by Miles Mathis
First published January 9, 2017
As usual, this is just my opinion, based on internet research anyone can do.
I mentioned in a previous paper that I suspected the 2015 Academy-Award-winning movie Spotlight was a spook film, pushing a fake story. At the time, I suspected that only because it won the Academy Award. Based on past experience, it was a good bet that any promoted film would be a spook film. Most films now are, but the most promoted are the most spooky. As I have said many times, if the mainstream is telling you it is day, bet on it being night.
Well, it didn't take much research to discover my hunch was right. This story is another avalanche of red flags, if you know how to read them. Although professional reporters don't seem to know how to do real research anymore—getting all their stories from Langley—I do. I actually started by watching the film, which is unusual. I usually start at Wikipedia and work out from there. But I had already spent the day reading mainstream theory for a paper on my science site, and was ready to rest my eyes a bit. The first red flag flapped loudly in my face at minute 7:11, when it was revealed the editor of the Boston Globe at the time was a man named Ben Bradlee, Jr. (acted by John Slattery). What are the odds? You may recognize that name from Watergate, since his father Ben Bradlee, Sr. was the executive editor of the Washington Post at the time. He was an admitted spook, since we know from his bio he was recruited right out of Harvard for Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). He worked under Rear Admiral Norman Scott during the war. Scott is a name we have seen from my genealogy papers of the past year, linked to all the top families on both sides of the pond. We will see many more below.
To give you a taste of Norman Scott, check out this sentence from his Wiki page:
In December 1917, he was Executive Officer of USS Jacob Jones (DD-61) when she was sunk by a German submarine and was commended for his performance at that time.
What? Commended for sinking? For clarification, we go to the page for the Jacob Jones, where we find this:
In early December, Jacob Jones helped escort a convoy to Brest, France, with five other Queenstown-based destroyers. The last to depart from Brest on the return to Ireland, Jacob Jones was steaming alone in a zig-zag pattern when she was spotted by Kapitänleutnant Hans Rose on the German submarine U-53.[11] Despite having her rudder put hard left and emergency speed rung up, Jacob Jones was unable to move out of the way, and the torpedo struck her rudder. Even though the depth charges did not explode, Jacob Jones was adrift. The jolt had knocked out power, so the destroyer was unable to send a distress signal; since she was steaming alone, no other ship was present to know of Jacob Jones' predicament.[11]
Makes no sense, as usual. If the ship was escorting a convoy, how could it be steaming alone? A convoy is a group of ships, by definition. And why would it be moving in a zig-zag pattern? To signal the submarine below which ship to fire upon? And how did they know what sub hit them with a torpedo? Subs strike invisibly, and they don't radio their identity afterwards, saying, “Hah, got you!” If the torpedo hit, it is very unlikely it wouldn't explode. Even more unlikely is that an unexploded hit on the rudder would knock out radio power. Why would the radio be affected by that? Are we supposed to believe the radio was strapped to the rudder? We are told the ship then sank, but why would an unexploded hit on the rudder lead to a capsize? The rudder is just a little attached flap on the back of the ship. If it is blown off, you can't steer, but you won't sink.
We are then told the commander of the German submarine surfaced and rescued two seamen and radioed for help to the nearby Allied base. Right. How stupid do they think we are? And I guess we are supposed to believe the sub remained in the area until the rescue arrived, passing out hot chocolates and singing Christmas carols?
This Admiral Scott married a cousin, Marjorie Guild. She was grandaughter of Mary Scott. Her brother was Douglas Scott Guild. The Scotts are related to the Kennedys, since Admiral Scott's son married a Patricia Kennedy (not, I assume, Patricia Kennedy Lawford).
Admiral Scott also allegedly died under very strange circumstances. In 1942 in the Guadalcanal, his ship was sunk by friendly fire by a fellow heavy cruiser. Since Scott's ship was the flagship, that is very unlikely. You don't strafe your own flagship. Wiki gives us the clue on the page for Guadalcanal:
At 0125 on 13 November, a Japanese naval force was discovered about 27,000 yd (25,000 m) to the northwest. At 0148, in almost pitch darkness, San Francisco opened fire on an enemy cruiser 3,700 yd (3,400 m) off her starboard beam. At 0151, she trained her guns on a small cruiser or large destroyer 3,300 yd (3,000 m) off her starboard bow. Then in an attempt to locate other targets, San Francisco accidentally targeted Atlanta. San Francisco's gunfire caused extensive damage to Atlanta, killing Admiral Scott and most of Atlanta's bridge crew.
Did you notice the numerology? The paragraph leads with the number 0125. That adds to eight. Scott was 53, which also adds to eight. The two ships were 3,300 yds apart, a nice Masonic number.
We are told Scott was buried at sea, which—under the circumstances—could mean his body was never found.
But let's move on. Why did I include that? Because it indicates Scott was hoaxing projects back to WW1. Bradlee then worked under him in ONI, continuing the work. After WW2, Bradlee shifted the hoaxes out of the military and into the media, like thousands of other agents.
That's Ben Bradlee, Jr. Would you buy a used car from this man? As we proceed, study the photos closely. Notice that all these people have crooked smiles and shifty eyes. I noticed this even before seeing pictures of them, since I noticed Mark Ruffalo was doing a strange thing with his mouth in the film. I wondered to myself if he had been hit in the mouth recently, changing his way of speaking. But no, it looks like he was just trying to match his character's real-life mannerisms, which include a very crooked mouth. We see a less pronounced thing with Bradlee above. If you study all these people in photos or film, you can read them before they say their first word. Or I can. Anyone who investigated the story by talking to the real characters would have known he was inside a con within minutes. Only by replacing these people with charismatic actors could this be sold as real. Not that the actors are any more trustworthy, they are just better at fooling you. It is their job, and they are very good at it. They were hired specifically because their faces don't (yet) match their black souls.
As for Bradlee's genealogy, is is admitted he was from the top families, and Wiki tells us he was a Choate, a Crowninshield, and a Gersdorff. You may think the last name is the least interesting, but think again. Through his mother, Bradlee was descended from the Holy Roman Emperor, the King of Denmark, the King of Poland, and the King of England. It is not only the Kings that are interesting, it is which Kings. Henry VII of England, about whom Irecently wrotea paper. And King Casimir IV of Poland, whom I have also hit. To cut right to it, I have outed them both as crypto-Jews. Casimir IV was a Jagiellon, which family I have analyzed in three long papers in the past year, including. my paper on Napoleon So for me to see them come up here again is astonishing, to say the least. Also astonishing to see this admitted at Wikipedia. Wiki doesn't admit the Jagiellons are Jewish, of course, but it does admit Bradlee descends from them.
Bradlee, Sr.'s first marriage was to fellow Boston Brahmin Jean Saltonstall. She was Ben, Jr.'s mother. Do you want to guess what day they got married? No, it wasn't March 33rd. It was the next best thing, August 8. 8/8. Which leads us to look at his birthdate. 8/26/21. Since 2+6=8, we have the same thing.
In 1952 Bradlee joined the staff of the Offce of U.S. Information and Educational Exchange (USIE), the embassy's propaganda unit. USIE produced flms, magazines, research, speeches, and news items for use by the CIA throughout Europe. USIE (later known as USIA) also controlled the Voice of America, a means of disseminating pro-American "cultural information" worldwide. While at the USIE, according to a Justice Department memo from an assistant U.S. attorney in the RosenbergTrial, Bradlee was helping the CIA manage European propaganda regarding the spying conviction and execution of Julius and EthelRosenberg on June 19, 1953.[16]
That's straight from Wiki. We see a red flag about every three words. We have seen Voice of America as a leading propaganda bullhorn, tied to the Monica Lewinsky hoax and many others. And the Rosenberg trial was also faked. Notice the Rosenbergs are Jewish as well, like everyone else we are outing. Despite all this admission of propaganda, we are supposed to believe that when Bradlee was at the Washington Post, he was no longer involved in propaganda projects: he was just a straight editor, right?
In 1957, Bradlee married his second wife, Antoinette Pinchot. Do you recognize that name from my Kennedy paper? She was the sister of Mary Pinchot, wife of Cord Meyer. Meyer just happened to be a top CIA agent involved in Project Mockingbird. And what was that about? According to Wikipedia, it was a “program to influence the media”. But Bradlee was never influenced, right? He was just a straight editor later at the Post, right?
