Bigger secret: Holmes’ accomplices or his doctors?

By Jon Rappoport

July 25, 2012

Even a FOX news affiliate is now asking who helped Holmes in the Batman murders in Aurora. Where did Holmes get the money for all his weapons and gear purchases? Who showed him how to rig his apartment with a sophisticated array of explosives (or did the rigging for him)? Who let Holmes in through the side exit door in the theater?

No major media outlet, however, has yet asked who Holmes’ doctors are.

But a young man, Torrence Brown, who was in the Aurora theater last Friday night during the shooting has retained a Beverly Hills lawyer, Donald Karpel. Business Insider (linked at infowars) states that Torrence Brown is filing a lawsuit against Warner Brothers, the theater, and Holmes’ doctors, who “prescribed many medications without keeping an eye [on] their patient, [attorney] Karpel argued.”

The odds are Karpel doesn’t know who those doctors are, but if the lawsuit advances he may get a chance to find out. Clearly, the plan is to interview these physicians during the discovery process and lay bare their drug-treatment protocols for James Holmes.

It’s an open secret that Ritalin, Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Wellbutrin, and other psychiatric medications can and do cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide.

Here’s the catch. Citing doctor-patient confidentiality, these physicians can refuse to disclose what drugs they gave Holmes, making the lawsuit difficult to pursue in this area.

Assuming Holmes did (or does) have prescribing doctors, the doctors can simply state they saw no unusual drug-induced behavior on Holmes’ part and leave it at that.

Attorney Karpel may have to work the case from another angle: find witnesses who can reliably state what medications Holmes was on, and then track them to his doctors.

Don’t assume this is a walk in the park. You can be sure the American Psychiatric Association and the companies that manufacture the drugs in question have eyeballs on Aurora right now. These players don’t want the truth to come out: the drugs cause people to commit murder.

There is a tight fit between these players, and the cops, the FBI, and prosecutors in the Holmes case. Why? Because all parties want a smooth road to a guilty verdict. They don’t want a jury deciding that psychiatric meds impelled Holmes to commit murder. Therefore, it’s probable that law-enforcement people on the scene in Aurora are combing through witnesses and telling them not to speak about the case. This happened in the 1999 Columbine school shootings, where it finally emerged that one of the shooters, Eric Harris, was on Luvox, an SSRI antidepressant that can push a person over the edge into mania and violence.

In the fall of 2011, in Canada, Judge Robert Heinrichs ruled that a 16-year old, who suddenly stabbed his friend to death, “no longer poses a risk to anyone and that his mental deterioration and resulting violence would not have taken place without exposure to Prozac.” The judge therefore refused to send the case to an adult court, where the sentence for the 16-year old would have been much more severe. From the point of view of law enforcement, this is the kind of “complication” that can jump out of the box when the medical drugs take center stage.

Mainstream reporters can demand to know what meds Holmes may have been on. Yes, they can. They can apply pressure. But there is an obstacle. The companies these reporters work for survive on pharmaceutical advertising. A journalist (who shall remain nameless) who once worked for a major US newspaper told me the following story: his paper ran a piece that questioned the safety of vaccines; the next day, a gaggle of suits carrying briefcases marched into the newsroom and headed straight for the editor’s office; the suits were from the company who made one of the vaccines named in the article; the company was also a buyer of significant ad space in the newspaper; the suits proceeded to blast the editor, as if he worked for them.

Well, in a real sense, he did.

UPDATE: Fox News is now reporting that Holmes mailed a package to a University of Colorado psychiatrist before the killings, where it has sat in the mailroom, undelivered. The package contains a notebook, in which Holmes laid out “details about how he was going to kill people.”

This Aurora psychiatrist is also a professor at the University. His name is not disclosed. No one in law enforcement will reveal what’s in the notebook. A judge has already placed a gag order on it. Of course, the real question is: who is the psychiatrist and was he treating Holmes? If so, with what drugs?

Combing through the extensive faculty directory of the department of psychiatry at the U. of Colorado (Anschutz Medical campus), I find six names, just from w-z, who fit the bill as both psychiatrists and teachers. It’s a long list.

Stay tuned.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

WERE THE BATMAN MURDERS A COVERT OP?

