where his sympathies lay.
The interest to the police and ultimately the trial in Mair's book collection I suppose rested on, as you say, the fact that he had quite specialist books that you wouldn't normally expect to pick up at the local Waterstones. He seems to have been especially interested in Third Reich militaria. It's one thing to own a copy of Mein Kampf, which is quite common; it's quite another to own a copy of 'Leaders of the SS & German Police'. It's not incriminating, though.
I say mainstream bookshops don't have those books, but it used to be when I was young that public libraries and independent bookshops did stock niche Third Reich material, which in retrospect suggests there is or was a demand for it among the ordinary public. I recall the school library was generously stocked with Third Reich military books and this was how I got to know about Bruce Quarrie, a Hitlerphilic military author (though I assume not actually a Nazi sympathiser himself).
I was about 11 or 12 and thought Quarrie's books were terrific and used to pour over them in the school library. I loved the Waffen-SS uniforms - the black and grey, that had a certain élan and panache - and I liked reading about the tanks.
My favourite Quarrie book was 'Hitler's Teutonic Knights', which I recommend. I was always more aesthetically inclined to the Nazi side - they were cool and exciting.
Books are powerful things. Condemning Mair for possessing fairly ordinary but specialist books brings to mind a passage from Ray Bradbury:
"A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon.'”
-
so he bought these books in the 90s and for 20 years they inspired him to do abslutly nothing but suddenly 20 years after buying the them he decides to kill his local mp.
-
Richard Hall has waited for a split second where Mairs front shoe appears brighter, to claim that they are different shoes. When its simply just the reflection of the sky on the shoe as its no longer in Mairs shadow.
::)
David1819 has waited for a split second where white cap's shoes appear slightly darker, to claim they are the same shoes. There's plenty footage of white cap David.
-
He ordered them via postal order in the late 90s
(https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mair_order-4.png)
(https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mair-order-6.jpg)
So he spent seventeen years designing and building a weapon..that is supposed to have been supplied to him?
-
so he bought these books in the 90s and for 20 years they inspired him to do abslutly nothing but suddenly 20 years after buying the them he decides to kill his local mp.
It's laughable. BTW, if I haven't mentioned 14 times already, the bag dropped by Mair, isn't the same bag that was used in evidence against him.
-
So he spent seventeen years designing and building a weapon..that is supposed to have been supplied to him?
Nobody is saying that.
-
It's laughable. BTW, if I haven't mentioned 14 times already, the bag dropped by Mair, isn't the same bag that was used in evidence against him.
Mair had multiple bags, just like he had multiple caps. ::)
-
It's laughable. BTW, if I haven't mentioned 14 times already, the bag dropped by Mair, isn't the same bag that was used in evidence against him.
well its posble that he had only just got around to actully reading them. but i would say it was unlikely.
-
so he bought these books in the 90s and for 20 years they inspired him to do abslutly nothing but suddenly 20 years after buying the them he decides to kill his local mp.
No. He didn't just have those books. He had lots of books and pamphlets and also magazines, on a Nationalist or National Socialist theme. The police are not saying the books inspired him to specifically carry out the killing, but they influenced his views, which then eventually led to the killing. I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking, but that is what I assume the Crown saw as the relevancy of the books. It's not probative evidence, as such, but it is broadly relevant, and he was involved in political activity, albeit in a very minor way.
-
Mair had multiple bags, just like he had multiple caps. ::)
How is that relevant?
-
By post. People in that milieu still sometimes use snail mail for ordering books and what not.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Mair was involved in dissident Right activity. Not much, but enough to indicate where his sympathies lay.
The interest to the police and ultimately the trial in Mair's book collection I suppose rested on, as you say, the fact that he had quite specialist books that you wouldn't normally expect to pick up at the local Waterstones. He seems to have been especially interested in Third Reich militaria. It's one thing to own a copy of Mein Kampf, which is quite common; it's quite another to own a copy of 'Leaders of the SS & German Police'. It's not incriminating, though.
I say mainstream bookshops don't have those books, but it used to be when I was young that public libraries and independent bookshops did stock niche Third Reich material, which in retrospect suggests there is or was a demand for it among the ordinary public. I recall the school library was generously stocked with Third Reich military books and this was how I got to know about Bruce Quarrie, a Hitlerphilic military author (though I assume not actually a Nazi sympathiser himself).
I was about 11 or 12 and thought Quarrie's books were terrific and used to pour over them in the school library. I loved the Waffen-SS uniforms - the black and grey, that had a certain élan and panache - and I liked reading about the tanks.
My favourite Quarrie book was 'Hitler's Teutonic Knights', which I recommend. I was always more aesthetically inclined to the Nazi side - they were cool and exciting.
Books are powerful things. Condemning Mair for possessing fairly ordinary but specialist books brings to mind a passage from Ray Bradbury:
"A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon.'”
there is still the matter. of how he knew were to order them from those sort of publishers dont advertise were did he find he find adress and catalog,
the only way you can do it is via the internet or if somobody intruduces you.
-
No. He didn't just have those books. He had lots of books and pamphlets and also magazines, on a Nationalist or National Socialist theme. The police are not saying the books inspired him to specifically carry out the killing, but they influenced his views, which then eventually led to the killing. I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking, but that is what I assume the Crown saw as the relevancy of the books. It's not probative evidence, as such, but it is broadly relevant, and he was involved in political activity, albeit in a very minor way.
We don't know whether any or all pamphlets and books were added to his home after the arrest. It may be that there is a mix of both or it may be a partial construct / embellishment, with constructed / copied receipts. Security services have in the past constructed entire back-stories for operatives / corpses etc. This has included falsified, faked letters, receipts, tokens etc. To add 'authenticity' for any would-be discoverer.
-
How is that relevant?
If you are seeing different bags, its because Mair has more than one bag. ::)
You have already admitted that Mair had both a black and ivory cap in his possession and can change what cap he is wearing. Same applies to any bag. ::)
-
If you are seeing different bags, its because Mair has more than one bag. ::)
You have already admitted that Mair had both a black and ivory cap in his possession and can change what cap he is wearing. Same applies to any bag. ::)
You need to fully comprehend what you're saying.
-
there is also the matter of how he has managed to buy a gun on the darknet without having an internet conection.
and you cant get to darknet on the libarys computer theyhave blockers on him also everything you do goes on to there central computer with give them a red flag your doing somthing you shouldent be.
he couldent possbly have bought that gun from the darknet sombody must of given it to him.
-
there is also the matter of how he has managed to buy a gun on the darknet without having an internet conection.
and you cant get to darknet on the libarys computer theyhave blockers on him also everything you do goes on to there central computer with give them a red flag your doing somthing you shouldent be.
he couldent possbly have bought that gun from the darknet sombody must of given it to him.
Yeah, a volunteer receptionist, gardener and teaching assistant among foreign speaking Asians. He uses the local library internet and has established underworld connections. He can procure illegal customised firearms, for assassinations. He is also able to adopt different walks, so as to disguise himself.
What a joke.
-
there is still the matter. of how he knew were to order them from those sort of publishers dont advertise were did he find he find adress and catalog,
the only way you can do it is via the internet or if somobody intruduces you.
You clearly have no experience of such things.
What happens is that you go to a meeting, and at the back of the meeting room/hall is a trestle table with somebody selling books/magazines/paraphernalia.
Or you go to a protest/demo and somebody sells you a magazine or gives you a leaflet.
In these publications, there are adverts for independent publishers, writers and researchers and you can buy their books and/or there are PO Box addresses you can write to for catalogues.
Believe it or not, I once wrote a book that was sold at just such a meeting.
Or he may just have used the internet, as you say. Or some combination thereof.
-
We don't know whether any or all pamphlets and books were added to his home after the arrest. It may be that there is a mix of both or it may be a partial construct / embellishment, with constructed / copied receipts. Security services have in the past constructed entire back-stories for operatives / corpses etc. This has included falsified, faked letters, receipts, tokens etc. To add 'authenticity' for any would-be discoverer.
This is a literal statement of fact. You are correct: we do not know whether any or all pamphlets and books were added to his home after the arrest. And since we have no evidence that such happened, and since Mair himself does not make this claim, there the discussion ends.
-
Yeah, a volunteer receptionist, gardener and teaching assistant among foreign speaking Asians.
None of this tells us anything about his private views.
He uses the local library internet and has established underworld connections.
Nobody has claimed he had underworld connections.
He can procure illegal customised firearms, for assassinations.
Nobody has made this claim. Rather, it is claimed that he was already in possession of a modified firearm, that he then used to kill Jo Cox.
He is also able to adopt different walks, so as to disguise himself.
Your point is what? He took steps to disguise himself. That's what criminals do.
-
None of this tells us anything about his private views.
Nobody has claimed he had underworld connections.
Nobody has made this claim. Rather, it is claimed that he was already in possession of a modified firearm, that he then used to kill Jo Cox.
Your point is what? He took steps to disguise himself. That's what criminals do.
My point is that taken as a whole, it is a ridiculous scenario. Where is your evidence he was a 'criminal' prior to being convicted for this startling index offence? If he wasn't supplied with the gun, why was there a fake hunt for the person/s who supposed to have supplied him. The reason why the assailant has a different walk than Mair on CCTV, is because it's not Mair. Mair is not some Kayser Soze character. He's a valued neighbour and all round helpful individual whose friends, neighbours and family have stated never expressed any racist or strongly political views.
-
This is a literal statement of fact. You are correct: we do not know whether any or all pamphlets and books were added to his home after the arrest. And since we have no evidence that such happened, and since Mair himself does not make this claim, there the discussion ends.
Unless a neighbour came forward to say they had witnessed people carrying stuff in to the house, it would be hard to evidence a 'planting' scenario.
Mair isn't saying anything. I don't believe that he has spoke a word in public since his arrest. There are no independent witnesses to corroborate what he is supposed to have said at a hearing. I have doubts Mair was present at his own trial. Mair's 'silence' in my opinion, is suspicious.
-
I am not going to invest my time on this case at this time. I have been dipping in and out now and again. I can only say that taking what I know from both sides of the argument, I do feel something is not right but can't put my finger on it. Looking at it holistically questions can be raised.
Idea 1 I wonder at this time if the truth is that he did it but the police did not have the evidence they needed. Lots was ok but there were holes which they filled to bolster the case.
Idea 2 They also wanted to put him away for a long time and used additional material to paint him as a right wing terrorist rather than a nice man who had worked himself into a rage. This meant a custodial sentence of greater length.
Idea 3 Foreign forces used him as a kind of 'Manchurian candidate'. The UK spooks are going through the motions and will figure out how to extricate themselves from the current position. They have to behave as if they really think they have solved the case.
Anyway to stir the pot I offer this.
https://www.bing.com/th?id=OPE.BsAl2FJfWm4ZUA300C300&pid=21.1&w=160&h=160&qlt=100&dpr=1.13
-
My point is that taken as a whole, it is a ridiculous scenario. Where is your evidence he was a 'criminal' prior to being convicted for this startling index offence?
My evidence that he was a criminal prior to being convicted is that he killed Jo Cox. That's what he was convicted of, along with related offences from the same incident. People who embark on a plot to kill somebody else will take certain precautions in an effort to cover their tracks, often amateurish.
If he wasn't supplied with the gun, why was there a fake hunt for the person/s who supposed to have supplied him.
I didn't deny that he was supplied with the gun. I merely said that it has never been claimed by the authorities that he was supplied with the gun for the purpose of killing Jo Cox, or anybody. The official story is that he came upon that gun many years before. Nobody knows how or where from except Mr Mair himself.
The reason why the assailant has a different walk than Mair on CCTV, is because it's not Mair. Mair is not some Kayser Soze character. He's a valued neighbour and all round helpful individual whose friends, neighbours and family have stated never expressed any racist or strongly political views.
It's simple. Thomas Mair walks with a limp and changes his clothes because he is a local and knows he will be filmed on CCTV. He clearly didn't think it through well, maybe because he was psychotic or for some other reason.
Maybe he just believed he could get away with it by calmly walking away, then changing clothes and (presumably) wiping away any forensic traces, then calmly walking back home. Maybe that was the plan, but he is a local, so it is logical that he would either be directly recognised or indirectly identified through a description provided to the local police.
