Briefly, on May 22nd 2013, Britons were told by their trusted news sources that an Army Cadet had been attacked in the streets of Woolwich, London. As the story developed, the victim was identified as a soldier on his way to the barracks at which he was stationed. Lee Rigby had been recruiting that fateful day at the Tower of London and was on his way home – although that story would also alter much later so that Rigby had in fact been assisting as a waiter at a wedding fare banquet. This had struck some observers of the case as being very odd, and it’s not just that and other peculiarities about Rigby on the day that have had people scratching their heads. There were aspects of Rigby’s life as a whole that didn’t make sense, although these pages are going to steer away from investigating this element of the case because of how it now constitutes harassment of the Rigby family – the reader is referred to the arrest of Chris Spivey
In any case, it wasn’t the lack of any straightforwardness regarding Lee Rigby’s personal history that first alerted investigators, and it’s not crucial to understanding what happened at Woolwich. The bombing in Boston, which had been blamed on men who couldn’t have done it because they were not carrying the same sort of backpacks with which the pressure-cooker bombs had been introduced into the scene, had happened very recently; perhaps event-sceptics on the other side of the pond were already expecting a mirror event on their own turf where the official narrative just wouldn’t make sense. Woolwich fitted the bill when it happened – the first point for incredulity was surely the mystifying lack of blood on the scene. Other questions were: how could an attack have happened given the traffic on the road and the obvious lack of anything strongly identifying Rigby as a soldier; how would the perpetrators have found the opportunity? Why were the perpetrators still alive at the end of the incident? – a very good question given that the Metropolitan Police had fired eight bullets at them. With closer examination suspicion was confirmed by all the strange behaviour exhibited by many people at the scene, and especially how over-exposed eye-witness testimony didn’t agree with basic facts. One of the biggest clues was the way the corporate-media reported the attack – falsely as a beheading – on the day and in the days after that looked like manipulation to provoke a psychological response to the attack. Various politicians were calling it Islamist terror even before there had been time for anything to mull the case over. All these things to establish a certain narrative without the application of any critical thinking are signs after an event like Woolwich that it didn’t happen the way the corporate-news said it happened. Naturally, people who hate the tyranny of the British Government looked into it, and the flaws in the narrative of the attack of 22nd May became very evident, and researchers and investigators deemed the event to have been a false-flag or a hoax, depending on whether they thought Lee Rigby was a real corpse.
The two assailants who had killed Lee Rigby were named quite soon as Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Both were of Nigerian Christian heritage, and had converted to Islam; noticeably, both had had their names linked with MI5 in the past (this sort of thing has become a big problem for British Government ever since Jihadi John, the ISIS front man, was discovered to have been hounded by British intelligence agencies). One of them, on the day of the attack, seemingly condemned himself by getting filmed on a camera phone admitting the crime. Then, somehow surviving an encounter with armed police, the two Michaels were arrested and taken to hospital. Despite being shot, both were fit enough to attend legal preliminaries as soon as a week after the incident. Finally, a trial commenced in November 2013 with both being charged with murder, and conspiracy to kill police. A jury, we are told, returned a verdict of guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second.
However, there was something the matter with the trial whereby evidence presented to secure judgement did not pass under any scrutiny whatsoever – it was completely unchallenged by the separate defence teams representing Adebowale and Adebolajo, even though in some cases it had gaping holes in it and could not contain the narrative. It became quite evident that trial was an exercise in reinforcing the official story that had been formalised soon after the incident – but not just that. In places, that story was altered so as to account for anomalies in the original narrative that had been spotted and widely talked about on the internet in the intervening period. The court case circumscribed the narrative with an official judgement which was supposed to consign the dangerous conspiracy theories to historical oblivion; this is, after all, how the history books are written – what the authorities say is real is recorded as such, and then the people who remember things differently eventually die out.
Therefore, it has become important to cover the incident at Woolwich through its presentation at the trial as well as by an examination of events on the day which immediately spoke of foul play by the authorities. To reflect this, this book will be divided into two parts – or volumes as I have called them – and perhaps we can say will be schizophrenic in its treatment of the Woolwich incident across those two volumes. The first half will attempt to come at the topic without recognising any ideas about the incident being a false flag attack, or a hoax in the service of a hidden political agenda. So, in Volume One, the evidence used to prosecute Adebolajo and Adebowale will be examined, and we, the author and readers together, will react to it defensively – that is, we will identify the information that should have been used by the defence teams to answer the charges. Having processed the evidence this way, we are going to reach a conclusion that there was only the witness testimony – and especially Adebolajo’s own apparent admission – which provided any material upon which to obtain a conviction. Moreover, there is plenty of scope to introduce enough doubt as to the soundness and reliability of the entire body of witness testimony to make the conviction depend on Adebolajo’s confession alone – and then there is a question of his rightness of mind. In the British common law system of justice, innocence is maintained until guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. An accusation of murder is an extremely serious thing that, when it comes to court, demands especial vigilance regarding the application of the fundamentals of our freedom – the whole life of the accused is usually at stake in such a circumstance. With this is mind, we are going to see that there is a case to make that none of the evidence should have secured a conviction.
