Dorners ‘Manifesto’: Manufacturing a D.B. Cooper-ish Urban Legend?
What would it mean if the Dorner ‘Manifesto’ was not written by him? What if he were deliberately being made into an urban legend to cover up crimes by the real authors, including Dorner’s murder before the Cabin assault even took place?By H. Michael Sweeney, copyright © 2013, all rights reserved, proparanoid.wordpress.com Permission to duplicate online hereby granted provided it is reproduced in full with all links and text colors in tact and unaltered, including this notice.
What you will learn reading this post:• There are many clues which make it doubtful that Dorner is the sole author, such as… • there are three distinctly different writing styles, typically standing out as if additions after the fact inconsistent with and reversing the intent of material clearly Dorner’s; • there are past tense and third-person references to Dorner as if already dead, and implied future tense when relating to the murders Dorner allegedly committed; • there are clever tricks designed to paint Dorner ‘mad’ which not even a crazy person would be fool enough to write.
Was Dorner framed? Who wrote Dorner’s manifesto? Was dormer killed and his body put in the cabin?
I must say that when I first heard reports about the Dorner incident, each update simply seemed more and more… unbelievable. Increasingly, the possibility grew in my mind that it was a set up. I mean, you have a good, moral cop fighting a just cause against corrupt, brutal, and racist cops harming citizens, and then he’s suddenly a crazed killer destroying the very foundation of his case by brutally murdering a minority citizen… not to mention cops? And everyone signs off. Please.
That’s just as believable as conveniently finding known terrorist’s wallets with their real identities, not alias’ commonly used as a cover, among the ashes in attacks where the largest thing otherwise remaining was a mote of ash. They’ve pulled that one on us three times that I know of, including Sept. 11 attacks. No false flag here… move along, move along.
But wait! They’ve found Dormer’s wallet repleat with readable plastic ID, where? The ashes of the burned-to-the-foundation cabin? AND, they found them at the Mexican border just hours earlier? No conspiracy here… move along, move along.
The only way I could justify the actions claimed of Dorner in my mind was if it were yet another ‘mass shooting’ event sparked by psychotropic SSRI drugs of the likes of Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, and others. These killer-makers all have murder and other violence as unpredictable side effects, and have been found to be in use by virtually all mass shooters. Ban guns? No thank you, but please, ban SSRIs and zany brain Witch Doctors who keep inventing new reasons to prescribe them like candy. Check out the facts and how SSRIs have bearing on the matter.
Sure. If Dorner was suffering depression, stress, and daily anxiety that he might be shot dead by dirty cops for ‘crossing the Blue Line,’ he might have been prescribed SSRIs for cause. But I doubt it. Because consistently co-present with the violent side effects is a lack of reason, logic, motive, or even an understanding of why they undertook violent acts, or even clear recall of them. Dorner, in his ‘manifesto,’ not only remembers, but screams a reason, motive, and understanding — flawed thinking though it be. But then, there are problems with the validity of that document… I don’t think he is the sole author.
Was Dorner framed? Who wrote Dorner’s manifesto? Was dormer killed and his body put in the cabin?
A manifesto which is not a Manifesto
Trotted out was the alleged Manifesto, which is in this case is really nothing more than a dumb-you-down term used much the same way the Davidian ranch at Waco and Randy Weaver’s log cabin were variously called an ‘enclave,’ a ‘fortress,’ or a ‘compound,’ all implying military defensive planning in their design. Propaganda BS. Reading Dorner’s work (uncensored version), you find there is no Manifesto present, at all.
No. Instead, it seems like five distinctly different texts in three differing styles as if by three different persons, and for four different purposes, not counting some political sandbagging and blindsiding thrown in for good measure. If you take away the things which seem added, all you have remaining is a plea for LAPD to do the right thing about a laundry list of wrongdoing.
1) The main body, which accounts for the bulk of the 18 page document is a detailed review of crimes and abuse of power of LAPD Officers, leadership, and events relating to Dorner’s whistleblowing and the resulting harassment and cover up — an event log. There is reason, calm, logic, and moral dignity present, and cohesive writing style. Clearly, it is the Dorner who fits the profile of a good cop and who is in control of himself. No Manifesto, it is merely a point-by-point, blow-by-blow accounting of his experiences trying to be that good Cop.
