Vialls' American Military 'Theory'
In Connection To Holly Wells
And Jessica Chapman
From Here And Now

It's not like me to debunk a report, I spend most of my time doing just the opposite, but feel the need to say a few "not so's" on this one, as this type of 'theory' does nothing for the cause. There is a conspiracy here, however, so here goes. (Please keep in mind that I'm currently based in the British Isles and follow the news religiously, Mr Vialls is not)
British Police torture least likely suspects Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr from Soham Village, while deliberately ignoring thousands of more likely suspects from nearby American Air Force bases.
Copyright Joe Vialls
24 August 2002
Vialls writes: "When British police arrested Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr during the early hours of Saturday 17 August, on suspicion of the abduction and murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, they did so in the certain knowledge that absolutely no hard evidence existed incriminating either suspect. The reason for the rapid arrests was very simple: Just hours earlier, two small bodies had been found near the perimeter fence at USAF Lakenheath, and the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street was terrified of a massive political scandal involving American servicemen based in, or transiting through, the United Kingdom."
Not so Joe: The police had absolutely no idea at all about the true criminals - until they voluntarily handed themselves in. Days - not hours - after Huntley and Carr came forward the location of the girls' bodies was discovered.
Vialls writes: "Shortly after the arrests, British and American media organizations demonized Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr so successfully that public attention was diverted away from Lakenheath completely, and focused instead on the young couple from Soham who had earlier willingly spoken to television crews about their concerns for the well being of the two missing 10-year-old girls."
Not so Joe: To date little has been said about Huntley and Carr, because their viper-lawyers and the British Jew-dicial system has protected them. The NWO's system protects it's own and Huntley is now in Rampton. A facility with indoor swimming-pool that costs the taxpayer £2000 A WEEK to keep him there. British parliament is full of sodomites, and the police-force have recently announced that sodomites and freaks are welcome to the force. It is not in "their" interest to "demonize" their own.
Vialls writes: Both knew the girls reasonably well. Ian Huntley was the caretaker at their school, and Maxine Carr was a former teaching auxiliary in their class. Millions of viewers around the world watched Ian and Maxine being interviewed by the media, and most were impressed by the openness of their statements and their genuine willingness to help if possible."
Not so Joe: Where do you get that info from? Have you interviewed the "Millions of viewers around the world" and asked them personally? Have you, by any-chance, just made that up?
Vialls writes: "Experts in non-verbal communication also noticed that Ian and Maxine's involuntary body and eye movements perfectly matched what they were saying verbally to the journalists. In other words, both appeared to be telling the truth both verbally and non-verbally, an almost impossible feat for even a trained liar to fabricate. It is critical to note here also that both came across on television as perfectly normal, sane individuals, a reality later to be inexplicably challenged by police and psychiatrists in Cambridgeshire."
Not so Joe: Why are you relying on the NWO's "Experts" - "police and psychiatrists"? The NWO has mastered the art of lies and deceit, and have been practising it for thousands of years for 'their' master and father of lies - Satan. How do you think 'they' manage to keep the masses down for all these years, if 'they' are not efficient at their job?
Huntley WAS interviewed and looked like he was telling lies. When he was told he was the last to see the girls, his eyes went dark and with a nervous shuffle he said, "no, no, perhaps the last to hear them". Which was odd, how did he hear them but not see them? Okay he could have been behind a wall or whatever, but his eyes went dark, and THAT gives the game away. If you are following The Way it is easy to tell if someone is telling lies, for Christ teaches, "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of Light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the force energy that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" This only works by the way if you are following The Way COMPLETELY. You will not notice someone else's eye being dark if you are also doing evil. Huntley's eyes went dark, when questioned. Your NWO "Experts" would not have noticed this because no-doubt their eyes are dark, too!
Vialls writes: "If Huntley and Carr had been involved at all with the abduction and murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, would they have then been stupid enough to run the gauntlet of about 10,000 American servicemen en-route, and dump the two small bodies in a location clearly visible from Lakenheath Control Tower, taxi track, and main runway?"
Not so Joe: ALL criminals ARE stupid. The bodies were buried, along an off-road dirt-track THREE MILES from the base.
Vialls writes: "The simple fact that Holly and Jessica's bodies were found within yards of the USAF Lakenheath perimeter fence, which in turn provides access to the American barracks within, should have had British police knocking on Lakenheath's front door immediately."
