the "death of Jo Cox": 10 baffling questions

"I´ll not be surprised if there´s a big, noisy security/terror scare jut pre-referendum that´s best dealt with by the UK being in the EU." (Guardian contributor Charlie Skelton, May 31th)

"Let us suppose you are losing an argument. The facts are overwhelmingly against you, and the more people focus on the reality the worse it is for you and your case. Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as “throwing a dead cat on the table, mate”.That is because there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point is that everyone will shout “Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!”; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief. ...A referendum! The very word is one, as we all know, that causes the Eurocrats to choke on their Douwe Egberts and spray the room with fragments of hysterical Speculoos biscuit. Mon dieu, dio mio, Gott in Himmel, they cry. Anything but democracy! ...That is the beauty of the dead cat manoeuvre. But as any campaign strategist will tell you, it won’t work for long." (Boris Johnson on the Italian plea to have an Anti-Euro-Referendum, own arcticle in The Telegraph, March 3rd, 2013)

Charts to be remembered:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-16/stocks-sterling-surge-after-british-mps-death

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-16/reuters-explains-todays-market-move

https://mishtalk.com/2016/06/16/strange-tragic-day/

the "death of Jo Cox": 10 baffling questions

wolfgang eggert

in forensics/criminalistics we have to deal with the following terms:

on the whole: proofs/evidence, plausibility

on side of the circumstances, proofs and witnesses: credibility, plausibility

on side of the suspect: motive/benefit/advantage, intention/plan, opportunity

and a closer look to the crime scene, deed/execution is needed.

let´s do it in regard to "the murder of Jo Cox":

1. the timing

a planned right wing murder against a "remain" member of parliament some days ahead of the election day -and brexiteers leading the polls- is too much coincidence to be coincidental. any investigator would be alarmed on this point.

convenience: high on side of the remain campaign, zero on the opposite

plausibility of the official version: zero

2. the motive- who had to gain?

the "offender" is being described as a right winger. rightwingers are pro-brexit. there is no motive to help the remainersjust when they were about too be losing their campaign. the deed accomplished exactly this. the advantge/benifit is fully on side of the remain-campaign

convenience: high on side of the remain campaign, zero on the opposite

plausibility of the official version: zero

3. the murder weapon

it is said, that mair had manifactured the gun on himself. why did´nt he just obtain a "good one" trough his half-brother, who had a well established criminal vita?

plausibility of the official version: low

proofs/witnesses that he built his gun: none

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77c_1466100223

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. the "opportunity": place and time

library - how could the "offender" have known that cox was there, in this remote street? how could he have known the date and the exact time?

plausibility of the official version: low

5. the deed/execution: what really did happen?

there are witness reports, saying that- before the deadly shots - there had been a quarrel between the detained and someone else, in which cox intervened. is this true? and if yes, does´nt this "kill" the whole "intended murder" story?

witness/es : existing

the witness hichem ben-bbdallah tells swedish aftonbladet-tv that the suspected killer did not act alone. he seemed to have some military training and acted professional. http://tv.aftonbladet.se/abtv/articles/127378

witness/es : existing

6. did the detained person shout out his motive ("britain first")?

why should an offender scream his motive during the incident instead of writing a well established political claim of responsibility being sent to the media or to his "neonazi friends" in advance? he could even have done this anonymously, without naming his victim, if fearing that the attack would fail in the end.

plausibility: low

convenience that there is no such letter: high on side of "others"

benefit for the shouting: very high on the side of the remain camp, zero on part of the brexiteers

the mainstream media quoted "as proof" a local shophkeeper "being an eye witness of the murder". but this source had not been on the scene, when the "deed" was happening. the „independent“ cites aamir tahir, as follows :"the lady I work with heard two loud bangs but I wasn't there, I was stuck in traffic at the time. i wish I was there because I would have tried to stop him. the whole street thinks it was me but it wasn't. apparently the guy who did it shouted 'britain first' and if I had been there I would have tackled him." so the shouting of the words " britain first" was nothing more than a rumor, that was spread by someone else. mr tahir, who was a first hand witness to the arrest clearly feels he has spoken to enough journalists and has placed a notice up in his drycleaners shop clarifying exactly what happened. spotted by an LBC reporter, the message in the landerette’s window says: “please note, i did not tackle the gunman. and no one shouted britain first at any time.” http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/Birstall-6.png

a second witness, hichem ben abdallah, owner of the „azzurro café“ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrcuCmi2nxE, was wideley "quoted" as well by the msm, that he had heard the war cry „britain first“ – which too is untrue. ben abdallah has told breitbard-media that he “did not” hear this. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/16/breaking-labour-mp-jo-cox-shot-stabbed-constituency-surgery-yorkshire/ and made the same statement ("never heard that") in front of cameras. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XQlf6Fi8T0. the guardian cut that question and answer from their edit of this same interview

subsequetly member of parliament and remain campainer maria eagle, one of the most prominent people to make the claim that there had been shouts saying "britain first", deleted her tweet about it.

