I wrote this several days ago. I'm still sorting out some of the notes I took along the trip. This one is worth posting.
I am sitting in Latakia after a ten-day tour up the coast from Damascus. Every student, teacher, nurse, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, dentist, average Syrian we spoke to knows exactly who designed and did this terrible war in Syria and it sure as hell was not Assad. His popularity has gone from 60% before the war to 98% now.
They have told us stories of the foreign mercenary terrorists, shipped in through NATO partner, Turkey, paid by American dollars and promised anywhere from $300 to $1000 a month. Some recruiters even threw in women as an added incentive. Most of these so-called moderate rebels were NOT Syrian.
"Don't apologize. I don't want to hear your apologies. I want to know why your government decided to destroy Syria. For what? It wasn't enough to start an uprising? Your terrorists had to destroy our heritage, our culture. I don't want you to apologize. I want answers." came from an Armenian/Syrian businesswoman who runs the Baron Hotel in Aleppo, where dignitaries from Churchill to TE Lawrence stayed. It's empty now.
Snipers, until the past year, took up positions across from the front portico and shot at each other and anyone else who walked in their path. The 500,000 Syrians that Americans whine about being killed in the 'alleged civil-war' are primarily soldiers. ISIS came into areas, took them over and murdered every Syrian soldier captured. The stories we heard broke our hearts.
Halfway through the tour of the Armenian quarter, our usually upbeat guide, Abdul, broke down and cried. "Why? Why? Why would your government destroy the most beautiful part of Aleppo? For what reason? There was nothing here to gain except to destroy our heritage, our beauty."
We had no answer. There IS no answer.
The path of what happened is pretty obvious if you are actually here. Call it the US/Israel/Saudi/Turkey axis of evil or just call it the Israeli/NATO/US terrorist network.
We no longer apologize (there are 8 of us here, all Americans). We just listen and record.
That's Abdul walking, on his left are buildings that used to house restaurants and businesses and cafes. People came from around the world to see the Armenian quarter of Aleppo
All of this will have to come down
Sunday 27 October 2019
Outrageous injustice continues:
Jahar’s Appeal Possibilities, Part 3: SAMs and the ACLU’s Amicus
Jahar on cover of Rolling Stone, the ACLU logo, and Boston Symphony Orchestra conductor Seiji Ozawa
by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
Jahar’s appeal will have oral argument at Boston’s federal courthouse six weeks from now. I am trying to think of any new angles that can be used to persuade the judge, Juan Torruella, and the other two judges on the Appeals panel, to release the convict from prison, as they surely have got the wrong man (Jahar). It is within their power, right then and there, to “storm the Bastille,” so to speak.
So far in this series, we saw in Part 1 that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allow the judge to “stay the proceedings.” I recommended that they do so on the grounds of the “abuse of process” that characterized the trial.
Note: in 2005 in Boston, US District Court Judge Mark Wolf released murderer Vincent Ferrara from prison on the grounds that the prosecutor had deprived him of due process (had unfairly caused Vincent to plead guilty).
In Part 2, I went for a different tactic, showing five ways Massachusetts persons could intervene. One way was to with protest the SAMs — “special administrative measures” placed on Jahar that make him incommunicado. The SAMs derive from 1996 anti-terrorist legislation — they supposedly prevent a convicted terrorist from making plans in prison to cause harm on the outside. (Reasonable enough if the person is actually apt to do that.)
After Jahar’s original trial, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, was admitted as an amicus curiae. As early as November 2013 they begged the court to vacate the SAMs.
Their brief is Document 139-1 (page 2-17) of Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO. The ACLU decided to limit their complaint to the fact that SAMs thwart the attorney-client privilege. Some of the ACLU’s wording sounds “off” to me, given that they accept the fact that the Defense was actually trying to get justice for Jahar.
Actually, the Defense obstructed justice from the beginning. Jahar’s attorney Judy Clarke stood up on Day One and said “It was him.” She and her team — Public Defenders with a $5 million budget — did nothing to expose the blatant falsity of the prosecution’s case. Indeed, once they had said “It was him” they were hardly in a position to say it wasn’t him.