Not so Joe: You are either very misguided or you are purposely working to deceive people. The bodies WERE found near Lakenheath's perimeter fence, which, as already pointed out - is THREE MILES from the base.  
Vialls writes: "Unfortunately, any such action might have accidentally undermined Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal slavish dedication to George W Bush's "War on Terror." Though most members of the American military are unquestionably nice people, the small number who are not, are invariably psychotic savages."
That Joe, might be the only true-untwisted thing you have wrote in this report.
Vialls writes: "Initially on Saturday 17 August, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr were arrested "on suspicion" of being involved in the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Each was taken to a different police station in Cambridgeshire for interrogation, which is standard police procedure."
Not so Joe: Why are you dismissing the facts? The police, who have been accused of dragging 'their' feet (possibly because the NWO make tons of money reporting this kind of tragedy, while diverting the public eye away from the fact that to-date 'they' have failed to find Bin-Laden; or from issues such as the Ashkenazi-Idumean Jew occupation of Palestine, the WTC, the Babylonian Market-economic collapse, et cetera.) had no clues of who committed this crime UNTIL THE COUPLE HANDED THEMSELVES IN.
The police (an organisation rife with Freemasons) who are, by their own submission, welcoming sodomites and other freaks into their ranks, cannot possibly fight crime, when 'they' are working for 'their' sodomite-paedophile political masters whom are the real criminals. Christ says - No man can serve two masters.
Vialls writes: "Then on Tuesday 20 August, just twenty-four hours before the legally extended detention was due to expire at 6.19 am on Wednesday, a complete team of psychiatrists appeared as if by magic, and deemed that Ian Huntley was unfit to appear in court. He was then "sectioned" under the Mental Health Act 1983 and remanded to Rampton high-security psychiatric hospital, at Retford in North Nottinghamshire, without being charged with any offence. Now think about this carefully people, think about it! When we all saw Ian Huntley on international television he was entirely coherent and unquestionably sane. But apparently, after a mere three days in police custody, he became insane. How?"
Not so Joe: Exactly and, as already pointed-out - Huntley's "magicians" - his viper-lawyers, working for the Jew-dicial system have made up all these insane laws to protect themselves. The "I AM" has strictly forbidden man from making up laws (Deut 4:2), and perhaps now you can see why. Huntley, who might appeared to have been 'sane', suddenly gets moved to Rampton to spend his days with an indoor swimming-pool and the family of the victims have to pay £2000 a week to keep him there. How insane is that? The NWO protects and awards its-own.
You write more Joe, but from the above perhaps you can see why there is no need to go any further. Other than to ask a few 'whys?'
Why have you made such a pathetic "theory". And how comes such a pathetic "theory" gets a slot on Rense? A "theory" that anyone who has access to the facts here in Britain, or has at least been paying attention, could have de-bunked? It make no sense to me. Are you aware of the penalties of a false-witness?:
Deut 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
19:17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the "I AM", before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
19:18 And the judges shall make DILIGENT inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother:
I mentioned there was a conspiracy here. And here it is. The NWO have made it so that children can be buggered, sodomised, and ritually murdered and the criminal is not only rewarded, but the victim is made to pay! THERE is the conspiracy.
And HERE is the solution: Return to God's Laws, and only God's Laws, and put an end to all this planet's evils.  
If you are opposed to THAT solution, it can only logically be deducted that YOU are on the side of those who bugger, sodomise, and ritually murder children, for it is written: Matthew 12:30 He that is not WITH me is AGAINST me.
For, or against? Which is it?
God Bless.
Long live the Fighters. Long live The King.
John Russell
From Bradley Kieser
I am shocked at the anti-semitic letter by John Russell in response to the nonsense propogated by Joe Vialls. I should like to point out the following to Mr Russell, based on the Bible, which he purports to believe in given his "christian" wording:
1) The Jews are God's chosen people
2) Jesus was a Jew.
3) Christianity is about love for one another not spreading racism and hatred
4) The Palestinian issue is an issue with the Israeli government NOT and issue with the Jewish nation as a whole. Israeli politics and jewishness, whilst related, are two separate things.
5) Jews worship the same god as Christians. The palestinians, supported by the Islamic nations around Israel, have allegiance to Islam which, according to the Bible, must be deemed anti-Christian and against the laws of God as preached by Christians and Jews alike.
