Truth About The Innoculations – Dr. Chetty

Dr. Shankara Getty describes the truth about the “vaccines.” Don’t let anyone coerce you into taking them.

Cow Worship and Vaccines

Wall Street Bull

The Satanic influence in plain sight must be exposed if people are to understand the sinister nature of the agenda that’s currently playing out. The leaders allowing this manufactured medical emergency to continue are not looking out us. They are loyal to Satan and this is a spiritual war. Cow worship from ancient times seems relevant to what’s happening today, and in fact it is still very much alive.

Origin of Vaccines

In 1796 Edward Jenner observing that milkmaids seemed to acquire cowpox but not smallpox disease theorized that cowpox provides immunity. He decided to test his theory by injecting pus from the milkmaid’s scabs into an eight year old boy to attempt to immunize him from smallpox disease. Immunity was confirmed based on a scratch test whereby the actual pathogen is smeared into person’s skin. If they don’t acquire the disease it is assumed they had immunity. Jenner’s experiment was considered a success.

Edward Jenner

Jenner named this inoculation procedure vaccination. Vacca means cow. He was given many honors and tributes and was a high level freemason. He became known as the father of immunology.

A hide from a cow named Blossom is in a museum as a tribute to the animal alleged to have provided this medical breakthrough.
Blossom. Dr. Jenner’s House

A huge vaccination campaign began, but studies now show that smallpox outbreaks were less severe in unvaccinated areas. It is similar to what we’re seeing now with the Covid “vaccines”.

The interesting thing, however, is that the incidence of smallpox actually increased once vaccination programs were instituted. In Jenner’s time, there were only a few hundred cases of smallpox in England. After more than fifteen years of mandatory vaccinations, in 1870 and 1871 alone more than 23,000 people died from the disease. Later, in Japan, nearly 29,000 people died in just seven years under a stringent compulsory vaccination and revaccination program.

This increase in smallpox deaths was associated with a noticeable lack of protection not the best combination of events. For example, in Germany, over 124,000 people died of smallpox during the same epidemic. All had been vaccinated. Additionally, (unaltered) hospital records consistently show that about 90 percent of all smallpox cases occurred after the individual was vaccinated.

This lack of efficacy and increase in disease incidence, while other communicable diseases were declining, led to the refusal of smallpox vaccination by some countries. This resulted in a drop of the incidence of the disease that is quite remarkable. In Australia, when two children died from their smallpox shots, the government terminated compulsory vaccinations. As a result, smallpox virtually disappeared in that country (three cases in fifteen years). When England began to reject vaccination, then the incidence of smallpox deaths decreased accordingly. ” link

But facts don’t matter much. The vaccine program was cemented and propaganda has convinced most even to this day that they are necessary for survival. Is it possible the cow was chosen specifically by the evildoers who have embraced cow worship for centuries? And that it would be linked to the mark of the beast? Let’s explore the history and biblical references to cow worship.

Cow Worship
Europa, Goddess riding a beast

Europe with root word Europa is represented by a woman riding a beast/cow. This worship took place as far back as eight centuries B.C. According to Greek mythology, Zeus seduced Europa by transforming into a cow and tricking Europa into riding on his back. Only later did he reveal his true identity.

“So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.” (Revelation 17:3)

Is it possible the woman on a beast in Revelation is a reference to Europa and that the antichrist will rise up from Europe?

Moloch was an ancient god worshiped by the Israelis from the old testament. They practiced child sacrifice to the god.


Leviticus references God’s harsh warnings against such evil worship.

“Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.” (20:2)

“And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.” (20:3)

After Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt he went to the mountain to fast and meditate but the people grew restless and Aaron asked them to gather all their gold earrings and jewelry and created a false god of a golden calf with fire for the people to worship.

The Golden Calf of Jesus | The 2000 Year Fix

God told Moses to return and stop the idolatry. He destroyed the calf with fire and it was ground up and added to the drinking water which may have been part of the plague they would receive as punishment.

“And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.” (Exodus 32:35)

So, it’s clear there are several examples of cow worship in biblical history. These false religions were Satanic. Is it possible that the scriptures of the woman riding the beast and God’s response to false cow worship are biblical warnings about the mark? Maybe God intended to warn people about the mark of the beast abomination so there would be no doubt.

The Covid vaccine just happens to be cow connected “vacca” and the strong push to basically bow to the vaccine — worship the beast. Is there a parallel? And the people were plagued for worshiping the golden calf. Are people plagued for taking the vaccine?

