Category Archives: Hearts and Minds Ops

Celebrities are always bad news

Jo Cox incident periphery; Part One: the Fellowship of the “Sting”

Remember Haroon Rashid Aswat? In 2002 he became a wanted man. The US Government had charges for him to answer related to setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon. Although he sneaked in and out of Britain for a few days betwixt the end of June and 7th July 2005 (a significant date), he had mostly at that time been living abroad. Hence it was why he was seized in Zambia in 2005 to be shipped to the UK where he was arrested, on arrival, on behalf of the pursuing Americans. Thereafter he remained in custody awaiting extradition proceedings – which were frustrated by his apparently suffering with paranoid schizophrenia to the extent that in 2008 he was incarcerated at Broadmoor. Eventually, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, moved to have him sent to the US, and in 2014 he was finally in the clutches of the American authorities. During this process, Aswat’s infamy was inflated by allegations that he had made a number of telephone calls to the people who, or so we are told, committed the 7/7 bombings in London. He was labelled the “mastermind” behind the Terror on the Tube.

With that initial briefing over, the reader might well be asking what any of it has got to do with an article that is going to be about the Jo Cox incident of 2016. The answer, dear reader, is that Haroon Rashid shares the same name as Jo Cox’s Office Manager, Fazila. Additionally, he also hails from Batley. This is a very interesting coincidence after you have concluded that the Jo Cox incident was a false flag, and possibly a hoax, and also after you have had it on good authority that Haroon Rashid Aswat was an Mi6 asset. And so Haroon has got something to do with this article, which is about gathering intelligence into one place, and noticing interesting facts and coincidences, in the history and circumstances of some of the players in the Jo Cox incident, that take on a fascinatingly different and less ordinary tone when one has become certain that, with regards said incident, we are dealing with “fake news”.

Let’s begin with Aswat. He was connected with an organisation called Al-Muhajiroun, and a collaborative effort with British intelligence to recruit immigrants in the UK into the jihadist Kosovo Liberation Army at the time of the destabilisation of Yugoslavia. This is the claim of intelligence expert John Loftus. His source appears to be comments made by Sheikh Omar Bakri – also a top man in Al-Muhajiroun. Loftus’ said this:

October 16, 2001, he gave a detailed interview with al-Sharq al-Aswat, an Arabic newspaper in London, describing the relationship between British intelligence and the operations in Kosovo and Al-Muhajiroun. So that’s how we get all these guys connected. It started in Kosovo, Haroon was 31 years old, he came on about 1995.

(Source).

As mentioned above, Aswat was a Batley man, as evidenced here:

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed a British national was in custody in Zambia, but the Aswat family from Batley Carr has not been told if it is Haroon Rashid Aswat, with whom they have had no contact for 10 years.

… and here:

A LINK was found between a Batley man and the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

US authorities revealed details after Haroon Aswat admitted terror charges on Monday.

People owning the same names (not to be repeated here) as Haroon Aswat’s parents  are listed at 192.com as living at an address in Batley. A Fazila Aswat (with other names that appear to verify her as the same associated with Jo Cox) is also listed at 192.com as living at an address in Batley. However, it must be stressed that these are clearly not the same households, and there appears to be more than two Aswat households in Batley, with no way of telling if any are related to the other. Please note this very important point: it isn’t the objective of this article to establish any link between Fazila and Haroon, nor imply that Fazila Aswat is an operative for any intelligence agencies – as Haroon Rashid Aswat is reported to be.

Fazila Aswat’s father has a different name, indicating that Fazila is an Aswat by marriage. We know Gulham Maniyar is her parent because he spoke for Fazila at the time of the Jo Cox incident, and notably was described as an ex-Labour Party councillor.

Miss Aswat, who had worked for the MP for a year, is too distressed to speak publicly, but the horrifying detail of the attack was given yesterday by her father, former Labour Councillor Ghulam Maniyar, 59.

(Source).

Now, it came to the author’s attention that a former Councillor by the name of Ghulam Maniyar found himself in a spot of bother back in 2012. He (by then a former politician) and a colleague, a man who was contemporaneously a councillor, were under investigation by Kirkless Council for financial irregularities related to an Islamic burial service that the two men ran.

It has been alleged that the men may have taken up to £1m from families during the 25 years they have leased the private plot near Dewsbury Cemetery.

A [Kirklees Council] spokesman said: “The investigation is more than 50 per cent complete. So far there has been no police or tax authority involvement.

(Source).

Accusations against the men appear to include grossly overcharging for burials, paying scant regard to “environmental regulations about bodies potentially contaminating the water table”, and packing the site beyond capacity with no proper plot records being kept. Abdul Patel, Maniyar’s partner, was also embroiled in accusations of postal vote fraud (from this article, where we discover that Maniyar had been a councillor for Batley East).

At the start of 2015, there was very much a sense of a blind eye being turned to the activities of Maniyar and Patel by Kirkless Council – if a local newspaper article written at the time is anything to go by.

KIRKLEES Council has refused to disclose details of how much public money it lost by failing to collect rent from the Muslim cemetery being run by one of its councillors.

At a meeting with district mosque elders at the time, Coun Patel and Mr Maniyar were understood to be holding profits of more than £300,000, without being constituted either as a company or charity.

Kirklees admitted this week it had no idea of the men’s or the organisation’s legal standing, or whether they had paid any taxes on the revenues.

(Source).

A report on the outcome of this case couldn’t be found. It appears as if the abovementioned article is, as they say, “your lot”. And it looks like any investigation of Patel and Maniyar stayed very much within the bounds of the Kirklees Council – who seemingly claimed ignorance.

We are going to leave the matter right there, except to quote Danny Lockwood, the publisher of the local newspaper which did a proper job of journalism to investigate what were obviously serious allegations of corruption (the frustration at the idea that justice has not been served is palpable):

By hiding behind the excuse of there being a ‘commercial sensitivity’ to the information, Kirklees merely reinforces the idea that both it and Coun Patel have something to hide.

(Source).

Next item on the agenda is the charity work of Fazila Aswat and Sandra Major. These ladies were with Jo Cox when she was attacked, and were described as her assistants. Fazila Aswat was supposedly Jo Cox’s Office Manager, and Sandra Major her Senior Case Worker. Someone called Fazila Aswat has also been involved with the Royal Voluntary Service in the West Yorkshire area. We know this through internet articles; this one, of 2013, for example, states that Fazila Aswat was the “Locality Manager for the region”; this one, of 2014, states that Fazila Aswat was the “locality manager for RVS in West Yorkshire”, and this one, of February 2015, states that Fazila Aswat was “the RVS locality manager in Huddersfield” – obviously it’s the same role slightly differently described each time. We know Jo Cox’s Fazila Aswat could be, or have been involved with the RVS because she mentions the charity on her Facebook page, and there is at least one source of data on the internet which links her (through an image in which she is named) to the RVS  – see here. However, this particular article doesn’t mention that Fazila Aswat works for the RVS. Moreover, it’s interesting to discover that there is no mention of any link between Jo Cox and the RVS through Fazila Aswat in a couple of articles on the RVS website (here and here) – which are about recognition of the charity by the official Jo Cox memorial fund (more on this later).

As it says, Fazila Aswat and Sandra Major.

Of course, Fazila Aswat was something of a poster child for some predictable “heroic Muslim woman beating off nasty neo-Nazi with handbag” propaganda. As for Sandra Major, we know what she looks like through some limited appearances on TV (apparently). The author only knows what she looks like because Look North published an image of her (tweeted here). As it happens, a woman of that same name is involved with the Batley Food Bank – in fact this woman helped create it. In an October 21st article, about a GMB Union event raising awareness (and funds, according to the title of the piece) for food banks, Major is described as the “co-founder of Batley Food Bank”. An image embedded in the page (without caption) shows a woman who looks very much like the Sandra Major of the Look North tweet. Furthermore, an article entitled “Donation made to Food Bank in memory of Jo Cox” contains another image (also without caption) in which the same woman is shown receiving the said donation in the form of a cheque – suggesting that she is Sandra Major – described as one of the “project leaders of Batley Food Bank”. We can also very much infer from the article that Sandra Major is still involved in the Batley Food Bank, post Jo Cox. Furthermore, a LinkedIn profile for a Fazila Aswat lists her current situation as “Service co-ordinator at WRVS” – although the WRVS is the old name for the RVS, so this could just be out of date.

