Two hats and a funeral; Part One – featuring the Bernard Kenny enigma
After sifting through the information that is in the public domain regarding the supposed murder of Jo Cox, a real picture emerges of what happened on 16th June 2016. This picture, however, isn’t very easy to comprehend; it doesn’t make any sense, for it tells of something that is not rational, which is this: as described by various people who witnessed the event, it appears that there were two assailants, and perhaps therefore two attacks on Jo Cox. We can generally sort the accounts into two broad groupings. The first is of a man, wearing a white cap, who begins to attack Jo Cox and is set upon by an intervening bystander. The second is of a man, wearing a black cap, who is heard to make political statements while he attacks Jo Cox. There are crossover elements, and we could weave them together to make a unified story, except that the fact remains that some witnesses saw a black cap, and some saw a white cap on the head of the man who attacked Jo Cox – while he was attacking her.
Of course, common sense tells us that this split-reality cannot possibly be, and yet that doesn’t mean that the information that instructs this picture must be rejected. Rather, if we regard ourselves as thinking people, we need to acknowledge that the information requires a different explanation other than the one that has been given to us. It’s not beholden upon us to piece together any such explanation. It is enough for us to show that the official narrative is contradicted and undermined by data that different arms of the Establishment have conspired together to ignore, omit or restrict for public consumption – activity which in itself is evidence of a cover-up. Cover-ups by government and its accessories are used to hide a truth unacceptable to a body that has it in its power to punish – the People, if they but knew it. And the author suspects that the truth of the Jo Cox incident is that it was yet another State Crime Against Democracy. Punishment is long overdue – if only the public would take an interest.
The witness Hichem Ben Abdallah is now well known in the pages hereabouts as being someone who gave us some very important information when he was interviewed in the first hours after the Jo Cox incident: “Britain First” was not something said by the man attacking Jo Cox. However, it has to be said that other testimony he gave was somewhat confusing – that is, it was confusing before we were able to appreciate that there was something skew-whiff about the the official narrative. Let’s revisit two pieces of data related via the eye-witness account of Ben Abdallah. The first follows immediately, and we’ll return to the second by-and-by:
[Ben Abdallah] said: “There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag.
(Source).
The attacker, wearing a white baseball cap, was interfered with by a supposedly otherwise innocent bystander as he tried to commit his crime. According to the corporate-media, not too long after the incident was first being reported, it emerged that the man who had intervened was a 77 year old known as Bernard Kenny. Now, Bernard Kenny is not so much a sideshow in the Jo Cox affair as a whole carnival in itself – because he might actually be dead (hence the reference to the funeral in the title). An obituary turned up on the internet for a Bernard Kenny, of the Leeds area, married to a Doreen – which was the same name of Kenny’s wife as per the Jo Cox narrative – and some eager people jumped to the conclusion that this was meant to be the Bernard Kenny. In other words, it appeared that Bernard Kenny couldn’t have intervened because he had been dead since 2013.
It later turned out that there was in fact another Bernard Kenny – a Bernard Carter Kenny – of Birstall itself, and this had been the man of the Jo Cox affair. Indeed, the corporate-media started to openly state the middle name when it came to cover the trial just so that there could be no confusion. The misunderstanding was solved, right? Well no, because at the time of the attack on Jo Cox, the following information was disseminated as gospel truth:
Mr Kenny shared the same birthday as the mother-of-two MP – he will turn 78 on Wednesday [22nd June] and was 36 years older than Mrs Cox.
(Source).
Calls are now growing for the former miner, who turns 78 on Wednesday – the same day that Cox had been due to celebrate her 42nd birthday – to be awarded the George Cross for his actions.
(Source).
On the other hand, Bernard Carter Kenny was apparently born in September of 1938 – as an internet researcher claims to have discovered (and the video can be viewed here). And note how Bernard Kenny was still 77 when, on the 26th June, he attended a Batley Bulldogs rugby league match and performed a ceremony in memory of Jo Cox ahead of kick-off – see the story here and here.
It very much appears, then, that the Bernard Kenny who the media claimed had intervened in the event wasn’t Bernard Carter Kenny, because (until anyone can show otherwise) the latter has the wrong birthday.
Maybe this is why there was deafening silence from Bernard Carter Kenny’s son, Phillip, when buzzed by the corporate-media. Mr Philip Kenny apparently taught geography at the grammar school in Heckmondwike, West Yorkshire, so we are told this made him Jo Cox’s teacher. Indeed, the fact came straight from the horse’s mouth (here):
In a Tweet posted in December 2015 she says: “End of an era. My former geography teacher Mr Kenny has retired from Heckmondwike Grammar. All the best for your retirement Phil.”