Mr Russell, before propogating his Bible-bashing should reflect on his beliefs and read the source of his beliefs a litte more before flapping his jaw and waving his pen (or, in these days, bashing a keyboard).
He should get down on his knees and pray to his God for forgiveness, because the bile that he spewed out in the name of being anti-Satan reads very much like Lucifer himself has penned it.
It is sad that the sweet essence of truth, as written by Mr Russell, should be so entertwined with venom and misplaced emotional energy as to render the package a poison pill. What could have been a very valid critique is now a horrific diatribe offensive to the eyes.
Mr Russells' name is "John Russell" yet, perhaps, his writing should be monikered "Jack Russell" as befits the breed of dog: Wildly enthusiastic but very stupid.
Please Mr Russell, don't profess Christian values, live them.
From L. S.
I am also shocked at the anti-semitic letter by John Russell. I am also shocked at the anti-semitism , against Islamic semites, that Brad refers to, in response to John's response to Joe.
1) Jews are God's chosen people. Who says?
2) Jesus was a racial Jew. So what? He courageously denied the Moloch of His fathers and declared the Pharisee's to be liars and waterless canals. Doesn't sound like he appreciated Judaism very much.
3) Christianity is about love, not spreading racism. Please review the history of the Christian crusades, people. Please review Israhells present practices in Palestine and decide if you Christians want to be painted with the same brush.
4) The Palestine issue is an issue of Israeli government, not Jews as a whole nation. I thought the Jews had no 'Nation' except Israel for the last 50 odd years. Diaspora Jews pour billions into Israel for the support of that 'governments' (dictatotships) policies, so does America. The 'world community' watches in horror daily, to see how Israel treats the indiginous Palestinians and Christians of all denominations, their holy sites, property and persons.
5) Jews worship the same god as Christians. The palestinians, supported by the Islamic nations around Israel, have allegiance to Islam which, according to the Bible, must be deemed anti-Christian and against the laws of God as preached by Christians and Jews alike. As preached by Christians and Jews alike? What is really alike about Christians and Jews? Not much apparently, especially if you read about how much the Jews hate Christ in the Talmud. Forget the bible, most Jews use the Torah and the Talmud to define their religious beliefs, not the King James version of the bible, many Christians refer to. The bible is against Islam? Who says? you? This is nonsensical. Islam revere's Christ as a Prophet, unlike the Jews. Muslims profess to believe in the God of Abraham, as the Jews do.
I think Brad is being very racist and anti-semitic toward Palestinian and other Arab nations that surround the communist dictatorship of Israel. You wield a very poison and acrimonious pen yourself, Brad.
Sincerely, L.S.
From Name on File
Dear Jeff,
I feel that I must write to you regarding my views on the murder of Holly and Jessica. As I live in the UK, I think I can give a reasonable view on how things have looked here, to some of us at least.
I have thought throughout the media hoo haa that something was not right. I wondered why so much coverage was given, when during other similar but sad incidents the coverage whilst good was not as extensive as this, often to the detriment of all other news coverage. I have also always been wary of too much information being given out via newspapers when there are trials - usually by jury - still to be held as this could prejudice a future juryman/woman in his/her deliberations.
In this instance the coverage was so intensive I was repelled by the coverage and tried hard - with little success - to not hear how the investigation was going. I even began to wonder what else might be going on that we were being purposely distracted from.
At the time, I did not like to hear any police officer say "the answer lies in Soham, look there" when they did not actually have any definite indication which direction to go. Also, the way the two suspects were dealt with was rather harsh and suspicious, and I was not happy to find that even when the bodies were found they were so decomposed, after such a short time, that how the girls dies, and where they died, could still not be determined. This is after 3, yes 3, postmortems have been carried out. Whether or not Huntley and Carr were guilty I can't say, but without proof of how a person dies there is no way a safe conviction can be made. Any conviction will be purely circumstantial and open to appeal later.
My feelings on the matter prior to reading Viall's theory were already uncertain. When I read that the place where the body was found was an air base which housed US serviceman I was shocked, but believed a piece of vital information had suddenly come to light.
In the media here, which has been extensive, no mention was made of the air bases even being there until the bodies were found, and even then they were called RAF bases, implying they were British only bases. The papers also seemed to be confused as to which base the bodies were near, because both Mildenhall and Lakenheath were mentioned at different times, but none of the papers mentioned there were 2 different bases in the area, and any links to the US were omitted altogether.
