Wow, what a busy 24 hours. First things first.
• The trunk was opened the following day using a tire iron • Despite claims to the contrary there was what appears to be damage not caused by fire toward the right rear of the vehicle.
• An accelerant was used • soil samples were collected • 4″ x 12″ x4 sections of tree removed for testing.
This was not an accident.
♦ Secondly, regarding gangs or no-gangs. Just because a person belongs to a gang -and that person carries out a crime- does not indicate the crime was a ‘gang crime’. If a member of the ‘Soccer Ball and Teddy Bear Society’ robs a Citgo gas station, that doesn’t mean the SBTBS robbed the gas station.
♦ Third – Disinformation like we’ve never before seen, circles the case of Jessica Chambers. It is almost enough to lend sympathy to DA Champion’s assertions of puzzlement, almost.
♦ Fourth – An oddly minded, and arguably unstable, entrepreneur – who self associates with the Soccer Ball and Teddy Bear conglomerate- did an interview “in December” of a person, LeAnn Horn, who was victimized by a white couple, in 2012, in a crime of similar fashion (lit on fire) to Jessica Lane Chambers; sans the final disposition.
A pigeon playing chess.
As a direct consequence of this interview, based almost entirely on pigeon supposition, you find the origin of said pigeon pushing the Mississippi “White Gang Theory“. The pigeon believing that constructs of the prior 2012 victimization carry forward to explain the murder of Jessica Lane Chambers in 2014.
Hence pigeon proclamations that all other investigative venues -currently being followed by actual investigators on the ground- should be dispatched in favor of the pigeon theory; which, by itself is weak at best. And to make it sound better, we’ll drum up a bunch of people to agree with us.
However, theories by themselves do not generate click-bait donations.
In order for a pigeon to self promote, the pigeon needs a venue of advancement. A pigeon platform.
This is actually a familiar pattern. Long term Treepers will remember we’ve seen this exact construct used before in the Trayvon Martin case. The pigeons in that example were Joy-Ann Reid, and Frances Robles – the platform was The Grio / Miami Herald.
Here’s how it works. Pigeon #1 writes a very weak presentation article, perhaps making baseless accusations – and appearing to create news. Pigeon #2 then writes a follow-up article citing Pigeon #1 as partial source of baseless information, while constructing a larger narrative.
It’s not really news, or journalism, or even research – It’s just collaborative narrative building. It’s really just two friends/colleagues working together, citing each other, and baiting their readership.
In today’s example, the original outline cites Pigeon #1 as author/contributor, and then self-quoted within the content, as if they were a 3rd party to the construct. (Which I find incredibly funny – BTW)
Every once in a while a new tidbit will be thrown in which adds to the narrative. Meanwhile, all oppositional information is dispatched because continuing the build-upon construct becomes what is more important.
Joy-Ann Reid and Frances Robles were MSM pro’s at pulling this off. Albeit their motives were for a cause, and not self-promotion per se’.
However, when confronted with doing it – such as the Witness #19 story in the Zimmerman case – the MSM reporters tend to go bonzo at having their collaboration exposed. What do they do? They attack the person and/or group who is deconstructing their shadow built narrative and bringing in the sunlight.
In 2012 literally the day before (Joy-Ann Reid) The Grio => NBC ~and~ (Frances Robles) The Miami-Herald => ABC, were about to deliver the George Zimmerman deviant 5-year-old sex molesting narrative (totally false), we exposed the absurd construct of the false story, how the timeline didn’t match, sketchy W19 characteristics, and W19’s family prepared to say it never happened.
The pigeons were flat out furious.
Your collaborative research was valuable and miles ahead of them, constantly keeping them off balance. This was not normal; this was not what they were familiar with. They had never experienced such direct, fact-based, pushback and deconstruction.
So what did they do? They attacked CTH, you, and as a direct consequence obviously me, with everything in their arsenal.
Fast forward to 2015 (past three days) and history repeats. Replace the names of Joy-Ann Reid (pigeon 1) and Frances Robles (pigeon 2) with John Cardillo and Charles Johnson and you have the same scenario.
… You also have the same result when called out.
♦ Fifth – REGARDING CONTACT – We would never knowingly put someone in a position of compromise. And NEVER would we undertake the responsibility of receiving knowledge, or accepting ownership of information, which should belong exclusively to authorities in charge of a legal matter, ie the police.
Again, long term readers and researchers will note the opposite. Just like prior events, if we are engaged by a party with a direct interest in the story we are following we immediately refuse contact, and communication.
We have done this repeatedly.
The stories we follow and research are not about us. We do not inject ourselves into them. • Not once did we collaborate with or communicate with the GZ defense team – our work is independent of opinion. • Same thing with Mike Brown shooting and the research into the participants around Darren Wilson – our work is independent of opinion/influence.
We do the research, we assemble the puzzle bits, anyone can look at the picture a completed puzzle presents.
So to clarify yesterday – when contacted by a potential witness to criminal activity – and with full understanding of the legal implications that come as a consequence of that contact – the first things stated are: #1.) do not tell us who you are, where you are, or anything personal about you. #2.) do not tell us anything which would put us in a place of having to act upon your conversation. #3.) If you are doubtful about those two points, then err on side of caution and keep us in dark.
So, what can we do to assist? We can work to put someone in touch with assistance (attorney or LEO) who would be able to guide them through the myriad of issues which can come as a consequence of their knowledge. We can also, on an emergency basis, help pay to get that assistance to them.
If, as an outcome of a conversation, a person begins to identify details that contain specifics, and they needed to be directed to law enforcement or a regulatory agency – we would do everything possible to begin that process immediately, with both #1 and #2 above in mind.
Now, back to business…