Modern day worship is all around us. This is an image from 1991 Time Magazine.

Magazine covers, statues and coins.

The European Union complex resembles the Tower of Babel and the statue in front is a woman riding a cow. And these are the people deciding we should have a New World Order.


Other religions also worship the woman and beast/cow.

China 2021 is the year of the cow.

Freemasonry cow worship

Freemasonry cow worship

They even mock us with the term herd immunity.

Consider what’s happening today. How many of us have been shocked at what appears to be vaccine worship, when even people harmed by it continue their worship and allegiance. Every social media discussion begins with a disclosure statement that they are not anti-vax. Satanic inversion has science replacing religion, with the Covid vaccine hailed as the savior.

What if pestilence referenced in Revelation is Satan’s weapon against man from this manufactured medical crisis? The proclaimed “miracle” is actually a bioweapon and mark of the beast? If true, many have been deceived including Christians.

Is the vaccine a false messiah promised to save, but instead is killing and harming people and does not prevent disease as claimed? Billions believed the deception — just like Eve believing Satan’s lie that she would become like God if she ate the apple.

It’s easy to be distrustful of the vaccine when all the nefarious facts are

Proposed quantum dot snakebite vaccine

considered. An experimental injection that goes into the cell and instructs the body to produce a protein with no assurance there won’t be permanent changes to the DNA. The immune system is suppressed to allow the mRNA to enter the cell, thus tricking the body. Luciferase enzyme was used in vaccine development though it’s unclear if it’s in the current vaccines. But they chose that name? Microsoft’s patent tied to movements for social credit has the number 060606. There is no proof of a novel virus that causes disease as it has never been isolated. The synthetic genetic code was selected and pieced together as a guess to what caused one person to become ill. And that became the platform for the testing and vaccine production.

Gateway computers use cow symbolism and Moderna claims their vaccines are an operating system, hacking the software of life. How sinister is that?! I will prefer to keep my God given software of life. The body is God’s temple and the injections are defiling the body, possibly creating an abomination in God’s eyes.

Gateway NV55C38u 15.6" Laptop Computer LX.WSG02.042 B&H

All credit for this blog post goes to Revelations of Jesus Christ Ministries who covered this topic in depth in this video. It’s 2 1/2 hours long so I decided to do a condensed summary to share the important revelations and shared many of the images from that video. Please take the time to watch if you can.

In conclusion, we have a biblical and ongoing history of cow worship and the modern day worship of a vaccine that does the opposite of its claims, as science replaces faith in God. I hope that people will begin to see the evil that’s upon us and turn to God.

German Microbiologist Describes How Injections Affect The Immune System

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi describes in an understandable way how the packets from the injections respond in the bloodstream. The cells are programmed to produce spike proteins that the immune system will attack. The problem is the proteins attach to the cells which line the bloodstream throughout the body, so when the body fights them as foreign matter, blood clots will form. If you’ve already received the va#, the best thing you can do is refuse to take any of the boosters they will push in the fall. If you haven’t gotten them, DON’T!

How To Keep Your Business Open

Liberal governors are attempting to impose increasingly stricter illegal rules since the election. They are BLUFFING as they have no authority to do so. Curfews, mask fines, indoor dining closures, gym closures, no alcohol sales in two states! NONE of this is legal. Our only hope is defiance. It is NOT compliance. If you think they are going to back off, you are mistaken. They want masks to be permanent. They speak of red/yellow/green but never mention removal of phases, do they?

When you take the time to learn your rights, you will have the knowledge to keep your business open, and you won’t have to force masks, use plexiglass, reduce capacity, close indoor dining or any of the so called mandates. It is not all that complicated. Peggy Hall has been researching the laws and our rights that have been infringed on since this all began. She offers a webinar for businesses or people who just want to understand our rights and how to fight back. I took the last one and it was very informative. I’ve shared many of the things I learned on this blog.

The webinar is $29 and you will learn step by step how to stay open, how to respond when a code enforcer arrives at your business and even how to handle an administrative hearing if they unlawfully attempt to take your business license from you. You have nothing to lose by defying the illegal orders. If you try to abide by them, you in all likelihood will lose your business. That is the intent, in case you haven’t noticed.

Here is the link. Please fight for your business, fight for your freedom.

