I remember as a kid, when the last Star Wars movie (The Return of The Jedi) came out, George Lucas declared that it was to be the last Star Wars movie he would make. Then after much growing up and having my own children he released Episode 1 which was called something I’d never heard before: A prequel. Jedi was supposed to be good-bye for good… so now I thought “what the hell is a prequel?”. Seems that a story (even if you come in at the middle of it) isn’t as good unless you can explain ‘how it all began’. Most fans seemed thrilled at the idea of three new movies that would give some back-story to what had been the best part of my childhood. I wasn’t so sure, because most of what had made Star Wars so wonderful, whimsical and exciting was that it was new and that the animation techniques (though painstaking and time consuming) where what made it so real and endearing to me. I had to accept that in the 90’s any Star Wars movie was going to be done with computer graphics – CGI – that somehow took the believability out of it. It just wouldn’t be the same.
On the other hand, I could see why George Lucas wanted to make another trilogy…. I mean, Star Wars was such a successful movie that he could bank on anything with that name bringing in the big bucks….For the fans it took the guesswork out of what led up to the original series.
This brings me to why I am writing another article after, I too.. said goodbye.
In the past week, Kevin Annett has released a ‘special report’.. a kind of reworked prequel to the events before, during and after the dig for human remains at Brantford, Ontario (the Mush-Hole). This report, which attempts to answer all those questions people like myself and Greg Renouf have had about the claims made by Kevin Annett in the past.
The claims made in this report have prompted me to ‘come out of retirement’ so-to speak and to raise some questions regarding the finding of bones and the examination of those bones.
Now, many of my detractors, including Kevin himself as well as Marcia Lane and Russ Leitica have argued that the issue of whether or not the bones were found to be animal or human, and what lies Kevin told about Smithsonian, is not the point. What matter’s is that those responsible for the crimes must be punished. However, without the physical evidence there is nothing to prove that a crime occurred and Kevin knows this which is why he often confuses that issue. In the ‘report’ he states:
This report is a recapitulation of what was discovered at the Mohawk school, and reminds the world that forensic evidence has now substantiated that the Crown of England, the Vatican and the Canadian government and churches are responsible for the death of more than 50,000 children across Canada.
The key words for me were: FORENSIC EVIDENCE
If we follow through with the logic of the above statement by Kevin, then the existence of ‘forensic evidence’ is enough to prove that a crime was committed. That forensic evidence should demonstrate foul play was involved and should also be used to identify the victim in some fashion to further establish a case against a suspect.
But there is no forensic evidence and therefore no crime so how can there be an accused person found guilty? It would never stand a chance in an actual court of law.
So, let me ask some questions regarding the forensic evidence and see how Kevin’s prequel holds up.
Question 1: What happened at the dig site, Kev?
Kevin Annett states that bone fragments, along with buttons and bits of cloth were unearthed from 12 to 24 inches below the surface. He claims that some of the bone fragments were as large as “four inches in length” and that there were also “several teeth” discovered. Teeth and four inch long bones are excellent sources of forensic evidence.
Many of the bones were described by Annett as being “cut up” which if examined by a forensic pathologist would add to the suspicion of foul play.
The deepest the dig at “Level Two” was 22 inches which is less than two feet deep. This suggests that if a body was buried there that the grave was not deep enough to contain the body of a small child for very long. It is likely that wild scavengers would detect the smell of a decomposing corpse at less than two feet and could easily unearth it.
Also, according to Clynt King who conducted the GPR survey and detected a “massive soil dislocation and disturbance” to the areas east of the Mush-Hole building:
“It appears from the radar that at least ten to fifteen feet of soil has been displaced and covered over the original terrain east and southeast of the school building. This is definitely a subsurface anomaly, meaning its earth that was dumped there” – Sept 30, 2011
Geronimo Henry further states:
“None of that mound was there when I was in the Mush Hole (from 1944-1953). It was all flat then. This has all been piled up, right where I saw them digging one night and burying a small kid.”
It is unclear from the report if where the dig occured was anywhere near the area Geronimo Henry states he saw a child buried. If it is, then Ten to 15 feet of soil (according to the witness statements above) potentially cover the buried remains of at least one child (perhaps more), and 22 inches of soil would be barely scratching the surface of a much deeper gravesite.
Question 2: What about the remains unearthed?
As mentioned above, bone fragments, teeth (this is a new claim of Annetts), buttons, pieces of clothing and large intact bones were uncovered from one small plot out of 40 on a grid. The dig was temporarily halted “to allow specialists the chance to analyze and identify the artifacts, and to issue a public statement about what we had unearthed.”
