Epstein's "Suicide" - Looking more suspicious every day

..

The Epstein Files: US Bureau of Prisons bent facts

to support suicide narrative

The declassified papers on notorious pedophile case shed light on more suspicious details

Jeffrey Epstein © Rick Friedman / Rick Friedman Photography / Corbis via Getty Images

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws by RT investigative unit The Detail include startling records revealing how the US Bureau of Prisons (BOP) moved to shut down any and all public debate about the cause of Jeffrey Epstein’s death. Along the way, evidence was distorted, material facts ignored, and key anomalies unexplored and unpublicized.

After being found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on August 10, 2019, the records show that the Bureau issued statements to journalists and Epstein’s family categorically stating he’d committed suicide.  The result was international news outlets universally and unquestioningly reporting that Epstein had taken his own life from the word go, despite Chief Medical Examiner Barbara Sampson having reached no conclusion at that time, and making clear in a statement the next day that the investigation was open and ongoing. 

It was not until August 16 that Sampson publicly declared Epstein’s death had been a suicide. The ruling was contested by leading forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who’d been hired by the billionaire’s brother to monitor the autopsy process. Speaking to the Miami Herald two months later, he charged that “the autopsy did not support suicide,’’ and that the pathologist who conducted it had recorded this.

“Then Dr. Sampson changed it a week later, manner of death to suicide. The brother has been trying to find out why that changed,” Baden fulminated. “What was the evidence?”

No clarity on these questions has been forthcoming in the years since, although one rationale for the apparent volte-face may have been a shock Washington Post report a day prior to Sampson’s announcement. Sources familiar with the autopsy told the paper that the process had revealed several bones in Epstein’s neck, including the hyoid, were broken, and such breakages “are more common in victims of homicide by strangulation” than hanging.

It's my understanding that these bones can only be broken in hanging if there is a drop of 6 feet or more. Impossible in Epstein's cell.

Another explanation may be the then-ongoing “psychological reconstruction” of Epstein’s death compiled by Robert Nagle, BOP national suicide prevention coordinator. Files released to The Detail by the Bureau record how Nagle – whose name is redacted in the files – arrived at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the morning of August 13 to commence his investigation. 

In his resultant report, Nagle noted that a video of an unspecified nature related to the “significant incident” was confiscated by the FBI prior to the review being initiated. He also said he’d been unable to conduct formal interviews with prison staff “to avoid interference with pending investigations” by the Justice Department, and that much of the information “typically gathered” in psychological reconstructions was not available.

These constraints “severely limited the ability to establish accurate timelines, confirm subjective reports, establish converging and diverging lines of facts, or discover new areas of inquiry,” Nagle wrote. 

For example, he was quite amazingly unable to piece together a “detailed description” of what the officers found when they discovered Epstein, as they “did not write memorandums and could not be interviewed.” Furthermore, as no pre-sentence report on Epstein had been completed prior to his death, numerous sections of the reconstruction – such as a review of the inmate’s “social history” – were avowedly incomplete in their appraisal.

Still, despite this glaring lack of hard evidence, the document ruled conclusively that Epstein had indeed committed suicide. His decision was attributed to being unable to sleep due to an “inability to tolerate the noise of prison,” plus the recent unsealing of thousands of records related to his 2008 conviction on child sex offenses, and the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison. 

Sound enough reasoning, one might think – though in building his case, Nagle drew repeated attention to Epstein declaring himself on several occasions to be a “coward” in the weeks prior to his alleged suicide as indicative of suicidal intent. It’s certainly true the prisoner was recorded making such statements – but explicitly in the context of denying any intention, or even ability, to kill himself. 

“He said he is not the type who likes pain or would ever attempt to harm himself,” one psychological assessment noted. “[He] even does not like when he has to give blood.”

This can only be considered a staggeringly dishonest inversion of Epstein’s comments, although Nagle’s manipulations went unremarked upon in an internal review of the reconstruction by Metropolitan Correctional Center Warden Marti Licon-Vitale. Nonetheless, in a section marked “documentation accuracy” she took aim at the failure of officials to log an incident report in a timely fashion, and seemingly submitting conflicting reports on the same incident. 

“Professional responsibility requires taking into account multiple descriptions of an incident as noted in your response. However, when discrepancies exist these should be compiled and noted in documentation to decrease the likelihood of conflicting conclusions,” she wrote. “Preconceived notions challenge the ability to remain open about alternative explanations … Please develop and provide local training for all staff that at a minimum reviews the timeframe for writing incident reports and offers guidance when there is not clear evidence of an infraction.”

While the specific episode criticized by Licon-Vitale is entirely redacted, one can infer that this section refers to the bizarre facts documented by The Detail in the first instalment of this investigative series. In brief, the initial incident report on Epstein’s alleged suicide on July 23, 2019 referred to “hanging/asphyxiation”, but another filed a week later was inexplicably amended to include “self-mutilation” by laceration, leading to him being disciplined for a penal code breach.  

These grievances aside, Nagle’s reconstruction was received with much delight by BOP higher ups. In an internal email dated August 23, the agency’s director Hugh Hurwitz effusively praised his “outstanding” work, remarking it was “unbelievable all you report without the benefit of interviews or video.” This email is ironic in the extreme, for it truly is “unbelievable” that a conclusive ruling of suicide could be reached without access to basic and vital evidence.

