Published On: Wed, Aug 18th, 2021

In Plymouth, the Krypteia at the bottom of the garden?

The recent incident in Plymouth involving one Jake Davison was a false flag attack as part of a scheme to promote awareness in a mainstream audience of an aspect of what can be characterised as right-wing terrorism. It was a false flag because Davison could not credibly have ever owned a shotgun. The story whereby Davison had a shotgun licence suspended and a weapon taken from him, and then all this rescinded, is one that is meant to reinforce a belief in an original bestowment – but here at FBEL it is suspected that this never happened. If Davison had a weapon which he used to kill people on 12th August, then he must have had very special dispensation to have it – dispensation that was awarded in time for the operation. Otherwise,  he had it illegally.

However, this particular article is not for discussing the impossibility of Davison’s legal gun owning, although it proceeds in a way that reminds of another argument for why a usually unemployed 20 (something) year-old with no apparent connection to any gun club, and with no other demonstrable good reason to own one, would not be licensed to keep a shotgun: place.

Of the location where the recent false flag involving took place, The Times had this to say:

The shootings took place on the border of two of Plymouth’s most deprived areas: Keyham, the area by the dockyard that houses many of the city’s remaining dockworkers and Royal Navy recruits, and North Prospect, a once notorious housing estate that has been subject to a multimillion-pound regeneration in the past two decades.

In fact, Biddick Drive, where the incident is said to have started, is in a different ward to North Prospect, and in the same one as other streets in Keyham, so of course one finds that The Times is muddying the waters, and that one must focus on the fact that the area where the incident took place is one from which information could be tightly controlled by the simple act of issuing an order. This would explain why the incident seems to have had no social media presence in the duration when it was said to have taken place (18.10 to 18.23, when police found Davison dead – although we are also told that the spree lasted only 6 minutes). Granted, video appeared later of a body on a pavement with police in attendance – but presumably this was a sanctioned release at the tip of an effort to create a chilling effect: there was loud and immediate protest about the appearance of this after-the-fact imagery, and talk of prosecution against others who might have the indecency to post “rumour fuelling” information to social media. There’s no doubt that the message would have been received loud and clear where it was intended to make an impression.

It is no coincidence that what did appear in social media (and then was promoted so that one couldn’t miss it) came from what would emerge as, what we might call, a narrative-driving eye witness.

A narrative-driving eyewitness is one that is immediately latched onto by corporate-media who uses the testimony to reinforce the asserted fact of an incident. Sharron Turner was a character who became widely quoted in early coverage, either as an anonymous “Sharron” (who didn’t want to reveal her surname), but also, depending where one looked, with reference to the full name.

The image below is a screen shot of a social media post by someone called Sharron Turner – who we must assume is the same corporate-media witness. In any case, the social media post reads as follows:

OMG gunman behind my garden, Shot a young woman and a young girl plus possibly some others as he ran from the scene, currently hes on route to wolsely road still shooting at random people,, no idea where the other ones has gone, So we on a lock in atm

The post looks as if it was generated at 18.28, which is at a time after Davison is said to have killed himself. The reader should also note that the key information is incorrect. A young woman and a young girl (who would elsewhere be called a mother and daughter) were not victims together as is implied, and in fact one would find it very hard to define any of the adult female victims as being young. Also, if Sharron Turner saw the incident at its commencement in Biddick Drive, as other testimony she provided indicates is her claim, then if the gunman went towards Wolsely Road from that location, he would have been going in the wrong direction according to the official narrative.

What this social media post probably constitutes is effort to create an appearance of organic release of information. That it suffers from divergence script-wise from the final story would be typical. With these things, it seems, as long as an impactful impression is created as early as possible, then any confliction against a final narrative is never of much concern for those who engineer such incidents (there is a reliance on corporate-media consumers to shrug it off). There should be no surprise that the one correct detail in the post was the shooting of a young girl, which would be a device for increasing public trauma whether or not any truth of it was known at the time of writing.

Also not surprising is the appearance of the information about being in a lockdown. One technique for perpetrating a false flag is to have the police officially respond to an incident so that the public can become excluded from visiting, or even looking into an area in which a reconstruction can take place (if one is needed)†. In this case, the necessary development of fear so that the public does not investigate is nurtured by an implication that there are shooters other than the one that Sharron Turner has “seen” in the vicinity of her garden (hence, the reason for the title of this article) and therefore much risk in even standing next to a window, and that in any case, police have locked down the area.