Indeed, it has been asserted that Fazila Aswat worked for Jo Cox up to a year ahead of the incident – it says so in the the extract from the MailOnline further up this page. It uses the word “worked”, not volunteered. It has also been asserted that Sandra Major and Fazila Aswat were Jo Cox’s Senior Caseworker and Office Manager respectively. This information (a pdf file) from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority lists the official role titles of staff that an MP can employ, and the salary attached to the role. Amongst these are Senior Caseworker, and Office Manager. Both roles are salaried. Sandra Major, if she was a Senior Case Worker, and Fazila Aswat, if she were an Office Manager, would be working for Jo Cox. And look at this, which appears to come from a financial statement (found here):

This is the annual account written by Fazila Aswat (Constituency office manager) for late Jo Cox MP for their parliamentary work in the financial year 2015-16.

Fazila Aswat apparently did work for Jo Cox. And the document reveals that Cox employed:

A part time Office Manager, part time Senior Caseworker, Senior Parliamentary Assistant and a part time Parliamentary Assistant based in the constituency.

Back to that Jo Cox Food Bank donation story abovementioned, though, and there is something interesting about it (which we also find in the RVS website articles about Jo Cox – above) in that there is no linkage of the MP to the charity through her staff. For the sake of poignancy, in both cases, here in articles about the commemoration of Jo Cox through good deeds, there would be a great opportunity for a writer to mention that Fazila Aswat, a (current or former?) RVS worker had been Jo Cox’s assistant, and in the Food Bank article, so too had Sandra Major  – but instead there is not a donated-sausage, nor either one that comes in a meal on wheels.

So, the author gets a sense that for some reason we can’t be allowed to appreciate that the Sandra Major and Fazila Aswat connected to Jo Cox had these other lives as charitable workers. No instances can be found in the corporate-media, or on the broader internet, where Jo Cox’s political assistants are identified as also, simultaneously (or formerly), being representative of charities. Of course, this could be just to do with the not being able to find it.

And so, given this apparent schizophrenia, one wonders in what capacity Fazila Aswat and Sandra Major attended the House of Commons when on, 11th May 2016, Jo Cox took a delegation of Batley charity workers to London (source): “The Royal Voluntary Service, Alzheimer’s Society, Batley Food Bank and Community Partnerships were among those who attended the meetings in Parliament.” If the reader looks at the image within the article, Fazila Aswat can be seen, and Sandra Major is also there. Again, not one of them is identified as being of Cox’s staff. In fact, it can be inferred from the article that they represent the charitable organisations.

The Batley delegation.

Whatever was going on in Batley (let’s not get into potential abuse of positions that should be apolitical) here we can see that the women of the Jo Cox incident are linked through a number of strands. One might say that they seem on the surface to be as thick as thieves.

Speaking of which,  the Food Bank, which in the opinion of the author is actually a national phenomenon that is something approaching a racket – see this article on the subject – was something of a hobby horse for Jo Cox. Examine these articles and extracts:

From 26th November 2015 (here)

Jo Cox is backing a local building society in its bid to support Batley Food Bank as it helps people put the basics on their kitchen table this Christmas.

Here she is making a political point in the House of Commons: “Jo Cox challenges PM on priorities” (source).

If you revisit that article about the GMB Food Bank Fundraiser, you’ll find this at its foot:

Special thanks to Batley Bulldogs, Leeds Rhinos, Castleford Tigers, Jo Cox MP for Batley and Spen, Aakash Restaurant  and Tesco for their support.

(Note, the patronage of the Batley Food Bank by its MP didn’t start with Jo Cox. Her predecessor was also involved. Here is a report from 2013; and notice that one of the volunteers is a Suleman Aswat).

So, we have Jo Cox raising the profile of an organisation that, in her constituency, is headed up by someone who apparently works for her. Finally, remember that Fazlia Aswat is associated somehow with the Royal Voluntary Service. When a GoFundMe money raising campaign was started “In celebration and memory of Jo Cox”, proceeds would be “invested in creating the fairer, kinder and more tolerant world Jo fought for”. Three charities were named as recipients, and there seemed to be an odd one out. Two of the causes were the White Helmets, and Hope Not Hate – thoroughly discredited organisations that exist for purely political purposes of the most destructive kind. The third one was the Royal Voluntary Service.  Nearly £2 million has been raised with this campaign, and people are still giving.

Two hats and a funeral; Part Two – featuring the drill-gone-live explanation

In the first part of this series we examined a grouping of data from two eye-witnesses, given independently of each other to corporate-media, which agreed to one particular version of the attack on Jo Cox. In this part we look at another version that is mainly constructed from the testimony to court, in the trial of Thomas Mair, the man since convicted of murdering Jo Cox, of her political associates who had been accompanying her at the time of the attack. Rather fortunately, some of this data was collected and reported (here and here) by Nick Kollerstrom who attended the trial, and thus, because it had been omitted by corporate-media, was saved from oblivion. All of this information tells of an attack by someone wearing different items of clothing than told of in the other version of events, and relegates the idea of an intervening have-a-go-hero to something between a minor footnote and an invention. In this second version too, the attacker is said to make political statements (we’ll examine the trial testimony of all the people who said they heard these utterances – and show that there are very good reasons not to trust it). To conclude the series, and drawing everything together, an explanation for the antagonism of detail in the story of Jo Cox’s death will be contemplated: e.g. that a drill – a practice exercise – was happening simultaneously. Drills that sit underneath real events are a feature that recorders of State Crime have come to expect to see in a false flag attack, and this is what the Jo Cox incident appears to the author to be.

Sandra Major was Jo Cox’s senior caseworker. The following is the fullest account of her trial testimony that the author can find. In fact, this account is the only occasion when Sandra Major’s account hadn’t been broken into snippets and randomly distributed about many articles. This fragmentation of information is a feature of the reporting of the Jo Cox case. It may reflect the eratic and giddy minds of the generation now writing for corporate-media, but it actively prevents a reader gaining an appreciative grip on what should be a very simple timeline of a series of actions. The effect produced is one whereby a reader can only obtain an abstract general impression of what happened. If it’s not deliberate, the style of the corporate-media is very handy for its purposes.

Sandra Major had the clearest view of the beginning of the deadly attack. She had got out of the car’s front passenger seat and walked a few paces ahead of Jo and Fazila Aswat. She told a hushed courtroom: “In my peripheral vision I saw a man walking past me. He had a gun in his hand, he raised his arm and he shot Jo in the head … in the area of the temple.

“She fell back onto the ground and there was blood pouring down her face. He said something along the lines of ‘keep Britain independent’ or ‘British independence’.”

Mrs Major described the gun as being “short, it wasn’t a shotgun, but it was quite deep”. She said she thought Mair had a shopping bag in his left hand with the gun in his right. He got a knife out of the bag. It was black. Jo was lying on the floor and she sort of tried to push herself up using her right arm but he just started stabbing while she was lying on the floor. He was stabbing her.

“Fazila was in between two parked cars. We started to hit him with our handbags. Fazila said ‘get away from her, she has two little children’. I was just screaming. I thought if people came he might go away.

“Jo could not get up but she did a sideways roll and went into the road. He went towards both of us. We were quite close together. Jo was in the road and she shouted ‘get away you two, get away. Let him hurt me, don’t let him hurt you’.

“He’d started to walk away a few feet but when Jo shouted out he came back. Then he shot her twice more and started stabbing her again. She was on the floor. She did not get up again.”

Mrs Major said that Mair then walked away, down Market Street in the direction of Bradford Road.

(Source).

Like Sandra Major’s trial testimony, that of Fazila Aswat is usually dismantled and thrown haphazardly into several articles. The author found two fuller accounts, and the following is the less clumsy of the two:

Ms Aswat became officer manager and personal assistant to Mrs Cox when she was elected in May 2015.

She described parking the car in the street outside the library shortly before the attack. She said: “I got out of the car and I was stood on the roadside. Jo walked over to the side of the pavement. Sandra, she was already there. In that instant, our lives changed forever. The next thing I saw was Jo was on the floor and this man was stood over her with a knife.”

Ms Aswat started shouting for help, and heard a gun shot and saw Mrs Cox getting stabbed. She said: “I can remember the hand motion, it was really fast, so I cannot say which hand he used.”

Mr Whittam said: “Did you encourage her to run away?”

She replied: “I shouted, ‘Jo, you need to run’.

“After the first part of the incident, the man seemed to be retreating, so I ran back towards Jo. At that time, everything was focuses [sic] on Jo. I said, you need to get up. At that time she was talking – ‘Fazila, I cannot run, I am hurt’.”

Even at that time, she was “so composed”, but unfortunately “he then came back”, she told the court.

Ms Aswat said: “Jo was no longer on the pavement, we were on the road. When he first came back, I was standing over Jo, and I was saying to her, I was referring to her children – ‘just think of X and Y, you need to get up and run’. I started swinging my handbag and he swiped his knife towards me several times – not necessarily to attack me but to get me away from Jo, because he wanted to get her again.”

She said she then heard a further two gunshots, and saw him stabbing Mrs Cox again.

