Home Boston Four Easy Tipoffs for Conspiracy-Theory Events

Four Easy Tipoffs for Conspiracy-Theory Events


(L) Justice William Cox of Tasmania. (Center) Justice George O’Toole of Boston. (R) Magistrate Michael Barnes of New South Wales

by Mary Maxwell, currently a candidate for US Senate, in Alabama

At GumshoeNews.com we often deal with conspiracy theory. I write “investigative” articles – mainly investigating court documents and government behaviour. This has resulted in books entitled Marathon Bombing: Indicting the Players, and Inquest: Siege in Sydney, as well as a book co-authored by Dee McLachlan — Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough.

Information from one case often enlightens another case. I believe the main gunman in each of those three books was a patsy. Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev, age 19, did not do the 2013 Boston bombing; Martin Bryant, age 28, did not do the 1996 Port Arthur massacre; the hostage-taker Man Haron Monis, in the 2014 Sydney siege, was indeed the gunman but his actions were arranged by someone else.

I personally believe the authorities did all three events. The FBI or Boston’s Emergency Management did the Marathon “bombing.” A Special Operations Group ran the killings at Port Arthur and burned the Seascape Cottage. I say the Sydney siege was controlled by police while constables were “stood down.”

Official Story

Some members of the public still have not heard of “false flags,” but these are well documented in history. The best device a government can use to control people is to tell them an enemy is lurking or is about to strike. Create a false-flag atrocity and nearly everyone will fall in with the official story. (Monis literally used a false “flag.” He placed an irrelevant Islamic banner in the window of the Lindt Café.)

On hearing conspiracy theories talked about, many people use two logical statements to resist acceptance. They say: 1. It’s not possible that so many people would participate in wrong-doing; some would be conscience-pricked. And 2. If the atrocities had a perpetrator other than the nominated one (such as Jahar at the Boston Marathon) that perpetrator would surely have been exposed – you can’t keep things hushed up for too long.

Nice logic, but there’s a competing logic.  For #2,  it doesn’t matter how many exposés a journalist may accomplish, the public mind WANTS TO BELIEVE THE FALSE-FLAG STORY. Our tricksters know this, they are experts at psychology. Our book Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough is full of wonderful exposés, but people turn their face away. Indeed many get angry at the authors.

As for #1 (wrongdoers would get a prick of conscience), it’s a fact of life that a few individuals do start to feel guilty — but they may then get “taken out.” If you “know too much” you are considered a risk. Dozens of people who knew the real score about the assassination of JFK met an untimely death, for example, George Mohrenschildt and David Ferrie. Mohrenschildt was told that the House Select Committee on Assassinations wanted to see him as a crucial witness. That afternoon, he was found dead.  When it was reported that District Attorney Jim Garrison would call David Ferrie for questioning, Ferrie was soon found dead.

In sum, the two logical reasons to reject conspiracy theory are sensible, but they are bested by other factors.

You Can Argue the Case on the Basis of 4 “Diagnostic” Tip-offs

I have been asked to explain why I sound confident when talking conspiracy theory, especially in the face of ridicule.  It is because I use certain criteria when looking at a case. Or, should I say, certain criteria jump out at me. The first time this happened when I was a law student in 2005. I happened to read in a law blog that Lord Hutton, who was conducting an inquiry into the death of a bioweapons expert, called the witnesses in the wrong order.

Judges don’t do that. They don’t break rules unless they are getting up to no good. I followed the links in that article and, before you know it, ended up reading a conspiracy website for the first time in my life. Was I ever scared to find out about 9-11, and other things!

Tip-off 1

So if you want to know how to feel confident about a conspiracy theory, look for a judge’s odd behaviour – that is the best tip-off. Here is another example of it. Australian citizen Mal Hughes wrote to the coroner in the Sydney siege case with a very interesting insight about the guns used. He has waited 9 months, so far, for a response.

And the same coroner, Magistrate Michael Barnes, ignored a letter I sent with “99 things about the siege that don’t add up.” Did any other person send in even five such items? I think my collection of 99 ought to merit coronial attention.  But if the case is a false flag, if the gunman is a patsy, silence is bound to reign.

In Boston, Justice O’Toole went way over the limits of protocol. He shook hands with each juror before the Tsarnaev trial began and said “We are a team.” I am claiming that when we see a deviation like that, we are well on the way to knowing that the official case is a lie. Moreover, Judge O’Toole allowed Jahar’s “Defense” Attorney to get away with saying “It was him” even though Jahar was pleading Not Guilty!

