| "A Step Too Far" Robert Steinhäuser Not Guilty of Erfurt Mass Murder Part Two To Return to Part One, Click Here Joe Vialls and Ralph Kutza, 10 June 2002 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The original intent of this extended report was to examine and compare the
mass murders at Dunblane, Port Arthur and Erfurt. In the view of this
author, all three atrocities were staged deliberately by professional
contractors, paid by globalist lobbies determined to disarm the general
public under United Nations
supervision. Guided by invisible hands in New York, each new manufactured “atrocity” lends weight to lobby claims that guns are simply too dangerous for members of the public to be trusted with. Indeed, long before each individual atrocity was perpetrated, a set of UN-designed draft anti-gun laws was ready and waiting in the target governments of Britain, Australia, and Germany. Part two of this report was originally intended as a comparison of the crime scenes at Dunblane and Port Arthur, but that has now been changed due to developments at the third crime scene at Erfurt in Germany. The most important development was the sudden death on Saturday of an 18 year-old student from Gutenburg Gymnasium high school, where 17 were killed and 7 injured in the mass murder executed on April 26, 2002. So far as it is possible to establish at this early stage, the dead student was one of the most vociferous in claiming that two or more shooters were involved in the mass murder. This unfortunate student was found at 0120 hrs on Saturday morning, hanging by the neck from a beam in his parent’s barn. He could not be revived, and there was no suicide note. The fact that this student's death was reported by media at all, shows a marked difference in mind-set between Germans and Australians. Back in 1996, most of the Australian public accepted without question the absolute rubbish peddled by the Tasmanian Government and Police about the mass murder at Port Arthur. Nowadays in Germany, tens of thousands of citizens are actively suspicious about the mass murder at Erfurt. And unlike most Australians, Germans demand detailed and accurate investigations. Apart from the dramatic hanging in Erfurt on Saturday, there have been a large number of other suspicious incidents and media misquotes surrounding the Gutenburg high school shootings, many of them well beyond my limited capabilities to translate accurately from the original German text. Though I spent more than a year at boarding school in Germany when I was a teenager, most of the schoolboy German I learned back then was forgotten years ago. Rather than provide inaccurate information by personal misinterpretation, I have decided to insert a report here by German writer Ralph Kutza. Ralph speculates that a secret service probably orchestrated the mass murder at Erfurt, though understandably he does not seek to identify the country of origin of the shooters involved. All text beyond this point is therefore the copyright property of Ralph Kutza, and has been edited by me only for English structure and grammar with Ralph's permission. Editorial comments by me on evidential links to other mass murders at Port Arthur or Dunblane, are shown clearly in italics. Ralph Kutza writes: “Finally - more than one week after the Erfurt terror massacre - police claim that more than 70 bullets were fired! The apparent differences in reports of the weekly magazines SPIEGEL on the one hand, and FOCUS on the other, of how Robert Steinhäuser is supposed to have killed himself or how he was found, must be considered a scandal! More and more eye witnesses talk of at least two people shooting After doubts has arisen concerning the evidence given by the hero who supposedly stopped the shooting [School teacher Herr Heise], the evidence given by the Head of the high school has come under closer scrutiny. Let me speculate today about the background of the crime, trying to give it a concrete shape. The following, I have to admit, is a rather daring hypothesis in 12 steps. But these can be checked scientifically against the Erfurt reality, and in principle could thus easily be disproved. In fact you are invited to disprove me. I really won’t mind if you can prove I’m wrong! HOW WOULD A SECRET SERVICE COMMIT A DEED LIKE THIS? 1. They would create a scapegoat, who under no circumstances would be allowed to survive the mass murder. Was Robert Steinhäuser such a scapegoat, i.e. a red herring? Certainly Robert can be credited with halfway fitting the required emotionally suggestive profile, and alleged professional shooting skills supposedly gained at the Police Sports Club. The media has already pointed the finger of "joint" guilt at police by stating that Robert was trained to shoot by a staff member of the Erfurt "Bereitschaftspolizei", i.e. riot police. For emotionally supercharged members of the public this will sound alarm bells, and they will automatically be wary of specialist police who wear black [just like the shooters at Gutenburg high school], training a teenager to fire high-powered handguns. However, few members of the public will bother to consider the reality that specialists like these, are by far the best qualified instructors to instil gun safety in the young. On the other hand, the media has paid little attention to the critical fact that Robert had not