It is 10:09 a.m.
as I am continuing
where I left off last night.

I was discussing the footage
and left off with
the seemingly rather strange observation
that the brake lights
were on as Michael Hastings
was providentially,
 or coincidentally
(dependent upon your viewpoint)
filmed as he ran through
the red light
just north of the collision scene.

As I mentioned,
I was at first taken aback,
just a little,
by the very suggestion,
but upon further reflection
I remembered that
I had just recently read
that there were plans
of putting circuitry
in all new autos
which makes it
so that the police
can turn the engine off
from outside the vehicle
during a chase.

Think drone technology.

Or robotic airplane technology.

What if that were put into a car?

I am sure some of you
must have seen cars
that drive themselves.

They are a popular sight
at some college campuses.

Add to that the fact that
this was supposed to have been
a "brand new" Mercedes.

A quick look at various Mercedes websites
will show that they use
the most advanced electronics imaginable.

So just where did
that particular Mercedes
come from, anyway?

Was it a rental?

Was it at the mechanic's shop
anytime recently?

These are questions
which I do not ever expect
to have an answer for.

But they sure got me
to thinking about this.

Enough so that I began to study
the piece of footage in question.

It didn't take but a second
to see what it was that the blogger
who had mentioned the fact
was referring to.

For, in fact,
the taillights did look very bright.

Because the shot is taken
from the side of the car
it is difficult to be exact
about anything.

I looked again and again
as I rerolled the tape
and was not sure
just what to make of it,
having no real points of reference.

That is to say,
a vehicle with brake lights on
and a vehicle with brake lights off
and taillights on
(because it was dark out).

But there was more.

I did notice, immediately,
that the red lights
were not two individual lights,
but, rather
an apparent strip
running across the back
of the car.

I remembered various different vehicles
with which I am familiar
which have a light bar
on the trunk
or right above it
which light up
when one hits the brakes,
so that instead of two individual taillights
there is a strip of red lights
all the way across the rear,
in order to better get the attention
of the driver behind the vehicle
as the brakes are applied.

I ran and re-ran the footage
while trying to ascertain
whether there was,
in fact,
a light bar.

It was hard not to see
that there, indeed, was.

That is to say,
the red light appeared
as if it was going across
the entire rear of the car.

Along with the red "light bar"
I could also very easily see
that there was a white one,
very similar to it,
right below it.

I remembered that some vehicles
have white lights
that also go on
with the red lights
when one applies the brakes.

Because most white tail lights
are backup lights
I began to wonder
just why there would be a strip
of white light
just below the red lights.

Back to the internet
as I ran a series of queries
to look at the rear
of various different Mercedes models
from 2012-2014.

As you might imagine,
 almost all of the commercial shots
were taken from the front of the vehicles.

Only one or two
out of about one hundred
that I looked at
showed the rear.

And those taken in daylight.

So I decided to run a query
on Mercedes tail lights l
looking for parts manufacturers
who might replace the light bar
or white lights
which light up
when one hits the brakes.

Again, plenty of individual tail lights,
but nothing helpful.

As I continued to try several queries
I finally happened upon some ads
from Mercedes Benz
bragging about
a couple of brake light systems
which they use
on the vehicles in question.

One is called a "shooting brake light"
and the other is called
an "adaptive brake light".

It was the adaptive brake light
which got my attention.

It is because,
sure enough,
it is a white light.

And it flashes like a strobe
when you hit the brakes hard
over 50 mph.

Mercedes even provided
a couple of advertising videos
which showed how it works.

One was taken in a parking structure
which was rather dark.

First a Mercedes without the adaptive lights
was shown touching the brakes.

Then one with the adaptive lights
followed soon thereafter.

There they were,
the white lights
which I was seeing
in the video footage
of Micheal
running the red light.

Now that my curiosity
had been aroused
more than before
I went back
to re-examine the footage.

I had already taken a still camera
and tried to make a crude sort of
stop action series of photos
as I was looking for the one
which best showed the tail lights
as the vehicle sped through the intersection.

As I clicked through
the single photos,
one at a time,
there it was.

The flash.