Four days earlier, Hurwitz was dismissed from his post by Attorney General William Barr without warning. Could this be attributable to attempting to shape the narrative on Epstein’s death, before the Federal Bureau of Investigation or Justice Department Inspector General had completed their respective probes of the case?

Whatever the truth of the matter, there is another supremely curious feature of the “psychological reconstruction” never hitherto publicized by any official or media outlet. A review of financial transactions associated with Epstein’s prison stay revealed that one of his attorneys “was depositing funds” into the commissary account of Efrain ‘Stone’ Reyes, Epstein’s final cellmate, “for unknown reasons.”

This may account for why Reyes became a person of interest in the FBI’s investigation and was duly questioned. He reportedly feared that cooperating with the Bureau might “affect him negatively,” but in return for his help, he was moved to a minimum security correctional center in Queens, New York, which housed high-value cooperating witnesses like rapper Tekashi69.

While there, he was reportedly interviewed personally by Attorney General William Barr as part of the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General’s probe, who thanked him for his input. Strangely, though, the department has refused to confirm or deny the claim, while Kerri Kupec, its former spokesperson, charges that it’s “100% false.”

Reyes died in September 2020, five months after being released from the prison, due to a facility-wide Covid-19 outbreak, purportedly through complications arising from the virus. Subsequently, his niece told mainstream news outlets her uncle had frequently voiced intense skepticism that the six-foot Epstein could’ve hanged himself from the bunk frames in the cell, as they simply weren’t tall enough.

In January 2021, federal prosecutors ruled that all records related to Reyes would remain sealed, despite requests for disclosure from journalists due to the potential impact on issues allegedly unrelated to Epstein. In dismissing the request, authorities listed information concerning the billionaire included in all files related to Reyes, which ran to two pages – all of it redacted.

Almost a year to the day later, it was reported that the Inspector General report on Epstein’s death was nearing completion, with a Justice Department investigator suggesting all the team had left to do was “dot their I's and cross their T's,” and stating they’d be “surprised if it's not released in the next 30 days or so.”

Whether it will shed any light on the countless serious matters raised by the declassified Bureau of Prisons documents is anyone’s guess, although in light of the revelation Reyes was in receipt of funds from Epstein’s lawyers, The Detail has lodged a request with relevant authorities for the seal to be reconsidered.

By Keelan Balderson is a UK-based journalist interested in security services, and misuse of state power. Follow his work at @altnewsuk.

By Kit Klarenberg, an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. Follow him on Twitter @KitKlarenberg

Whistleblowers Defend Themselves Against OPCWs Sleazy Smear Campaign on Douma False Flag Op.

OPCW whistleblowers wrote to watchdog chief,

say it ‘defies all logic’ that they’d ‘go rogue’ for no reason

© AFP / ANP / Bart Maat

The whistleblowers who accused the OPCW of covering up evidence on the Douma chemical weapons investigation have accused the watchdog of trying to “smear” their reputations, after it ignored them as disgruntled former employees.

In letters sent to the OPCW Director-General and obtained by The Grayzone, the two whistleblowers demand that their findings – which contradicted those that made it into the OPCW’s official report – get a fair and scientific hearing.

Veteran OPCW official Ian Henderson and an individual referred to as ‘Alex’ were sidelined from the investigation into the alleged chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburb of Douma in April 2018, after they produced evidence indicating the incident – which was used to justify US missile strikes – was in fact staged by anti-Assad jihadist militants.

The OPCW dubbed the pair ‘Inspector A’ and ‘Inspector B’ and framed them as disgruntled former employees who simply “could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence.” 

In his letter to OPCW Director-General Arias, Henderson (‘Inspector A’) defended himself and ‘Alex,’ writing that they both had “reams of documents” including performance appraisals, letters of commendation and others that reflect “a history of service at the highest level in terms of qualifications, skills, expertise, leadership, integrity and professionalism” at the chemical weapons watchdog.

“Does this not place the efforts by some to smear our reputations, on questionable ground?” Henderson asked, questioning why two top inspectors with “impeccable records” would suddenly “go rogue.”

“Our sole duty is to be true to the facts and the science, and once that has been achieved, we will gladly accept the proven and agreed scientific outcomes,” he added. Henderson also accused the organization of “sleaze” in seeking to diminish or cast doubt on his level expertise, given that he was described as one of the watchdog’s “best” inspectors in previous performance records.

While the official OPCW report concluded that gas cylinders were likely dropped on Douma from the air (presumably by Assad’s forces), Henderson concluded there was a “higher probability” that they were “manually placed” – potentially by anti-Assad rebels in a false-flag operation. Henderson claims no explanation was ever offered as to why his significant findings were excluded.

The letter from ‘Alex’ (‘Inspector B’) assured the OPCW that there was no intent to cause harm to the organization and echoed the disbelief that two experts would go rogue “at the autumn of our careers, with nothing to gain and everything to lose,” saying such a suggestion “defies all logic.”

Despite the OPCW’s claims that the men’s assertions were not backed by evidence, a third whistleblower came forward in February to corroborate their complaints that evidence was suppressed, saying his time at the OPCW was “the most stressful and unpleasant” of his life and that he was “ashamed” for the organization. 

Retired British general John Taylor Holmes, who was on a panel of experts who heard testimony from ‘Alex’ also told RT that the whistleblowers’ evidence was “very convincing.”

