No Evidence To Support Chen Guangcheng’s “Beating” Claims

At the outset, Chen seemed to be just another Chinese dissident brutally treated by the authorities; however, there is more to it.

In the opening statement at the Council on Foreign Relations (31 May, 2012), Professor Cohen of New York University made it clear that Chen “had never studied law” when “the State Department” asked him to meet Chen nine years ago (that is, in 2003).

Despite such an open piece of information linking Chen to the “State Department” in a forum that was packed with journalists, I only managed to find the full content of Cohen’s opening statement via YouTube, theCouncil on Foreign Relations and NYU websites.

Amazingly, as far as my research is concerned, none of the news media during and after the forum appear to show any interest in persuading or reporting the relationship between the State Department and Chen. Just a few examples (none of these media report a thing on the content of Cohen’s opening statement):

The NY Daily News, The Daily Beast, USA Today, Time, VOA, WNYC, NBC New York and Radio Free Asia. [Note: simply Google “Chen Guangcheng address Council on Foreign Relations” to find more examples].

Interestingly, while Chen has never being a lawyer, soon after the public forum at the Council on Foreign Relations, many journalists and writers continued to call Chen the ‘blind lawyer’, ‘bare-foot lawyer’ or ‘self-taught lawyer’. Such misinformation is so widespread that an article in the Ethnics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention (12 June) went to the extent of calling Chen the “Blind Attorney.”

In short, the news media appears to have reached some kind of unspoken understanding on what to say and what not to say about Chen. We could perhaps call this an ‘inter-media agenda setting’. As a result, I have noticed that there are more than a dozen of contradictory and murky stories on how Chen “escaped” from his village without any mainstream media making any effort to clarify the facts.

I believe that below is another area of Chen’s story that lacks credibility.

The brutal “beating” of Chen and his wife – How true are the claims?

In the YouTube video released after his “escape”, Chen has a detailed account on how he and his wife were being beaten up in his own home. The translation by the Shanghai List and a Chinese blogger would probably be the only two comprehensive transcripts one could find on the internet. Both transcripts omitted certain minor details, so I will extract the appropriate part from each and add a few words of my own in “bold” to form a complete translation. The following is what Chen says about the beating:

“Some 70 to 80 officials “entered my home”, none of them were wearing uniforms, beat my family without any legal approvals and forbid my family from seeking medical assistance despites injuries … more than a dozen men assaulted my wife. They pinned her down and wrapped her in blanket, beating and kicking her for several hours. They did the same to me … My wife’s orbital bone was broken, you could feel it … you could still feel obvious protuberance on her 5^th lumbar and her sacrum. Her 10^th and 12^th ribs also have feel-able protuberance.”

The Washington Post (28 April) reported the YouTube video with a hyperlink but without a transcript to the video, and without mentioning the number of people involved in the beating and the duration of the beating. This is how Washington Post describes the beating: “He (Chen) detailed beatings that had been inflicted on him and his wife, injuring his wife’s back, ribs, elbow and eye, while being denied medical care.”

The Reuters (27 April) quoted a statement from He Peirong, another Chinese dissident: “Chen is passing blood and is very weak” and that “They broke some of his wife’s bones which have yet to heal.”

The Democracy Digest (27 April) quoted a statement made by Phelim Kine, Senior Asia Researcher at the Human Right Watch: “Chen has been in extremely poor health due to severe multiple beatings by his captors.”

The US government funded Radio Free Asia alleged that Chen suffered “20 months of beatings and house arrest”.

[Note:  To find more incredible reports on how Chen and his wife been beaten by authorities, simply Google “Chen and wife beaten by authority”.]

When Chen left the US embassy to the hospital, the initial statement made by the embassy is for Chen to treat hisfoot injury (The Telegraph, 2 May). A few days later the Foreign Policy (7 May) claimed that: Chen is known to suffer from “chronic gastroenteritis”, which he “developed during his months in Chinese jail”.  An American doctor in the embassy noted that Chen “was found to be bleeding profusely from his rectum” and suspected he could have advanced colon cancer,” forcing the Americans to “transfer Chen to a hospital” quickly.

The irony is, given the severity of Chen and his wife’s “brutal” treatments by the Chinese authorities and their poor state of health, it is hard to understand why  there wasn’t any arrangement for Chen and his wife to visit a US hospital for an examination with at least an X-ray of his wife’s fractured bones when they arrived at the U.S..

Contrary to the reports in regards to Chen’s  health, Chen’s activities since leaving the US embassy tell otherwise – Chen was not only healthy but energetic:

He spoke to the Washington Post while on his way to the hospital in the embassy van; he reportedly also spoke to Mrs Clinton which he said: “I want to kiss you”; he accepted the Congressional Hearing while in the hospital in Beijing; within days of arriving in the US, he received exclusive interview by individual media such as the CNN andNYR; Chen has again spoken to the Congressional Hearing for the second time in less than two weeks; he faced media in a public forum such as the Council on Foreign Relation; he was reportedly negotiating a book deal through Robert Barnett, a Washington attorney whose clients includes President Obama and Mrs. Clinton. In fact, believe it or not, Chen answer qestions through a spokesman.

