Did Krypteia asset bludgeon PCSO Julia James to death?

Regarding the title of this piece: it is perfectly reasonable, if the Daily Mail is going to produce its own asking in its title “did serial killer bludgeon PCSO Julia James to death?”, and when there is no evidence for such speculation: Kent Police have identified no suspects at this time for the crime which took place on 27th April, when a woman was attacked (sustaining blunt trauma injuries to the head) and killed while walking a dog in a field near her home [in Kentish countryside]. On the other hand, the behaviour of an element of corporate-media (and let’s recognise it at long last as what it is – an embedded Mi7, which wasn’t decommissioned but only camouflaged) is evidence of the perpetrator being a UK Government asset creating grist for yet another psychological operation of the type that there is also evidence to strongly suggest has occurred time and again before.

Indeed, speculation about a serial killer is but one aspect of the incriminating conduct that corporate-media has been engaged in – conduct which now here will be inventoried as it is inspected more closely. But first of all, to bear in mind for contrast while the media reports are examined, please consider the words of  Kent Police assistant chief constable, Tom Richards, delivered in a press conference at the end of the same week in which James was killed, where he revealed that no motive for the killing could be discerned:

I would encourage people to be cautious, to be vigilant, to be aware of their surroundings, to report anything of concern to Kent Police… but no, I’m not specifically advising women, or anyone for that matter, to stay at home or to avoid any particular locations, but until we understand exactly what has happened and why it’s happened, of course I’d understand why people would be concerned.”

In another place, Richards was reported as saying:

This is an awful incident but it’s an incredibly rare and isolated incident not linked at this stage to any other offences.

As it happens, even while this – which might just be lip service to normality – was featuring in corporate-media coverage, wild chatter would continue, just as if there wasn’t going to be any danger of letting an official police stance counterproductive for trying to create, by speculation, motivation for murder become an obstacle.

Let it be understood that the very serious thing that corporate-media has essentially been caught in the act of doing is trying to disguise the fact of the matter of a motiveless attack. It has been doing this because a motiveless attack points to the actual motive of killing to create grist for the psychological operation whereby corporate-media, playing its part in the conspiracy, creates fear and anxiety and hysteria and trauma in the public, nationwide not just locally, from an incident that should never elicit such things. So, it’s not true that there is no motivation for killing Julia James, because there clearly is. A high ranking policeman in the UK, of course, wouldn’t admit to it, but at least he didn’t take the bait while addressing a pack of intelligence agents who were evidently trying to have him respond in a way that could suit their purpose further.

The stirring started two days after the killing, by which time police had announced that it had a murder on its hands. A story emerged (29th April) about a confrontation between a woman in the vicinity of where James had been killed, and what was implied to be a threatening male. The reader is asked to notice in the quote below the employment of the technique, by the writer of the particular Daily Mail article from whence the extract is taken, whereby what appears to be an innocuous incident is conflated with the murder event:

A female dog walker was confronted by a prowler in a van one mile away from where 53-year-old PCSO Julia James was murdered weeks later, locals claimed today.

The woman is said to have been accosted by a man in a white transit vehicle as she walked along a quiet path in the village of Nonnington, Kent, two weeks ago.

Mrs James, believed to have suffered severe head injuries, was found on a path at the edge of a field behind her house at 4pm in neighbouring Snowdown on Tuesday afternoon with her faithful Jack Russell, Toby, by her side.

Police are treating her death as murder and fear she may have been killed by a random stranger. Officers investigating her death have been made aware of another potential incident earlier this month.

The dog walker was allegedly pestered by a man in Nonnington as she walked her dog. She managed to distract him before fleeing and shouting out for help.

The author would like to recommend to the reader to treat the anecdote of the woman and the man in the van as a fiction. It’s use in a literary device that intends to impress upon its audience that women are routinely in danger of being murdered is the big giveaway.

Be that as it may, the story evidently became foundation upon which to build the necessary legend of a hotspot where strangers were predisposed to cause insult and upset, and again pose as a threat to women:

Police investigating the murder of their colleague are probing if she was killed in a ‘sexually motivated’ attack after a woman claims she was flashed by a man in the area weeks before…

There had been a ‘flasher’ in the village but it had not been reported. One woman told The Times: ‘The victim was shocked, she didn’t want to take much notice. She didn’t take it further.’

The day after it was revealed that a female dog walker was confronted by a prowler in a van a mile from the crime scene.

This was a 30th April story, and the reader will note that claimed as being the origin of the indecent exposure claim is The Times, or core “Mi7”. When the author tried to hunt the original Times article down, it couldn’t be found, but one can assume that The Times’ source won’t have a name. Indeed, that a shocked victim was in fact not all that bothered after all – which is how this fairy-tale writer seeks to explain the obvious absence of a police report – is the giveaway.

