"The evidence at the trial of Roy Whiting consisted of an impressionable eyewitness and an odd-looking pattern of fibres."
Matthew 25:40 - King James Version (KJV)
40 "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me..."
Roy Whiting from Spike EP on Vimeo.
"Resolving these cases as equations in this way fulfills the balancing act that is depicted in the symbolism that we use for courts of justice, namely the Scales of Justice, applying natural logic to the facts.
The logic of the completed equation is irrefutable because it is mathematically correct, and any error that is made in the calculation can be seen and corrected afterwards.
The jury system was created with a unanimous verdict in mind, but in 1967 the 10-2 majority verdict was allowed, presumably to speed up cases in which the jury had difficulty, and this has degraded the integrity of our jury system.
The problem with the majority verdict is that it allows the "mob" (or the lowest common denominator) of the jury to get past the intelligent conscience in it, when previously, the requirement of a unanimous verdict ensured that the "mob" of the group would eventually give out to the intelligent conscience in it."
I quote The Enemy:
"The trial of Fritz Haarmann began on December 4, 1924. Haarmann was charged with the murder of 27 boys and young men who had disappeared between September 1918 and June that year. The trial was one of the first major modern media events in Germany.
The term "serial killer" had not yet been coined, and the public and press were at a loss for words to describe the case; Haarmann was simultaneously referred to as the "werewolf", a "vampire", and "The Wolf Man".
Aside from the gruesome nature of what Haarmann had admittedly done, even more scandalous—shaking German society to the core—was the involvement of the police in the case:
Haarmann was a police informant who frequently gave up other criminals to investigators.
Until Haarmann was arrested, it had "never occurred" [my quotes] to police that the individual responsible for the sharp increase in missing person cases relating to boys and young men filed in Hanover in 1923 and 1924, or the discovery of more than 500 human bones in and around the Leine River in May and June 1924 was actually an individual whom they had regarded as a trusted informant, despite the fact some of the victims were last seen in his company, and that he had 15 previous convictions for various offenses."
"The problem was, how do you find the people on the blacklist? It's not like you had their address and telephone number.
The normal procedure would be to go into a village and just grab someone and say, 'Where's Nguyen so-and-so?' Half the time the people were so afraid they would not say anything.
Then a Phoenix team would take the informant, put a sandbag over his head, poke out two holes so he could see, put commo wire around his neck like a long leash, and walk him through the village and say, 'When we go by Nguyen's house scratch your head.'
Then that night Phoenix would come back, knock on the door, and say, 'April Fool, motherfucker.'
Whoever answered the door would get wasted.
As far as they were concerned whoever answered was a Communist, including family members.
Sometimes they'd come back to camp with ears to prove that they killed people."
Lieutenant Vincent Okamoto,
US Army Intelligence-liaison officer for the Phoenix Program for two months in 1968
Recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross
Actual Police Photofit of "Roy Whiting"
Roy Whiting
Corporate Media - not true; he was a small-time nonce, not a killer.
Corporate Media - not true; he was a small-time nonce, not a killer.
SARAH PAYNE IN CHESHIRE - Roy Whiting
The series of murders
The series of murders in the south east of England during 2000-2002 had five victims, namely Sarah Payne, Milly Dowler, Danielle Jones, and the Soham two, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.Since the incarceration of Ian Huntley this series has stopped.
The bodies were found as follows:
Sarah Payne - dumped out in the open, naked, with the intention that discovery would be fairly quick. Partly covered by leaves and earth.
Milly Dowler - body dumped in a remote woodland, naked, found by an elderly couple searching for mushrooms six months later.
Danielle Jones - body never found.
Jessica and Holly - (official discovery) - found dumped out in the open, naked, with the intention of a quick discovery, but with fire and water used to degrade any forensic evidence, which created the prosecution case against Ian Huntley; or: -
Jessica and Holly - (alternative discovery) - buried in woodland outside Newmarket, clothed or unclothed, and found two weeks after their disappearance by a jogger who had heard screams in the area on the night of the disappearance. Since there were two bodies, the killer is not likely to have taken the trouble to remove or take the clothes.