Letter to Police, Businesses to Ignore Mask “mandate” in North Carolina

Comrade Commissar Cooper is encouraging police to fine businesses and patrons for not wearing masks. He has ZERO authority to “mandate” anything. If there is no law on the books, there is no violation code so there can be no legitimate fine. Send this to your local police departments and mayors, town councils.


I demand that you follow the United States constitution, North Carolina constitution, and civil liberty laws by refusing to  enforce any of the mandates, but especially the masks.  It discriminates against people unable to wear them due to medical reasons, emotional reasons, such as anxiety and religious objections. Aside from exceptions, the constitution protects our right to breathe and to move freely in public. I have put together a document outlining all laws that apply and would appreciate it if you would follow the laws on the books and not Cooper’s made-up Covid rules. That is the oath that all officers take. There is NO law on the books for violating a mask policy. No regulation — no violation. The constitution is not suspended even during times of emergency, and by the way, we are not in a state of emergency and the statute is being exploited by Cooper.

This is going to crush small businesses and there is no evidence that masks reduce viral spread. There is plenty of evidence that they’re harmful to human health. I’ve attached a peer reviewed study describing the evidence of harm. I suggest you read it and share it with your staff. There’s a reason we’ve never done this before. We need to take our health into our own hands since the government continues to ignore studies that prove masks are not only ineffective but harmful.

And a final point, it is illegal for staff at businesses to pose as law enforcement officers by attempting to enforce the law (although there is no law on the books forcing people to wear a mask). It is also illegal for them to practice medicine without a license. A mask is a medical device and as such informed consent is required, as well as a medical examination to ensure the person is healthy enough to use the device. Only a doctor can legally prescribe this, certainly not a store clerk and certainly not a governor. I am urging you to do the right thing. Do not attempt to enforce this. Let ______ remain a free town and trust that individuals will behave responsibly.

Notice to police departments

Mask Studies

Notice to Businesses


Restless Spirit

Yesterday the Scottish Government produced its route map out of the Coronavirus “Lock-down”.  The message was clear. There is light at the end of the tunnel, we will meet again, but we don’t know when. You will get your freedom back, the freedom we have taken from you,  the freedom to associate, to work, to trade, to congregate, to socialise, to worship, to play, to travel, to welcome strangers, to visit and embrace your family and your loved ones. You will get that back, but only when we decide the time is right. Only when “The Science” tells us it safe to do so. And just in case you become too relaxed about it, if things change, we can reverse things at any point. So be warned.

From the beginning I felt that the prison term “lock-down” had more than a little resonance to the situation we were in. I…

View original post 487 more words

The Francisco De Aragon Case: A Wrongful Conviction in Florida

Francisco De Aragon

Francisco “Fran” De Aragon, age twenty-six was working as a swim instructor at the Deerfield Beach Aquatic Center in 2015 when his world was turned upside down. May 20th started out as a normal day, and he was looking forward to taking a short vacation with his wife, Savannah to visit family. Instead, a deputy arrived at his place of employment and detained him with no explanation. There he sat for hours until police obtained probable cause to arrest him. Then he was transferred to the police station, handcuffs and leg restraints were placed on him and he was interrogated.

He was shocked when police informed him that he had been accused of inappropriately touching two six-year-old girls during their swim lessons the prior day. He was outraged and vehemently denied the accusations. He informed the detective that he had never been accused of anything of this nature and was a law abiding citizen with nothing more than a speeding ticket on his record. Detective Gittens lied and told him that he had DNA evidence to support the allegations. De Aragon maintained his position that he had never inappropriately touched a child and agreed to submit a DNA specimen. He did not ask for an attorney at any time during the interview.

He told the detective that he took his coaching and lifeguard responsibilities seriously. He was with the USA Swim Team where members are educated about the importance of avoiding any inappropriate contact. They are also subjected to frequent background checks. He had been working as an instructor/coach/lifeguard for the past ten years and had never received a single complaint. He’d worked with thousands of children.

The setting of the alleged abuse defies common sense. He and another instructor worked with entire classes of students who were transported to the facility from their schools. They would split the class in half so each instructor could work with approximately ten students at a time. As is typical with beginner swim lessons, the instructor would stand approximately five feet out and have the children take turns pushing off the wall and swimming toward them, often with the use of a kickboard. They would then be turned around and directed back to the wall. The entire class would be watching, and waiting for their turn. The teachers were close by, keeping an eye on the students. How could a child be abused in this setting with no one observing anything?

