I have started a new comment thread because the previous thread was a bit long.
[Click here for the previous comment thread.]
Comments
I have started a new comment thread because the previous thread was a bit long.
[Click here for the previous comment thread.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
who ever is feeding these stories to the reporters are remarkably stupid, I agree. And the reporters are remarkably stupid for printing this stuff as it shows them upfor what they are - shills and, arguably, accomplices to murder.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it, I wonder, that these murders/assassinations are perpetrated with a high degree of planning yet the covering stories seems so ad hoc, bumbling and frankly impossible? Could it be they want the stories to be seen as impossible by a certain audience or do they simply not care? Or could it be both possibilities?
Thanks James. I hope your questions are rhetorical, because I don't think I know the answer. But I will work on it some more before I declare myself totally lost! ;-)
DeleteHi again James. Apologies for the delay. It has taken me a long time to figure out what to say next.
DeleteI think every case is different. In some cases, such as JFK, RFK, MLK, and 9/11, there was clearly a very sophisticated plan to set up a patsy who could be blamed. But all these operations were extremely complicated, and inevitably things went wrong, making the cover-up trickier than it might otherwise have been. That's why the cover-ups seem ad hoc and bumbling (because they are! They are improvised to handle whatever went wrong, whatever evidence leaked out, and so on).
And sometimes they end up telling tales that are completely impossible, because the only alternative is to admit the true facts, and this is the last thing they will do.
But if the major media are sufficiently controlled, and spouting the official line 24/7, a large segment of the public will be satisfied to move on, regardless of whether the official story is impossible, or constantly changing, or both. And those who do not accept the official story can be marginalized and kept out of the discussion, for the most part.
For those people (i.e. us), being marginalized is always frustrating and in some cases it can be very demoralizing. In my experience, the effect is roughly proportional to the number of impossibilities in the official story. In other words, the more ludicrous the tale, the worse it feels to see everyone else gobble it up. Among other things, it shows how corrupt the news media have become, and how willing the sheep are to be led around by one lie after another.
So it may be that "they want the stories to be seen as impossible by a certain audience" and (in order to inflict maximum psychic damage) the more impossible the better (provided of course that the "certain audience" remains relatively small). And it's also clear that they simply do not care (because they control the media, and that means they don't have to care).
This case is somewhat different from the others I have been talking about. The cover-up has been very "ad hoc and bumbling" to be sure. But it has a different sort of quality about it. For example ...as far as I know, nobody ever suggested that JFK killed himself (or was killed by a kinky sex partner) in a tragic accident. And so on.
I'm not sure whether I have answered the questions but this is all I have for you at the moment. More later ... ;-)
"So it may be that "they want the stories to be seen as impossible by a certain audience" and (in order to inflict maximum psychic damage) the more impossible the better (provided of course that the "certain audience" remains relatively small). And it's also clear that they simply do not care (because they control the media, and that means they don't have to care).
ReplyDelete"
That seems to be a great summary, WP. The media generally seem to be very much a part of this misinformation/cover-up operation.
"This case is somewhat different from the others I have been talking about. The cover-up has been very "ad hoc and bumbling" to be sure. But it has a different sort of quality about it."
Reflecting on that comment and on the other cases you raise, the difference that strikes me is that there is no pre-arranged patsie - except Gareth himself. But it is odd that if Gareth is to be his own patsie, then he would have been "dipped" better and more "conclusive clues" would have been left lying around to point to the story they wanted everyone to swallow. Maybe time was running out for the perps as Gareth was leaving MI6 and the safehouse shortly so it was always "ad hoc" to start with.
An odd point from the Guardian piece refered to is that the "lettings agent who held a spare key showed the policeman in."
What's a letting agent doing with a spare key to an MI6 safehouse? Not exactly "safe", in my view.
If my memory serves me correctly, the ownership of the property was traced back to a company (with a Russian sounding name) that was actually a front for MI6. That being the case, perhaps "letting agent" is a euphemism
ReplyDeleteWelcome back, Winter. "OperationIraqi Liberation" came to mind for me, too. There' a whole story behind the various "Delta Forces" which likely go back to the MKUltra programming. Delta programming being the death programming. Perhaps it goes back further.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I have noticed over the years is that "they" love to leave clues as if to prove how much smarter "they" are compared to us.
The reference to "son" reminds me of "The Family", an Australian spook run group whose focus was on MKUltra -like programming of children. The CIA likes to refer to itself as "the Firm". I don't suppose any of the British spook shows refer to themselves as "the Family" do they?
There is, of course, the Charles Manson group called "the Family" also run by a spook agency. But perhaps I'm out in the weeds here.