As Jack Graham puts it, “They threw the case” — thus setting Jahar up to be “judicially murdered.” One hopes that the judges see through this and in fact discipline the miscreants. (Note: Jack Graham of the Minnesota Bar is the counsel to the group of three amici of which I am honored to be a member.)
What Are the SAMs? Special Administrative Measures are not found in the codified laws of Congress, the USC (United States Code). The are found in the CFR — the Code of Federal Regulations, at 28 CFR 500. On April 4, 2007, the DoJ’s Bureau of Prisons published a final rule as follows:
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice
“SUMMARY: … The previously existing regulations authorized the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at the direction of the Attorney General, to impose special administrative measures with respect to specified inmates based on information provided by senior intelligence or law enforcement officials, if determined necessary to prevent the dissemination of either classified information that could endanger the national security, or of other information that could lead to acts of violence and/or terrorism. The … measures may be imposed [for] up to one year….[and are renewable].
“In addition, where the Attorney General has certified that reasonable suspicion exists to believe that an inmate may use communications with attorneys… to facilitate acts of violence and/or terrorism,[it can] monitor or review such communications to deter such acts, subject to specific procedural safeguards, to the extent permitted under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
“[And] the head of each component of the Department of Justice that has custody of persons for whom special administrative measures are determined to be necessary may exercise the same authority to impose such measures as the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. Effective date: June 4, 2007.”
Center for Constitutional Rights Reacts to SAMs
The Allard Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, of the Center for Constitutional Rights at Yale, tells us:
“Even those prisoners who secure a lawyer risk having their cases dismissed in court if the prisoner has not “exhausted” the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program (“ARP”). Exhausting the ARP requires prisoners to (1) raise the issue of concern informally with BOP staff, (2) wait for the staff’s response, (3) obtain and file a Remedy Form, (4) wait for the prison’s response to the request, (5) obtain and file a Regional Appeal Form, (6) wait for the BOP Regional Office’s response, and (7) obtain and submit a Central Office Appeal Form. BOP officials may return without response any filing that fails to adhere to extensive regulations concerning form and timing. Attorneys may not submit these complicated requests or appeals on the prisoner’s behalf.”
Amazing! The Clinic authors opine:
“SAMs undermine the fundamental principle of democratic accountability by silencing those who have experienced the harms of SAMs. Prisoners themselves are categorically prohibited from speaking to reporters, and the SAMs gag order allows the government to criminally prosecute other individuals for repeating anything a SAMs prisoner has said. Consequently, family members of SAMs prisoners often adopt a policy of declining interviews with journalists altogether. [Aha!] The same is true for lawyers, particularly following the prosecution of Lynne Stewart.”
Lynne Stewart (1939-2017) with her husband Ralph Poynter
Lynne Stewart’s Case
A blind Muslim cleric, named Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was accused of something or other (it does not matter what, for this discussion of SAMs). He was placed under SAMs. His lawyer was the famous civil rights expert, Lynne Stewart. She was arrested for violations of the 1996 Anti-terrorism Act. She went to prison but later got compassionate release, due to cancer. She died at age 77.
In December 2006, the Magazine Satya sent journalist Kymberlie Adams Matthewsto talk to her. Here is part of the interview:
What exactly are “Special Administrative Measures” and what effect do they have on you as a lawyer?
The Bureau of Prisons may in certain cases, when the justice or state department tells them, place upon prisoners rules that isolate them: cutting them off from the telephone, visitors, family, the media, etc. This is what they put on the Sheik in 1997.
And so Abdeen Jabbara, Ramsey Clark and I — in order to continue being the Sheik’s legal team — had to sign an agreement that we would respect and follow these rules, the SAMs. But we operated with an understanding that the government knew we had to do the legal work, that certain things were still permissible even though the SAMs seemed to say we couldn’t do them. We had to be able to do our job.
So because you took the press release to the media, you violated the SAMs?