See what I mean? If the case was kosher, such a thing would never happen.

In the Port Arthur case, Justice Cox did not bother to ask if the accused, Martin Bryant, had taken advice from his guardian. Just fathom that. An adult receiving a disability check for mental illness is on trial and the judge does not say “Hey, wait a minute!”

Tip-off 2

Tip-off 2, in my list of four tip-offs, is that key people are not called as witnesses. In the Port Arthur case it is shocking that Wendy Scurr’s testimony was deemed unworthy to be heard. She was the main helper of the wounded at the site. Wendy was dying to tell what she saw — but the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) fobbed her off.   Can you imagine.

In the Sydney siege case, the widow of the gunman, Amirah Droudis, could have been summoned to give important information. Or the coroner could have visited her in jail to take a deposition (since she was allegedly “taught how to murder” by siege-man Monis). Nope, too much trouble, can’t afford the train fare, or whatever.

Then there is the matter of the “terrorist’s” aunt, Maret Tsarnaeva, sending Judge O’Toole an affidavit, pleading that the Defense team had gone to Russia 14 times to pressure Jahar’s family “to not resist conviction.”  Did such a thing really happen? Unless Maret has a fertile imagination, it did happen and is a huge scandal. For the judge to do nothing in reaction is about as telling a tip-off as you can get.

Tip-off 3

For Tip-off 3, I propose we look at “failure to clarify who was in charge.” Even though I’ve read several of the European reports of shootouts by Muslim terrorists, it’s never clear where the cops came from onto the scene, or which part of the law enforcement profession was technically in charge. In the recent Melbourne “Bourke Street rampage,” we plainly see undercover police cars participating, but just try to get the police media liaison to explain that!

Regarding the Marathon, it’s still not clear to citizens who have watched many videos of the event, whether the law enforcement personnel in the vans were FBI or Private Security or what.  Since real cops would want to take credit for their brilliant work, it is a tip-off (Tip-off 3) that the Boston Mayor doesn’t explain who’s who. Heck, we weren’t even told which ambulances were onsite, even though marathon races standardly have ambulances.

As for Port Arthur in which 35 people were killed, there was never an explanation for the local police’s failure to appear for the first five hours when hundreds of tourists were traumatized with fear. Nor does Parliament answer questions as to why the fire brigade was waiting for Seascape cottage to go ablaze. Did a tarot card reading tell them that Martin Bryant would commit arson? See? You’re just not entitled to know.

The most amazing thing to me in 2016, when I sat through the police testimony at the Lindt Café Inquest, was to hear top officials of the NSW Police (Chief Andrew Scipione and Deputy Chief Cath Burn) say that they had no part to play in deciding when the café would be stormed by police to rescue the hostages.  The phrase that came to my mind was “I’m like Huh?”

Nor were we ever informed who did have that responsibility

Tip-off 4

The point of this article is to present tip-offs to see if a conspiracy theory satisfactorily explains an event. When a case is genuine, authorities rush to collect any evidence available, right?  But when it’s a false-flag, evidence needs to be suppressed. Famously, on September 11, 2001, the debris of the fallen towers was carted off — in absolute breach of the rules of evidence.

Tip-off 4, therefore, is a tip-off to look at what’s going on with physical evidence. In the Marathon trial, there was clear evidence that the offending backpack was a black one. We could all see that Jahar’s backpack was grey-ish white, not black, but this major problem was completely ignored. In the Port Arthur case, exculpatory evidence was not handed over by the prosecution, as is required by law.

As I said above, Mal Hughes sent to the Sydney coroner some interesting points about the guns used in the siege. Do you think he will ever get a reply? Don’t bet your house on it.

A Word from the Editor

Dee McLachlan, editor and founder of GumshoeNews, wants me to correct my use of the word “government” in this article. Her comment on my saying that the Sydney siege was arranged by police is as follows:

Authorities? These could be shadow controllers, foreign authorities or specialized entities. I think part of our problem is that we are thinking the government is responsible.

I think the “government” knows very little – due largely to compartmentalisation. For those orchestrating and controlling a false flag, the less government and police know the better. You just need people in authority in a state of doublethink. Look at how the media behave, to understand how easy it is to control tens of thousands of journalists. They are not in on the game — they are just issued blinkers.

Please await an article by Dee, soon, addressing that important point.