The Accusations:

The parents of six-year-old A. C. called the police the evening of May 19th and reported that their daughter had been inappropriately touched by a  swim coach that day. Officer Sobrino with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office responded and spoke first to the parents. They told the officer about the alleged inappropriate touching described by their daughter. The officer then spoke privately to A.C., and she told him she was in the pool and a man touched her private parts inside her bathing suit, but there was no penetration.

The next day, at a separate precinct, parents of six-year-old B.E. reported that their six-year-old daughter was inappropriately touched by a swim instructor. The same details were described — that he touched her private parts inside her swimsuit. No penetration had occurred. This report was taken by Investigator Preston, also with the Broward Sheriff’s Office. Note that B.E. attended a different school than A.C. This reduced the likelihood that the children knew each other and possibly made up the claim after discussing it at school, but it shouldn’t eliminate the need for a thorough investigation into these very serious allegations. Unfortunately, police immediately accepted the claims as fact, and confirmation bias was a factor in the children’s interviews.

It’s important to distinguish between an allegation of touching versus penetration as the latter results in a sexual battery charge, which carries a life sentence.

Deputy Gittens

Things happened very quickly . . . almost too quickly. Detective Keith Gittens with the Special Victim’s Unit was assigned to the case the morning of May 20th. He called A.C.’s mother at 10:17 a.m. and then her school teacher at 10:49, but the odd thing is that Officer Sobrino did not speak to Gittens, and did not type up his report until 11:15 p.m. that night . . . so how did Gittens obtain the family’s number and the name of the teacher? At a deposition months later he explained that he must have received a draft copy of Sobrino’s report.

Whatever the case, before he’d even conducted forensic interviews with the children, he contacted the pool where Francisco De Aragon was employed and determined exactly where he was at that time and then sent a deputy to detain him until he secured probable cause for his arrest. De Aragon was detained at 12:22, held at his work location until Gittens completed his interviews. He was arrested at 3:54 p.m.

Normally when young children make sexual abuse allegations, authorities consult with child psychologists and medical professionals to verify or rule out the claims. There are recommended guidelines for questioning children in the 2-7 age range. For example, open-ended questions are supposed to be asked. That didn’t happen in this case. Outside specialists were not consulted, and open-ended questions were not asked. It was later learned that Gittens had never received any formal training in this area.

A.C. was interviewed first. He asked her simple questions — could she count to 100, did she know her alphabet? He felt comfortable that she understood the difference between truths and lies, then he jumped right into the “good touch/bad touch” questions. He proceeded to draw a body and asked the child to name the anatomical parts. Then he asked her if anyone had ever done a bad touch on her privates.

A.C. Yeah.

Gittens: Who?

A.C. When I went to the pool I was trying to swim and I couldn’t and they touched my privates.

If the child had been coached to make the accusation against the swim coach, the detective just led her right to that. There was no open-ended question about her day, or school or the swim lesson . . . just directly to the inappropriate touch questions.

Gittens: What was the person doing with you?

A.C. He was trying to push me on the wall for I can swim. (English was her second language)

Gittens: Uh-huh.

A.C. And then he put his hand on my bathing suit and touched my private.

(note: I am skipping ahead and omitting some of the irrelevant sections to avoid being too lengthy).

Gittens: So while you were in the water with the man is when he touched your privates?

A.C. We were playing and then trying to swim, he was touching my bathing suit and then he went under his hand. And then he touched my privates.

It sounds like A.C. could have been coached by someone to say, “He put his hand under my bathing suit . . .” , but it didn’t quite come out right.

Gittens: Okay. Did he put his hand inside your bathing suit, or outside.

A.C. Inside.

Gittens: Okay, and he touched your privates or?

A.C. Yeah.

Gittens: Okay, when he touched your privates did he do anything with his hand?

A.C. He just touched it.

Gittens: Okay. Did he only touch it like this or did he do something else?

A.C. He was touching it like this because I was with my bathing suit and I was trying to swim. And then when I was trying to swim when I did it wrong he went under my bathing suit.

Gittens: Okay. When he touched your private did his hand move around or stay still?

A.C. He keep his hand still.

Gittens: Okay. Did his hand go inside your private or stay outside?

A.C. A little bit outside.

Gittens: Well, let me ask you . . . did the man’s finger go inside your private or something else?

A.C. Inside my private.

