Could there have been any outside involvement in the 12-8-21 Plymouth Shooting?
COMMENT:
I have long (since at least the death of JFK and the attacks of 9/11) been wary of official reports of violent events of this kind. Incidents, too many to mention since those referred to, confirm that media reports can contain both accurate and inaccurate information, leading to an established narrative that is fundamentally misleading. (I have discussed many of them on this Blog)
That this latest Plymouth incident is a tragedy for the families and community involved no one can doubt, and an outpouring of sympathy is to be expected, but we should never allow sympathy, however much deserved to cloud our objectivity or ability to question what is reported as fact.
I have thought long and hard about this case, described by many as a "massacre" and the "worst event in Plymouth since the Blitz". We are told five people were shot dead including a three year old, plus the shooter by his own hand, and coming from hopefully reliable police sources, we must I suppose accept it without question. So why is it that reservations remain in my mind?
If there is a reason it must be because, as I have already said, there have been so many previous incidents, all around the world, where deception and manipulation have been employed, to advance particular and specific political agendas. These have included increased State powers to monitor and control the domestic populations and to initiate aggressive wars in foreign parts. They have also been employed to influence domestic politics. Of this there can be no doubt.
Britain has not been exempt and only recently we have witnessed a raft of anti-libertarian measures, including an Act to indemnify a whole range of government agencies from criminal liability even when carrying out intentional criminal acts! Invariably events of this kind result in measures to limit personal freedom, without it seems ever really advancing community safety or cohesion, which in practice, continues to deteriorate at every turn.
The Dunblane massacre on the 13th March, 1996 resulted in tighter gun control that nevertheless failed to prevent the criminal use of guns or indeed of knives, which has caused an epidemic of killing across the country, particularly in certain age, sex and ethnic cohorts. It is quite likely that this Plymouth outrage will result in a further tightening of gun control but as always the question must be asked, why were existing controls so negligently applied?
As we shall see, as in the case of Dunblane, a firearm permission that had been rescinded, was reversed only weeks before the shooting. It is hard to see what genuine reason he had for holding a licence, let alone the obvious physical and psychological danger signs that any idiot would have considered sufficient to debar him. Yet the police thought it acceptable? Clearly the weapon used was not a normal 12 bore shotgun as many shots were randomly fired in a short space of time, said to be 12 minutes but no information has yet been forthcoming from police as to whether the licence he possessed covered the weapon used.
Returning to the number and character of the five individuals shot dead or the two injured, or indeed of the gunman himself, there is as far as I am aware, no contemporary video or photographic evidence in the public domain. See: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/plymouth-shooting-jake-davison-photos-dead-victims-social-media-073319003.html
Only one very blurry image - always rather suspicious - of Davison holding a firearm has been published. There is even an absence of any images of bodies being removed by emergency personnel. Given that this is a residential area, packed with inquisitive people with i-phones, this is very surprising and may also be suspicious. Sure there are general shots of ambulances, helicopters, police vehicles, armed officers but none of bodies - or even of them being removed from the scene?
Of course the police made an early appeal that people should not publish any private videos on social media that may have caused the dearth of real time evidence. But we also know that in previous high profile terrorist events, both the existence of video and absence of it are both critical features of deception.
Press reports can be misleading as the following illustrates: the Times headline the next day: "Attacker killed by police" was later denied by the police themselves, who stated at no time did armed police engage the person concerned. By the time they located his body it appeared he had died by his own hand, using the same 'pump action shotgun' he had used to shoot seven others - five fatally. Despite dying at the scene, no witness to it has been made public. There were also early reports that he had shot his brother that later proved groundless.
But these are not the only examples of what appear to be conflicting reports. For example eye witnesses are quoted as saying that in addition to breaking down the door of his own home (and I raise the question why he was unable to unlock the door himself?) he also fired into another house in which there was an adult and child according to this witness as follows: "One resident said she saw the gunman burst into a house in Keyham and open fire on a mother and her young daughter, who looked about five years old." Does this account explain the confusion over the reported age of the dead child - both three and five years old?
So who was this child apparently escaping injury and any other mention by the press? Similarly Sophie, the adopted daughter of Lee Martyn is variously reported as being both 3 and 5 years old. Is it possible the same child was somehow in two different locations, one with a man outside, the other with a woman in a doorway? These conflicting and subsequently uncorrected accounts, always make me uncomfortable. They sometimes indicate prepared scripts that have to be amended in light of actual events.
There is no doubt that over the past twenty years particularly, the public with the complicity of the media, has been subject to terrorism fraud. This has been where the approved rendition of the event leaves out important actors, initiators or elements that change the cause, purpose and people behind it. Sometimes the event is fraud from start to finish. Invariably state sources always dismiss and rubbish these accounts as 'conspiracy theories', ironically a term invented by the CIA following the assassination of John F Kennedy, the American President. There is of course now no doubt that his death was a conspiracy and that the conspiracy theories have been proved accurate.