Asked if he said anything during he attack, she told the court: “Not during the attack, it was at the very end. He stood up and said, ‘Britain first’.” [Also ‘Britain first, Britain will always come first’ in another article].

He then left the scene and headed down the road, she told the court.

She added: “Jo was in my arms. It probably took about three or four minutes for the police and ambulance to arrive. But at that moment, it felt like a lifetime.”

(Source).

Let’s notice what is common to both accounts. The first act of the attack was one in which the assailant knifed Cox as she was lying down on the pavement. The method by which Cox was floored appears to have been the first gun shot. Aswat didn’t see the gun being raised, but heard it being fired (yes, the journalism does suggest that she started screaming before this, but it’s likely just bad writing). Then the two women seem to have been able to get themselves between Cox and her assailant so that they could hit him with handbags – Aswat puts this down to an opportunity arising by his having retreated a little. Jo Cox, in the meantime, had moved from the pavement into the road – Major says that this was done by the execution of a sideways roll. Aswat implies that there was a second time that the assailant walked away and returned;  Major explicitly states it, and we discover that the second return to the victim was actually triggered by further shouting by Jo Cox herself (which is a very interesting detail). At this point the assailant shot Cox twice, and then stabbed her some more. When the attack had concluded, the assailant escaped down Market Street. The only big difference, on first impression, between the accounts appears to be that Major says that the assailant made his political statements at the start of the assault, and Aswat says that he made them at the end. However, we are also fed another grain of information in another place (here) that Major is meant to have stated that at the end of the assault “[Cox] was on the floor. She didn’t get up again. He was still shouting and shouting”.

Conspicuous by its absence in either of the accounts was the notion of any intervention by a have-a-go-hero. Now, this sort of thing could have been the cause of at least one of the retreats made by the assailant, but why is it not mentioned? Did the court reporting make the omission, or did the witnesses? The author was able to find one exceedingly significant fragment of information relating to Fazila Aswat’s testimony that does indeed betray at least one omission of vital data made by court reporting. Here it is:

In cross examination, Mr Russell-Flint simply asked Mrs Aswat a few details about the attacker’s appearance and clothing. As she left the witness stand she looked straight at Mair in the dock. He maintained his blank stare, straight ahead.

Let’s not be of any doubt, this paragraph is designed to make it look as though Fazila Aswat recognises the man in the dock, supposedly one Thomas Mair of Birstall, as the attacker, so something very important has cunningly been used in a casual way to relate another message to the reader. That real vital thing of importance is that demonstrated here is proof that Aswat was asked about the appearance of the suspect when he supposedly killed Cox. Aswat did answer – we know this because of Nick Kollerstrom – but apparently she didn’t speak in a way that was acceptable for the narrative, and we’ll deal with this shortly. Firstly, let’s appreciate that at no time were any of the witnesses in court asked to identify Mair as the person who was seen killing Jo Cox, and again we can thank Kollerstrom for the fact that we know this. Let’s be clear, trial witnesses could be talking about a different person altogether if they don’t identify the suspect in the trial as the object of their testimony, and anyone receiving the information would naturally ascribe the actions described to the person they had been told to believe was the suspect. So, with this extract, the writer is urging the reader to form this connection of positive identification for themselves. It is only to be expected from state-controlled corporate-media looking to deceive its audience.

Now, returning to Aswat’s concealed answer. According to Kollerstrom (who is presumably paraphrasing), this was as follows:

The fellow was 5’ 10” high, in his late 50s, with white silvery hair over his head and ears, wore a dark baseball cap and had a blue rucksack.

Not only that, Kolllestrom recorded what was said by Sandra Major regarding this matter:

He had a black or blue baseball cap, and was wearing a shirt and tie.

(Source).

Perhaps not surprisingly, that Cox was attacked by a man wearing a dark cap does not appear in any corporate-media reporting that the author has looked at. Kollerstrom is not inventing this information. That the assailant was wearing a black cap has been verified, independently of any court reporting, in an interview by the BBC with a local resident, Sam Watson (see this video). So here is the second version of the attack: a man wearing a black or dark cap who shouts political statements, and who leaves off the attack twice (for unknown reasons) only to return to Jo Cox and continue it.

Finally, there are three points worthy of remark about the testimony by Aswat and Major. Firstly, notice how very strange the idea is that Jo Cox could calmly insert herself vocally into proceedings the way she did. She was shot in the head in the very first instance, at point blank range. The force of the shot knocked her flat onto the pavement. In that state, would she be able to be aware of and comment on the whereabouts and doings of others? Secondly, the testimony confirms that the attack happened almost instantly after the women got out of the car. However, a previous investigation at this site shows that there is no way that a figure shown in CCTV footage who is purported to be Mair could have reached this party of women on time – unless they hung around outside the library to wait for him. That any procrastination did not happen is not ruled out by the testimony, but it certainly would have been odd behaviour for people who were actually due to hold a surgery for the public in a matter of minutes. Thirdly, we shouldn’t forget that Major and Aswat are Labour Party operatives. This case was political, and it remains political. The Labour Party were officially backing Britain remaining in the EU during the campaigning period for the referendum on EU membership, and this incident was exploited politically for engineering emotionally-driven support for that cause.

Moving on to the next person of interest: Rashid Hussain. The corporate-media carried images of a man reported to be Rashid Hussain arriving at court and please note, he appeared to be a bearded man of Asian descent. The following is an example of the more substantial sort of thing that appears on the internet regarding Rashid Hussain’s testimony:

Local taxi driver Rashid Hussain pulled up at around the same time as Mrs Cox’s arrival at Birstall Library in a silver Vauxhall Astra. As he was giving his fare her change, he heard what sounded like a “firecracker”, jurors were told.

Mr Hussain demonstrated in the witness box how the man had stabbed Mrs Cox five or six times in front of him.

He said: “When I reached near, he stepped back. I 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.”

Mr Hussain told jurors that by this point Mrs Cox, who he had recognised as his MP, was bleeding and was being helped by an Asian woman. He said: “Jo’s head was in her lap and she was pleading for Jo to stand up, talking about her kids. Her hands and clothes were covered in blood. She was the only person there helping her.”

(Source).

Additionally, other reportage elsewhere includes this snippet of data (source):

Mr Hussain said the man came back and fired two more shots at #JoCox – the man then shouted something, the last words were “Britain first”

So, Hussain agrees with the two women in these most important respects: that the attacker interrupted his attack (Hussain is not clear about how many times), and a political statement was uttered by the attacker (at the end of the attack). Notice, there is no mention of an intervention by a man who subsequently gets injured – the author could not find any instance of Hussain reporting this. However, the reader might have noticed this: “[the attacker] was standing there with two ladies and another man.” The author is at a loss as to what this is supposed to be describing. The two ladies must be Major and Aswat. But who could the other man be? According to the official story, the only person who got near the attacker got stabbed; this was Bernard Kenny, and (especially) for a 77-year-old, this was quite dynamic:

“I jumped out of the car. I thought if I could jump on to the back, I could take him down. I thought he was thumping her until I saw the blood. I saw he had a knife in his hands. Just as I got short of him, he turned around and saw me. He shoved the knife in and it hit me in the stomach. The blood started pouring out between my fingers. I saw the blood and I thought ‘Oh my God.’”

He described staggering away to a nearby sandwich shop, from where he could see the man “going berserk with a knife”.

(Source).

Not a lot of “standing there” going on in any of that lot. In the first part of this series, it was shown that there should be enormous doubt about a man called Bernard Kenny intervening in the event (to the point of understanding that it didn’t happen). Could Hussain be telling us about the real incident?

Elsewhere on the internet, it is revealed that Rashid Hussain was also asked about the appearance of the attacker.

Taxi driver Rashid Hussain now being cross-examined by Thomas Mair’s QC. One question about appearance then witness leaves court.

Unfortunately, Sky’s Andy Hughes, who reported this in a tweet (here), failed to follow up. Again, is this because the attacker appeared to Hussain in a way that would have been contrary to the official narrative? Well, the answer is probably yes. Kollerstrom tells of how most witnesses in court tell of a man in a black or dark hat.

There is a problem with Hussain as a witness, and this is revealed in more tweets by Sky correspondents in court.

Taxi driver Rashid Hussain was in Birstall village on day #JoCox was killed – was taking customer to local Tesco store

Mr Hussain said he saw #JoCox on the street as he pulled up to drop customer off. Said he then heard sound of firing and shouting

(Source).