Bradlee's new wife was also a close friend of Cicely d'Autremont, the wife of James Jesus Angleton. Wow. Angleton was of course later the number two man in the CIA under Helms. Angleton ran Project Chaos, which was even spookier than Mockingbird. Again, all this is up at Wikipedia: it is not “conspiracy” theory. Anyway, the red flags on Bradlee, Sr. stack to the moon. But I need to move on to his son and the others. Besides being at the Globe for 25 years, Bradlee, Jr. also wrote high-profile books on the Ambush murders and the Iran-Contra Affair. Given what we will discover below, we may assume those were both faked as well. In the film, they make it look like Bradlee was pulled along by the Spotlight team against his will, but we can be sure that wasn't the case.
So who are the other characters in Spotlight? Well, we have the new editor of the Globe coming in from Miami, that being Marty Baron. His bio is another avalanche of red flags. We are told his parents were Jewish immigrants from Israel, but we don't get any names at Wiki. In the film, they admit he was the first (admitted) Jewish editor of the Globe. That should have always been a huge red flag, since the top Jewish families have been fighting with Rome for centuries. Did no one think to ask if that old war was going on here? Tied to that is the fact that the Globe had been bought out by the New York Times. The Times is old Jewish money as well, from the Sulzbergers. So, again, a huge red flag flapping in the same direction.
So who is Marty Baron? Well, amazingly, Geni.com tells us. His mother is a Zimmerman, which links us to Bob Dylan for the millionth time. Her father comes from Poland. Her mother is a Stra(c)hilevitz, from Israel before there was an Israel. We also have Marcuses and Fishmans. Baron's father is given as Howard Naftali (Heinz) Baron, although we aren't told what the Heinz signifies. It isn't his mother's maiden name, since she is a Kohane. His grandfather is Naftali Herz Kohane, so I guess the Heinz comes from Herz. But we are being pushed sideways, since all of these names looked slightly fudged. Kohane is probably a variation of Cohen, which would connect Marty Baron to actor Sacha Baron Cohen. I have shown he is related to Karl Marx: the research wasn't difficult since the genealogies are posted and the link is explicit. This indicates to me that Marty Baron is also from those lines. We also find Rappoports on this side of his genealogy, which is more confirmation. We have seen them before in these same lines going back to Marx and before that to Poland. I don't know that I have linked them to the Jagiellons, but that would be my next assumption. My current hunch is Bradlee and Baron are probably related via these lines, which is why they were assigned to the same project at the same newspaper. Baron's Geni pages make this difficult to prove, since his father's line stops in the 1860s— not that long ago. No other genealogies of Baron exist on the internet, that I could find.
However, the Naftali name is also a red flag. We have previously seen Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party in Israel. He came up when we were researching the Bennetts—another one of the families. Then we have Peretz Naftali, an Israeli Zionist activist from the 1950s. Perhaps the biggest red flag on him is his joining the SDP in Germany in 1911. In my paper on the Beer Hall Putsch, I showed that—like the Socialist parties in the US at the same time—the SDP was a fake party manufactured by the usual suspects as opposition control. It appeared to be pro-worker but was really a front for the industrialists and billionaires. This is a clue here, because the same thing was happening in Boston in the late 20th century and early 21st. Not, I mean, as a matter of Socialism, but as a matter of infiltration and opposition control. We will see below that the Catholic Church was not so much a target here as an accomplice in a larger project. Or, the Church wasn't attacked from the outside: it was infiltrated and blown from within.
The clue in the film is when Cardinal Law says, “this city most flourishes when its great institutions work together”. In the manufactured Catholic priest scandal, the institutions did work together, and one of those institutions was the Catholic Church itself. You probably won't understand how that could work at this point in our research, but I think by the end of the paper you will.
This is who they chose to play Marty Baron:
Do you see a small problem? That's Isaac Liev Schreiber, who is at least Jewish. However, he is about 6'3” and very charming, while Marty is. . . not. Schreiber tries to play it down, acting very shy and unassuming, but it doesn't really work. We know that editors neither look like that nor act like that. It is admitted that Schreiber's mother and her family were and are prominent Communists. This Heather Milgram was involved in the Socialist Party and “hung out with William S. Burroughs”. The Men's Journal admits that her father was tied to the Jewish mob, Murder Inc. No, really, not making that up. That's Schreiber's grandfather.
Before we move on from Marty Baron, it is worth circling the name Heinz again. This links him to the current Heinz dynasty, which is also from the these same families hailing back to Marx and before. Like the Rockefellers, Henry Heinz is sold as a good German from the Palatinate, but that is just a fudge. As we see from Marty Baron's ancestry, the name is Jewish. Baron is admitted to be Jewish on both sides, and the name Heinz comes up prominently. We see more evidence of this when we notice that Henry Heinz named his son Clarence Noble Heinz. Again, that is probably a fudge of Nobel, another one of these families. Think Nobel Prize. This Heinz was also a Trump and a Setzer, admitted to be an ancestor of Donald Trump. Since I have previously shown you evidence Trump is Jewish, my job is done. Both the Heinz and Trumps descend from Kohls, and the current rich American Kohls are admitted to be Jewish. See Herb Kohl and the founders of Kohl's department stores Maxwell Kohl. On his father's side, Henry Heinz is a Muller, which should be Mueller, which I have previously connected to the prominent American Millers.
I am going back and forth between Wiki, Geni, and the film. It is a very interesting way to do it, since viewing the movie piecemeal makes the clues that much more obvious. If you don't get swept up by the fake story, you see not only the holes but the clues left by the directors—indicating the fake as they fake it. One example of that? At minute 50:00 in the film, the Globe reporters are haunting the libraries, reading up on local priests. As one of them enters the room, he says, “What's that smell?” The one already there says, “It's a dead rat in the corner”. Really? Do you think that is an important part of the script? Why would that be in the script? Ask yourself that and demand an answer. The answer is it is a clue. There is a big smelly dead rat in the corner of this entire film, although it will remain invisible to most viewers. I am showing you how to smell it, spot it, and sweep it out.
The next character to look at is Walter V. Robinson, played by Michael Keaton. He is the head of the Spotlight group. Notice anything about his name? I have outed the Robinsons in many papers. They have been hoaxing events in Massachusetts back to the Salem Witch Trials. More recently I showed you they were major players in the Lizzie Borden hoax. A Robinson was governor at the time, and he had relatives in Fall River involved directly in the hoax. Think that name Robinson is a coincidence? It isn't, and they give the clue in the film. The priest Geoghan is the main bad guy there, but they also reference the case of a priest named Porter from ten years earlier. And where was he from? Fall River, where the Borden hoax was run. Again, it is best you keep reminding yourself that, outside of Hollywood and Los Angeles, more events and projects have been run out of Eastern Massachusetts than any other place. It is no accident that this fake priest scandal was centered on Boston. Hundreds of other fake scandals have also centered on Boston (and nearby towns like Salem, Concord, etc.). The fake Boston Marathon bombing didn't just happen in Boston by accident. This is an epicenter of fake events. The entire city is like a big movie set, and if you have ever lived there or visited there, you may know what I mean. You can literally feel the MATRIX buzzing around you.
Strange we aren't told what the V stands for in Walter V. Robinson's name. Although this guy has no genealogy posted, there is an earlier Walter V. Robinson, and his mother was a Voorhees. This may be our Robinson's father. The name Voorhees is suggestive, since it is also connected to these same hoaxing families. Remember, a Daniel Voorhees allegedly confessed to the murder of Elizabeth Short in 1947. Note the date. This was part of the faked Black Dahlia murders, since Voorhees was a suspect. Elizabeth Short had lived in Boston before moving to LA, which connects us again to our current mystery. Although Voorhees confessed to the murder, the LA police strangely ignored him. They didn't even ask for an alibi. They simply sent him to a psychiatrist for an exam. Although the exam was inconclusive, they just let him go. Is that how it works in the real world? His name was probably borrowed from an earlier Daniel Voorhees who was leader of the Democratic Party during the Civil War, chair of the Senate Finance Committee (and, of course, a spook). The son of this Daniel Voorhees was Charles Stewart Voorhees, which middle name should ring a bell. If not, see my paper on Tiger Woods, and the section on Payne Stewart. At any rate, the Voorhees family hails back to founders of New York and Brooklyn in 1660. More recently, we have seen an Erik Voorhees involved in the Bitcoin scam. He looks to me like a plant.