Annett claimed that Smithsonian told him the bone fragments were too small to have the DNA analyzed, yet we clearly hear and see Kevin displaying and describing large bones. So where are THESE bones that would have been large enough to have a DNA analysis performed?
Question # 3. What about the so called ‘Experts”?
Kevin Annett claims that three forensic specialists were part of the team:
1. Dr. Don Ortner of Smithsonian institution who was allegedly involved in this project from the beginning.
2. Kris Nahrgang (of Trent University)
3. Greg Olson of the Provincial Coroner’s Office.
Re: Dr. Ortner:
It is important to note that this report is the first time that Kevin Annett has claimed that Dr. Don Ortner of the Smithsonian Institution was involved in the dig at Brantford from the beginning. This is interesting for several reasons. First, when Kevin first announced in late August of 2012 that he had sent the bones to Smithsonian, he never mentioned the name of who he had sent them to or when. Then, after writing the Chief Forensic Anthropologist, Dr. Doug Owsley, and publishing his letter, Kevin was alerted by his network that I had written a piece about it and refers to Owsley as ‘the Smithsonian guy’, as if he’s never heard of him before. He even hastens to add his usual “government agents can’t be trusted” rhetoric just to cover his bases:
|On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Marcia Lane wrote:
Kevin, you need to read this article. I have lost all the info I had on Smithsonian contacts but I believe Mr Owsley sounds familiar. Isn’t he the guy I gave you the contact info for to discuss the bones being shipped to them to look at? Some journalist wrote him a letter about you and the mush hole and he responded.
From: Kevin Annett <email@example.com>
To: Marcia Lane
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Bones « Kevin Annett Must Be Stopped: Google Alert – Kevin Annett
Can I get a copy of the Smithsonian guy’s letter?
He works for the government, first point. He evaded me for weeks and then said the bones were animal without providing any evidence to support what he said. That contradicted what Olson and Nahrgang told me and the Mohawks to our faces, ie, that they appeared to be human.
So how do people get from that, that I’m “lying”? The mud slingers’ focus on me is an obvious distraction ploy to draw attention from the fact that the Smithsonian guy is fudging the truth. (As the Smithsonian has done in the past when given Indian bones).
This is all proof that these critics are either feds or doing their job for them. But they sure are trying to slam dunk me eh? A good sign.
Marcia Lane (Kevin’s most loyal supporter and radio show producer) is supposedly the person who gave Kevin the contact information for Dr. Owsley yet neither of them can remember who it was they dealt with… very strange. Notice too, that Kevin says that it’s Dr. Owsley who stated that he evaded Kevin for weeks then said they were animal bones leading me to believe initially that it was indeed Dr. Owsley who Kevin was dealing with. It is only when Kevin reads my article with Dr. Owsleys letter that he states it was Dr. Ortner he dealt with. Kevin states this on a radio show in November of 2012 as being the man who examined the bones and sent an e-mail to Kevin, yet Kevin’s own wife states that “we’ve never dealt with Dr. Don Ortner” in a YouTube comment.
In the report Kevin states that 13 bone fragments were ‘mailed’ to Smithsonian for analysis and that he received a phone call reporting that the remains were too small to be analyzed. Not only does this violate several provincial and federal laws, this contradicts Kevin’s earlier statements that Kris Narghang and Greg Olson looked at a large bone (called a knee socket, despite no such joint existing) that appeared to be anywhere from 90-99% positively human and belonging to a child anywheres from 3-6 years of age. Similar large bones were displayed to the public as early as October of 2011 as evidenced by various YouTube videos and ‘press-releases’ produced by Kevin.
Here is a correspondence between Kevin and myself in late October of 2012 where Kevin offers to show the e-mails to me and to Doug Owsley (where I push the matter of also providing the Bill of Lading as proof of shipment) which leads Kevin to accuse me of helping the child killers:
On 28-Oct-12, at 11:43 PM, Kevin Annett wrote:
Once again you’re totally misrepresenting me and the situation. I did in fact send the bones to the Smithsonian, to another specialist whose emails I am posting on line this week. So while Dog Owsley is obviously not aware of this since it wasn’t his office that received them, I’d appreciate it if you’d try sticking to the facts and not fabricate these fantasies about me.
I’d be happy to send to both you and Doug the real evidence if you’re interested in the truth.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Heather Martin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I’d like you to clarify your purpose in “researching” all this and why you’ve been repeating and circulating provable falsehoods about me, before anything precedes.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Heather Martin <email@example.com> wrote:
Ah, so there’s now a caveat with your offer? Why? The truth is the truth and I think you should be interested in that. If you provide me with the proof you claim you have… Contact name, phone number of your contact at Smithsonian, permit to transport bones out of the country, and the waybill (bill of lading) for whatever courier company you used (scanned of course).. I will print an apology… The falsehoods that are provable rely on you to prove them… so, you have my e-mail and I eagerly await your attachments.