From this we can ascertain that Hussain is claiming that he saw Cox – pre-attack – as he was pulling up to drop off a customer for Tesco. The Tesco Express in Birstall is on a parallel street – Smithies Lane – and has its own car park. This doesn’t mean that Hussain didn’t pull up on Market Street to drop his fare off – as he must have done to get a visual on Cox – and the usual practice of taxi drivers in Birstall isn’t known by the author, but it occurs that it would be a little odd if Hussain didn’t drop off as close as possible. However, the point really is this: this information should have been tested in court. Hussain should have been asked to clarify, because if he dropped a fare in the car park at Tesco, how did he see Jo Cox outside the library? It is quite acceptable in trials to try to establish that a witness could not in fact see or hear what he or she claims to have seen, and therefore is unreliable. There are lots of reasons why people do invent stories, including having an official narrative override their own impressions. Why wasn’t it tested for in this case?

Now we turn to Jack Foster, another witness who supposedly heard the attacker make a political statement. There isn’t much reporting of this witness; usually his testimony is presented in short and similar terms to this (paraphrasing): “Another witness who heard Mair shout Britain First was Jack Foster” (so it is reported). The following is the most substantial that the author could find.

Jack Foster told the court he saw the man, having shot Ms Cox once, reload his gun before shooting her twice more.

The England fan, who was wearing a red Three Lions football shirt ahead of a Euro 2016 game that evening, told how he shouted “f***ing leave her alone” but he took no notice.

“He reloaded his gun again, putting two cartridges in, cocked it and shot her on the floor,” Mr Foster said.

He told the court he and two other men followed the man into a nearby street.

Mr Foster added: “He casually walked off. No remorse, no nothing.”

(Source).

Has the reader noticed what is wrong with this? It is the claim that the attacker put two cartridges in his weapon, and cocked it. Mair didn’t have a shotgun, which is what Foster is describing. He had a bolt action weapon that took a single round. The priming of the firing pin in such a weapon is performed in the movement of the bolt, the trigger doesn’t need to be cocked. When the bolt closes on an empty breech, one pulls the trigger to discharge the firing pin. So if Foster saw Cox being attacked with a shotgun, he didn’t see Thomas Mair attack her, because Thomas Mair, or so we are told, used a sawn-off bolt action rifle. If Foster was merely badly mistaken about what he witnessed, then why could he not have been badly mistaken about what Mair was supposed to have said that had political significance at a politically sensitive time? Again, the question must be asked, why wasn’t this catastrophic inaccuracy pursued by Mair’s defence?

The only other witness to supposedly hear the attacker make political statements was  a woman known as Tracy Bywood, “who was washing up in a care home kitchen overlooking the attack scene when it unfolded” (source). This is the fullest account of her testimony that could be found:

“I saw him wind his hand in her hair and drag her off the pavement,” she said.

“It was horrible what I saw. She went down on the floor like a sack of potatoes. It was awful to see a lady get such animosity.”

She said she was “fairly sure” she heard “someone shout Britain First”.

“He was so peaceful and calm as if he hadn’t done anything wrong,” she said.

She told the jury she heard a “popping noise” and said: “I won’t even buy Pringles any more, I can’t handle the noise of the seal breaking.”

(Source).

It should be noted that the Priestley Care Home is a large complex separated from the crime scene by about 100 feet and a community hall which is nevertheless set back from the road so that a green space does potentially afford a view for anyone looking up Market Street. However, there does appear to be a lot of trees interrupting any vantage point Bywood could have occupied, and it is unquestionably relatively remote from the place of the incident. The problem with the testimony should be self-evident, and the defence counsel should have gone after it. In addition, Bywood says that Cox came to be on the road because she was dragged there by someone pulling her hair. This is not what Cox’s political associates said.

Let’s just accept that Tracey Bywood was able to see the attacker drag Jo Cox into the road by her hair. Why is there such a fundamental discrepancy between this account and Fazila Aswat and Sandra Major’s version of events? In the bigger picture as discussed over two FBEL articles, how do we explain two general versions of events? What begins to suggest itself to the author as a possible explanation is that a drill, or a practise exercise, was scheduled at the very same time as the actual incident took place. Some people on the scene could have been privy to this, and as such would have acted out appropriately to the incident understanding that it wasn’t real, but that they must react to it as if it was. These people would be working to a script, and this authoritative version (when the incident was being recalled) would override any deviation that might have occurred after the incident had gone live – meaning, the real life “murder” was allowed to run its course (more on this in a moment). People who were not privy to this script would simply report what they had seen. They might also, after the fact, start to repeat elements of the official script (which would be presented in corporate-media or introduced on the ground by operatives) as they lose confidence in the certainty of their own experience.

When a drill goes live, the perpetrator, who would previously merely only have pretended to commit the offense around which the drill is organised, actually turns into a real offender and commits a real offence. The drill actors, after having played their parts according to a script, would be told at the end of the event that there was a real incident after all, and would probably be hemmed in contractually (or by threats) from discussing the process that they had been a party to – as much of it that they could understand. As the perpetrator would be a proxy for the State Criminal, and as such undiscoverable, there would have to be a patsy to take the fall for the crime. Subsequently, witnesses would report seeing the perpetrator and also the patsy – who would, by some ruse or other, be made to be entangled in proceedings to such an extent that witnesses could easily be persuaded into thinking that he was the one and only actual offender. In the Jo Cox incident, Thomas Mair, living alone as he did (and thus making it easy for police to plant evidence at his home) and having mental illness so that, left alone, he could not begin to unpick himself from his entanglements, would have been a perfect patsy.

In the case of the Jo Cox incident, where a body could not be produced as evidence to a jury in a murder trial, there is a case to make that the pretend murder aspect of the drill was not changed, and it remained pretend – i.e. it was a hoax rather than a false flag. Only Jo Cox, the perpetrator, and the “emergency services” that first dealt with her would be knowledgable of this scenario. Other drill actors would still be told that something went wrong, and that there had been a real murder after all. The patsy is always in the dark. There is evidence that this could have happened. Consider how Twitter user “ScotsFootyCards” in Birstall took imagery on 13:07 and 13:08 that showed ambulance and police approaching Smithies Lane, so at this point the the incident was 15 minutes old.  Fazila Aswat, however, reported that it had taken three or four minutes for the police and ambulance to arrive, presumably, from the context of her testimony, after the attacker had made his escape. If there is CCTV footage of the attacker fleeing the scene at 12:53, then we’re looking at the arrival of police – but more significantly an ambulance, which is meant to await police clearance to enter a crime scene – according to Fazila Aswat, at about 12:56-12:58. Theoretically, this could be the cover-up squad arriving ahead of the real response.

At the top of this it was mentioned that this article rounds off a two-part series. However, there will be one more on the subject of Jo Cox appearing at this site that examines the hypothesis that what happened on June 16th 2016 was the culmination of a long term plan to sway voters to choose Remain in the EU Referendum.

 

 A note on video evidence shown at the trial

Nick Kollerstrom reported that the footage shown to the court was barely visible from the public gallery. “Lots of other CCTV was shown, in none of which I could recognize him [Mair], but someone with a white cap was bobbing around.  Other visitors I spoke to (tho [sic] you’re not supposed to) did not see anything much in these videos.”

This CCTV footage is undoubtedly recorded by the same camera that filmed footage of Market Street that has made public by West Yorkshire Police, and which is purported by police to show Mair making his escape. In this footage it is very hard to see what is happening behind the fleeing figure back at the scene of the crime. The author suggests that there is no way that anyone looking at this film could distinguish facial features that could inform them that Thomas Mair had been the perpetrator of a crime, or indeed what any crime actually constituted.

Two hats and a funeral; Part One – featuring the Bernard Kenny enigma

After sifting through the information that is in the public domain regarding the supposed murder of Jo Cox, a real picture emerges of what happened on 16th June 2016. This picture, however, isn’t very easy to comprehend; it doesn’t make any sense, for it tells of something that is not rational, which is this: as described by various people who witnessed the event, it appears that there were two assailants, and perhaps therefore two attacks on Jo Cox. We can generally sort the accounts into two broad groupings. The first is of a man, wearing a white cap, who begins to attack Jo Cox and is set upon by an intervening bystander. The second is of a man, wearing a black cap, who is heard to make political statements while he attacks Jo Cox. There are crossover elements, and we could weave them together to make a unified story, except that the fact remains that some witnesses saw a black cap, and some saw a white cap on the head of the man who attacked Jo Cox – while he was attacking her.

Of course, common sense tells us that this split-reality cannot possibly be, and yet that doesn’t mean that the information that instructs this picture must be rejected. Rather, if we regard ourselves as thinking people, we need to acknowledge that the information requires a different explanation other than the one that has been given to us. It’s not beholden upon us to piece together any such explanation. It is enough for us to show that the official narrative is contradicted and undermined by data that different arms of the Establishment have conspired together to ignore, omit or restrict for public consumption – activity which in itself is evidence of a cover-up. Cover-ups by government and its accessories are used to hide a truth unacceptable to a body that has it in its power to punish – the People, if they but knew it. And the author suspects that the truth of the Jo Cox incident is that it was yet another State Crime Against Democracy. Punishment is long overdue – if only the public would take an interest.