Hi again James and thanks very much for your comment. It remains to be seen how much of this is well-connected, and how much is spurious noise, so to speak. But the circumstances certainly are curious, are they not?
ReplyDeleteIt's good to be back at this again and I hope to be able to keep it going. So much depends on my health.
"Begs the question" does not mean "raises the question." "Begs the question" means "assumes the very point in question."
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely.
DeleteBut why are you telling me this?
See Chapter 126, "Cut to Ribbons." There, the following words appear: "Indeed, the question fairly begs not to be answered," replied the detective."
ReplyDeleteIn that case, I must ask: Does "begs the question" mean the same thing as "the question ... begs"?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, these phrases use the same words, but the words appear in a different order, which gives the two phrases very different meanings.
In the expression, "to beg the question," "the question" is the direct object of the verb "to beg."
But in the sentence you've quoted, "the question" is the subject. Here, the question is not being begged -- it's doing the begging.
So these are two entirely different constructs. In other words, the detective is not trying to say, "This raises the question..." Nor is he trying to pretend an open question has been settled. He is saying, "This is a question that nobody would want to answer."
I hope this is clearer now. It was never my intention to confuse you.
Hi WP,
ReplyDeleteas a spectator of this conversation, your explanation is perfectly clear to me as was your original writing. The confusion was introduced by the anonymous commenter who misquoted you and then tried to correct you for his/her mistake. I believe the commenter committed a logical fallacy known as a "strawman argument". There is no case to answer!
Thanks James
DeleteApparently it was just a misunderstanding (see below).
As they say in basketball, "No harm, no foul!"
Due to the prevalent misuse of the phrase "begs the question" throughout public media, I am sensitive to the proximity of the words "question" and "begs." However, as you say, in this case there was no misuse. Good explaining.
ReplyDeleteSide note: Isn't it almost certain and obvious that the unfortunate young man dressed in woman's clothing, makeup, and wigs, even though no one could ever verify that as a witness? Isn't it almost certain and obvious that he had someone in his apartment who committed the crime? Wouldn't that someone have left some trace in the form of fingerprints or DNA?
Hi again Anon and thanks for the explanation. I share your frustration about the way the expression is misused (and a more general frustration about the ways in which the language in general is misused).
DeleteBut I think that's the side note, and you have raised much more important issues with your subsequent questions ...
[1] no. the police say he had quite a collection of women's clothing but they also say it had apparently never been worn. Most of the items had never even been unpacked. He may have worn orange and/or rainbow wigs, possibly with makeup, but only in fun and not apparently trying to look like a woman. I've worn crazy wigs and makeup myself, for Halloween and/or when I was playing in a band, and/or just for a laugh. And I tend to downplay this angle because plenty of other people have done the same thing, and most of us didn't end up locked in airtight bags. (For that matter, plenty of other people are transvestites, and/or gay, and/or other kinds of kinky, and they don't end up locked in airtight bags either.) In other words, I think this angle is probably irrelevant to his death, although it is very relevant to the post-mortem smear campaign waged against him.
[2] yes -- the idea that someone else was in the flat and committed a crime is much easier to swallow than the idea that he did this to himself ... but it is not obvious whether he was killed in the flat. Maybe he was killed elsewhere, and then the body was deposited in the flat.
[3] no -- it is quite possible to spend time in a room without leaving any DNA or prints behind, especially if the killer(s) entered the flat to deposit the body there, and then departed immediately.
I will have more to say about all these things in subsequent chapters, which I hope to have ready soon (health permitting).
One of the most dramatic moments of the inquest into the death of MI6 officer Gareth Williams came when Det Supt Michael Broster, of the Met’s counter-terrorism unit, admitted that nine memory sticks potentially belonging to Mr Williams - and a sports bag similar to the one in which Mr Williams was found - were discovered at MI6 headquarters but never disclosed to the police officer leading the investigation into the perplexing case.
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2139439/Leveson-inquest-spy-Gareth-Williams-death-making-great-use-oath--Iraq-Inquiry.html#ixzz3zHpsPXfu
Richard Littlejohn has also been prominant:
"Call me old-fashioned, but until yesterday I’d never heard of ‘claustrophilia’. Thanks to the inquest into the spy-in-the-bag case, we now know it is the approved medical term for a desire to be held in confined spaces, usually for sexual..."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2139141/Gareth-Williams-death-claustrophilia-So-thats-theyre-called-Funny-People.html#ixzz3zHrRYo43
Thank you for a fascinating and very well written Sherlock - I trust you are in better health and wish you all strength to continue this important document. If you require assistance in researching or writing further articles/chapters please let us all know!