Recap of the Tip-offs

To recap, four tip-offs that help to check on the validity of a conspiracy theory are:

  1. A judge deviates from proper procedure. (Ask why.)
  2. Key witnesses are not called. (Ask why.)
  3. Government won’t tell us who was in charge at the scene. (Ask why.)
  4. Telltale evidence is hidden from view or, if it is blatant, it’s not talked about. (Ask why.)

Please sift through some terrorist events of recent years. See if you locate the relevant tip-offs. I say they are diagnostic of conspiracy by government.

A combination of all four should lead to arrests before the day is out.

–Mary Maxwell, PhD, LLB, is the author of 12 books. Her Prosecution for Treason is a free download at the campaign website www.maxwellforsenate.com


Photo credits:
Justice Cox – Bethlehem House
Justice O’Toole – Cool Justice - blogger
Magistrate Barnes – Daily Telegraph
Boston Strong tee-shirt -- USA TODAY College





      • Just indicative of the supreme arrogance of the Powers That Be, Dee. They commit capital crimes against the people, secure in the knowledge they will never have to explain any action/inaction, let alone be punished as the real criminals they are. This arrogance extends to the fact that they allow websites like Gumshoe to exist!

        I wonder just how much guilt, and fear of being found guilty, does weigh on the mind of those who took part in any level of these conspiracies against the people. After all, just how far can the PTB go in silencing the witnesses or fellow conspirators? Pretty damn far if you look at JFK’s assassination, do those involved in such activities constantly fear when their silence will be guaranteed? Well they bloody should do! History proves it so.

        The concept of absolution for co-conspirators if they ‘fess up’ and turn early witness against the other blackguards involved, as posited by Gumshoe, may be an effective weapon against these criminals/terrorists (which is the better description?). After all, just how many parties are involved at various levels in these conspiracies? Need they all have been vetted beforehand as totally amoral, or already blacked by prior guilt as paedos, or some such, how far can these things go? There does need to be low-hanging fruit (protection) for some of the baddies, it seems their black guilt is overcome by fear of their co-conspirators.

      • And from recollection his counsel admiited his guilt.
        Only in America, the greatest democracy on the planet! Our mate?

  1. Everyone, particulary, all judges, prosecutors, defence counsel and those accused, should file this article.
    However forget the fake news, it would not have the combined intellect of a flea to understand or the backbone of a worm to carry out its claimed responsibilities honestly.

  2. Three issues:
    1) MARTIN BRYANT:Wasn’t he he was living off a 1.5 million inheritance?That would have rendered him ineligible for any sort of SS payment.

    2)THE NEED FOR A PATSY doesn’t necessarily herald some grand political plan. In fact its usually driven by a need to maintain public faith in law enforcement/a delusion of Police competence

    3) GOVERNMENT doesn’t mean anything more than a governing body, visible or otherwise (Australia is governed by various off-shore businesses, registered or otherwise)

    • dear Berry, I think MB won a disability pension in the old days before Helen Harvey bequeathed him a fortune. But at the time of his sentencing, the Judge would have questioned his sudden change to a guilty plea if he was “documented” as disabled.

      Wouldn’t he? Isn’t that normal procedure?

      I went to the Perpetual Trustees office in Hobart but got nowhere, nor did I get anywhere with the Guardianship board.

      Silence reigns. I wonder if Bryant got our birthday-cake poster.

      • Normal procedure? In this neck of the woods that amounts to rolling with the biggest perceived fear in the room and when it comes to criminal prosecutions young men are a prime target. Representation on “not guilty” pleas is simply not available. The situation in the U. S. doesn’t appear to be any different:
        In WA prosecutors “must” also fess up everything that might favour an accused:
        The following extract of transcript testifies that, as so-called “judicial officers” aren’t bound by anything, the requirement is mute.

        Convicted of a firearms trafficking offense, X filed an appeal that drew unwanted attention to non-compliance with the C. P. Act (W.A.)S.42(1)(a)(iv)

        X, MR: ……during( my underage brother’s) interview of 13 April 07 it was established that he had assembled the ammunition in question. He was not asked how he had obtained the components.During his trial of 17 February 09 it was established that he had purchased them from a local dealer unaccompanied and without a license, and here I would like to draw your attention to ALB/CC129/07, 17/2/09 page 63 where he’s saying: “Look, I’m trying to get across that the ammunition that I had, I purchased without a license from a store“.

        McKECHNIE J: You see, I am just going to stop you there because that’s not relevant to your conviction.
        * TRANSCRIPT SJA 1085/09, 2/12/09,Page 3.