The witness Hichem Ben Abdallah is now well known in the pages hereabouts as being someone who gave us some very important information when he was interviewed in the first hours after the Jo Cox incident: “Britain First” was not something said by the man attacking Jo Cox. However, it has to be said that other testimony he gave was somewhat confusing – that is, it was confusing before we were able to appreciate that there was something skew-whiff about the the official narrative. Let’s revisit two pieces of data related via the eye-witness account of Ben Abdallah. The first follows immediately, and we’ll return to the second by-and-by:

[Ben Abdallah] said: “There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag.

(Source).

The attacker, wearing a white baseball cap, was interfered with by a supposedly otherwise innocent bystander as he tried to commit his crime. According to the corporate-media, not too long after the incident was first being reported, it emerged that the man who had intervened was a 77 year old known as Bernard Kenny. Now, Bernard Kenny is not so much a sideshow in the Jo Cox affair as a whole carnival in itself – because he might actually be dead (hence the reference to the funeral in the title). An obituary turned up on the internet for a Bernard Kenny, of the Leeds area, married to a Doreen – which was the same name of Kenny’s wife as per the Jo Cox narrative – and some eager people jumped to the conclusion that this was meant to be the Bernard Kenny. In other words, it appeared that Bernard Kenny couldn’t have intervened because he had been dead since 2013.

It later turned out that there was in fact another Bernard Kenny – a Bernard Carter Kenny – of Birstall itself, and this had been the man of the Jo Cox affair. Indeed, the corporate-media started to openly state the middle name when it came to cover the trial just so that there could be no confusion. The misunderstanding was solved, right? Well no, because at the time of the attack on Jo Cox, the following information was disseminated as gospel truth:

Mr Kenny shared the same birthday as the mother-of-two MP – he will turn 78 on Wednesday [22nd June] and was 36 years older than Mrs Cox.

(Source).

Calls are now growing for the former miner, who turns 78 on Wednesday – the same day that Cox had been due to celebrate her 42nd birthday – to be awarded the George Cross for his actions.

(Source).

On the other hand, Bernard Carter Kenny was apparently born in September of 1938 – as an internet researcher claims to have discovered (and the video can be viewed here). And note how Bernard Kenny was still 77 when, on the 26th June, he attended a Batley Bulldogs rugby league match and performed a ceremony in memory of Jo Cox ahead of kick-off – see the story here and here.

It very much appears, then, that the Bernard Kenny who the media claimed had intervened in the event wasn’t Bernard Carter Kenny, because (until anyone can show otherwise) the latter has the wrong birthday.

Maybe this is why there was deafening silence from Bernard Carter Kenny’s son, Phillip, when buzzed by the corporate-media. Mr Philip Kenny apparently taught geography at the grammar school in Heckmondwike, West Yorkshire, so we are told this made him Jo Cox’s teacher. Indeed, the fact came straight from the horse’s mouth (here):

In a Tweet posted in December 2015 she says: “End of an era. My former geography teacher Mr Kenny has retired from Heckmondwike Grammar. All the best for your retirement Phil.”

(although the school’s website currently implies that a Mr Kenny still works at the school)

Perhaps the Mirror journalists attempting to get a scoop thought that they would find grist for the myth when they approached Mr Kenny and his school for comment, and perhaps they didn’t imagine they would be met with this (from here):

Phil [Kenny], aged 56, declined to discuss the remarkable coincidence politely saying from his home in nearby Batley he did not want to talk.

Head Teacher Mike Cooke refused to discuss the link between the pair and declined to say if Jo may have known the former teacher’s “hero” dad.

If Bernard Kenny wasn’t involved in the Jo Cox incident, then we discover from corporate-media reportage that West Yorkshire police wouldn’t have been surprised. Officially – early on, at least – the man who had intervened was entirely much younger:

West Yorkshire Police said in a statement: “At 12.53pm today, police were called to a report of an incident on Market Street, Birstall, where a woman in her 40s had suffered serious injuries and is in a critical condition.

“A man in his late 40s to early 50s nearby also suffered slight injuries.”

(Source).

Bearing this in mind, now consider that second extract of Ben Abdullah (related) evidence – as was promised above:

Outside the library, he [Ben Abdullah] saw a bystander who he believed to be the owner of a nearby dry cleaners stepping in to help Ms Cox.

However, the dry cleaner owner in question has told The Indpendent it was not he who intervened, as has been believed in the community, but another bearded man of south Asian descent.

In this excerpt we discover a very important piece of information. Ben Abdallah thought that the man who had intervened in the incident had been a bearded man of south Asian descent. Specifically, Ben Abdallah thought it was a Mr Tahir of the local vicinity but he was mistaken – and this site has previously covered Mr Tahir’s denial. It was this denial that, as the author reckoned, at least, caused a little confusion and threatened to make Ben Abdallah look slightly wobbly as a witness – but the discovery of the Independent’s reportage has cleared everything up: Ben Abdallah saw a bearded man with Asian appearance taking on the attacker. He might have gone on to misidentify this man, but it doesn’t change the fact that he saw someone who wasn’t Bernard Kenny intervening in the incident.

Building on this not-insignificant piece of data, consider how at the trial of Thomas Mair, Bernard Kenny didn’t appear as a witness. He did, however, submit a Victim Personal Statement (VPS) (confirmed in the judge’s sentencing remarks – found here) which was read out –  not by himself or indeed any member of his family (although it isn’t by any means a strict requirement). Instead, Bernard Kenny’s statement was read to the court by Whittam, the prosecuting lawyer.

Of the statement itself, the author can find little detail (here is some), and it would be very useful to know about the content (this is why it is withheld, one suspects). For it would appear that VPSs don’t have to rely on any facts. They deal with how a person perceives himself to be a victim of a crime. Note that Bernard Carter Kenny didn’t feel impacted upon enough to actually attend court himself, and arguably, such proxy representation for “Bernard Kenny” in court would mean fewer-to-no repercussions for any Bernard Kenny who wasn’t after all the Bernard Kenny who was involved in the Jo Cox affair.

Interestingly, the official excuse for Kenny’s absence apears to have been “not well enough to attend”. And perhaps the exact reason for Kenny’s illness was revealed in his statement – at least as far as the corporate-media reported it:

Mr Kenny said the knife had sliced into his liver, causing more damage than originally thought and that he found it hard to think about “how close to death I had come”.

A liver more badly damaged than first thought? Well, we were told, were we not, that Mair had plunged a 17/18cm blade into Kenny’s stomach “almost to the hilt”? Should we think it strange, then, that Bernard Kenny was well enough to be discharged from hospital 4 days after the incident, and –  looking fighting fit in the photographs – lay flowers at a local rugby game a mere 10 days after the incident, but not be well enough to attend a trial – a murder trial to boot – many months later? But then again, on the day, the police didn’t seem too impressed with any wounding received by Bernard Kenny, as the following reportage demonstrates (emphasis added):

The temporary chief constable of West Yorkshire police, Dee Collins, said there was a large, ongoing investigation, with heightened visibility patrols in the area. She added that weapons had been retrieved from the scene, including a firearm.

At the press conference announcing Cox’s death, Collins said: “Jo was attacked by a man who inflicted serious and sadly, ultimately fatal injuries. Subsequently there was a further attack on a 77-year-old man nearby who has sustained injuries that are non-life threatening.

All this begs a question that really needs to be asked (so, not just out of passing interest); what was the the first instance in the corporate-media of Kenny being mentioned as the intervening man? The answer, at least as it appears, did not surprise the author. After much trawling of the reoportage, it appears that the identity of the have-a-go hero might first have been introduced into corporate-media coverage by none other than Clarke Rothwell – who, as we shall see, provided another  positive identification of a white cap on the head of the assailant:

One of us, I think his name is Bernard, tried to intervene physically but got stabbed in the stomach, blood poured out of his wound and he fell to the ground. Everybody backed off.

(Source).

Now, Clarke Rothwell featured heavily in the first article at this site (links are above). That article featured witness testimony proffered by Rothwell early on in the day of the incident: a telephone conversation with the BBC that was then transcribed to text on a webpage. It was noticed in the said article that this very early account by Rothwell didn’t include any information regarding any shout of “Britain First” – which, of course, was the main strand of the rope by which Mair was strung up  in the kangaroo court of public opinion (corporate-media presiding). Now if we look at that testimony again, we will also notice that it didn’t feature any attempt to identify the man who intervened either:

“When I looked round there’s a man stood there in his 50s with a white baseball cap on and a jacket with a gun, an old fashioned looking gun in his hand,” he said.