I think he was just crazy, and it was probably fuelled by some personal issue, such as the threat of losing his home. Mixed up in it was a minor and peripheral involvement in the dissident Right due to his own private beliefs, which added to his resentment of Jo Cox, who he probably perceived as a pretty useless constituency MP who could not (or would not) assist with his genuine problems. The Brexit campaign and the obnoxiousness and Jellyby-like silliness of the metropolitan-Left-Remainer elite perhaps made him angry and gave him a pretext. Hence: "Freedom for Britain, Death to Traitors!"
I am not minimising the political-philosophical motivation. Without it, I think he would have acted differently. His politics gave him a sense of alienation from mainstream life (notwithstanding his community involvement); yet I think it's fair to say that the factors involved in his actions must have been mixed and complex. His politics were the oxygen; his own personal issues mixed in with his troubled personality/dispensations were the petrol; and, the Brexit debate and the behaviour of this country's elite were the heat.
Notwithstanding all this, I have sympathy for him and for what he did. I think Jo Cox was a terrible person. It could be that in the future - probably the distant future - men like Thomas Mair come to be seen more sympathetically, maybe even as heroes. This often happens when politically-motivated acts of murder are looked back on decades later.
But whatever view one takes about it, the fact is this: he did it.
-
Unless a neighbour came forward to say they had witnessed people carrying stuff in to the house, it would be hard to evidence a 'planting' scenario.
It wouldn't. It could be proved, if it is true. For instance, he was found in possession of practically a library of National Vanguard magazines. I have those same magazines and similar and know who to speak to in order to verify whether Mair was a bona fide subscriber. It's just traditional detective work.
Mair isn't saying anything. I don't believe that he has spoke a word in public since his arrest. There are no independent witnesses to corroborate what he is supposed to have said at a hearing. I have doubts Mair was present at his own trial. Mair's 'silence' in my opinion, is suspicious.
It's not silence, as he has replied to people's letters, including to Richard Hall himself. Most lifers are becalmed prisoners and will keep their heads down and do their time. If you ever find yourself in prison, the safest thing to do is share a cell with a lifer. It's boring, but in nearly-all cases, you'll be very safe.
Mair is a bit different because he is subject to a whole life order, but he is not actually dangerous, and he may be hoping that the whole life order can be challenged or the legal situation changes to allow him the prospect of release. This, I believe, is a factor in why he is staying quiet. That, and the simple fact that he is a quiet person anyway. I know little about him, but it must be said that he doesn't strike me necessarily as one of life's great letter-writers.
That's my explanation. Now let's compare it with your explanation, which appears to be that:
(i). countless prison officers, prison staff, governors, various lawyers, and some judges, not to mention numerous ordinary police officers, and probably not a few journalists too, have conspired to frame not just an entirely innocent man, but a man they know is innocent; and,
(ii). Thomas Mair is keeping extra quiet about it all and conforming by doing his time, knowing he will be there for the remainder of his natural life, or at least for very many years.
If this is your position, then it doesn't stack up against things like facts, reality, logic, everyday experience and common-sense. You will be able to punch-holes in the official story, as can I, as can any fool; but in substitute you offer us not a realistic alternate account of events, but a fantastical novelette that would perhaps not be out-of-place if found among the lost corpus of Philip K. Dick.
Of course, you may turn out to be absolutely right, but you have yet to produce evidence and we're going round in circles and my time on this Merry-Go-Round is coming to a close. I may just jump off.
-
I am not going to invest my time on this case at this time. I have been dipping in and out now and again. I can only say that taking what I know from both sides of the argument, I do feel something is not right but can't put my finger on it. Looking at it holistically questions can be raised.
Idea 1 I wonder at this time if the truth is that he did it but the police did not have the evidence they needed. Lots was ok but there were holes which they filled to bolster the case.
Idea 2 They also wanted to put him away for a long time and used additional material to paint him as a right wing terrorist rather than a nice man who had worked himself into a rage. This meant a custodial sentence of greater length.
Idea 3 Foreign forces used him as a kind of 'Manchurian candidate'. The UK spooks are going through the motions and will figure out how to extricate themselves from the current position. They have to behave as if they really think they have solved the case.
I think Mair did it. Idea 2 is, I believe, quite plausible, but we have to stick to the facts and remember what he shouted when he did the deed and how he announced himself at Dewsbury Magistrates' Court. Thus, it is necessary to vary this theory by saying that Thomas Mair really did have dissident Rightist/Nationalist sympathies, but they were merely a pretext for his actions, not the true motivation. The police then exaggerated and exploited Mair's politics to further blacken him, rather than acknowledge the complexity of his motivations - including the threat to his home and the lack of support and help from his own MP, who presented herself as a compassionate person, but like the fictitious Mrs Jellyby, had little interest in the dull and unfashionable plodding duties of helping the people she was actually charged to help.
Idea 1 fails because the police clearly had ample evidence.
Idea 3 is in the realm of possibility but unlikely as there is nothing in Mair's antecedence that would suggest close foreign associations. He was a local gardener who wrote to PO Box addresses for naughty books about Nazis.
If Richard Hall is anywhere near the proximity of truth in all this, then I would think it is that Mair did this but under some sort of mind-control/manipulation - a notion that is not as 'out there' as it may first sound.
Anyway to stir the pot I offer this.
https://www.bing.com/th?id=OPE.BsAl2FJfWm4ZUA300C300&pid=21.1&w=160&h=160&qlt=100&dpr=1.13
To stir the pot further, and in reference to my having a similar personality to Jeremy's: for the past 20 years there has been a prominent sign up on the board in my workshop that says 'The Boss', in reference to myself. It's meant humorously, and nobody has ever commented on it, but discussing the Bamber case has invited into me an unwelcome touch of self-consciousness, even paranoia.
-
they day before the murder mair searched the profile of cox on wikepdia he also searched her on google images so untill one day before the murder he doesnt know what she looks like or anything about her.
i would guess her picture would be all around the constiteuncy so it rather suprises me that he hasnt seen a picture of her untill one day befoe he decides to kill her.
-
they day before the murder mair searched the profile of cox on wikepdia he also searched her on google images so untill one day before the murder he doesnt know what she looks like or anything about her.
i would guess her picture would be all around the constiteuncy so it rather suprises me that he hasnt seen a picture of her untill one day befoe he decides to kill her.
Again Nugs, it's laughable. It's fodder for the masses.
-
It wouldn't. It could be proved, if it is true. For instance, he was found in possession of practically a library of National Vanguard magazines. I have those same magazines and similar and know who to speak to in order to verify whether Mair was a bona fide subscriber. It's just traditional detective work.
Items could easily have been taken in to Mair's house, for example in holdalls, by people purporting to be SOCO, or some other such manner. Even if Mair was a subscriber to something from a previous era, that could simply lay him open to becoming a target for an operation, whereby as part of that operation, his 'collection' is considerably embellished.
-
It's not silence, as he has replied to people's letters, including to Richard Hall himself.
Verbally silent. With regard to writing - probably vetted, monitored and prompted (even under duress. depending on the circs).
(i). countless prison officers, prison staff, governors, various lawyers, and some judges, not to mention numerous ordinary police officers, and probably not a few journalists too, have conspired to frame not just an entirely innocent man, but a man they know is innocent; and,
(ii). Thomas Mair is keeping extra quiet about it all and conforming by doing his time, knowing he will be there for the remainder of his natural life, or at least for very many years.
If this is your position, then it doesn't stack up against things like facts, reality, logic, everyday experience and common-sense. You will be able to punch-holes in the official story, as can I, as can any fool; but in substitute you offer us not a realistic alternate account of events, but a fantastical novelette that would perhaps not be out-of-place if found among the lost corpus of Philip K. Dick.
Merry-Go-Round is coming to a close. I may just jump off.
I don't think your logic works here. Unless to express that if the staff of Frankland knew he wasn't there, then they may whistle-blow some concern. I don't think security services operations involving assassins is fantastical. The UK armed forces trains people to kill. Some who are good at it are drafted in to more shadowy fields of operation. Making somebody look vaguely similar to somebody else isn't fantastical. Not being able to imitate the other person's body movements and stride when carrying out the operation isn't fantastical.
-
My evidence that he was a criminal prior to being convicted is that he killed Jo Cox. That's what he was convicted of, along with related offences from the same incident. People who embark on a plot to kill somebody else will take certain precautions in an effort to cover their tracks, often amateurish.
This answer is a bit of a cop out QC.
I didn't deny that he was supplied with the gun. I merely said that it has never been claimed by the authorities that he was supplied with the gun for the purpose of killing Jo Cox, or anybody. The official story is that he came upon that gun many years before. Nobody knows how or where from except Mr Mair himself.
This is incorrect. It is possible that those who supplied whoever used the gun, would have knowledge of it. Though, if this conducted on a need to know basis, maybe not.
It's simple. Thomas Mair walks with a limp and changes his clothes because he is a local and knows he will be filmed on CCTV. He clearly didn't think it through well, maybe because he was psychotic or for some other reason.
I'm surprised you fall for this. The difference in walking styles only came to light, when discerning observers contacted Hall about footage he showed. regarding the man with the light cap having a slight limp. It was this that prompted a comparison from a martial arts instructor who was familiar with body movement and positioning. Even though those running the op would have controlled the CCTV footage, it's not the police or any authority who have pointed out that Mair has attempted to mask his real walking style. That's not part of any prosecution case. The anomaly or discrepancy has been discovered by those questioning the official narrative well after the event. After the incident, the man in light cap's limp is worse. Is it then your suggestion, that Mair was so good at concocting a walking disguise, that he even managed to incorporate a sprain from the exertion of the incident for good measure, before reverting back to his normal walking style for the arrest? Sorry but this is just plain silly.
-
I think he was just crazy, and it was probably fuelled by some personal issue, such as the threat of losing his home. Mixed up in it was a minor and peripheral involvement in the dissident Right due to his own private beliefs, which added to his resentment of Jo Cox, who he probably perceived as a pretty useless constituency MP who could not (or would not) assist with his genuine problems. The Brexit campaign and the obnoxiousness and Jellyby-like silliness of the metropolitan-Left-Remainer elite perhaps made him angry and gave him a pretext. Hence: "Freedom for Britain, Death to Traitors!"
I am not minimising the political-philosophical motivation. Without it, I think he would have acted differently. His politics gave him a sense of alienation from mainstream life (notwithstanding his community involvement); yet I think it's fair to say that the factors involved in his actions must have been mixed and complex. His politics were the oxygen; his own personal issues mixed in with his troubled personality/dispensations were the petrol; and, the Brexit debate and the behaviour of this country's elite were the heat.
Nobody who knew him said he was crazy or political or racist. The actions ascribed to him benefited Remain, not Leave or Britain First. Leave were considerably ahead in the polls, when this incident occurred. That lead dwindled, post incident, just prior to the vote.
-
does anybody know in whose garden the bag was found.
-
Nobody who knew him said he was crazy or political or racist. The actions ascribed to him benefited Remain, not Leave or Britain First. Leave were considerably ahead in the polls, when this incident occurred. That lead dwindled, post incident, just prior to the vote.
Nobody who knew John Wayne Gacey said he was crazy or evil. He even volunteered as an entertainer at children's birthday parties!
I guess the 30+ dead bodies found on his property were all planted.
-
does anybody know in whose garden the bag was found.
There were discarded items in John Nelson Street overgrown garden. The Puma holdall was dropped by Mair in Risedale Close, when he was assaulted by police.
-
they day before the murder mair searched the profile of cox on wikepdia he also searched her on google images so untill one day before the murder he doesnt know what she looks like or anything about her.
i would guess her picture would be all around the constiteuncy so it rather suprises me that he hasnt seen a picture of her untill one day befoe he decides to kill her.
You're jumping to conclusions as to why he searched for her. How do you know he hadn't seen a picture of her until one day before he decides to kill her? Or do you now deny that he was her constituent?
Items could easily have been taken in to Mair's house, for example in holdalls, by people purporting to be SOCO, or some other such manner. Even if Mair was a subscriber to something from a previous era, that could simply lay him open to becoming a target for an operation, whereby as part of that operation, his 'collection' is considerably embellished.
This is marvellous. All you need to do now is provide us with the evidence that these things happened and we're set. I'll be buying a yacht with my advance from the publishers.
Your logic seems to be that if there is no proof that something did not happen, that means it could have happened, even must have happened. Your logic is faulty. If you can't see why, then I think this discussion needs to end as I am terribly busy.