The SAMs did prohibit me from talking to the media on the Sheik’s behalf, but they also said if I broke any of the rules I may be cut off from my client. It never said I would be indicted and face 30 years in prison!
Knowing what you do now….would you do it again?
I believe with my mind and heart it was the right thing to do. But I probably would do it differently. I believe I did the right thing as a lawyer. At the moment of my conviction, I think I said, “I’d like to think I would do it again.” I mean the kind of lawyering that says the client must be protected from the ravages of the government. Yet they have used this to make a chill effect on the profession. And that’s frightening.
What about the fact that the government has total access to privileged conversations between a client and a lawyer?
When this case first became public, I think that was the first thing most people stopped at. That the government could interject a microphone and a camera into the visiting room of a prison where a client is talking to a lawyer and listen to every single thing being said—it’s like putting a tape recorder in a confessional booth or a psychologist’s office. In the marriage bed!
These are privileged conversations. We call them privileged because as a society we have an interest in keeping certain things from being listened to by the government. I was shocked when I found out. I once said to the press, don’t ask me about what I am doing wrong, ask what the government is doing listening in on attorney/client conversations.
Do you think the Sheik was innocent?
To be honest, I believe he was wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted. I do not believe he was guilty in this case.
You’ve remained very outspoken throughout the trial. In your opinion, how far should one be willing to press for a cause, a belief system?
I think we are all different and some of us just have the will. It’s funny, I am told I am courageous, but I have a hard time wrapping myself around that word. I feel what I do comes so naturally for me, I don’t have to think about it.
The more you do, the more you have energy to do it. The more you do, the more people you meet, the more strength you build. I guess what I am trying to say is that activism is the solution to a lot of people feeling powerless. — end of Satya interview.
Thank you, Lynne.
Cheryl Dean Wrote to Loretta Lynch
Gumshoe author Cheryl Dean wasn’t having it re SAMs for Dzhokhar (as she correctly calls young Tsarnaev). In December 2015 she sent the following letter to the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch:
Dear Madam Attorney General,
Myself and many others ask you to modify the Special Administration Measures that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been living under for the past 22 months. We are advocating for him: he has been silenced, and is not allowed to speak for himself. We ask that Dzhokhar be allowed to communicate by phone and mail, and have visits from any of his relatives.
The Special Administrative Measures requested by Carmen Ortiz clearly violatethe First Amendment rights of Dzhokhar. All citizens have the right to freedom of speech. That would have to include speaking to all one’s own family members, and without the FBI monitoring and recording everything that is said.
His parents can speak to him twice a month for only 15 minutes, although not about his case, or much else, while being monitored live, being recorded by an FBI agent. Is that necessary? Why? Is someone trying to hide something? There is something terribly wrong with this.
Clearly Cheryl Dean hit the nail on the head: they have something to hide. I feel sure the DoJ will never let Jahar speak, unless forced by a court, as once he is in front of a camera or microphone he may be asked “Hey, Jahar, how did you get into the boat?” And then sooo many heads will roll.
Conclusion to Part 3
As stated above I am fishing for any angles that could stop this bus from careening down the hill. It is very late to enter new requests, but one could do so regarding the SAMs. Recall Gumshoe’s reports on McCoy v Louisiana. The US Supreme Court held, last year, that it was not permissible for Mr McCoy’s layers to force him to plead guilty:
“Held: The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the objective of his defense and to insist that his counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experienced-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty. Pp. 5–13.”
I believe Jahar tried to reject the Public Defenders’ services. But how can we know how he feels about them today? Shall I reach for the phone and give him a ring? Oops. No can do.
As you can see, this is a situation in which it does NOT suffice for the Defenders to assure us that he wants them. This is a 100% conflict of interest. Jahar is gagged — thus the court cannot know if he wants to pursue a not-guilty plea. He MUST be given a chance to speak to a third party. I recommend his aunt, Maret Tsarnaeva, who is an experienced member of the Canadian bar. If not Maret, then someone else.