The Walter Robinson in our story married a Barbara Wojtkiewicz, another clue here. The name is Polish, but it is Jewish as well. It also links us again to previous papers. Specifically to my paper on F. Scott Fitzgerald. You will remember that Fitzgerald was linked to a woman named Sheilah Graham late in life. Well, her real name was Lily Shiel, and she was Jewish. Her third husband was Stanley Wojtkiewicz. Oh the tangled webs they weave. For more, we find that Sheilah Graham's daughter was named Wendy Westbrook Fairey. Does that tie us to “artist”ShepardFairey? Probably.
Our next stop is Sacha Pfeiffer, the only woman on the Spotlight team. She is played by Rachel McAdams in the film. Pfeiffer is slightly less repellent than the other characters, and was probably hired for the team for that reason. She was likely the eye candy, sent in as the face when the team needed a spokesperson. Just a guess. She also has a nice speaking voice, and reminds me a bit of Elizabeth Gilbert. In interviews, she is almost as good at fooling you as the actors.
Both of her names are clues in our current mystery. We already saw that first name above, didn't we? Sacha Baron Cohen. You may think that is a coincidence, but I rarely find coincidences in these name matches. They always indicates links among the families. In support of that is the fact that the name Pfeiffer is again probably Jewish—especially when joined to the first name Sacha. See for example famous cartoonist Jules Feiffer, originally Pfeiffer, admitted to be Jewish. His mother was Rhoda Davis, also Jewish, which tells us that even the name Davis can be Jewish. Sacha Pfeiffer's father is given online as Richard Coy Pfeiffer, Jr. If we search on “Richard Coy Pfeiffer genealogy”, the first result is for Robert Pfeiffer, his grandfather. Although Richard Coy Pfeiffer's Geni page strangely is not listed in a search for that name, his father Richard Coy Pfeiffer, Sr. does have his own page linking out from his father's page. And his wife is given as Jennie Marie Stoll. Wiki tells us she worked many years at Pober's Clothing Store for children in Boston. Pober is a Jewish name. Stoll may be, too. Richard's middle name Coy is not usually given and his page is unlisted in a search because once we find it we discover he is related to the Howes, the Randalls, the Oviatts, the Griffiths, the Newtons, and the Bronsons. The families go back to Plymouth, MA, and Windsor, CT, and before that to the Irvings, Clarkes, Drakes, Bissells, Jones, Denys, Donnes, Moores, Webbs, and the Ardens and Shakespeares of Stratford-upon-Avon. We know we are on the right track, because these pages are managed by our old friend Erica the Disconnetrix and by a guy named Alan Rosenfield. That is Jewish. More interesting info is found at Geni, where we see that Richard Coy Pfeiffer, Sr. was a Special Agent, IRS. With a bit more digging, we find Sacha's mother as Janet Preskenis, but her genealogy is completely scrubbed. We do find that her brother Kenneth married a woman named Elaine Bloom. Bloom is a common Jewish name. And we find there that Kenneth and Sacha's mother was named Alice Matulaitis. That is also probably a Jewish name, from Vilnius. Wiki admits Sacha's mom was Lithuanian, which helps us here.
At Googlebooks we find excerpts from Lithuanian Social Democracy in Perspective, 1893-1914. There we find a Stasys Matulaitis, d. 1956, as an early member of the LSD and later a prominent Marxist. And indeed, he was so prominent we find he has page at Wiki Lithuania, which we have to translate. There, we find he was in a secret society at the University of Moscow in the 1890s. By 1898 he was already a prominent spook, working with the secret Pleiades Society. There he published journals as part of the fake Socialist movement. He was allegedly arrested and exiled for three years to Vologda. He returned and continued writing subversive literature under a variety of aliases. Much of his output was aimed against. . . wait for it. . . priests. Do you see how that fits into this paper so nicely? During the war he wrote for the Bolsheviks, editing the paper Tiesa, which means Truth. Pravda also means Truth. After the war he was arrested by Polish authorities, but allowed to escape. He was arrested again in 1925 but again skated. Stasys' niece Hannah moved to Michigan and married a Lodge. We have seen that name in my paper on Lindbergh: his mother was Evangeline Lodge Land, from Michigan.
OK, so on to Michael Rezendes, played by Mark Ruffalo. Rezendes is to your right. I must say again, it helps immensely to see the real people involved in this hoax. Hollywood of course hires people to play them who are far more charismatic and attractive, skewing your judgment. The actual people at the Globe are a giveaway at a glance, since you can read the conjob straight from their eyes. Wiki gives us no biographical info on Rezendes, not even DOB, but we do learn he wrote about 911 for the Globe before getting involved in the priest cases. Did he expose anything about 911? Of course not. He was paid to misdirect, like all other mainstream journalists. Despite a complete scrubbing of his genealogy online, I was able to find something, as usual. In the library at UMASS, we find a box of material on Dennis Rezendes, who looks like he might be Michael's father. Why do I say that? Because Dennis tells us his mother was Martina Barreira, of Fall River, MA. Dennis went to Wharton School of Business. He later worked in the Mayor's office in New Haven. And boom, we find at that link that Dennis did have a son named Michael. The dates match, since Michael's grandmother is listed as being born in 1911. Michael looks to be in his 50s. I am 53 and my grandmother was born 1910. In this list of contents, we also find the names Mario Bettencourt Resendes, Martina Sousa Resendes, and Milena Pimental Resendes. Also a Manuel Carvalho. Remember that for later. There is a University of Maine scholarship named after him. That gives us five more names to research, and immediately tells us Michael was related to the Bettencourts. Why does that matter? Because Liliane Bettencourt is the richest woman in the world right now. She is the principal shareholder of L'Oreal. She was born a Schueller. Her husband Andre Bettencourt was French Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1973. He wrote Nazi propaganda during the war—which, as we have seen, doesn't indicate what you think it does. It does not indicate he was a Nazi. It indicates he was involved in the hoax. Liliane's father Schueller is also said to have been a Nazi, but like Andre Bettencourt he was a controller of the opposition, only pretending to attack Jews. In short, they were both crypto-Jews themselves. In support of that, we find that Francois Bettencourt, daughter of Andre and Liliane, married Jean-Pierre Meyers, a Jew. His parents supposedly died at Auschwitz. You can't make this stuff up.
Dennis Rezendes tells us his father came from the Azores, which links us to the Portuguese Bettencourts back to 1600. See Joao de Bettencourt de Vasconcelos, who—as the majorat and captain-major—built the Manor of the Mother of God in Sé. The Bettencourts remained prominent in both the Azores and Portugal throughout history. This again confirms we have the right Michael Rezendes, son of Dennis, since in the film he admits he is Portuguese [minute 57:00].
If we research Andre Bettencourt, we find his maternal line scrubbed, which is a red flag. But we do find the name de Chalendar. That is interesting, since Pierre-Andre de Chalendar is the current chairman of Saint-Gobain Group, a large multinational. It expanded greatly in the late 1980s when it was bought by Jean-Louis Beffa. That is probably a Jewish name. See the musician Karol Beffa, who—according to this genealogy—is really Karol Beffa Zuber. Zuber is a Jewish name from Poland. More indication the de Chalendars are now or have always been crypto-Jewish is this post by a Jewish woman on her blog. She tells us she went to a Rosh Hashanah party hosted by Bank Leumi in London. Her invitation came from “her dear friend Guillaume de Chalendar who heads their media finance division”. You will say that evidence is circumstantial, so I will support it with anotherlink. There we find the same Guillaume de Chalendar at the launch of the UK Jewish Film Festival. Here he is:
French or Jewish? Maybe both, but very Jewish.
Finally, let's look at Mitchell Garabedian, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the film. On screen, he looks very Jewish, since he is played by Stanley Tucci. Wiki tells us Tucci is Italian, but I don't believe it for a second.