Western media has barely given any attention to the scandal and appears largely to have accepted the organization’s shaky claims that the whistleblowers are not credible. 

Of course, any other approach would force mainstream journalists to reexamine their coverage of the Douma incident, which helped drum up support for airstrikes carried out by the US, UK and French militaries – before OPCW inspectors had even arrived at the scene to investigate.

Video - No Evidence That Gas Attack in Douma Even Happened - OPCW Whistleblower

But lots of evidence that counters the attack was covered up

by the OPCW, governments, and media

For the past year or two, I have called the 2017 gas attack in Douma, Syria, a false flag operation. It turns out that it wasn't even that. Chemical analyses performed by several different labs for OPCW revealed there was no chlorine gas attack in Douma at all. It was entirely faked.

If that's shocking to you, you need to understand that the OPCW knew of the lab test results long before issuing their report, but they hid the results and lied on their report. It was only by chance that the whistle-blower, who has been verified as a member of the OPCW, found out about the lab results.

UK Reporter Astounded By What He Found in Douma

OPCW Put Lid on Key Evidence in Douma Chemical Incident – Watchdog Whistleblower

Meanwhile, almost all national media outlets were crying for NATO, or the USA, to invade Syria and depose the monster, Assad. Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, not one of my favourite people, suggested that the USA wait for more evidence to come in before taking drastic action. He was in an extremely small minority with that view.

At Last an MSM Personality Sees Through the Syrian Gas Attack Rhetoric

BBC Producer Says Hospital Scenes After 2018 Douma ‘Chemical Attack’ Were Staged

The US, however, sent numerous missiles into Syria as a response to this unthinkable criminal act by Assad. They did that before the OPCW even had an opportunity to enter the region. 

US Will Act Against ‘Monster’ Assad With or Without UN ‒ Haley

Syria - OPCW Engineering Assessment: The Douma 'Chemical Weapon Attack' Was Staged

One OPCW member, dissenting from the report, stated that the theater looked staged and that the so-called chlorine canisters in the photographs could not have been dropped from above, as was suggested, but had to have been placed there from the ground. His opinion was left out of the report which was completely out of normal procedure for the OPCW.

Top MIT Scientist Slams OPCW Leaders for Repressing Dissenting Report on Douma

German Reporter Says Douma was Completely Staged - MSM Won't Report It

What this clearly proves is that the OPCW is a function of Deep State. Deep State has been trying to get Trump to continue and even upgrade the war in Syria for years. Douma was almost certainly not the first false flag, or possibly outright fraudulent event, in this war. 

Khan Sheikhun Sarin Gas Attack was a False Flag Operation

MOON of ALABAMA Discloses How Brits Run Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

The real question is, why is the media playing along? It is almost definitely policy to inflame the situation and smother anything that might mitigate the 'monstrousness' of Assad, anything that might promote peace. Are they being constantly duped by the war-mongers, or are they part of the game? And who's controlling the OPCW, a multinational organization?

Politicians, Military Asking the Obvious Questions About Douma, But Not Media

America, Britain, France, NATO, can't move the inventories of war if peace breaks out, so they do their best to prevent that from happening. 

The World: What is Really Happening - Craig Murray

Was Viktor Yuschenko Actually Poisoned? - Ukrainian Prosecutor Says 'No'

Poisoning that shaped 15 years of Ukraine politics

never happened – prosecutor on Yuschenko case

While this story comes from RT, I reproduce it here because there were questions,

even in the Washington Post, as far back as 2014, as to whether Yuschenko's poisoning

really happened

Viktor Yuschenko in 2001 (left) and after the alleged poisoning in 2004 (right)

©  Reuters/YK/AS/CLH;  REUTERS/Vasily Fedosenko

Former president of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko was not poisoned during the 2004 campaign, Ukraine’s chief military prosecutor said in an interview, casting fresh doubts on the narrative shaping Kiev politics for the past 15 years.

At the time, Yushchenko led a Western-backed coalition against the incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, whom they accused of being “pro-Russian.” His disfigurement from what he called dioxin poisoning led to an outpouring of popular support and street protests, later dubbed the ‘Orange Revolution.’ Under that pressure, the Ukrainian supreme court annulled the run-off election Yanukovich had won, delivering Yushchenko the presidency after a revote.

Investigators found no evidence of poisoning

This week, however, the deputy Prosecutor-General and chief military prosecutor of Ukraine since 2014, Anatoly Matios, revealed in an interview that his investigators found no evidence of a poisoning.

Speaking to the Politeka online host Andrey Palchevsky, Matios said that he had asked Colonel Igor Nikolaevich Kozlov,  who had investigated the case, about what he found. 

Tell me, was there poisoning or not? He said “No, there was no poisoning.”

This contradicts the statement made in January by Matios’s boss, Prosecutor-General Yuriy Lutsenko, who maintained that Yushchenko had been poisoned, but “it was still unclear by whom.”

According to the official story, Yushchenko had attended a dinner with several leaders of Ukraine’s security service SBU in Kiev on September 5, 2004. He fell ill soon afterwards and was hospitalized in Austria on September 10. Blood tests showed a significant concentration of TCDD, a dioxin poison found in Agent Orange. 

Various Ukrainian officials have cast doubts on the story ever since, pointing out that Yushchenko never allowed a second blood test that would confirm the results, and speculating that the original test was tampered with. Yushchenko has since made a near-complete recovery. 