This cannot be left unresolved. The SAMs are not so important (recall they are only a regulation, not a law), that a man’s life should be jeopardized. How about a “panel of 6” takes over the matter and pursues it until the point where they know if Jahar accepts or rejects the way his Defenders are doing the Appeal. If you wait it will be too late.
What of the Boston Symphony Orchestra?
For anyone who wondered why Seiji Ozawa’s photo appeared at the top of this article, the reason has to do with Judge Torruella’s age and vigor. The good judge is 86. Should we think he cannot be aggressive enough to go on the attack when needed for justice in the Tsarnaev appeal?
Well, consider Seiji Ozawa former conductor of the BSO. He was born in 1935. When he was 80 (in 2015), he conducted a symphony in Japan as vigorously as anyone could wish. Please watch this for a minute:
Give it to ’em, Seiji! Take that, and that — and hurry!
Thirty nine people die in a lorry container! That thirty-nine Chinese people attempting illegal entry into Britain should freeze to death in the back of a lorry is an unmitigated tragedy is beyond controversy. If we are truly human we can only empathise with the horror experienced as they died one by one from cold or lack of oxygen, abandoned in that metal hell hole beyond hope or rescue. At the same time we should never forget that someone was behind this outrage. Someone facilitated so many to enter what they must have known was a death trap. Nor would they have done so without money. An humanitarian operation this certainly was not. Is it possible a sealed container could transit, without its owners knowing what was inside? I think not. DCC Pippa Mills briefs members of the media (Image: Chris Cook/Essex Live) https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/police-reveal-next-steps-essex-3457489
Yet despite the appalling circumstances of the crime, we also need to be aware of the times in which we live in which incidents may not always be precisely as they appear or are presented by the media, especially when it relates to exceptional and notorious events such as this. Sadly we have become accustomed to dark forces linked to crime and state organisations having insight into the true nature of the event or even fabricating it for political or other purposes. For this reason a critical approach to all the reported circumstances must be maintained. Despite accepting the official account of the tragedy, it is nevertheless impossible to ignore the incident's unusual features that need to be considered, particularly as they are common to others and may be indicative of darker forces at work intent on certain psychological, social or political outcomes. In past articles in relation many so-called 'terrrorist events', I have drawn attention to inconsistencies and features that point to fraud. These tend to fall into certain recognised categories which will be discussed below. Strange Feature 1. Initial incorrect route. The first strange feature that people cannot fail to notice was the completely false initial description of the route taken by the lorry concerned. All outlets, presumably based on reliable official sources, stated that both lorry and trailer had taken a circuitous route via French port to Dublin, then Belfast, then Hollyhead to Grays, Essex where it was discovered. Of course this proved completely false but absolutely no apology or excuse has been issued. Nor are we informed who put out this misleading information. In fact we now learn the 'tractor' part of 'artic' came from N.Ireland via Dublin to Hollyhead by ferry on Saturday 19th October and presumably drove trailer-free to London where it connected with the trailer at Grays in Essex. The trailer had been transferred from Zeebrugge, Belgium, to the small tidal port on the north coast of the Thames Estuary - Purfleet. The suggestion that the lorry came from Bulgaria has also been contradicted by that country, which although confirmed it is registered there - possibly for tax reasons - it hasn't been there since 2017! The originally published route maps that showed the lorry and trailer travelled from France to Ireland and thence to Essex, England via Hollyhead, cannot now be located using search engines! They appear to have been deleted and replaced by ones such as the one below which illustrates the amended story. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&sxsrf=ACYBGNRymFuOIjkN9D-Su6EQJIfMuAn5uA:1572038632807&q=route+from+ireland+39+die+lorry+images&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFhKCirLjlAhV3QxUIHam7BmUQ7Al6BAgJECQ&biw=1248&bih=844#imgrc=7XaNGrsqfWynKM:
This change in story raises many more issues beyond the obvious ones referred to above. For example why did the tractor part go first to Dublin for the ferry to Holyhead, when it could have taken the more direct route from Belfast to Liverpool. Could it be as with Purfleet, it was chosen as attracting less security attention? It also means that rather than travelling as one connected unit on mainland Europe, it must have been delivered to Zeebrugge with a different power plant and driver. It is not currently known when or where the 39 people were loaded onto the trailer but it certainly wasn't between Purfleet and Eastern Avenue where the lorry was discovered as less than an hour had elapsed and thirty-nine could not have died in that time. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10201272/mo-robinson-lorry-driver-essex-deaths-who/ Given then that the driver, one Maurice 'Mo' Robinson (25) from County Armagh, NI, could not have been involved in the loading operation and may not even have been aware of the 'cargo', it is a little surprising that he was initially the only person arrested on suspicion of murder. In sectarian NI and troubled Armagh, his name suggests he comes from a protestant background which may or may not be significant. To date he has not been charged with any offence but his detention has been extended by Magistrates. Today (25.10.10) a man and woman have been arrested in Warrington, Cheshire in connection with the murders. The Sun newspaper reports as follows:
New data has shown the GPS tracker on the trailer was switched on at 3.06pm on October 15 after travelling from Dublin to Monaghan, near the border with Northern Ireland.It then stopped at Warwickshire and Kent before crossing the Channel to Belgium, and making its way on to Calais and Dunkirk.