WE WANT and DEMAND JUSTICE FOR GARETH WILLIAMS and his family.
Why have you stopped adding chapters to this blog?
ReplyDeleteA sick twat called Richard Littlejohn has been called upon to add his half-penny...
ReplyDelete"Call me old-fashioned, but until yesterday I’d never heard of ‘claustrophilia’. Thanks to the inquest into the spy-in-the-bag case, we now know it is the approved medical term for a desire to be held in confined spaces, usually for sexual..."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2139141/Gareth-Williams-death-claustrophilia-So-thats-theyre-called-Funny-People.html#ixzz3zHrRYo43
WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR GARETH WILLIAMS and his family.
Fiona Wilcox and the inquest.
ReplyDeleteMore info:
"One of the most dramatic moments of the inquest into the death of MI6 officer Gareth Williams came when Det Supt Michael Broster, of the Met’s counter-terrorism unit, admitted that nine memory sticks potentially belonging to Mr Williams - and a sports bag similar to the one in which Mr Williams was found - were discovered at MI6 headquarters but never disclosed to the police officer leading the investigation into the perplexing case.
There were gasps in the court - unsurprisingly, since this material could yet prove crucial to helping solve this mystery..."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2139439/Leveson-inquest-spy-Gareth-Williams-death-making-great-use-oath--Iraq-Inquiry.html#ixzz3zHtejU23
ps apparantly there was no inquest held for David Kelly!
WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR GARETH WILLIAMS and his family
"George Smiley would never have behaved like this. Ever since the body of the GCHQ code-breaker Gareth Williams was discovered stuffed into a hold-all in his bath, we have been treated to a stream of unsavoury and contradictory leaks from mysterious sources.
ReplyDeleteThe story is throwing up more obfuscatory trade-craft than a John Le Carré novel. Of course, the secret intelligence world must of necessity work in a deeply shadowy way - concealing its tracks, laying false trails and employing sundry other means of disinformation...."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1307281/MI6-spy-Gareth-Williams-unsung-hero-shadowy-spooks-trying-blacken-name.html#ixzz3zHuMtIfB
SO WHY DID THIS STORY EVER APPEAR?
Clearly it was meant as a warning to all service personnel who do not personally agree or go along with the bogus war on terror.
Woolwich was an exercise, a false flag, to ensure maximum co-operation and loyalty from the armed forces.
This spy in the bag 'mystery' - which is as clear as day, after all, is a shot over the heads of all security staff.
The 'press' have outed themselves in every way. Clearly, as Sherlock realises, we are no longer subject to democracy as we understand it, but are living under a Crown mafia regime.
There are so many more chapters to write!
Why the silence? We are in 2016 as this is written. the last comments seem to have been left in 2014!!!!
"the dead man’s family, who fear he was killed by what they describe as a specialist ‘in the dark arts of the secret services’.
ReplyDeleteThey are unlikely ever to forgive MI6 for not bothering to report Mr Williams missing for a week – by which time it was not possible for pathologists to establish if, for example, he had been poisoned.
But it is testament to Britain’s legal system that an inquest has at least endeavoured to hold the authorities to account in public."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2138629/Gareth-Williams-inquest-Spy-bag-death-perils-secret-justice.html#ixzz3zIDmVG00
yes, they wrote this;
"But it is testament to Britain’s legal system that an inquest has at least endeavoured to hold the authorities to account in public"
Questions:
ReplyDelete1.) Did Gareth leave a will or testament? How much was his estate worth, and how was it allocated?
2.) Have the family been offered criminal damages? Have they been able to successfully sue for defamation? What - if any - bearing on the subject of compensation has the Inquiry verdict had?
3.) Did Gareth drive? What car did he have? Where did he park it? Was it his or a company car?
4.) Where did he keep and store and repair his racing bikes?
5.) Sherlock and Watson have forensically examined the 'words' written, can they now do the same for the PHOTOGRAPHS published in the press, please?
6.) Where did Gareth Williams eat? Favourite foods/restaurants? What was in his fridge? What was in his garbage bins?
7.) Plumbing. What WC did Gareth use in the flat? What was in the report about waste disposal? Was Gareth sick or ill? Did he vomit? Poison being the most obvious weapon - what would be the standard procedure in a case of forensic crime scene investigation?
8.) What happened to the bag? Was it presented to the coroner as evidence? Why no DNA traces left? Did the victim vomit or defecate or ejaculate into the bag? Surely the body may have decomposed beyond the point tests could be conclusive, but traces of body fluids left OUTSIDE the body, on plastic material, would surely reveal something?
