Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
|
|
Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
|
|
|
Chapter 33 The parade of character witnesses was long and illustrious, but the prosecutor pointed out that none of their protestations of Ira Einhorn's "good character" made any difference. "This is a very serious case. A case that indicates planning, intention, all the earmarks of a very serious first degree murder case," he said. He then stated that Einhorn's contacts, habits, access to money, and many travels, all might suggest that Ira would jump bail and disappear. He wanted bail set at $100,000.00, of which only ten percent needed to be posted. Arlen Specter argued that this amount was excessive, claiming that the State had no direct evidence that Ira had killed Holly. Say what? The judge made a classic series of remarks:
And that was the point. Anybody else, under just about any other circumstances, would have really been in the soup if a dead body were found in their closet, and the circumstances we have recounted were present. It would have been a sure thing that everybody would have thought they were guilty. In fact, there have been judges, doctors, attorneys, politicians, millionaires, and high society ladies of the very type who were testifying to Ira Einhorn's good character, found in far less incriminating circumstances who were NOT presumed innocent either by their friends, peers, or the public. So why was Ira? Why did Barbara Bronfman, wife of Seagram Liquor heir Charles Bronfman, step forward with the paltry four grand necessary to post Ira's bail after Judge Marutani had finally set it at $40,000.00? (Ira's parents assumed the liability for the remainder.) This is a very crucial question. We might assume that all of the witnesses to Ira's character had a few neurons firing there in the old brain pan. We will allow that they probably did not know all the details that came out in the investigation. After all, the case had not yet been tried. All they really knew was that Holly's body had been found in the trunk in Ira's closet and he was claiming he had been framed because his networking had made enemies. I should like to point out that this "explanation" - that Holly had been killed to frame him - completely obviates Ira's former claim that he had received a phone call from Holly saying that she didn't want to be found. It also begs the question: if he really thought that there were "agents" out to get him, and he really was innocent, why didn't he suspect that they might be responsible for Holly's disappearance? And, if he thought that, why didn't he make it his business to find out what had happened to her? After all, he loved her so much he that two nights before she disappeared, he was on the phone to her repeatedly trying to get her to reconcile with him. When she told him she didn't want to see him again, he threatened to throw all her possessions in the street. It was only to collect her things that induced Holly to even go to see Ira. Another question is: if Ira had agents of some dark conspiracy who were after him, and they were able to kill Holly to frame him, plant her body in his apartment under the noses of the neighbors, and do it so easily, why didn't they just snuff Ira? After all, it was six of one, half dozen of the other for him to be martyred by his own death, or martyred by imprisonment because he was framed. Surely, such agents - if they existed - didn't think he would be quiet about being framed - if he was - and surely, if he was really framed, such agents would have assumed that he would blab whatever he knew that they didn't want spread around, and therefore, framing him would have been seen as too costly. Because surely, if such agents really existed, they knew that by framing Ira, whatever information he was supposed to have possessed would have become a matter of public record in an ensuing trial. The "Ira was framed to silence him" story just doesn't cut it no matter which way you look at it. We already know, from our look at other cases, that when it is desirable to shut somebody up, it can be done so quick, so clean, so completely, that all this nonsense about "the CIA burned my house down," or "the CIA tried to kill me 16 times," or "the CIA killed someone else and planted her body in my closet to frame me so I wouldn't talk about what they are doing," is a complete load of hooey. But this cock and bull story was believed by many, and everybody's ethics were put on the line with Ira announcing to the press that "now he would know who his friends really are." And they showed up and got in line, and did the Einhorn dance, and forked over the bucks Ira needed without a single question. So why? Why did seemingly intelligent and articulate people find it so impossible to think that Ira Einhorn could murder Holly Maddux? Could it be, as some suggest, that his defenders were ALSO part of some sort of conspiracy? Did they all know that Ira murdered Holly, but they were being instructed to get him out of jail and out of the country? Nice try. But that would make a plain old liar and murderer out of Ira which would then negate his "frame up" story, based on the whole deal about being involved in things that others wanted hushed up enough to frame him! Again, simple logic, cuts through the confusion spread by Ira. No, I am afraid the answer, on the psychological level, is far more prosaic than that: Ira Einhorn was quite simply a psychopath, a con-artist, a grifter, and all those people who lined up to cast their lot in support of him, intelligent and articulate though they might have been, were simply duped. They were suckers. They were victims of a psychopath. Remember the guy described by Dr. Robert Hare, the psychopath who was on his way to public prominence and was then exposed as a fraud? The amazing thing about that case, which has elements that exactly mesh with the Einhorn case, was the fact that the very people he was duping jumped to his defense, one of them declaring that "I assess his genuineness, integrity, and devotion to duty to rank right alongside of President Abraham Lincoln." What many people do not seem to fully grasp is the fact that psychopaths are such GOOD imposters that they can live their entire lives as phoneys and NEVER get caught. I am reminded of several cases where the evidence of the "secret" of the psychopath wasn't revealed until after their deaths, in their papers and effects. Naturally, the friends and families were