Taken as a series, the pattern of body disposal indicates that the killer would tend to bury or hide his victims in a natural environment, but in the case of Sarrah Payne it was left out in the open to ensure discovery (because of the Cheshire sighting), and in the case of Jessica and Holly, they were left out in the open for the same reason, to mislead detection. The skeletal remains of Milly Dowler were hidden in remote woodland on Yateley Heath, Hampshire, near to the Blackbushe car auction, so that the killer would have needed to know this area, and an interesting thing is that if the killer was common to the series, there might be a link-up between this car auction and the range of vehicles in the series, for different cars were used in each case, viz:
Sarah Payne - a white van.
Milly Dowler - not known. (The police were interested in CCTV footage of a red N-registered Daewoo Nexia, but this is not likely to be relevant as a resident of the area owned a car of exactly this description.)
Danielle Jones - dark blue transit van. The victim was seen talking to a man nearby this van at the time that she disappeared, and a girl of her description was seen two hours later in the passenger seat of the van.
Jessica and Holly - a dark green or metallic green car.
Also the description of the driver in the dark blue van with Danielle Jones (white male, 30s, strongly built, short neat hair) appears to correspond with the e-fit picture and description of the man at the Cheshire sighting in the Sarah Payne case, with the exception of hair colour (dark in the Danielle case) and van colour (dark blue).
The man in the Cheshire sighting was described as white, about 30, 6ft tall, solidly built and clean shaven, with "crinkly, blond" hair and a strong jaw and wide nose. He was wearing a dark grey bomber jacket, washed-out black jeans and a plum shirt. (Blonde hair, white van.)
The Cheshire sighting received high-pressure saturation coverage in the press and media, and given all the matching factors involved, it would be extremely unlikely that this was a coincidence. The factors include that the girl was about eight years of age, that the incident occurred at five in the morning, that it was a Sunday morning, that the girl was frightened and upset, that she was wearing a blue dress, that she gave the name of Sarah, and if she had volunteered her name to this witness without being asked, then she was likely to be in the custody of a stranger, and, assuming that the identification of a white van came from this sighting and from this witness, the white van.
Given all these factors, and since no one came forward to clear the matter up if it had been someone else, then this sighting makes it highly likely that Sarah Payne was in Cheshire after she was abducted. One wouldn't be able to ignore this sighting without proof that it was a coincidence. This incident would have to be included in the inquest and at the trial of Roy Whiting.
Some five hours before the abduction of Sarah Payne, another eight-year-old girl was chased by a man in Littlehampton, but she escaped on her bicycle. This incident also would have to be included in the inquest and trial.
Sarah Payne's body was discovered by a farm labourer nearly three weeks later, just twelve miles from where she was abducted. The body was dumped out in the open just ten yards from the A29 and near a little-used public footpath. It was meant to be found, but the killer also appears to have intended that the wind and rain should be given time to clear away any forensic evidence. The body was decomposed. If the killer took the trouble to drive the distance of 200 miles between the Knutsford area and the Sussex coast to dispose of the body, it must have been to draw public attention away from the Cheshire area because he lived by there.
As soon as the police discovered the body of Sarah Payne, they looked for a white van in the immediate locality, and they found Roy Whiting's. And Roy Whiting had an appropriate history for suspicion.
The forensic evidence produced by the prosecution consisted of fibres from Whiting's van which were allegedly found on the only item of clothing recovered from Sarah Payne, a shoe, and which had been exposed to the elements; and one blonde hair, allegedly found on a red sweatshirt inside Whiting's van. This hair was no less than nine inches long, The jury was required to believe that this hair had survived both of his arrests, and several months before he was charged, or else that it was "found" within a month of the abduction but that Whiting wasn't charged until December, or six months later.
There is a mathematical pattern inherent in this evidence, which is that in the "single" item of clothing recovered of the victim there were "several" fibres from Whiting's van, while in the van itself, where "several" sources of evidence would be expected, only one "single" item of evidence was found, this being the strand of hair, while other fibres from Whiting's van were found in her hair. This "single/several" pattern of fibres constitutes the connection of Roy Whiting to the murder, along with the hair.
This pattern is obscured by additional fibres of a common source allegedly being found on both the remains and the shoe of Sarah Payne and inside Whiting's van. Another potential pattern is in the absence of any forensic evidence or fibres inside Whiting's flat, so that the forensic evidence corresponds with (or copies) the previous incident for which he had been convicted, and which was the reason for the routine arrest.
