Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturbo
Who Killed Lucia and Leo Krim? – by Moti Nissani, October 28, 2012 . . . still think the lawsuit is a scam?
Posted on October 29, 2012
Did Corporate Media Coverage of a $43 Trillion Lawsuit Lead to the Heinous Stabbing of Two Young Children?
Lucia Krim (above), aged 6, and her brother Leo, aged 2, died from
multiple stab wounds. Their mutilated bodies were found in the bathtub
of their home, “with their nanny unconscious on the bathroom floor and holding a bloody knife.”
A $43 Trillion Bite Out Of Crime?
Source: Veterans Today
On 10/25/2012 two corporate financial media bastions, MarketWatch (an affiliate of the Wall Street Journal) and CNBC,
presented their readers with a bombshell. In a too-good-to-be-true
lawsuit, top government and banking officials in the United States had
been sued for “racketeering and money laundering.” The suit requested
“the return of $43 trillion to the United States Treasury.” Yes, you’ve
read that right: 43 trillions—roughly 3 years worth of America’s GDP or 3
times America’s underestimate of its own national debt.
The suit characterizes itself, according to these two corporate media tabloids, as
To begin with, it must be made absolutely clear that, unless this
lawsuit enjoys the backing of the military component of our ruling
Military/Banking Dyad, this lawsuit is a quixotic consciousness-raising
exercise which has absolutely no chance of success. Most judges in this
land have already been bought. If you need any proof, ask yourself: How
is it that the highest court in the land, charged with protecting the
Constitution, stands aside and looks while this very Constitution is
being dismantled? Why does that said court not only allow rigged
elections, but lends its full support to the riggers? Why does it not
only stand aside and look while sunshine bribery (aka “campaign
contributions”) corrupts every square inch of the republic, but actually
seeks ways and means to further enshrine, institutionalize, and
metastasize this bribery?
But, you might say, what about the many well-meaning men and women
who still hold office in America’s “justice” system? The answer is
simple. Would you, in their shoes, willingly let go of any chance of
promotion for the sake of fighting a losing battle? Would you risk your
name being dragged in the mud, your wife harassed or murdered, or your
own body ending up in a dump?
Am I going too far in thinking that American judges do indeed face
such dilemmas? No, for I am simply portraying the real undercurrents of
politics, Washington style. Let me cite two U.S. presidents in support
of this seemingly cynical view. First, James Madison, two centuries ago:
today’s world. Well, let me give you a more contemporary quote, this
time from Catherine Austin-Fitts [Please note that I drew your attention to her amazing body of financial work and directed you Here, just today. ~J], Assistant Secretary of Housing in the George H. W. Bush’s Administration.
other and this lawsuit is a result of such internecine warfare, the
lawsuit has no prospects of success. (We may note in passing that such
warfare, if it is taking place, would throw light on the fact that the
$43T lawsuit has not been glossed over by 2 organs of the corporate
media. It would also explain the ongoing Lagarde List Affair,
which has so far led to two deaths and which lists 22,000 names of
wealthy tax evaders from various EU member states who hold Swiss bank
accounts (see also this).
Juan O’Gorman, Enemies of the Mexican People
No Challenge to the Bankers Ever Goes Unpunished
Nonetheless, the $43T lawsuit draws attention to the realities of
American politics. It exposes the most profitable thieving operation in
the history of our species. It tells every American smart enough to
punch numbers in a calculator that, one way or the other, her household
has been so far cheated of $377,000. It tells us that the US government
is, in reality, a criminal operation. It tells the few American people
who are still awake that if this rapidly-metastasizing cancer of
corruption cannot be peacefully removed from our body politic, and soon,
that it will have to be forcefully removed—the future of the republic
is clearly at stake. Above all, as in the parallel case of the Lagarde List Affair, it discloses the identities of some implacable enemies of humanity and thereby places these enemies at a grave personal risk.
So, although the lawsuit will be summarily dismissed, or, in a
best-case scenario, thrown out on appeal, it does create a major
headache for the bankers and their political lackeys. These criminals
can ill afford such exposure, such exceptional chutzpah, and such
attempts to deprive them of their ill-gotten money.