2) The introduction paragraph, on the other hand, is something else: a ‘confession’ of the murders and what sounds like an attempt to ‘excuse’ them by virtue of righteous indignation forcing acts of extreme violence as a “Last Resort,” which is indeed the title line. But were these things added later by someone else?
Particularly problematic is the writing style of this large paragraph. It is like the 9-11 cell phone calls from hijacked planes where callers spoke in ways no one ever does, revealing the calls were staged: “Hi, this is Mark Phillips, your son.” Would not a Mom know her own son, and their family’s last name? Interesting, especially since cell phones in those days did not work at altitude.
In the ‘manifesto,’ we read what seems like someone else trying to make you think them Dorner. Why would you write about yourself the way others describe you when you are not around, and generally only at your funeral service or on a death bed — in past tense?
Example a): “…completely out of character for the man you KNEW who always wore a smile wherever he WAS seen.”
Even if one actually believed that’s how people saw them, would they not more likely in such a case say; “… out of character for someone who always tries to wear a smile…” or “known for always wearing a smile…”?
Example b): “I know most of you who personally know me are in disbelief to hear from media reports that I am SUSPECTED of committing such horrendous murders…”
Why not simply say “…disbelief that I murdered anyone…”? And why even bring up media at all, especially via the expression, ‘media reports’? If I were going to say it at all, I’d simply say ‘on the news,’ but it is entirely superfluous given its assumed they had to know by one means or another… unless one is writing in knowledge that there WILL BE breaking news, and that writer is used to describing news as ‘media reports.’ That is exactly the way Cops and others who must at times cite news sources, including myself, would be used to saying it. Its use implies a different writer, one with foreknowledge of future events. Sure, Dorner is also a Cop, so he might write it that way, too, except that…
In like manner, the choice of the word ‘suspected.’ If you know you did it and are taking credit there on the spot, why use that word at all.
If written instead by another Cop framing Dorner, that Cop would be so used to referring to third-parties as suspects, and expressing ‘facts’ in certain ways, that it could have easily crept into typed text without notice. Someone writing about their own actions is not so moved. These are not the only instances, and more to the point, they only exist in select parts of the text, nowhere in what appears to be the main body (next three items) clearly written by Dorner.
3) In the middle of the main body, the accusations against LAPD, we find a curious out-of-place section, a very large paragraph, of zero relevance asking journalists to review his school years (he lists towns he lived in) to show he was never a bully or got into fights. And yet, the same paragraph describes an incident with him throwing the first and only punch and getting punished, and about continually earning more such punishments thereafter. Excuse me? It is as if someone wanted journalists to deduce the opposite of what the paragraph claims to want, and deem him not only violent minded, but mentally incompetent and unable to distinguish between the two states of being. It had to have been ADDED to get there in the middle, given a lack of context to prior or following material.
4) The passage is one of only two sections, which use profanity. It is also the one place where he derides Christianity and claims not to be a Christian, though elsewhere he presents his morals in very Christian terms. Now, I’ve read many documents similar in nature where the author was non Christian, and they made negative comments at every opportunity, not at just one point.. So I must ask:
Could this section have been inserted, and ‘addressed’ to journalists because, a few paragraphs later, Dorner also asks in the main body that journalists review a particular set of events and specific records which validate his LAPD accusations? By sounding completely bonkers and self contradictory in the first request, the second request would likely be ignored as well. This is essentially the whole de facto effect (and purpose?) of the entire ‘manifesto.’ It screams ‘ignore anything I say or complain about, because I do the opposite of what I say and am worse than those I complain about.’
Funny thing is… the nature of sociopathic and psychopathic behavior specifically includes the ability to well hide it, rather than to reveal it unknowingly — which requires them to be immune from doxastic self deception (i.e., saying you do not get into fights, then citing fights, and not sensing the paradox). Someone deliberately created that paradoxical paragraph.
5) From that point forward, it seems as if almost every paragraph of the remaining main body text has at least one sentence, or even a whole paragraph (added?) which tends to convert it from a rational, non threatening letter into a reprehensible, irrational threat. You literally feel the tone change between what came before, and the additions. I get the distinct impression someone started by adding the final section (described next) at the bottom of the document, and then worked their way up paragraph by paragraph, editing for an I-am-a-mad-man-so-kill-me-quick effect, and stopped with the middle insert we just reviewed. Save original passages, most are tacked onto the end, because that’s the easiest thing to do, and they are often very simple, short one liners — but an original writer would tend to include such key elements throughout the dialog and thoughtfully so.