Verbally silent. With regard to writing - probably vetted, monitored and prompted (even under duress. depending on the circs).
I don't follow you. He is a high security prisoner on a whole life order. His mail and all his communications will be monitored and, yes, vetted. However, he is not held incommunicado and he has the same legal rights as other prisoners. Please consider these facts and what it logically means for your theory and this discussion.
I don't think your logic works here. Unless to express that if the staff of Frankland knew he wasn't there, then they may whistle-blow some concern. I don't think security services operations involving assassins is fantastical. The UK armed forces trains people to kill. Some who are good at it are drafted in to more shadowy fields of operation. Making somebody look vaguely similar to somebody else isn't fantastical. Not being able to imitate the other person's body movements and stride when carrying out the operation isn't fantastical.
My logic is absolutely impeccable, and with the greatest possible respect - and please, you must not take this the wrong way - I am not inclined to accept tips on logic and reasoning from somebody who, on the evidence of this thread, shows barely the faintest grasp of such.
Can I urge you to read my post again - this time, very, very, very carefully. Then think about it, carefully.
This answer is a bit of a cop out QC.
It is not a cop-out. I have literally answered the question you asked or the point you made. If you were trying to make a different point, then I urge you to make yourself more clear, and I will then answer that point.
If you were trying to tell us that Thomas Mair had no prior criminal history and therefore could not have committed a sudden murder or assassination, again with the greatest respect that argument is complete and utter bollocks.
Many, many, many people who are convicted of murder - possibly the majority - have no significant prior criminal history. In many cases, they have no criminal record at all. Not a few of them have never had so much as a parking fine or a late charge from their local library. They are still murderers. Some of this country's most notorious killers have had no prior criminal record on conviction.
This is incorrect. It is possible that those who supplied whoever used the gun, would have knowledge of it. Though, if this conducted on a need to know basis, maybe not.
The official line in this case is that Mair was not supplied the gun specifically for the murder. He was already in possession of the gun and had been for very many years. I've now told you this three times, I think.
I'm surprised you fall for this. The difference in walking styles only came to light, when discerning observers contacted Hall about footage he showed. regarding the man with the light cap having a slight limp. It was this that prompted a comparison from a martial arts instructor who was familiar with body movement and positioning. Even though those running the op would have controlled the CCTV footage, it's not the police or any authority who have pointed out that Mair has attempted to mask his real walking style. That's not part of any prosecution case. The anomaly or discrepancy has been discovered by those questioning the official narrative well after the event. After the incident, the man in light cap's limp is worse. Is it then your suggestion, that Mair was so good at concocting a walking disguise, that he even managed to incorporate a sprain from the exertion of the incident for good measure, before reverting back to his normal walking style for the arrest? Sorry but this is just plain silly.
Please don't be condescending. I have not 'fallen' for anything. Even if I turn out to be wrong, I still haven't 'fallen' for anything. That would just mean I'm wrong, albeit I based my views on facts. If you want to convince me, please stick to facts and produce better arguments.
You base your conclusions here on the opinion of one expert. Who is this expert? What is his field of expertise, exactly?
Nobody who knew him said he was crazy or political or racist. The actions ascribed to him benefited Remain, not Leave or Britain First. Leave were considerably ahead in the polls, when this incident occurred. That lead dwindled, post incident, just prior to the vote.
What people often say after a murderer is caught:
"Such a quiet man. Never would have thought he could do something like that. Always went to church on Sundays and was nice to the children. Gave money to Save The Pandas. We can't believe it."
Your points are irrelevant to the question of whether he did it. Apart from which, his true primary motive may not even have been political.
-
Even though those running the op would have controlled the CCTV footage,
You do realise most the CCTV in the case is residential and on private property?. The footage of Mair at Lowood lane and Hillhead drive for example, are from people who have installed CCTV on there homes to record their front drives, subsequently recording the street in the back-ground also. They then volunteered that footage over. 96% of all CCTV in this country are owned by private businesses and homeowners.
This is another point that makes your conspiracy theory absurd. Because you cannot dispute that Mair left his home at walked all the way to Risedale avenue during the timeframe of the murder. In your conspiracy theory, Mair has to have taken an an extremely unusual route to inadvertently avoid all residential CCTV before the killing took place and only to then take a route that was covered by CCTV after the murder.
-
I've just removed a post, partly because within my reply I mistakenly attributed David's post to QC. Not sure if I'll be able to get on much this weekend. Might do. As for whether people are too busy to continue their own input, be my guest to leave the thread. So far, I've not seen anything of quality that assails my position. And as for condescension, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
Your points are irrelevant to the question of whether he did it. Apart from which, his true primary motive may not even have been political.
My points on motive were in response to your own ill considered speculation. The posts you have put up that I find worthy of consideration, are the ones questioning my position regarding TM's whereabouts.
Regarding your point about 'logic'. I don't think there is anything impressive logic-wise, by taking the finding of a hoard allegedly far right material completely at face value; and demanding proof that its presence in his property was partly or wholly an untoward act on the part of those involved in an operation of this nature. I have the right to remain hugely skeptical of it and I retain the right to suggest foul play. If the authorities planted drugs in your house and then photographed these items for the press, while you were in prison for drugs related offences, some people will take the photographs at face value as proof / evidence, whereas some may not. That's life.
-
You do realise most the CCTV in the case is residential and on private property?. The footage of Mair at Lowood lane and Hillhead drive for example, are from people who have installed CCTV on there homes to record their front drives, subsequently recording the street in the back-ground also. They then volunteered that footage over. 96% of all CCTV in this country are owned by private businesses and homeowners.
This is another point that makes your conspiracy theory absurd. Because you cannot dispute that Mair left his home at walked all the way to Risedale avenue during the timeframe of the murder. In your conspiracy theory, Mair has to have taken an an extremely unusual route to inadvertently avoid all residential CCTV before the killing took place and only to then take a route that was covered by CCTV after the murder.
The only images of T Mair on CCTV are black capped. I'm suprised you have reappeared. I thought the bag query would have had you stumped for days on end.
-
You do realise most the CCTV in the case is residential and on private property?. The footage of Mair at Lowood lane and Hillhead drive for example, are from people who have installed CCTV on there homes to record their front drives, subsequently recording the street in the back-ground also. They then volunteered that footage over. 96% of all CCTV in this country are owned by private businesses and homeowners.
This is another point that makes your conspiracy theory absurd. Because you cannot dispute that Mair left his home at walked all the way to Risedale avenue during the timeframe of the murder. In your conspiracy theory, Mair has to have taken an an extremely unusual route to inadvertently avoid all residential CCTV before the killing took place and only to then take a route that was covered by CCTV after the murder.
Some time after the event, they seized CCTV from a property facing his mam's home. Could it be that on the day, instead of attending the overgrown garden at John Nelson Close, Mair visited his mam. He was after all about to part from her for a very long time and had dropped off a carrier bag of old photographs the day before. Did he get cold feet and not follow his instructions properly? If he had went to John Nelson Close, would he have been killed? It's a lot cheaper to have him killed than have him locked up, whether in some facility or whether in some new life arrangement.
-
The only images of T Mair on CCTV are black capped.
And why is there no CCTV of black capped Mair on his journey to Risedale avenue prior to the murder? Why does blacked capped Mair only show up on residential CCTV after the murder?
::)
I'm suprised you have reappeared. I thought the bag query would have had you stumped for days on end.
I have already explained that Mair had multiple bags as he does multiple hats.
-
You do realise most the CCTV in the case is residential and on private property?. The footage of Mair at Lowood lane and Hillhead drive for example, are from people who have installed CCTV on there homes to record their front drives, subsequently recording the street in the back-ground also. They then volunteered that footage over. 96% of all CCTV in this country are owned by private businesses and homeowners.
This is another point that makes your conspiracy theory absurd. Because you cannot dispute that Mair left his home at walked all the way to Risedale avenue during the timeframe of the murder. In your conspiracy theory, Mair has to have taken an an extremely unusual route to inadvertently avoid all residential CCTV before the killing took place and only to then take a route that was covered by CCTV after the murder.
And when I said 'controlled CCTV', I meant controlled the contributions, controlled the editing, controlled the output. Stop trying to imply meanings within my posts that are not intended by myself please David. And if we're talking about circuitous routes for CCTV capture, white cap did plenty of that. He also managed to avoid shortcuts that locals like Mair would take without thinking. So yours and QC's ridiculous theory is now that Mair did the following:
Adopted a completely different walk.
Adopted a slightly worse limp after the incident than before it.
Avoided short cuts he would usually take.
Changed clothes but made his original shoes disappear in the process.
Calmly and assertively attack Jo Cox in a deliberate and unhurried manner, with no fear of interference from any bystander.
Manage to get blood in to a bag that he didn't have in his possession when he attacked Jo Cox (even though he wasn't bleeding as a result of the Jo Cox incident).
Re-adopt his usual walk.
Make his way to the arrest site.
Change his bag after the arrest.
Remain verbally silent with no defence.
Change his appearance and body language to the point where after his arrest, friends and relatives do not recognise him.
-
Adopted a completely different walk.
Adopted a slightly worse limp after the incident than before it.
Avoided short cuts he would usually take.
Changed clothes but made his original shoes disappear in the process.
Manage to get blood in to a bag that he didn't have in his possession when he attacked Jo Cox
Mair's shoes, walking manner and bags are indistinguishable across all the footage. Using crappy low pixel, low framerate footage to create false ambiguity is not a valid argument.
-
Mair's shoes, walking manner and bags are indistinguishable across all the footage. Using crappy low pixel, low framerate footage to create false ambiguity is typical of conspiratards and its not a valid argument.
It's easy to make out that white cap's feet are smaller. Just as it's easy to make out he has a different walking style to Mair. Just as it's easy to make out that the handle attachment / stitching is tapered in a certain way on Mair's holdall. Funny how you're happy to accept that such poor, crappy, low frame rate, low pixel footage is evidence of Mair, just because you're being told it was Mair.
Using the term conspiritard is very childish David. And again, it implies in my opinion, that you do not believe UK security services have the capability to carry out a deception operation or an assassination on home soil. In which case, you should do the following - come out and say so outright. If however, I am incorrect (and you do believe they have that capacity), then maybe you'd like to talk us through how such an operation would proceed?
Be my guest, we're all waiting...
-
It's easy to make out that white cap's feet are smaller.
How?
-
How?
By looking at the footage. Mair is wearing black gardening shoes with a reinforced toe cap. We've been over this. To be honest I am finding you fucking tiresome now. I have reported you to moderator.
You are also a conspiracy theorist. If the government line is that a conspiracy occured, then you adopt that line. Therefore by default, you become a conspiracy theorist. You don't seem to have grasped this?
Also, your obsession with backing all things police and/or authorities, no matter what, is somewhat suspicious. It really is an absolute obsession for you. In my case, there are very few cases I have have commented on and there are plenty where I would be inclined to believe the authorities.
-
By looking at the footage.
By looking at the footage I see the same shoes throughout. Completly Indistinguishable.
-
By looking at the footage I see the same shoes throughout. Completly Indistinguishable.
I don't.
-
By looking at the footage I see the same shoes throughout. Completly Indistinguishable.
Compare the colour of White Cap's Puma Holdall with white cap's shoes. His holdall is black. Mair's shoes are black. In comparison with the holdall and with Mair's shoes, white cap's shoes are a lighter colour.
-
You could also argue from both images I put up there, that white cap's shoes have a more slender profile than Mair's.
-
so let me get this right he has thrown the bag away thrown the hat away but kept the gun that is the most incrimting bit of evdence.
-
You could also argue from both images I put up there, that white cap's shoes have a more slender profile than Mair's.
::)
By this logic, Ivory cap (Thomas Mair) has shoes that change colours instantly. See its in the footage! Just ignore the fact the camera is 300x200 and has an low bitrate.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10307.0;attach=57769)
-
::)
By this logic, Ivory cap (Thomas Mair) has shoes that change colours instantly. See its in the footage! Just ignore the fact the camera is 300x200 and has an low bitrate.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10307.0;attach=57769)
There is no such anomaly in the images I put up. Nice try.
-
And btw, ivory cap's posture / physique differs from Mair's, in my opinion.
-
There is no such anomaly in the images I put up. Nice try.
that could be anybody.
-
There is no such anomaly in the images I put up. Nice try.