Aside from this forensic evidence, the only evidence connecting Roy Whiting to the subject of the trial is an eyewitness who failed to pick him out at an identity parade soon after the abduction, and a negative search of Whiting's flat by the police.
The same applies with Roy Whiting's van, because this was searched earlier in the year without any unusual hairs being found to charge him by, and the single hair presented at the trial would need to have been there for months.
Given his insistence on his innocence at his trial, and given the high media attention after the abduction of Sarah Payne and his prior conviction, why would he keep the clothes that he is supposed to have abducted her in for the police to find, and apparently unwashed as well? This is not consistent with his defence, for he pleaded Not Guilty despite this forensic evidence, and in his two prior convictions he pleaded Guilty.
Roy Whiting was arrested twice after the abduction of Sarah Payne, the first arrest being a routine check because he had a white van and because he had been put on the sex offender's register after being convicted for the abduction and sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl in 1995. A psychiatrist who had examined him did not think he was a paedophile though, and Whiting claimed that he had just "snapped". He had owned up to this.
His second arrest occurred after the search of his flat and van, and a month after the abduction, when the police still had no evidence. Whiting was staying at his father's house while his flat was being searched by forensic scientists, but a few days after this second arrest, he moved out after a mob of vigilantes, no doubt angered by his two arrests, smashed the windows with bricks, and both father and son moved out for their own safety. Angered by this, Whiting took to the roads in a stolen car and was pursued by the police until he crashed into a parked vehicle. This produced his third arrest and he was remanded in custody until September and was later jailed for the car theft and for dangerous driving. Once again he did not deny responsibility.
Whiting was charged with the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne while he was in jail for the car theft, in February 2001, over seven months after her disappearance, and the forensic case against him was amassed while he was in jail. Although Whiting's history shows that he accepts responsibility for offences when caught, in the case of the murder of Sarah Payne, he pleaded Not Guilty against a perfect stitch-up in forensic evidence, and his angry reaction against the vigilante attack on his father's home reflects an affront rather than an awareness of guilt.
Taken in conjunction with the events of this series of murders, surely this forensic evidence looks suspicious. The eyewitness was not able to identify him a day or two after seeing the abduction, and the case against Whiting was being made when the series had only just begun to reveal itself as such.
Upon Whiting's conviction, the judge ruled that his van would be destroyed. Yet this van was the only source of evidence against Roy Whiting or of the investigation. The police justification for this was that it brought bad memories, but bad memories of what? A successful investigation? Or the right to an appeal?
Taking these abductions as a series, the facts suggest that, in response to Whiting's reaction to the vigilante attack against his father's house, the police reacted with a vigilante prosecution against him for the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne, so that this would be another case where the police have allowed the public to detect their cases for them. And they too would have snapped, under pressure from the media.
Since the function of the police is to prevent crime, and if our justice system and police exposure to media pressure is hampering expert detection, then they might well need to use other measures to do this.
Sarah Payne - dumped out in the open, naked, with the intention that discovery would be fairly quick. Partly covered by leaves and earth.
Milly Dowler - body dumped in a remote woodland, naked, found by an elderly couple searching for mushrooms six months later.
Danielle Jones - body never found.
Jessica and Holly - (official discovery) - found dumped out in the open, naked, with the intention of a quick discovery, but with fire and water used to degrade any forensic evidence, which created the prosecution case against Ian Huntley; or: -
Jessica and Holly - (alternative discovery) - buried in woodland outside Newmarket, clothed or unclothed, and found two weeks after their disappearance by a jogger who had heard screams in the area on the night of the disappearance. Since there were two bodies, the killer is not likely to have taken the trouble to remove or take the clothes.
Taken as a series, the pattern of body disposal indicates that the killer would tend to bury or hide his victims in a natural environment, but in the case of Sarrah Payne it was left out in the open to ensure discovery (because of the Cheshire sighting), and in the case of Jessica and Holly, they were left out in the open for the same reason, to mislead detection. The skeletal remains of Milly Dowler were hidden in remote woodland on Yateley Heath, Hampshire, near to the Blackbushe car auction, so that the killer would have needed to know this area, and an interesting thing is that if the killer was common to the series, there might be a link-up between this car auction and the range of vehicles in the series, for different cars were used in each case, viz:
Sarah Payne - a white van.