visited the Police Shooting Club since October 2001. Why not? If Robert had indeed planned this mass murder "long in advance" as claimed by the media, he would have been practicing day-by-day for at least a week before the event. This total lack of shooting practice during the twenty-eight weeks preceding the mass murder, certainly excludes Robert from the murder of 42 year-old police officer Andreas Gorski, who was killed by a single shot to the head while getting out of his car, more than 100 feet away from the school building. Attempts to involve the police in the crimes were made at both Dunblane and Port Arthur. At Dunblane the police response was criticized as too slow, while at Port Arthur the media insinuated that because specialist police did not shoot Martin Bryant when he was holed-up in Seascape, they must have been in on the act. Both claims were and are rubbish, but they served the valuable international lobby purpose of putting the respective national police forces on the defensive. And when the police forces are busy defending themselves from media attacks, they have less time available to look closely at the crime itself. 2. False leads have to be planted at the crime scene. A bag (not a rucksack!) was found in a toilet close to the corpse containing 500 bullets. That is something quite heavy and can’t be carried easily. Besides 500 bullets would have made sense only if Robert Steinhäuser had planned to fire at every pupil who happened to come across him. Otherwise SUCH AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT of ammunition doesn’t make any sense. Especially not if (as is commonly taken for granted by the media), the attack was planned for months. Instead of being evidence for the official explanations of what happened, this finding can be more easily interpreted and accepted as a red herring. One cannot help but think of some absolutely INSANE PERSON perpetrating the crime due to so much ammunition. However, if Steinhäuser had indeed indulged himself in “long term planning”, he would have known well there was no need for the excess weight or added firepower it might provide. Clearly then, he would not have been insane at all. The janitor reported that Robert talked to him before 11 a.m., when he arrived at the school, and then went to the toilet. This was ON THE GROUND FLOOR, but the bag with the ammunition was found in a toilet ON THE FIRST FLOOR! After the mass murder at Port Arthur, police found a large bag of loose ammunition in the boot of Martin Bryant’s abandoned car, along with his passport. This false evidence then helped to “prove in absentia” that Martin Bryant was the shooter. 3. False leads, that harden the suspicion the scapegoat has indeed committed the crime. Such false leads would consist of “evidence” found in the home of the “scapegoat”. To THE COMPLETE SURPRISE of his parents and brother, such evidence was found in Robert Steinhäuser’s apartment. But only shortly before 1 p.m. on the day of the mass murder. Until then, his brother and parents did NOT KNOW that Robert had ever had any weapons or ammunition in his apartment. 4. What kind of evidence would a secret service have planted in the flat? On April 26, around 1 p.m. Robert´ s brother, the 25 year old Peter Steinhäuser, found the following (DER SPIEGEL; 06.05.02, p. 120): “Peter went to Robert´s room. His foot kicked at a heavy travelling bag [read: one should stumble over this evidence!] and at that moment, Peter Steinhäuser said, “ I knew , that it was not good, what I was doing now.” But “not good” seems a peculiar and rather moral expression. “The bag contained hundreds of bullets.” [Well, to be more exact here than Peter, surprisingly another 500 bullets were found in this second bag]. (...) “On Robert´s desk laid the BILLS OF THE WEAPONS, and everything had been cleaned up, for the first time” (...) Peter thinks he was supposed to find the bills [someone who lays red herrings would want that to!]. “The bills of the weapons were Robert´s farewell letter”. [Nonsense! Only a farewell letter is a farewell letter]. Police found weapons and a large quantity of ammunition in suspect Martin Bryant’s house, at Newtown in Tasmania, after the mass murder at Port Arthur. This mystified Bryant’s mother Carleen, a frequent visitor who “tidied the place up thoroughly for him from time to time”, and had done so the day before the mass murder. In an interview with J. Vialls, Carleen Bryant stated emphatically that at no time were guns or ammunition stored at the house. If they had been, she would certainly have found them. 5. Plant evidence without being noticed. This could only have happened in the morning, on the day of the crime in Erfurt. The parents were not at home, and a secret service would have no problem with access. (SPIEGEL, 06.05.02, p. 119f): “For Mr. and Ms. Steinhäuser, who are married for 25 years, it had been TWO SPECIAL HOURS. Robert’s father, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and diabetes, had been off sick, and his mother had taken a day off, so they went shopping for the weekend at Real. (...) The parents were sitting in their car on their way home from Real [i.e. a competitor of Wal-Mart], when they heard about the shooting in the Erfurt Gutenberg-Grammar-School.” Perhaps by accident, the magazine reinforces the narrow time window for covert activity at the Steinhäuser residence: “... it was towards 9.45 a.m. on 26.April 2002, when the parents noticed that their son Robert LEFT WITHOUT ANYTHING, no rucksack, no bag. Ten minutes later Robert was back again. ‘I’ve forgotten my pens,’ he said, went to his room and again disappeared.” It is NOT reported, that Robert left this time with a bag or a rucksack! If he left again immediately, as implied, this must have been around 10.00 a.m. or even earlier. 