The Times was busy with the Julia James story, because its agents also appear to have produced the idea of no-go areas in the vicinity of the site of the murder. Obviously, the impression one gets when reading the following material (published 30th April) is that certain people are at risk of being murdered as they go about their normal business. Notice that there is an attempt to give authority to what is characterised as police advice by claiming unnamed part-time police personnel as source – which is, frankly, pathetic. As we have seen, the attitude of the police at the very top of the chain of command has been that there should not be disruption to usual behaviour:

Women were warned to stay away from wooded areas and children were told not to walk their dogs after the killing of a police community support officer whose body was found on a remote path in Kent.

Detectives are investigating whether Julia James, 53, who had worked for the police for nearly 15 years, was set upon by a stranger on the edge of a field near Aylesham. PCSOs patrolling the village, near Canterbury, told women to stay away from wooded areas and not to “veer from your normal route” when walking home.

Coming after the press conference by Kent Police’s Tom Richards was a piece that more than ever tried to convince an audience that there was a motive for James’ murder. It might have originated in The Sun, given that that was the outlet who cited unnamed sources, but the following is from the Daily Mail (2nd May):

It has now emerged that local police were aware of a potential dog napping incident which took place weeks before Ms James’s death – with some now suggesting the killing could have been a ‘dog napping gone wrong’.

The warning, published in a parish magazine, urges dog walkers not to go out alone and even to carry an alarm or walking stick.

Police say the warning was sparked by a report of a suspicious man in a BMW approaching two dog walkers back in March.

The man, thought to be in his 60s, is said to have offered to ‘exchange’ the pair’s dog for cigarettes…

Today a source told the Sun that Ms James’s death could have been a dog napping gone ‘horribly wrong’.

The source said: ‘It’s possible the murderer was targeting her dog but it went horribly wrong.

‘The killer is not going to want to take a chipped dog knowing he’s just committed a murder.

‘He may have panicked and fled, leaving the dog.’

There is a distinct possibility that “dognapping” is a psyop in itself which emerged during “lockdown” – or the economic blockade with the Coronahoax as pretext – so as to discourage people from destroying the optics by spending time outside their homes, but whether it is a real thing, or something that is blown out of proportion in the minds of people who have been made to think they are always a potential victim, to call this incident one in which there is an attempt to steal a dog (which is the proper way to refer to this crime – a dog is property, not a person), would not be accurate. As for the truth of the story itself, there’s no need to doubt this, because one can imagine that the episode would be the exact sort that would twist the knickers of the type who produces a parish magazine. From an image of the “dognapping” warning notice (reproduced in corporate-media), it is suggested that another PCSO may have been involved in the production, so again, with it potentially being a project by which a part-time cop gets to feel as if she is doing something to justify her sense of authority, this is perhaps not something to treat very seriously. The weight irrespectively given to it by corporate-media, however, is self-explanatory.

This example could not be left behind, of course, without mentioning the fact that James’ dog was not stolen. This is perhaps exactly why Kent Police, at the top of the command chain, have said no motive for the attack could be discerned.

Naturally, The Sun is not deterred, and using a source whose credentials are not known, tries to explain away the apparent ironic flaw. Of course, a counter point to the argument offered by The Sun is that if someone discovered in the process of stealing a chipped dog that he might have to murder in order to achieve his aim, then why continue in the process? This, of course, assumes that a robber would have any need to worry about whether or not a dog is electronically tagged or not. It might not be the case.

So, in actual fact, that the dog was left behind is reason to say that robbery of the animal was not a motive, which would fit in with Kent Police’s official overall appraisal of no motive to be discerned.

Perhaps it’s because that element of corporate-media which exploits a crisis to traumatise have so little out of which to make hay (leaving people at the business end of the operation feeling a little exposed) that there has been resort to speculation regarding a serial killer – and this is where there is full circle arrival at the matter with which this piece opened.

This approach involves linkage with what is known as the “Chillenden murders” of 1996 – which happened within a few miles of where Julia James was killed – and the idea that the man, one Michael Stone, who has been convicted for the crime was in fact innocent. Thus, the argument would go, a would-be serial killer is at large.

Well, what with Kent Police specifically stating that there is no link to other crime, this would perhaps be a too obviously ulteriorly motivated bid to set up motive for killing for corporate-media to attempt unless it was framed within the context of Michael Stone’s seemingly permanent (and presumably expensive) legal representation applying to public opinion in the matter of their client’s innocence. Representation has also been made to Kent Police, says the Mail of something claimed by Mark McDonald the QC, no less, who campaigns on behalf of Michael Stone.