devastated and the repercussions weren't too savory either. But, for the most part, except for a few people who have had certain experiences with the psychopath, who have seen the "man behind the curtain," a psychopath dupes nearly everyone - and does it successfully. Another important thing is the fact that a psychopath may spend years building up to a "coup." Some of them display almost preternatural cunning in the way they stalk their objective. They can certainly make a big display of working very hard. They can be meticulous and scrupulous about fulfilling certain obligations, "keeping their word," doing all the things that create a certain "image" of benevolence or kindness, or generosity. But there is ALWAYS a payback. The smarter ones have learned to delay the "payback." Some of them don't ask for an "obvious" payback, rather they will use a connection to make another "hit." They will associate with one "target" in order to get to another. When we say that psychopaths make their way by conning people into doing things for them; obtaining money for them, prestige, power, or even standing up for them when others try to expose them, it must be emphasized that this activity can be so subtle that only the most acute observer can detect the "glitches" in the program, so to say. And they always have a "secret life" that is hidden from the public, and maybe even hidden from every single person in their "regular life." In some cases, when they are young, they may reveal themselves before they have "learned" that their way of being is "different." The man in the case cited by Hare said: "These trusting people will stand behind me. A good liar is a good judge of people." Ira Einhorn said:
In both cases, and thousands upon thousands of others, exactly the same conditions prevail. A psychopath lies, and people believe him - on a scale that is almost impossible to imagine. The reason they are able to do this is very, very significant: they are able to do it because most people are gullible with an unshakable belief in the inherent goodness of man. But it goes even deeper. Not only do people believe them and take them at their word, when another person points out the "glitches in the program," the believer will not just refuse to acknowledge it, they will refuse to investigate on their own! If the proofs are handed to them, and all they have to do is read them and THINK, they WON'T DO IT! And in some cases, they will read them, but will trust the psychopath who is lying when he is saying that the proof is all lies. Just to give a concrete example of this fascinating phenomenon; a real life example, let me describe this curious aspect as it has been observed in our own experience. In the case of Maynerd Most and his coterie of followers, it has not occurred to them, for example, that six people who all know "Frank Scott" personally - some of them for as long as ten years - all have the same opinion of him. None of the Most gang have ever met him and have no long experience upon which to base an opinion. Nevertheless, they believe Most' opinion, his claims that all of these six people are lying because only HE can possibly know the truth of the situation! Why? Because he has so repeatedly declared himself an "expert" that they MUST actually believe he is! The fact that every single one of his "expert credentials" was proven to be false makes absolutely no difference in the world. What is even more shocking is the extent to which the defenders of the psychopath will go, even committing illegal and unethical acts in their defense. In fact, this item might even be a key to identifying the psychopath: the extent to which people will go, acting in opposition to their own welfare, their own professed standards of ethical behavior, and even to their own detriment, in order to defend a psychopath. This may be a clue that the psychopathic reality is "communicable," like some sort of disease. A concrete example of this beavior is the fact that the very person who was obsessively checking Most' credentials, Dr. Nellie Oleson, the one who first brought to our attention the fact that there were serious questions to be asked about Maynerd Most' background, is now one of his staunchest supporters! The fact is that, even after we had expressed no real desire to pursue any serious questions about his background - we merely wished to have the free will to "not associate," and that was that - Dr. Oleson repeatedly brought it up, adding one find to another, in what now can be seen as an obvious attempt to "stir the pot. Not only that, but she was writing private emails to other members of our egroup, casting doubt on Most as an "expert" of any kind, seemingly in an effort to put pressure on us to - what? To investigate him? Or simply to be more and more antagonistic? It's hard to tell. Nevertheless, what is crazier still, as soon as we had arrived at the opinion that Most was doing some serious "credential padding," and we began to discuss Most privately, in terms of Dr. Oleson findings regarding his lack of credentials, as soon as she was assured that we all had the idea firmly planted in our minds that Most was a liar and a cheat, she THEN flipped over to Most side and started doing the exact same thing with HIM! What power did he exert over her? Because the fact is, Dr. Nellie Oleson did some things that were not just things that violated our rights, and the rights of our group, but things that were were ethically self-destructive and legally actionable!
The owners and publishers
of these pages wish to state that the material presented here is the product
of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication. We invite
the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical
mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism"
nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in
all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth.
The one thing we can tell the reader is this: we work very hard, many hours
a day, and have done so for many years, to discover the "bottom line" of our
existence on Earth. It is our vocation, our quest, our job. We constantly seek
to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either possible or probable
or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind will benefit, if
not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures. Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
You are visitor number [an error occurred while processing this directive] .
|
