(I dedicate this article to three of my subscribers who hide anonymously behind their WordPress.com Fake Cookbook blogs.)
I might as well confess it now, before it comes out in a courtroom. I am a Housewife. I make meatloaf, I dust off knickknacks, I take out the trash, I plant vegetables and flowers, I paint walls better than Picasso, I sew “gifts” for friends, whether they want them or not.
More importantly —I see things as they really are. I see cobwebs, that piece of gum somebody stuck under the dining room table, greenish mold on that refrigerated leftover, cat hair floating in the sunbeam coming through the front window, and Jason Goodman talking with his oily voice to that dithering old man …no, no, no, I am not talking about Charles Ortel—it’s that other one, David Hawkins!
The prize for The Worst Alibi of the Week goes to Jason Goodman’s Document 78; so what will he be cooking up next from his Recipes for Disaster?
Look at the consternation on Jason Goodman’s face as he attempts to squelch any rumors going around about his ability to wield his soldering iron in the world of circuit boards. You see, the last time he tried to explain why he was waving his instrument in front of young women on Tinder, Queen Tut forced him to come up with a flimsy alibi for his behavior.
So on March 15, 2019, Jason Goodman published a video, Grounded Truth of Max 8 EVL Teachers Pension Fraud with David Hawkins. At the 6.03 mark, Jason Goodman explains, “Many people know that before I had created Crowdsource the Truth, I ran a 3D production company called 21st Century 3 D, and I’ve developed a number of different stereoscopic camera systems. Now I don’t currently hold any patents on these things because when I went through the traditional route of applying for, and obtaining patents, there was a huge cost associated and I ultimately didn’t do it.”
Note first, Jason Goodman’s continual use of the word “traditional” throughout his dialogue; a word he holds in disdain. Secondly, the huge cost associated with the patenting of “his” camera systems would probably have arisen from being countered by the patent lawyers for Panasonic and Apple.
“But I did with a small team of non-engineers at our office in New York City. I reverse engineered curiously enough some Panasonic DVX 100 cameras and some Apple Mac Mini computers to create this Frankenstein-like conglomeration of electronic equipment that resulted in what is now an internationally famous stereoscopic motion picture camera.”
What is a small team of non-engineers?
“And I can tell you, David, that when I sought out to do this first I did consult experienced engineers at Panasonic, experienced engineers at Apple Computers and all of them told me that what I was proposing was absolutely ridiculous, and would be impossible that reverse engineering and human soldering these eight layer printed circuit boards that were designed by computers and automated factories, would just simply destroy all the components and would never work.”
“However, five of these cameras were ultimately built, deployed around the world and have shot many four-four-four- RGB uncompressed stereoscopic motion pictures.”
“So again, I think that you and I asking questions that might defy traditional engineers in these fields or I should say might defy their understanding of how these things work-well, it doesn’t matter until you actually ground truth, your hypothesis, by actually slicing in half two Panasonic DVX 100 cameras, cutting open two Apple Mac Mini Computers, de-soldering all the components you don’t want and wiring this stuff together to actually make a functional video camera. Well, no engineer could deny that this works and it did exactly what I wanted it to, even though that’s not what it was originally intended to do. What do you think of that?“(8.24)
Well, apparently something worked as Goodman became a 3D cameraman in Hollywood for a time. But are we to believe Jason Goodman’s story that he defied skilled electronics experts when he sawed into an existing electronic instrument and rewired it so that it functioned as a more complex unit? What kind of saw did he use? How did he know just where to cut and re-solder? Has anyone ever heard where and how he personally gained those skills? For now, let’s just say that Jason Goodman had developed a recipe for transforming cameras and computers into 3D Shish KaBobs.
So next, let’s slice and dice the first few minutes of the Crowdsource the Truth video which followed on March 20, 2019.
Jason Goodman: (.50) “…good to see you David, so you know, I want to start off just by reiterating there is a small group of very vocal people who seem to dislike the process that you and I are engaged in here, [ I think he is referring to those named as co-conspirators in his Document 78, filed in the Robert David Steele lawsuit] and I want to remind everyone that there’s a traditional crime scene investigation process that is employed by police departments and investigative bodies around the world and I’m sure there are variations depending on where you go and what the nature of the investigation is, but I think we could all agree that there are pretty traditional ways in which crimes are investigated and those methods have a certain degree of success. I think it would be inaccurate to say the traditional crime scene investigation has a 100% effective rate. They’re not solving 100% of all the crimes and when you and I about a crime like the JonBenet Ramsey murder, David, that’s certainly a cold case that remains unsolved, wouldn’t you agree?” [Well, traditional CSI might not solve 100% of all cases; but so far, Jason Goodman and David Hawkins have solved NONE.]
David Hawkins: (1.53) “Yeah, totally, and in fact I would say that these traditional law enforcement or crime scene investigation techniques where you’re talking about high-value target mass casualty events with an implied organization behind them, I would say they have a 100% chance of failure. Over to you.”