Yes, a flash of white light,
enough brighter
than those lights before it,
to be rather conspicuous.

It appeared to me
that one white light
had been caught flashing
at least once
during the short time
that the vehicle passed through
the intersection.

While keeping an open mind,
and awaiting further development of facts,
I realized
that it was most certainly time
for me to get in my car
and go to the scene
of the accident
to find out whatever I can.

But, not before getting
a few hours of sleep
as it was now 5:45 a.m.
and the sun was coming up
with a beautiful very red sunrise
taking place
in the direction of Los Angeles,
to the south of my location.

But, before continuing,
I would like to document
one more rather astounding fact.

It is this.

I noticed, according to new reports,
that Michael is believed to live in Vermont.

Now that is a long way from California,
such that I first wondered
what in the world he was doing
in my home town
and I next wondered
whether he was driving a rental car,
because most people
from the far other side of the country
will have flown here,
not driven here.

On the other hand,
if he really liked the car
he was driving
he may have driven it
cross country.

But that would depend
on how much time he has
to do such a thing,
that being much more
like a vacation
than a working trip.

The issue is whether someone
could get access to the vehicle
to rig up explosives
and/or electronic devices
by which one could take control
of the vehicle,
as is done when the police
shut down the engine
during a chase.

Who would have known
he was coming?

And how much notice and opportunity
would they have had?

And what would be the motive?

These are the obvious questions
that any investigator "worth his salt"
should be asking
and looking into,
from where I sit.

While I have no way
to obtain the information
which would be necessary
to answer these questions,
the motive question
was answered
during that same night
as I was running
a number of queries.

It came as a result
of the startling revelation
that Michael had,
called a female attorney
for Wikileaks,
only several hours
before the fatal collision,
in the middle of the night,
and told her that the FBI was investigating him,
according to the story
which was then being circulated.

It doesn't take a whole lot of brains
to figure out that
there was probably a lot more
to that story
than was being told
in a press release
regarding this matter.

But this led to the furtther revelation
of why he should be talking
to such a person,
as well as the answer
to the question of why
he was in my town
in the first place

(yes, believe it or not,
we long time Los Angeles families
continue to refer to this
huge, thriving metropolis
as a "town";
and I refer to it as "mine"
because I was born
and raised there,
and because a portion of my family
are one of the founders of the city,
having lived there
since it was a little train station
surrounded by Lima bean fields;
and in this regard
I should say that
we do not like Easterners
bringing their
filthy self-serving corrupt practices
into our city,
although they have managed to,
in spite of all else,
strange as all of this may seem).

Here is the story,
as reported by the Los Angeles Times,
Thursday, June 20, 2013,
at 8:27 p.m.,
under the byline:

FBI denies reporter killed in car crash
was under investigation.

I immediately had to laugh to myself
at the very poor choice of words
"FBI denies".

Really now ---

Did they not just deny
the existence of the NSA
spying operation?

And how many other things
have they denied,
knowing full well
that they are lying?

Too numerous to even count?

So why does the byline
make it sound like the FBI
denying anything
is even newsworthy,
in the first place?

They are well known
to be consummate liars.

And they are well known
to have been fully compromised
for a very long time now.

do I dare say?

Now, if you think
I am being too hard on them, here,
then just go take a hard look
at the recent testimony
of one James Clapper
to the Congress
regarding the existence
of the spying programs
which spy on the American people,
en masse,
in which he denied
what has since become all too familiar
following the first several leaks
originating from Edward Snowden,

That is to say,
this man is a bald faced liar.

And he is most definitely
representative of the entire culture
of secrets,
and lies
and obfuscation
which has,
most unfortunately,
descened upon our country
like the wicked curse
which it most assuredly is.

He lied to Congress,
I presume under oath.

That is criminal,
last I heard.

But were there any repercussions at all?

None, whatsoever,
other than a concerted attack
upon the poor little boy in the crowd
(Edward Snowden)
who dared to cry out
that the king has no clothes on

(reference the fairy tale,
"The Emperor's New Clothes).