Interestingly, Sharron Turner is a character who the author could not find listed at 192.com as a person who has ever lived in Plymouth. However, if Sharron Turner is a real person, and also a resident near Biddick Drive, then all the signs point to her reporting second hand information – and, in fact, there is an overt indication that she is conveying received information in one of the many references to her evidence in corporate-media. The following is from Yahoo News (originally from the Daily Beast) appearing overnight after the day of the incident:

Sharron Turner, a witness who said she lives behind the area where gunfire erupted, told The Times a gunman had “kicked in” the front door of a semi-detached house before shooting a young mother and her daughter, who was aged about 5. Turner said she had been told the shooter was armed with a semi-automatic weapon.

The reader will no doubt notice the elaboration regarding the type of weapon: again, this is feeding of information to create greatest possible impact. And please notice how The Times was evidently involved in establishing immediate narrative – and this would make sense given how the organisation is core Mi7. Likewise, the BBC was very overtly at the crux of the establishment of narrative using testimony from “Sharron Turner”. The following is from what might be the BBC article which first alludes to the eyewitness in question: when the author found it on the day if the incident, it had either been published at 23.46, or updated at that time:

Eyewitness Sharron, who lives near Biddick Drive and did not want to give her full name, said what happened was “horrendous and so sad”.

“Firstly, there was shouting, followed by gunshots – three possibly four to begin with,” she said.

“This was when the shooter kicked in the door of a house and randomly started shooting … He ran from the house shooting as he ran and proceeded to shoot at a few people in the linear park up from the drive.”

She said the “shooter proceeded along Royal Navy Avenue still shooting”.

Of course, the story about the gunman kicking down the door of a house and randomly shooting doesn’t ring true to the official narrative, where the incident began with a specific argument between Davison and his mother in a house that they shared as a home. Again, the author posits that this is storytelling for creating impact, and of course for establishing the impression of immediacy and realness of an incident. On the other hand, within this account is detail that would become official narrative regarding the progress of the gunman.

The following was published by the Mirror the next morning after the incident – and from it we can probably deduce that The Times contribution to the transmission of narrative produced a full name and even an age, so it represents a development from the BBC source material so that the witness testimony must take on another degree of certainty:

An eyewitness said she saw a man “randomly” shooting at people.

Recalling what she saw a woman said a shooter kicked down the door of a house and fired before letting off shots while running down a road.

Witness Sharron Turner, 57, lives nearby and said she saw the gunman kick in the front door of a semi-detached property before opening fire on a mother and her daughter, who she says looked about five-years-old.

She told the Times the man was dressed in black and grey and armed with what looked like a semi-automatic weapon.

She described the deaths as “horrendous and so sad”.

Mark well, reader, the details about the gunman’s black and grey clothing, for it is not dissimilar to the “all-black” garb that another witness,  also immediately revealed in corporate-media soon after the incident, said about a man with a gun that he came across as he was going about his business in Keyham. The following is from that “initial” BBC coverage:

Another witness, Robert Pinkerton, said he “walked around the corner” and “bumped into a bloke with a shotgun”. He said the man was dressed all in black.

For the reader’s information, the author cannot find Robert Pinkerton listed by 192.com as ever having lived in Plymouth, and the other thing that doesn’t help his case is how he survived coming across a shooter on a supposed spree. How is it that Pinkerton was not shot at himself? Well, there was an effort to address this in a Sky News piece that appeared on 15th August, when an interview with “Bert” Pinkerton threw up the following nonsense:

Mr Pinkerton believes he would have been the next person to be shot if the 22-year-old had more bullets.

He added: “He knew he had to have one for himself and that’s what he had left, because just after that, that’s when he shot himself.

“I’m not as fit as I used to be, but if that was back in the day I would have jumped him, even at his size.”

Evidently, we are supposed to understand that “Bert” knew he was safe because he knew Davison knew he had only one “bullet” remaining (please note, shotguns take cartridges), and that it was being saved for the act of suicide. Naturally, we would want to ask, if “Bert” knew all this, and knew that the gunman was going to kill himself next, why did it cross his mind to try and tackle him?

However, the clearest indication that Pinkerton is not a real witness is that in this Sunday morning Sky piece, he repeated a claim that had since been proven to be untrue:

He said: “(Davison) was staring through you basically. He was dressed in black – black T-shirt, big black beard, black curly hair, and walking like was on patrol, like a soldier with a gun.”

The problem with this is that between the Thursday evening when the incident happened, and the Sunday morning when this piece appeared, there had been a release of CCTV footage that claimed to show Davison in the midst of his killing spree: he can clearly be seen to be wearing a white or very light grey top.

Now, the reason that Sky would go ahead and air what was a doubling down on wholly inaccurate data is merely indicative of how UK Government works in these situations: by gaslighting. When CCTV says one thing, and a witness says another, it is never a problem: both are true by dint of being held up as evidence of the official narrative – and that really is the way that government-by-hoax rides roughshod over what is sane and rational.