Whenever there is an incident of the sort that happened in Plymouth, it is very hard and uncomfortable to question the official account put out by the police. It is almost inconceivable that the Chief Constable would knowingly propagate lies, yet he too is dependant on the information he receives. On one level, theatre can be very convincing. On another level the facts can be true, whilst covert manipulation can be, by its very nature, overlooked. The question is did either of these situations apply to the events in Keyham on the palindrome date of 12-8-21 a day prior to Friday 13th, well known to be 'unlucky for some'?
Why was Boris Johnson's wrist watch 12 -15 mins fast when he held a minute's silence on the 16th August? See:
Prime Minister Boris Johnson minute silence for Plymouth victims
16/08/2021. London, United Kingdom. Prime Minister Boris Johnson pauses for a moments silence for the victims of the Plymouth shootings in the cabinet room in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street
Whether true or not, it is strange how this event yet again ticks many boxes regarding planned and manipulated terror events. Dates such as those mentioned above and recurrent numbers of 3, 6, 12, 11, 22, 33, and 66 keep popping up. We know how Thursdays and Fridays are popular days for maximum news coverage all around the world. How the inclusion of children and multiple casualties heightens media interest. There is the convenient timing taking the Prince Andrew story off the front page for a day or two.
The weird on-line performances and character defects of the gunman play into a well known agenda of right wing, Trump-supporting, self-deprecating, INCEL associating narrative. There are also rather strange references to (the) Phoenix - that is the legendary immortal bird in Greek mythology that cyclically regenerates or is otherwise born again. Davison falsely claimed on his Facebook page to have come from Phoenix Arizona. He also appears to have had a fascination with the smiling but evil 'Batman' 'Joker' character, played by Joaquin Phoenix. Then I came across the children's magazine 'Phoenix' that boasts the following cover. (It is impossible to see the date)
Strange coincidences...
The police explained the extraordinary decision to allow such a person a gun licence even after having previously removed it, was on the spurious grounds the police did not wish to infringe his privacy by checking his social media channels! I doubt they are this inhibited when they feel so inclined. Then there are the familiar themes following the event: the hero, the political quotes, the outpouring of community grief and ostentatious lights, candles, gatherings, photo-ops. Even the fact that Davison is quoted as saying as he walked by, "See the news later" seems somewhat contrived.
If I were not convinced by the eye witness reports as to the voracity of what happened, this catalogue of familiar features would make me suspicious that at some level, this event was something more than a spontaneous reaction by a mentally imbalanced person, wishing to take his frustrations out on any unlucky person he happened to meet, in order to at last achieve some sort of notoriety, even in death. Maybe that is the whole story but maybe its not.
The official story appears to be that the shooter, 22 year old Jake Davison, the son of a broken marriage and a violent father with a criminal record, suffered in childhood from an autistic-type condition that required a specialist education. He suffered a low self image that he appears to have blamed on his mother and on women generally. Recent videos by him, since taken down, appear to focus on the fact he was unattractive to women and hence still a virgin, was finding life an unrewarding battle and that he had what appears to be an unhealthy fascination with guns and killing. His mother had apparently begged for some sort of mental heath support, which was unavailable or refused. These are of course the personality features that also make an individual impressionable and malleable. We have no idea whether he was subject to outside influence or not.
Yet what is quite astounding is that Devon and Cornwall Police thought it appropriate to issue him with a firearms licence, even after previously removing it for unrelated offences. (Issued in 2018. Removed in December 2020 following an assault. Returned July 2021) What justification could there be for a young man living in town, unconnected to the countryside, having a weapon of this sort, particularly with a history of anger management and psychological issues? If violence can be predicted, this was surely a likely candidate?
The story suggests he first broke into his mother's house shooting dead his mother Maxine Davison (51).
He then went outside and shot dead Lee Martyn (43) and his daughter Sophie (3).
He then walked south through tree filled parkland shooting three people, killing Stephen Washington (59) whilst out walking his two Husky dogs.
The two un-named injured taken to Derriford Hospital for treatment were a 53-year-old woman and a 33-year-old man later named as mother and son Michelle and Ben Parsonage. They survived the attack but were left with life-changing injuries. Then on to Henderson Place where he shot Kate Shepherd (66) who later died at Derriford Hospital.
For those familiar with these terror events, another strange and common feature pops up: the involvement of people who had survived earlier ones. (I will not list the precedents here) Apparently six years before Ben Parsonage, his partner Gemma Pook and their sons, escaped a terror attack in the Sousse, Tunisia, outrage that killed 38, thirty of which were British tourists. Mr Pook was on the beach with his children when the attacker struck but he managed to escape back to the hotel unharmed.