Tucci couldn't look more Jewish if he were wearing a yarmulke. Remember, Tucci was married to Felicity Blunt, and her sister married John Krasinski. The Blunts' mother is Joanna Mackie. I will make this easy on you: they are all Jewish.
This applies to Garabedian as well:
Garabedian is well scrubbed on the internet. I found his name in a Tenney High School yearbook from 1969, Methuen, MA. Other than that, slim pickens. However, I found a way around the block, as usual. If we search on other Garabedians, we find a 2007 obit for a Julia Bendian Garabedian of California. Married Jack Garabedian in 1948. She has a son Jack in Miami. But what stood out was one of the surnames linked to her: Carvalho. We saw that above, didn't we? Michael Rezendes was related to a Manuel Carvalho. This means that Garabedian and Rezendes may be related. At the same message boards, we find more interesting info. We are told that a Hagob Garabedian, AKA Hakob Karapetian, brother of Soghomon Kirakosyan, born in Van, Turkey, was a famous merchant who “had to” immigrate to the US after the 1915 Armenian genocide. That of course indicates he was Jewish. This takes us to the Wiki page on Karapetyan, a variation of Garabedian, both of which are Armenian, confirming what we just found. Also confirmation is that the Garabedian character admits he is Armenian in the film. So every single person on the Spotlight team or connected to them turned out to be Jewish, and most of them were sold to us a lapsed Catholics.
OK, I found enough data to make you very suspicious of this story. But what was it all about? Why fake a major story about pedophilia in the Catholic Church? Strap yourself down, because I still have a lot of things to hit, and many of them may not have occurred to you. Some may be difficult for us both. We will start with pedophilia itself. It is a word thrown around a lot, but what does it really mean? It means (sexual) love of children. Legally, a child is a person who has not gone through puberty, so we are talking about persons under 12-14, say. It varies, because not everyone goes through puberty at the same age. I mention this, because there is some confusion, and that confusion has been promoted on purpose. Pedophilia does not apply to all people under the age of consent, which is 17-18, depending on the state. The term that applies from age 14 to 17 is statutory rape, not pedophilia. In the US, you are not allowed to sleep with persons of that age, even with consent, since they cannot legally consent. But if you do, you are guilty of statutory rape, not pedophilia. There is a huge difference, which is why I am pausing to circle it. Historically, it has not been seen as being highly unusual to be attracted to persons beyond puberty. That is the way biology works, you know. You are supposed to be attracted to persons beyond puberty. In our country at this time, you are also supposed to be attracted to people near your own age, but there is nothing illegal about being attracted to those younger, in most cases. We do protect persons under 18 from older persons, and that is sensible in most cases, since they are naïve and need protection and guidance. In this, we are actually far stricter than Europe, which in most cases lets post-pubescent persons fend for themselves. I am not saying Europe is better or worse, just telling you how it is, so you know. I have lived in both places, so I know. I have had weird experiences in both places, and both places are very screwed up—sexually and otherwise—so it is hard to choose.
Anyway, we need to know all that in order to look at a statistic pushed by both sides in the Spotlight controversy. In other words, I have found this statistic being promoted both by the mainstream and by the defenders of the Catholic Church. We are told that 6% of the population inside and outside the Church is pedophilic. 32% is ephebophilic. That last term means they are sexually attracted to teens from 15-19. You should be highly suspicious of those numbers, since they don't make any sense.
Notice in that linked Wiki page that these numbers come from the John Jay Report, which is even more strict about defining pedophilia than I was above. They create a third category for 11 and 12 year olds, so to be a pedophile you have to be sexually attracted to those younger than 11. Do you really think 6% of the general population is sexually attracted to those under 11? I don't. That would mean about one in every sixteen people is a pedophile. I have lived over five decades on this crazy planet, but I have never seen any evidence that is close to being true. Pedophilia is considered to be a very weird thing, which is why people are so shocked by it. It is highly unnatural. So how could something that one in every 16 people is be considered highly unnatural?
Yes, most people think children are cute or pretty, because they often are, but thinking they are cute and wanting to have sex with them are two entirely different things. I think my kittens are cute, but I don't want to have sex with them.
I simply don't believe 6% of the population is pedophilic. And since I have seen the mainstream lying to me about everything, I have no problem disbelieving this number. They make up statistics and numbers all the time to push various agendas, so best guess that is what is happening here.
I don't doubt that some people are pedophilic, but based on what I know about people and life, I would guess something on the order of 6 in 10,000, not 6 in a hundred. That means the decimal would be . 0006, not .06. And if we whittle that down to those who would consider acting on such a horrible impulse, we would have to add another couple of zeroes, .000006.
Another reason you shouldn't believe the 6% figure is that it would be impossible to arrive at using any questionnaire. Just think about it. Do you think one in sixteen people are going to admit on a questionnaire that they are sexually attracted to children under 11? Of course not. It would be like admitting to strangers that you had a body buried under your house. The same applies to Catholic priests. How could you possibly obtain that 6% number? Notice on the Wiki page for the John Jay Report that they glide you right past that. They have a section called “methodology”, but it is only four sentences and tells you almost nothing. What they do tell us is that the data came from “priests accused of sexual abuse”. So, that begs the question: “Does that mean they found 6% of those accused admitted to liking children under 11, or that 6% of all priests did?” It looks to me like they are saying 6% of those accused admitted liking or were assumed to like children under 11. On a closer look, we find it is even less than that. It says, “6% of the cleric offenders are pedophiles”. If you are accused, you are not an offender. To be an offender you have to be convicted. That is very different than saying 6% of all priests are pedophiles, isn't it? In fact, it would bring the percentage way, way down. Assuming they didn't just fake this entire survey, it would mean that we need to know what percentage of all priests were convicted to be able to do any real math. Let's use some round numbers to come to a likely figure. Let's say 1 in every 1,000 priests have been convicted in actual court documents. 6% of those priests then admit to liking children. What percentage of all priests are acting pedophiles, in that case? Well, that's 6% of .1%, which is .006% or .00006. Six in one hundred thousand.
At the one-hour mark in the film, it is confirmed that they are selling the 6% figure as 6% of all priests. We are told that there may be 90 priests in the Boston area who are pedophiles. But I have just shown you they are massaging numbers by huge amounts. I have reminded you that the John Jay Report explicitly contradicts those numbers. You can see it yourself if you don't believe me. According to the report, 4% of all clergy have been accused and “less than .1% have been convicted”. Despite the ever- increasing culture of fear we now live in, the accusations curiously peaked back in the 1970s.
The 6% figure is quoted in the report again, but this time it is that 6% of those accused were convicted. Again, that is very different than saying 6% of all clergy are potential pedophiles. In fact, it allows us to do the math using their own numbers. They give us a chart of ages as a percent of all cases. We find that about 53% of the cases were persons 13-17. About 25% were persons 11-12. So only about 22% were children under 11. Wikipedia misrepresents this number, reporting it as 22% were children under 10. Only 14% were children under 10, according to the posted chart. Therefore, we can throw out about half these cases as statutory rape, at the worst. Molesting a 17-year-old is wrong, but it isn't pedophilia.
So, they have told us explicitly in a major report that 6% of offenders are pedophiles, 6% of those accused are convicted, and 4% of all clergy are accused. What percentage of all clergy are pedophiles? We just multiply the three numbers together. Which gives us .0144% or .000144 as a decimal. Or about 1 in 10,000. That is close to my guess above.
Therefore, given 1,500 priests in Boston x .000144 = .216. Not 90 priests in Boston that are pedophiles, but less than one.
At minute 1:02:00, they tell their editor Bradlee that there may be 90 pedophile priests in Boston. He says, “90 fucking priests?. . . and no one said a thing?” The Rezendes character says, “Good Germans”. Wow. You should pause to savor that line in the film. As a Mathis (Mathis is German), I did. Remind yourself that all these characters, and all these actors playing these characters, are Jewish, and then read that again. Now tell me there is no continuing war between the Jews and the Holy Roman Empire.