::)
"On passing through an imaging chain, the colour information of an image is often not maintained accurately. This is particularly true for low-end imaging systems such as CCTV used for surveillance purposes."
"Several issues make it extremely difficult to accurately determine scene colour information from CCTV recordings. Firstly the scenes usually have uncontrolled lighting from a mixture of sources. Furthermore, the cameras are often of low quality and have not been characterised for their response to colour information. This problem is exacerbated by the huge number of different camera models in use designed by many different manufacturers."
https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/478c4ba6b4c71c1e6732ea3afaf389b1115c87d6a424168ebdb768f51eb1fd09/384059/SPIE08Paper_v1.0_26-Nov-2007.pdf (https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/478c4ba6b4c71c1e6732ea3afaf389b1115c87d6a424168ebdb768f51eb1fd09/384059/SPIE08Paper_v1.0_26-Nov-2007.pdf)
-
::)
"On passing through an imaging chain, the colour information of an image is often not maintained accurately. This is particularly true for low-end imaging systems such as CCTV used for surveillance purposes."
"Several issues make it extremely difficult to accurately determine scene colour information from CCTV recordings. Firstly the scenes usually have uncontrolled lighting from a mixture of sources. Furthermore, the cameras are often of low quality and have not been characterised for their response to colour information. This problem is exacerbated by the huge number of different camera models in use designed by many different manufacturers."
https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/478c4ba6b4c71c1e6732ea3afaf389b1115c87d6a424168ebdb768f51eb1fd09/384059/SPIE08Paper_v1.0_26-Nov-2007.pdf (https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/478c4ba6b4c71c1e6732ea3afaf389b1115c87d6a424168ebdb768f51eb1fd09/384059/SPIE08Paper_v1.0_26-Nov-2007.pdf)
You displayed an image with an anomaly. The images I put up did not contain such an anomaly.
-
i dont see how these images are proof of anything anyway that could be a picture of anybody.
-
My points on motive were in response to your own ill considered speculation. The posts you have put up that I find worthy of consideration, are the ones questioning my position regarding TM's whereabouts.
Regarding your point about 'logic'. I don't think there is anything impressive logic-wise, by taking the finding of a hoard allegedly far right material completely at face value; and demanding proof that its presence in his property was partly or wholly an untoward act on the part of those involved in an operation of this nature. I have the right to remain hugely skeptical of it and I retain the right to suggest foul play. If the authorities planted drugs in your house and then photographed these items for the press, while you were in prison for drugs related offences, some people will take the photographs at face value as proof / evidence, whereas some may not. That's life.
That's not what I have done.
If you don't know where Thomas Mair is (whether precisely or just generally 'in prison' or whatever), then these theories on this case don't merit consideration because you are just picking holes and then jumping to conclusions. Nothing wrong with finding fault in the prosecution case, and there are some unexplained points, but it's one thing to highlight awkward and unexplained issues, it's quite another to make these leaps you are making. But that's just my view. What you do is your affair.
-
You displayed an image with an anomaly. The images I put up did not contain such an anomaly.
The image you put up is the work of a cosnpiratard who doesn't understand the limitations of the footage.
-
The image you put up is the work of a cosnpiratard who doesn't understand the limitations of the footage.
Well he's not a lacky like your self. Given he's an electrical engineer, I suspect he not unintelligent. I suspect he has a grasp of the limitations of CCTV.
-
And when I said 'controlled CCTV', I meant controlled the contributions, controlled the editing, controlled the output. Stop trying to imply meanings within my posts that are not intended by myself please David. And if we're talking about circuitous routes for CCTV capture, white cap did plenty of that. He also managed to avoid shortcuts that locals like Mair would take without thinking. So yours and QC's ridiculous theory is now that Mair did the following:
Adopted a completely different walk.
Adopted a slightly worse limp after the incident than before it.
Avoided short cuts he would usually take.
Changed clothes but made his original shoes disappear in the process.
Calmly and assertively attack Jo Cox in a deliberate and unhurried manner, with no fear of interference from any bystander.
Manage to get blood in to a bag that he didn't have in his possession when he attacked Jo Cox (even though he wasn't bleeding as a result of the Jo Cox incident).
Re-adopt his usual walk.
Make his way to the arrest site.
Change his bag after the arrest.
Remain verbally silent with no defence.
Change his appearance and body language to the point where after his arrest, friends and relatives do not recognise him.
Please don't ascribe to me views or theories I do not have.
Your theory, if it may be called that, is that Thomas Mair was set up. This falls apart on facts, logic, common experience and common-sense. I have already explained why and you have shown a clear reluctance to actually address directly what I say.
Now let's turn to your specific points:
Adopted a completely different walk.
You haven't proved that he did adopt a completely different walk. Your evidence is the opinion of a martial arts expert interviewed by Richard Hall. First, a martial arts expert is not an expert on walking. Second, his opinion is just that: an opinion. It's unclear from Hall's video how he has formed this opinion and Hall makes no reference to a written report. Third, while Richard Hall's videos are useful in collecting together facts and chronology, Hall's deductions are not credible and most of his work is not of a serious character. His videos are for entertainment and money-making. This in itself does not disprove what you say, and Hall could be right, but it does lead us to ask whether the martial arts expert was giving Hall the answer that he wanted. One rather suspects that Hall would have sought out an expert until he got the answer he wanted.
Adopted a slightly worse limp after the incident than before it.
Who says? See above. And even if true, so what? The limp, if it was a limp, was fake. You can hardly expect consistency.
Avoided short cuts he would usually take.
Did it ever occur to you that this was because he was planning to kill somebody and/or had already killed somebody, he knew his movements would be recorded, and did not want investigators to conclude he was local?
Changed clothes but made his original shoes disappear in the process.
Why shouldn't his original shoes disappear, if he was changing clothes? He was changing clothes and disposing of clothes in order to hide incriminating evidence.
Calmly and assertively attack Jo Cox in a deliberate and unhurried manner, with no fear of interference from any bystander.
He wasn't calm, and there was interference from bystanders.
Manage to get blood in to a bag that he didn't have in his possession when he attacked Jo Cox (even though he wasn't bleeding as a result of the Jo Cox incident).
Blood transference.
Re-adopt his usual walk.
Trying to adopt a disguise.
Make his way to the arrest site.
The police had identified him as a suspect. He had to be arrested somewhere.
Make his way to the arrest site. Change his bag after the arrest.
Who says?
Remain verbally silent with no defence.
Guilty people often do that. It doesn't prove anything, since innocent people do that too, and it was his right to remain silent; and at some point he would have been professionally advised to remain silent. Nothing can be concluded from it.
Change his appearance and body language to the point where after his arrest, friends and relatives do not recognise him.
I don't believe anything can be concluded from this. They are not being asked to make an identification. I would take this more seriously if, first, as a minimum, you answer the question I asked you. If you don't know where Thomas Mair is, then you should have the honesty to say so and that you have no real idea or theory, this is just finding holes in the case.
-
Here are two different cameras covering the exact same thing in the same time and place.
This whole idea is stupid.
-
Please don't ascribe to me views or theories I do not have.
Your theory, if it may be called that, is that Thomas Mair was set up. This falls apart on facts, logic, common experience and common-sense. I have already explained why and you have shown a clear reluctance to actually address directly what I say.
Now let's turn to your specific points:
You haven't proved that he did adopt a completely different walk. Your evidence is the opinion of a martial arts expert interviewed by Richard Hall. First, a martial arts expert is not an expert on walking. Second, his opinion is just that: an opinion. It's unclear from Hall's video how he has formed this opinion and Hall makes no reference to a written report. Third, while Richard Hall's videos are useful in collecting together facts and chronology, Hall's deductions are not credible and most of his work is not of a serious character. His videos are for entertainment and money-making. This in itself does not disprove what you say, and Hall could be right, but it does lead us to ask whether the martial arts expert was giving Hall the answer that he wanted. One rather suspects that Hall would have sought out an expert until he got the answer he wanted.
Who says? See above. And even if true, so what? The limp, if it was a limp, was fake. You can hardly expect consistency.
Did it ever occur to you that this was because he was planning to kill somebody and/or had already killed somebody, he knew his movements would be recorded, and did not want investigators to conclude he was local?
Why shouldn't his original shoes disappear, if he was changing clothes? He was changing clothes and disposing of clothes in order to hide incriminating evidence.
He wasn't calm, and there was interference from bystanders.
Blood transference.
Trying to adopt a disguise.
The police had identified him as a suspect. He had to be arrested somewhere.
Who says?
Guilty people often do that. It doesn't prove anything, since innocent people do that too, and it was his right to remain silent; and at some point he would have been professionally advised to remain silent. Nothing can be concluded from it.
I don't believe anything can be concluded from this. They are not being asked to make an identification. I would take this more seriously if, first, as a minimum, you answer the question I asked you. If you don't know where Thomas Mair is, then you should have the honesty to say so and that you have no real idea or theory, this is just finding holes in the case.
By adopting your approach, you have co-opted the official version, therefore, I can ascribe the theory to you. I am going away for the weekend, so won't have time to reply. I get the sense you are being deliberately obtuse and oppositional. I can't really be arsed with it. If I had more time, maybe I would indulge it. But I don't. This is not a real case, it is a security services case. Therefore, it cannot have the usual logic applied to it, as would a criminal case being acted out totally inside the normal agencies.
-
By adopting your approach, you have co-opted the official version, therefore, I can ascribe the theory to you. I am going away for the weekend, so won't have time to reply. I get the sense you are being deliberately obtuse and oppositional. I can't really be arsed with it. If I had more time, maybe I would indulge it. But I don't. This is not a real case, it is a security services case. Therefore, it cannot have the usual logic applied to it, as would a criminal case being acted out totally inside the normal agencies.
From my perspective, you are bending facts to suit a narrative, dodging questions and making excuses when cornered.
I think this thread is a Merry-Go-Round. I'm jumping off.
-
From my perspective, you are bending facts to suit a narrative, dodging questions and making excuses when cornered.
I think this thread is a Merry-Go-Round. I'm jumping off.
Your contribution won't be missed. Try another thread.
-
Here are two different cameras covering the exact same thing in the same time and place.
This whole idea is stupid.
Using Rochs "logic" the image below shows two different people. the one on the left has a different skin hue/tone and his head is more narrow. ::)
(https://videos.cctvcamerapros.com/wp-content/files/1080p-vs-5mp-security-camera.jpg)
-
Your contribution won't be missed. Try another thread.
Excuse me?
I created this thread. I created this thread to discuss the Mair case, and in particular to consider Richard Hall's theories. When you put forward fantastical theories without serious evidence and you twist facts and get facts wrong and dodge questions and jump to wild conclusions, this is the result. People eventually will treat you with a measure of scorn. I have asked you a number of penetrating questions that you cannot answer. You have ignored these or pretended that I have asked you something else. Insolent children hide in corners and block their ears when somebody puts forward facts that contradict what they say.
I will consider a theory based on facts and that has some basis in reality. What you say on this thread falls apart on the first examination by anybody with a bit of common sense and a slight knowledge of the case. I point out that Thomas Mair has said nothing about being innocent, and your explanation for this is what? Where is Thomas Mair? If he's in prison, why would he accept a prison sentence for something he hasn't done, and without a murmur of protest? Is this common behaviour? If he's dead, then where are the whistle blowers - prison staff or former prisoners - to tell us that there is no Thomas Mair (whether under an assumed name or not) held at HMP Frankland?
What serious investigations has Richard Hall and those helping him done to check the facts underpinning all this conjecture? For instance, have convicted criminals released from Frankland and serving prison officers been approached to check if they know of Thomas Mair? Have publishers of magazines been approached to verify if Mair was a subscriber? Hall claims that people who knew Mair say that the man being interviewed by police is not Thomas Mair, but I don't recall any of these people appearing in an interview with Hall. Why is that?
I could go on and go punching holes in Richard Hall. In my considered opinion, he is not a serious or credible person. He is an entertainer. His videos are entertaining, I will give him credit.
-
I could go on and go punching holes in Richard Hall. In my considered opinion, he is not a serious or credible person.
How is this not credible?
https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279 (https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279)
-
Using Rochs "logic" the image below shows two different people. the one on the left has a different skin hue/tone and his head is more narrow. ::)
(https://videos.cctvcamerapros.com/wp-content/files/1080p-vs-5mp-security-camera.jpg)
What the fuck are you talking about? You are just making things up, using irrelevant images.
-
Excuse me?