Milly Dowler - not known. (The police were interested in CCTV footage of a red N-registered Daewoo Nexia, but this is not likely to be relevant as a resident of the area owned a car of exactly this description.)
Danielle Jones - dark blue transit van. The victim was seen talking to a man nearby this van at the time that she disappeared, and a girl of her description was seen two hours later in the passenger seat of the van.
Jessica and Holly - a dark green or metallic green car.
Also the description of the driver in the dark blue van with Danielle Jones (white male, 30s, strongly built, short neat hair) appears to correspond with the e-fit picture and description of the man at the Cheshire sighting in the Sarah Payne case, with the exception of hair colour (dark in the Danielle case) and van colour (dark blue).
The man in the Cheshire sighting was described as white, about 30, 6ft tall, solidly built and clean shaven, with "crinkly, blond" hair and a strong jaw and wide nose. He was wearing a dark grey bomber jacket, washed-out black jeans and a plum shirt. (Blonde hair, white van.)
Sarah Payne in Cheshire
Sarah Payne was abducted near her home town of Littlehampton near the Sussex coast, in the holiday season. The abduction occurred at 8.00 in the evening of July 1st, 2000, while she was playing with her two brothers. The brothers saw a white van driving off with a fierce screech of its tyres, and the driver smiled and waved at them. At 5.00 the next morning a woman believed she saw Sarah at a service station at Knutsford on the M6 just south of Manchester in Cheshire. She met the girl in the lavatories. The woman reported that the girl was frightened and upset and that she gave her name as Sarah. The girl was wearing a blue dress as was Sarah Payne the night before. She was the same age as Sarah Payne and she resembled her, but the witness couldn't identify her with certainty from a photograph. The police said that the man she was with was understood to be driving a white van.The Cheshire sighting received high-pressure saturation coverage in the press and media, and given all the matching factors involved, it would be extremely unlikely that this was a coincidence. The factors include that the girl was about eight years of age, that the incident occurred at five in the morning, that it was a Sunday morning, that the girl was frightened and upset, that she was wearing a blue dress, that she gave the name of Sarah, and if she had volunteered her name to this witness without being asked, then she was likely to be in the custody of a stranger, and, assuming that the identification of a white van came from this sighting and from this witness, the white van.
Given all these factors, and since no one came forward to clear the matter up if it had been someone else, then this sighting makes it highly likely that Sarah Payne was in Cheshire after she was abducted. One wouldn't be able to ignore this sighting without proof that it was a coincidence. This incident would have to be included in the inquest and at the trial of Roy Whiting.
Some five hours before the abduction of Sarah Payne, another eight-year-old girl was chased by a man in Littlehampton, but she escaped on her bicycle. This incident also would have to be included in the inquest and trial.
Sarah Payne's body was discovered by a farm labourer nearly three weeks later, just twelve miles from where she was abducted. The body was dumped out in the open just ten yards from the A29 and near a little-used public footpath. It was meant to be found, but the killer also appears to have intended that the wind and rain should be given time to clear away any forensic evidence. The body was decomposed. If the killer took the trouble to drive the distance of 200 miles between the Knutsford area and the Sussex coast to dispose of the body, it must have been to draw public attention away from the Cheshire area because he lived by there.
As soon as the police discovered the body of Sarah Payne, they looked for a white van in the immediate locality, and they found Roy Whiting's. And Roy Whiting had an appropriate history for suspicion.
The evidence against Roy Whiting
The evidence at the trial of Roy Whiting consisted of an impressionable eyewitness and an odd-looking pattern of fibres. The eyewitness was the oldest brother of Sarah Payne, who had seen a white van with a scruffy looking driver with yellow teeth drive by when his sister disappeared. However the witness had failed to pick Roy Whiting out at a routine identity parade shortly after the disappearance, when Whiting was being checked by the police because of a prior conviction. This was only a day or so later.The forensic evidence produced by the prosecution consisted of fibres from Whiting's van which were allegedly found on the only item of clothing recovered from Sarah Payne, a shoe, and which had been exposed to the elements; and one blonde hair, allegedly found on a red sweatshirt inside Whiting's van. This hair was no less than nine inches long, The jury was required to believe that this hair had survived both of his arrests, and several months before he was charged, or else that it was "found" within a month of the abduction but that Whiting wasn't charged until December, or six months later.