His government was not so fortunate. Its policies proved unable to deliver on the promises of economic prosperity, made the endemic corruption worse and fueled nationalism and intolerance between Ukraine’s diverse communities. Eventually, Yushchenko fell out with his coalition partner Yulia Tymoshenko, who went on to lose the 2010 election to Yanukovych. The former president went from widespread popularity to obscurity, with his party getting less than 2 percent of the parliamentary votes in 2012.

Using the same methods as the original Orange Revolution, another coalition of opposition politicians was assembled in 2013 to pressure Yanukovych into abandoning a free trade pact with Russia for a restrictive trade deal with the EU. The protests, backed by the US and several EU powers, escalated into street violence and culminated in a violent coup in February 2014. 

The coup government then tried to crush dissent with military force, leading to the separation of Crimea and the ongoing civil war between Kiev and the two eastern provinces, Donetsk and Lugansk.

Finnish Study Finds ‘Practically No’ Evidence for Man-Made Climate Change - Japanese Study Confirms

©  Reuters / Charles Platiau

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.

In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.

Adjusting for the cloud coverage factor and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers found that mankind is simply not having much of an effect on the Earth’s temperature.

If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.

The study’s authors make a hard distinction between the type of model favored by climate scientists at the IPCC and genuine evidence, stating “We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence,” noting that the models often yield contradictory conclusions.

And yet, so many 'scientists' do consider computer models to be evidence, when really they are mostly the imagination of the model's creator. And they are almost always wrong. So why are they accepted as evidence?

Given the evidence presented in the study, the Finnish team rounded out the paper by concluding “we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” adding that “the low clouds control mainly the global temperature.”

The results sharply cut against claims put forward by many environmentalists, including US lawmakers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who argue not only that climate change is an immediate threat to the planet, but that it is largely a man-made phenomenon. Ocasio-Cortez, better known as ‘AOC’, has proposed a ‘Green New Deal’ to address the supposedly dire threat.

Japanese researchers at the University of Kobe arrived at similar results as the Turku team, finding in a paper published in early July that cloud coverage may create an “umbrella effect” that could alter temperatures in ways not captured by current modeling.

Apollo Astronaut & Scientist Rejects IPCC Climate Report

Corruption is Everywhere - Yes, Even in Science

Always comforting to have a world class scientist agree with

what I have been saying for years

Anthony Watts, wattsupwiththat.com

Apollo 17 moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt rejects UN climate report: ‘The observations that we make as geologists…do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this’

NYT asks Geologist and Moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt about UN IPCC report:

The New York Times’ Nicholas St. Fleur: “…as one of the leading climate change deniers, when there was a huge report that just came out last week [talking about] the risk and what is going to happen … as soon as 2040. I’d love to know if you see any irony in your views on people who denied man walking on the moon vs. your views on climate change.”

Schmitt:

“I see no irony at all. I’m a geologist. I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is. It has gone through climate change, it is going through climate change at the present time. The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change? Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence.”

“The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns…”

The observations that we make as geologists,

and observational climatologists,

do not show any evidence

that human beings are causing this.

“I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the U.S. government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear. That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today, and it’s not just in climate. I see it in my own lunar research.”…

Funding by governments, particularly the U.S. government,

is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear.

“If NASA’s interested in a particular conclusion, then that’s the way the proposals come in for funding. 

So it’s a very, very serious issue, and I hope the science writers in this room will start to dig deeply into whether or not science has been corrupted by the source of funds that are now driving what people are doing in research, and what their conclusions are.”

Another Ex-President Questioned About Possible Corruption

Corruption is Everywhere - South Korean President

Seoul court to decide arrest warrant for former President Lee Myung-bak

By Jennie Oh  

Former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak (R) arrives to the Seoul Central District Prosecution Office for questioning in Seoul, South Korea, 14 March 2018. Former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was summoned by a prosecutor for questioning over accusations of bribery and embezzlement. Photo by EPA-EFE/Woohae Cho.

SEOUL, UPI -- A Seoul court will determine this week whether to issue an arrest warrant for former President Lee Myung-bak, who is currently under investigation for alleged bribery and other misconducts during his years in office.

The Seoul Central District Court said it will hold a hearing on Thursday at 10:30 a.m. to review the prosecution's request for an arrest warrant, JoongAng Ilbo reported.

Prosecutors on Monday sought a permit to detain the former president, citing the degree of the allegations against him -- some 18 charges including bribery, embezzlement, tax evasion and abuse of power.

They also said Lee could attempt to destroy evidence, judging from his denial of most of the charges made against him in a 21-hour long questioning session last week.

In the warrant request, investigators pointed to Lee as the real owner of an auto company named DAS, which he has long been suspected of owning and controlling to conceal his assets and create secret slush funds.

The former conservative leader is also believed to have taken money from Samsung Group to fund legal costs for his auto parts firm, along with other bribes from other corporations and the country's intelligence agency.

The prosecution says he took some 11 billion won ($10.3 million) in kickbacks and embezzled 35 billion won ($32.7 million).

Investigators say they discovered critical evidence that supports their suspicions including his connection to DAS, during a raid on his office in January.

The court's decision on issuing a warrant for arrest is expected early Friday, Yonhap reported.

Lee's secretariat says the 76-year-old will not attend the hearing as he has "fully explained himself to the prosecution."