Understandably, to say that Adebolajo and Adebowale were not responsible for the killing of Lee Rigby might not be enough for people who have been convinced from day one by the hysteria created around the drama of an apparent Iraqi-war style jihadi killing on the streets of London. Although in law, one doesn’t need to name an alternate killer to defend a murder charge, people will naturally ask “who did kill Lee Rigby, then?” This is not an easy question to answer in any respect; but it does bring us to what the second half of the book is about.
At a certain point when examining honestly the events of the day, given the impossibilities that one is being asked to double-think into non-existence, one has to conclude that there has been a conspiracy to manufacture a simulation of reality and pass it off as that – certainly to fool the public into thinking that Adebolajo and Adebowale were involved in a clash prior to their arrest. The evidence of an image of Adebowale’s intact thumb which was meant to be shot off, and an image of an extra-narrative white-shoed figure stepping from the Armed Response Vehicle (ARV) to shoot at Adebolajo, and an image of someone who must be a plain-clothed policeman organising sections of the watching crowd are irrefutable. If the final “shootout” showdown between police and the two Michaels, wasn’t real, and the criminals were collaborating with police to create a fantasy, it means that there wasn’t a crime. If there wasn’t a crime, then there wasn’t a victim – and the author understands that it might seem quite callous to try and argue that someone called Lee Rigby, or someone pretending to be Lee Rigby must still be alive, but we have to go where logic leads us. Or, there could have been a crime with a victim, Lee Rigby, but he was not killed the way we were told; the absolute truth would be very hard if not impossible to discover. The author leans towards the idea that we should use the word “hoax”, and this indicates how he feels about this question – and so this doesn’t need to be discussed again. In any case, the second volume will restrict itself to looking at the events on the day, and point out how they speak of the whole incident as being something completely different to what the public were deceived into thinking it was, and how, in the very essence of the event, Adebolajo and Adebowale were set up.
The two volumes of the book will see a different treatment applied to the people who occupied the street scenery as the incident unfolded. In the first part they will all be treated as being entirely innocent witnesses and onlookers. In the second half of the book, we can’t necessarily be so generally lenient. However, a basic rule applies: for greater plausibility, whoever wanted to frame Adebolajo and Adebowale would want witness testimony that was as organic as possible – and so we could perhaps expect that witnesses may well have been “helped” to remember in a desired way, or even duped. And then, by using knowledge of what has become recognisable components of a terror simulation operation, or a false flag terror attack, we also must suspect some of the witnesses to be “actors”. Now, the word “actors” needs to be introduced with explanatory notes regarding its specific meaning in this regards – it is not referring to people who usually make a living on the stage, TV or film, although some of them may be the sort of actor who has been hired through a crisis-acting agency – which are a real phenomenon and provide bodies to populate drills staged by governmental agencies or private companies. Generally, we’re talking about people who are motivated, by money or politics, or by orders given to them in the case of police or the intelligence agencies, to pretend that what is happening in a fake event is organic. For the purpose of creating plausibility, some of these actors can be compartmentalised – meaning they have no idea who else is playing a part or is real. Some may be dupes who think they are playing a role in an exercise drill that they perhaps don’t even know has “gone live” – presumably, after the fact they are told not to blow the whistle on pain of some very severe punishment. It is quite reasonable to suspect that such people may even have signed the official secrets act and would be gagged and prosecuted before their feet touched the ground if they tried to talk.
While some actors could be involved in the physical progress of the plot, others could be planted to secure the storyline early on in proceedings by then getting their version of events out into social media or on to news broadcasts – or even in the form of film footage that they were tasked to take. Some of the trial witnesses could be actors placed to ensure that certain aspects of the narrative have an airing.
Other actors are not witnesses, but are on scene to facilitate events – remarkably, inspection of the video footage allows identification of these operatives – and this is one of the ways we can recognise the incident for what it is. These people will undoubtedly be working on behalf of what is the main actor in the incident – which is of course the British Government in its broadest sense. Indeed, this is who the investigation points to as being the ultimate culprit. It had the motive, the means and the opportunity, and a little space will also be dedicated at the end of this book to discuss these matters. Suffice it to say, now the world is aware of ISIL, ISIS, or IS, and its much flaunted campaign of beheadings and murder – in this light the Lee Rigby affair looks like a foreshadowing, and it’s a very good bet that it was executed in relation to NATO military aggression.