In the opposite way, I disbelieve the 32% number. It should be much higher. By the definition of the John Jay Report, if we include 18-19 year olds in the data, almost every man on Earth would be an ephebophile. But you don't have to take my word for it: just look at statistics in porn. A disproportionate fraction of porn concerns late teen girls, or girls who look very young. I seriously doubt that every guy looking at naked 19 years olds online is 19-25 himself. If I had to assign a number to replace the 32% number, I would guess above 90%.* Older guys don't avoid 19 year olds because they are turned off by them physically, they avoid them for many other reasons: because the girls are silly or immature, because they have nothing in common with them, or because they don't wish to look like leches—in their own eyes.
For this reason, even having a term “ephebophile” and including it in pedophile statistics is misdirection. It makes you think there is something odd about being attracted sexually to a beautiful 19 year old. There is nothing odd about it. It would be odd if you weren't. Which is not to say you should be chasing 19 year olds. It is just to say that there is nothing odd in thinking they are sexually attractive. Again, that is just the way biology works.
One more thing to mention, and this may be the most difficult. However, if we are going to study this honestly, we have to include it. Watching the film, we have several excruciating scenes where we have to listen to men tell their stories of being molested when they were children. Not one story is believable to me, and I will tell you why. They always start out by saying that priests are like gods in the eyes of children in church. Baloney. Children are not that stupid or that easy to prey on. They aren't now and they weren't then. I remember being a kid, and none of my friends or I were like that. We didn't look upon any adults as gods, not even our parents. I looked up to my parents and some of my teachers and pastors, but there is no one I would have willingly been molested by. They couldn't have talked me into anything like that, not with sweets, favors, threats, or even large amounts of money. And I would have ratted them out in half a second for so much as suggesting it.
In the film [minute 49:00], we are told that priests target boys not because they prefer them, but because they are less likely to talk, due to shame. No way. Boys talk, and they probably have less shame than girls. From my experience, girls are much more likely to bottle up stuff like that. They are also far easier for adults to buffalo, in general. Everyone knows that. That is why girls are easier to raise: in general they aren't so headstrong.
You will say I was just lucky not to have been preyed upon. But I don't see it that way. In fact, I was the quintessential choir boy, with curly blond hair. I got mistaken for a girl a few times when I about 11 or 12. Men have always followed me around. They followed me around when I was ten and they are still doing it, so I didn't dodge anything. I have gotten propositioned many times over the years, although it is usually just with leer, a nod, or a lick of the lips or something. I showed no interest, or disgust, so they moved on. That is how it really works. They may have wished to be with me, but they had no desire to rape me.
And not all of those who have propositioned me have been older men. When I was in Europe, I got hit on by boys. Children. Just so you don't think I am making it up, I will share a complete story. I visited Denmark in 1999. I was 35. I wanted to see some of the country outside of Copenhagen, so I decided to go to Fejo. Well, the bus in the country in Denmark doubles as the school bus, so you sometimes have to ride with kids. At the next to the last stop before the ferry, all the schoolkids got off except one. A boy, about 10-12. He moved his seat to the one in front of me, and then turned around to talk to me. He was speaking Danish, so I told him in English I didn't understand him. In answer, he reached between the seats and put his hand on my knee. He then looked at me knowingly and licked his lips. I removed his hand from knee and said “no.” He understood that and moved off. If you think I was shocked, you are right.
But that isn't the only time I was hit on by a child. I was traveling through Italy several years earlier on my bicycle, staying in hostels. At one small town, I was in the john at the hostel when a boy, again about 12, poked his head over the stall and offered to give me a BJ. Didn't ask for money, just offered with a big smile. I threw a roll of TP at him and yelled at him to go away and leave me alone.
So from personal experience—experience I wish I didn't have—I know that some boys are quite willing. They don't have to be convinced of anything. Supposing one of these boys meets a gay priest, or any other gay man, I suppose anything can and does happen. I am not really interested in knowing more than that, but I would say there isn't much anyone can do about it. I see it as neither a tragedy nor a comedy: it is just the way things are. It is one of those things in the world that happens without my participation, like ice hockey or bug collecting or nude bingo.
If we include that fact in our math, it skews the numbers down again. Why? Because, again assuming most of these reports of molestation were real and not planted (which I don't assume), some percentage of them are going to include boys like this, who were quite willing. We can then assume the report of molestation was filed by his parents, who hadn't come to terms with the fact their son was gay. I think we can understand that, and understand why the parents are unhappy, but it does change the story a bit. You will say the priest should have begged off regardless, and I agree, but I have to admit it is an extenuating circumstance. It means the priest is weak, but not that he is a predator. Yes, he should be removed from his position regardless, but is he a monster? I wouldn't say so.
But again, that is mostly tangential, because whether or not we include it in the math or morality, we have seen the numbers are skewed by huge amounts. The numbers have been inflated by many orders of magnitude, so much so that we can call this one more big project. One more gigantic lie.
So why are these fake statistics being pushed on us? Several reasons. One we just saw with the ephebophile statistics: they want you to think that there is something wrong with normal biology. They want you beating yourself up for being a human creature. Because if you are doing that, you are going to need lots of serious drugging. You are going to need multiple trips to the pharmacy each week to buy all their new pharmaceuticals, which have been designed to de-humanize you. You are also going to need to compensate for your loss of humanity and loss of belief in yourself and loss of human contacts. So you are going to need multiple trips to the mall each week to stock up on the various products they have available for you to do that. Two, with the pedophile statistics they wish to scare you senseless. They want you looking sideways at everyone you meet, asking yourself if they are the 1 in 16 who are molesting children when they get home. That again breaks your ties to other people and forces you to compensate, buying exponentially more useless stuff.
If you don't think the film Spotlight is about that, I refer you to minute 1:04:30. One of the researchers says “Oh, shit!” and runs out of his house. He runs down the block and around the corner, where he stands looking at a dark and dilapidated house. It is the house of one of the pedophile priests he has been reading about. He then tapes a note to his frig, warning his children not to go near that house. The message to those watching the film: the monsters are living in your neighborhood. Fear everyone!
Now, let's look at the “monster” priest Father Geoghan and analyze his story for sense. As usual, we find none. To start with, in the picture above Geoghan is in court in 2002, so he should be 67. Does he look 67? No, he looks about 85, doesn't he? He has a nice head of hair for an old man, but his skin is awful. The only person of 67 years who would have skin that bad would be someone who worked outside every day of his life. Geoghan didn't. They needed someone who looked like a lizard, so they hired this 85-year-old to play a 67-year-old. It is also very convenient that his name is Geoghan, and that it is pronounced Gay-gun. Why is it pronounced like that? Does it make any sense that “eo” is pronounced like a long “a”? How do they get there? It is a variant of Georghan, which should be pronounced like George: Jor-gan. So Geoghan should be pronounced like Joe-gan. Normally, when a “g” is followed by an “e”, it is soft, you know, and is pronounced like a “j”. Also convenient he is not a cute old man like Pete Seeger, right? That would have ruined the whole story. So he had to look like someone Hollywood hired for his looks, to fit the part. He does that pretty well, doesn't he?
If we do a people search on John Geoghan of Massachusetts, we find two guys on InstantCheckmate. One is 81 and the other 66. Since our Geoghan was allegedly born in 1935, the first must be him. However, since Geoghan died at age 68 in 2003, it is strange to find him listed as being 81. Do corpses continue to age after death? Not where I come from. You will say the computers don't track deaths and stop the aging, but they do. That is if they have a death record. So the computers must not know of any death records for this Geoghan. Another problem is the locations listed for him. There are only three: West Roxbury, Milton, and Scituate. Unfortunately, that doesn't match his bio at Wiki, which gives us many locations, including Boston, Saugus, Concord, Hingham, Jamaica Plain, Dorchester, Weston, Silver Spring, Hartford, and Ontario. As you see, not one match. Another problem is his middle initial. This John J. Geoghan, 81, has an alias of John C. Geoghan. What? He didn't know his own middle name? Who aliases only their middle name? Is that going to fool anyone? So already we have a big problem.
Let's try Intelius. Safari won't open the page, so I switch to Firefox. There, Inteliustellsus there is one John J. Geoghan in MA, and that the J. stands for John. So his name was John John? He has the same locations as the other search, plus Boston. His only relative is Katherine Geoghan, same as the other search.