“He shot this lady once and then he shot her again, he fell to the floor, leant over shot her once more in the face area.

“Somebody tried to grab him, wrestling with him and then he wielded a knife, like a hunting knife, just started lunging at her with a knife half a dozen times. People were screaming and running from the area.”

(Source).

Now let’s introduce a man called Colin Frith. Colin is a dance teacher at an establishment roughly opposite the Birstall library on Market Street. He apparently had some contact with the intervening bystander, and his story about this appeared in the MailOnline. Furthermore, the MailOnline appears to be the only print media that Frith talked to because the Mirror, Telegraph, and the Sun all cite the MailOnline in their own articles about the adventures of Colin Frith. So, without further ado, after being told about the incident, Frith goes to the Sandwich & Co sandwich shop and encounters an injured person:

‘I saw a man who I didn’t know laying on the floor with his hand to his chest, he was bleeding quite a lot and his shirt was soaked in blood.

‘A number of people were around him and two girls were telling him to keep holding the wound. I ran back to my workplace to get my first aid kit.

‘Back at the cafe I lifted up the man’s shirt and could see it was a stab wound. I put any bandages I could grab as quickly around the wound which was between his rib cage and diaphragm area.

‘Me, my friend Scott and the girls told him to lie still and told him we’d take care of him.’

But within moment the seriousness of the situation became all too apparent.

He had been talking a bit and then he suddenly went into shock and started shaking and all the colour drained from him,’ Mr Frith, of nearby Birkenshaw.

‘I thought ‘Oh no he’s going to go!’ and I willed him to stay with us.

‘His wife was watching it all in the cafe. She was really upset and so worried about him.’

The thing that is very noticeable about this information, and not entirely unexpected, is that there is no description of the victim. Sure, the journalist couching the information in the article talks about a pensioner-this, and a pensioner-that, but all that Frith tells us is that “all the colour” drained from the victim. Now, it turns out that ITV did a filmed interview with Colin Frith (which can still be viewed here), and in this interview Frith was very concerned with the victim’s chest – so much so, that the viewer starts to get confused where the wound actually should have been. In fact, Frith says that when the man lifted his shirt, he couldn’t see a wound, but he could see plenty of blood – but this is further confused by Frith talking about putting pressure on the wound. In fact, the actual wellbeing of the man, at this moment in the entire incident, as a point of fact, also becomes newly confused by this interview. Frith distinctly states that the man was “sitting on his own” – so not lying prostrate on the floor, then -  and that the man was reporting that he was fine, and indeed that Frith thought that he seemed alright.

The really strange thing about this witness, though, is that his twitter history shows no sign of dealing with this have-a-go hero, nor, actually, any inside information that he might have had by doing first-aid on this man. Colin Frith tweeted – not very frequently, mind – throughout the day on 16th June. Up to the point of the incident, he had been involved in a discussion about another subject entirely, but then there were four tweets that deal with the attack on Jo Cox. These are as follows:

At 14:10:

Thoughts with Jo and the gentleman who got stabbed outside work today! #crazyworldwelivein #Birstall

At 16:06

@BBCLookNorth spare a thought for the man who got stabbed because he went to intervene! #Birstall

At 17:29:

RIP #jocox What is this world coming to? #birstall

At 22:13:

@SkyNews @BBCBreaking does anyone have any info on the second victim? #birstall

What is to be made of the fact that there is no mention in these tweets of any encounter with the man who had intervened in the attack on Jo Cox? It looks to the author as if Frith is merely responding to basic information – stuff that he might only have heard reports of. The last tweet is interesting – it could be an enquiry as to the health of the individual (and this could suggest – albeit very weakly – that there had been engagement in the event), but there is still no statement of any special interest, though.

On the 17th June, Frith tweeted about the memorial held in Birstall that day – again, like a spectator.

On the morning of 18th June, Frith retweeted an article about the identity of the intervening man – Bernard Kenny.

Well done Bernard!

So, the first time that Frith talks about the identity of the man is after it has become common knowledge.

Much later on in the same day, Frith posts this:

Still feeling perplexed.

perplexed

Still feeling perplexed? It would be nice to enquire, instead of having a jolly good guess, as to why Frith isn’t completely happy, but I fully suspect that if anyone approaches this gentleman with questions, they will soon be getting a visit from police to warn them off. I categorically do not encourage it.

Before we wrap this dose of analysis up, there is one more moment of confluence between Rothwell’s first testimony and that of Ben Abdallah’s to deal with. Please consider the following extract:

Mr Rothwell said: “He ran past the Tesco Express and I jumped in my van to try and follow him and maybe knock him over. He threw off his black puffer jacket as he ran away.”

(Source).

This is interesting. Our other witness, Ben Abdullah, reported that he was told that the attacker had run down the “steps of Tesco” (please see “Thomas Mair: all by himself?” on this site for further details). So, is Rothwell also saying the same thing? Given that Rothwell seemingly attempted to followe the attacker, it is reasonable to assume that he did witness the route of escape. And this would be the third point of basic agreement of fact between Rothwell’s raw account and Ben Abdullah’s story: 1) the white cap, 2) the intervention by a passer-by, 3) the attacker escaping down the “steps of Tesco”.

If the man who attacked Jo Cox escaped by way of the Tesco Express on Smithies Lane, then he couldn’t be the man that appears in CCTV footage reaching the end of Market Street and who police say is Thomas Mair (this character is not wearing a “bobble jacket” either). In fact, given that the attacker went down Union Street (as Rothwell also reports) it would make better sense for him to have taken this Tesco shortcut. The only benefit of going all the way down Market Street would be to get caught on CCTV fleeing the supposed crime – and who would actually benefit from that?

This provides a nice segue to the next – and final – point. As the reader may well know, the actual attack itself was supposedly caught on CCTV, and therefore CCTV supposedly caught Mair perpetrating the crime. So, we’ll next examine what some court reporting had to say about that.

COURT 8 of the Old Bailey sat in shocked silence as CCTV footage from the bottom of Market Street showed Thomas Mair’s attack on Jo Cox.

After the silver Astra driven by Fazila Aswat comes up the street from Bradford Road, they find a parking space just before the library.

Although the incident is in the distance, Mair can be seen crossing the road from the Vape Lounge where he had been lurking since noon on Thursday, June 16.

After what seems to be a coming together of Mair with the group of women, he can be seen on top of Mrs Cox before breaking into a brief jog down and across Market Street. He stops suddenly in the middle of the road, then returns to attack Mrs Cox again, this time between the two cars, before finally walking off more calmly this time.

(Source).

There are a few points of order to be mentioned about this footage and the reporting of it; these are going to feature in a later article. In the meantime, please notice that whoever described this CCTV footage as played to the court, they did not mention any intervention by a bystander. Furthermore, when we look at the footage released by West Yorks Police purporting to show Mair making his escape (which must be of the same stock and taken from the same perspective and location as that described in court), there is no visible sign of another man injured – no one lying prostrate in the road, for instance. And on top of that, the author has looked for trial reportage in corporate-media in which Jo Cox’s political assistants, Fazila Aswat (Jo Cox’s manager and daughter of a former Labour Party councillor) and Sandra Major (Jo Cox’s senior case worker), who had been in the car with her, mention any intervention. None can be found.

What these two women are said to have done at the trial, however, is talk about the attacker wearing a black hat. This hasn’t been reported in main stream media – and the reader would probably appreciate the reason as to why– but nevertheless, we have had other information that is independent of the trail that verifies this story. The women describe a man in a black hat, fail to mention any intervention, but talk about the attacker making political statements – this is the second version of events. We’ll deal with all this in another article.

Day one, the trial of “death to traitors, freedom for Britain”

Disclaimer: The man presiding over the trial who goes by the name of Wilkie told the jury that they should not conduct research on the internet in relation to the case of the so-called “Thomas Mair” (hereafter referred to as Thomas Mair). That “warning” absolves this article, although nothing written by any person now could prejudice the case as much as the entire British political elite did when using it to try to win the EU Referendum; but in case any jury members (assuming that they be real people) find this site, you should stop reading now.

This article is for the purpose of reviewing the first day of the trial of the man accused of the murder of Jo Cox, and comparing evidence with details that were published on the day by corporate-media. There’s not going to be too much effort to give links for information that is gathered from different sources – that can be done more carefully another time. No opinions will be consciously given except to note that the prosecution, which is led by the man who appears to have prosecuted Adebowale and Adebolajo, a certain Whittam, maintains a tone set by the corporate-media on the very first day of the event in June 2016. The inference is picked up by the corporate-media who declare it outright – the Telegraph calls Thomas Mair a “white supremacist” despite the author finding no reference to the term in any of the reporting. In short, Whittam may frame his presentation to the jury thus: “you may think that it helps you to understand his apparent motive in deciding to carry out this murder”, but the public is certainly being led by the way this has been telegraphed to them by the corporate-media (example above). Any who witness these events through corporate-media must gain the same impression of the purpose of the prosecution when “establishing motive” – by mentioning these impressions the author would merely be discussing what has already been well and truly seeded in the public consciousness by corporate-media.