Indeed, if history is any guide, such audacity never goes unpunished.
In minor infractions against the “banksters” (the term employed by the
plaintiffs), the banksters and their government lapdogs are typically
patient, willing to curb their blood lust for a few weeks, months, or
years, before exacting their deadly retribution. But in treachery of
this magnitude, punishment is always swift.
Among the 1000s of examples that could be cited for this iron-clad
rule, consider the case of prisoner number 40892-424: former Illinois
Governor Rod Blagojevich.
A Candidate for a Post-Revolutionary Justice Tribunal: Ken Lewis,
CEO of Bank of America when the witch hunt against Illinois Governor Rod
Blagojevich started.
A day after this popular state governor stood by the people against
the parasites, the federal Gestapo arrested him–for doing what just
about every politician in our Sodom and Gomorrah does every day.
According to another outlet of the global corporate media:
Obviously, the plaintiffs in the $43,000,000,000,000 case are at the gravest possible risk. But killing the heroic attorneys of Spire (the
law group filing the charges) or their family members would be too
obvious right now, even for people possessing a license to kill.
Besides, Fiedler (the attorney who signed the filing) and his associates
are not the main culprit, from the bankers’ perspective. American
history is chock-full of obscure dissidents who died of old age. The
worst offenders are the corporate media outlets which, because of
oversight, or idealism, or naiveté, or internecine warfare, broke every
corporate media rule and gave this story national exposure. This error
or deliberate affront required a fast and furious shock and awe.
And this, in turn, brings us back to the blood-curdling murder of little Lucia and Leo Krim. It turns out that
these children’s’ father, Kevin Krim, is chief executive of CNBC
Digital. Lucia and Leo were stabbed to death hours after the article
covering the $43T suit appeared at the CNBC website. The
knifing could be seen as a graphic and chilling warning to all mass
media outlets, reminding them that Madison, Wilson, and Austin-Fitts
really knew how the system works.
The bloody warning had not been lost on CNBC, which immediately after the
slaying of Lucia and Leo removed the article from their website. They
must have been in a hurry when they first took the article down, for
some accompanying comments could still be read for some time, before
they too were removed.
As of this writing (Sunday evening, 10/28/2012), one can still read about this lawsuit at the MarketWatch site, but, one suspects, not for long.
Who Killed Lucia and Leo Krim?
Bankers’ involvement in the murder of the Krim toddlers is plausible enough, but can if be proven?
The answer is yes and no. Remember, if the grim view presented here
reflects reality, we’re dealing with the best-trained assassins in the
world, psychopathic professionals who are not likely to incriminate
themselves or their masters. Remember too that the men who order such
assassinations possess a license to kill. At least as far back as the
Civil War, they have always been getting away with the murders of our
best and brightest while we stood aside and looked (to paraphrase the
late Bob Marley). So although we can’t be absolutely sure that the
invisible government butchered Lucia and Leo, we can say that such
butchery fits a historical pattern of state executions, and therefore
that this pattern probably applies to these children as well. Given this
pattern, given my background as a natural scientist and a frequent
traveler to the land of statistical levels of significance, I’d place
the probability that the execution of Lucia and Leo was an act of state
at about 90% (assuming of course that the basic facts in our possession
are accurate and that this lawsuit and murders are not a COINTELPRO smokescreen.
That is, a priori, and without any detailed detective work, I feel
there is roughly a 9 in 10 chance that Lucia and Leo have been murdered
by rogue elements of the United States government.
Finally, we may wish to look at the specifics of this tragedy, and
see if they are consistent with our forensic interpretation. If so, they
may raise the probability estimate to about 95%—the level which
conventionally allows scientists to provisionally accept their
hypotheses.
As we shall see now, although it’s too early to offer a conclusive
answer, we can definitely conclude the following: the facts given to us
so far by the men in the shadows are far more consistent with the
hypothesis proposed here than with the hypothesis that these men
themselves provide.
As we have seen,
Lucia Krim, aged 6, and her brother Leo, aged 2, died from multiple
stab wounds. Their mutilated bodies were found in the bathtub of their
home, “with their nanny unconscious on the bathroom floor and holding a
bloody Knife.”