The other thing to say about the description of the gunman given by Pinkerton is that it was the first time that any witness (because others emerged in the corporate-media accounts that were produced in subsequent days) had described the gunman in a way so that it could be identified as Davison. That it is a description coming from a man who appears not to have been a real witness is incredibly problematic, of course.

It follows that one must doubt whether or not Davison was actually involved in any killing, but before addressing this, there is one more aspect of Pinkerton’s story that has to be challenged, which is the claim that he was seen on the dash-cam of a passing car giving first aid to the 66-year old woman who was the last person to be killed (except Davison).

Mr Pinkerton said he acted instinctively when he rushed to Ms Shepherd’s aid and used the corner of her jacket to put pressure on one of her wounds.

He added: “I was speaking to her all the time – saying ‘help is on it’s way, help is on it’s way, you’re alright I’m here with you’.

“She had her eyes closed, she was trying to breathe.”

The problem with this account is that it gives the impression that Pinkerton was the first to arrive with Shepherd after she had been shot, but this is not true according to a previous version, as reported in The Telegraph on 13th August:

Robert Pinkerton, 54, told Plymouth Live that he was on Henderson Place when he heard a loud bang. He turned a corner and bumped into a man, and “swerved” when he saw the gun.

He said he saw an injured woman in the doorway of a hairdressers and witnessed a man trying to give her medical attention.

Mr Pinkerton said the man [the gunman] walked past him towards the garages and he stayed with the injured woman.

The dash-cam footage in question only shows one person in the doorway of Blush hairdressers. And incidentally, in its raw state, where it could be found (as opposed to stills taken from the film), there is no time-stamping on this dash-cam footage.

Sky News has darkened the image, with the lit circle showing Pinkerton tending to Shepherd – or so it is claimed.

To finish, let there be a quick delve into the idea that surfaced briefly a moment ago: that Davison perhaps had nothing to do with any killing. It’s quite possible. In fact, if a person, who can be seen in the same dash-cam footage just introduced, as the filming car then passes the place where Shepherd is supposed to wounded, is in fact Davison – as it looks like it could be – then maybe it represents a situation where a hapless dupe is wandering around a crime scene of other people’s making. Indeed, although the initial and narrative-driving witnesses suggest that they saw other gunmen in the same vicinity, and although the author strongly suggests that these were not real witnesses, it doesn’t mean to say that there were not other gunmen.

With his wild hair, a beard, and a light coloured top, the figure on the left could be Davison. And yet, off-camera, “Pinkerton” is tending to Shepherd unmolested on the other side of the road, and another fellow (on a phone) has been allowed to walk down the other side of the street.

 

† Interestingly, the first time that PlymouthLive, or the Plymouth Herald local newspaper, tweets about the incident is at 19.31, over an hour after Davison is supposed to have killed himself. The tweet in question reads “BREAKING”, and contains a link which reads:

Air ambulances land in North Prospect

Eveywitnesses (sic) have told PlymouthLive they can hear “loud bangs” and “gun shots”

It is at 19.39 when Luke Pollard, one of the city’s MPs, publishes a tweet saying

Really worrying news coming out of Keyham in #plymouth. Please can everyone stay safe, stay indoors and follow police advice.

Another of the city’s MPs, Johnny Mercer, published the following tweet at 19.58:

I am aware of a serious and tragic incident unfolding in Plymouth. Please obey all instructions from the Police and do not post rumour or speculation on social media. I will post news when I have it.

The BBC report referred to in the body of this piece contained both of these MP’s tweets, so there’s a good chance that the BBC was breaking this news after 8pm – indeed, the BBCBreaking twitter channel tweeted the following at 21.32:

“Number of fatalities” and several casualties after serious firearms incident in Plymouth, UK police say

Now, who can deny that reporting an incident in the UK three hours after it occurred and claiming it is breaking is an appallingly poor effort for an organisation with a rolling news arm? The delay in the incident becoming official news, as it does so at first on a local level, and then nationally, could be indicative of something going on for longer on the ground, and then of covering all the bases so that there’s no surprises as the story is being translated into the history books via national news coverage.

 

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 1 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Ken Michael says:

    Thanks for the as-ever detailed examination of this false-flag.

    Personally I’m in no doubt the incident will be used as you suggest: “as part of a scheme to promote awareness in a mainstream audience of an aspect of what can be characterised as right-wing terrorism”, however, under that umbrella aim, I suspect this may primarily be intended to launch the next phase of the drive towards totally disarming the populace…?

T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image