Chen spoke a lot since he left the US embassy in Beijing. He repeatedly spoke about his cousin being tortured orbeaten up after his “escape”. However, in an interview with CNN five days after arriving the U.S., Chen declined to reveal details about what happened during his four years of imprisonment from 2006 for “damaging property and organizing a mob to disturb traffic”. Chen also declined to describe the periodic beatings he says he and his wife endured during 18 months of detention in their village. Chen told CNN: “I don’t want to talk about it right now … Let’s just say that my suffering was beyond imagination.”

Perhaps, Chen’s trusted adviser – Prof. Cohen, who “spoke to Chen multiple times” while Chen is in the US embassy comments about Chen on the Morning Sun on 21^st May means something: Chen is in “admirable shape.”

Have a look at the photo of Chen and Hu Jia on the Guardian (27 April) released by Hu Jia to the world after he help Chen to produce his YouTube Video. Is there any sign of a poor health Chen, or a stressful Hu Jia?

If the Chinese authorities were so brutal in their treatment of these dissidents, would both of them still be able to appear so relaxed in the photo?

According to the US funded – Reporter Without Border  (27 June, 2011) and the New York Times (28 April, 2012), Hu Jia has been “under constant surveillance.” However, like Chen “escape”, Hu appears to be able to move around and meet Chen at will, and then produced and upload the Chen’s video on YouTube.

In fact, while the New York Times reported on the 28^th of April that Hu Jia and others who involved in helping Chen escaped are “now at risk”.  On the 9^th of July, Hu Jia has apparently again managed to “slip through” security surveillance and meet with some petitioners and produces another video on the internet.

Conclusion

Again, we have to ask ourselves: “Can we trust the media?”

Footnote:

The truth is, Chen is not a simple dissident. Cohen short opening statement at the Council on Foreign Relation had given away a series of important information. This is exactly what Cohen said:

“It was just nine years ago this week that I met Mr. Chen and Mrs. Chen here. I told the State — I told the State Department people I was too busy to meet them. This man had never studied law. I hadn’t finished grading my exams. I had to go to China. But they said, this is somebody you’re going to want to meet. So I said, half an hour only. And we ended up talking about four hours and became good friends. And later in the year when I went to China, he came up to Beijing, the Tsinghua Law School, then he invited my wife and me down to their humble village in Shandong province. It was an enlightening experience, and we have been friends since, although for seven years until May 19th, we hadn’t seen each other.”

From the above statement, we now know that:

1) Cohen, a 72 year old professor (at the time) met Chen in person two times in 2003: first time in the US in May for four hours through the arrangement of the State Department; second meeting in China in later part of 2003;

2) Since then, Cohen hadn’t seen Chen in person for 7 years till 19 May, 2012. That means, Cohen continued to see Chen between 2004 and the first five months of 2005.

The questions are:

• Who sponsored Chen to the United State?
• Besides the arrangement by the State department to meet with Cohen, who else did the state department arranged Chen to meet while he was in the US? For what purpose?
• Who set Chen agenda in China since 2003?
• What did Chen do before 2003 that attracted the State Department interest in him?
• Why are the mainstream media so reluctant to tell Chen story before 2005?
• Is Chen a dissident?

Unfortunately, we can only leave these for next time.

Aurora Massacre: What Does the Location of the Gas Mask Tell Us? What About Security Cameras? Are They Related?

by Scott Creighton

As I was scanning through a number of heart breaking photos from the aftermath of the Dark Knight massacre in Aurora Co. this morning, I noticed something very interesting; actually a couple of interesting things stood out.Primarily I noticed that the gas mask was found a long way away from where James Holmes was arrested and the other equipment was found. I also think I found an image of a security camera mounted on the back of the theater pointing down toward where the car was parked and the theater exit was. And as luck would have it, that is the exact same location the gas mask was found as if the assailant traveled the length of the building and dropped the mask once he was out of the view of the camera.

I have done my best to compile photos and the layout of the scene at the back of the theater for your consideration.

——— The first was the fact that early reports had claimed the shooter was still wearing his equipment when the cops first found him next to his car and he was still carrying all of his weapons except for one Glock 40 which was found in his car. This is an important aspect of the case because how else would they have known he was the shooter amid all that chaos. Also interesting is the fact that they didn’t just shoot the guy. He was apparently still carrying an assault rifle and a shotgun and decked out in tactical armor… so how did he just end up surrendering “meekly” as some reports claim?

The answer is simple: he wasn’t carrying the guns and he wasn’t still wearing the armor. So, how did they know they had the right guy?

“Holmes was apprehended within minutes of the 12:39 a.m. shooting at his car behind the theater, where police found him in full riot gear and carrying three weapons, including an AR-15 assault rifle, which can hold upwards of 100 rounds, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, and a .40 Glock handgun. A fourth handgun was found in the vehicle.” ABC News

But this report flies in the face of the evidence at the scene and the vast number of police photos taken.

From the above photo you can clearly see he had striped off his armor on the way to his vehicle and in fact, the AR-15 was found just inches outside the exit door, meaning he could not have still had it when the cops found him unless they let him walk back the 30 or so feet to the door to lay the weapon down there.