(although the school’s website currently implies that a Mr Kenny still works at the school)
Perhaps the Mirror journalists attempting to get a scoop thought that they would find grist for the myth when they approached Mr Kenny and his school for comment, and perhaps they didn’t imagine they would be met with this (from here):
Phil [Kenny], aged 56, declined to discuss the remarkable coincidence politely saying from his home in nearby Batley he did not want to talk.
Head Teacher Mike Cooke refused to discuss the link between the pair and declined to say if Jo may have known the former teacher’s “hero” dad.
If Bernard Kenny wasn’t involved in the Jo Cox incident, then we discover from corporate-media reportage that West Yorkshire police wouldn’t have been surprised. Officially – early on, at least – the man who had intervened was entirely much younger:
West Yorkshire Police said in a statement: “At 12.53pm today, police were called to a report of an incident on Market Street, Birstall, where a woman in her 40s had suffered serious injuries and is in a critical condition.
“A man in his late 40s to early 50s nearby also suffered slight injuries.”
(Source).
Bearing this in mind, now consider that second extract of Ben Abdullah (related) evidence – as was promised above:
Outside the library, he [Ben Abdullah] saw a bystander who he believed to be the owner of a nearby dry cleaners stepping in to help Ms Cox.
However, the dry cleaner owner in question has told The Indpendent it was not he who intervened, as has been believed in the community, but another bearded man of south Asian descent.
In this excerpt we discover a very important piece of information. Ben Abdallah thought that the man who had intervened in the incident had been a bearded man of south Asian descent. Specifically, Ben Abdallah thought it was a Mr Tahir of the local vicinity but he was mistaken – and this site has previously covered Mr Tahir’s denial. It was this denial that, as the author reckoned, at least, caused a little confusion and threatened to make Ben Abdallah look slightly wobbly as a witness – but the discovery of the Independent’s reportage has cleared everything up: Ben Abdallah saw a bearded man with Asian appearance taking on the attacker. He might have gone on to misidentify this man, but it doesn’t change the fact that he saw someone who wasn’t Bernard Kenny intervening in the incident.
Building on this not-insignificant piece of data, consider how at the trial of Thomas Mair, Bernard Kenny didn’t appear as a witness. He did, however, submit a Victim Personal Statement (VPS) (confirmed in the judge’s sentencing remarks – found here) which was read out – not by himself or indeed any member of his family (although it isn’t by any means a strict requirement). Instead, Bernard Kenny’s statement was read to the court by Whittam, the prosecuting lawyer.
Of the statement itself, the author can find little detail (here is some), and it would be very useful to know about the content (this is why it is withheld, one suspects). For it would appear that VPSs don’t have to rely on any facts. They deal with how a person perceives himself to be a victim of a crime. Note that Bernard Carter Kenny didn’t feel impacted upon enough to actually attend court himself, and arguably, such proxy representation for “Bernard Kenny” in court would mean fewer-to-no repercussions for any Bernard Kenny who wasn’t after all the Bernard Kenny who was involved in the Jo Cox affair.
Interestingly, the official excuse for Kenny’s absence apears to have been “not well enough to attend”. And perhaps the exact reason for Kenny’s illness was revealed in his statement – at least as far as the corporate-media reported it:
Mr Kenny said the knife had sliced into his liver, causing more damage than originally thought and that he found it hard to think about “how close to death I had come”.
A liver more badly damaged than first thought? Well, we were told, were we not, that Mair had plunged a 17/18cm blade into Kenny’s stomach “almost to the hilt”? Should we think it strange, then, that Bernard Kenny was well enough to be discharged from hospital 4 days after the incident, and – looking fighting fit in the photographs – lay flowers at a local rugby game a mere 10 days after the incident, but not be well enough to attend a trial – a murder trial to boot – many months later? But then again, on the day, the police didn’t seem too impressed with any wounding received by Bernard Kenny, as the following reportage demonstrates (emphasis added):
The temporary chief constable of West Yorkshire police, Dee Collins, said there was a large, ongoing investigation, with heightened visibility patrols in the area. She added that weapons had been retrieved from the scene, including a firearm.
At the press conference announcing Cox’s death, Collins said: “Jo was attacked by a man who inflicted serious and sadly, ultimately fatal injuries. Subsequently there was a further attack on a 77-year-old man nearby who has sustained injuries that are non-life threatening.
