Warning: Duplicate entry '144888482' for key 'PRIMARY' query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, variables, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', '%message in %file on line %line.', 'a:4:{s:6:\"%error\";s:12:\"user warning\";s:8:\"%message\";s:510:\"Expression #1 of ORDER BY clause is not in SELECT list, references column 'winter.nc.last_comment_timestamp' which is not in SELECT list; this is incompatible with DISTINCT\nquery: SELECT DISTINCT nc.nid FROM node_comment_statistics nc INNER JOIN node_access na ON na.nid = nc.nid WHERE (na.grant_view >= 1 AND ((na.gid = 0 AND na.realm = 'all') OR (na.gid = 1 AND na.realm = 'forum_access'))) AND ( nc.comment_count > 0 )ORDER BY nc.last_comment_timestamp DESC LIMIT 0, 10\";s:5:\"%file\";s:61:\"/home/www/htdocs/winter/drupal/modules/comment/comment.module in /home/www/htdocs/winter/drupal/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 135
PizzaGate – A Case to Answer | Winter Patriot Community Blog

PizzaGate – A Case to Answer

The recent and ongoing scandal known as PizzaGate has captured the American public's attention like no other scandal has before.

The main difference is that PizzaGate is based on documented evidence – circumstantial evidence, for sure, but evidence none-the-less and it's documented i.e. pictures, emails and Twitter entries. There is also no shortage of this circumstantial evidence; there's a ton of it. And the more there is, the more compelling it becomes.

Under Common Law in Australia (the US has a similar Common Law legal system), the prosecution can claim it has made its case beyond reasonable doubt if it has eliminated all reasonable alternative explanations. While the defence is entitled to remain silent, it can be directed by the judge to offer any possible alternative explanation. If the defendant remains silent when it is deemed highly likely that he/she would be in possession of facts to confirm or deny the case put to them, then the presumption of innocence does no longer apply.

“Where the Crown case rests substantially on circumstantial evidence a jury cannot return a guilty verdict unless the Crown has excluded all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence: The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35 at [46], [50]; Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82 at 104. For an inference to be reasonable it must rest upon something more than mere conjecture: The Queen v Baden-Clay at [47] quoting Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619 at 661. It is not incumbent on the defence either to establish that some inference other than guilt should be drawn from the evidence or to prove particular facts tending to support such an inference: The Queen v Baden-Clay at [62] citing Barca v The Queen at 105. That proposition merely reflects the fundamental principle that the Crown must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt: The Queen v Baden-Clay at [62]. It is the duty of the trial judge to put to the jury with adequate assistance any matters which the jury, upon the evidence, could find for the accused: The Queen v Baden-Clay at [62]. The trial judge can invite defence counsel to state any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence that may be put to the jury in the summing up: The Queen v Baden-Clay at [60].

Where an accused with peculiar knowledge of the facts is silent, “hypotheses consistent with innocence may cease to be rational or reasonable in the absence of evidence to support them when that evidence, if it exists at all, must be within the knowledge of the accused”: The Queen v Baden-Clay at [50] quoting Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217 at 227-228, which was cited with approval in RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620 at 633. “

Further, the circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a whole and not be dissected piecemeal.

“The usual circumstantial case is often referred to as a “strands in a cable case”.
In considering a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence are to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence: The Queen v Baden-Clay at [47] citing The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 at [46]. The evidence must be considered as a whole and not by a piecemeal approach to each particular circumstance: The Queen v Hillier at [46].”


So, the “smoking gun” primary evidence in the form of a 'mea culpa' confession or a video of a crime in progress is not necessary for a conviction in some circumstances.

The “PizzaGate” circumstantial evidence of organised paedophilia surrounding Democratic Party operatives and various dining establishments and performance artists is voluminous but incomplete. Many links have been established but more are needed for an iron-clad case. It is worth reiterating that the emails come from Wikileaks who have an unblemished record for publishing authenticated documents. The pictures that have been published by the internet investigators come from validated twitter a/cs and from the instagram a/cs of the people who are named.

The necessary, but so far missing, component for a convincing case is an identified victim or victims. This may not be forthcoming as some of the 'talk' and much of the 'artwork' involves death or dead children. And if these people are killing children, it has to be presumed that they are skilled at disposing of the bodies and hence the evidence.

Following are some video reports of the evidence that was unearthed a couple of weeks ago and is worth revisiting as a reminder of what the initial investigation was all about before some 'red herrings' were drawn across the investigative path by the MSU media.

Reality Calls – What we know so far.

View on YouTube

Titus Frost – 32 min intro

View on YouTube

and larger doco.

View on YouTube

When the above videos were posted on YouTube, there was a deafening silence from the media, investigative bodies such as the FBI and the people involved.

Eventually, the media broke their silence by publishing 'debunking' articles which did not address any of the damning evidence but were full of unsubstantiated 'ad homminem' attacks attacks on the investigators and anyone else the news organisations happened to dislike.

Next came the inevitable and clumsy 'false flag' event. It turns out the 'shooter' is a sometime actor who was in trouble with the police having run over a teenager with his car a few weeks before and whose father is a film maker, a weapons expert and likes to help children in trouble in Haiti and elsewhere. He ticks all the boxes!

Now we have the media running 24/7 with the 'Fake News' bullshit. The irony never stops! But the fact that this media campaign is without substance and all over an apparently nondescript pizzeria in DC is telling. What's wrong with this picture?

More circumstantial evidence points to the involvement of 'the authorities' in the form of the 'turned' (a day before) and then missing traffic camera.

View on YouTube

The thing with circumstantial evidence is that the more you have the more compelling it becomes and the harder it becomes to present a reasonable alternative explanation.

Occam's Razor is a reasoning device used in philosophy and in detective work. It states, that in the event of competing explanations, the simplest explanation that fits all the known facts is the most likely to be the truth.

So far, Occam's Razor says that the explanation that we are looking at a child exploitation ring involving Democratic Party officials together with their friends in the artistic and restaurateur industries is the most likely.

When the circumstantial evidence gets to the point of linking all these characters together in criminal activities and making it impossible to posit any alternative explanation, we have a case for criminal charges and these perps have a case to answer.

More reading-


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.