By Jon Rappoport

July 24, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The obvious way to begin an investigation is to look at the event itself for any obvious contradictions or unexplained details.

For example, in the Batman murders, we have two witnesses who were in the theater and implied there were accomplices.

One witness, Corbin Dates (aka Dayton), told Aurora news outlets a man sitting in the front row took a cell phone call and went to a side exit, propped the door open with his foot, and seemed to be signaling somebody. Ten to 15 minutes later, James Holmes appeared in full gear with weapons as the exit door swung open The other witness (no name as yet) stated that, during the massacre, a gas canister was thrown from a direction where Homes wasn’t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-fcD7pyfL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MW_qhAPAU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoaiw2jrpmE&NR=1

Despite the statements of these apparent witnesses, Aurora Chief of Police Daniel Oates claims he is sure James Holmes acted alone.

But we need to back up. First of all, neither witness actually IDed Holmes. They IDed a man who was dressed in black from head to toe, wore a helmet, body armor, and a gas mask. Actually, no one has identified Holmes as the man in the theater. How could they? His face and body were covered and concealed.

How did the shooter get into the theater? Clad in black, wearing body armor, carrying several weapons, he buys a ticket and walks in with everyone else? Authorities suggest he came through a side door. If so, how did he know the door would be unlocked? After a few months of meticulous planning, he simply hoped it would be?

Watching these two witnesses being interviewed by TV news reporters is extremely frustrating. The reporters have their hands on potentially explosive information and they don’t follow up. Nor do they press police for comments on the witness statements.

Nevertheless, from what we can provisionally surmise about the crime scene, there are huge gaps in the official scenario—if we can even call it a scenario.

Standing out above everything else is the fact that no one can ID Holmes as the shooter.

We are told by police that, after Holmes was done killing people in the theater, he exited a side door (the same door through which he had entered?), stood quietly, and surrendered himself to the authorities. This, too, is unclear. The police were already stationed at the exit door? Holmes waited until they arrived? Was he still holding weapons?

It’s said he was calm. He gave himself up.

After killing scores of people and wounding others, the first-time shooter was calm? How could this be? Well, drugs would enter the equation. What drugs? Vicodin. Others? Where were these drugs obtained? Who wrote the prescriptions? Where is the doctor? Why have we heard nothing about a doctor? What, exactly, going back into childhood, is Holmes’ pharmaceutical history?

If this was a true covert op, it would have been easy for a pro shooter to decimate the people in the theater, slip out the exit door with his accomplice or accomplices, where the patsy, Holmes, drugged, was waiting with other operatives. After dousing Holmes with gunpowder residue, the pros left the scene, disappeared into the night, leaving a pre-programmed Holmes there to confess to the crime and state that his apartment was rigged with explosives.

If this is how things happened, it would explain how Holmes, possessed of no apparent knowledge about constructing bombs, could have had his apartment wired with exotic devices. Holmes didn’t put them together. The pros did.

At Holmes’ court appearance on Monday, he certainly looked drugged as he moved slowly in the courtroom and sat in his chair. If so, who gave him the drugs in jail?

Of course, huge gaps exist in Holmes’ life story. We have no explanation for his transformation from a young eager science student into a blank-faced defendant in a mass-murder case. Had he ever been to see a psychiatrist? If so, what drugs were prescribed? Ritalin, which can cause violent behavior? Antidepressants, which can cause violent behavior?

Had he ever been enrolled in a clinical trial of an experimental drug? During his brief matriculation at the University of Colorado, Denver, had he been used in a neuroscience experiment? The web page for the University neuroscience department, where Holmes studied on a government grant, has been taken down.

One oddity about the investigation of the killings: the FBI presence is minimal. We don’t know what the FBI is doing behind the scenes, but by contrast, in the 1999 Columbine massacre the FBI was all over the scene in a very visible way. They interviewed witnesses, processed evidence, and made public statements. Here, they’re in the background. Why?

I offer one possible explanation. In Columbine, the FBI became a lightning rod for doubts and questions, and accusations of overlooking/suppressing evidence that would lead to more than two shooters. Here in Aurora, it’s all local: “we have the killer, he’s in jail, the case is proceeding, nothing to see, move along.” This appears to be an intentional strategy. Keep it simple, don’t stir up the populace.

We’ll have to watch, as the disposition of the court case unfolds, to see whether the “simple” strategy is extended. Perhaps we’ll have a guilty plea and a quick sentence. Or perhaps court-appointed psychiatrists will decide Holmes is incompetent to cooperate in his own defense, in which case he’ll be remanded to a mental facility for a period of time, after which he’ll quietly enter a guilty plea and be sentenced. But what does “incompetent” mean? Drugged into submission?

I believe there are specific items of evidence which, if known, would provoke new questions on top of the witness statements above. For example, was an older model (outdated) police car seen leaving the area of the theater after the shootings? What was the blood evidence on Holmes’ clothing and shoes? Whose blood was it? Did it belong to victims inside the theater? Was Holmes, as he stood at the exit to the theater and surrendered himself, covered in more blood than he would have accumulated as a shooter? In other words, was he set up as the designated patsy?

And are there more witnesses in the theater who saw accomplices? If so, as in Columbine, they will, no doubt, be told by law enforcement to keep quiet. If there is a trial, will Corbin Dates and the other anonymous witness mentioned above be asked to testify? The chances are slim to none.

If the Batman murders are indeed a covert op, the motives behind it don’t need much explanation. The UN Arms Trade Treaty, which has been under final discussions in New York since July 3^rd, and is due to wrap up on July 27^th, is a new step in the direction of gun confiscation, despite its announced aim of limiting only the export of weapons from one nation to another. Once the Treaty is signed, it will need senate ratification to go into effect and impact the 2^nd Amendment. That ratification is the hard part for gun-control advocates. The tragedy at the Batman premier on July 20 could act as a pressure wave-front on senators to rubber-stamp the treaty.

Other motives to stage the shootings in Aurora? The manufacture of a consensus for massive “crime prevention,” and that means the extended use of medical drugs to influence behavior and the brain toward the goal of passivity and conformity—with the victims ENJOYING IT. (See Soma, the drug of choice in Huxley’s Brave New World.)

“Say something, see something” is only part of the picture. Creating a nation of snitches is certainly on the DHS’s to-do list. But we are in the Century of the Brain. Researchers are eager to pawn off their discoveries for the development of technology that can literally limit behavior and thought. Behind the facade of “curing mental disorders,” this is where brain research is heading. Free will and choice are considered flimsy outmoded notions that need to be cast aside, so the Brave New World can emerge. James Holmes becomes a classic case of a man whose brain needs “restructuring.” The globalist technocrats want every inch they can win in the battle to convince the public that brain manipulation holds a promising future for the human race. Of course, their idea of the future is synaptic and neuronal control. Holmes is one more poster child for their chilling agenda.

Brad Garrett, a former FBI profiler and now an analyst for ABC News, is one of the prime go-to experts who deliver pronouncements on mass murderers. Garrett supplies the public perception of these killers.

Here are his off-the-shelf conclusions about James Holmes: “[Mass killers are] insecure, they start having, perhaps, dark thoughts that people are following them or that there are voices—auditory voices—that are directing them…some version of this happened to Mr. Holmes…the onset of whatever this chemical imbalance might be, it starts taking over, and he starts withdrawing…”

It’s a well-recognized fact that there are no chemical or biological tests to confirm a diagnosis of any so-called mental disorder. The whole hypothesis of “chemical imbalance” as the basis for mental disease is just that, a hypothesis. Nevertheless, Garrett promotes it as if it’s accepted science, and he doubles down by suggesting that Holmes was hearing voices directing his actions.

But psychiatric drugs (e.g., Ritalin, Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Haldol, etc.), used to curb mental problems, instead actually CAUSE patients to experience paranoia and hallucinations and withdraw—and plan and commit violence. It’s the drugs. Garrett is providing cover to explain Holmes’ actions as mental illness, when in fact he knows nothing about what Holmes experienced or why. If Holmes was, in fact, a mind-control subject, that is hidden behind psychobabble.

Garrett supplies exactly the kind of narrative that calls for “early intervention,” prevention of crime throughout society before it occurs, which, in the hands of brain researchers, means chemical and other means of controlling “anti-social” impulses.

It is noteworthy that a young neuroscience student, Holmes, who was at one point studying “the biological basis of mental disorders,” winds up as an accused mass murderer who is “obviously deranged” and “suffering from a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

At this point, we go down the rabbit hole, and the pieces of the puzzle are strange and tantalizing.

A video has emerged of Holmes, at age 18, six years ago, lecturing to fellow attendees at a science summer camp at Miramar College in San Diego.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lotOPjLlbDU

Holmes explains he has been studying temporal illusions and subjective experience. A temporal illusion, he states, is the idea that you can change the past.

At the Cannonfire blog (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com) there are comic-book panels posted from what Joseph Cannon calls “the most famous passage in the most famous of all Joker stories, Alan Moore’s ‘The Killing Joke.’”

The Joker is asked: “I mean, what is it with you? What made you the way you are? Girlfriend killed by the mob? Maybe brother carved up by some mugger…?”

The Joker replies: “Something like that happened to me, you know…I’m not exactly sure what it was. Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another…if I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice! Ha ha ha!”

James Holmes, at 18 years of age, said he was studying temporal illusion, “the idea that you can change the past,” a feat the fictional Joker had obviously accomplished.

In the last ten years, the film that explored this subject—and Holmes’ other interest, the subjectivity of experience—most deeply, through its treatment of dreams and the insertion of synthetic experience in the mind, was Inception, directed by Christopher Nolan, who of course also directed the recent Batman trilogy, including The Dark Knight Rises. In yet another version of changing the past, in 2000 Nolan directed Memento, which unraveled its story backwards, as a victim of anterograde amnesia, who can’t store memories, tries to revenge his wife’s murder by leaving clues for himself that will lead him to the identity of her killer.

Are we simply talking about a neuroscience student’s (Holmes’) interest in comics and films, or did he participate in experiments that attempted to alter his subjective view of the world and his own past?

For example, there is wealth of information about the criminal experiments conducted by Canadian psychiatrist, Dr. Ewan Cameron, who operated with funding from the CIA during the 1950s. Cameron ran MKULTRA Subproject 68, during which he used massive electroshocks, sensory isolation, drug-induced periods of sleep (7-10 days), and audiotapes of “re-patterning” commands to attempt to wipe out patients’ pasts, their memories, their former subjective mindsets, their very personalities—in favor of recreating these patients as “new and improved people.”

As a teen, Holmes interned at the Salk Institute in San Diego. Salk carries out studies using functional MRI, a technique of brain mapping that involves correlating read-outs with various mental activities. It’s only speculation at this point, but somewhere along the line, did Holmes participate in such experiments, and were the results used to map regions of his brain for later inputs, so someone could achieve behavioral/thought control over him?

To even suggest Holmes may be a mind-control subject brings immediate criticism, to which I would offer this counter: why accept the scenario of the crime put forward by the Aurora police? Why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt? Why limit and narrow the investigation to their story?

Was law enforcement correct about the JFK and RFK and MLK assassinations? Was law enforcement correct about the Columbine massacre, in which 101 witnesses state they saw other shooters? Was law enforcement correct about the lone duo of plotters in the Oklahoma bombing? Was law enforcement correct about 9/11?

In all cases—no.

I’ll tell you this. If the authorities really wanted to know what makes James Holmes tick (a prospect I strongly doubt), their best chance would be to send someone into his cell who could talk to him about Christopher Nolan, Inception, Memento, functional MRI, the TV series Lost — which contained time-travel themes and was a show he and his friend, Ritchie Duong, used to watch together every week when they attended UC Riverside. Talk to Holmes about what he wants to talk about. Who knows what would eventually unravel?

It might be far more than the police wish to uncover.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

by Jon Rappoport

July 21, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

Mike Adams and Alex Jones are covering the Batman shooting with very good reports. No need for me to recycle their insights and evidence.

I want to make a few points.

Once law enforcement has satisfied itself that James Holmes acted alone, the case will be pushed along to a disposition: a confession or a trial or a plea. And with minimal fuss, the media will fall into line.

However, independent journalists like Alex and Mike will continue to look at the situation from many sides, because there are unanswered questions, contradictions, and political consequences. Front and center is the question: was the Denver attack in some way staged?

They will get flack for their continuing investigation. As usual, they will be called conspiracy theorists. Mainstream media professionals will express impatience and outrage.

However, realize there is no government agency whose ordinary function is to stand back and look at standard law-enforcement work.

The general public has been conditioned to expect nothing more than an arrest, a trial or a confession, and a verdict. When more is brought to the table by Web journalists or private citizens who aren’t satisfied with the law-enforcement work in the case, it is automatically looked upon as weird, unnecessary, and disruptive.

Particularly when the crime is horrific enough to jump the fence and attract 24/7 coverage for days on end, there is a schedule of events that runs by the book: interviews with the victims’ families, witnesses, and acquaintances of the accused; vigils; funerals; memorials; calls for healing; statements from politicians recommending new gun-control legislation; journalistic “heavyweights” assessing “what it all really means.”

This schedule runs. Outsiders who want people to stop, back up, and listen to unresolved questions about the crime and the case are viewed as rank intruders on the ceremonial march of the Ritual.

Cops and district attorneys don’t do Odd. They don’t consider nagging doubts. They don’t work issues that stand beyond their basic evidence and their confirmed perpetrator. No one in government does. (Although government agents are known to rig, obscure, twist, pervert, and invent cases to suit their designs.)

Who then should examine cases from a wider and more free-ranging perspective? Essentially, the rest of us. You can, for instance, find several brilliant private investigations of the Oklahoma City Bombing: a citizen-group effort led by Representative Charles Key; a 17-year deep probe by Patrick Briley that calls into question covert US foreign policy in the Middle East; a documentary overview by the producers of A Noble Lie; the book, Oklahoma City: Day One, by Michele Marie Moore, an extraordinary accomplishment—beyond what most journalists would dare to attempt.

In my experience, when informal “citizen grand juries” are voluntarily assembled to investigate a crime, they shed crucial light on areas where law-enforcement agents refuse to tread.

So when viewed from a proper perspective, it’s a very good and natural thing that citizens and Web journalists ransack every possibility to solve and resolve a case. Who in his right mind would want to rely on bodies like the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission?

I call your attention, as others already have, to the potential psychiatric drug angle in the Batman murders. My white paper, published after the 1999 Columbine killings, “Why Did They Do It,” makes the point that when the psychiatric establishment seeds the society with drugs known to cause violence, like the SSRI antidepressants (e.g., Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox), and ADHD drugs (Ritalin, Adderall), it is setting the stage for murders that come out of nowhere.

That these murders would occur is to be expected. Eric Harris, one of the two boys who committed mass murder at Columbine, had been taking Luvox. The manufacturer, Solvay, removed the drug from the market in 2002. However, by 2007, it was back.

Here is an excerpt from my white paper, Why Did They Do It? An Inquiry into the school shootings in America (1999). Click here for the full whitepaper.

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin), told me, “With Luvox there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in ‘I don’t care as much,’ which means ‘It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

In Arianna Huffington’s syndicated newspaper column of July 9, 1998, Dr. Breggin states, “I have no doubt that Prozac can cause or contribute to violence and suicide. I’ve seen many cases. In a recent clinical trial, 6 percent of the children became psychotic on Prozac. And manic psychosis can lead to violence.”

Huffington follows up on this: “In addition to the case of Kip Kinkel, who had been a user of Prozac [Kinkel was the shooter in the May 21, 1998, Springfield, Oregon, school massacre], there are much less publicized instances where teenagers on Prozac or similar antidepressants have exploded into murderous rages: teenagers like Julie Marie Meade from Maryland who was shot to death by the police when they found her waving a gun at them. Or Ben Garris, a 16-year old in Baltimore who stabbed his counselor to death. Or Kristina Fetters, a 14-year old from Des Moines, Iowa, who stabbed her favorite great aunt in a rage that landed her a life sentence.”

Dr. Tarantolo has written about Julie Marie Meade. In a column for the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News, “Children and Prozac: First Do No Harm,” Tarantolo describes how Julie Meade, in November of 1996, called 911, “begging the cops to come and shoot her. And if they didn’t do it quickly, she would do it to herself. There was also the threat that she would shoot them as well.”

The police came within a few minutes, “5 of them to be exact, pumping at least 10 bullets into her head and torso.”

Tarantolo remarks that a friend of Julie said Julie “had plans to make the honor roll and go to college. He [the friend] had also observed her taking all those pills.” What pills? Tarantolo called the Baltimore medical examiner, and spoke with Dr. Martin Bullock, who was on a fellowship at that office. Bullock said, “She had been taking Prozac for four years.”

Tarantolo asked Bullock, “Did you know that Prozac has been implicated in impulsive de novo violence and suicidalness?” Bullock said he was not aware of this.

End excerpt.

Put the drugs out into society; expect killings.

I’ve observed that, in the years since the Columbine massacre, the press is paying less attention to psychiatric-drug link when bizarre murders occur. This is an important fact. We need to break it down.

First, cops and DAs don’t want to get involved, for reasons stated above. They also don’t want to tangle with psychiatrists, whom they use as expert (friendly) witnesses in prosecuting cases. How would it look if a city attorney, who had been relentlessly making connections between murders and psychiatric drugs, called on a shrink to testify for the prosecution on a wholly unrelated matter? The shrink would view this city attorney as a decidedly unfriendly foe who’d been trashing his profession. In fact, you can assume that such a DA would have already run into trouble from the American Psychiatric Association.

The press frequently uses psychiatrists as sources for stories and doesn’t want to endanger that connection. Of course, the press practically runs on pharmaceutical advertising, and has no intention of biting the hand that feeds it. In other words, the press is biased away from making the murder-drug link.

The drug companies themselves have a huge stake in stories like the Batman murders. They want a blanket thrown over whatever drug connection may exist. And they have resources to make that happen.

We come to the courts. How is it we haven’t seen more law suits leveled at drug companies who make these killer medicines?

Actually, there have been cases. The following summaries of court cases are offered by David Healy. Healy is a British psycho-pharmacologist and the author of the definitive work on the history of antidepressants. He is also the author of Let Them Eat Prozac.

Fentress et al v Shea Communications et al: This was the trial following the murder spree of Joseph Wesbecker at his place of work in Louisville, Kentucky, which led to the death of 8 employees at the Standard Gravure plant there followed by his own suicide. Wesbecker had been on Prozac.

Forsyth v Eli Lilly and Company: After 10 days on Prozac, William Forsyth stabbed his wife, June, 15 times before impaling himself on a serrated kitchen knife up on a chair. The remaining Forsyth family took out an action against Eli Lilly, the makers of Prozac.

Tobin v SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals: With a prior history of a poor response to an SSRI, Don Schell was put on Paxil. Forty-eight hours later he put three bullets from two different guns through his wife, Rita’s, head, as well as through his daughter, Deborah’s, head and through his granddaughter, Alyssa’s, head before shooting himself through the head.

The most important of these court cases illuminates reasons why there haven’t been more suits brought against drug manufacturers. It is the astonishing Fentress trial. I have a full summary in my white paper.

Essentially, the family of a murdered victim sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac. The killer had been on Prozac. A number of similar cases against Lilly were waiting in the wings. If Lilly could escape a costly judgment and win exoneration, the other cases would go away.

At some point during the Fentress trial, the judge suspected a secret deal had been made. He asked the lawyer for the murdered victim’s family whether he had accepted money to put on a weak case and let Lilly win. (Lilly was, in fact, exonerated.) The judge became convinced that a quid pro quo had taken place. The lawyer had obtained a huge cash “settlement” from Lilly (part of which was paid to his clients) and THEN he put on such a weak attack that Lilly was guaranteed a victory, thus closing the books on those other lawsuits against Lilly waiting in the wings.

The judge kicked the case up to the Kentucky Supreme Court, where a wrangle ensued. The Court sent the case back down the line for further adjudication. The whole mess sat and stewed, and was finally allowed to remain a victory for Lilly.

Will we see a real probe of James Holmes’ medical/psychiatric history in the Batman murders. I wouldn’t hold your breath.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.