Example a) I have exhausted all available means at obtaining my name back. I have attempted all legal court efforts within appeals at the Superior Courts and California Appellate courts. This is my last resort. The LAPD has suppressed the truth and it has now lead to deadly consequences. The LAPD’s actions have cost me my law enforcement career that began on 2/7/05 and ended on 1/2/09. They cost me my Naval career which started on 4/02 and ends on 2/13. I had a TS/SCI clearance(Top Secret Sensitive Compartmentalized Information clearance) up until shortly after my termination with LAPD. This is the highest clearance a service member can attain other than a Yankee White TS/SCI which is only granted for those working with and around the President/Vice President of the United States. I lost my position as a Commanding Officer of a Naval Security Forces reserve unit at NAS Fallon because of the LAPD. I’ve lost a relationship with my mother and sister because of the LAPD. I’ve lost a relationship with close friends because of the LAPD. In essence, I’ve lost everything because the LAPD took my name and new I was INNOCENT!!! Capt Phil Tingirides, Justin Eisenberg, Martella, Randy Quan, and Sgt. Anderson all new I was innocent but decided to terminate me so they could continue Ofcr. Teresa Evans career. I know about the meeting between all of you where Evans attorney, Rico, confessed that she kicked Christopher Gettler (excessive force). Your day has come.
Example b) Chief Beck, this is when you need to have that come to Jesus talk with Sgt. Teresa Evans and everyone else who was involved in the conspiracy to have me terminated for doing the right thing. you also need to speak with her attorney, Rico, and his conversation with the BOR members and her confession of guilt in kicking Mr. Gettler. I’ll be waiting for a PUBLIC response at a press conference. When the truth comes out, the killing stops.
Example c): Those Hispanic officers who victimize their own ethnicity because they are new immigrants to this country and are unaware of their civil rights. You call them wetbacks to their face and demean them in front of fellow officers of different ethnicities so that you will receive some sort of acceptance from your colleagues. I’m not impressed. Most likely, your parents or grandparents were immigrants at one time, but you have forgotten that. You are a high value target.
6) The next, closing section is a long list of ranting which, along with a concentration of profanity, is a bit of a grab bag. It is unusual in that it has countless little paragraphs aimed at a wide variety of public figures in a bouncy mixture of complaints and praise which render the writer a loon. Also in the section is a kind of long train wreck of a letter to LAPD, with dire warnings of impending violence towards other cops and their families. Much of the letter portion, if one again discounted sentences and portions which might have been added to flip meaning, may indeed have been written by a sane Dorner, a genuine plea to do the right thing, with additions again subverting them into threats. That is not how threatening people write. The nastiness is pervasive, not tacked on neatly. Sans such additions, it is no longer a train wreck, nor rambling.
7) These added things tend to be in the same style otherwise questioned in the opening examples, but with more Angst and vileness.
Example (not a typo by me) regarding killing cops; It was against everything I’ve ever was.
Wait a minute. There is a difference between me writing about me; “It was against everything I’ve ever been,” or about someone else; “It was against everything he ever was.” Those are the only two possible original sentences. Either there was a super-nova brain fart, or a partial correction was made to the later sentence. Let me explain.
Imagine someone other the Dorner subliminally mixing thought states from first to third person as well as from relating life experience of the living to past experiences before one’s death. So ingrained as natural to repetitive writing about third parties (in Police reports?), perhaps, that only a partial editing correction (‘he’ to ‘I’ve) was made, the writer still not catching the tell-tale ‘was.’ Either or both reasons for the error make it someone other than Dorner doing the writing, and further implies Dorner already dead, or sure knowledge he was to be, soon.
8) Nothing in the document would convince you Dorner was crazy as much as does the letter component. When I say rambling, I mean a completely different visible style of sentence structure (or lack thereof), with gross errors not common to the main body. Among them, are incomplete or nonsense sentences, such as the very last one, “We need to hold ou” What? The Cops were at the door and he had to stop mid-sentence and fetch some beers? And yet, again, these sentences/passages are mixed in as if additions to existent, logical, well written material. Take them away, and it suddenly seems normal.
9) And what about depression? He ‘admits’ suffering from it in the letter part. Funny thing about that is, it always seems officials in questionable deaths of the politically incorrect find a way to say ‘We had indications he was depressed…’ when they ‘suicide.’ Perhaps, but that still only accounts for the murders if he was on psychotropics, for which nothing else matches the symptoms, and still leaves the document flawed in its present construct.
