A cross section of kill-to-injury ratios of major mass shootings suggests that if Adam Lanza acted alone in carrying out the Sandy Hook Elementary School carnage he was among the most accurate killers in modern history, exceeding even the lethal damage meted out by Al Capone’s machine gun-wielding henchmen in the infamous St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.
|Incident, # of shooters, weapon(s) used||Shot||Killed||Wounded||Kill-to-wounded ratio|
|SANDY HOOK (2012) 1 shooter, AR-15, .223||27||26 (96.2%)||1 (3.8%)||26:1|
|Aurora, CO (2012) 1 shooter, AR-15, .223||71||12 (16.9%)||59 (83%)||1:5|
|Tucson, AZ (2011) 1 shooter, Glock 9mm||14||6 (42.8%)||8 (57.1%)||1:1.2|
|N. Ill. U (2008) 1 shooter, 9mm||26||5 (20%)||21 ((80%)||1:4|
|Virginia Tech (2007) 1 shooter, 9mm pistol||49||32 (68%)||17 (32%)||2:1|
|Columbine, CO (1999) 2 shooters, 12 ga., 9mm||33||12 (36%)||21 (64%)||1:2|
|U. Iowa (1991) 1 shooter/.38 spec.||6||5 (83%)||1 (16%)||5:1|
|Stockton, CA (1989) 1 shooter AK-47||35||5 (14%)||30 (86%)||1:6|
|École Polytechnique/Montreal Massacre (1989) 1 shooter, Ruger Mini 14 .223||27||14 (52%)||13 (48%)||1.1:1|
|Cal. St. Fullerton (1976) 1 shooter .22 LR semi-auto||9||7 (78%)||2 (22%)||3.5:1|
|U. Texas Tower (1966) 1 shooter||48||16 (33%)||32 (67%)||1:2|
|St. Valentine’s Day Massacre (1929) 2 shooters, .45 submachine guns||7||6 (85.8%)||1 (14.2%)||6:1|
Never mind the facts, however. The public has been repeatedly told by corporate news media that the December 14, 2012 incident was exclusively carried out by the awkward 20-year-old man with virtually no firearms or military training.
“The debate over gun violence gained urgency after a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six adults on December 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut,” Reuters observed as recently as February 7. “The killer, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, used a Bushmaster AR-15 type assault rifle to shoot his victims before killing himself.”
Over the past seven weeks mainstream media have spoken in one earsplitting voice to drive home the now familiar “lone gunman” storyline ostensibly proffered by law enforcement while dismissing a multitude of important evidence indicating a far more complex scenario.
Indeed, as information recently pointed to by Digital Journal indicates, in a widescale rush to judgment major news media have neglected vital information and statements from Connecticut state authorities suggesting that Lanza may have had accomplices.
The Poundland where the artwork appeared was the centre of controversy three years ago after it was discovered that a child aged 7 worked over a hundred hours a week in an Indian factory to produce some of the goods on sale.
There has been outcry at the removal of the Banksy mural which had become a tourist attraction in the area.
Councillor Alan Strickland said locals were “angry” and is campaigning for its return to the area.
He added that residents were “disappointed” that a “piece of art that was given freely has been taken away from them and sold for an enormous profit”.
AE911Truth Evidence Goes to Court Feb 25th, 2013.
On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.
Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaintswere lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public.
This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST’s 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.
As a continuation of this process with the BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.
Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.
Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:
Professor Niels Harrit
Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.
Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit’s team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC
Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.
“I’ve got someone coming around in the next couple of weeks to do a valuation on my house,” says Trevor Baylis, as he walks into the sitting room of his home on Eel Pie Island, in Twickenham, south-west London.
“I’m going to have to sell it or remortgage it – I’m totally broke. I’m living in poverty here.”
His garden contains the shell of a classic car (Paul Grover)
Surely not? This is the man whose wind-up radio has sold in millions around the world, and was recently named among the 50 greatest inventions in British history.
The story of Baylis and the clockwork radio he developed in his garden shed in the early Nineties should be a shining example of how British ingenuity can lead to success.
On the walls of his house are nearly a dozen honorary degrees he has since received, a letter he was sent by the Prince of Wales on being awarded an OBE, and photographs of himself with Nelson Mandela.
But as the eccentric 75-year-old inventor shows off the compact home and chaotic workshop he built himself nearly 40 years ago, he grows remorseful.
Despite the apparent success of his wind-up radio and several follow-up products employing similar technology including a torch, a mobile phone charger and an MP3 player, Mr Baylis says he has received almost none of the profits.
Due to the quirks of patent law, the company he went into business with to manufacture his radios were able to tweak his original design, which used a spring to generate power, so that it charged a battery instead. This caused him to lose control over the product.
- The Guardian, Thursday 14th February 2013.
New powers for UK police ‘will curb Press freedom’: Officers will be allowed to confiscate material from journalists.
- Sweeping measures allow officers to demand information from sources
- Changes may also see journalists forced to reveal whistleblowers’ identities
- Worries over the affect new rules will have on freedom of speech
Police are set to be given new powers to seize confidential material from journalists.
In a worrying blow to Press freedom, the changes may also mean journalists will be forced to identify whistleblowers to the police.
It is feared that the changes will remove legal protections for anyone who releases material to reporters unless journalists can show their source did not breach confidentiality or act illegally.
The computer disc that contained the details of how MPs had been rampantly fiddling their expenses was technically stolen by a Westminster employee.
‘They grievously undermine the concept of confidentiality between reporters and sources that is essential for investigative journalism.’
Currently, journalists have protection under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) from disclosing material to the police, even if it had been obtained by a source acting in breach of confidence or unlawfully.
But during the Leveson inquiry, the police argued those protections should be removed, and the judge agreed.
It raises the prospect that someone who uncovers wrongdoing will not come forward if they risk being named to the police.
In a further attack on PACE, Lord Leveson suggested it could be made easier for the police to seize items belonging to journalists which may be linked to criminality.
Currently a judge can approve an order forcing media groups to hand over information but, crucially, detectives must first show they have tried to get the material by other means.