After this shooting spree, Davison is said to have shot himself dead outside garages to the rear of the hairdressers where he had shot Kate Shepherd. Note in this definitive list there is no reference to the mother and small child as related by the witness above. Intriguing.
So this is the settled police account as reported by the media which as usual swiftly moves on to other aspects of the story before it moves off the front pages altogether. As is now common we have the responses of politicians - the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the local MP's all expressing shock and sympathy and promising an appropriate response and investigation. Then there is the now obligatory public expression of sympathy complete with flowers, balloons, mass vigils and slogans. Few if any outlets attempt to really examine the finer details of the case that might throw more light on its cause, method and perpetrator or more importantly anything that might suggest possible involvement of covert agencies.
But more worryingly, using the mass killing to support a certain 'agenda' - in this case the danger presented by 'INCELs' standing for "involuntary celibate", an online subculture of people who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one. This appears to be initially an American phenomenon that has come to Britain with all the makings of a Deep State creation that has raised its ugly head in previous shooting incidents. Rather than a harmless on-line support group for socially inadequate people, it is presented as a nascent terror group requiring additional measures.
The Twitter thread demonstrated the INCEL link to terrorism almost immediately almost as if gratified there was now a demonstrable example in Britain. The very next day the BBC appears to have had a programme ready in waiting for the event! See the link below:
Is Plymouth just an example of a malfunctioning 'copy cat' or of something more sinister? It is already being used by the former Chief Crown Prosecutor for the North West, a certain Nazir Afzal to argue that INCELs should be classified as terrorists, enabling police to intervene. As usual what may sound like a good idea involves yet more intrusion and control for everyone, for what man at some stage has not thought himself unattractive to the opposite sex?
"Mr Afzal said that if incels and extreme misogyny were treated as terrorism then authorities would have more powers to investigate it. He added: “You have got to think about how we deal with these men, and they are always men. What are they saying online, how are they being radicalised, who is doing the radicalisation?" https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/plymouth-nazir-afzal-government-north-west-bbc-breakfast-b950673.html
It seems this seeded view was predictive. The latest news suggests the Plymouth event may now be reclassified as 'terrorism', initially categorically denied by the Chief Constable. I take this as proof of a wider agenda and manipulation at a higher operational level. See: https://news.sky.com/story/plymouth-shootings-attack-could-be-reclassified-as-terrorism-over-jake-davisons-incel-links-12383353
Well I never! See:
Wednesday, 31 July 2019
As always I have some questions to pose that might point to suspicions that the projected account may not be the whole story. Another instance where the 'truth' is not the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth'?
A vagueness of information is usually explained by deference to the families involved and not prejudicing an on-going investigation. This is understandable but it can also have the effect of providing the opacity to mislead or cover-up. In this case the Police actually warned the public not to discuss the events on media channels, speculate or upload related video. One wonders what real harm this might do and whether the instruction had an ulterior motive? It is certainly the case that a control of the media and particularly CCTV and video is a familiar feature of high-profile violent events, strongly suggestive of so called 'false flag' operations.
Two possibilities based on previous cases present themselves: that an individual is actually controlled and manipulated by others to carry out the deed (see the ex-prosecutor Afzal's quote above); or that an individual is blamed for the actions of someone else. (This of course excludes cases where the thing is a complete fabrication from start to finish) Could all or any of these apply in the the Plymouth case? More specifically is it possible that Davison had been influenced or controlled by others or that someone else actually carried out the murders?
These may appear far fetched, even outrageous suggestions but on the basis of many previous cases they should never be ruled out completely without compelling, detailed evidence to the contrary. Certain features of the case certainly raise questions that need to be examined.
Immediately blaming Oswald as the lone killer of JFK is the classic case of a fabricated and untrue cover story. It has been comprehensively and conclusively debunked yet still adhered to by the investigating bodies of the American Government. Oswald was not only not the lone shooter, he was not any shooter. Similarly the so called nineteen Saudi 'hijackers' on 9/11. Similarly the five bombers blamed for the 7/7 London tube and bus bombings. Similarly the man convicted for the murder of Jo Cox. All these cases are well documented, as are many more I could mention. Whether this modern phenomenon is applicable in the Plymouth case is of course another matter entirely.
Note how in the Plymouth case, within hours of the event, Jake Davison and personal facts were in the public domain that supported the view that he was an unstable potential killer who hated his mother and himself. This may be an accurate portrayal or it may not be. Some reports by neighbours suggest he had a loving helpful relationship with his mother, specifically helping her with the shopping. Do we assume he lived at home with her. There are no reports of obvious friction, arguments or violence although there is a claim that his mother asked for help from social, medical and police authorities without success. Strangely this is a line that one might have expected to have been followed up by journalists but I haven't seen any evidence of it.