There is a mathematical pattern inherent in this evidence, which is that in the "single" item of clothing recovered of the victim there were "several" fibres from Whiting's van, while in the van itself, where "several" sources of evidence would be expected, only one "single" item of evidence was found, this being the strand of hair, while other fibres from Whiting's van were found in her hair. This "single/several" pattern of fibres constitutes the connection of Roy Whiting to the murder, along with the hair.
This pattern is obscured by additional fibres of a common source allegedly being found on both the remains and the shoe of Sarah Payne and inside Whiting's van. Another potential pattern is in the absence of any forensic evidence or fibres inside Whiting's flat, so that the forensic evidence corresponds with (or copies) the previous incident for which he had been convicted, and which was the reason for the routine arrest.
Aside from this forensic evidence, the only evidence connecting Roy Whiting to the subject of the trial is an eyewitness who failed to pick him out at an identity parade soon after the abduction, and a negative search of Whiting's flat by the police.
The same applies with Roy Whiting's van, because this was searched earlier in the year without any unusual hairs being found to charge him by, and the single hair presented at the trial would need to have been there for months.
Given his insistence on his innocence at his trial, and given the high media attention after the abduction of Sarah Payne and his prior conviction, why would he keep the clothes that he is supposed to have abducted her in for the police to find, and apparently unwashed as well? This is not consistent with his defence, for he pleaded Not Guilty despite this forensic evidence, and in his two prior convictions he pleaded Guilty.
Roy Whiting was arrested twice after the abduction of Sarah Payne, the first arrest being a routine check because he had a white van and because he had been put on the sex offender's register after being convicted for the abduction and sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl in 1995. A psychiatrist who had examined him did not think he was a paedophile though, and Whiting claimed that he had just "snapped". He had owned up to this.
His second arrest occurred after the search of his flat and van, and a month after the abduction, when the police still had no evidence. Whiting was staying at his father's house while his flat was being searched by forensic scientists, but a few days after this second arrest, he moved out after a mob of vigilantes, no doubt angered by his two arrests, smashed the windows with bricks, and both father and son moved out for their own safety. Angered by this, Whiting took to the roads in a stolen car and was pursued by the police until he crashed into a parked vehicle. This produced his third arrest and he was remanded in custody until September and was later jailed for the car theft and for dangerous driving. Once again he did not deny responsibility.
Whiting was charged with the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne while he was in jail for the car theft, in February 2001, over seven months after her disappearance, and the forensic case against him was amassed while he was in jail. Although Whiting's history shows that he accepts responsibility for offences when caught, in the case of the murder of Sarah Payne, he pleaded Not Guilty against a perfect stitch-up in forensic evidence, and his angry reaction against the vigilante attack on his father's home reflects an affront rather than an awareness of guilt.
Taken in conjunction with the events of this series of murders, surely this forensic evidence looks suspicious. The eyewitness was not able to identify him a day or two after seeing the abduction, and the case against Whiting was being made when the series had only just begun to reveal itself as such.
Upon Whiting's conviction, the judge ruled that his van would be destroyed. Yet this van was the only source of evidence against Roy Whiting or of the investigation. The police justification for this was that it brought bad memories, but bad memories of what? A successful investigation? Or the right to an appeal?
Taking these abductions as a series, the facts suggest that, in response to Whiting's reaction to the vigilante attack against his father's house, the police reacted with a vigilante prosecution against him for the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne, so that this would be another case where the police have allowed the public to detect their cases for them. And they too would have snapped, under pressure from the media.
Since the function of the police is to prevent crime, and if our justice system and police exposure to media pressure is hampering expert detection, then they might well need to use other measures to do this.
This is extremely odd and rather strange - no hotline number or other contact details and very unprofessional wording.
What is the point of this (custom-made) Police information board...?
Money was spent on this (part of the £3 million budget - again, an interesting number)
And Detective-in-Charge goes out of his was to say that he was briefing 90 officers one morning - why not round it up to a hundred...?
Is there no-one that will help the Widow's Son...?
"This is a logo for International Order of the Rainbow for Girls."