9.) Languages. Did Gareth speak or know another language fluently?
10.) What clothes did Gareth usually wear? We are alerted to the fact he was found naked, so where are the clothes? The shoes? was he sporting casual or a suit and tie type?
11.) The most used photo of Gareth is taken at a wedding, is it not? Whose wedding? How old was Gareth then? Who accompanied him to the wedding? What role did he play? Best man, perhaps? Is there any video footage available? How did Gareth speak? Move? Dance?
12.) Cycling. A robust hobby for fitness fanatics. Also requires a steely determination to succeed and a willingness to 'get one's hands dirty' as frequent messy repairs can only be carried out by the cyclist himself. winning cycle races naturally demands an extra degree of 'the right stuff'. How have the coroner and the press been able to overlook and ignore this obvious positive attribute to Gareth Williams character?
12.)
8.)
Melanie Phillips has a go:
ReplyDelete"Maybe the intelligence world doesn't want us to know that it didn't vet Mr Williams thoroughly enough; or alternatvely that it shockingly failed to protect the life of its invaluable code-breaker from foreign or terrorist assailants; or maybe it wants to conceal the identity of a country or group that killed him..."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1307281/MI6-spy-Gareth-Williams-unsung-hero-shadowy-spooks-trying-blacken-name.html#ixzz3zIUitgMW
The article is a spurious effort: Snippets of info concern a sum, 18,000 pounds which was traced moving from Gareth Williams's bank account. Blackmail is posited.
But the well-intentioned waffle is riddled with disinformation and a return to the party line. Hang your head in shame, Melanie!
Comment upon the comments...
ReplyDeleteThe online newspapers have comments sections and there is fertile ground for Holmes and Watson to further speculate.
Most folk do not seem to realise that if one is gay, they have far better chances to work for the security services than someone happily married with children. The talk of 'vetting' is inverted. MI5 and MI6 and GCHQ vet positivly for being unattached and queer and less open to blackmail.
Half our entertainment industry is queer and linked to the security services, those who control public propaganda and employ actors to further political and money-making ends. Is it even a scandal for a man to be found wearing ladies clothes in his private life?
Comments reflect the closed mind of sofa britain, and of course are rife with paid shills who keep the deception going. But perhaps one comment in a hundred is brutal and true and it is READ by many more hundreds and thousands of eyes than any credit could give credence to.
Please notify me if any of my comments got through to you, and are suitable, or not, for publishing.
ReplyDeleteIf your health has deteriorated to the extent you can no longer run the blog, please also make this fact public. I am certain many other willing writers would be pleased to continue your fine efforts!!!
Here is a good comment, for example
ReplyDeleteICICLE writes
"He must have found out something inconvienient. Genius little autie-boys have a tendency to do that. They tend to be honest too. The money might have been an attempt to buy his silence, but he sent it back. To that extent, it is a failure of the psyche profile. If you are going to ask someone to do something dishonourable, you have to make sure they are capable of it first!"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1307281/MI6-spy-Gareth-Williams-unsung-hero-shadowy-spooks-trying-blacken-name.html#ixzz3zIhD9Jk0
Why is it that all these articles are Daily Mail online? Because I searched for Richard littlejohn and Gareth Williams. I am off to search for the very latest news...
Another good comment:
ReplyDelete"The killers made a big mistake in stealing money from his bank account. Financial transactions and electronic communication transactions leave their footprints in all kinds of audit trails, and are perfect for forensic tracking. When the authorities "fail" to follow such records, you know they are hiding something. For example, Odigo: the messaging company admits that several people were warned to stay away from the WTC on the day of 911, by people using Odigo messaging. Finding out exactly who sent those mesages would be child's play since everything is operated and billed by computer systems. We never heard anything further about THAT investigation..."
sorry but it was from the Daily Fail again, I am still busy with the comments!
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1307281/MI6-spy-Gareth-Williams-unsung-hero-shadowy-spooks-trying-blacken-name.html#ixzz3zIrjEFA8
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/6613428/Secrets-of-MI6-spy-found-dead-in-bag-revealed.html
ReplyDeleteLatest news, the Clinton angle (?) and Russia and the Met still saying it was suicide, despite coroner dismissing much of the smear speculation...?????
Hi Walter
ReplyDeleteThanks for all your recent comments. Apologies for taking so long to get them published.
I have been hampered with injury and illness but I am recovering slowly and I am planning to resume writing as soon as conditions permit.
I will try to answer some of your other questions, but I can't do it at the moment.
Thanks again for all the info and your very kind words.
re: "WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR GARETH WILLIAMS and his family"
I couldn't agree more.