Home News Introducing “The Port Arthur Formula” for Framing an Innocent Man

Introducing “The Port Arthur Formula” for Framing an Innocent Man

29
Photo credit: Malcolm R Highes

by Mary W Maxwell

Recently I gave a lecture about the trial of the man (Jahar Tsarnaev) who supposedly bombed the finish line of the Boston Marathon in 2013. The venue for the lecture was a library and the audience was comprised mainly of people who lived in the area where that man was “captured.” Namely, Watertown, Massachusetts.

After the lecture we had Open Mic for an hour, at which local people could give their views or recollections. Almost everyone takes for granted the media story of the Marathon bombing, including its intricate details, such as about the kidnapping of Dun Meng or the writing of a boat-wall confession.

Thanks mainly to my exposure to a similar case in Australia, the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, I find many aspects of the Boson bombing “familiar.” Shall we say eerily familiar.

This made me think that there is a “formula.” Below I present the key features of the formula.

I’ll call it “the Port Arthur Formula for Framing an Innocent Person.” I hope others will apply it to any similar case, such as the assassination of Martin Luther King (1968), the 9-11 attacks (2001), or the Bourke St rampage (2017).

Note: it will be easiest to understand by those who already realize that there is an entity (I call it World Government, or “the cabal”) that has a general interest in producing events to traumatize the public, and that the MSM (mainstream media) are onside with them.

The Port Arthur Formula for Framing an Innocent Person 

Assume you have been instructed to set up an innocent person:

  1. Be sure to pick a person who can be portrayed either as a nutcase or as one who is devoted to, and guided by, a rebellious ethnic group. This lets you get away with accusing him of behaviour that isn’t in the repertoire of normal folks.
  2. You must pick a vulnerable individual, that is, one who does not have any friends in high places that could speak up for him. This will save you later from worrying that the truth could come out at a trial.
  3. You should try to avoid a trial in the first place by ensuring that your man “turns the gun on himself,” or that he gets killed in a so-called confrontation with police.
  4. If a trial does take place, you must make sure the judge is “on board,” and that the public defender of the accused would never dream of protecting him. Alternatively, there could be a pro bono attorney who puts the case sympathetically, and is egged on by a leftist audience but who loses, alas.
  5. Media must report the incident immediately, preferably in real time. The excitement should know no bounds. This person is a clear and present danger to all.
  6. Some gossip about the personal habits of him or his family must be trotted out within hours. This will make it very hard for an ordinary sensible citizen to take sides with him or to question the facts publicly.
  7. Media must, within hours, congratulate the brave first-responders and indeed the brave victims. These portraits must be personal and emotional. These are the “real” members of society, as opposed to the friends of the accused who are “marginal.”
  8. It must be made known that plenty of evidence has been collected from the scene, be it fingerprints, DNA, or CCTV surveillance film.
  9. A formal investigation needs to be declared, thus making it possible for police to say they can’t give out any facts, as these will be needed for the investigation.
  10. There has to be a simple symbol to associate with the case – a blond wig, a white hat, a polka-dot dress, box cutters, nylon stockings (the Boston Strangler case), etc. These need to be drummed into everyone’s brain so that the public feels that it knows the case well.
  11. Some member of the “controlled opposition” must spread wild conspiracy theories that will embarrass ordinary citizens; confusing photos or videos will be made for this purpose.
  12. One or two academics or clergymen will narrate the true case, thus enabling hope to stay alive in the minds of many good people.
  13. Patriotism should be played up; preferably the memorial plaque honoring the deceased victims should be ceremoniously unveiled by someone who symbolizes the nation.
  14. If the framed person is still alive he must be kept incommunicado, even for decades.

But He Wasn’t Even There!

I must say I never grasped until recently that the famous brothers were not at the Marathon at all. Nor were they at the other locations where they had been “seen,” such as the Shell station, or MIT, or at Laurel St.

Rather, it was an actor there. Or, in some instances, pictures of the real Tsarnaevs were photo-shopped and then inserted into a scene, in such a way as to incriminate them.

If you spend any time looking at the photos of the brothers, you will see that the lad at the ATM is not the genuine Jahar, nor is in the shopper in the Shell convenience store. And the guy on the tarmac outside the store is not the genuine Tamerlan. The famous still shot of the two boys near the Forum Restaurant is certainly the Tsarnaevs but taken at a younger age, maybe two years earlier, and inserted by a photo-shopper.