Jason Goodman: (2.11 ) “Well, they certainly don’t have a 100% success rate, so what that sort of invites is the prospect at very least that someone could introduce an alternative to traditional crime scene investigation and what if one of those methods was simply to take all of the unsolved or let’s say, a large group of unsolved crimes and put them together and start comparing them so if we took a series of two, three, a dozen unsolved crimes from the past 50 years and started looking at them and comparing what they might have in common, there are certainly comparisons we could draw.” [By concentrating on “unsolved crimes” which can also be viewed as “the perfect crime”, Goodman and Hawkins seem to be looking at how others have committed crimes and gotten away with it, by having a perfect alibi. After all, it is not as if these two men have discovered new evidence, in which a DNA analysis might reveal the perpetrator of a crime.]
“Now, I don’t suggest that we take every shoplifting case of the past 50 years, but certainly if we’re to look at let’s say murders that involved EXTREME cruelty, I mean not someone robbing a bank and firing a gun. We know the motive for that, but the torture and murder of a 6-year old girl, it’s, I mean particularly when we’re talking about the JonBenet Ramsey murder as you have pointed out and others have pointed out, it just demonstrates such extreme cruelty, such extreme lack of respect for human life and anything that any sensible person would consider normal or moral. It’s so beyond the pale, it’s difficult for normal humans to even conceive of and think about this so if we were to look, David, only at unsolved crimes that involved extreme cruelty, extreme violence and were to compare any possible similarities between those crimes, perhaps that might reveal some element of evidence that could help solve one of those crimes and if you and I, or anyone, was to apply this non-traditional crime scene investigation technique to unsolved crimes, if that technique were to solve even one of these crimes there would be a benefit to it, don’t you think? [Should we be concerned that these two men are attracted to extreme cruelty? Especially when their defamation of others has crossed the line of extreme malice?]
David Hawkins: (4.22) “Yeah, totally and what’s interesting is what category of groups of people sort of crawl out of the woodwork to basically try and sabotage this novel-, actually in many ways it’s not so novel because if you go look at the fiction of Sherlock Holmes, that’s what he proposed….(7.04)… going back to there are very few people in the world who can give you the circumstances that led up to event, I think we can link the JonBenet ransom note to the massacre at the New Zealand mosque...”.
So David, anyone who questions your methods can be likened to a cockroach-like saboteur crawling out of the wood work?
It is important to observe just how important it is to Jason Goodman that he “prove something- anything, really”, that standard evidence gathering has “failed” to do. For example in Document 78, he wanted to prove that a conspiracy exists against him.
But if you read D. George Sweigert’s letter in Document 81, filed March 18, 2019, it was pointed out that Jason Goodman failed in Document 78 to identify all the facts that he, as the responder, disagreed with; also he failed to authenticate his exhibits, which rendered them a legal nullity. He was also advised to demonstrate logical relevance, and the chain of custody for electronic authentication of his evidence.
These standard, or “traditional” procedures are to ensure the authenticity of evidence in a court of law; but this is of no consequence to Jason Goodman nor to his guest, David Hawkins ,who purports to be able to link the JonBenet ransom note written years ago, to the recent massacre in New Zealand.
In several interviews with David Hawkins regarding the JonBenet ransom note, it appears that Jason Goodman has lifted some ideas from the author of that note, as he also has identified a small foreign faction within his named group of co-conspirators who he claims are opposing him with legal impunity, from Poland and New Zealand.
But why is this note so coveted and enshrined by Goodman and Hawkins?
Just because no one has ever been prosecuted for the JonBenet Ramsey murder, does it really follow that this represents the perfect crime, and the ransom note was the perfect alibi of misdirection?
Let’s see what a traditional law enforcement opinion on the ransom note has stated at a blog called dyingwords.net, written by Garry Rodgers, a retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police homicide detective and forensic coroner. In addition, Rodgers claims to have also served as a sniper on British SAS-trained Emergency Response Teams, and he lives in Vancouver, British Columbia, where interestingly David Hawkins resides.
In an April 16, 2016 article, Who Really Killed JonBenet Ramsey?, Rodgers addresses the ransom note. In brief, he says, “The first thing that comes to my mind when reading the note is that it’s nonsense. It’s complete and utter bullshit and here’s why: (1) It’s very long with a lot of unnecessary, redundant information.” Later he observes, “…another principle is that people expose their psychological profile in their writing.” To which he asks, “So what does the JonBenet Ramsey note say about the author? It’s clearly a deceitful attempt to distort the facts, using unrealistic, bizarre, and unbelievable demands to shift attention from the reality of the situation.”
That latter sentence perfectly expresses what a number of persons have been stating about the crime scene theories of David Hawkins and Jason Goodman.
In Part II, I continue discussing this video, picking up on Hawkins’ obsession with Bernardine Dohrn, and the implications this theory has for Jason Goodman and his Crowdsource the Truth platform.