Lucia and Leo’s parents were on the best possible terms with the
children’s caregiver, Yoselyn Ortega, treated her well, and spent a few
days recently visiting her family in the Dominican Republic. Ms. Ortega
doted on her charges. Background checks gave every appearance of an
ordinary, hard-working, decent person.
According to the New York Times, “Ms. Ortega had talked
about how happy she was with her worklife. . . . She loved her job with
the Krims. . . . was paid well and treated well. She . . . was so fond
of Ms. Krim that she often put in extra hours to help her.”
As usual in such contrived cases, the CIA organ of record, along with
its mendacious sisters, have already solved the mystery: Their question
is not “Who killed Lucia and Leo Krim?” Instead they ask: “Exactly what
prompted [the nanny] to attack the children—children who, by her
friends’ accounts, she was devoted to?” Haven’t these “journalists” read
Conan Doyle? Did they skip each and every one of their Logic 101 class?
Don’t they know that, when it comes to criminal investigations,
appearances are meant to deceive? Their strange ignorance can be best
ascribed to a directive from above, a directive “suggesting” that they
resort to one of demagoguery’s ancient hat tricks: the complex question
(the classical example being a prosecutor asking an innocent defendant:
“Did you murder your husband with a hatchet or a cleaver?”)
One would want, at the very least, to get Yoselyn Ortega’s version of
the events before accusing her of such a heinous crime. Again, as you
might expect in license-to-kill incidents, detectives have been “unable
to question Ms. Ortega, who was in a medically-induced coma in a
hospital.” The tabloid of record does not bother to explain why a coma
had to be induced. And again, as happens so often in state executions,
the police retracted their first version of events, claiming later that
Mrs. Ortega was “conscious and intubated.” Either way, poor Yoselyn can’t speak for the time being and tell the world what really happened. It is, in fact, doubtful that she will ever speak again.
Seasoned observers of government-sanctioned slayings may hazard two
guesses. The first begins with the contingency, hinted at by the New York Tabolid,
that Ms. Ortega might have visited a psychologist just before the
murders. If so, she might have been programmed to commit the murders of
the two children she loved (recall that the CIA mastered such
programming technologies already in the 1950s; please consult this example).
The problem with this scenario is time—I simply don’t know whether
walking zombies can be created in a few hours. If she did indeed see a
psychologist, a genuine detective would have begun by immediately
questioning that psychologist and ruling out any connection to the CIA,
FBI, and other government agencies.
The second, likelier, contingency, is that Ms. Ortega had been
attacked by the same person(s) who murdered the two children and that
the attacker(s) proceeded to place the knife in her hand. This would
explain the chilling brutality of the case and its bizarreness, for both
serve the goal of frightening and subduing would-be dissidents and
whistle-blowers. If this version is correct, Yoselyn Ortega’s survival
so far is a miracle and there is every reason to believe that she would
not emerge out of that hospital alive or with her faculties intact.
Indeed, given the obvious and present danger she is in, in a better
world vigilantes would have taken it upon themselves to save her life by
clandestinely removing her to a secret and safe shelter, treating her
in a manner that would restore her health and psychological well-being,
guard her life around the clock, videotape her version of the events,
and post this version as soon as possible. Only such action, it may turn
out, might have saved the life of this innocent bystander and exposed
the masterminds of a vicious, high-stakes, murder plot.
Moti Nissani is in the process of writing License to Kill: The Decisive Role of Political Murders, Scandal-Mongering, and False-Flag Operations in American Politics. This book, in turn, will form a vital part of hisRevolutionary’s Toolkit.
The views expressed herein are the views of the
author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT
authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice
Share this:
Like this:
Like
Be the first to like this.
This entry was posted in Financial/economic information, Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption, Political and tagged Bankster, Brooklyn, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, MarketWatch, Money laundering, Neil Barofsky, United States, Wall Street Journal. Bookmark the permalink.
Thanks to: http://jhaines6.wordpress.com
Posted on October 29, 2012
Did Corporate Media Coverage of a $43 Trillion Lawsuit Lead to the Heinous Stabbing of Two Young Children?