        For those not already in the know McKECHNIE J was given his appointment on the heels of stitching up Andrew Mallard:

        Within an hour of leaving the Courthouse X was confronted by a bushfire raging 15 metres from his abode. The incident was never investigated.

          • About a year after Mallard’s release I read an on-line exchange between Colleen Egan(the journalist who’d worked to free him) & an individual who was saying that a corrupt Police Service was worse than no Service at all. Her response was “ I wouldn’t feel safe without them”. I should have asked “So what exactly is it that feeling of safety based on”. That’s what everyone needs to ask themselves.

        • Sorry, should have said “convicted of trafficking ammunition”(the charge was “permit unlicensed person to possess ammunition”)

          • The point being that the Po & the Judiciary were both well aware of who had trafficked the ammo and the issue was strategically shoved under the rug by the latter.

  3. Mary, your four rules also come under one heading: the RED FLAG of Standard Operational Procedure Being Changed, or subverted, i.e. “This has to happen!”

    So if we observe SOPBC at any level, ask ‘why?’ I won’t offer odds on any credible answer being offered, or even considered. Certainly our laMeSM isn’t capable of asking the question, even though some may think of it.

    • Yes, yes, Johno, I see that my four tip-offs do coalesce into one big SOPBC. Thank you.

      Johno, you say the MSM is not capable of thinking to ask the question. But really they must be extremely capable of “working around it.” They are geniuses at it. How did there get to be so many people that could handle the task of suppressing facts? or suppressing “reasoning”? Where’s ol’ Socrates when we need him.

      Mark Wahlburg has a whole movie out with total lies about the Marathon Bombing. It adds insult to injury by being called “Patriot’s Day.” (That’s a holiday in Assachusetts that has to do with the War of Independence.)

      Oh — visitors to this site, please see on this website a free download of my Boston book. Maybe write an Amazon review? Ta.

      • Mary and Dee, I too have used the epithet ‘sheeple’ when referring to those who are too thick to see the truth, even when it figuratively comes up and slaps them in the face, “Oh no, that couldn’t be true. The government is there to protect us!”

        I fear that it is an insult to sheep in general, as even a poor dumb domesticated sheep can tell a wolf at first glance. Our sheeple look at that wolf, dressed in a sharp business suit, blue shirt or black tactical ninja-suit, and see their protector.

        How lucky we are to have watchful sentries like you two ladies, to look out for us. (I refuse to use the term sheepdogs or watchdogs, I’m not that brave!)

  4. Mary. Who was the “Jock” who interviewed you, and who did he work for, or, what Station was he on? I really want to know.

    • Yes it was my first thought.
      I presumed that now that you wish to be a politician that you had a valid reason not to disclose.
      Run your own campaign, many are relying on your experience, knowledge and considered judgement.

    • Paul, I rendered the interview as Jock and Hope to make it easy to read. He is Dale Jackson of a morning radio show (7-11am) in Huntsville, Alabama, home of rocket Space Centre.

      Just looked for him now on Google and it seems he also has a TV show within a group called Yellowhammer.

      We’ll have to assume that people really do tune in and want to hear his type of commentary. I realise I am only a tiny challenger but how can anyone be a big challenger?

      There’s a very neat compilation of people who tried to challenge C-span in regard to Building-7. Each tiny challenger got knocked off (ha ha I mean knocked off the line) but now that they are combined into one video, it is striking. Same as what Dee has tried to prove about ABC shows like Jock Faine.

      I will put it at the bottom of this thread.

  5. Mary, your article is right on, However we could add a few more to that list such as, if the ID of the patsy is found right away at the scene, no matter if its a fire, a bombing etc, the ID is always in one piece. Also in the case of a Terrorist patsy, he is often said to have loudly shouted the name of his God or leader, or in some cases they will find a written note or journal on the person. This is the first thing I look for now. In the boston bombing case, the police cruiser (of the MIT cop who was killed) was totally destroyed before the defense even got a glimpse of it. How devious of the actual criminals. Also, not a single so called victim was asked a single question by the defense at the trial, and as you said the white backpack was never mentioned even as the prosecution happily showed the surveillance tape showing the white back pack. Not even the jurors questioned this. Its as if they were all brain dead. Now I know this is just all part of the evil cover up, ignore and be silent.

      • Cheryl, maybe we could make a name for the silence. I doubt my name “Four Tip-offs” is striking enough. The silence of the swans, or, for Aussies, the silence of the emus. The silence of the rice and beans? OK, Cheryl, over to you. Or any semantically inspired reader….