Regarding photos of two of the crime scenes in the official narrative — the killing of a cop at MIT (on Thursday April 18th around 10.20pm) and the shootout on Laurel St Watertown (in the wee hours of Friday, April 19th, you will be forced to agree that the “suspects” aren’t identifiable. There is no audio, to check their voices, and the visual representation is distant and dark. Neither their facial features nor their body shape can be identified.

Citizens who sees those videos have already been schooled in the story of who it is and why he is there. Also, they have been schooled in the belief that a date stamp, or other evidence presented by authorities, is honest and thus proves the matter. As a result, the citizen’s eyes and ears actually perceive the wrong thing! How’s that for an inexpensive trick?

Where I Cut My Teeth; Say What?

During the library meeting, I said that I knew certain things because I had cut my teeth on the Port Arthur case. In order to put together the Adelaide Fringe show in 2017 called “A Moot Court Trial for Martin Bryant” I had to attempt to give Martin a voice.

Thus I had to concentrate on where he said he had gone that day – April 28, 1996. I showed that he was not at the Broad Arrow Café — where more than 20 people were gunned down. Luckily there are three sources of Martin’s own words in existence, and I was able to use them to reconstruct his actions that day.

The three sources are: a published interview between Martin and his “public defender,” John Avery; an audio tape of his talking to police negotiator Sgt Terry McCarthy; and a video of his being interrogated in prison (July 1996) by four policepersons. That video was finally released to the public — “courtesy of Channel 7” — for the 20th anniversary of the massacre.

From these sources we can glean Martin Bryant’s real itinerary on the day of the massacre. Until I tried doing it this way, we had been going about the task by picking away at the established story. Thus, for every false witness – such as the two girls who said Martin fixed their broken-down car on the road that day – we had to compose a reason why it is false (such as Martin’s incompetence with things mechanical).

The public gets weary of such picayune arguments, and anyway the “official record” always seems so much more impressive than the writings of sincere critics. And naturally you’ll meet resistance when you claim Martin was not present at the Broad Arrow Café in Port Arthur, since “everybody knows he was there.” You are a cuckoo-bird if you go against that well-known “fact.”

Please Try This Approach

I label my approach “the Port Arthur formula for framing an innocent person” in honor of Martin Bryant’s plight. I want people to make a tool of it, as it can easily explain a case. Once the event is pictured, even hypothetically, as being done by someone other than the framed-up person, many obstacles fall away.

You no longer have to account for any of the “facts” in the official narrative. You can make a hypothesis that the relevant officials are clever enough to have set the audience up as well as setting the patsy up.

My scheme is also usable in reverse. As soon as you chart numerous cases (even going back to the most blatant one, the assassination of JFK), the carrying out of the 14-point formula becomes a give-away as to the fact that the event was planned. It was “scripted.”

I mean, come on, there couldn’t be so many events living up to the 14 criteria of the formula, if each had a random origin, could there?

Acknowledgements

I thank the Watertown Free Public Library for not putting the slightest obstacle in my way of giving a talk that exonerates Jahar. In Australia we are embarrassed to recall the attempted lecture tour by Dr Sherri Tenpenney on the subject of vaccination, which every venue cancelled.

I’m also grateful, indirectly, to the persons who wrote to the Watertown News to try to discourage folks from attending my lecture. One writer said that people would not want to be seen on camera, and that we should therefore post signage warning that the audience might be filmed.  We went one better to oblige!  We put up a sign offering a choice of rooms – the regular room (kindly provided by the Watertown Savings Bank) with the cameras in it, and another room receiving my lecture via closed circuit.

Nobody went to that other room. And a good time was had by all in the regular room.

Life is full of small miracles.

–Mary W Maxwell’s book, Marathon Bombing: Indicting the Players, has a revised 2018 edition.

 

 

SHARE

29 COMMENTS

  1. I’ll have more to say in another article about the locals who spoke at the Open Mic session after my Watertown lecture, but for today I hope readers will offer examples of any of the 14 points as they enlighten some other case.

    No relation to Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points!

    (I just ran “JImmy Gargasoulas” down the list and was able to tick these boxes: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11.)

  2. “8 It must be made known that plenty of evidence has been collected from the scene, be it fingerprints, DNA, or CCTV surveillance film.”

    Plus…. PASSPORTS, degrees and certificates and ID card (Kaouchi bro)

    • Dee, did you know — this is official, from the record — that a passenger’s tooth was found in a tree at the Shanksville site?

      I got that from Elias Davidsson’s book, “The Hijacking of America’s Mind on 9-11.” What a great title.

      Not sure if the passenger’s dentist has confirmed it. Probably has.