The title serves to remind that the defendant in the case, when appearing at a preliminary hearing, declined to admit to his corporate identity. We are told that his defence counsel, whoever that may have been, identified Thomas Mair to the court. The police have released a photo of the suspect for the trial, and this appears to be the same man seen in pictures at the time of the incident, and purported to be Thomas Mair, wearing a white cap and a camouflage jacket. It should be noted that a picture doing the rounds on the internet of a man doing a Nazi salute cannot be Thomas Mair as claimed. This individual has tattoos on both arms, and the man who police arrested in connection with this case – as shown in footage taken at the time of the incident – has bare arms (see the featured image).

The first day of proceedings saw the prosecution introduce its case. There was a lot of detail about how Thomas Mair would use Birstall library computers to look up incriminating circumstanstial evidence such as:

  • A Wikipedia page for the Occidental Observer, “a far right online publication that covers politics and society from a white nationalist and anti-Semitic perspective”.
  • Jo Cox’s Wikipedia and Twitter pages
  • William Hague, another prominent Yorkshire-based Remain campaigner
  • Ian Gow, the last sitting MP to be murdered.
  • .22 ammunition, including answers to the question “is a .22 round deadly enough to kill with one shot to a human’s head?”
  • Far right politicians
  • Members of the Klu Klux Klan
  • Material about the Waffen SS

Notably it doesn’t appear that the prosecution has claimed Mair to be a member of any political group.

Witnesses were mentioned. These were named as Fazila Aswat, Bernard Carter-Kelly, Jack Foster, Rashid Hussain, Sandra Major, Shelly Morris, and Darren Playford. Notice that there are no names that were used by corporate-media to establish a certain narrative on the day of the incident. There could be other witnesses that aren’t reported in the corporate-media at this time. We wait to see if any of this witness will appear in court in person or have statements entered into the record. It should be understood that Whittam could have been paraphrasing testimony for the purpose of summarisation, and then corporate-media reporting could be giving it flavour, but from this we are to understand the following general narrative:

Mair is alleged to have attacked Cox as she arrived for her constituency surgery. The attack allegedly commenced with a blade, to be followed by a single shot with a weapon to the head. A passer-by, Bernard Carter-Kelly, tried to intervene at some point, but was allegedly stabbed. It appears to be alleged that Mair chased Carter-Kelly off from the immediate vicinity – to the doorway of a nearby sandwich shop where he collapsed – but then returned to shoot Cox twice more – once in the chest, and then in the head.

This is the witness attributed to the persons named above:

Aswat, Cox’s manager – with Cox at the time of the alleged assault: “saw Mair approach Cox from behind, stab and then shoot her, then stab both Cox and Carter Kenny… Then she saw Mair shoot Cox again. During the attack… could hear Mair saying: ‘Britain first, this is for Britain, Britain will always come first.’” Additionally: “repeatedly hit Mr Mair with her handbag… but was forced to retreat in fear of her own life being taken”.

Kelly, waiting in his car outside the library for his wife Doreen: “saw Jo Cox, who he recognised… heard a bang and saw Jo Cox roll into the road and then he saw a man ‘shoving it – a knife – at her’. He went to try and help. He was stabbed.”

Jack Foster, location unknown: “saw Thomas Mair standing with a gun… saw him raise the gun and shoot Jo Cox… shouted, ‘F****** leave her alone’… saw him reload or re-cock the gun and he shot Jo Cox again… remembers the shooter shouting, ‘Britain First’.”

Rashid Hussain, taxi driver dropping off fare: “challenged Mair, demanding that he leave her alone, but was warned: ‘You just go away, otherwise I’m going to stab you’… alleges Mair said words to the effect of ‘Britain first’.”

Sandra Major, Cox’s senior case worker: “described the firearm as being ‘brown wood with a metal tube at the end’… said that after Mrs Cox had been shot and stabbed, she ‘tried to get away from him’ but was shot again. She heard the killer shout: ‘Make Britain independent’.”

Shelly Morris, witnessed incident over the wall of a nearby care home. Purportedly first to call 999: “described hearing a loud bang and a loud piercing scream, and seeing Mair ‘swing the knife in a stabbing motion’… saw a man with a large steak knife with a jagged blade, which he wielded in a “stabbing motion”. The attacker stood over a figure and fired a gun twice.”

Playford, had been at the nearby shop Sandwich and Co: “saw the defendant leaving the scene and followed him towards the Vault pub… saw Mair disappear wearing a light jacket and baseball cap, but re-emerge without the jacket, carrying a holdall”.

The author notices that some of the witnesses appear to report two shots being fired, instead of three. This could be down to careless language that yet appears to be acceptable in such important cases. As far as the available information tells us, Foster doesn’t report the use of a knife. Of course, it is probably the case that there is more detail in a full statement made by this witness that is as yet unknown to us.

The author also notices that none of the witnesses used by corporate-media to establish a narrative on the day of the incident (as examined here) are named as supporting the prosecution – not thus far, at least. A tearful Darren Playford makes an appearance in a corporate-media report on Birstall on the day of the EU Referendum where the “vicar of Birstall, Paul Knight, asked the crowd to hold hands, chant ‘we stand together’ and pledge to stand up against hatred, violence and inequality wherever they encountered it.” In this particular article, Darren Playford is quoted as saying “I’m still shaking to be honest. It’s been a living nightmare, the same as for everybody who witnessed it”.

The author notices that there is an alteration in the narrative of Fazila Aswat. Granted, we heard her story first through her father, former Labour councillor Gulham Maniyar, in the hours and days after the incident:

Revealing what his daughter had told him about the tragedy, he said: “Jo was in my daughter’s car sitting in the back seat. The car stopped and Jo got out and my daughter went to park the car.

“By the time my daughter got out she saw Jo lying on the floor. She tried to help her but she couldn’t do anything. She’d been stabbed and shot. She didn’t know at the time how bad the injury was. “The gunman tried to chase someone away who tried to tackle them and then he came back again and shot Jo twice when Fazila was with her. The killer showed Fazila a knife but he didn’t attack her.

“He then disappeared. She doesn’t know where he went. Fazila just sat down with Jo. There was so much blood coming out and it was all on her clothes.”

Some of the information conveyed to us on the first day of the trial wasn’t new. The following is from an article, dated 18th June 2016, regarding the first hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court at which Mair was charged:

Mair told police he was a “political activist” as he was arrested a mile from the scene, the prosecution said. Officers said the accused said “it’s me” when he was confronted; he was then tackled to the ground, handcuffed and searched. During the arrest, Mair also confirmed his name.

Mair is alleged to have said “Britain first”, “this is for Britain”, “Britain always comes first” and “keep Britain independent” as he attacked the MP, prosecutors said.

Some key information from this hearing reappeared on Monday – and we’re specifically interested in the alleged admission to being a “political activist”. Interestingly, the four exclamations about Britain are identical to the content of the witness testimony of Cox’s political assistants.

Moving on, some attention should be given to a portion of an address by Whittam to the jury (note the first sentance):

 Jo Cox was plainly murdered. Thomas Mair clearly had the views which provided him with a motive — utterly misplaced, of course — to kill her because she was an MP who did not share his views.

Prior to her killing he researched Jo Cox and how to kill.

The CCTV recordings are clear he was there waiting.

He used both weapons and you saw him return on the CCTV to make sure she was dead.

From this we might perhaps wonder if the CCTV did indeed catch the attack as other reports of the jury watching CCTV footage would have us believe. It could just be a bad choice of words. However, the Telegraph reports that the attack “was captured in the distance by local council CCTV cameras.”

Finally, the author thought it important to remind the reader of the coming to light, in the hours and days after the incident, of Thomas Mair’s mental illness. This issue is not going to factor in the court case. The Guardian reported on 19th September that prosecutors told a hearing that “there would be ‘no medical issue’ when Mair, 53, went on trial”. Assumedly, whoever is defending Mair must have agreed with this before hand.

And yet, Emma Arbuthnot, deputy chief magistrate of Westminster, as she remanded Thomas Mair into custody at his first hearing said: “Bearing in mind the name he has just given he ought to be seen by a psychiatrist.” She was referring to the name that Mair gave to court that is discussed at the top of this article.