I created this thread. I created this thread to discuss the Mair case, and in particular to consider Richard Hall's theories. When you put forward fantastical theories without serious evidence and you twist facts and get facts wrong and dodge questions and jump to wild conclusions, this is the result. People eventually will treat you with a measure of scorn. I have asked you a number of penetrating questions that you cannot answer. You have ignored these or pretended that I have asked you something else. Insolent children hide in corners and block their ears when somebody puts forward facts that contradict what they say.
I will consider a theory based on facts and that has some basis in reality. What you say on this thread falls apart on the first examination by anybody with a bit of common sense and a slight knowledge of the case. I point out that Thomas Mair has said nothing about being innocent, and your explanation for this is what? Where is Thomas Mair? If he's in prison, why would he accept a prison sentence for something he hasn't done, and without a murmur of protest? Is this common behaviour? If he's dead, then where are the whistle blowers - prison staff or former prisoners - to tell us that there is no Thomas Mair (whether under an assumed name or not) held at HMP Frankland?
What serious investigations has Richard Hall and those helping him done to check the facts underpinning all this conjecture? For instance, have convicted criminals released from Frankland and serving prison officers been approached to check if they know of Thomas Mair? Have publishers of magazines been approached to verify if Mair was a subscriber? Hall claims that people who knew Mair say that the man being interviewed by police is not Thomas Mair, but I don't recall any of these people appearing in an interview with Hall. Why is that?
I could go on and go punching holes in Richard Hall. In my considered opinion, he is not a serious or credible person. He is an entertainer. His videos are entertaining, I will give him credit.
Your problem is that you subjectively choose what a 'fact' is to suit your arguments. Why would there not be a scenario where Mair doesn't speak up? In other words, one that doesn't fit with your rather shallow and generic 'because he's guilty and doesn't want to talk about his crimes'. What if he is under some duress or agreement? I don't need to prove such an agreement or such duress exists, in order for it to exist. Less hot air from you would be appreciated.
-
How is this not credible?
https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279 (https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279)
Well, putting aside the possibility that Hall is essentially a charlatan, it all goes back to the philosophical question of how you can know that something is true or not true. It's easy to mock these people, and I think that in a sense even Richard Hall is mocking them, but these stories of extra-terrestrials could be true. We don't know for sure. (I don't personally think they are true, I'm just looking at it objectively for the moment).
If we're honest, all we have to go on is the evidence available to us and any capacity our own intellects give us to penetrate reality. Some people see unobvious truths others don't, and sometimes these unobvious truths are revealed and become obvious truths that are considered incontestable; conversely, apparent truths are often revealed to be hoaxes or frauds, and some can see this well in advance.
Do you know that black holes exist? As a lifelong amateur astronomer, I do not and I know that it is far from proved. It is more of a concept and a working model, but is treated as fact in the popular arena.
Do you know that God does not exist? You do not. In rational terms, you can only decide on a scale of probability and that scale is a continuum of nuances. There may be something beyond us, and our own world may be a mere shadow of reality.
Are you sure that extra-terrestrial visitors are not here? You cannot be sure. It may all be true what these people tell Richard Hall. Hall's own motivations are a matter entirely separate.
Back to the Mair case. I can see holes in it but the problem with all these theories and speculation is that all roads lead back to Thomas Mair, as they should. Let's say there was a case of mistaken identity and the real killer (whether intentionally or inadvertently/coincidentally) was attired similarly to Mair, so similar that there was confusion and Mair is a victim of mistaken identity. Wouldn't Mair say something? Or is Mair a false confessee, claiming credit for something he hasn't done? Yet how is the DNA on the gun explained? Well the DNA match to Mair is described as 'minor', which suggests to me that it's a LCN result, so maybe not reliable.
The mistaken identity theory could have legs, but how is it that Mair was in the right place at the right time? Darren Playford followed him. There are coincidences - mistaken identity is a plausible type of coincidence, if a little freakish - but Mair's movements make it overly-coincidental for me. I am genuinely trying to see all ways round this, but I'm struggling. I think the starting point is the trial transcript and case files - and I suspect it's a fool's errand.
-
mair was a member of the libary but aperantly he never took any books out he just used the internet to incriminate himself that was very lucky for the police even more lucky the fact he did it just one day before the murder.
-
mair was a member of the libary but aperantly he never took any books out he just used the internet to incriminate himself that was very lucky for the police even more lucky the fact he did it just one day before the murder.
Mair was mentally-distressed the day before the killings. He was a troubled man.
-
Here are two different cameras covering the exact same thing in the same time and place.
This whole idea is stupid.
Are you implying that it would not be possibly to tell the car on the right is a Mercedes?
I agree, that would be a stupid idea.
-
Well, putting aside the possibility that Hall is essentially a charlatan, it all goes back to the philosophical question of how you can know that something is true or not true. It's easy to mock these people, and I think that in a sense even Richard Hall is mocking them, but these stories of extra-terrestrials could be true. We don't know for sure. (I don't personally think they are true, I'm just looking at it objectively for the moment).
If we're honest, all we have to go on is the evidence available to us and any capacity our own intellects give us to penetrate reality. Some people see unobvious truths others don't, and sometimes these unobvious truths are revealed and become obvious truths that are considered incontestable; conversely, apparent truths are often revealed to be hoaxes or frauds, and some can see this well in advance.
Do you know that black holes exist? As a lifelong amateur astronomer, I do not and I know that it is far from proved. It is more of a concept and a working model, but is treated as fact in the popular arena.
Do you know that God does not exist? You do not. In rational terms, you can only decide on a scale of probability and that scale is a continuum of nuances. There may be something beyond us, and our own world may be a mere shadow of reality.
Are you sure that extra-terrestrial visitors are not here? You cannot be sure. It may all be true what these people tell Richard Hall. Hall's own motivations are a matter entirely separate.
Back to the Mair case. I can see holes in it but the problem with all these theories and speculation is that all roads lead back to Thomas Mair, as they should. Let's say there was a case of mistaken identity and the real killer (whether intentionally or inadvertently/coincidentally) was attired similarly to Mair, so similar that there was confusion and Mair is a victim of mistaken identity. Wouldn't Mair say something? Or is Mair a false confessee, claiming credit for something he hasn't done? Yet how is the DNA on the gun explained? Well the DNA match to Mair is described as 'minor', which suggests to me that it's a LCN result, so maybe not reliable.
The mistaken identity theory could have legs, but how is it that Mair was in the right place at the right time? Darren Playford followed him. There are coincidences - mistaken identity is a plausible type of coincidence, if a little freakish - but Mair's movements make it overly-coincidental for me. I am genuinely trying to see all ways round this, but I'm struggling. I think the starting point is the trial transcript and case files - and I suspect it's a fool's errand.
Playford followed the man with light cap. Not Mair. He has been asked specific questions about his testimony. He ran crying to the police as a result. Assuming Playford's testimony is bonafide and complete, is arguably erroneous in itself.
-
Mair was mentally-distressed the day before the killings. He was a troubled man.
must of been he tosses a bag and a hat away but keeps the murder weapon how deranged is that.
-
Your problem is that you subjectively choose what a 'fact' is to suit your arguments.
Please provide an example of me subjectively choosing what is a fact to suit my arguments. You haven't in your post above, so I await with keen interest news of this horrific error on my part, which I assure you I will rush to correct.
Why would there not be a scenario where Mair doesn't speak up? In other words, one that doesn't fit with your rather shallow and generic 'because he's guilty and doesn't want to talk about his crimes'. What if he is under some duress or agreement?
You continue to twist what I say and here again you can't seem to get your facts right: Mair wasn't silent. He spoke to officers at the scene, though I personally do not regard what he said as necessarily incriminating. If he is innocent, he would not have known what had just happened in Birstall town and may have assumed that he was being arrested for something 'political'.
The fact he remained silent in police interviews and elsewhere, including at trial, is indicative of absolutely nothing at all, and anyway, I was very careful to point out that innocent people also choose to remain silent and Mair would have received professional advice to remain silent. It proves nothing one way or the other. But I also make the point that one reason Mair may have remained silent during police interviews, apart from being advised to, could be simply that he is guilty. Your alternative explanation is that he is under duress to remain silent, or has agreed, but whether duress or agreement, it requires that he agree, and an innocent person would never agree. His solicitor was sitting by his shoulder. Ordinary police officers were within hearing distance of him constantly. There was a psychiatrist and independent custody visitors.
Yes, I know what you will now say. Your next gambit is that I am terribly naive and too trusting in the authorities and their mechanisms of accountability, but I am not. I have been in a very similar position to Mair - and many times, not just once, like him. I know the score. All these people work for the system, but the point is that most of them would not countenance the persecution of an innocent man. Mair would just have to speak once, and if he was innocent, then it was all over; or if not that, and he was still convicted, then we would be discussing the claims of such-and-such a police officer or custody visitor or lawyer who claims Mair is innocent and framed and it's all a fraud. No such discussion is taking place on here, or anywhere. We don't even have Thomas Mair's word for it. Instead we have the unsupported claims of Richard Hall. Of course, as I keep saying, it may all turn out to be true, but for the moment, it's not credible for a number of very good and obvious reasons.
I don't need to prove such an agreement or such duress exists, in order for it to exist. Less hot air from you would be appreciated.
You are again addressing a point I have not made and pretending to have defeated an argument on this basis. You then have the brass neck to accuse me of spouting hot air.
You are correct that you don't need to prove an agreement or duress exists for it to exist, but if you can't prove it exists, then for all intents and purposes - and certainly for the purpose of law - it does not exist. If you come up with the proof, then let us know. If you have evidence that might lead us to proof, then tell us now. Unless and until you do, what are we supposed to say about it other than that your ideas and theories are most entertaining and make a change from the usual dull topics?
I may argue most strenuously that unicorns exist and they repose in the mountain settlements of Tibet during the spring, but without some manner of proof, my claims are worth little. Perhaps if I am a world famous authority in the observation and study of ungulates, my claims may draw attention and some would believe in the truth of what I have observed on my visits to Tibet, but I have not proved it, and as far as the canon of knowledge is concerned, what I say remains a claim that something exists, not a fact that it exists.
-
must of been he tosses a bag and a hat away but keeps the murder weapon how deranged is that.
How do you know what he planned to do with the murder weapon? The purpose of changing his appearance was to evade suspicion in the aftermath. He may have reasoned that he had to keep hold of the murder weapon and dispose of it more carefully once he was home. He may also have decided he wanted to use the weapon again, on a different target, so needed to keep it.
-
Playford followed the man with light cap. Not Mair. He has been asked specific questions about his testimony. He ran crying to the police as a result. Assuming Playford's testimony is bonafide and complete, is arguably erroneous in itself.
You're assuming that the man in the light cap is not Mair. For it not to be means that an innocent Mair would happen to be at the same house as the real killer after the shooting - which is quite a coincidence. This Thomas Mair is really quite an unlucky fellow.
Playford doesn't come into it because whether he is telling it straight-down-the-line or misremembering (perhaps also lying) and lost track of the first subject and then confused him with Mair, who looked similar, the outcome is still the same: you have to account for Mair being in the exact same place, or roughly the same place, as the killer.
The police would not know where Mair was, so how do you explain Mair's movements?
If we're saying the police knew where Mair was, how did they communicate this location to the real killer?
Perhaps Mair was expected to be at that location? I seem to remember something along those lines being said at the time, but how is it that Mair left that location at just the right time?
If Playford has lied, or just misremembered, either way the question arises: Was Mair in on it all or was it a set up of Mair or just an extreme coincidence involving mistaken identity? Which are you saying this is?
And where exactly is Thomas Mair now? Why doesn't he say something? Why aren't we discussing on this thread Mair's sensational claims of innocence?
-
What the fuck are you talking about? You are just making things up, using irrelevant images.
The image above is the same event recorded buy two different CCTV cameras. Its relevant because what you claim are differences in white cap Mair and black cap Mair all appear from using different makes and models of camera that will all have different hardware, frame rates, and compression ect. That is why certain things appear different before and after the murder. Not this crazy giant conspiracy.
-
The image above is the same event recorded buy two different CCTV cameras. Its relevant because what you claim are differences in white cap Mair and black cap Mair all appear from using different makes and models of camera that will all have different hardware, frame rates, and compression ect. That is why certain things appear different before and after the murder. Not this crazy giant conspiracy.