6. Sent someone into the house who looks like Robert to plant the “evidence” This is absolutely necessary to ensure that the neighbours or the grandmother do not become suspicious. And what is reported by granny? According to SPIEGEL (p.120): “The grandmother, living on the floor beneath, told she saw Robert leave the house, with a rucksack” but she didn’t speak with him, [meaning: she could well have mistaken him for someone else!]. “…And with a cigarette in his hand”. Robert, the non-smoker? To me this was one of several false flag pointing towards the monstrous crime “Robert “was intending to commit. Looking at it coldly, this strange episode, and the impossible timing of the sighting long after Robert had already left for school, proves the smoker was not Robert at all. 7. To leave the corpse in a way that suggests reasonably well he committed suicide This is always quite difficult, the examinations of a forensic doctor can often prove murder instead of suicide. Concerning this topic I want to start with the adventurous descriptions of the so-called “leading” German News magazines SPIEGEL and FOCUS in the edition of 06.05.02 in both cases. DER SPIEGEL (p. 132) bases its report on information provided by 54 year-old emergency doctor Gabi Wirsing (at least it gives this impression): “And then there was Robert Steinhäuser. In the preparation room for the Arts, a tiny (storage) room completely packed with shelves. [Do you remember art teacher Heise’s implausible claim, that Robert had voluntarily trotted after him into the room?]. “He lay on the floor half on his side next to his pump gun which he had laid on the floor. He must have put the pistol in his mouth, before he pulled the trigger. His jaws were completely smashed. Then the weapon must have fallen out of his hand, it lay between his legs.” Now watch as FOCUS (p. 95) romps about and even includes a quick aside concerning the janitor: “In room 111 [Heise definitely always spoke of Room 110 before, as did SPIEGEL online from 26.04.02] lies the dead body of the 19 year old, whom the janitor had met on the ground floor this morning.” “Robert Steinhäuser had put the nine millimetre ‘Glock’ pistol ON HIS RIGHT TEMPLE. The bullet bored its way through his skull making the skin burst open, leaving a star-shaped pattern around the hole. Out of his head streamed a thin red shiny current of blood. Robert's pump gun lies closely beside his body.” These absurd contradictions allow only four possibilities: The police did not know how to make it appear a suicide, because Steinhäuser was found murdered. OR Two different bodies had been found (beyond the 17 reported dead). This would explain why the first reports on the day of the massacre spoke of 18 dead bodies. OR The perceptive faculties of one of the cited witnesses are extremely disturbed. OR One of the magazines is lying, though this last is hard to believe given the seriousness of the event. As Ralph states, this serves to confuse, but as with Port Arthur there is more here than first meets the eye: Most notably the shotgun, a full-length Mossberg pump action which measures 48 inches [121 centimetres] from muzzle to butt plate. This shotgun cannot be “broken down” into smaller pieces for transportation, so where did it come from? Certainly not from any haversack or bag that Steinhäuser might or might not have carried into school. |
 |
|
Once again there is an uncanny
similarity to Port Arthur. As well as the 400+ loose rounds of ammunition
found in the boot of Martin Bryant’s abandoned car, there was also a
large loaded semi-automatic Daewoo shotgun that was never fired. In both
cases the shotguns were merely stage props to help the official fabricated
story along, but
the careless and logistically impossible placement of the Mossberg shotgun
next to the body in the tiny storeroom at Gutenburg high school, serves as
definitive and irrefutable proof that Robert Steinhäuser could not have
been the shooter. 8. To prevent the real killers from being seen and identified. The persons committing the mass murder all wore masks. Nobody saw who really fired the shots. Even teacher Heise did not claim to have seen Steinhäuser actually shooting. At Dunblane the only “witness” who claimed to have positively identified Hamilton as the shooter was never named in the Cullen Report, and is widely believed not to exist. After Port Arthur there was not a single positive identification of Martin Bryant as the shooter. 