From here, it went back to the UK via Belgium and then repeated the journey before the victims made the perilous 173-mile journey in the refrigerated container to Purfleet.
This then complicates the matter still further if the tractor and trailer were different to the one driven by Robinson. Who took the trailer to Europe and where is that tractor and driver now?
The Sun reports that the lorry and trailer had had two previous trips to Calais. So the obvious question is what load did it pick up there and who was driving in those cases? Further if cab and trailer were attached at that point, how and why did they become separated?
New data has shown the GPS tracker on the trailer was switched on at 3.06pm on October 15 after travelling from Dublin to Monaghan, near the border with Northern Ireland.It then stopped at Warwickshire and Kent before crossing the Channel to Belgium, and making its way on to Calais and Dunkirk.
From here, it went back to the UK via Belgium and then repeated the journey before the victims made the perilous 173-mile journey in the refrigerated container to Purfleet.
Strange issue 2. Who notified police?
DCC Pippa Mills briefs members of the media (Image: Chris Cook/Essex Live)
The Deputy Chief Constable, Pippa Mills is seen above briefing the press. At an earlier meeting she read from a prepared script that was formulaic, but seemed at a loss when asked questions and was swiftly ushered away. One basic question that she admitted she didn't know the answer to was, given that the police were called by the ambulance service, how the ambulance service became aware. It seems very strange that such a high ranking officer should have been so ignorant of such an important and fundamental point. It certainly suggested she had a superficial knowledge of events and was totally reliant on a prepared script. In events of this sort, this is always a red light of of possible 'behind the scenes' manipulation. However now it transpires from the Sun report - and as I had suspected - the ambulance service was called by Mr Robinson when he opened the lorry. Note the discrepancy in it that he called the police rather than the ambulance service. It reports:
Dad-to-be Robinson, from Northern Ireland, is said to have opened the container to get some paperwork and passed out when he made the grim discovery.
A pal said: "When he opened the container up and saw all the dead bodies, he was absolutely horrified - as anyone would be - and called the ambulance service who in turn alerted the police.
"I heard the container was refrigerated - the temperature was -25 degrees and the bodies were frozen and had been dead for some time."
This hardly seems the reaction of a man who knew people were inside, let alone someone who was party to their murder. Given the fact that the trailer was refrigerated and the refrigeration was working, if he had known there were people in the truck, he would also have known they could not have survived. Would he not first have sought instructions from his bosses and made efforts to dispose of the incriminating evidence if he was implicated?
Having said that, the line that he was looking for documentation has a hollow sound to it. Isn't paper work always located in the the cab? This sounds more that he was inquisitive as to the nature of the cargo and then was traumatised to discover what it was. Was he expecting to find people alive to release them there or was this a naive driver faced with an extraordinary and unique situation?
Strange issue 3. Failure of checks.