  3. Brilliant Mary: The framing formula. I am currently mapping out a story /connecting the dots titled All Roads Lead to Tavisitock–Mary your lines “It was planned it was scripted” resonate validate with me—–Are all our lives scripted? Are we playing out our scripted roles in this grand design? Have we all been Tavistocked?–no response required today—–just a hypothetical– I too believe in asking different questions.

  4. Craig & Mary you mention Bourke st – i worked at coober pedy -& knew jimmy G. very very well.
    He’s a lovely kid. Mischievous but undeniably lovely . Distinctly a KInd person. Heart of gold. There are at least a couple of teachers i personally still have contact with who knew him throughout his school-life -and say same. He was special and notable for his compassionate nature and sensitivity. albeit a trickster . .a fun loving and humanistic person. Ive contacted the prison re contact/support- i think jimmy remembers us as school staff and would be very keen to meet- he has our full support
    there would be any number of other education staff who would concur that he is exceptionally bright creative and compassionate person

    • Deb, please keep in contact as you progress and possibly get to see Jimmy G. It got thru in the mainstream media that the “illuminati made me do it”. I keep on thinking of Derren Brown’s tv shows and how easy it is to control someones mind.

    • Hi Deb , coober pedy is a small place and everybody knows each other. The principals had a revolving door during Jimmys time . Low attendance, seems to be a long term problem there. What do the kids do when they are not at school.Do you remember if Jimmy and his brother were born and bred in coober pedy. I hope you get a visit approval. Maybe the teachers could write a reference, regarding his personality for his lawyers. This may even help your access .
      From what I have read, he has been abandoned by everyone except his brother, until I saw your comment

        • i am very able to talk about this – simon and diane – mary maxwell , also has my email and mobile phone number and probably other details as i corresponded with her in private about child protection issues in the recent past- after reading about her on an adelaide uni alumni site – hadn’t yet come across gumshoenews.com –
          I am in adelaide – call or contact – i can talk to you when you like – i am committed to helping jimmy as best i can and wish him well

  5. Mary, once again, well done.

    I wonder what percentage of the population, know that there is evidence in Police Witness statements, with the large D.P.P. stamped upon them, that prove Martin Bryant was not the gunman. I have a copy of each. But because there was no trial, the prosecution and defence counsel were not required to make them public.

    How crooked is our court system?

    In the case of Martin Bryant who pleaded “not guilty” to all charges, he should have been given a trial as soon as possible. However the crooked Justice Cox would not accept that plea and gave the real criminals 9 months to work on Bryant to make sure a “guilty” plea would be forthcoming. Therefore no embarrassing evidence would surface to pin point all the actual culprits.

    • Remember this?

      OMNIA PRESUMUNTER CONTRA SPOILIATOREM
      “Everything can be presumed against the one who destroys evidence.”

      I grabbed it from one of Mary’s earlier PA articles: it’s stuck to my kitchen wall

      • Tampering with evidence takes many forms . Obviating or re-arranging facts that don’t happen to suit your cause is one of them, as outlined in paragraph13 of James O’Neill’s “Surreal” article

        The following extract of transcript pinpoints the same principle: In order to whitewash a dirty real estate deal that had been clinched without my knowledge or consent the Proponent had to resort to cut & paste:

        HOLLER, MR: ………….After confirming she picked up correspondence she says
        “ I realise that the white ant inspection not being organized as I was advised was only a technical slip per human weakness”, so she knows it’s a minor matter……………

        BERRY, MS: ….the quote from my letter of 4 June was out of context. What I say is:
        “I realise that the purchaser’s failure to organise the white ant inspection within the specified time was only a technical slip per human weakness, but so was my signing the contract of 30 January 2003”Yesterday I pointed out that you can’t have one rule for the rich, another for the poor. If there’s a rule that a contract is binding, there’s a rule that a contract is binding.
        * DC/ALB/CIV/5/06 TRANSCRIPT OF 5 MARCH ‘08 PAGE 120 – 122

        Weeding such stuff out on a daily basis could go a long way in helping the Martin Bryants of the world

  6. The point is that the very act of determining who’s nice/nasty/ good/evil is instrinsically LAW-LESS. If you fail to acknowledge that everyone’s a mixed bag and that no one is therefore fit to judge anyone else in any such regard, your bound to absorb every bit of half-baked gossip that just happens to be floating around, no matter how absurd.

    And you’re hardly going to grasp the fact that an institution geared toward anything beyond, or short of, ascertaining the particulars of a specific felony is simply not fit to dispense criminal justice

  7. Orrite! The above “formula” might go a long way to explain how “the great unwashed” could be deceived and conned into forming a rash judgement, but how does it explain the complicity of the “justice” system, the enforcement agencies, and their lawyer lackeys?