The bag presented by police has teardrop stitching on the handle attachment.
-
The bag presented by police has teardrop stitching on the handle attachment.
Where are the photos?
-
now the gun was stolen from a car i belive can anyone tell me the name of the orginal owner i did know it but i forgot.
-
now the gun was stolen from a car i belive can anyone tell me the name of the orginal owner i did know it but i forgot.
Zach Gaughan lost his gun licence and business following theft of weapon, AN EX-JOCKEY whose stolen gun was used to murder MP Jo Cox told yesterday how he blamed himself.
It was stolen from his car while he visited a farm, he was a pest controller and he’d been shooting Rabbits for the farm, Recalling the theft, he said: “I’d been out shooting rabbits on a farm.
“I parked the vehicle — I’m pretty sure I locked it — and gave a rabbit to my uncle and had a cup of tea.
“When I went back my dog was loose on the road and the back passenger door had been broken into.
That was about 10 months before the Jo Cox murder, so if Mair had it in his possession it couldn’t have been more than ten months before. The police don’t think Mair had it this long.
-
You're assuming that the man in the light cap is not Mair. For it not to be means that an innocent Mair would happen to be at the same house as the real killer after the shooting - which is quite a coincidence. This Thomas Mair is really quite an unlucky fellow.
Playford doesn't come into it because whether he is telling it straight-down-the-line or misremembering (perhaps also lying) and lost track of the first subject and then confused him with Mair, who looked similar, the outcome is still the same: you have to account for Mair being in the exact same place, or roughly the same place, as the killer.
The police would not know where Mair was, so how do you explain Mair's movements?
If we're saying the police knew where Mair was, how did they communicate this location to the real killer?
Perhaps Mair was expected to be at that location? I seem to remember something along those lines being said at the time, but how is it that Mair left that location at just the right time?
If Playford has lied, or just misremembered, either way the question arises: Was Mair in on it all or was it a set up of Mair or just an extreme coincidence involving mistaken identity? Which are you saying this is?
And where exactly is Thomas Mair now? Why doesn't he say something? Why aren't we discussing on this thread Mair's sensational claims of innocence?
You're assuming that Mair not only put on a limp but also a distinct inverted walking style; and in addition, as slightly worse limp after the incident. I think it's far more likely that it was a different person to Mair, hence different body movements. This is somewhat circular on the part of those who are stubbornly denying this. It doesn't seem to be being taken in to account, that these differences in walking styles were only made public as a result of an independent study in to the case, approximately three years after it took place. Those running the operation are obviously not going to highlight the differences via the media in 2016 or whenever, as this would simply invite questions from skeptical people as to whether there are two different people on CCTV. Sorry, but this isn't brain surgery. If Mair is silent, he is either dead or under duress / in a new life. If he is in prison, I will post about that separately.
-
You're assuming that the man in the light cap is not Mair. For it not to be means that an innocent Mair would happen to be at the same house as the real killer after the shooting - which is quite a coincidence. This Thomas Mair is really quite an unlucky fellow.
Playford doesn't come into it because whether he is telling it straight-down-the-line or misremembering (perhaps also lying) and lost track of the first subject and then confused him with Mair, who looked similar, the outcome is still the same: you have to account for Mair being in the exact same place, or roughly the same place, as the killer.
The police would not know where Mair was, so how do you explain Mair's movements?
If we're saying the police knew where Mair was, how did they communicate this location to the real killer?
Perhaps Mair was expected to be at that location? I seem to remember something along those lines being said at the time, but how is it that Mair left that location at just the right time?
If Playford has lied, or just misremembered, either way the question arises: Was Mair in on it all or was it a set up of Mair or just an extreme coincidence involving mistaken identity? Which are you saying this is?
And where exactly is Thomas Mair now? Why doesn't he say something? Why aren't we discussing on this thread Mair's sensational claims of innocence?
I had another reply to some of your questions and points but just lost it all, by pressing the wrong button on my phone. Off for a walk St Cuthbert's Way near Melrose.
-
Somebody has posted a media link above which suggests I got one of my facts wrong. I had thought that Mair owned the gun some years before using it, thus it wasn't obtained for the shooting; but if Mair had a sawn-off shotgun that had been stolen by somebody only months before, then that has to be wrong.
I must have got the facts on that mixed-up in my own head. I'm pretty sure that in the days after the incident, the media were saying that the police had no clue about it at that stage, and there was another source as well. Anyway. I mention that because it's important that we get our facts right.
It does look like Mair obtained the gun specifically to kill his MP. We can come to this conclusion simply based on the way the barrel and butt have been sawn-off. It's specifically modified for that type of close-quarters operation and is exactly the way you would modify a gun to carry out a murder in that manner. I had thought the gun arrangement was just a coincidence, but I was wrong about that.
That being said, I'm not sure we can be as certain as the police and the media are about the provenance of the weapon. It's unclear to what extent the police have made assumptions and fallen into the common trap of 'putting 2 and 2 together'.
Of course, if Roch and Richard Hall are right, then potentially all this goes out the window.
I do have some further observations on the Zach Gaughan affair and problems I see with the whole thing, but they've slipped my mind. I'll come back to the Forum if I think of them. If I were re-investigating this, I would definitely be speaking to Zack Gaughan. I don't recall Richard Hall even mentioning him.
-
Additionally, I'm not particularly interested in responding further to Roch's posts on this topic. He says I am assuming that Thomas Mair adopted a different walking style, but I'm not. It is Roch who is assuming that Mair does adopt a different walking style, about which I have asked a number of questions that Roch doesn't or won't answer.
I don't want to keep going round in circles.
-
Just remembered one of the points I wanted to mention about the source of the weapon.
If Mair acquired the weapon from shadowy characters involved in serious criminality, then he may be nervous about letting this on for fear these people will harm him. They can get to him in prison, even a high security prison, and they may even have warned him off through another prisoner.
This would of course mean that he is keeping quiet because he is guilty.
-
Zach Gaughan lost his gun licence and business following theft of weapon, AN EX-JOCKEY whose stolen gun was used to murder MP Jo Cox told yesterday how he blamed himself.
It was stolen from his car while he visited a farm, he was a pest controller and he’d been shooting Rabbits for the farm, Recalling the theft, he said: “I’d been out shooting rabbits on a farm.
“I parked the vehicle — I’m pretty sure I locked it — and gave a rabbit to my uncle and had a cup of tea.
“When I went back my dog was loose on the road and the back passenger door had been broken into.
That was about 10 months before the Jo Cox murder, so if Mair had it in his possession it couldn’t have been more than ten months before. The police don’t think Mair had it this long.
are thankyou i will look him up.
-
Additionally, I'm not particularly interested in responding further to Roch's posts on this topic. He says I am assuming that Thomas Mair adopted a different walking style, but I'm not. It is Roch who is assuming that Mair does adopt a different walking style, about which I have asked a number of questions that Roch doesn't or won't answer.
I don't want to keep going round in circles.
Patience is a virtue, or so they say.
-
Patience is a virtue, or so they say.
Not all of us are as virtuous as you are. My patience is up.
-
Not all of us are as virtuous as you are. My patience is up.
Then give up the ghost! As they say. I can only post at my own pace, in accordance with my own circs. Sorry for being corny..but C'est La Vie.. 😏
-
Something else has come back to me.
The account given by Zack Gaughan to the media about the loss of his gun is vague. I also note that Gaughan lost his gun licence (strictly speaking, shotgun certificate) in the aftermath of the theft. It is important to note that theft of a gun would not necessarily invalidate a shotgun certificate automatically. A specific shotgun is not tied to a shotgun certificate, and provided the certificated owner can demonstrate he took reasonable precautions to prevent theft, the police cannot withdraw the certificate in the event of a suspected theft. Contrary to popular belief, there is a strong assumption in law that the granting of a shotgun certificate is as of right, except where there are disqualifying factors.
I don't disbelieve Mr Gaughan when he says the gun was stolen, but I suspect the reason he lost his shotgun certificate is because he had not locked his car, so there was no physical evidence of a theft beyond his own word.
I repeat that if I were investigating this case, I would be speaking to Zack Gaughan. I would want to know more about the theft, to see a copy of the shotgun certificate relevant to the stolen gun, and would want to know whether the gun had been modified or damaged prior to it being stolen; and, I would want to ascertain whether the stolen gun had any specific identifying marks or features that are identical to/common with the gun found with Thomas Mair (beyond the brand and model of gun, obviously).
-
Something else has come back to me.
The account given by Zack Gaughan to the media about the loss of his gun is vague. I also note that Gaughan lost his gun licence (strictly speaking, shotgun certificate) in the aftermath of the theft. It is important to note that theft of a gun would not necessarily invalidate a shotgun certificate automatically. A specific shotgun is not tied to a shotgun certificate, and provided the certificated owner can demonstrate he took reasonable precautions to prevent theft, the police cannot withdraw the certificate in the event of a suspected theft. Contrary to popular belief, there is a strong assumption in law that the granting of a shotgun certificate is as of right, except where there are disqualifying factors.
I don't disbelieve Mr Gaughan when he says the gun was stolen, but I suspect the reason he lost his shotgun certificate is because he had not locked his car, so there was no physical evidence of a theft beyond his own word.
I repeat that if I were investigating this case, I would be speaking to Zack Gaughan. I would want to know more about the theft, to see a copy of the shotgun certificate relevant to the stolen gun, and would want to know whether the gun had been modified or damaged prior to it being stolen; and, I would want to ascertain whether the stolen gun had any specific identifying marks or features that are identical to/common with the gun found with Thomas Mair (beyond the brand and model of gun, obviously).
Interesting post. There's lots of aspects of this case that could be investigated. Though I suspect a few brick walls might be encountered in the process.
-
Something else has come back to me.
The account given by Zack Gaughan to the media about the loss of his gun is vague. I also note that Gaughan lost his gun licence (strictly speaking, shotgun certificate) in the aftermath of the theft. It is important to note that theft of a gun would not necessarily invalidate a shotgun certificate automatically. A specific shotgun is not tied to a shotgun certificate, and provided the certificated owner can demonstrate he took reasonable precautions to prevent theft, the police cannot withdraw the certificate in the event of a suspected theft. Contrary to popular belief, there is a strong assumption in law that the granting of a shotgun certificate is as of right, except where there are disqualifying factors.
I don't disbelieve Mr Gaughan when he says the gun was stolen, but I suspect the reason he lost his shotgun certificate is because he had not locked his car, so there was no physical evidence of a theft beyond his own word.
I repeat that if I were investigating this case, I would be speaking to Zack Gaughan. I would want to know more about the theft, to see a copy of the shotgun certificate relevant to the stolen gun, and would want to know whether the gun had been modified or damaged prior to it being stolen; and, I would want to ascertain whether the stolen gun had any specific identifying marks or features that are identical to/common with the gun found with Thomas Mair (beyond the brand and model of gun, obviously).
The gun would have had a serial number. Where was it stolen? Was it close to where Mair lived?
-
The gun would have had a serial number. Where was it stolen? Was it close to where Mair lived?
Do you think he could have used the library internet to meet his underworld connections and obtain the firearm? Maybe when he was volunteering as a receptionist at Pathways, he was slipped it under the counter?
-
Do you think he could have used the library internet to meet his underworld connections and obtain the firearm? Maybe when he was volunteering as a receptionist at Pathways, he was slipped it under the counter?
Since Zach Gaughan lived only 16 miles away, the thief could be Mair himself. But that makes to much sense so maybe Aliens were involved?
-
Since Zach Gaughan lived only 16 miles away, the thief could be Mair himself. But that makes to much sense so maybe Aliens were involved?
I wasn't aware he had previous for theft. So you think Mair scoped the place out (16 miles away) and then made his move? Did he get the bus?
These alien remarks are pathetic.
-
I wasn't aware he had previous for theft. So you think Mair scoped the place out (16 miles away) and then made his move? Did he get the bus?
These alien remarks are pathetic.
The theft was opportunistic and took place near a farm. Did he take the bus? that makes too much sense. Mair must have hitched a ride with a UFO as they were on their way to abduct sheep from the same farm!
-
The gun would have had a serial number. Where was it stolen? Was it close to where Mair lived?
That's the thing: it doesn't say in any of the stories exactly where it was stolen. The most likely way this has happened is that he (Gaughan) was at a sports shoot, and opportunistic thieves were in wait, and Gaughan has gone for a pre- or postpartum drink or whatever, and the thieves have checked all the car doors and found his open. This means he couldn't prove it was stolen, so on reporting it he lost his shotgun certificate.