"The International Order of the Rainbow for Girls (IORG) is a Masonic youth service organization which teaches leadership training through community service. Girls (ages 11–20/21) learn about the value of charity and service through their work and involvement with their annual local and Grand (state or country) service projects.
The order came into existence in 1922, when the Reverend W. Mark Sexson, a Freemason, was asked to make an address before South McAlester Chapter #149, Order of the Eastern Star, in McAlester, Oklahoma.
As the Order of DeMolay had come under his close study during his Masonic activities, he suggested that a similar order for girls would be beneficial. The first Initiation consisted of a class of 171 girls on April 6, 1922, in the auditorium of the Scottish Rite Temple in McAlester.
The original name was "Order of the Rainbow for Girls".
[NB, Implying that there is an Order of the Raindbow for Boy / Grown Men - but they don't want up to find out about that one, for some reason, because they have hidden it...]
Or does it...?
[Classic Albert Pike]
Girls can hold many different offices (also called Stations) in the local Assembly. Each requires some memory work and all but two serve for one term (4 to 6 months out of the year). Some offices are elected by the other girls in the assembly. These offices include Faith, Hope, Charity, Worthy Associate Advisor, and Worthy Advisor. There are also two offices that are elected in January but serve a full year which are Treasurer and Recorder. The other offices are appointed by the Worthy Advisor (President) and Mother Advisor. All offices include:
Worthy Advisor (WA) Presides at meetings and plans activities for her term like a President: the highest office in an Assembly
Worthy Associate Advisor (WAA) Duties similar to a Vice President. Presides over a meeting in the absence of the Worthy Advisor
Charity Teaches about charitable deeds
Hope Teaches that hope is always there for us
Faith Teaches that faith is our constant companion. She is the officer who guides new candidates throughout an initiation ceremony
Recorder Records minutes and handles correspondence
Treasurer Handles monies and bills and compiles reports about the balances of the Assembly's various money accounts
Chaplain Leads in prayers
Drill Leader Leads the officers in their floor work and leads guests around the Assembly room
Seven Bow Stations Teach lessons about the colors of the rainbow and their corresponding virtues:
Love (red) In all its forms
Religion (orange) The Importance of religion in all its forms (based on love and forgiveness)
Nature (yellow) Its Importance in your daily life
Immortality (green) The understanding of death is a part of life
Fidelity (blue) Emphasis on being honest and reliable
Patriotism (indigo) Encouraging citizenship to your country
Service (violet) Service to others which bind all the colors together
Confidential and Outer Observers Guard the inner and outer doors, respectively
Musician and Choir Director Provide music for the meetings
Some Assemblies and Grand Assemblies have other officers not specified in the ritual, such as Historian, Editor, Assistant Grand Editor, Circulation Manager, Orator (or Lecturer), Bible Bearer, Goodwill Ambassador, American Flag Bearer, State Flag Bearer, Christian Flag Bearer, Rainbow Flag Bearer, and Assembly Banner Bearer.
It is an unwritten law that each of the line officers (Faith, Hope, Charity, and Worthy Associate Advisor) advances to the next highest office, culminating in her term as Worthy Advisor. However, this is not a guarantee.
The appointing of Grand Officers varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Generally, to be appointed or elected to a Grand Floor Office, a girl must be a Past or Present Worthy Advisor in her assembly. Grand Representatives may also be PWAs, but it is not mandatory. Other offices include: Grand Choir, Grand Assistant Outer Observer/Grand Confidential Observer Helper, Personal Page, and Grand Page at Large.
The Grand Cross of Color is the highest award given to a member or adult leader for outstanding service. Recipients of the award (Masters of the Grand Cross of Color) are expected to meet once per year for a special service.[7] In order for designates to be nominated, the assembly must initiate 3 new members within a calendar year. For every 3 new members, one girl may be chosen to receive the Grand Cross of Color for service rendered above and beyond what is expected for Rainbow. The Masters of the Grand Cross of Color meet with the Advisory Board to decide which girl(s) to nominate as a designee for the Grand Cross of Color. The Grand Cross of Color may also be awarded to adults that serve the assembly, but there may be no more adults than girls that are nominated.
Supreme Assembly
The governing body of Rainbow is the House of Gold. New members are elected by current members. The House of Gold consists of the Supreme Officers (paralleling a local Assembly), Supreme Inspectors (chief advisor for a jurisdiction) [Presumably men...?] , and several others making up a total of 50.