Yes, these people lie with impunity
on a daily basis,
even when under oath,
before what is supposed to be
a fact-finding
oversight body of legislators
controlling the very purse strings
which pay for the liar
and all of his deceptive practices.

Oh, but did I forget to mention?

They are ALWAYS for some higher purpose.

Such that the ancient commandment
which reads
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
has been seriously modified
to read that lying is good,
when it is for some
pretended higher purpose.

And you wonder why
everything is going to hell
in a handbasket?

Lying is now taken
as a vital practice.

Our President lies to us
without so much
as a second thought.

Numerous congresspersons
lie to their wives
about their adulterous practices,
without even batting an eye.

Our own former governor
has sex with his maid,
and has a baby by her,
and then raises him
right in front of his wife,
without ever telling her about it.

And I am supposed to take seriously
any statement from such persons.

Surely you jest.

I do not; 
and will not,
given any credence
to such persons,

But, onto the facts,
and I quote:

WASHINGTON - Michael Hastings
was researching a story
about a privacy lawsuit
brought by Florida socialite
Jill Kelley
against the Department of Defense
and the FBI
when the Rolling Stone journalist
died in a car crash this week.

Hastings, 33,
was scheduled to meet
with a representative of Kelley
next week
in Los Angeles
to discuss the case,
according to a person
close to Kelley.  ---

The FBI said
on Thursday
that Hastings
was never under investigation
by the agency. ---"

O.K. before continuing,
take a look at those
"weasel words"
as we lawyers call them.

He was
"not under investigation
by the agency".

That is to say,
no criminal investigation
had been opened
concerning him.

Does that mean
they do not watch him?

Does that mean
they do not monitor his every move,
as we know is so easy to do
with the NSA apparatus
currently in place?

Does that mean
that other agencies
aren't watching him
and keeping a very close eye
on his every movement?

None of these are answered,
or will be answered
by such a ridiculous
and meaningless

It is an outright evasion
intended to make it look
as if the real underlying question
of complicity in his death
is being answered,
when it most certainly is not,
and never will be.

One can only wonder
why any responsible news organization
would even make such a statement
unless they are trying
to put it into the mind of the reader
that all is well here,
and there is nothing to see
or look at,
as opposed to reporting
the true facts
this most unfortunate death.

You know,
after making so many
of these absurd types of statements
one lacks credility,

That goes for both the newspaper
and the agency
making the statement.

It is really a non-responsive answer
(i.e. an evasion)
and should be given
no merit,

But, here it is
being made to look like the newspaper
has looked fully into the matter
and found nothing.

Such is most assuredly
NOT the case, here,
I think any reasonably informed person
with an I.Q. over 50
should be able to figure out.

But, enough of that.

More facts.

Hold on to your hats,
because here comes the clincher.

"Kelley alleges
that military officials
and the FBI
leaked her name
to the media
to discredit her
after she reported
receiving a stream of emails
that were traced to Paula Broadwell,
a biographer of
former CIA director David H. Petraeus,
according to her lawsuit. 
Petraeus resigned from the CIA
after publicly admitting
that he and Broadwell
had carried on
an extramarital affair."

Oh, oh.

This story just got a lot deeper
and way scarier
than I should like to admit.

Michael has not just pissed off
former general Stanley McChrystal,
but he has pissed off
the former head of the CIA?

"Oh shit ----",
I can here myself exclaiming,
 under my breath.

(pardon the slang term, here; 
I am just trying to be
as accurate as possible
with my quotation of myself
as I read the article).

So now we have
an unusual fatal single-car accident,
very similar to numerous others
which are known to have been engineered
by various intelligence agencies
and mobsters.

The masters of such things,
as it were,
no less.

If this man killed himself
by reckless driving,
then there sure are
a whole lot of coincidences
associated with this reckless act,
wouldn't any reasonable person
have to say?

Now I know
that I must visit the scene of the crime
--- errr,
I mean u
nfortunate extremely coincidental accident.

What do you think?

Well, let's go down
and have a look/see,
whadda ya say?

But, first,
I must get a morning cup of coffee.

Any who are in similar circumstances
know how that goes.

See you in a bit, God willing.

11:34 a.m.
Ventura, California, USA