Not all shotguns in Britain do have serial numbers, even certificated ones, as the requirement for them wasn't introduced until quite recently, I believe. However, a quick check suggests that Weihrauch, a German maker, have indexed their guns since at least the 1950s, but probably this practice goes back to the late 1920s when gun laws in Germany required serial numbers. Typical of German thoroughness and efficiency.
The snag is that this is a sawn-off shotgun. Looking at the photos available, the serial number doesn't appear in any. I suspect that the serial number was somewhere on the upper barrel and discarded when the modification was done.
-
The theft was opportunistic and took place near a farm. Did he take the bus? that makes too much sense. Mair must have hitched a ride with a UFO as they were on their way to abduct sheep from the same farm!
Scoff all you like David, but me and Nugnug are on to a good thing here with these intergalactic nymphs. I'm just relieved Tommy Mair didn't mess it all up for us with his antics. Fancy giving him a lift in that UFO...
-
That's the thing: it doesn't say in any of the stories exactly where it was stolen. The most likely way this has happened is that he (Gaughan) was at a sports shoot, and opportunistic thieves were in wait, and Gaughan has gone for a pre- or postpartum drink or whatever, and the thieves have checked all the car doors and found his open. This means he couldn't prove it was stolen, so on reporting it he lost his shotgun certificate.
Not all shotguns in Britain do have serial numbers, even certificated ones, as the requirement for them wasn't introduced until quite recently, I believe. However, a quick check suggests that Weihrauch, a German maker, have indexed their guns since at least the 1950s, but probably this practice goes back to the late 1920s when gun laws in Germany required serial numbers. Typical of German thoroughness and efficiency.
The snag is that this is a sawn-off shotgun. Looking at the photos available, the serial number doesn't appear in any. I suspect that the serial number was somewhere on the upper barrel and discarded when the modification was done.
It wasn't a shotgun. It was a .22 rifle. The owner was using it as part of his pesticide business.
-
The theft was opportunistic and took place near a farm.
So Mair carried out an opportunistic theft on a car, 16 miles away from where he lives; got lucky and bagged himself a firearm?
-
It wasn't a shotgun. It was a .22 rifle. The owner was using it as part of his pesticide business.
Sorry, I think you're right. Even so, I think my comments stand.
-
So Mair carried out an opportunistic theft on a car, 16 miles away from where he lives; got lucky and bagged himself a firearm?
No. As I say, one way this could have happened is that thieves knew of an event and were waiting, anticipating that some people would leave guns and rifles in their cars. We don't know if it was Mair himself or somebody else. Probably somebody else. It could even have been a theft unconnected with guns and the culprit then fenced the gun. We just don't know, but why do you doubt that Mair could have stolen a gun from a car 16 miles away?
Also, how do you know the location? He was living 16 miles from Birstall at the time of the killing. Doesn't mean the gun was stolen from his own home. I don't think the stories online say that - in fact, it quotes him as saying he was out shooting at "a farm", implying it wasn't his own property.
Here's a link that shows a picture of the unmodified weapon:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2559792/jockey-whose-gun-was-stolen-sawn-off-then-used-to-kill-mp-jo-cox-by-hitler-fanatic-thomas-mair-tells-of-his-agony/
Not sure why I thought Mair's weapon was a shotgun. Maybe the way it looks, but there you are. Assuming it's the same weapon, then it's a rifle.
-
No. As I say, one way this could have happened is that thieves knew of an event and were waiting, anticipating that some people would leave guns and rifles in their cars. We don't know if it was Mair himself or somebody else. Probably somebody else. It could even have been a theft unconnected with guns and the culprit then fenced the gun. We just don't know, but why do you doubt that Mair could have stolen a gun from a car 16 miles away?
Also, how do you know the location? He was living 16 miles from Birstall at the time of the killing. Doesn't mean the gun was stolen from his own home. I don't think the stories online say that - in fact, it quotes him as saying he was out shooting at "a farm", implying it wasn't his own property.
Here's a link that shows a picture of the unmodified weapon:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2559792/jockey-whose-gun-was-stolen-sawn-off-then-used-to-kill-mp-jo-cox-by-hitler-fanatic-thomas-mair-tells-of-his-agony/
Not sure why I thought Mair's weapon was a shotgun. Maybe the way it looks, but there you are. Assuming it's the same weapon, then it's a rifle.
I asked if it was being suggested that Mair scoped the place before stealing the weapon. David replied it was opportunistic. If it wasn't Mair, then how did he procure it from whoever stole it? It's not like he had any criminal credentials..
He was just a gardener (whose physique seems at odds with that of the suited light cap).
-
I asked if it was being suggested that Mair scoped the place before stealing the weapon. David replied it was opportunistic. If it wasn't Mair, then how did he procure it from whoever stole it? It's not like he had any criminal credentials..
He was just a gardener (whose physique seems at odds with that of the suited light cap).
He would procure it in several different ways. Which way depends on whether it was a conspiracy or he acted alone. If it was a conspiracy, then the question is answered and it's just a case of finding out who the conspirators are. We can also assume in the case of a conspiracy that the weapon was modified for him.
If, on the other hand, he acted alone, then that suggests the supplier or fence didn't know his intentions for the weapon, which in turn implied that he modified the weapon himself, and offers a number of possibilities, among them being:
(i). Somebody local is a fence or gun supplier. You have at least one or two on every sizeable council estate and in any English town. He must have known the supplier and has asked him for a gun for the purpose of shooting vermin. He has then modified the gun himself
(ii). He just, by chance, knew somebody who had guns or access to guns, and that person had come into possession of the stolen gun (whether innocently or otherwise). This person then lent Mair the gun, or he stole it from the person, and in either case that person is keeping quiet and Mair is keeping quiet for him. This is plausible because among English working class men, there will always be somebody who knows about guns and uses them and has access to contacts in the 'gun world'.
(iii). Through his associations with the dissident Right, he came to know people who can supply guns and firearms and what not. This is similar to (i) above.
(iv). He read a gun magazine and approached a small legitimate supplier, perhaps initially with the intention of acquiring guns in the proper, lawful manner, but when the obstacles were presented to him, he was then discreetly encouraged to go down the illicit route and was introduced to black market contacts.
(v). He went on the dark net and found a legal or criminal supplier and went from there - a variation of (iv) above.
(vi). He found the gun somewhere.
(vii). He stole the gun himself.
I could perhaps come up with a few more possibilities. Those are the ones that spring to mind. I would rule out organised or violent criminals because they don't tend to be interested in vermin guns.
Now that I know about Gaughan, that's highly significant. The circumstances do suggest to me a conspiracy, though it's equally possible he obtained the weapon for reasons completely unconnected with Jo Cox or any killing and then came up with the idea of killing her. We don't know.
The fact he was 'just a gardener' seems irrelevant to the point. Gardeners can become involved in criminality, so can anybody. Dustbin men, car mechanics and dentists. This was a gardener with a subscription to National Vanguard magazine.
As for his gait and physique, etc., I'm not sure I can accept your conclusions. First, I don't see a radical difference in the appearance of the men seen in the clips. They do look different, but then, these are different cameras with different clothing worn by the subject(s) (the assumption being that Mair changed clothes, which makes sense if he is the killer). The opinion about his gait is offered by a martial arts expert: it's unclear, at least to me, what his expertise is in assessing walking styles. The differences in physical appearance are very slight and within what I would consider a margin of tolerance. It's not like they've put Fat Bastard from Austin Powers in the clips and expect you to think it's Thomas Mair.
-
He would procure it in several different ways. Which way depends on whether it was a conspiracy or he acted alone. If it was a conspiracy, then the question is answered and it's just a case of finding out who the conspirators are. We can also assume in the case of a conspiracy that the weapon was modified for him.
If, on the other hand, he acted alone, then that suggests the supplier or fence didn't know his intentions for the weapon, which in turn implied that he modified the weapon himself, and offers a number of possibilities, among them being:
(i). Somebody local is a fence or gun supplier. You have at least one or two on every sizeable council estate and in any English town. He must have known the supplier and has asked him for a gun for the purpose of shooting vermin. He has then modified the gun himself
(ii). He just, by chance, knew somebody who had guns or access to guns, and that person had come into possession of the stolen gun (whether innocently or otherwise). This person then lent Mair the gun, or he stole it from the person, and in either case that person is keeping quiet and Mair is keeping quiet for him. This is plausible because among English working class men, there will always be somebody who knows about guns and uses them and has access to contacts in the 'gun world'.
(iii). Through his associations with the dissident Right, he came to know people who can supply guns and firearms and what not. This is similar to (i) above.
(iv). He read a gun magazine and approached a small legitimate supplier, perhaps initially with the intention of acquiring guns in the proper, lawful manner, but when the obstacles were presented to him, he was then discreetly encouraged to go down the illicit route and was introduced to black market contacts.
(v). He went on the dark net and found a legal or criminal supplier and went from there - a variation of (iv) above.
(vi). He found the gun somewhere.
(vii). He stole the gun himself.
I could perhaps come up with a few more possibilities. Those are the ones that spring to mind. I would rule out organised or violent criminals because they don't tend to be interested in vermin guns.
Now that I know about Gaughan, that's highly significant. The circumstances do suggest to me a conspiracy, though it's equally possible he obtained the weapon for reasons completely unconnected with Jo Cox or any killing and then came up with the idea of killing her. We don't know.
The fact he was 'just a gardener' seems irrelevant to the point. Gardeners can become involved in criminality, so can anybody. Dustbin men, car mechanics and dentists. This was a gardener with a subscription to National Vanguard magazine.
As for his gait and physique, etc., I'm not sure I can accept your conclusions. First, I don't see a radical difference in the appearance of the men seen in the clips. They do look different, but then, these are different cameras with different clothing worn by the subject(s) (the assumption being that Mair changed clothes, which makes sense if he is the killer). The opinion about his gait is offered by a martial arts expert: it's unclear, at least to me, what his expertise is in assessing walking styles. The differences in physical appearance are very slight and within what I would consider a margin of tolerance. It's not like they've put Fat Bastard from Austin Powers in the clips and expect you to think it's Thomas Mair.
I get the feeling you don't really believe in much of the above and are just trying to exhaust every avenue that would help to keep the case inside the official case parameters.
I don't think he would be a able to access the dark web on library computers. According to Nick Wallen (an unreliable source imo, and interestingly now retired), Mair barely used his mobile phone.
So we seem to be left with a scenario, where either Mair obtained the weapon by word of mouth, from somebody else; or Mair commited a scoped or opportunist theft at an unknown location. According to unreliable source Nick Wallen, Mair wasn't known within criminal circles. Perhaps Mair had no previous offences, which is why I asked you the question regarding Mair being a criminal prior to this conviction and you provided an arguably facetious answer.
Has anyone checked the footage of Mair where he doesn't speak in the police interview? Apparently when he turns his head to the side, there is no prominent mole visible on Mair's cheek. Hall claims that two close friends of Mair have expressed that it's not him in this police interview footage, as his body language is wrong and his eyebrows look wrong.
-
I get the feeling you don't really believe in much of the above and are just trying to exhaust every avenue that would help to keep the case inside the official case parameters.
I don't think he would be a able to access the dark web on library computers. According to Nick Wallen (an unreliable source imo, and interestingly now retired), Mair barely used his mobile phone.
It depends on the security measures in place at that library or wherever he accessed the net, but I'm not saying you have to access the dark net to obtain a gun. I have explained numerous means.
So we seem to be left with a scenario, where either Mair obtained the weapon by word of mouth, from somebody else; or Mair commited a scoped or opportunist theft at an unknown location. According to unreliable source Nick Wallen, Mair wasn't known within criminal circles. Perhaps Mair had no previous offences, which is why I asked you the question regarding Mair being a criminal prior to this conviction and you provided an arguably facetious answer.
Has anyone checked the footage of Mair where he doesn't speak in the police interview? Apparently when he turns his head to the side, there is no prominent mole visible on Mair's cheek. Hall claims that two close friends of Mair have expressed that it's not him in this police interview footage, as his body language is wrong and his eyebrows look wrong.
Let me put it this way: if I want to get a gun (I don't), I could get one, fairly quickly. This is partly because of the circles I have moved in and what I have done in the past, and also because of where I was brought up and the knowledge this gives me about what goes on.