US Has No Evidence of Sarin Use by Syrian Govt – Mattis

U.S. Defence Minister James N. Mattis © Michaela Rehle / Reuters

Washington has no evidence that the chemical agent sarin has ever been used by the Syrian government, Pentagon chief James Mattis has admitted. It did not stop him from still being concerned about Assad, though.

"We do not have evidence of it,” the US Defense Secretary told journalists, referring to the alleged use of sarin nerve agent by Syrian government forces. He said the only information the US has been able to obtain so far, comes from “other groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground” and just “people who claim it's been used.”

“We are looking for evidence of it,” Mattis said. He then went on to accuse the Syrian government of a number of offenses and covert practices without substantiating his allegations with proof. He claimed that Syrian President Bashar Assad and his supporters “used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions,” but the Pentagon chief did not provide any specific details.

I'm sure you will find the evidence if you look long and hard enough. You know, like you found the WMDs in Iraq.

Mattis also said that it's “clear” that Damascus used chlorine gas in the Syrian conflict, but as before, did not offer any evidence. Instead, he went on to say the US is now “even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use.” The US Defense Secretary also warned that the Syrian government “would be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical [weapons] convention,” and spoke about the US “response.”

Mattis recalled the missile strike on Syria's Shayrat Airbase ordered by President Donald Trump following an alleged chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held Syrian town in 2017. On April 4, 2017, up to 100 people were reportedly killed in an alleged sarin gas attack on the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun in the Idlib governorate. Washington immediately blamed the attack on Damascus, saying the alleged weapon was dropped by a Syrian warplane. The US launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at the base in response.

I wonder if the Tomahawks were getting close to their expiration date? Certainly, it was an opportunity for Trump to show that he is not afraid to pull the trigger.

The UN and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) then presented several reports on their findings concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria, including the April attack. Russia repeatedly criticized the reports, saying it was riddled with discrepancies, speculation, and based on statements from questionable sources.

Mattis' comments came just a day after the Trump administration accused the Syrian government of developing "new kinds of weapons" to deliver deadly chemicals to conceal their actions. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AP the US believes that it's “highly likely” the Syrian government kept a hidden stockpile of chemical weapons. They said further that Trump does not rule out a military action aimed at “deterring” chemical attacks by Assad's forces.

In late January, the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, accused Moscow of being “ultimately” complicit in all alleged chemical attacks in Syria. “Whoever conducted the attacks, Russia ultimately bears responsibility for the victims in eastern Ghouta and countless other Syrians targeted with chemical weapons since Russia became involved in Syria,” Tillerson stated.

Not that this statement makes any sense, but what support do they have for making such a reckless accusation? Is the US just jealous because when Russia stepped in there was actually progress in the war on ISIS?

What are Americans still doing in Syria? ISIS is defeated! Are they afraid peace might break out if they leave? Sorry, I'm a bit cynical today!

Russia dismissed the allegations as “a massive propaganda attack conducted with the purpose of slandering Russia” and called an emergency UN Security Council session to discuss new developments of the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

On January 23, just ahead of the 24-nation "International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons" meeting, news surfaced of a possible chlorine gas attack, in which more than 20 civilians were allegedly injured. The reports were produced by controversial pro-militant sources – the White Helmets and the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), and have not yet been independently verified.

Many Canadians Presume Omar Khadr Guilty, But the Evidence Tells a Different Story

A Former Prosecutor Asks:

What if Omar Khadr Isn’t Guilty?

By Sandy Garossino in Opinion, Politics

Omar Khadr (right) speaks with his lawyer Dennis Edney in Edmonton on May 7, 2015.

File photo by The Canadian Press

Editor's Note: This story contains images some readers may find disturbing.

The controversy surrounding Omar Khadr’s reported $10.5-million settlement for Ottawa's complicity in his oppressive detention at Guantanamo Bay obscures a key issue we've never truly explored in Canada.

What if Khadr was innocent of the murder of Sgt. Christopher Speer this whole time, and we didn't lift a finger while he sat in a hell-hole for a decade?

For almost 15 years, Canadian treatment of the Khadr case has been dominated by the presumption of guilt. Yet the evidence tells a different story.

For all the fury boiling up over news of his settlement, there's precious little insight or knowledge about the facts. As a former prosecutor, something has always troubled me about this case, and my deep unease hasn't abated with time.

Any experienced trial lawyer would be troubled to open this file. With the exception of Khadr's "confession," wrung from a traumatized and severely wounded teenager under an abusive interrogation, the evidence against him was remarkably thin.

Examined closely, it appears more consistent with his innocence than guilt.

Khadr's case a 'Canadian tragedy'

What evidence exists appears confused, inconsistent or contradicted elsewhere. Photographs of the attack scene released in 2009 appear to directly conflict with the prosecution's summary of its own case.

Had the events happened under Canadian jurisdiction, they would not have been enough to lay a charge, let alone secure a conviction.

This case represents a Canadian tragedy and failure of moral courage on the part of our government. When Canada should have championed transparency, due process and the rule of law in the Khadr proceedings, we stood mute or actively participated in his abusive interrogation in custody.

Had the Canadian government done so, any criminal trial in open court would most likely have ended in a humiliating defeat for the U.S. government, and public perception would be very different from what it is today.

To any trial lawyer, it's plain that Khadr pled guilty for a very simple reason: his plea deal offered a return to Canada and eventual freedom — clearly a better alternative than a lifetime of suffering in Guantanamo.