All this begs a question that really needs to be asked (so, not just out of passing interest); what was the the first instance in the corporate-media of Kenny being mentioned as the intervening man? The answer, at least as it appears, did not surprise the author. After much trawling of the reoportage, it appears that the identity of the have-a-go hero might first have been introduced into corporate-media coverage by none other than Clarke Rothwell – who, as we shall see, provided another positive identification of a white cap on the head of the assailant:
One of us, I think his name is Bernard, tried to intervene physically but got stabbed in the stomach, blood poured out of his wound and he fell to the ground. Everybody backed off.
(Source).
Now, Clarke Rothwell featured heavily in the first article at this site (links are above). That article featured witness testimony proffered by Rothwell early on in the day of the incident: a telephone conversation with the BBC that was then transcribed to text on a webpage. It was noticed in the said article that this very early account by Rothwell didn’t include any information regarding any shout of “Britain First” – which, of course, was the main strand of the rope by which Mair was strung up in the kangaroo court of public opinion (corporate-media presiding). Now if we look at that testimony again, we will also notice that it didn’t feature any attempt to identify the man who intervened either:
“When I looked round there’s a man stood there in his 50s with a white baseball cap on and a jacket with a gun, an old fashioned looking gun in his hand,” he said.
“He shot this lady once and then he shot her again, he fell to the floor, leant over shot her once more in the face area.
“Somebody tried to grab him, wrestling with him and then he wielded a knife, like a hunting knife, just started lunging at her with a knife half a dozen times. People were screaming and running from the area.”
(Source).
Now let’s introduce a man called Colin Frith. Colin is a dance teacher at an establishment roughly opposite the Birstall library on Market Street. He apparently had some contact with the intervening bystander, and his story about this appeared in the MailOnline. Furthermore, the MailOnline appears to be the only print media that Frith talked to because the Mirror, Telegraph, and the Sun all cite the MailOnline in their own articles about the adventures of Colin Frith. So, without further ado, after being told about the incident, Frith goes to the Sandwich & Co sandwich shop and encounters an injured person:
‘I saw a man who I didn’t know laying on the floor with his hand to his chest, he was bleeding quite a lot and his shirt was soaked in blood.
‘A number of people were around him and two girls were telling him to keep holding the wound. I ran back to my workplace to get my first aid kit.
‘Back at the cafe I lifted up the man’s shirt and could see it was a stab wound. I put any bandages I could grab as quickly around the wound which was between his rib cage and diaphragm area.
‘Me, my friend Scott and the girls told him to lie still and told him we’d take care of him.’
But within moment the seriousness of the situation became all too apparent.
He had been talking a bit and then he suddenly went into shock and started shaking and all the colour drained from him,’ Mr Frith, of nearby Birkenshaw.
‘I thought ‘Oh no he’s going to go!’ and I willed him to stay with us.
‘His wife was watching it all in the cafe. She was really upset and so worried about him.’
The thing that is very noticeable about this information, and not entirely unexpected, is that there is no description of the victim. Sure, the journalist couching the information in the article talks about a pensioner-this, and a pensioner-that, but all that Frith tells us is that “all the colour” drained from the victim. Now, it turns out that ITV did a filmed interview with Colin Frith (which can still be viewed here), and in this interview Frith was very concerned with the victim’s chest – so much so, that the viewer starts to get confused where the wound actually should have been. In fact, Frith says that when the man lifted his shirt, he couldn’t see a wound, but he could see plenty of blood – but this is further confused by Frith talking about putting pressure on the wound. In fact, the actual wellbeing of the man, at this moment in the entire incident, as a point of fact, also becomes newly confused by this interview. Frith distinctly states that the man was “sitting on his own” – so not lying prostrate on the floor, then – and that the man was reporting that he was fine, and indeed that Frith thought that he seemed alright.
The really strange thing about this witness, though, is that his twitter history shows no sign of dealing with this have-a-go hero, nor, actually, any inside information that he might have had by doing first-aid on this man. Colin Frith tweeted – not very frequently, mind – throughout the day on 16th June. Up to the point of the incident, he had been involved in a discussion about another subject entirely, but then there were four tweets that deal with the attack on Jo Cox. These are as follows:
At 14:10:
Thoughts with Jo and the gentleman who got stabbed outside work today! #crazyworldwelivein #Birstall
At 16:06
@BBCLookNorth spare a thought for the man who got stabbed because he went to intervene! #Birstall
At 17:29:
RIP #jocox What is this world coming to? #birstall
At 22:13:
@SkyNews @BBCBreaking does anyone have any info on the second victim? #birstall
What is to be made of the fact that there is no mention in these tweets of any encounter with the man who had intervened in the attack on Jo Cox? It looks to the author as if Frith is merely responding to basic information – stuff that he might only have heard reports of. The last tweet is interesting – it could be an enquiry as to the health of the individual (and this could suggest – albeit very weakly – that there had been engagement in the event), but there is still no statement of any special interest, though.