‘I’ve reached out to Kent Police through their hotline, and said I’ve got all the material on alternative suspects from Chillenden.

‘There were five alternative suspects. It’s remarkably similar. I haven’t heard back from them yet, but I’ve got everything – names, addresses, dates of birth.’

We should note that whoever the official police suspects were, the number one alternative suspect for the Chillenden murders as far as the Michael Stone advocacy complex is concerned has been Levi Bellfield, who has a concrete alibi this time in the form of being incarcerated. As such, what with having been fundamentally wrong at the first time of asking, this campaign has dubious credibility, and one begins to wonder if the whole issue of complaining about the injustice done to Stone is all part of the game of dragging up old cases to traumatise  the public with them over again.

Moreover, the basis of the Michael Stone advocacy complex to invite itself (or be invited) into this issue is the very dubious tattle that corporate-media has been exploiting to accelerate a sense of threat:

Mark McDonald QC said: ‘There are some concerning questions here. Reports have talked about police in the area looking for a reported attempted dognapper in his 60s in a BMW.

‘He would have been in his 30s at the time of the Chillenden murders.‘

That a man – who didn’t do anything wrong – was in his 30s in the 1990s does not a suspect in the killing of Julia James make, and frankly, it is highly questionable why the Daily Mail would be giving what is an unsupportable (verging on lunatic) view so much column space – except that it allows for the opportunity to present the idea that whoever killed James is an ever-present threat who is motivated by killing itself. As such, two requirements are satisfied simultaneously: the establishment of a motive for a murderer when there isn’t one, and the inducement of fear in the public.

And ultimately, it is this conduct, which is especially suspiciously clear to see when an investigating police force is not, on the surface, feeding the intelligence agency output (as the Metropolitan Police does), that incriminates the Krypteia, and that’s why there is justification to ask if James was murdered by intelligence agency assets.

Update, 5th May: The Sun and the Daily Mail are at it again today:

Ms James’s killer may have deliberately left their phone at home to avoid being traced as desperate police stopped cars in the hope of a breakthrough, it has been revealed.

A lack of GPS data close to where the mother-of-two was bludgeoned to death in a Kent village north of Dover suggests that her attacker is ‘local’ and a man, a source claimed.

Ms James was murdered eight days ago but no arrests have been made, with Britain’s FBI, the National Crime Agency, brought in to help with the forensics search of the fields where she was found dead on Tuesday, April 27.

As the hunt for the fugitive continues, Kent officers were stopping drivers in Aylesham, asking them where they were on the day she died and taking their names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers and registration plates. Such is the panic locally, dog walkers are being urged not to go out alone and even to carry a rape alarm or walking stick.

It came as Ms James’ family hit out at the lack of public uproar around her murder – two months after mass vigils and protests over the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard, who was found in woodland around 25 miles from where she died. Her son Patrick visited flowers left in her memory yesterday.

A source told The Sun: ‘A week is a long time in a murder investigation. It’s understood extensive phone signal and GPS checks have failed to locate anything of note, leading them to suspect he has left it at home on purpose.

‘Phone data and analysis plays a huge part in the vast majority of murder investigations. A huge amount of effort is going into finding him. Not taking a mobile phone would suggest he’s local as he would need to know the area.’

(Sources: The Sun, Daily Mail).

The Sun, then, thanks to another anonymous source, is here trying to establish not the motive, but a profile of an attacker – and do it out of nothing, using no evidence for anything (it is particularly significant that Kent Police have said nothing about mobile phones in relation to this case). This attempt to force an issue (coming out of frustration in certain ranks, no doubt) comes at the same time, and thus would be exploiting, Kent Police’s futile (and unlawful) road block, whereby local people are being treated as suspects (the arrogance of UK police forces, and the willingness to comply with violations of their liberty by the feeble British public [especially when done by police merely for creating the appearance of activity in an investigation], never ceases to amaze the author). Notice the linkage too with the outrageous piece of “journalism” claiming nothing less than panic in the local populace – with the use of the same old chatter regarding changing behaviour to stay safe from a phantom menace.

Note also that there is exasperation about the too little public awareness of, or interest in the James case. While this appears to come from family, the author suspects that it doesn’t, and it would be interesting to know who would be having conversations with Julia James’ relatives in order to seed the idea that her death and the investigation into a murder should deserve a higher profile. After that, of course, there must (conveniently) be a willing intelligence dissemination complex that is ready and happy to carry out what appears to be wishes emanating from the bereaved (how could anyone refuse), or else there couldn’t subsequently be, for instance, a campaign with national scope to have people light candles on their doorsteps in a vigil for Julia James, could there?