That bargain was a successful legal maneuver, but a personal tragedy. It was successful because it returned him to Canada, where his prospects for justice were a vast improvement on Guantanamo Bay and U.S. military tribunals. It was tragic because he will forever wear the stain of pleading guilty to murder.

Today Canadians are paying a hefty price because successive Liberal and Conservative governments sacrificed principle to political expedience, traded away due process, and turned on their own child citizen, a trapped and helpless teenager.

Evaluating the evidence from the prosecution's perspective

Here’s how a prosecutor would look at the evidence against Khadr in a civilian criminal trial. Remember, this was a criminal prosecution subject to evidentiary rules supposedly designed not only to protect the innocent, but the integrity of the justice system itself.

The first step is to ensure the prosecution can prove each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt; and that the evidence is probative, consistent, credible, and reliable.

Any obvious defences, such as mistake of identity, self-defence, temporary loss of control or accident, should be anticipated and closed off by cogent evidence before charges are laid.

One more thing: in a circumstantial case, (which this was, because nobody saw Khadr throw the grenade that killed Speer), the evidentiary bar is even higher. In such a case the test is not merely proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the evidence pointing to guilt is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.

First the context. This firefight was no small village confrontation, but an all-out military assault on a small compound.

The suspected Al Qaeda compound was identified by U.S. and Afghan forces in the early morning of July 27, 2002. Two Afghan militia members approached the small compound, estimated at "100 to 120 feet square." They were immediately shot and killed by occupants inside.

Compound bombed and strafed by U.S. air assault for hours

That shooting drew an overwhelming response. More than 100 U.S. troops assembled on the site, and for the next four hours the compound was pounded with cannon, missile, and rocket fire from a coordinated air assault involving Apache helicopters, A-10 warplanes and F-18 fighter jets. Multiple 500-lb. bombs were dropped on the site.

When American forces believed everyone inside had been killed, a U.S. Special Forces team entered the compound.

Whatever happened next took less than a minute, according to reports. At the end of it, Sgt. Christopher Speer, who was not wearing a helmet, was mortally wounded in the head from a grenade, and Khadr was captured alive.

So what was the prosecution’s case against Omar Khadr?

Inconsistent and inaccurate statements from the prosecution

There was lots to choose from. The U.S. military reports and filed statements describe a hodge-podge of confusing and inconsistent positions, including the following range of scenarios:

(1) The assault team entered, encountered and returned enemy fire and killed the shooter. Omar Khadr, positioned behind a crumbling wall, then threw a grenade at a group of soldiers who were talking. He did not consider them a threat to his safety, but just planned to kill as many Americans as he could (U.S. government stipulation of facts, 2010, paragraphs 41-43, agreed to by Khadr in his guilty plea);

(2) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire, including a thrown grenade. They shot and captured Khadr, who was the only survivor in the compound during the exchange. Being the only survivor, Khadr must have killed Speer (false public position of U.S. military until 2008, as per CBC report);

(3) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire, including a thrown grenade. They killed the shooter who also threw the grenade. They then captured Khadr, who did not throw the grenade (Report by Maj. Randy Watt, senior U.S. officer at battle, July 28, 2002);

(4) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and a witness identified as OC-1 saw a grenade thrown over a wall. Because of the timing of the shooting and grenade, he did not believe one person could have done both. OC-1 killed the shooter. He then found Khadr seated and facing away from the assault team and shot him in the back. According to OC-1, Khadr was the only person who could have killed Speer (Statement by witness OC-1, dated March 17, 2004, almost two years after the event);

(5) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and saw a grenade thrown over a wall. They killed the shooter and two Delta Force members confronted Khadr, who was armed and stood facing them. They shot him in the chest (per summary of statements, originally reported by Michelle Shephard in the Toronto Star);

(6) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and saw a grenade thrown over a wall. Soldiers outside the compound were also throwing grenades in response to the firefight. U.S. forces first killed the shooter, then shot and captured Khadr (per Los Angeles Times report of statement evidence). This opens the possibility that friendly fire accidentally killed Speer.

OR

(7) The photos:

The photo on the left, taken in Ayub Kheyl in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002, shows the scene found by the assault team approaching the area where the shooter was killed. Khadr lies beneath the rubble, apparently beneath a collapsed roof. The photo on the right shows Khadr (figure highlighted) after debris has been pulled back. Classified photos obtained by the Toronto Star from an 18-page submission presented in 2009 by Khadr's former military defence team to an Obama administration task force investigating Guantanamo.

Clearly, the multiple positions and reports advanced by the prosecution can't all be true. In all, either the shooter, or Khadr, or possibly American forces threw the grenade that killed Speer. Some of the reports make no sense at all, and some are clearly false.

Consistency, credibility and reliability are essential to a strong prosecution, and this case was on thin ice.

Photo evidence disastrous for the prosecution

Then came the photographs of the combat scene obtained by the Toronto Star in 2009, which can only be seen as disastrous for the prosecution.

The two photos above apparently depict the scene as found by the assault team in the area where the shooter was killed. The first photo on the left shows the body of the shooter killed in the firefight next to what appears to be a pile of rubble and brush. Omar Khadr was found alive beneath that rubble.

According to the Star, military documents indicate that "a soldier stood on top of Khadr's body before realizing someone was buried."