Wikipedia doesn't mention a Katherine Geoghan, but I suppose that is his sister. It also doesn't mention any parents for Geoghan. I guess he was born from a test tube. The first complaint against Geoghan was in 1968 in Hingham, when “a man” complained to church authorities he caught Geoghan molesting his son. Really? He didn't beat the shit out of Geoghan or file a police report? Instead, Geoghan was sent for treatment to Seton Institute. He later returned to the same church, where it happened again. Joanne Mueller accused Geoghan of molesting her four sons. Mueller said she reported it to Rev. Miceli, but he told her to keep it quiet. And she agreed? What kind of parents are these people supposed to be? Who are the monsters in this stupid story? The first father—after seeing his son molested—watched Geoghan return to his church and did nothing? And this mother also did nothing but ask for money after finding out her four sons were molested? We are told she later got a settlement. Is that what you would do?
Six years later Geoghan was re-assigned. So we are supposed to believe the parents allowed him to remain in Hingham after molesting their sons? Over the next six years in Jamaica Plain, he molested seven more boys, and talked about it to another priest. This priest reported it to the bishop, who reported it the cardinal, but again Geoghan got off with counseling.
Within the year he was reassigned to Dorchester. I'm sorry, once again that simply isn't believable. He wouldn't be reassigned to someplace so near. Supposing they were all evil and wished to hide his behavior, they would destroy his records and send him to Alaska or Hawaii or something. Or at least California. Also not believable is the next tall tale: after many more complaints of molestations over the next two years, Archbishop Law intervened and moved Geoghan out of Dorchester. Law reassigned him to Weston in 1984, where he was put in charge of three youth groups, including altar boys.
I am going to stop there, since it can't get any more ridiculous than that. I'm prepared to believe quite a bit when it comes to the stupidity of people, but I'm not buying this. Even if we assume all these priests and bishops and cardinals are fat spiders sitting hugely in their chairs waiting to prey upon lovely boy flesh, the stories still don't fly. Why not? Because it requires us to ignore the boys and their parents. As I showed above, it simply isn't believable that parents would sit idly by while this happened. The boys would rat out the priests, and then all hell would break loose. You wouldn't just have one or two mothers and fathers reporting this to the high priest, you would have lawsuits filed, people going to the newspapers, police reports, high-profile arrests, and maybe a serious beating. There is simply no way this could be kept under wraps for 35 years. Remember, Geoghan didn't get prosecuted until several years after he retired. He was then accused of molesting over 100 boys. That makes no sense. Why would 100 crimes come to light in 2002, but none before that? We also have this problem: in the film, they say that Geoghan was “charged with molesting hundreds of kids” [minute 1:19:00]. As we have seen, that is a lie. He wasn't charged, he was accused, a very big difference. And it was not hundreds, but about 100. Wikipedia now admits only three charges were filed. Geoghan was convicted on one count of fondling over clothes. Although the first complaint was allegedly in 1968, he wasn't convicted until 2002, when he was found guilty of grabbing the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy in a swimming pool. What? After allegedly raping and sexually molesting half the state of Massachusetts, he was convicted of that and only that? You have to be kidding.
Again, it isn't an accident he was allegedly convicted of such a thing. They want you scared to touch your own kids or nephews in the swimming pool. If you grab your niece and throw her in the water during a pool party, be sure your hands only touch her arms and legs, or you could find yourself in jail for ten years. Or that is what they want you to think. In that way your niece can avoid being touched until she is out of college, at which point she can start expensive therapy for being frigid.
We are given more clues, when we are told a second case went forward against Geoghan, and
a judge dismissed conviction of Geoghan in two rapes, after hotly contested arguments, because the statute of limitations had run out.[9]
A judge would check the statute of limitations before any “hotly contested arguments” occurred. You don't run half a trial and then go, “Oh, sorry, we didn't even need to show up: this happened too long ago. My bad”. As usual, these stories are written for people who don't know anything about the law by people who don't know anything about the law.
I'm now going back to the film to pad this out even further. At minute 53:00, we find out something astonishing. We are told there is no paper trail for most of the cases against priests. This is spun to make it look like the Church is hiding its crimes. However, it goes both ways. If there is no paper trail, we are just taking the word of the film producers or the scriptwriters of the bigger story that any of this happened at all. The lack of a paper trail is actually very convenient for them, because they can then tell any story they like. Later in the film, we are told the attorney MacLeish (played by Billy Crudup) settled cases against 45 priests in the Boston area [minute 1:10:50]. But since there is no paper trail, we have no possible confirmation of that. It is just his word. Suppose none of this ever happened, as I am showing you. Well, in that case, the fact that there is no evidence of any of these alleged crimes is another huge red flag. It also makes no sense from the point of view of the families, who certainly wouldn't have wished to sweep any of this under the rug. They would never have agreed to private settlements of the sort we are told occurred. They would have wanted to make sure it didnt happen to more children, right? We are told several times that the families just wished for personal recognition and a small settlement. Really? And you believe that? That is why this film is so insidious: it flips the truth on you over and over, but because they are so slick, most people miss it. Hollywood can sell night as day. The film Spotlight sells all these people as heroes for outing the Catholic Church, when they are just the opposite.
At the one-hour mark in the movie, they tell us
when I was a kid, a priest moved after seven-eight years: these guys, two to three years tops.
But even with Geoghan, allegedly the worst of the lot, we didn't see that. Geoghan was in Saugus for 4.5 years, Hingham for six years, Jamaica Plain for seven years, Dorchester for 3.5 years, and Weston for eight years. So their own stories don't match.
And here's something most people don't know. You won't find it mentioned at Wikipedia. In 2003, the Globe updated the Geoghan saga by admitting that his one conviction had been erased from his record. That's right. Geoghan has no criminal record as of this moment. Criminal defendants who die while their conviction is under appeal have the conviction vacated (wiped) and are considered innocent. That's a curious end to this story, wouldn't you say? The film tells us Geoghan was charged with hundreds of crimes, but he ended up with a clean record after 2003. Wow. So if you study a list of those priests convicted of molesting children, Geoghan isn't on it at all.
Did you know Geoghan is buried in Holyhood cemetery in Brookline, with Boston aristocracy including Joseph and Rose Kennedy, three Massachusetts governors including Edward King and Maurice Tobin, and four Boston mayors? Adjoining St. Joseph cemetery includes Rose's father John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, three other Boston mayors, Speaker of the House John McCormack, and conductor Arthur Fiedler. Since space is extremely limited in such cemeteries, you may wish to ask yourself how Geoghan found a plot there. Remember, he was supposed to have died broke, and was not supposed to be from any important family.
Judge Constance Sweeney is also a ghost. Martindale.com doesn't even know what university she attended. I could find no information on her prior to 2001, although she should have been almost 50 by that time. Finally I found one case from 1996, when she presided in an appeal. But we would expect such a famous judge to have a bio posted, a Wikipedia page, and an extensive trial record. She should also have a record as an attorney before becoming a judge. We find none of that, indicating she may also be a plant here. In the Simpson trial, we found Marcia Clark as a planted attorney, so there is nothing to stop us from asking if Sweeney was a real judge. I am also not clear on why these cases were tried in Hampden Superior Court, which is in Western, MA, near Springfield. Since they concerned events in Eastern Massachusetts, they should have been tried there. It would be very inconvenient for everyone except the judge to have to drive almost two hours to get to trial. Also a problem is that although Martindale.com now gives her address as Boston, a people search on her finds no listing for Boston. InstantCheckmate only lists her near Springfield or in Rhode Island. In this case, Intelius confirms that, with no listing for her of Boston.
And there is another problem. We are told by the Globe that Sweeney signed off on an agreement in 2003, by which 86 plaintiffs were awarded $10 million. That figure was just a third of the original figure of $30 million, agreed to months earlier. After originally agreeing to the higher figure, the Church had changed its mind, saying it couldn't afford it. Once again, things don't work that way in real life. You either have an out-of-court settlement or an in-court settlement. You can't have both. In an out-of-court settlement, the two sides agree on a figure. But if you go to court, the plaintiff sues for an amount, and then the judge or jury decides if it is a fair amount for damages. The defendant has nothing to say about it, once it is decided. This is why defendents prefer to settle out-of-court: then then have some say in the damages, and can also demand secrecy. So when the court originally decided on damages of $30 million, the Church could not have claimed poverty. In the real world, if the defendant had declined to pay for any reason, short of bankruptcy, the court would have assigned officials to seize assets. The Church has plenty of non-cash assets, as we know. And even in a declared bankruptcy, assets would have been seized to pay creditors and plaintiffs, of course.