Lucia Krim (above), aged 6, and her brother Leo, aged 2, died from
multiple stab wounds. Their mutilated bodies were found in the bathtub
of their home, “with their nanny unconscious on the bathroom floor and holding a bloody knife.”
A $43 Trillion Bite Out Of Crime?
Source: Veterans Today
On 10/25/2012 two corporate financial media bastions, MarketWatch (an affiliate of the Wall Street Journal) and CNBC,
presented their readers with a bombshell. In a too-good-to-be-true
lawsuit, top government and banking officials in the United States had
been sued for “racketeering and money laundering.” The suit requested
“the return of $43 trillion to the United States Treasury.” Yes, you’ve
read that right: 43 trillions—roughly 3 years worth of America’s GDP or 3
times America’s underestimate of its own national debt.
The suit characterizes itself, according to these two corporate media tabloids, as
“the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit inA Few Ugly History Lessons
United States History. [It identifies] $43 trillion
($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the ‘Banksters’ and their
U.S. racketeering partners and joint venturers. [And it] pinpoints the
identities of the key racketeering partners of the ‘Banksters’ located
in the highest offices of government and acting for their own
self-interests.
The plaintiff “has expanded its mass tort action into federal court
in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide
pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000) by the
“Banksters” and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and
audits of all the “bailout programs” by an independent receiver such as
Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has
stated that none of the TARP money and other ‘bailout money’ advanced
from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the
contrary by the Defendants.
“This District Court Complaint—maintained by Spire Law Group, LLP—is
the only lawsuit in the world listing as Defendants the Banksters, let
alone serving all of such Banksters with legal process and therefore
forcing them to finally answer the charges in court. Neither the
Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, nor the Office of the Attorney General, nor any State
Attorney General has sued the Banksters and thereby legally chased them
worldwide to recover-back the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) and
other lawful damages, injunctive relief and other legal remedies.
“Because the Obama Administration has failed to pursue any of the
‘Banksters’ criminally, and indeed is actively borrowing monies for Mr.
Obama’s campaign from these same ‘Banksters’ to finance its political
aspirations, the national group of plaintiffs home owners has been
forced to now expand its lawsuit to include racketeering, money
laundering and intentional violations of the Iranian Nations Sanctions
and Embargo Act by the national banks included among the ‘Bankster’
Defendants.
“The complaint—which has now been fully served on thousands of the
‘Banksters and their Co-Conspirators’—makes it irrefutable that the
epicenter of this laundering and racketeering enterprise has been and
continues to be Wall Street and continues to involve the very
‘Banksters’ located there who have repeatedly asked in the past to be
‘bailed out’ and to be ‘bailed out’ in the future.
“It is now beyond dispute that, while the Obama Administration was
publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners by ‘Banksters’,
it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in
violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law.
The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies,
Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One
West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole trillions
of dollars of home owners’ and taxpayers’ money during the last decade
and then laundered it through offshore companies.”
To begin with, it must be made absolutely clear that, unless this
lawsuit enjoys the backing of the military component of our ruling
Military/Banking Dyad, this lawsuit is a quixotic consciousness-raising
exercise which has absolutely no chance of success. Most judges in this
land have already been bought. If you need any proof, ask yourself: How
is it that the highest court in the land, charged with protecting the
Constitution, stands aside and looks while this very Constitution is
being dismantled? Why does that said court not only allow rigged
elections, but lends its full support to the riggers? Why does it not
only stand aside and look while sunshine bribery (aka “campaign
contributions”) corrupts every square inch of the republic, but actually
seeks ways and means to further enshrine, institutionalize, and
metastasize this bribery?
But, you might say, what about the many well-meaning men and women
who still hold office in America’s “justice” system? The answer is
simple. Would you, in their shoes, willingly let go of any chance of
promotion for the sake of fighting a losing battle? Would you risk your
name being dragged in the mud, your wife harassed or murdered, or your
own body ending up in a dump?