in the meantime two witnesses had been found, who - this is new - claim by themselves, that they´ve heard the shouting of "britain first". as bloomberg reports, clarke rothwell who runs a cafe near the murder scene said he had seen a man shoot and then stab jo cox. “the words I heard him say was ‘britain first’ or ‘put britain first’,” rothwell said in a BBC television interview. “he shouted it at least twice.” now someone has found the following on the ´digitalspy´ forum, postet by ´cheesy_pasty´ cheesy_pasty, forum member, join date: jun 2007, location: lincolnshire, posts: 3,922 call it what you will... but mr clarke rothwell of witness fame is actually a on a list of members of the british national party as sourced from wikileaks.wikileaks. here is the relevant record from the wikileaks web site on ´clarke rothwell´ of birstall in west yorkshire: mr clarke rothwell, 12 western avenue, birstall, batley, west yorkshire, WF17 0PF, 01924 470982, clarke@rothers.fsnet.co.ukhttp://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?s=6f8db2f4504785991e65377a02a87c5f&p=82785615#post82785615 https://wikileaks.org/wiki/British_National_Party_membership_and_contacts_list,_reference keep in mind, that bnp and britain first are fierce enemies. britain first stood candidates for the 2014 european elections in wales and scotland; it encouraged english supporters, in the absence of a britain first candidate, to instead vote for the english democrats or the UK independence party (UKIP), while warning against voting for the bnp. keep in mind, too, that the right wing extremist scene is heavily infiltratet by state intelligence.

last and least latebloomer is said to be 38-year-old graeme howard, "who lives in nearby bond street". the guardian cites: “i heard the shot and i ran outside and saw some ladies from the cafe running out with towels.” “there was loads of screaming and shouting and the police officers showed up. “he was shouting ‘britain first’ when he was doing it and being arrested."

now does´nt the liveleak video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77c_1466100223 contradict bnp-rothwells´and howards saying, that the detained person aggressively shoutet "britain first" when he was arrested? in fact it seems that the "offender" was very calm.

7. how can it be, that jo cox got shot in her head one or two times and even being able to move or communicate afterwards?

witness ben abdallah told the media that jo cox was sitting upright sitting at a wall after the attack, "a friend" even said tat she was talking to her.

plausibility : extremey low in case that she was shot in the head and stabbed afterwards

8. shots and stabbings must produce enormous amounts of blood. have there any pictures been published showing blood on the street?

in fact there are none available

plausibility: zero

9. why did´nt the "offender" shoot at the policemen? the liveleak-video indicates that they had been unarmed. why so? why did´nt they wait for the swat-team to arrive before the arrest?

plausibility for access by unarmed police on a weaponized killer: zero

proof: see liveleak-video

10. why did the detained wait until being arrested?

why did the "offener" - if he was one - not flee the scene after his deed? he had enough time before the police arrived at the scene (15 minutes).

plausibility: zero

convenience (arresting the man): high on side of the remain campaign, zero on the opposite

__________________________________

part 2 10 challenging points on the offender, the witnesses, the husband, the victim to follow

__________________________________

Wolfgang Eggert studied History and Politics at universities in Berlin and Munichis. He works as a freelance jurnalist and is the author of nine books on themes as terrorism, state intellegence, shadow governments, deep politics, end time networks.

On "First Manhattan, then Berlin", Emmy Prize winner Saul Landau, professor at the California State Polytechnic University writes: Anyone who wants to know how extreme fundamentalism overlaps with current US policy should read this book.

On "MH370" US-TV-Expert and United airlines Pilot captain Russ Aimer comments."A very interesting and plausible theory.Wolfgang Eggert flys the ill fated 777 into an intriguing dark world that exists and controlled by very ugly men. We know these ruthless creatures have done many ugly things before!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UrMKVPQM7E