Also at the one-hour mark, we hear of a Thomas Doyle, who allegedly authored a report in 1985 warning of the upcoming crisis and the potential “billion dollar liability” of the Church. From my research, this looks like an utter fraud. He may have written such a report, but it was not at the behest of the Church. Although he is alternatively described as a Reverend or a Dominican Friar, and sometimes as a canonist at the office of the papal nuncio, I could find no confirmation of any of those things. What we do know is that he was an Air Force Chaplain, later fired. He was also fired as canon lawyer by the Archdiocese of St. Louis. So he looks to me like another spook hired by the military to infiltate the Church. He is far from being a trustworthy source regardless, and the fact that the film mentions him as story support is very damning on the face of it.
Then there is the equally ridiculous story of Geoghan's death in jail. He was allegedly stomped to death soon after entering jail by convicted murderer Joseph Druce. Although Geoghan was in protective custody in a maximum-security prison, we are supposed to believe that he was sharing a cell with a violent murderer whose victim had been a man who had hit on him? There is no chance this happened. How do I know? Because, once again, this man Druce is a ghost. Wiki admits that isn't even his real name. His real name is Darrin Smiledge, so why would the Massachusetts Department of Corrections allow him to live under the alias Joseph Druce? Convicted in 1988 [note the date], he was still Darrin Smiledge in his appeal in 1994. Vinelink.com tells he was transferred to an Arizona prison sometime after 2004 under the name Druce, but they don't seem to know his age or race.
What does InstantCheckmate have to say about it? They have never heard of a Darrin Smiledge. Intelius has, but he lives in Salem with Dana Smiledge. Hmmm. Salem. Dana is supposed to be his dad. But why don't the big computers know Darrin Smiledge is in jail in Arizona? They normally have no problem tracking aliases, and often list several. The computers are very smart: name changes don't fool them, since the record of the change is also in the computers.
Darrin's mother is given as Donna Lee. With more digging, we find Darrin's stepmother: Beverly A. Smiledge. I wonder what her maiden name is? It is Lops, and her mother was a Cali. Darrin's paternal grandmother has an obit online. She was Catherine Smiledge, nee Leighton. Even more interesting, we find she was related to the Kosinskis. She appears to have a grandchild and a great-grandchild named Kosinski. This reminds of writer Jerzy Kosinski, who made a brief appearance in my Manson paper. He was a Polish Jew, of course. He was married to Mary Hayward Weir, wealthy heiress and widow of Pittsburgh steel king Ernest Weir. She was also a close friend of the Folgers.
According to the Globe itself, Darrin Smiledge was supposed to have been in psychiatric treatment since age 5. Really? That would have been 1970. His father is listed as a sheet metal worker who beat him and his mother. Do you think a sheet metal worker in 1970 is going to beat up his family and then put his 5-year-old son in therapy for it? Wouldn't he be afraid the boy might rat him out? The story makes no sense. Neither does the Boston Herald later interviewing Dana Smiledge, and letting him say that his son had been “a longtime victim of sexual abuse by adult men.” Considering that his son had also allegedly been a longtime victim by beating of himself, why would they interview him for something like that? The story has no continuity.
For more connected weirdness, we can search on other Smiledges. We find a GeorgeWilbur Smiledge, b. 1866 Weymouth, MA. And who did he marry? Hold on tight. Nellie D. Manson. Can't be, right? Who was her father? Charles T. Manson, of Essex, MA. No, really. I am not making this up. You will tell me the famous Charles Manson was really a Scott from Ohio, but we don't know that. His whole bio is garbage.
We know a Clara Smiledge from this same family in Weymouth married a Louis E. Watts in 1890. That's curious for this reason: guess who actor Liev Schreiber (above) is married to? Famous actress Naomi Watts. She is scrubbed past her mother and grandfather, but Watts is her real name. Her father was Peter Watts, who was road manager for Pink Floyd.
Here's something else interesting: in Saugus, the first place Geoghan was allegedly assigned as a priest, there is a street named Smiledge Terrace. So the Smiledges must have been prominent there. But that is just a coincidence, right? Is it also a coincidence that in this 2013 report of historic-Boston, we find one of the Boston Landmarks Commissioners is a Smiledge? The movie Spotlight was filming in Boston in 2104, and it was using Boston landmarks as backdrops. So the Smiledges are apparently still very prominent in both Saugus and Boston itself. We could have guessed that, couldn't we? It is why they had to change Darrin Smiledge's name in prison. They didn't want anyone connecting him to this prominent family.
Here's another good one from the research: at Smiledge's trial for murdering Geoghan, his lawyer was a guy named John LaChance. From actual court testimony, we find this:
"This is a kid who never had a chance," his lawyer, John LaChance, said in his closing argument.
OK. They are just toying with us, as usual. From the same story, we find more ridiculous claims. Smiledge claimed he was driven to kill Geoghan after hearing him advise other inmates on how to molest children. Not a chance that is true. From other prison stories, we know child molesters are considered the scum that scum scrapes off their shoes in prison, ranking even below murderers of women. No way Geoghan would be bragging about it in prison. That is why we are told he was in protective custody: you are supposed to know that child molesters have to be protected from fellow inmates. At the end of the same report, we find that in his first trial, there was testimony Smiledge had been prescribed psychoactive pharmaceuticals from the time he was five. Did they even prescribe those drugs to non-institutionalized five year olds in 1970? I doubt it. I don't think you could take a child that young to a psychiatrist in 1970 and get him on drugs of that sort. Certainly you shouldn't have been able to, and I assume you couldn't legally do it. I would guess he would have to be psychotically violent, and that even then you would have to get a court order to do it.
There he is in about 1980. Does he look like someone drugged up since age 5? Nope. Smiledge went to Lakeside School, and we are led to believe it was in Danvers. It isn't. It is in Peabody, adjacent to Salem. His school psychologist is given as Mary E. Labella. She died in 1996 at age 78 in Middletown, just north of Peabody. In her obit we are told that
before her retirement, she was active in politics, working in the offces of U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd and Rep. Sam Gedjenson. She was a member of the Democratic town committee and a justice of the peace.
Hmmm. Nothing about being a school psychologist in Peabody. So let's do some math. If she retired at age 65, that would have been in 1983. She is supposed to have worked with Smiledge in 1974, when she was 56 and he was 9. But they don't mention her career as a school psychologist at all. Strange.
Do you know what else is strange? I don't remember there being a school psychologist at my school when I was 9. Elementary schools in the early 1970s didn't have school psychologists. PL 94-142 wasn't passed until 1975, and that was for handicapped kids, not for kids with severe psychological problems.
It is also a big red flag to find Mary Labella working in the office of Senator Dodd. This indicates she wasn't just some low-level school psychologist, attending to drugged-up nine-year-olds. She was connected to the top legislators and families in Massachusetts.
Now for another numerology alert before we move on. At minute 1:13:00, we are watching the reporters visit homes in search of priests and victims. At one house, Pfeiffer is talking to a person at the door: the number on the house is 170. That adds to eight. At the next house, we see the number is 33. The very next house is 488. This is just before Pfeiffer finds Father Paquin, and he admits to her at his door, right after meeting her, that he molested boys. Do you really think that happened? If so, I have some wetlands I would like to sell you. And do you really think that guy molested anyone? He couldn't molest a wet kitten. Any ten-year-old boy would have kicked his ass. Also notice the name: Paquin. We have seen that these families hire their own for these roles in the projects. I remind you of famous actress Anna Paquin, who I showed you in a previous paper was related to all the top families.
