The murder of Jo Cox M P

Freedom wrote:The time between the murder and the trial was also unusually short - June to November the same year.

Most cases take a year or even longer to be heard.  

I dare say they needed to stage their show trial before people forgot who she was.

Crime - Arrest - Trial - Conviction - Sentence (life).

Has another case ever anywhere been as quick as that?

Another one that seems to like centre stage

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-11-23/sister-of-jo-cox-we-will-respond-to-hatred-with-love/

Note - mother is not smiling this time but looking up into the sky.

I don't think the time between the crime and the court case is unreasonable,  Mairs was arrested at the time there was no need for an investigation etc

Andrew wrote:Crime - Arrest - Trial - Conviction - Sentence (life).

Has another case ever anywhere been as quick as that?

The pigeon murder trial in Blackadder?

I'm long in the tooth enough to remember when there was capital punishment in the U K and the time between the murder and the execution of the guilty person was often very short.

The time spans in the still controversial cases of Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis and Edith Thompson and Frederick Bywaters were all three months, give or take a few days.

unreorganised wrote:

Andrew wrote:Crime - Arrest - Trial - Conviction - Sentence (life).

Has another case ever anywhere been as quick as that?

The pigeon murder trial in Blackadder?

That's true. I forgot about speckled Jim.

Classic.

Apologies - this one came up straight away after the last one:

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=251&part=1

Rich D Hall has made a video about the case.

Guinea Pig wrote:http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=251&part=1

Rich D Hall has made a video about the case.

Just watched it. Confirms an awful lot of my very first suspicions about this case except I was naive enough to think they wouldn't really have had her murdered. Now I'm not so sure.

I have found Rich's presentation a bit irritating in the past but I'll give it a go.

Who do you mean by "they", Chirpy?

Freedom wrote:I have found Rich's presentation a bit irritating in the past but I'll give it a go.

Who do you mean by "they", Chirpy?

Same mob as RDH alludes to.

Okay - I shall watch this probably in the early hours when I can't sleep!

Worth watching. Very interesting and convincing.

Hall seems to think the motive for her assassination had nothing to do with Brexit or "Far Right revenge" and everything to do with the circles she mixed in prior to becoming an MP just one year before her death. Then she was associated with the White Helmets and also Gordon Brown and the Freuds. Hall points out that the latter few were involved with the Madeleine McCann case.

He believes her assassination by MI5 was because she had knowledge of something that made her a threat to National Security.

I've seen it too and may give it another go when I'm more alert.

I am having trouble with the patsy theory. If, as Rich suggests, Thomas Mair was strolling along the road, having had nothing to do with the murder, minding his own business when he was suddenly rugby tackled to the ground, arrested and charged, why on Earth did he say nothing during the police interviews and at his trial?

Anyone in that situation would be screaming from the rooftops that he hadn't done it.

According to Hall, he was virtually knocked out when arrested by the police splitting his head open on the road. He had no knowledge at that point of what it was he was being accused of and was probably terrified there were police with guns pointing at him.

At "his" trial, Hall believes it wasn't Mair in the dock, but a substitute they had already prepared. Close friends of Mair confirm it wasn't him shown on trial and the "Mair" taking place in the trial didn't utter a word during it nor did he in the police interviews so nobody could point out that it wasn't Mair's voice. (Too many 'Mairs'!)

Do watch it again, Freedom. The points you raise were covered and I really found it convincing. Could there be a McCann connection??

I will watch it again but my recollection is that the friends said that they didn't think the man being interviewed was Thomas Mair (not that he definitely wasn't) and nothing was said about the one at the trial.

<Dons floppy cap and pulls it low> "Summat not right, there, I've said it from the off!"

All that nonsense about black and white baseball caps, they think we'll swallow anything. And we do!!

I haven't watched it yet. I have speculated before about Cox's death being convenient to head off the Clement Freud allegations - it was the next day, IIRC - but I get the feeling that isn't quite what is being suggested.

There certainly are some oddities with course of events. How did the police know that it was Thomas Mair they were looking for; when they approached him in the street, they called out his name. 

P.S. It's always suspicious when, after a serious crime - particularly thinking of the JFK murder, 9/11 and 7/7 - it's announced far too quickly who the alleged or actual perpetrators are.

Freedom wrote:There certainly are some oddities with course of events. How did the police know that it was Thomas Mair they were looking for; when they approached him in the street, they called out his .

Given that nobody, but nobody, identified the perpetrator at the scene as TM, where did the Intel come from? A bit coincidental that the only cctv of a man fitting the description came from a house belonging to a relative of the eye witness who followed the perpetrator and called the police.

Thinking more about this, I really think it is straying into David Icke territory to think that neither the person who was being questioned (and saying nothing) nor the one in court were Thomas Mair, but the one arrested and imprisoned is. 

Can we seriously believe that none of his friends and family - his mother is alive I think as well as at least two siblings - have seen him since his arrest and he has not proclaimed his innocence to them?

Maybe he's been paid a lot of money to keep quiet. Or he's been given a new identity and placed elsewhere. But it is a bit strange that his family have never mentioned seeing him in prison. Often you get journalists poking their noses in for a follow up story.

Another thing that puzzles me is that it was widely publicised that Thomas Mair has mental health issues, but not what they actually are and whether they could make him a danger to anyone other than himself.

Why was he jailed for a whole life term without any mitigation being allowed for his state of mind?