Am I going too far in thinking that American judges do indeed face
such dilemmas? No, for I am simply portraying the real undercurrents of
politics, Washington style. Let me cite two U.S. presidents in support
of this seemingly cynical view. First, James Madison, two centuries ago:
“History records that the money changers have used everyNext, Woodrow Wilson, a century ago:
form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain
their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”
“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s viewsYou might still argue that all this is history and doesn’t apply to
confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the
field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid
of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so
subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that
they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in
condemnation of it.”
today’s world. Well, let me give you a more contemporary quote, this
time from Catherine Austin-Fitts [Please note that I drew your attention to her amazing body of financial work and directed you Here, just today. ~J], Assistant Secretary of Housing in the George H. W. Bush’s Administration.
“I think at the heart of the matter, Max, is not that theSo, unless our rulers (bankers and generals) are at war with each
banks are out of control; I think the heart of the matter is physical
violence, because a lot of what has happened, particularly as I
understand in the United States is you have people who are afraid to say
no because the results of saying no is physical violence directed at
them or their family. I mean we have had a lot of people murdered or
assassinated, etc., etc. So the question is yes we have to say no but
the question is how do we say no. And that’s why it comes down to
shifting our money, but the reality is we have a force operating in the
world, that is completely operating outside of the law and no one yet
has come up with a way to stop it. We are talking about violent mobster
operations.
“I hate to use a personal example, but I was a former Assistant
Secretary of Housing, I had my own business in Washington, and I was
helping the Department of Housing and Urban Development, essentially run
things clean, and you had to get rid of the clean team to run the
housing bubble and I was targeted, I was poisoned, I had dead animals
left on my doorstep, and my home had been broken into, and people [had
been] trying to run me off the road. You know it was very, very violent
and it went on for years. So people who try to run the government clean
or run Wall Street clean are targeted, and literally have to fear for
their lives. I mean, people have been dying, so you know, it’s a very,
very dangerous situation and the challenge is, if you have people who
can kill and physically harass with impunity, how do you run a
governance process?”
other and this lawsuit is a result of such internecine warfare, the
lawsuit has no prospects of success. (We may note in passing that such
warfare, if it is taking place, would throw light on the fact that the
$43T lawsuit has not been glossed over by 2 organs of the corporate
media. It would also explain the ongoing Lagarde List Affair,
which has so far led to two deaths and which lists 22,000 names of
wealthy tax evaders from various EU member states who hold Swiss bank
accounts (see also this).
Juan O’Gorman, Enemies of the Mexican People
No Challenge to the Bankers Ever Goes Unpunished
Nonetheless, the $43T lawsuit draws attention to the realities of
American politics. It exposes the most profitable thieving operation in
the history of our species. It tells every American smart enough to
punch numbers in a calculator that, one way or the other, her household
has been so far cheated of $377,000. It tells us that the US government
is, in reality, a criminal operation. It tells the few American people
who are still awake that if this rapidly-metastasizing cancer of
corruption cannot be peacefully removed from our body politic, and soon,
that it will have to be forcefully removed—the future of the republic
is clearly at stake. Above all, as in the parallel case of the Lagarde List Affair, it discloses the identities of some implacable enemies of humanity and thereby places these enemies at a grave personal risk.
So, although the lawsuit will be summarily dismissed, or, in a
best-case scenario, thrown out on appeal, it does create a major
headache for the bankers and their political lackeys. These criminals
can ill afford such exposure, such exceptional chutzpah, and such
attempts to deprive them of their ill-gotten money.
Indeed, if history is any guide, such audacity never goes unpunished.
In minor infractions against the “banksters” (the term employed by the
plaintiffs), the banksters and their government lapdogs are typically
patient, willing to curb their blood lust for a few weeks, months, or
years, before exacting their deadly retribution. But in treachery of
this magnitude, punishment is always swift.
Among the 1000s of examples that could be cited for this iron-clad
rule, consider the case of prisoner number 40892-424: former Illinois
Governor Rod Blagojevich.
“Rod Blagojevich threatened to stop the state’s dealings
with Bank of America Corp. over a shut-down factory in Chicago. On
December 8, 2008 (the day before his arrest), all state agencies were
ordered to stop conducting business with Bank of America to pressure the
company to make the loans. Blagojevich said the biggest U.S. retail
bank would not get any more state business unless it restored credit to
Republic Windows and Doors, whose workers were staging a sit-in. John
Douglas, a former general counsel for the FDIC and attorney for Bank of
America, called Blagojevich’s gambit dangerous.”