Given the current situation of rampant and desperate attempts at illegal immigration, and the level of state surveillance that must apply to particularly transport companies demonstrating regular cross channel trips or any other suspicious characteristics, should be able to load an ostensibly empty container at Zeebrugge, without anyone checking its interior.
Automatic systems for detecting heat or CO2 would of course be negated if bodies inside were in fact cold or deceased. Was that the purpose of the refrigeration? But then we are faced with the question as to why traffickers would want to deliver dead bodies with all problems and criminal complications that would entail? It really doesn't make any sort of sense.
Britain is in the middle of protracted negotiations to exit the EU which is proving far more difficult than might have been expected. There is little doubt that besides a large majority of MPs, the global elite and banking fraternity as well as NATO and the EU is against it and all are playing for time, hoping that public opinion will turn against it as well.
I have previously highlighted the strange alignment of terrorist atrocities in England with significant political events with European ramifications. Discovering this death lorry happened on the day the Boris Johnson won a crucial EU Bill vote but then lost the programme motion that effectively killed it. Reference was made to the tragedy in the session.
The question is if the event were planned with specific EU consequences in mind what might they be?
Well an obvious one would be state security in relation to immigration: one of the objections to Brexit is the issue of cross border movement and security co operation. It is hard to say how this would play out. It might work either way: we need to stay in to improve cross border and enforcement cooperation or we need to get out to have more control over them?
In any event the discovery is likely to inspire shock and anxiety over the issue of immigration that might be expected to inflame 'right wing extremism' and social division. That could be an objective if someone other or in association with traffickers was behind it.
Strange issues 5. Coincidences
Elsewhere I have drawn attention to an interview and article by the famous - or infamous - Ole Dammgard, who has applied his analytical skills to numerous high profile events, concluding that many are so called 'false flags' executed by state agencies and not the people or organisations blamed. He also claims to have predicted eighteen (I think that is correct) events ahead of time by clues left in previous ones or by other indicators.
In this instance he flags up emergency drills that have the title "Operation Sea Eagle" scheduled for the period 23 - 24 October 2019, the former being the date of course when the lorry was discovered. In another strange twist this Operation specifies "thirty-nine operations" that just happens to be the number killed in the lorry.
I know of no other significant violent events on these dates so on the face of it his prediction appears empty but he was correct it is possible they may have been abandoned or postponed - we shall see. Of course he bases it on the fact there is a proven relationship between false flags and organised emergency drills, the most notable being those of 9/11 in 2001 and 7/7 in 2005.
It may also escaped people's notice that the delayed announcement that all 39 were of Chinese origins chimes spookily with the fact that the lorry was parked on 'Eastern Avenue'. It would be interesting to know why that particular location was chosen: was it accidental or planned?
Strange issues 6. Handling of incident
East Anglia Ambulance personnel must have been on scene at the latest at 01:20 BST, as this was the time police said it was reported by them to it. Strangely the Wikipedia entry puts it later to "just after 01.30 BST". Why this discrepancy? As the lorry entered Purfleet from the ferry at about 00:30 BST - presumably some time had been used up for the lorry to connect with the trailer - it seems clear that not much time was lost by the driver between parking up and calling the Ambulance Brigade. The fact that he called for ambulance first seems to suggest his primary thought was first-aid rather than crime investigation.
Apparently five ambulances were dispatched to the scene so Mr Robinson must have reported multiple bodies. This is where the treatment of the casualties and scene becomes rather peculiar.
Wikipedia reports that, "Eleven of the victims were taken, under police escort, in a private ambulance to a mortuary for post-mortems to be carried out." Yet this Guardian video reports quite clearly there were 39 bodies on board as it left the scene. One or other of the reports must be inaccurate! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEuyiXdMqXwHow after at least a day could two equally exclusive stories survive the editing process?
Police confirmed that bodies were still in the lorry when it left the scene about fifteen hours after it had arrived. So why were eleven bodies removed and twenty eight left in the lorry all day to presumably thaw out, (they had been kept at -25 degrees C for many hours) when they could have been removed under the cover darkness before the press had been alerted or able to take images? None of the images of the scene include ambulances or any indication of bodies or their removal.