Soon after the incident, we also began to hear about Mair’s parlous state of mental health (from here):

Mair called in at Birstall Wellbeing Centre on Wednesday night [the night before the incident] “nervous” and “shaking”, according to one of its workers, Rebecca Walker.

The 43-year-old said she spoke to him for about 15 minutes and revealed she wished she could have done more to prevent the tragedy.

She added: “He was clearly having some kind of crisis. I think there was a real problem. You could see he suffered from depression, he didn’t make any eye contact with you.

“He didn’t have many friends or anybody to talk to. He said he had walked by the centre every day for years and wanted to come in but never did.”

Rebecca said Mair arranged to return to the self-funded centre the next day, but never did.

She told how she was stunned when she heard about Jo’s death. She added: “I blamed myself. I thought why didn’t I spot more signs? If I just had five more minutes I may have been able to sit down with him and have a cup of tea. It may have made a difference.”

Then there was this (from here):

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.

In 2011, he was photographed by the local paper volunteering in nearby Oakwell Hall country park. The previous year he was quoted in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, saying he had begun volunteering after attending Pathways Day Centre for adults with mental health problems.

“I can honestly say it has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world,” he said. “Many people who suffer from mental illness are socially isolated and disconnected from society, feelings of worthlessness are also common, mainly caused by long-term unemployment.

“All these problems are alleviated by doing voluntary work. Getting out of the house and meeting new people is a good thing, but more important in my view is doing physically demanding and useful labour.

“When you have finished there is a feeling of achievement which is emotionally rewarding and psychologically fulfilling. For people for whom full-time, paid employment is not possible for a variety of reasons, voluntary work offers a socially positive and therapeutic alternative.”

Talking outside his house in Dewsbury on Thursday, St Louis said he couldn’t believe the news. “I was watching Sky News and I recognised him in handcuffs on the ground,” he said. “It felt like a dream. I just couldn’t believe he’d do something like that.

“I phoned my mum and she was watching too. She tried to phone his mobile but couldn’t get through and she knew something was up.”

He insisted his brother had never expressed any racist views and seemed fine to have a mixed-race sibling. Asked whether he had any strong political views, St Louis said: “Not that I know of.” He said he had no idea how Mair had got hold of a gun and did not have any hobbies that would require a firearms licence.

Finally, I would ask the reader to think about how Mair is alleged to have looked at all the right sort of material that would incriminate him in a politically motivated murder – in a public library. Be clear that Mair didn’t have the use of his own computer. He was one of those people who go to the library to use the public ones. You see this sort of person in the library of your own town; the same ones are there every day.

Also, notice that Mair did not attack Fazila Aswat, a Muslim woman whose father was a senior local Labour party figure.

Who fixed it for Jim?

Celebrity is used by the Establishment to distract those it rules; it is a tactic of control with no ‘moving parts’ that would make an unsuspecting citizen notice that it is a weapon being deployed against them. But consider, how many successful Hollywood movie stars, pop singers, or footballers are outspoken in the same way John Lennon was? The answer is not many. Most are remarkably unengaged with real issues because, one must suppose, they get what came to Lennon, or they get repaid with obscurity. When they do step out of line, they get slapped back into place.

So, it should come as no surprise that Operation Yewtree, supposedly the Metropolitan Police’s investigation into historical cases of paedophilia and sexual abuse, has taken Jimmy Savile’s celebrity as a cue to arrest some household names of the 1970s and the 1980s – most of which seem to have been taken completely by surprise at their new predicament. There are, of course, other aspects of Jimmy Savile’s life from whence he made connections to members of Britain’s ruling class; there are also connected rumours and allegations of paedophilia in high-up places. These links could be interrogated by police, but instead they have been completely overlooked.

There is, therefore, reasonable suspicion to be had that Yewtree is a cover-up, and indeed a psychological operation to establish in the minds of the observing public that paedophilia is a problem restricted to the arena of over-indulged television and radio personalities. Of course, this is set to be only a first impression, and the apparent scale of institutionalised child abuse will be made to look negligible as it becomes clear that most of those arrested are not paedophiles. Esther Rantzen, the one-time That’s Life presenter, and founder of children’s charity ChildLine, referred to this at the beginning of the year when she complained that arrests of celebrities for acts by one adult upon another (that are more often than not strenuously denied by the accused, or defended against by pleading innocent contact that has been miscontrued as general sexual pestering), threatened to trivialise child abuse: ‘When Yewtree swoops – and celebrity after celebrity has been targeted by them – we assume they’ve uncovered yet more sexual abuse of children.’

Last week, Scotland Yard released a report centring on the allegations against Savile; the image of Savile ‘grooming the nation’, as encouraged by the headline summarisation, unfortunately (and probably deliberately) represented paedophilia as a one-man scourge. The officer in command of the investigation, Peter Spindler, said that Savile had been allowed to get away with his abuse because he had used this celebrity to ‘hide in plain sight’.

The suggestion is that Savile wasn’t prosecuted because of the illusion of innocence created by his charity-working, child and hospital patient friendly public image. In other words, the weight of his persona would be too much for victims to persuade others to suddenly discard; police, the CPS, and even jurors would not be able to alter their fixed conceptions about him.

However, this is probably not the case. A glimpse into the corruption in British police forces came recently with the Andrew Mitchell affair, and if the Metropolitan Police are having 800 officers questioned about a conspiracy then perhaps an eventual cover-up in that case should be expected. In addition, last Friday, the Daily Mail reported the following:

Jimmy Savile could have been brought to justice several years ago had it not been for appalling blunders by police and prosecutors… Britain’s most senior prosecutor… revealed police missed three chances to snare the pervert.

Were these blunders real accidents? Or was it a case of deliberately flunking? In  2009, a review (recently disclosed) of decisions not to prosecute Savile by Alison Levitt QC, legal adviser to the director of public prosecutions, found that cases could have been brought to court ’had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach’. Police and prosecutors treated the claims of victims ’with a degree of caution which was neither justified nor required’, Levitt said.

It is completely credible to assume that no prosecution was brought against Savile because his influential friends made it impossible to do so. The natural progression after arriving at this suspicion is to ask who could exert such influence?

Bill Oddie, whose career at the BBC overlapped with that of Savile’s, went on the record (and here) last year and stated that he was very surprised that the DJ had not been brought to justice in his lifetime. He also seemed to conclude that, given Savile’s infamy, he must have been protected through a friendship with Prince Charles (who went as far as calling Savile ‘a national treasure’), and wondered if someone had even given an order to cover up.

Another contemporary of Savile’s, Paul Gambaccini, dared to hint at the specific source of this protection when, in an interview, he asked ‘who vetted the knighthood? Coco the clown?’

Indeed, to most right thinking people, Savile’s closeness to Margaret Thatcher and Prince Charles (the former who oversaw the knighthood, and the latter who belongs to the awarding intitution), despite what was a wild reputation within the sphere of his work life, is something that should never have happened – all things being well. Observers with suspicions point to the improbability of Savile, a single weirdo with a reputation, as Gambaccini put it, for being interested in ‘under-age subnormals’, being considered qualified to be some kind of marriage counsellor for the Queen’s children. The same people find it extraordinary that letters from the DJ to Margaret Thatcher could be censored, presumably to hide incriminating information, when they were released.

Some people, who have been sounding alarm bells for a long time, believe that the evidence points to Savile being a kind of sergeant who carried out the instructions for ‘officer types’ within a vast Establishment paedophile ring who did not want to risk exposure in the same way that Savile was able to. These accusers believe that Savile was a procurer of children for paedophiles in the Establishment, and point to an occasion when Prince Charles seemed to give him instructions to organise a party as an example of when this role jutted into seemingly harmless public view.

And now, with a report in the Sunday Express this weekend, the implications for Savile’s relationship with the ‘great and good’, and the allegations about who these pillars of the Establishment were, has taken on even more disturbing twist. Descriptions of Savile’s role in a Satanic ritualistic rape of a 12 year old that should not be disregarded also suggest that he was a facilitator, or a ‘master of ceremonies’, for other people who were in overall command.

Such allegations should only confirm to those desiring the punishment of members of any paedophile ring hidden in and by the ruling class, that Operation Yewtree will never branch into Savile’s connections with Britain’s political and institutional elite for fear of what will be revealed. However, other sorts of predation by the Establishment is quite out in the open – determined EU membership, climate change taxes and fearmongering, enforced sustainability, economic implosion, illegal war etc. These are the abuses that will cause people to see the full scale corruption of the ruling elite and be desirous of its replacement; and this process of awakening will lie beyond the Establishment’s grip of the legal system, which is regularly abused to create examples of citizenry to create a chill effect, and which, as the Savile case shows, ensures that some of its members remain uninvestigated and untried for the most heinous of crimes.