A Candidate for a Post-Revolutionary Justice Tribunal: Ken Lewis,
CEO of Bank of America when the witch hunt against Illinois Governor Rod
Blagojevich started.
A day after this popular state governor stood by the people against
the parasites, the federal Gestapo arrested him–for doing what just
about every politician in our Sodom and Gomorrah does every day.
According to another outlet of the global corporate media:
“Disgraced Illinois governor [was] handed [a] stiffThe Heatbreaking Murders of Lucia and Leo Krim
sentence for attempting to sell President Obama’s vacant Senate seat
[and] was sentenced to 14 years in prison Wednesday, one of the stiffest
penalties imposed for corruption. It took two trials for prosecutors to
snare Blagojevich. While Blagojevich will likely end up at a minimal
security prison, he’ll be largely cut off from the outside world. Visits
by family are strictly limited, Blagojevich will have to share a cell
with other inmates and he must work an eight-hour-a-day menial
job—possibly scrubbing toilets or mopping floors—at just 12 cents an
hour.”
Obviously, the plaintiffs in the $43,000,000,000,000 case are at the gravest possible risk. But killing the heroic attorneys of Spire (the
law group filing the charges) or their family members would be too
obvious right now, even for people possessing a license to kill.
Besides, Fiedler (the attorney who signed the filing) and his associates
are not the main culprit, from the bankers’ perspective. American
history is chock-full of obscure dissidents who died of old age. The
worst offenders are the corporate media outlets which, because of
oversight, or idealism, or naiveté, or internecine warfare, broke every
corporate media rule and gave this story national exposure. This error
or deliberate affront required a fast and furious shock and awe.
And this, in turn, brings us back to the blood-curdling murder of little Lucia and Leo Krim. It turns out that
these children’s’ father, Kevin Krim, is chief executive of CNBC
Digital. Lucia and Leo were stabbed to death hours after the article
covering the $43T suit appeared at the CNBC website. The
knifing could be seen as a graphic and chilling warning to all mass
media outlets, reminding them that Madison, Wilson, and Austin-Fitts
really knew how the system works.
The bloody warning had not been lost on CNBC, which immediately after the
slaying of Lucia and Leo removed the article from their website. They
must have been in a hurry when they first took the article down, for
some accompanying comments could still be read for some time, before
they too were removed.
As of this writing (Sunday evening, 10/28/2012), one can still read about this lawsuit at the MarketWatch site, but, one suspects, not for long.
Who Killed Lucia and Leo Krim?
Bankers’ involvement in the murder of the Krim toddlers is plausible enough, but can if be proven?
The answer is yes and no. Remember, if the grim view presented here
reflects reality, we’re dealing with the best-trained assassins in the
world, psychopathic professionals who are not likely to incriminate
themselves or their masters. Remember too that the men who order such
assassinations possess a license to kill. At least as far back as the
Civil War, they have always been getting away with the murders of our
best and brightest while we stood aside and looked (to paraphrase the
late Bob Marley). So although we can’t be absolutely sure that the
invisible government butchered Lucia and Leo, we can say that such
butchery fits a historical pattern of state executions, and therefore
that this pattern probably applies to these children as well. Given this
pattern, given my background as a natural scientist and a frequent
traveler to the land of statistical levels of significance, I’d place
the probability that the execution of Lucia and Leo was an act of state
at about 90% (assuming of course that the basic facts in our possession
are accurate and that this lawsuit and murders are not a COINTELPRO smokescreen.
That is, a priori, and without any detailed detective work, I feel
there is roughly a 9 in 10 chance that Lucia and Leo have been murdered
by rogue elements of the United States government.
Finally, we may wish to look at the specifics of this tragedy, and
see if they are consistent with our forensic interpretation. If so, they
may raise the probability estimate to about 95%—the level which
conventionally allows scientists to provisionally accept their
hypotheses.
As we shall see now, although it’s too early to offer a conclusive
answer, we can definitely conclude the following: the facts given to us
so far by the men in the shadows are far more consistent with the
hypothesis proposed here than with the hypothesis that these men
themselves provide.