It’s important to understand the layout of the location where the assailant left the building to return to his car. Let’s put that into perspective right off the bat.

As you can see from the compilation of crime scene photos below, the assailant left the building from the door between the two sections and next to the utility area beside where he parked. He could not have found a parking space closer to that door if he tried. As you can see, his Ar-15 was found right beside the door where he apparently dropped it upon leaving the theater. The blood makes it clear that was the exit to the theater where the massacre took place.

So if he did indeed drop his primary weapon at the door when he left, how did the cops know he was the assailant? It’s possible he was still carrying the shotgun and wearing the body armor and the gas mask, but that seems to be contradicted by other photos with one VERY interesting piece of evidence…

Notice where the gas mask location is, at the end of the building. That’s VERY important…

When I first started researching this article, I was consumed by the question of locating the security cameras covering this business’s parking and access areas. I had wondered why there has been literally no discussion of the security camera footage from that night.

What I found may be more damning than I could have imagined: yes there are security cameras mounted on the building on the front and apparently on the back shooting down the length of the rear of the building and if someone were walking down that sidewalk after leaving that exit, then their face would be clearly visible on that camera because they would have been walking directly toward it.

So, if an assailant were to leave the theater via that exit and head in that direction, then obviously he would want to leave his mask on until he was out of the viewable area of the camera.

As it turns out, the gas mask seems to have been dropped directly under the camera itself.

But why head in that direction? Because it is the closest access to the main road right next to the theater and a waiting vehicle and escape. It wouldn’t do to try to blend in with the crowd because the police may detain witnesses and start asking questions they might not want to answer. Plus then there would be a record of the individual on site and that might not be good in the future. The best bet would be to get off property as soon as possible and that exit path provides the fastest way to do that.

Is it possible that James Holmes was set up? Think about this:

• James Holmes goes out Tuesday night drinking and someone doses him. They do it early Wed morning so they have time in his apartment to set up those elaborate traps (how would James have known how to construct those anyway?)
• They keep him drugged and off the radar till Thursday night when they go to the theater. They make sure to park in that spot, right next to the exit of the theater.
• The assailant goes in, fakes the phone call, comes out, goes to the car where James is still drugged, gets the gear on, goes in and attacks the innocent civilians.
• Then the assailant comes out the exit door, leans against it while dropping the gun and removing almost all of his gear with the exception of the mask.
• He runs past the car dropping the gear next to it in a heap, opens the door with James inside, tosses the guns into the car, the shotgun has been there all along, and goes straight down the length of the building toward the corner, toward the camera, drops his mask directly under the camera, and heads off to the nearby street where a car is waiting (cruising slowly) to pick him up.
• Holmes is reported to have been “meek” when arrested. This might also explain why he wasn’t shot by police… he was incapacitated, incoherent, or generally not a threat.
• Holmes, who is being held under suicide watch in solitary confinement, remained in his murderous “Joker” persona after his arrival, a jailhouse worker told the Daily News.“He thinks he’s acting in a movie,” a prison employee told the Daily News.

There is no way of telling if this is actually what happened but we have to take all of the evidence, including the physical evidence into consideration and part of that evidence is the apparent lack of anyone talking about the security camera videos. Those cameras on the front of the building should show James Holmes entering the building at the very least so where are they?

And what other explanation is there for that gas mask to be located so far from the rest of the equipment and James and his car? Clearly the police didn’t carry it down there and drop it on the ground for the fun of it?

I am still searching for more pictures of the rear of that building and specifically anything that shows the roof section where I think that camera is.

While it is possible that Holmes did this, it is also possible that the same thing happened here that happened at the recent Kandahar Massacre where a man was drugged and set up for an atrocity he had nothing to do with. Considering the nature of the world we live in, I think it would be irresponsible for me not to report this information as I found it and to not question the “official story” of the “crazed lone gunman” that we see over and over again especially when unpopular landmark legislation is waiting in the wings.

Billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using this tragedy to push for stricter gun control laws. I wonder if he is one of the financial elites who have just been outed for hording 32 trillion dollars in off shore accounts? Can you imagine why someone like him would want to disarm the citizens of this country?

Bradley Manning’s Defense Claims U.S. Military is Withholding Evidence on His Innocence

Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of being behind the biggest leak of state secrets in US history, is being denied a fair trial because the army is withholding from him crucial information that might prove his innocence or reduce his sentence, his defence team is arguing.

With Manning’s court-martial approaching in September, his legal team has released details of what they claim is a shocking lack of diligence on the part of the military prosecutors in affording him his basic constitutional rights.

The stakes are high, with Manning facing possible life imprisonment for a raft of charges that include “aiding the enemy”.

Manning’s main civilian lawyer, David Coombs, has filed a motion with the military court in Fort Meade, Maryland, that sets out a catalogue of delays and inconsistencies in the army’s handling of the case. In particular, he claims the government has failed to disclose key evidence that could help Manning defend himself against the charges.

‘NATO 3’ say evidence against them was planted in their apartment