Look, your overt hostility and suspicion is unfounded, and with all the serious work that needs to be done, Heather, I prefer to work with people who are serious about bringing the kids home and bringing to justice their murderers – which doesn’t appear to be you.
Your concerns, real or otherwise, will be answered in the forums that will post all the evidence. Meanwhile, show me and yourself that you’ll go after the child murderers with the same grit that you’re focusing on me. Otherwise, tah tah.
Kevin again re-iterated his statements regarding Dr. Don Ortner during an interview with Santos Bonacci
Re: Greg Olson.
In performing a Google Search for “Greg Olson” and “Coroner’s Office” I found information that alleges Greg Olson is an employee of the Ontario Provincial Police although I find him listed on the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service website as a Forensic Anthropologist. Even more intriguing is that there exists a connection between himself and Kris Narghang prior to the dig at Brantford.
My question is if Greg Olson and Kris Nahrgang are such experts in their field, (remember, Greg Olson, is an employee of the Provincial Forensic Pathology Unit for OFPS) why were they not able to positively identify the bones from the Mush-Hole? Is it because the bones were sent to Vancouver (which is what Kris Narghang alleges in the Investigative report by APTN). In what capacity (officially or otherwise) was he acting during this dig? And how can he still be employed given his apparent incompetence and lack of following the Cemetaries Act? How was it that with Olson’s expertise and connections to local resources that the Smithsonian needed to be involved at all? Are he and Nahrgang involved in a larger conspiracy?
Re: Kris Nahrgang
How profoundly strange that Kevin Annett failed to do his homework regarding Kris Nahrgang and his affiliation with Archaeological Services Inc. Kris Nahrgang, it seems, is an official First Nations liason who regularly mediates and negotiates land deals that are part of suspected burial grounds and who is often making statements that all burial grounds belong to all First Nations people rather than to the individual tribes themselves.
I attach an excerpt mentioning Nahrgang and Olson from a document entitled A Conspiracy to Control Archaeological Sites in Ontario :
See the complete document with letter at the above link.
7:11 AM (5 hours ago)
Heather, Dr. Ortner had no association with this project. He did not do this type of work, nor was he active in fieldwork. Doug
From: Heather Martin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:34 PM
To: Owsley, Douglas
From: Heather Martin <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: A Special Report from The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State – Mass Graves of Children in Canada: The first documented evidence of the burial of children at a former Indian residential school
Dear Dr. Owsley,
I had written you previously regarding the claims made by Kevin Annett regarding his sending of human remains for examination to Smithsonian Institution. Your reply at that time was greatly appreciated. However, Mr. Annett has just now released a ‘report’ outlining the details of the ‘dig’ at Brantford, Ontario’s, Indian Residential School. I apologise for again bothering you to clarify the facts, but Mr. Annett has stated in this report that Dr. Don Ortner was a participant in this dig from it’s inception (acting as a team member) and was in receipt of 13 bone samples for analysis at SI.
Kevin Annett goes on to say that Dr. Ortner died of a sudden heart attack which contradicts what I have been told about Dr. Ortner being ill for some time prior to his passing.
I have no doubt that Dr. Ortner did not participate with Kevin Annett and his ‘team’ and am writing because I believe Dr. Ortner to be a man of scientific integrity and deserving of respect who is now being used posthumously to advance Mr. Annett’s agenda and finance his upcoming trip to Europe. (He is selling DVD’s of his ‘evidence’ of Native genocide for $50 to $100).
I have been trying to debunk Mr. Annett’s claims regarding children’s bones and the claim that 50,000 native children were murdered and buried on IRS grounds across Canada. I have no doubt that Dr. Ortner’s name was picked specifically because he was no longer alive to refute Kevin Annett’s claims. I suspect that he would deplore Mr. Annett’s flimsy scientific method and worse yet, the soliciting of donations based on a massive collection of lies using Dr. Ortner’s good name. Even more disturbing is that Mr. Annett is now claiming to have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I have attached the entire ‘report’ to provide you with the proper context and it is important to note that Mr. Annett has on several occasions stated to me and on radio programs that he has in his posession e-mails from Dr. Ortner claiming the bone fragments were ‘too small to be analyzed’. He has offered to show these e-mails to anyone who requests them. I have requested them on several occasions, to no avail.
Again, I deeply apologise for the intrusion, but feel that on the eve of the anniversary of Dr. Ortners passing, there can be no better honor I can bestow upon him than to shed light on the truth.
Thank you again for your help.