As we have seen,
Lucia Krim, aged 6, and her brother Leo, aged 2, died from multiple
stab wounds. Their mutilated bodies were found in the bathtub of their
home, “with their nanny unconscious on the bathroom floor and holding a
bloody Knife.”
Lucia and Leo’s parents were on the best possible terms with the
children’s caregiver, Yoselyn Ortega, treated her well, and spent a few
days recently visiting her family in the Dominican Republic. Ms. Ortega
doted on her charges. Background checks gave every appearance of an
ordinary, hard-working, decent person.
According to the New York Times, “Ms. Ortega had talked
about how happy she was with her worklife. . . . She loved her job with
the Krims. . . . was paid well and treated well. She . . . was so fond
of Ms. Krim that she often put in extra hours to help her.”
As usual in such contrived cases, the CIA organ of record, along with
its mendacious sisters, have already solved the mystery: Their question
is not “Who killed Lucia and Leo Krim?” Instead they ask: “Exactly what
prompted [the nanny] to attack the children—children who, by her
friends’ accounts, she was devoted to?” Haven’t these “journalists” read
Conan Doyle? Did they skip each and every one of their Logic 101 class?
Don’t they know that, when it comes to criminal investigations,
appearances are meant to deceive? Their strange ignorance can be best
ascribed to a directive from above, a directive “suggesting” that they
resort to one of demagoguery’s ancient hat tricks: the complex question
(the classical example being a prosecutor asking an innocent defendant:
“Did you murder your husband with a hatchet or a cleaver?”)
One would want, at the very least, to get Yoselyn Ortega’s version of
the events before accusing her of such a heinous crime. Again, as you
might expect in license-to-kill incidents, detectives have been “unable
to question Ms. Ortega, who was in a medically-induced coma in a
hospital.” The tabloid of record does not bother to explain why a coma
had to be induced. And again, as happens so often in state executions,
the police retracted their first version of events, claiming later that
Mrs. Ortega was “conscious and intubated.” Either way, poor Yoselyn can’t speak for the time being and tell the world what really happened. It is, in fact, doubtful that she will ever speak again.
Seasoned observers of government-sanctioned slayings may hazard two
guesses. The first begins with the contingency, hinted at by the New York Tabolid,
that Ms. Ortega might have visited a psychologist just before the
murders. If so, she might have been programmed to commit the murders of
the two children she loved (recall that the CIA mastered such
programming technologies already in the 1950s; please consult this example).
The problem with this scenario is time—I simply don’t know whether
walking zombies can be created in a few hours. If she did indeed see a
psychologist, a genuine detective would have begun by immediately
questioning that psychologist and ruling out any connection to the CIA,
FBI, and other government agencies.
The second, likelier, contingency, is that Ms. Ortega had been
attacked by the same person(s) who murdered the two children and that
the attacker(s) proceeded to place the knife in her hand. This would
explain the chilling brutality of the case and its bizarreness, for both
serve the goal of frightening and subduing would-be dissidents and
whistle-blowers. If this version is correct, Yoselyn Ortega’s survival
so far is a miracle and there is every reason to believe that she would
not emerge out of that hospital alive or with her faculties intact.
Indeed, given the obvious and present danger she is in, in a better
world vigilantes would have taken it upon themselves to save her life by
clandestinely removing her to a secret and safe shelter, treating her
in a manner that would restore her health and psychological well-being,
guard her life around the clock, videotape her version of the events,
and post this version as soon as possible. Only such action, it may turn
out, might have saved the life of this innocent bystander and exposed
the masterminds of a vicious, high-stakes, murder plot.
Moti Nissani is in the process of writing License to Kill: The Decisive Role of Political Murders, Scandal-Mongering, and False-Flag Operations in American Politics. This book, in turn, will form a vital part of hisRevolutionary’s Toolkit.
The views expressed herein are the views of the
author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT
authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice
Share this:
- Facebook3
- Twitter1
- Email
- Print
Like this:
Like
Be the first to like this.
This entry was posted in Financial/economic information, Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption, Political and tagged Bankster, Brooklyn, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, MarketWatch, Money laundering, Neil Barofsky, United States, Wall Street Journal. Bookmark the permalink.
Thanks to: http://jhaines6.wordpress.com