10) But also in the section is a very long rambling bit which seems to be there only to serve gun grabber needs, and given that Dorner is (allegedly) now one of the ‘mass shooters’ of late, we can expect it to be one more log on the fire in that debate. How convenient.
But, uh… what should we expect, given that the section also praises the likes of both Clintons and Sr. Bush, as well as CIA’s (or Mossad’s) journalists of choice (links reveal), Walter Cronkite (Who wrote this? WC retired when Dorner was three years old!), Peter + Jennings, Anderson Cooper, and Wolf Blitzer, et. al? A Globalist’s Cop who likes a controlled media — who owns all manner of firearms, which he lists, and yet wishes were banned, and which are on Feinstein’s list, too? Please. No propaganda here, move along…
Was Dorner framed? Who wrote Dorner’s manifesto? Was dormer killed and his body put in the cabin?
Given the dichotomy and logic and style flipping content overall, one might choose to toss off the concerns I’ve stated and to instead presume it at simple face value as the work of a lunatic. Heaven knows media is accepting it, so why shouldn’t we? We will actually answer that question, in another blog in this series.
For me, because there is no hint of a specific or consistent lunacy… because nothing in the document as it sits should make any sense even to a deluded writer… because of the clues of alternate author additions cited… we might do well to question authenticity. If NOT authentic, then there is a conspiracy, and nothing we’ve heard about any event related to the matter can be trusted to be true. So, presuming there is a motive to decieve, is there anything suggesting means and opportunity, for someone to make such changes to Dorner’s words? Lets ask a couple of key questions which address that:
1) Where did the ‘manifesto’ come from? Answer, from a Facebook page the LA Times describes as “believed to be Dorner’s.” Huh? Three problems with that:
a) wishy-washy ‘believed to be,’ makes me wonder all the more about authenticity. I have doubts, because…
b) anyone can get a Facebook account in any name they want not already taken, and…
c) anyone who has ever had a FB account should know how easy they are to be hijacked, hacked, or accessed and manipulated by unauthorized users via password cracking. Ergo, next question…
2) How secure were Dorner’s computers and access to his Web accounts? Answer, from his own documentation of LAPD targeting for being a whistleblower; Thaniya Sungruenyos, an LAPD Officer had hacked his Los Angeles Police Federal Credit Union account from her home address, per the IP address provided by the Financial institution. LAPD ignored the evidence and covered up the event, according to Dorner.
Interesting what you can learn, when you question the official line and look more closely. Seen anyone in media following suit? No? Well, that leaves just you and me conspiracy theorists, I guess. But then, there are other people who wonder, too. Check out the last two related articles about Dorner, one of them a Police Chief.
What is the truth about Chris Dorner?
Next up: Dorner, the Urban Legend: Implications Behind a Fraudulent Manifesto
Is Dorner really dead?
- LAPD’s indefensible Dorner pursuit (salon.com)
- Some Minorities Sympathize With Cop Killer’s Frustration, But Disavow Murder Spree (huffingtonpost.com)
- Police in California are so scared they are shooting at anyone they see in blue Nissan truck (dailypaul.com)
- My Friend, Chris Dorner (buzzfeed.com)
- Police chief recalls ‘the Chris Dorner that I knew’ (usnews.nbcnews.com)
Posted on February 16, 2013, in Abuse of Power, Conspiracy, Crime, Government and tagged Dorner, Dorner manifesto, gun control, LAPD, Los Angeles Police Department, manifesto, media control, Randy Weaver, Urban Legend, waco. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.
I found section 5 interesting because a meeting was set up with administration, office of civil rights, internal affairs and the perp against me. This meeting was scheduled to place me under investigation. I wrote a Catch 22 type of satire journal of events, which stays in the same tense because it was my story. I found this article very interesting.
Writing a Journal or Log of Events is always valuable when targeted. It can be therapeutic, especially when you do it creatively or document your feelings. It is also valuable if you ever get a day in court or some form of fair hearing, as you can clearly define the problem and show an effort to document it. Focus, however, on those things with real-world proofs to back them up – like photographs, third party witnesses, audio/video, receipts and other documents, etc. A few demonstrable proofs with evidence makes it easier to accept the ones for which such proofs would not be possible. Thanks for you comment.’