If he did live at that house it is intriguing why there are reports of him breaking the door in. Why would he not use his key? The fact that he was outside suggests he and the gun resided elsewhere. This has not been clarified. Where was he when he made the videos referred to? The Daily Record reports as follows:
"An eyewitness said she saw a man "randomly" shooting at people. Recalling what she saw, a woman said a shooter kicked down the door of a house and fired before letting off shots while running down a road."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plymouth-shooting-first-picture-gunman-24751412
.As usual no one asks the obvious question or answers it.
In the Mirror report there is this witness statement that certainly fits Davison's body type:
"One witness, whose first-floor flat overlooks the street where the killings began, said: “It was like something from a shoot ’em up game. I heard the first shots and happened to be by my window. The big lad walked down the street blasting away. “I didn’t see the kiddy get killed but saw the other two, who I’ve been told survived. How they did is a mystery to me. It just reminded me of one of those video games where a character goes on the rampage." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/map-shows-massacre-route-plymouth-24757845
The Metro reports this that doesn't seem to fit any of the stated scenarios:
"One resident said she saw the gunman burst into a house in Keyham and open fire on a mother and her young daughter, who looked about five years old. Resident Sharron Turner, 57, who lives close to Biddick Drive, said she saw a gunman ‘kick in’ the front door of a semi-detached house. She said she saw the man, dressed in black and grey armed with what looked like a semi-automatic weapon, shoot a mother and her young daughter." https://metro.co.uk/2021/08/13/plymouth-gunman-kicked-in-door-before-shooting-mum-and-daughter-15084901/
There is a paucity of information from witnesses as to his dress and appearance other than he wore dark clothes. It is reported he wasn't wearing any headdress or mask so it appears he didn't mind being easily identified. It seems he was not in army-type fatigues. Witnesses may have positively identified him but we can't be sure of that either. No witness appears to have done so or at least have been quoted as doing so.
It seems there were no witnesses in the house and events were so fleeting it is doubtful the opportunity would have arisen. Obviously the dead cannot identify him although the two injured and others may be able to. The gentleman named as Robert Pinkerton (54) said he saw him with a gun before he 'swerved away', but describes him just as 'a man' and nothing more. No detailed description and certainly not a positive identification of Davison as the fatal shooter, to the media at least.
So we would have to conclude that as far as the media reports are concerned at least, there is nothing to positively identify the shooter as Davison.
The question remains is it possible the shooter was actually someone else entirely, hired to do a job to be blamed on the named person. Of course if this was the case, there would have to be another shooter on scene and some early reports suggested there was. (See below) Also Davison would have had to have been killed by someone else or his death faked to allow the true killer to escape before police arrived.
That is why Mr Pinkerton's evidence is so crucial both by way of description of the man he saw and where he was precisely located in respect to the location where Davison's body was discovered. There is no information who or how his body was located, presumably by armed police but it could also have been by a member of the public. We have not been told.
Then there are reports of more than one shooter! Google search reveals the following:
A "young woman"? "Other ones"?
An interesting take on events here: https://englishbulletin.com/a-tribute-to-the-five-victims-of-plymouth-shooter-jake-davison-including-dad-and-girl-three-and-a-dog-pedestrian/
Much has been made of Davison's state of mind, his self loathing, the INCEL connection and his interest in guns and previous mass killings, but it is impossible to determine the reliability of these things. Was he truly homicidal and suicidal? The evidence for it is very thin in fact. If it had been stronger wouldn't the mental health team have been more interested and importantly would the police have given him back his gun license and weapon only a month before the attack? This is truly intriguing and inexplicable. Whether is suggests someone actually facilitated either the incident or a necessary cover story is another matter that cannot be determined.
People can act in character and out of character. It is neither normal or easy to use a fire arm to shoot your mother, strangers, children or yourself without a very disturbed mind. Davison may have had the necessary psychological make-up and past history to do it but if he was that way inclined it certainly casts serious aspersions on both the mental heath and police authorities. The fact that he was immediately identified and used by political/prosecution figures to press a INCEL agenda previously employed in the United States certainly raises suspicions that there is more to this incident than meets the eye.
All the circumstances referred to above are circumstantial but they do fit a well defined pattern in previous cases where covert manipulation of events has been proved. That at least should make us very wary of the official explanation of this one.
UPDATE, 19.8.2021: Jake Davison argued with his mother before shooting her dead, an inquest into Thursday’s Plymouth shooting heard today.
ReplyDeleteThe 22-year-old apprentice crane operator then went on to kill another four people with a licenced shotgun before turning the gun on himself. The court heard that Davison had died from a “shotgun wound to the head.”