9. Prevent the real killers from being heard talking. So far we have no comments on the fact, that not one of the students or teachers had heard the shooters speak. There is only one exception. Only Herr Heise CLAIMED he heard the/a masked person/Robert Steinhäuser calling after some students: “I’ll get you too, sooner or later”. No statement by any student anywhere in the media reports or supports this lone claim. There was a single isolated claim like this at Port Arthur. An elderly man whose wife was killed in the mass murder, and who later married a very attractive younger woman, is alleged to have claimed Martin Bryant said “No-one gets away from me.” 10. One uses allies in the teaching staff, or blackmail or threats, to create false evidence. Regarding the contradictions of Herr Heise enough has been said already. After a week the wall of silence finally broke down. FOCUS was in the leading position on 04.05.02. “Teacher Heise ‘confessed’, that his colleagues [who were eye-witnesses too, and knew him] called him a liar and a rotten pig, who wallowed in the blood of his colleagues.” According to FOCUS he was thinking about “picking up” a gun and killing himself. Notice the choice of words: not buy himself a gun, but just pick it up somewhere. [translators note: the German term “holen”, the word Heise is reported to have used, is used colloquially as the English “get”, suggesting either going to pick something up somewhere or buying it.] Where from? Out of the weapon cabinet at home or from his cellar? Does Heise illegally store weapons at home? Why was his flat and cellar not searched by police after this statement in FOCUS? But let us take a closer look at the school Headmistress. The SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG [a leading German daily newspaper], that by the way on 06.05.02 still trustingly withholds the enormous suspicion concerning the trustworthiness of Heise, writes on the 02.05.02, I’m giving the gist of it: “Because she was under pressure to finish important things, the Headmistress closed the door to the adjoining office (she doesn’t speak of locking it up). “Then she heard a couple of shots, opened her door and saw two dead bodies. She closed the door to the corridor, and then went back into her office, called the police and then the ambulance. After that she had answered calls coming in.” If this is true, she’s an exceptionally brave woman, and at least as much of a “heroine” as the “courageous” Herr Heise. But not a single word of the shooter trying to get into her office. Neither did he shoot through the door, as happened upstairs where two pupils were killed this way. This suggests a person with no specific knowledge of the surrounding, not Robert Steinhäuser, who according to media consensus, had been after the Headmistress. According to FOCUS (citing the janitor) he had asked if she was in. If it was really Steinhäuser, why would he spare her? FOCUS (O6.05.02) states on that subject: “She [the Headmistress] - according to her own statement - had locked herself up in her office. [Does that mean she turned a key? This would be rather unusual.], to be able to work without disturbances.” (...) “A certain haziness surrounds this part of the events.” Oh! “The janitor, Uwe Pfotenhauer, enters the office at 11.05. At this time the door to Headmistress Ms. Alt’s office was closed.” [but he must have called her, wouldn’t you have done?] “He alerted the police, being the first to do so.” Where was Ms. Alt?? Yes this is a thoroughly justified question! The media so far without exception has reported that the janitor alerted the police. If Ms. Alt later called the police too, as she claimed, it could be proven. People in charge of the police control centre would have taped her call, but nothing was said for two weeks. Then, the FOCUS suddenly claimed (on 13.05.02, p. 40) Ms. Alt called for help "one minute later" than the janitor. Pardon me! This was allegedly at 11.06 a.m., and these two individuals were only a few feet apart? How is it possible that that Mr. Pfotenhauer and Ms. Alt did not meet, or see each other, or at least that hear one another? Neither has claimed or stated any interaction with the other. But since its first reports immediately after the mass murder, the media has consistently claimed that Pfotenhauer SHOUTED his call for help into the telephone at 11.05 a.m. In addition, daily THUERINGER ALLGEMEINE reported on 11.05.02 that the killer did not even try to open the door to Ms Alt´s room. As the FOCUS asked on 10.06.02, why did Ms. Alt wait for a minimum of siix critical and valuable minutes after the beginning of the shooting at 10.58 or 10.59 a.m., before finally calling for help Was Ms. Alt misquoted by the media or did she tell the truth? If Ms. Alt did tell the truth, does she have something to hide? 11. The public in the victim country is flooded with propaganda, with the result, that the investigating authorities and media let the people know the real “truth” only drop by drop, and when it cannot be subverted or avoided any longer. This propaganda process started with the media celebrating teacher Herr Heise as Germany’s new hero. But with the help of the Internet, his extremely contradictory statements were exposed. Following an article of the online-magazine Heise-Telepolis, the magazine FOCUS broke out of the front of silence and cover-up. Now it became increasingly obvious, that the claims of police and media concerning the number of fired bullets could not be correct. For days there had been talk of 40, suddenly it became 45. But then, more than a week after the crime, seemingly all of a sudden again FOCUS (06.05.02) reported: [yes, yes the scapegoat Steinhäuser] fired from his pistol more than 70 bullets. So far the investigators thought