Finally, I have to say a few words about Aquinas Walter Richard Sipe, the psychologist who is only heard on the phone in the movie, giving tips to the team. Curious that his Wikipedia page has zero biographical information on him. He was supposed to have been a Benedictine Monk for 18 years, but that is all we get. Note the number: aces and eights. So let's check him at InstantCheckmate. They have never heard of him, either with the name Aquinas or the name Richard. No one by that name is listed as ever having lived in Minnesota. Intelius tells us he is 84 and living in La Jolla. So why the different information? Probaby because Intelius is now owned by HIG Capital, a spin-off of the Blackstone Group. This indicates it is a spook front, which tells me false names may be being inserted into the databases there. The lack of biographical info on Sipe indicates another ghost. He probably came out of the military and was inserted into this project as a face to promote the books and so on.
Regardless, he is an obvious tool. He is also an idiot. In an interview with ABCNews in 2010, he is quoted as saying that several hundred Popes had been murdered in the history of the Church. Since there have been only 266 Popes in history, he must be implying all or nearly all of them were murdered. It would be curious to see what evidence he has of that. He also likes to compare Catholics to Nazis, which fits in well with what we have discovered above. In his 1995 book Sex, Priests, and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis, he says
I cannot forget that the people and forces that generated Nazism and the Holocaust were all products of one Christian culture and the celibate/sexual power system.
What? So the celibacy of priests caused the Holocaust? But since we have found that it is Jews who link everything to the Nazis and the Holocaust, we have another big red flag here. Regardless, it has to be strange seeing someone like this used as the unseen expert in the film Spotlight. Someone with zero history, zero credentials, and zero factual reliability.
For another red flag, we find he has been married to “former nun” Marianne Benkert for 37 years. In that case, he must have been a monk back in the 60s and 70s. And doing some math tells us he was 29 when he went into the monastery. And before that? No one knows. But let's return to the name Marianne Benkert. It is a joke at your expense. Do you know who coined the term “homosexual”? It was a guy named Karl-Maria Benkert. This was in the middle-1800s, and Benkert was gay himself. He changed his name in 1847 [note the date] to Kertbeny to make people think he was a Hungarian aristocrat, but he was probably an Austrian Jew. AHanns Benkert was also the director of Siemens in Germany after WW2. He was accused of being a Nazi collaborator after the war, but he was more likely Jewish himself. These Benkerts were related to the Scherers, Schaedles and Auers, which are all also Jewish names.
A final red flag on Sipe is his publisher, Brunner-Mazel. The second name there is already a clue, since it is Jewish. I suppose you have heard the expression mazel-tov: “good luck”. So is Brunner: see Israeli filmmaker Benny Brunner. Also see Alois Brunner, allegedly a Nazi and assistant to Eichmann. Like everyone else famous in history, his entire bio is faked. We are told he escaped after the war and went to Syria to deal arms under the name Fischer. The government then hired him as an advisor. He was never caught. That is another joke at your expense. Syria is an Arab country, so they wouldn't take in a guy named Fischer with open arms. It is a Jewish name! See Bobby Fischer, for one, whose mother is admitted to be Jewish (his father was, too). But I will have to hit that later: it is another whole can of worms.
For now, it is enough to say that Brunner-Mazel publishing is also a problem, since we find absolutely no information on it online. Although it existed until recently, selling out to Taylor&Francis in about 1998, we know nothing about it: not the original owners, not the starting date, nothing. It apparently had a shop at 19 Union Sq., NY, but it shut down without even collecting all monies due it. There is a notice for unclaimed property posted to this day for the company, which is curious. My guess is it was another CIA-front publisher, like others we have seen.
So we have found loads of easy evidence this was another big fake project, run as usual by the top Jewish families. But we have also found evidence of complicity by the Church itself. If Geoghan and Smiledge were planted in the story and were just actors, many of the other characters were probably actors as well. I suspect Cardinal Law of being an actor. [The name looks made up, for one thing.] So how do we explain that? Well, logically, it indicates one of three things: either the Church was completely in on it from the start, they were infiltrated, or they were blackmailed into silence. What do I mean by blackmailed? Well, if the Church wasn't in on it, and was only a target, we would have expected them to have blown the project completely. They would have gone on TV and told everyone these priests and bishops weren't real Catholics and weren't working for them. It should have been pretty easy to do. Except for one thing: it would require blowing the MATRIX entirely. If you go on TV and tell the world that top state officials and wealthy families are staging major show trials and placing huge fake stories in the top newspapers, you have just blown not only the current project, but all projects—including your own. In other words, you will have just thrown a wrench into the engine that runs the Modern world. As it turns out, the Catholic Church runs on that engine just like every other major institution. So the Church could not afford to blow the cover of this Jewish project. In blowing the cover of their enemies, they would also be blowing their own cover. The Catholic Church may be the enemy of Jewish financiers in some ways, but they both subsist on the same great fiction. They both rely on their ability to con the masses from day to day, and they are both at the mercy of the MATRIX.
I showed the same thing in my paper on the Salem Witch Trial hoax, in which Increase Mather could not respond to the hoax. He couldn't come out and tell the public that the whole thing was a project by the top families. He was also from the top families, although on another team, so he couldn't attack his own foundations. In bringing down the other team, he would have brought down his own team as well.
In other words, there are rules in the battles of the top families. You can run projects against one another, but you cannot blow the cover of the whole system. This is why the truth is the most hated thing, and the one thing you never see.
So it looks to me like the Church was forced to go along with this story to a certain extent. Or, they were forced into a silence that made it look like they were admitting guilt. You will say the Church did admit guilt, but that is just the story. The media told us they admitted guilt, but that doesn't mean they did. It simply means they didn't respond and tell the world all the stories were false and fake. Same thing with the huge amounts of money we are told they paid out to victims. Since the victims were all actors, the Church didn't actually have to pay out anything, you see. They just had to remain silent when the media reported they had paid out $10 million, or whatever.
The only thing the Church could do is tell its own members the claims were false, but they couldn't tell them the claims were fake. In other words, the Church was allowed to despin, but not to tell the truth. This limited the damage inside the Church, since we may assume most Catholics were loyal to their local people, and were more likely to believe their own officials than the newspapers. And, in fact, this is what we have seen. The Church hasn't been damaged as much as one would have thought. Before I figured this one out, I wondered why the Catholic Church in Ireland and Boston didn't immediately collapse, declaring bankruptcy. If what we were told were true, that is what you would expect. You would expect a sort of run on the banks, where everyone removed their children—and therefore themselves—from the Church. But we haven't seen that, which indicates most people were not fooled by this project. I don't think they realized it was a project, as above, they just realized the story didn't add up. Without discovering any proof it was false, they just decided to ignore it. People have this ability to this day, which is one of the few signs of hope. I existed on this plan for many decades, as I have admitted, not taking the time to research anything, but just moving ahead on intuition. It served me pretty well. Knowing the truth serves me even better, since I can finally toss huge amounts of baggage that was threatening to eventually swamp my ship.
Of course this begs a very big question, one I cannot really dodge after all I have said above. If I admit the Catholic Church is part of the big historical con, why shouldn't I support this project run against it? Why not cheer as the Church goes down in flames? I don't cheer, and even find myself in the strange position of defending it, because I find the opposing team much worse. I personally don't have much use for Catholic doctrine. But I have even less use for the shallow plastic doctrine of the Plutocrats now running the world. As an artist, I am aware that these people are the least artistic rulers in the history of the world. You can't say that about the Catholics, who have given us some of the greatest art in history. You will say the Plutocrats have given us better science, but that is not true, either. Yes, the Church sat on science for centuries, but science is still being sat on. And I prefer the Church's method of sitting on science to the current method.
What can I possibly mean by that? I mean that at least the Church was honest. They said, “Science conflicts with our doctrines, therefore we are going to suppress it as best we can”. Therefore, those who disagreed with that knew what they were up against. It was mostly out in the open. But now, the current rulers pretend they are supporting science while they are suppressing it. They have created a huge fake science, selling it as real. This fools almost everyone into thinking science is getting done. It fools most young people who are interested in science, and they are diverted their entire lives by the false patter. Very few people know what they are up against, because the war exists entirely in the shadows. In this way, it would be better to have no mainstream science than to have fake mainstream science. At least intelligent people would then know there was a hole to be filled, and they might make some effort to fill it on their own. To read more about this, you will have to link over to my science site, where there is no shortage of information on this topic.
*You wouldn't have to prefer women that age to be included in the statistic, just be attracted to them, you understand.