On the 17th June, Frith tweeted about the memorial held in Birstall that day – again, like a spectator.
On the morning of 18th June, Frith retweeted an article about the identity of the intervening man – Bernard Kenny.
Well done Bernard!
So, the first time that Frith talks about the identity of the man is after it has become common knowledge.
Much later on in the same day, Frith posts this:
Still feeling perplexed.
Still feeling perplexed? It would be nice to enquire, instead of having a jolly good guess, as to why Frith isn’t completely happy, but I fully suspect that if anyone approaches this gentleman with questions, they will soon be getting a visit from police to warn them off. I categorically do not encourage it.
Before we wrap this dose of analysis up, there is one more moment of confluence between Rothwell’s first testimony and that of Ben Abdallah’s to deal with. Please consider the following extract:
Mr Rothwell said: “He ran past the Tesco Express and I jumped in my van to try and follow him and maybe knock him over. He threw off his black puffer jacket as he ran away.”
(Source).
This is interesting. Our other witness, Ben Abdullah, reported that he was told that the attacker had run down the “steps of Tesco” (please see “Thomas Mair: all by himself?” on this site for further details). So, is Rothwell also saying the same thing? Given that Rothwell seemingly attempted to followe the attacker, it is reasonable to assume that he did witness the route of escape. And this would be the third point of basic agreement of fact between Rothwell’s raw account and Ben Abdullah’s story: 1) the white cap, 2) the intervention by a passer-by, 3) the attacker escaping down the “steps of Tesco”.
If the man who attacked Jo Cox escaped by way of the Tesco Express on Smithies Lane, then he couldn’t be the man that appears in CCTV footage reaching the end of Market Street and who police say is Thomas Mair (this character is not wearing a “bobble jacket” either). In fact, given that the attacker went down Union Street (as Rothwell also reports) it would make better sense for him to have taken this Tesco shortcut. The only benefit of going all the way down Market Street would be to get caught on CCTV fleeing the supposed crime – and who would actually benefit from that?
This provides a nice segue to the next – and final – point. As the reader may well know, the actual attack itself was supposedly caught on CCTV, and therefore CCTV supposedly caught Mair perpetrating the crime. So, we’ll next examine what some court reporting had to say about that.
COURT 8 of the Old Bailey sat in shocked silence as CCTV footage from the bottom of Market Street showed Thomas Mair’s attack on Jo Cox.
After the silver Astra driven by Fazila Aswat comes up the street from Bradford Road, they find a parking space just before the library.
Although the incident is in the distance, Mair can be seen crossing the road from the Vape Lounge where he had been lurking since noon on Thursday, June 16.
After what seems to be a coming together of Mair with the group of women, he can be seen on top of Mrs Cox before breaking into a brief jog down and across Market Street. He stops suddenly in the middle of the road, then returns to attack Mrs Cox again, this time between the two cars, before finally walking off more calmly this time.
(Source).
There are a few points of order to be mentioned about this footage and the reporting of it; these are going to feature in a later article. In the meantime, please notice that whoever described this CCTV footage as played to the court, they did not mention any intervention by a bystander. Furthermore, when we look at the footage released by West Yorks Police purporting to show Mair making his escape (which must be of the same stock and taken from the same perspective and location as that described in court), there is no visible sign of another man injured – no one lying prostrate in the road, for instance. And on top of that, the author has looked for trial reportage in corporate-media in which Jo Cox’s political assistants, Fazila Aswat (Jo Cox’s manager and daughter of a former Labour Party councillor) and Sandra Major (Jo Cox’s senior case worker), who had been in the car with her, mention any intervention. None can be found.
What these two women are said to have done at the trial, however, is talk about the attacker wearing a black hat. This hasn’t been reported in main stream media – and the reader would probably appreciate the reason as to why– but nevertheless, we have had other information that is independent of the trail that verifies this story. The women describe a man in a black hat, fail to mention any intervention, but talk about the attacker making political statements – this is the second version of events. We’ll deal with all this in another article.
