by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
Dear Vickie, I have known you for twenty years and have nothing but respect for you. I was pleased to hear that you have become the new Attorney General of South Australia.
In this letter I put it to you that there is no other possible option but for you to begin the prosecution of the Police officers named by Rachel Vaughan in an interview with an ad hoc judicial organization called The International Tribunal for Natural Justice.
Quite simply, Rachel says she can tell all that needs to be told about the murders of Louise Bell and also Richard Kelvin. We members of the Adelaide public have been given false stories since the 1980s about this.
The public will not put up with knowing that cops did nothing to listen to Rachel Vaughan and in fact that at least one of them spoke to her – she says – “most menacingly.” We have had quite enough of being treated like idiots, and quite enough of “PPP” – Protected Person Practice.
It is of great fortune that you are in office, Vickie. We will support you. Have no fear. They can’t do to you what they have done to all others. You are in charge. You are the alpha dog here. Go for it.
I visited you a few months ago and gave you a hug. At the time I did not know the South Australian information that Ms Vaughan has revealed. (I was in your office merely to invite you to our Fringe Show, which, you may recall, was about so-called false memories of MK-Ultra.)
I am not in Australia at the moment but am sending you a super-big hug. The time has come, Attorney General Chapman. You and you alone have the authority here. The police have lost all authority, full stop.
The next legal step is legally in your hands. If want any help from Gumshoe, please email mclachlandee@gmail.com . Our troops can amass on short notice.
Yours sincerely,
Mary Maxwell, LLB
I am not entertaining much comment beyond these extracts below, unless anyone has some disclosure or relevance to the issue:
Aussiemal posted: 3:33 pm
“Rachel, must be at least be given a chance to put her information to an “independent” person such as Vickie Chapman, somebody outside the body politic and above SAPOL… at least another source of the judiciary will have been made aware of the available information.
Claire posted: 4:10 pm
” Now all the opposing evidence that shows the countless reasons Rachel’s claims cannot possibly be true can be shared with Vickie Chapman …[and] to have someone independent do an honest assessment of all the evidence at hand.
Define “independent assessment” Claire.
‘Twould appear our authorities are NOT to be trusted. Not the police, not the judiciary, not the media, not the politicians.
And what exactly are “the countless reasons Rachel’s claims cannot possibly be true”???
Preposterous?. Outlandish? Unbelievable? Crazy? To normal people, sure it’s crazy.
But to us “normal” people, we have been given a glimpse into a dark side of humanity, most of us never even knew existed.
Sorry honey, but the Pizzagate, pedogate, Ted Heath,Franklin coverup, Hampstead Heath, Jimmy Saville,Cardinal Pell, Archbishop Phillip Wilson, Marc Dutroux, Cathy O’Brien, Fiona Barnett, Brice Taylor, Rolf Harris, Royal Commission, “Spies Lords and Predators” 60 Minutes, ..
You get my point. This genie is not going back in the bottle this time.
It’s over. Time to finally clean up this mess . Once and for all.
“This mess”, Phil, is several hundred years old. It will not be “cleaned up” by complaining to the perps who have an army of “useful idiots” in every walk of life at their service… wittingly or unwittingly. Diversionary tactics are the tool of choice once “ignore it” and “stonewall it” have not achieved the desired result (i.e. the continuance and protection of an occult agenda).
There’s much more but it will be eliminated from this conversation by the censor.
We’ll have another post that will provide another platform
The countless reasons, Phil, are to do with simple facts. What Rachel says is not true. There is no secret cellar under her house. Her stories don’t match stories from her siblings. She has lied about various things and seem to absorb material from other sources and, as time goes on, make them part of her own story. A few months ago, I have correspondence between myself and Rachel in reply to me quizzing her brother’s claim in a stat dec that their father was involved in the Adelaide Oval abduction (something I do not believe to be true, by the way). Rachel’s comment to me was ‘my brother would never have said that’ – she was calling me a liar for saying her brother would have ever said their father was guilty of that particular crime. Up until that point, Rachel had never mentioned her father as a suspect in that case – and she has been all over social media for years, accusing him of MANY things. Now, all of a sudden, she is mentioning his involvement in that crime in her video testimony? Curious. If you have been following her claims for twelve years, as I have and if you had copies of her varous blogs and emails as I do, you would know more about what I mean by saying countless reasons, I am not commenting simply on what she has posted in this bizarre video.
In Comments to a recent article, Deb Hendry, a retired member of South Australia’s Education Dept said:
“Best that all concerns be consistently and unhesitatingly reported
to Police and MPs – by all those with cause for concern regards the safety of children, concerns re safety and integrity of state institutions … So SA people would do well to report. Truth-tellers – speak out. Speak up and shine a light – help whole truth
and nothing but the truth come to light.”
The law is, in fact, our friend, and is the logical place to go for help.
In regard to “menacing,” this is section 19 of South Australia’s CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935:
19—Unlawful threats
(1) A person who—
(a) threatens, without lawful excuse, to kill or endanger the life of another; and
(b) intends to arouse a fear that the threat will be, or is likely to be, carried out, or is recklessly indifferent as to whether such a fear is aroused,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 10 years;
(b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 12 years. …
(3) This section applies to a threat directly or indirectly communicated by words (written or spoken) or by conduct, or partially by words and partially by conduct. “
[…] Vicki Chapman, the Attorney General of South Australia. (It is also published at GumshoeNews as an open letter.) I told her that past murders of children in South Australia need urgent attention. Ms Chapman […]
Comments are closed.