Mair had no prior criminal convictions, but he appears to have come from a similar socio-economic background to mine and I outline above the possible ways in which someone like that could have come across a gun or obtained one to order. It's all plausible.
I wasn't giving you a facetious answer about Mair's criminal history. You said Mair was not a criminal prior to his convictions, but he was, which is why he was convicted. This is literally true. If you are convicted of a crime, it's because you are a criminal. If you mean he had never offended before, the problem there is that we don't know that. If you mean he had no prior convictions, that doesn't mean he has never offended or that he had no acquaintances among low-level criminals. I accept what Nick Wallen says if he knew him, but Mair needn't have been involved in criminality to obtain a gun by illicit means, if he was determined on a course of action.
It could also be that the idea for the killing came after the gun, in that Mair came into possession of the gun and it was the gun that gave him the idea of killing Jo Cox. Who knows? Some men are curious about guns for curiosity's own sake. They obtain a gun by some means, or it falls into their lap. Maybe Mair was more imaginative than most, and given his private political sympathies and the macro-background of Brexit and micro-background of his housing problem, he started dreaming up grandiloquent Teutonic scenarios, perhaps involving killing himself at the end when he returned home. Again, who knows?
I know full well that innocent people can be convicted and a group of people can say something untrue.
I have been innocently convicted of something myself (albeit I was up to the same thing, so I wasn't morally innocent, even if legally so). I have also been in a situation where the police accused me of attacking somebody with a lethal weapon and there were a dozen witnesses who all came forward and supported the account given by the 'victim'. There was only one snag: it was all a work of fiction, it was fantasy. What the 'victim' alleged had not occurred. The police eventually quietly dropped the matter when they realised that the story didn't make sense, but it was a close-run thing. I could have done some serious time, based on untrue evidence from a dozen or more people. How did that happen? Were all those people lying? No, not all of them. People reinforce the story given by others and decide they have seen something they haven't seen. It's human nature. This is how innocent people get locked up. Possibly in this case Mair was set up or the victim of massive bad luck due to a series of freakish coincidences, and the people involved have 'seen what they want to see' at different stages.
I mention this to reinforce to you that I am not naive. I am willing to consider any theories, but unfortunately, unless you have something concrete, I don't see what else I can say.
-
Roch, do you believe Richard Hall when he claims he had a meeting with a UK Government secret agent who had been on a mission inside an Alien Spaceship?
-
Roch, do you believe Richard Hall when he claims he had a meeting with a UK Government secret agent who had been on a mission inside an Alien Spaceship?
I hope it wasn't the spaceship I travel in.
-
Roch, do you believe Richard Hall when he claims he had a meeting with a UK Government secret agent who had been on a mission inside an Alien Spaceship?
I haven't seen the interview or claim, as I don't follow that side of Hall's interests. I am more interested in his investigative journalism, regarding certain incidents; and the associated guests, researchers and observers that contribute accordingly. I have taken an interest in the Mair case specifically and have watched Hall's findings slightly evolve over time with new info. I believe he is bang on. Mair had some involvement in the day's events. However, (unless you follow the official tosh) it is not known exactly what his involvement was, in terms of: what he was told to do; what if anything he was told about the actual operation; what he was induced by and/or threatened with; exactly how he became vulnerable regarding their attention and aims; whether he complicated the operation by not following instructions properly: whether such a failure to comply was deliberate; whether he was supposed to survive the operation or be neutralised and posthumously set up as the killer.
-
I haven't seen the interview or claim, as I don't follow that side of Hall's interests.
You need to answer the question as to whether you believe Hall is credible and truthful or not.
If your answer is yes, then you have to believe that the UK government is secretly working with Aliens. since Hall claims to be in contact with government agents working in a secret Alien program.
If you answer is no, then you have to discard anything Hall has said about Mair. Since you cannot say a witness is credible and truthful on one subject but taking out his arse on another subject. That's not how witness credibility works.
The link is below.
https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279 (https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279)
-
Don't you think its a little odd that Richard Hall Claims to interview all these witnesses with remarkable claims yet the only guests that ever seem to appear on his show are predominantly the same two conspiratards - Andrew Johnson and Nick Kollerstrom?
???
-
Don't you think its a little odd that Richard Hall Claims to interview all these witnesses with remarkable claims yet the only guests that ever seem to appear on his show are predominantly the same two conspiratards - Andrew Johnson and Nick Kollerstrom?
???
By peddling this, you are merely discrediting your self.
There are quite a number of guests, some of who I am interested in and others less so. In the Mair case there is an interview with a relative and an interview with a neighbour overlooking the arrest site, as well as footage from media. Regarding claims of other contact / interviews, it should be realised (given the nature of the incidents being investigated) that not all people would be comfortable in providing their personal details or providing filmed / recorded interviews. Such is the way of the world. As a youth, I once gave my name to a local hack and paid the price soon after, when my name appeared in the local rag.
-
You need to answer the question as to whether you believe Hall is credible and truthful or not.
If your answer is yes, then you have to believe that the UK government is secretly working with Aliens. since Hall claims to be in contact with government agents working in a secret Alien program.
If you answer is no, then you have to discard anything Hall has said about Mair. Since you cannot say a witness is credible and truthful on one subject but taking out his arse on another subject. That's not how witness credibility works.
The link is below.
https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279 (https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279)
Not sure I agree with you there. I think you are setting up a dichotomy that needn't apply.
Whether a witness is credible depends on what they have to say and whether what they say fits in with what we know about reality and facts and evidence. I do agree that the witness' own personality, methods and other interests can be a factor. The unfortunate thing for Hall is that he doesn't appear to approach subjects in a journalistic way, instead he just absorbs whatever is thrown at him, which again, I agree affects his credibility; but in the end we can't dismiss what he says just because he attaches himself to claims that seem outlandish.
A lot of what Alex Jones and David Icke have said over the years is outlandish in that it is overly-speculative, to put a kind slant on it, but they have been shown to be right about a number of things over the past 18 months.
Claims must be assessed on their merits.
-
There are quite a number of guests, some of who I am interested in and others less so. In the Mair case there is an interview with a relative and an interview with a neighbour overlooking the arrest site,
Where?
-
Where?
Your questions reveal how little you actually know about the case. All of your case knowledge comes from press articles copy and pasted by RJ.
-
You need to answer the question as to whether you believe Hall is credible and truthful or not.
If your answer is yes, then you have to believe that the UK government is secretly working with Aliens. since Hall claims to be in contact with government agents working in a secret Alien program.
If you answer is no, then you have to discard anything Hall has said about Mair. Since you cannot say a witness is credible and truthful on one subject but taking out his arse on another subject. That's not how witness credibility works.
The link is below.
https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279 (https://youtu.be/y1Im0xxZM0M?t=279)
My answer to your questioning is that I regard your reasoning as deeply flawed. If we were to hold you to the veracity of your 'forensic breakthrough', where would that leave your own reputation regarding your other research? The answer to this of course, for me personally, is that I don't honestly know. As I remained neutral during those arguments
-
Your questions reveal how little you actually know about the case. All of your case knowledge comes from press articles copy and pasted by RJ.
Unless I have mistaken you. You claimed these witnesses appeared on Halls show. Hence I asked where.
-
Unless I have mistaken you. You claimed these witnesses appeared on Halls show. Hence I asked where.
Yes, there's a lot of air time on Hall's site regarding the Jo Cox incident. Probably across two years 2018-2020. Some of it within episodes or shows that deal with other completely separate matters. Part of it, was sent to every MP in the country, as a DVD. It was sent to their constituency offices. MP's aren't allowed to be conspiritards. Andrew Hunter tried that in 2005 or thereabouts. It's called sticking your head above the parapet. Political suicide.
-
Yes, there's a lot of air time on Hall's site regarding the Jo Cox incident. Probably across two years 2018-2020. Some of it within episodes or shows that deal with other completely separate matters. Part of it, was sent to every MP in the country, as a DVD. It was sent to their constituency offices. MP's aren't allowed to be conspiritards. Andrew Hunter tried that in 2005 or thereabouts. It's called sticking your head above the parapet. Political suicide.
My understanding is that Hall mentioned interviewing people in the Mair case. Not that these people actually appeared on the show.
-
My understanding is that Hall mentioned interviewing people in the Mair case. Not that these people actually appeared on the show.
My understanding of Hall when he is investigating an incident..
Hall attempts to interview people. Sometimes he is successful and sometimes he is not. With successful interviews, some are willing to go on camera and some not. Where he is rebuffed, he recounts what happened. For example, in his Mair investigation, he claims that Playford declines to cooperate and then complains to police regarding harassment. This allegedly resulted in Hall being visited by police and being required to sign an acknowledgement of his awareness of the said harassment complaint.
-
My understanding of Hall when he is investigating an incident..
Hall attempts to interview people. Sometimes he is successful and sometimes he is not. With successful interviews, some are willing to go on camera and some not. Where he is rebuffed, he recounts what happened. For example, in his Mair investigation, he claims that Playford declines to cooperate and then complains to police regarding harassment. This allegedly resulted in Hall being visited by police and being required to sign an acknowledgement of his awareness of the said harassment complaint.
Do people in the Mair case physicaly appear as a guest on Halls show? Yes or No?
-
Do people in the Mair case physicaly appear as a guest on Halls show? Yes or No?
Define 'people'. Hall does three things. He has tour events where he travels around the country speaking to audiences. He has studio interviews with guests. He makes films, which include a mixture of on camera interviews, relayed alleged interviews from people not on camera, and footage from media and/or CCTV.
I'm not sure why you are struggling with the concept of what he does, nor why you would expect every single individual to agree to an interview or to go in camera.
If he interviewed researchers in the Bamber case, would you be willing to go on camera? Or would you be reluctant?
-
Define 'people'. Hall does three things. He has tour events where he travels around the country speaking to audiences. He has studio interviews with guests. He makes films, which include a mixture of on camera interviews, relayed alleged interviews from people not on camera, and footage from media and/or CCTV.
I'm not sure why you are struggling with the concept of what he does, nor why you would expect every single individual to agree to an interview or to go in camera.
If he interviewed researchers in the Bamber case, would you be willing to go on camera? Or would you be reluctant?
Its a simple yes/no answer Roch. You know what a guest is and you know what a person is (obviously). But you are refusing to answer. Probably because it would mean you admitting to simply taking the word of somebody who talks out his backside.
You still haven't answered my question as to whether you believe Hall, when he claims to have spoken with someone in the government where his mission involved boarding an Alien spacecraft. Again its a yes/no answer. But again you wont answer for the same reason as above.
-
Its a simple yes/no answer Roch. You know what a guest is and you know what a person is (obviously). But you are refusing to answer. Probably because it would mean you admitting to simply taking the word of somebody who talks out his backside.
You still haven't answered my question as to whether you believe Hall, when he claims to have spoken with someone in the government where his mission involved boarding an Alien spacecraft. Again its a yes/no answer. But again you wont answer for the same reason as above.
Your assessment of Hall isn't my assessment. I have answered. Your problem is that your views and position are too black or white. I don't believe the world works like that. I could counter accuse you of refusing to comprehend my points, which I feel are set out with sound reasoning.
As for Hall's claim of interviewing somebody about aliens. I can't even tell whether he believes it himself. The clip has no context and I couldn't see Hall give a personal opinion.
He's an electrical engineer and he did a good video about flight paths for 9/11. I posted this up but you refused point blank to even watch it. Your self-imposed ignorance is not my problem.
-
here judge for yourself i find halls take intresting but he does tend to ramble a bit.
https://youtu.be/4aJKHcgB4aU
https://youtu.be/WeC3aoPIAV4
-
here judge for yourself i find halls take intresting but he does tend to ramble a bit.
https://youtu.be/4aJKHcgB4aU
https://youtu.be/WeC3aoPIAV4
That's John Aspray. He is quite a rambler, but seems a methodical type.
-
he is supposed to have said death to all triaters in court but did he really say thatwhat is the source for this.
-
he is supposed to have said death to all triaters in court but did he really say thatwhat is the source for this.
Correct Nugs. Was it it not supposed to have been said at the hearing? It's desperately silly tactics. Trying make him sound like AB from Norway.
-
it just seemed to appear asaroumour on twitter.
but i have yet to see anything to back itt up.
-
considring what labours doing i think he had cliam to self defence