The second photo on the right—enhanced by the Star for clarity—shows the brush and rubble pulled back to expose Khadr, with bullet entry wounds clearly visible on his back.

In the third photo below, which shows Khadr receiving battlefield first aid (the graphic damage of his exit wounds are obscured), clearly visible is the dried blood from the shrapnel wound to his left eye. Khadr's face is coated in dirt, consistent with being buried in rubble.

Khadr receives battlefield first aid after being injured during a fight in Ayub Kheyl, Afghanistan on July 27, 2002. Graphic exit wounds have been obscured. Photo from Wikimedia Commons, originally obtained by Toronto Star

Khadr could not have thrown the grenade and then completely buried himself under rocks and debris in just a few seconds before the special forces team arrived.

Of all the positions taken by the prosecution above, only (3) and (6) are consistent with the photographs taken in the immediate aftermath of the firefight. Neither version implicates Khadr. Version (3) is the incident report submitted by the senior officer on site the day after the battle, which completely exonerates him.

The only evidence that ties Khadr to the grenade is the statement of OC-1 in version (4), given to investigators almost two years after the event. But OC-1's statement that he found Khadr sitting up and leaning against brush is sharply at variance with photograph 1, in which Khadr lies completely buried under rocks and brush.

That's not a small problem for the prosecution. It's a big one.

If the photograph is an accurate depiction of the scene as the special forces team found it, OC-1's statement can't be true. It's more likely that OC-1 discovered Khadr under the rubble after he shot the other combatant, then shot him in the back as he lay there.

The fact that a soldier could shoot a man in the back at close range and not kill him leads one to believe that either that soldier is a really bad shot, or perhaps, he was shooting what he could not see. If Khadr was covered with debris and OC-1 stepped on him and Khadr moved, it is likely that OC-1 would have shot first into the debris and asked questions later.

It gets worse. The prosecution's bigger problem is that its official version (1) makes no sense at all when read with the photographs. Below is the relevant text of the U.S. government's stipulation of facts:

A screenshot of the U.S. government's stipulation of facts in October 2010 regarding the events that led to Sgt. Christopher Speer's death in Afghanistan in 2002, as accepted by Omar Khadr

Clearly, paragraphs 42 and 43 are drafted to defeat any argument that Khadr threw the grenade in self-defence. It's drafted to cast him as the aggressor who, unprovoked, attacked a peaceful group of soldiers clearing up a battle site after a firefight with the other combatant. But that is wholly inconsistent with a photo of Khadr buried in rocks and rubble, lying within inches of his dead compatriot.

Unless the shooter's body had been moved, Khadr was lying under the debris immediately next to him during the firefight. According to OC-1, he shot both the shooter and Khadr within a few seconds of each other.

This doesn't make sense either. Khadr didn't watch his compatriot get killed, throw a grenade, then cover himself in rocks and sticks and wait to be discovered. And what about the Star's account of military documents reporting that a soldier didn't even realize Khadr was there until he stood on him?

Military evidence makes a better case for innocence than guilt

So far, this is all the prosecution's own evidence, and it's a mess before the defence calls a single witness. Without Khadr's confession, obtained essentially by force, there is no compelling evidence that he threw any grenade at all. No one saw him do it, and from all appearances he'd been under that rubble the entire time.

From what’s publicly available at this point, the evidence pointing to guilt is weak and speculative. Taken as a whole, it doesn't really make sense. Multiple statements contradict each other and run all over the map.

These are not small inconsistencies. Something is seriously wrong with the prosecution's account.

Without Khadr's confession, the evidence fails its first and most basic test: that of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt through credible, reliable and consistent evidence that Khadr threw the grenade that struck and killed Sgt. Speer.

So what about that confession?

As is well known today, false confessions are common, especially with malleable young people under duress. The intensity and abusiveness of Khadr's interrogation is unprecedented in law-abiding countries. It's probably fair to say that in 2002 the U.S. military was far more concerned with learning whatever it could about Al Qaeda from Khadr than with getting an admissible voluntary statement for a criminal trial.

The priority was to find and kill Osama bin Laden, and to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That interrogators went too far is now common knowledge. But the problem with torturous or abusive questioning isn't just that it violates the prisoner's rights, but that subjects will give false information to escape the agony.

Today, Khadr says that he confessed to false things just to please his interrogators and stop the pain, and there's evidence to back that up. For instance, we know that under pressure Khadr falsely identified Maher Arar as having stayed at terrorist safe houses in Afghanistan, when Arar had never been to the country.

I believe this occurred in Bagram where torture was likely to have been more severe.

It's far more believable that Khadr confessed to stop the pain than that his confession is true. The photographs and the known chronology make it extremely unlikely that he could have thrown the grenade.

Yet without that confession, the prosecution had no case.

First, freshest and best military report points to innocence

The U.S. military’s first, freshest and probably best report of the incident, based on contemporaneous eye-witness accounts by the soldiers involved, was submitted by Maj. Randy Watt the day after the firefight. That report described scenario (2), in which it was believed that the grenade was thrown by the shooter.

It's also consistent with and corroborated by the photographs taken at the scene, where only the shooter would have been in a position to throw the grenade.

However, according to the CBC (at 15:30 in the video), that report was itself subsequently altered without documentation or explanation.

That first report, which contains the best evidence exonerating Khadr, remains today the most coherent account of the events of that day.