        P.S. Tamerlan’s high school diploma being found in his car in a Coke bottle does not qualify in my above article, as it would
        require a positive action (planting evidence).

        I am trying to appeal to people who will turn away from that sort of thing but who can — maybe, maybe — agree that WHEN NORMAL PROCEDURE BY OFFICIALS IS MSSING, that’s something to lift eyebrows about.

        But the destroyed car of Sean Collier would fit under #4. Yay.
        Incidentally, destroying evidence is a federal crime. See 18 USC 2232:

        (a)Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure.—
        Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, … disposes of , or … [etc] for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody… , shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

        Cheryl, isn’t that what Jahar’s roommate is in prison for?

        And what about the law maxim “Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem.”
        Translate: “Euripides, you menna dees.” I mean “OK, destroy the records, then we gotcha. You have announced your guilt. Ta.”

    • Thanks, Honest Aussie. Strictly speaking I don’t consider your news to be of the Tip-off type that fits my 1-4 list. But it is surely a tip-off that the damn siege was FAKED. Indeed the inquest itself must have been “scripted.”

      I say the following for all the world to hear, since I was the only non-MSM reporter at the Sydney hearings:
      It was obvious to me, on a day-to-day basis in mid-2016, that only details supportive of this new outcome were being carried by media, while many other interesting things did not get ink.

      (See my book Inquest, free download.)

      So yes, it is TRAGIC that Malcolm Turnbull will allow soldiers –SOLDIERS for God’s sake! — to be involved on our streets.

      It is TRAGIC that media played along, and for my taste much more tragic that the “lawyers” in the orchestra pit played along.

      When it really is a foreign attack by terrorists, I do of course think the army should respond. On page 201 of my Inquest book I say:

      “In the orchestra pit sat a very well dressed chap, Mr Renwick, SC, Counsel for the Commonwealth. I read in an article at news.com.au dated May 13, 2016 that

      “Defense force officers were present at police headquarters on the night of siege. Counsel for the Commonwealth, James Renwick, SC, told the inquest: ‘We could only act if we were asked. We weren’t asked, and for good reason.’ Under Australian law, the only way the defence force could have become involved was if NSW Police had declared it beyond their capability.”

      “I [Mary] don’t think that is true. As far as I can read the law (the anti- terrorism provisions), the moment Monis said ‘Australia is under attack,’ the Defence Force had a role. Naturally.”
      –end of quote from book.

      Note my scathing remarks about “Counsel Assisting the Inquest” Jeremy Gormly, SC, in my chapter 24 — which is entitled “Shall We Transfer Police Powers to the Military?”

      Shame, shame, SHAME.
      I wonder how the bereaved feel.

  6. I’ve become a bit more cynical because of these blatantly false events. When there’s any hint of a sensational nature, I now automatically assume it’s another false flag type event designed to make us feel we need more law enforcement to save us from the bad guys and crazy people. This includes the James Holmes/Batman movie theater case, the Dylan Storm Roof case, the shooting at the Washington DC Navy yard, The Fort Hood shooting in Texas, the Virginia Tech shootings, the Columbine shootings, the Orlando night club shootings, the Miriam Carey shooting, the Tate/LaBianca “Manson family” murders, and, of course, the Sandy Hook school shootings, and probably others that I can’t remember just now (added later: the Boston strangler case, Ted Kaczynski case). (Of course when I use the word “shootings,” that doesn’t necessarily mean there were any actual shootings.) I have also come to the belief that the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald case was another one of these things where various mind control methods were probably used to manipulate people into doing things they wouldn’t ordinarily do.

    So, it seems like there have been at least two different types of events. One is the “terrorist” type thing, which has been used frequently since 9/11, where the alleged perpetrator(s) is/are demonized as bad guys. And the other is the lone nut, crazy person type thing where the alleged perpetrator is either compelled through some type of mind control to carry out a shooting/stabbing/bombing, etc., or made to appear as though they had done something seemingly insane/barbaric/scary. The Miriam Carey thing was a bit different, but there seems to have been some type of mind control method used on her to make her seem unstable and scary. But the actions taken by the Capitol police people seem completely out of line. I read somewhere that the Senate or House or both stood and gave a rousing applause supporting the actions of the Capitol police who shot and killed her while she was being pursued near the Capitol with her baby daughter. Interestingly, we’ve never found out what happened to the baby.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion