The Facts Of The Mail Bomber Case Don’t Add Up
The Facts Of The Mail Bomber Case Don’t Add Up by William Craddick – DisObedient Media
The October spree of packaged mail bombs unsuccessfully delivered to media outlets, politicians and politically active benefactors has gripped the United States ahead of the November midterm elections. The media is awash with speculation about the suspect’s inspiration and why he may have carried out the attacks.
While the official narrative makes for captivating commentary amongst pundits, the case bears several suspicious points. Inconsistencies between reported facts and the official version of events, the targets chosen to receive packages and details about the suspect and their social media all represent loose ends to the case that have not been adequately addressed. Additionally, the FBI’s track record and the involvement of Hollywood figures shaping the official story give rise to serious concerns that the FBI has caught the wrong man, leaving the true perpetrators free to strike again should they wish.
Inconsistencies Between Facts And Narrative
The official narrative being promoted by mainstream media sources and law enforcement does not match the facts. Apparent contradictions over whether the bombs were real or inert and indications that at least some were not mailed through USPS create factual conflicts that have not been explained.
On October 24th, The New York Times reported that not a single bomb had exploded and that investigators indicated that they could be hoax devices, constructed to look like bombs but unable to harm anyone. NBC New York reported these claims the next day, suggesting that the “bombs” could have been part of a “menacing political hoax.” The notion that the bombs were hoaxes was so strong that NBC’s Chuck Todd claimed it was part of a Russian operation seeking to divide Americans.
Former explosive ordinance disposal officers opined on Twitter that the construction of the bombs was nonsensical; they did not have proper timers and were sensationally made to look real to an unknowledgeable viewer. Yet on October 26, FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed that the devices were not hoaxes. This conclusion is not supported by the obviously shoddy construction of devices, publicly viewable online.
Reports emerged on October 26 stating that at least some of the parcel bombs were sent from the United States Postal Service in Opa-Locka, Florida. But according to the New York Times, several of the packages sent to George Soros, CNN and possibly Robert DeNiro were delivered by courier. It’s not clear how the alleged perpetrator Cesar Sayoc was able to coordinate this kind of personal delivery in multiple cities while physically remaining in Florida. Although the courier-delivered packages bore a few postage stamps, they did not bear cancellation markings.
Choice of Targets
The choice of targets in this case also raise more questions than provides answers. The ostensible explanation is that Sayoc targeted DNC officials or DNC supporters because he was a Trump supporter. But all individuals targeted by the alleged mail bombs are either Democrat establishment politicians or backers of the DNC’s “old guard.” Not one single intended victim is a Democratic Socialist or left leaning public figure from the new and emergent faction of the DNC challenging current leadership.
These facts could have different implications depending on the angle from which they are considered. If the bombing spree was a calculated hoax, it would explain the ill-constructed inert devices. A campaign targeting “Trump critics” would give the DNC establishment a much needed boost ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. Almost all of the targets are politicians with government protections in place to prevent any danger from mailed explosives, or wealthy and successful political donors who are protected by ample private security. There was never a chance that these bombs would reach any of their intended targets. It is undeniable that in the wake of this event, the specific figures who were singled out are effectively insulated from criticism by progressive voters who view the establishment as corrupt. Voicing such criticism now means those speaking out risk being associated with “extremists.”