Darren Osborne: the least convincing patsy in the entire history of patsies?

The conviction of Darren Osborne has been used to blame the likes of Tommy Robinson for fomenting extremism – and why not? After all, it is Robinson’s role to have hundreds of thousands of idiots follow him to a place where they’ll be blackguarded as the sort of extremists that require the sternest of policing for intimidation into submission. Everyone will suffer for it. FBEL warned of it when first covering Osborne’s act of “terror”†:

In short, the Alt-Right “alternative media”, of which Rebel Media and “On the Spot Tommy” is now quite a substantial part (seemingly), has more than a whiff of the Government about it, and is clearly contributing to a recognisable strategy of tension…

These people are all players, unwitting or not, for the Government in its problem-reaction-solution-utilising fraudulent rule to become uncontested in rule – and for a nightmare outcome that is already manifesting itself as armed low-IQ thugs in black goosestepping up and down every quiet High Street in the land…

Sheeple never heed warnings, if they even bother to seek them out and read them at all; but there is value in recording certain details of a false flag that’s been executed to create scope for a political agenda, and it doesn’t concern itself with bleating morons who won’t be taught. Part of that value is in the preservation of the narrative in its initial form. As experienced event-sceptics will know, just as the first casualty of war is the truth, for false flags it is the narrative. The story will undoubtedly change to circumnavigate detail that otherwise would render it unbelievable.

At the time, here at FBEL it was considered rather implausible that Osborne, from all the way over in Cardiff, could have knowledge of Ramadan mosque service times at Finsbury (a place that everyone has heard about), in order to hire a van, and arrive in London to mow Muslims down on the street. The idea that he could do it in the state of drunkenness he was evidently suffering from was laughed at. Impossible. The following extract from the Telegraph was used as the main source of that FBEL article:

Osborne, who was not known to the police or security services, is believed to have driven 15 miles from his home in the Welsh capital to Pontyclun Van Hire on Sunday, hiring an £80-a-night Luton van.

He then drove more than 150 miles to north London throughout the evening, careering onto the pavement in Finsbury Park shortly after midnight.

As can only be expected by a tired false-flag watcher, at the very same time, the “when and where” about the hiring of the van was being written about in contradictory terms elsewhere in the corporate-media. In Cardiff, in the early hours of Sunday, 18th June 2017 (so about 24 hours before the attack took place), Osborne was shopped to the police for being drunk at the wheel of a vehicle – that he’d evidently already acquired. Oh yes, dear reader. Although this incident is always portrayed as “neighbour concerned about welfare of man sleeping across the 3 seats of a Pontyclun hire truck”, and although the man who called it in, Edward Gardiner – who, we notice, somehow didn’t recognise Osborne at the time, and also seemed to think (from how he spoke) that the van was new to the vicinity – probably even had good intentions, the reality is that Osborne was doing something that by rights, at the very least, should have had him in the cells overnight. South Wales Police, who admitted that they went out to investigate, offered this as an excuse for not hauling Osborne down to the station:

Officers attended, a male was asleep inside the vehicle, which showed no signs of having been driven recently.

The officers’ assessment was that no offences were disclosed.

Edward Gardiner said that the fellow was reeking of alcohol and couldn’t be woken when prodded. We are supposed to believe that some busy-bodying British police left things like that? The reader can well imagine what really happened; the case got radioed in, and the investigating cops were told to leave well alone?

By the time of the trial the narrative had further changed, this time in terms of Osborne’s intentions, and how they were reflected in the timeline of his progress to London and then the committing of the crime. Osborne, we are told, wanted to attack the Al-Quds day pro-Palestinian march that was due to take place, and kill Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott who he hoped would be present. On arriving in London, however, it was discovered that security measures wouldn’t allow the attack to go ahead. So, Osborne drove around the capital city until at last he asked someone directions to the nearest mosque.

As for detail about when Osborne set off for London, the author could only find a paragraph in a search result for a Times article behind its paywall:

Jonathan Rees, QC, opening the case for the prosecution, said Mr Osborne hired a van near his home on June 17, went to his local pub, the Holly Bush, that night and drove to London the next morning.

We also know that the Al-Quds march was set to start at 3pm; one could see that setting off in the morning from Cardiff would be necessary in order to travel the 3 hours and 150 miles in time to hit Jeremy Corbyn (who wouldn’t be there, incidentally) with a hire truck.

Now consider this, as reported by Sky News on Monday 19th June, 2017:

Khadijeh Sherizi, who lives next door to Osborne, said: “I saw him on the news and I thought ‘oh my God’ that is my neighbour.