it had been 45.? Whether this is revealing or subverting the truth remains to be seen. The original total of 40 rounds indicates that a team of experts was responsible for the mass murder, rather than Robert Steinhäuser. By artificially raising the number of rounds to 70, the media “builds in” or more likely “rebuilds” the possibility of an amateur, i.e. Steinhäuser, because amateurs always expend far more shots per kill.. After Port Arthur an identical pattern emerged. Forensics confirmed that the total shrapnel weight found in the victims and building interior of the Broad Arrow Café, matched the 29 rounds fired by the shooter, which killed 20 people and injured another 12. Clearly then the shooter was a highly skilled professional, who could not under any circumstances have been intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, with his rated IQ of 66. Then later a fully-funded subversive lobby group toured Australia, telling everyone who would listen that at least 50 rounds were fired in the Café, indicating more random shooting, thereby “rebuilding” the possibility that amateur Martin Bryant might have been responsible for the carnage. The janitor has something else to say about teacher Heise. FOCUS (06.05.02, p. 24): “At midday of April 26, janitor Uwe Pfotenhauer walks to the bakery across the college. He becomes aware of students on an opened window of a toilet of the Gutenberg-Gymnasium and calls out to them: ‘Take cover!’ The history teacher Heise passes on his way to get cigarettes from a machine. He has stopped the assassin, he claims, but Pfotenhauer only pays him little attention.” How could Heise be so “cool” and “callous”? According to his own statements he had only locked the killer in the room. But this supposed killer still had his pump gun and his pistol with him. That the pump gun possibly was jammed, how could he know? For this reason the suspect easily could have shot his way out, by simply firing at the lock. There is only one logical explanation for this provocative coolness of Heise as compared to the extreme strain the janitor was in. He must have known that Robert Steinhäuser was dead already. According to Police Chief Grube at a press conference, the post mortem examination revealed that Robert Steinhäuser must have died between 10.58 and 11.30 a.m. At an earlier press conference he and not only he had clearly given the impression that the suspect had shot himself when special action forces of the police approached, perhaps because he recognised there "was no way out". But police special action forces only began searching room for room at Gutenburg between 11.43 and 12.00 a.m., and supposedly found Robert “towards” 1 p.m. So although it is claimed he shot himself as they approached, in reality he had already been dead for almost one and a half hours. Serving as confirmation of this, and reported by FOCUS on 10.06.02, police claim Robert´s suicide bullet was fired at exactly 11.17 a.m. 12. One is trying to arrange the whole to appear as the work of a single person. More suspects would automatically result in more investigations and accordingly a higher risk of being discovered, and so on. The hushed up true number of bullets too was meant to imply, there was only one person shooting. But this pretense can’t be kept up for very long. DER SPIEGEL (06.05.02, s. 132) reported about several sixth graders that had fled to the cellar: “And there they told [the librarian] that up there were two men, one with darker the other with lighter clothes, both had pistols in their hands, and one of them had something on his back, maybe the pump gun. Three of these sixth graders immediately went to a computer to write down what they had seen, …” [Thus a later case or cases of “false memory syndrome” can be confidently and completely excluded. TIME Magazine reported on eye-witness Steffen Holzhaeuser, 15, who had seen a second masked person fleeing over the school-yard and then into another direction than the fleeing Steffen himself, but for sure this man did not run back into the school-building. On 05.06.02 media like the daily THUERINGER ALLGEMEINE or SPIEGEL finally wrote that police had eye-witness reports from about 40 [yes, FORTY!] persons claiming there was more than one masked killer. In the same article these same media nevertheless came to the astonishing conclusion that Robert Steinhäuser was the one and only killer. End Quote Ralph Kutza… There will be follow up reports on Erfurt when fresh details come to hand, and when those details have been verified 100 percent. This is essential for accuracy, and in turn accuracy is essential when reporting an event of this magnitude. Even the slightest error could undermine any genuine investigation into the global activities of those who organized and funded this atrocity and those at Dunblane and Port Arthur. This may take a long time. In part one, I promised that I would place you the reader within 100 yards of the office from whence these atrocities were ordered, and so I will. Imagine yourself standing on the red spot shown on the map below, and you will be less than 100 yards away from the ideological maniacs who specialize in this insane form of social control “for the greater good” of mankind. |
 |
| Part
One War on
Terror
Deadly
Jews
Vialls
Home
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||