These inexplicable and inconsistent decisions require elucidation. Some might think it raises questions over the existence of bodies as described. Surely if eleven required post mortem, all thirty nine should be subject to the same procedure in case death had different causes. In addition to allow time to elapse and allow the thawing process to take place could interfere with autopsy procedures. Why would forensic officers be required to work around so many dead bodies after initial discovery? Most unusual and disconcerting.
Strange issues 7. Video
I always get an attack of the chills when video of a scene in a high profile cases is released to and through the media. The reason being it is so selective and subject to manipulation. It is well known that CCTV is notoriously 'unreliable' when it is actually needed. I cite the recent case of it 'malfuctioning' at the death of Jeffrey Epstein. So when video is circulated we should always ask for what reason and by whom?
In this case a brief video of a passing lorry was circulated which is included in this Sky news report video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77QxeM4hfCAThe first segment moves which rather suggests it hand held. If so the question arises why would the lorry be filmed by a person and why would it purport to be a fixed CCTV installation?
Now the death of 39 people in a refrigerated lorry that arrived on the same day as the Wednesday debate. It took a very circuitous route through several European countries, Eire, Northern Ireland and England without ever being checked which rather makes a nonsense of all the 'Backstop' controversy. The lorry was Bulgarian registered but driven by a NI man. On its windscreen it carries the message "Northern Ireland - The Ultimate Dream." The driver has been arrested but it is beyond reason that the vehicle could have been driven that far in the absence of a genuine load, without the owners knowing and giving their approval or the driver being aware. So who was actually behind it and did it have any political intent? Police investigate at Waterglade Industrial Park in Grays, Essex, Britain, on Wednesday, where 39 bodies were discovered inside a lorry container. Photo by Vickie Flores/EPA-EFE https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/10/23/British-police-investigate-39-bodies-found-in-truck-container/6821571827759/
Always hard to say these days. I find it very strange and suspicious even, that the detailed initial reports of the route were contradicted so quickly. Another strange feature the statement by the Deputy Chief Constable of Essex Police, Pippa Mills that the bodies had been conveyed in the lorry to another place for respectful 'processing' (I can't think of a more reverential term) and if possible identified. What would be the justification? (Video exists of lorry being escourted away with people apparently bowing their heads which seems to confirm it )Why would the bodies not be removed from the lorry where it was discovered and straight to various morgue facilities? Yet the images available show no ambulances much later in the day although there appears to be just collaspsible stretcher at the rear of the lorry when only police vehicles are present. Reports state Essex Ambulance sent five ambulances to the scene and an Air Ambulance. Clearly this is unlikely to be adequate for 39 bodies. The DCC seems to be under the control of a young woman who terminates the questions - the Press Officer? The information regarding the lorry route via Holyhead proved to be inaccurate and misleading. How could that have occurred? Apparently the police were notified at 1.40 am by Essex Ambulance but the DCC was unaware how they had been informed and how ambulance personnel would have been able to gain entrance to the lorry, if they did. It is notable the lorry is parked up on a service road rather than a lorry park. Why? There are as usual a lot of unanswered questions and the ACC who was reading from a script appeared as uninformed as us!
Strange video emmerges of "the lorry passing by". Really? Where and how did that appear?
Now it seems the media are reporting that the trailer came in from Zeebrugge, whilst the cab came separately from NI!! The raised issues are numerous including the culpability of the 25 year old driver held for multiple murder.
One interesting little point the Chief Constable of Essex, BJ Harrington shares the same surname as the 'Director of Strategic Change and Performance', Vicki Harrington. I have no idea whether or not they are related. I assume she was the woman who appeared to chaperone the DCC. https://www.youtube.com/7265450b-5f36-4598-bd3a-870b2338bdb7
![a close up of a hand holding a cellphone: Anna Bui Thi Nhung, from Nghe An province in Vietnam, is feared to be among the dead]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAJnRtl.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=948&y=380"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAJnRtl.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=948&y=380"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAJnRtl.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=948&y=380"}})