“He has been so normal. He was in his kitchen yesterday afternoon singing with his kids.

“He was the dad of the family. He has kids. He lives next door. He seemed polite and pleasant to me.”

On the afternoon of Sunday 18th June, Darren Osborne was at home, as further evidenced by this:

He was last seen buying bags laden with alcohol from the local Aldi less than ten hours before he allegedly launched the Finsbury Park terror attack.

A neighbour told MailOnline: ‘He was buying wine and beer and seemed agitated but that was nothing knew (sic). He was often drunk and cuckoo. We know him around here as Mr Moody.

‘The van he’d hired from Pontyclun was parked outside. He has never been someone you’d necessarily want to spend much time with but none of us would ever have thought him capable of such awful violence.’

This witness evidence clear implies that Osborne was still in Cardiff buying alcohol after 2pm on the Sunday afternoon. The official story that he wanted to attack the Al-Quds march has to be highly doubtful, if not out-right claptrap. Moreover, it looked like Osborne was fixing to get plastered again, and of course the pictures of his arrest suggest that he accomplished this mission. Moreover, it came out in the trial that Osborne had managed to urinate in his trousers, and wanted to take them off in the footwell of the truck cab (from here – please consult this link when checking on the court reporting referred to below).

Remarkably, it appears that Osborne’s obvious and very high level of inebriation, and its affect on his capacity to drive a vehicle from Cardiff to London, and then around London for an undisclosed time was never tested in court. Furthermore, Osborne’s behaviour when he took the stand clearly demonstrated that he had mental health issues – no doubt exacerbated by his “functioning alcoholism” – an ailment that was reported in corporate-media after his arrest, and which begs a question: Osborne must have been under treatment for his illness while in custody; what was it, and how did it affect his ability to stand trial? We don’t know, but we do know that Osborne was not consistent in a way that shows he was not briefed to defend his plea, or that shows he just couldn’t maintain some very simple logic. He offered a plot to kill Jeremy Corbyn in defence of the accusation of killing Makram Ali. He indicated a desire to kill Muslims in defence of the same accusation. He was a disaster for his own case.

The author feels that Osborne probably suffers from alcohol psychosis, which causes hallucinations and delusions. These mental aberrations apparently occur during withdrawal from alcohol as well as in the worst ravages of drunkenness. The very drunk are also not able to read reality very well – meaning that laws of rational cause and effect no longer apply, and the actions and words of others aren’t received in the same way they are transmitted. When the Prosecution persued the issue of Osborne’s wanting to remove his trousers, he said:

Things happened…I can’t remember, maybe I decided against it, I don’t know I can’t remember, it doesn’t really seem significant.”

This tells the author that Osborne was clueless at the time of the incident, and if he was suffering a full blown psychotic episode it just didn’t matter at the court trial. In fact, Osborne was treated like a man who had been in full control of his faculties – during the incident, and at the trial. It allows us to say that his defence was token – which in itself is a true sign of a show trial to commit a patsy. Again, this should only be expected because specifics that could shatter the Prosecution’s case are not going to be allowed to spoil the desired outcome, and a defence team that is playing along isn’t going to touch them in any meaningful way, if at all.

But what is even more disgraceful is that an unmitigated piece of garbage by the name of Jonathan Rees QC used Osborne’s incoherent rambling in court to the advantage of the Prosecution: for Osborne was allowed to talk about two other men who he said had helped him plan his attack. Dave and Terry Jones had been fellow drinkers in a pub. Osborne was allowed to talk about them as if they were imaginary (the reader might have seen a real case of a drunk talking to folks who aren’t there). The following is a selection of the questioning Osborne faced on the issue, and his answers (bear in mind that the whole area of CCTV as proof in such incidents has pretty much been discredited):

“Where are you suggesting that you picked up Dave?” Mr Osborne asks [this is an error in Lizzie Dearden’s reporting; it would be Mr Rees asking Mr Osborne].

“Shortly before the incident,” he replies. “I don’t know what it’s called.”

Mr Rees asks how he can explain how Dave was picked up if it wasn’t caught on CCTV.

Mr Osborne: “It must have been at a point where CCTV didn’t pick that image up. I wouldn’t have thought it covers every single…”

Asked what happened after Dave was picked up, Mr Osborne says he told him Terry was “getting them in” at the pub [to which Osborne thought they were now headed] and that they joked about Diane Abbott but didn’t discuss a plan.

Mr Osborne claims Dave hid himself in the passenger footwell and when asked why he didn’t question it adds: “We’re a strange bunch.”

Asking how Mr Osborne switched driving with Dave while the van was moving, he said they “shimmied over real quick…simultaneously.”