Presiding Supreme Inspectors may retire their duties at any time, unless they are elected to the Supreme line, at which time they must find a successor by the time they reach Supreme Worthy Associate Advisor.
The current Supreme Inspector chooses the person whom they believe can best associate with the girls of their jurisdiction. That person will become the next Supreme Deputy. It isn't until Supreme Deputies are elected into the House of Gold that they become Supreme Inspectors. There are 50 seats in the House of Gold, and they are lifetime appointments.
A Supreme Deputy is eligible for recommendation into the House of Gold after her 3rd Supreme Assembly after being installed as Supreme Deputy (the Supreme at which they are installed does NOT count).
Birmingham Pride Venue.
Hmm....
United States Senator Olympia Snowe has stated:
“I am proud to be a Rainbow Girl. This group instilled in me the values of service, honesty, and leadership, among others. I have carried these ideals with me throughout the years. Being a member of the International Order of Rainbow for Girls reflects well on a young women's character and integrity and will benefit today's Rainbow Girls throughout their lifetime.”
Other famous members include U. S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former Miss America and actress Lee Meriwether, United States Astronaut Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger, inspirational speaker Jill Kinmont, actress Shauna McLean Tompkins, florist to the Presidents Lynn Lary McLean, AIFD, and Senior Consultant/Constitutional Law of the Canadian Department of Justice Luanne Walton.
SGT. Kimberly Munley, the woman credited for stopping the Fort Hood shooting rampage that killed 13 people, is a former Rainbow Girl. Munley was part of North Carolina Assembly #29
Whiting himself is an extremely low-grade subject and obviously credible as patsy fit-up material, just because of how he looks, combined with his previous.
Sarah's Law Mandates the Creation of a Patsy Tracking Database - like Stock Contol for fit-ups.
And the Brotherhood always has need of a goat...
'Nuff said.
Since, according to old lags, Freemasonry is "absolutely rampant" in British prisons, it seems inevitable that Whiting would have come into contact with The Craft, and organised elite paedophile rings whilst inside and marked down for such future service.
It seems possible, if not actually likely, that Whiting was indeed hired to be the getaway driver for a 3-man snatch team, for a large sum of money from some brethren, who then took her up to Cheshire in another vehicle; we may note that Whiting bought his (absolutely FILTHY, on the inside) White van just days before - and he is indeed as stupid as he looks;
What would be far more informative to know would be this - Who, exactly did he buy that filthy white van from, how did he get the money, and why..?
And when he was eventually collared for a lesser-offence for which he was intellectually and practically incapable of plotting on his own, we have the Peter Suttcliffe problem - who the hell gave him those false plates and encouraged them to put on a stolen car whilst on 24 hr police surveillance...?
Why would he fit himself up, like Suttcliffe?
And why was the person who sold him the false plates (overwhelming likely to have been ultimately a Policeman, or a trusted high-grade Brother Grass) never arrsested and charged with helping him, since Surrey Police, watching his every move HAVE to have seen who sold them to him... And he is clearly not capable of sourcing them himself, he had to have had help from a "Friend".
"If I had known Roy Whiting was living in my area, there is no way my children would have been out to play - that would have saved my daughter's life"
This is profoundly questionable, and in fact, utter bollocks on Sara Payne's part - it wouldn't.
What most assuredly would likely have saved her daughters' life would be if she hadn't left all of her children together, alone on the beach, without adult supervision while she and her husband went to the fucking pub for an hour, getting smashed until the sun went die and forgot how many kids they had and that they had to regularly count them as a direct result of that.
Very interesting analysis! I read another quite fascinating analysis concerning Ian Huntley and his supposedly non-involvement in the Soham Murders a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say these murders take part in a 'series' are you implying that they may have been committed by the same person/group?
Are you familiar with the work of Dave McGowan a la 'Programmed to Kill' and 'Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon'? If not, then I highly recommend his work. His analysis, among other things, probes the 'serial killer' phenomenon and was quite successful at connecting various very troubling dots which indicate that many supposed serial killings have been a 'group effort' rather than the 'lone-wolf' narrative often touted by the media. And that the groups are 'cult-ish' entities with less than Christian beliefs and practises.