There were two men, arrested earlier in the investigation but later released. This was because they refused to co-operate with the police when questioned. Who were these men? Could they have been US servicemen? Or something else?
I have tried to look again at the media coverage, and I am now seeing things I had not noticed before. I looked at the photograph given out of the two girls, supposed to have been taken just a short time before they disappeared. Only the top part is visible in most papers, and this shows the two girls almost merging into each other. One picture of the larger version still does not look right. The lower part of the body of Jessica is positioned more forward, whilst the arms of both girls which should have some sort of bulge or visual presence are completely missing. How acurate is this picture?
For me, the case against Huntley and Carr is not conclusive enough, based on the evidence given so far. In fact, I don't think they can ever truly prove who killed the girls unless they can learn more from a post mortem. It could have been accidental death, although I doubt it.
What disturbs me most is the way the police and the media have been manipulated, so that they can in turn manipulate the general public. The only reason I can think of is the one Viall gave - political! Sorry, but I don't like to think any government would be so politically motivated that they would put innocent people in gaol. However, over the past couple of decades I have become very aware as to how far truly ruthless people will go, and I don't trust anyone in authority any more.
We have a precendent - during the Thatcher years a couple of business man were arrested and about to be tried in court for allegedly selling equipment to a foreign country - Iraq - which was illegal at the time. They said that they had been asked to do so by our secret service. Eventually the case was dropped as suspicion began to appear to be fact. If our government can do this once, they can do it again, and I think that it is possible Huntley and Carr are innocent. But even if they are not, the law is being abused, and the case has not been investigated properly if the servicemen at the air bases have not been questioned regarding this matter.
For me, I feel great sympathy with the parents of Holly and Jessica, but I was never a voyeur. I wanted them to be left in peace. Unfortunately, someone insisted the media be not only involved but controlled and manipulated, and this show just how bad things have become.
Democracy, justice, morals, no longer exist in our society - at least not in the higher eschelons of power and business. In time we will all be destroyed by the childish bully tactics of powerful but totally immature men and women. God help us all.

From Diana Tresidder
Dear Jeff,
Firstly, thank you for such a wonderful website and radio show. I cannot tell you how much it has changed my mind set since I found them. You do an invaluable job, thank you.
Now to John Russell's "debunking" of Joe Vialls theory about the murders of those two innocent children, Jessica and Holly. If John Russell thinks he's debunked the theory then I suggest he go back to Debunking School and demand his tuition fees back! He seems to think that because he is actually in the United Kingdom he has more authority. Well, I live in the UK also and I think he made a number of mistakes in his "debunking".
He says that Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr "handed themselves in". They did not. They voluntarily made statements to the police. "Voluntarily" is a euphamism used by the police when they want to get people to talk. They were asked to make statements at the police station and they did. They were actually arrested on August 17 at 4am, the girls bodies were found by a member of the public, not from any information gathered by the police, at around 1pm of the same day. The police later confirmed that Ian Huntley did not answer any questions all the time he was in custody.
John Russell says that, contrary to Joe Vialls statement that the media has demonised the couple, that little has been said about them. I can only think he does not read newspapers because many newspapers have carried stories about their lives. He pedantically asks if Joe Vialls has interviewed millions around the world. Then goes on to "debunk" expert opinion about non verbal communication exhibited by the couple. Well, Mr.Russell, learning to interpret non verbal communication does not necessarily need a degree, many people have learned the art.
Talking of Huntley's eyes "going dark", he then goes on to say that Huntley claimed he was the last to hear them. I dispute this claim. I saw that interview and what Huntley replied to a question asking if he was the last to see the girls was "Well, maybe not see them, but I was probably the last to talk to them".
Mr. Russell claims the bodies of the two children were buried three miles from the base. I have not seen on tv, read in any newspaper or heard on any radio report anything about the children's bodies being buried. All references say the bodies were dumped in a ditch. Joe Vialls says the bodies were close to the perimeter fence which gave access to the barracks inside. This is true according to police reports. Looking at a map of the area it is clear that the Carr is much less than a mile away from Lakenheath base perimeter.
Apart from these inaccuracies John Russell comes across as a bitter and angry racist. Perhaps his anger is blinding him to the truth. A link for the police press statements can be found at http://www.
Diana Tresidder


This Site Served by TheHostPros