Mr Rees argues…: “All of this, I suggest, is a desperate attempt to try to place Dave – who wasn’t there – in the driver’s seat. It’s an absurd account, isn’t it Mr Osborne?”

He says the prosecutor is wrong.

“You know full well, Mr Osborne, that only one person got out of the van and that person was you. Dave may be a funny fellow but he’s not a magician, is he?” he says.

Mr Osborne replies: “He’s an illusionist, he can make himself vanish perhaps, I don’t know”

Rees and his ilk (who aren’t as big and clever as they think they are – persecuting the barking mad has no merit attached to it at all) had better pray that there isn’t a restoration of law and order in the UK. Just because a court, which is evidently corrupt, says something is so, it doesn’t make it. Osborne was not alone in the truck, as we are about to discover. And so, it appears that the treatment of Osborne was an operation to discredit a multi-witnessed alternative scenario: Osborne had accomplices. Think on it reader; the court as a tool of Establishment abuse, not as an arbiter of justice.

The initial emergence of accomplices as a fact attested to by witnesses was recorded in written corporate-media:

There was initial confusion about how many people had carried out the attack, with some on the ground saying they thought three men were in the van and that two had run away. But, within a few hours, police confirmed they had no information to suggest that the attacker had any accomplices.

Additionally, the 21st Century Wire website located examples of witnesses on the site of the incident who were able to tell corporate-media that two men had escaped from the vehicle to speedily depart. A third man, Osborne, had been apprehended by the crowd.

One of these filmed reports is very interesting because it features the award-winning Sky “journalist”, Ashish Joshi, making a statement to the effect that there was word on the street that Osborne had two accomplices; he said this after having been told of three suspects:

Another witness we’ve spoken to this morning said the same thing; he said there were three people; so you’re corroborating that. So there were three people in the van.

There is one piece of data in the coverage of Osborne’s appearance on the stand that also points to a conspiracy:

Mr Rees is questioning the defendant on the Nokia phone he claims to have bought and used to contact Terry and Dave in the four months leading up to the attack and on the day.

It was not recovered and police have found no record of Mr Osborne buying or using any phone other than the iPhone found at the scene and another at his home.

Mr Rees asks Mr Osborne about how he kept in touch with his alleged co-conspirators on the day.

He says it “seems” he had it in the van but can’t remember the number of the phone or when he got rid of it.

Mr Rees says: “You can’t remember because there was no Nokia phone, was there?”

Mr Osborne insists there was.

Evidently, Osborne’s accomplices – or should we call them his handlers – retrieved the phone. It should only be expected – it would be incriminating evidence. If the court had allowed for Osborne’s shambling drunkeness, his ability to find his backside with both hands would have been in doubt, let alone his ability to notice when he’d lost a mobile phone. Additionally, the notion that a phone could be untraceable is not a revolutionary idea, and the fact that it is treated as such by Rees again illustrates the barring of reality for fear it will impinge on the fantasy. Pay-as-you-go phones have been available for a long time. And the significance in the case is that it is a specific tool which would have to be a necessity for a conspiracy that would frame Osborne in its execution.

Of course, none of this would have been allowed to come anywhere near the courtroom of Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb – Dame Parmjit Kaur Cheema-Grubb – an epitomic figure of the New (and entirely corrupt) Model justice system. In her sentencing remarks, she praised the “intelligent British jury who saw through your [Osborne’s] pathetic last-ditch attempt to deceive them by blaming someone else for your crimes”. In other words, she head-patted the acquiescent sheeple. The author hasn’t looked into this very deeply, but it looks as though a jury might be able to acquit a suspect on grounds of unfitness to stand. When are Britons going to get a back-bone?

Even just a few years ago a case like Darren Osborne’s would have caused objection by public figures concerned with the proper operation of due process. No one needs to buy into a “conspiracy theory” to apply simple questions that cast doubt on his conviction. It’s not surprising that the entirely corrupt Establishment that preys on a lunatic in a court room in order to socially engineer has ultra-politically correct judges, because all affirmative action is towards creating dysfunction. If Osborne was delusional, at least he had the excuse of the drink. The people operating on UK society to bring about their god-hood (research William Cooper – link in the menu at the top of the page) are the really dangerous psychotics that are threat to more than a few Muslims milling about on a London street corner. And if there is anything pathetic about the case of Darren Osborne it is the desperate scraping of the grooves between the planks at the bottom of the barrel to find a victim to take the fall for State crime.

† Which wasn’t prosecuted as terror, by the way, although the Establishment has figured out a way by which it can still label a crime an act of “terror” even if it isn’t one – read this and be astonished.