Even if it could be established that Khadr did throw the grenade in the middle of a firefight, given his proximity to the shooter it's impossible to rule out self-defence. The stipulation of facts cannot be true.

After all these years and coverage, it's plain that any competent defence lawyer could run a Mack truck through this case in a conventional criminal court.

It was Canada's job to raise hell about the railroading of a Canadian teen

Know who else should have run a Mack truck through it? The Canadian government.

It was Canada’s job to raise hell about the railroading of a Canadian teen based on a lousy case. It was Canada's job to raise hell about the torture of a Canadian kid in U.S. custody. Instead, we presumed he was guilty.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments washed their hands of Khadr, only to aid and abet his Kafka-esque ordeal and trial by torture. Precious few stood up to take his side as he was convicted in the court of public opinion without a trial.

We were happy—eager, in fact—to strip him of his rights, judge him without even looking at the facts, and allow the American military and politicians to malign him mercilessly as they took every step to suppress the truth.

And though many reporters distinguished themselves, there was no shortage of media commentators piling on, sneering at the doubters and skeptics as do-gooding sissies.

The American torture program was a disaster. Extraordinary rendition to torture sites was a disaster. Guantanamo is a continuing disaster.

Instead of playing along as America’s trusty lapdog, the Canadian government should have stood squarely on the side of due process, demanding an accounting of the staggering cruelty and appalling ineptitude (or worse) behind this whole affair.

At every turn we should have called for a full, fair, open and transparent proceeding. We should have challenged the bad faith, the secrecy, the doctored reports, the contradictory witnesses, the changing stories, and the procedural bullying.

We should have demanded Khadr’s immediate return to Canada from Guantanamo, pending a full investigation.

If you still think the U.S. wouldn't fudge its reports to get the result it wants, google 'Pat Tillman.' Then consider whether the biggest clue to this whole mystery is the long suppression of reports that American soldiers in the special forces assault team also threw grenades during the firefight.

We had plenty of notice how this would all end, because we've been here before with Maher Arar. The day after Khadr, compelled by fear and abuse, falsely pegged Arar as an Al Qaeda associate, U.S. authorities spirited him to Syria by extraordinary rendition, where he too was tortured and imprisoned for a year.

That lesson cost us a cool $10.5 million in foreshadowing, but didn't teach us a thing. We turned around and did it again. To a kid.

Khadr was left virtually alone and helpless to fight the awesome force of American power from a cell in Guantanamo. He should have had the full weight of the Canadian government behind him pushing for the truth.

Plea deal bought freedom at a high price

Khadr's guilty plea bought his freedom, but at a heavy price. For that freedom Khadr traded, perhaps forever, the chance to clear his name and turn public scrutiny on those who abused him, who doctored records, who changed their stories.

As part of his plea deal, Khadr agreed to a statement of facts admitting to killing Sgt. Speer, and promised never to seek forensic review of the evidence which might one day prove his innocence. He also agreed to permit the U.S. government to destroy all evidence following sentencing.

As a teenager Omar Khadr was betrayed and exploited by every adult who owed him a duty of care, including his father who conscripted him into a terrorist group, and his mother who let it happen. Then he was abandoned by the one government that should have protected his right to a fair trial.

Khadr's ticket out of Guantanamo should never have been a guilty plea extracted by torture, fear and despair. Every other western country was getting its citizens out, while Canada let a teenager rot there.

Khadr's passport out should have been the birthright he was born with—his Canadian citizenship.

France Offers Evidence Syria was Behind Nerve Gas Attack

Can Assad really be that stupid?

American and UK intelligence have proven themselves unreliable to me. So my first reaction is to take anything that comes out of either outfit with a large grain of salt.

That Assad would risk alienating Trump just days after Trump announced that Assad would not have to go to get a settlement in Syria is unconscionably stupid. Is Assad that stupid? The French think so. They may be right, or not. I'm not fully convinced yet, but getting closer.

Chemical analysis indicates the nerve gas used in the April 4 attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun was identical to that used previously by the Syrian military.

By Ed Adamczyk  

The French government announced Wednesday it has proof Syria was responsible for a 

nerve gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, in which at least 87 people died. 

Photo by Mohammed Badra/EPA

UPI  -- The French government has proof indicating the Syrian air force dropped bombs containing the nerve gas Sarin on a civilian population, it said Wednesday.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said samples taken from the April 4 attack on rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun bear the same chemical signature of Sarin made by the Syrian government, and match samples from a prior chemical attack.

"We have definite sources that the procedure used to make the Sarin sampled is typical of the methods developed in Syrian laboratories. This method bears the signature of the regime, and that is what has allowed us to establish its responsibility in this attack."

The report by France's intelligence agency, declassified Wednesday, concludes that the Sarin was manufactured by the Syrian government. It said the Sarin found in Khan Sheikhoun was produced in the same process as Sarin found in an unexploded grenade dropped by a Syrian government helicopter in 2013.

At least 87 people died, and hundreds more exhibited symptoms of a reaction to a nerve agent, in the attack. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dismissed the incident as a fabrication. Last week the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons also announced it has "incontrovertible" evidence that Syria conducted the attack.

"Neither do the French services assess that the theory of a staged attack or manipulation by the opposition is credible, particularly because of the massive influx in a very limited time towards hospitals in Syria and Turkey, and the simultaneous, massive uploading of videos showing symptoms of the use of neurotoxic agents," the report said.