    • All 3 institutions are inter-dependent and 100% energised by the masses. It’s called “democracy”. If everyone opted to go the way of a “not guilty” plea & self-representation re legally unsupportable charges all 3 would simply implode: No more Bryant-style victims!

  8. The system is pure evil . It does not swing on both sides of the pendulum .
    It only takes uses and discards . It is all the monster knows .
    To show compassion is a sign of weakness .
    “Double speak” is the mantra in Oz today .

    • 56, I beg to differ. A system is an identifiable sequence of how things happen; as such, it is morally neutral. However, the Natural Order is a system that is good because that’s how it’s intended to work.

      Evil is the lack of some due good so it is the perversion or corruption of a system that’s the evil… not the system.

      • Sorry about my rash opening sentence above .Thank you for correcting me .
        It should have been , the corrupted system …….

        Masonry rules on both sides of the fence . They are entrenched . They have been sending young men and women to fight in overseas wars since ww1 and before .
        A huge country yet nearly half the population crammed into two cities . Competing for debt slavery survival .

        Yes , God’s natural laws are best , but we are captive and being led so far away from His natural order .

      • I’m kinda splitting hairs . But THE SYSTEM , is amoral. We do not know the leadership entirely and all the inputs. We come here knowing, right from wrong . The system , tries to blur this and even invert this. Darwin theory, which even on the face of it is silly and never has been proven, and was ridiculed in its time. (where are all the skeletons of giraffes with ever lengthing necks). It has been used to justify and ignore genocide of the planet, that we know is wrong. Religion has been used in a similar way.
        The system currently is trying to use psychiatrists , to continue the wrong. Science has its place but this field is bogus like darwin. They can not agree on anything in public, they have no diagnostic. They can only colude, with themselfs and the system. The system is using this to protect itself. I think Jimmys case is expressing this currently. This is why we have a , positive ID , and a live person. His own legal team is pushing for a mental exit, when Jimmy wants to have his say. I can not say , who is involved, it seems like this has to happen though. A whole year and they still need his mental history records. I can only surmise that there is collusion. Have you seen the size of this fake science now. So if your sad, or if you challenge the system with truth, you are a nut who must be brought to wellness. To challenge the system with truth, through law, is about to get the chop in this country. It was hard to deal with law, and while corrupt was leaving a paper trail of injustice. The law has lost its authority through this paper trail. They have struggled with this and used the excuse that law can not be seen to be flawed. They try to be a secret society. So much easier to sideline someone before. Anyone who does not believe in a conspiracy are programed or involved. Narcissistic personality disorder, coupled with paranoid delusions , i predict. Code for , the programing is failing and they are aware of the system.

        • BRAVO ! A 3rd gumshoer who knows that the Scourge of the Age is rooted in fake science( Darwinism)

          But I would argue that it’s not the law that’s lost it’s authority but rather a certain system of governance, the yardstick being the “ paper trail”. If those concerned stopped superimposing political agendas on what’s been put through parliament there wouldn’t be a problem

          • Berry good. But! it’s all rather fanciful without a clear description of the origin, nature and purpose of authority, and of the law (i.e. what is it, how does it work and why?). Otherwise authority and law is just an arbitrary infliction of the convenience of the few who can on the many who can’t. (The predominance of the “fittest”, eh?)

            That it might not be convenient for a despotic oligarchy to immediately implement their intentions as “laws” (perhaps for fear of revealing their covert ideology) is no basis for the legality or morality of authority or law. It should be based on Truth (the reality of what is) and Virtue (the qualities of “man-ness” that distinguish Man from brutes).

            The Hegelian (evolutionary) dialectic that “truth” is a product of a competition between the “status quo” and an automatically generated conflicting view that produces a “synthesis” that becomes the new “status quo”… so on ad infinitum, is Relativism at its meanest stupidity and the favourite superstition of the egomaniacally insane.

            Anyhow, I will contend that Mary’s formula is nothing but a recipe for a smokescreen that may itself be a smokescreen.

  9. Well it’s not too hard to understand that “christianity” wasn’t incorporated into Rome for any sort of altruistic purpose. Persecution wasn’t working; the only means of maintaining control was to declare “This belongs to the Emperor”. That pretty much sums up all modern day justice systems
    A particular format that was created to optimise freedom has been “adopted”.to ensure the very reverse

    So when you see a governmental swing from say, die-hard racism to “cultural diversity”…………………

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.