He kept asking her the same question until he received the answer he wanted. Clearly, the detective was manipulating the child to secure the harshest possible charge against De Aragon — sexual battery. Does the child even understand what the detective means? We already know that the officer who responded to the complaint reported that no penetration had occurred, so why was this detective pursuing this line of questioning when it was clear the child denied it in both interviews? Gittens kept at it, and she told him that the coach also put his hand inside the butt area of her swimsuit, but based on the questioning and the responses, it does not seem like the child understands what the detective is talking about.

Gittens: So did he touch your private, then your butt or . . . tell me. Tell me what happened.

A.C. First I was on the bus — and the person on the bus she was staying on the bus. And then I got started and when they tapped me on the head, I had to go this way with my friends. And then when we were doing things what I was saying. And then after that we were playing and kicking. We were playing red light and green light.

He attempts to refocus her but doesn’t seem to be successful.

Gittens: When the man was touching you, was he showing you how to swim?

A.C. Yeah. He was showing some other kids. And then — we were going, my other friends. They were on this side, and my other friends were on this side.

Gittens wrapped up the interview shortly after that, having secured his first sexual battery charge.  A.C. was unable to identify De Aragon in a photo line-up just after the interview.

Gittens interviewed B.E. next. She was crying hysterically as she entered the room, so he allowed her mother to stay for the interview. This interview is very important because the child told the detective that a boy from school touched her, and that a grownup had never touched her inappropriately.

Gittens: Has anyone ever touched you on your parts that they’re not supposed to touch?

B.E. Nods.

Gittens: Who touched you there?

B.E. Elijah.

Gittens: Huh?

B.E. Elijah.

Gittens: Elijah? Who is that?

B.E. Someone from my class.

Gittens: Somebody from your class touched you there named Elijah? Okay. A boy or a grownup?

B.E. A boy.

Gittens: A boy? Okay. Has anybody else touched you on your private? (B.E. shakes her head no) No? Okay. So, besides Elijah has any grownup touched you on your private there?

B.E. No.

At this point the detective should be considering the possibility that the child may have lied in the initial police report about the swim coach. Was it possible that it was the classmate, not the coach? Instead, he keeps pushing — even resorting to the use of a toilet paper roll and pen to simulate sexual penetration, in an effort to coax the child into admitting that penetration had occurred. He was determined to secure a second sexual battery charge.

Gittens: Besides mommy from bathing you there, has any grownup ever touched you there?

B.E. No.

Gittens: It’s okay. You can tell me. Mommy said it’s okay to tell me. Any grownup ever touch you there? Huh? Yes or no? You’re nodding yes?

B.E. (mumbling)

Gittens: I want to be sure I understand you. Okay? So, can you say yes or no? Which one?

B.E. I’m scared.

Gittens: Don’t be scared. No one’s going to hurt you. I promise.

B.E. Yes.

Gittens: So who was the grownup that touched you there?

B.E. I don’t know his name. Someone who works at the pool. And he did it to everybody that had on a bathing suit two-piece.

(skipping some of the dialogs)

Gittens: So, tell me about it. Tell me how the man touched you there.

B.E. I don’t remember.

Gittens: What were you doing at the time?

B.E. I was in the pool.

Gittens: You’re in the pool? Okay. Were you learning to swim? Yeah? And there were other kids there too? Okay. And were you by yourself with the man at the pool? No? Other kids were there? Were the other kids sitting on the wall? Yeah? Okay. So, then you went out when it was your turn? Okay. And was it then that he touched you there? Yeah? Okay. And you had on a two-piece bathing suit? Yeah? Okay. And he used his hand to touch you there? Yes or no?

B.E. Yeah.

Gittens: Did his fingers touch you there? Yeah? Okay. Was it inside your bathing suit or on the outside?

B.E. Inside.

Gittens: Inside? Okay. So, here we have a roll of toilet paper. Right? Right now where is the pen?

B.E. On the outside.

Gittens: On the outside? Okay, now where’s the pen?

B.E. On the inside.

Gittens: Were his fingers on the outside or did it go inside?

B.E. Inside.

Gittens assumed the child understood what he was referring to with this ridiculous pen demonstration, but I don’t believe it’s at all clear that she did . . . and it’s quite possible she interpreted the pen inside to mean inside the bathing suit. Remember that the police officer the night before reported that no penetration occurred.

Gittens then asked the child to pretend the pen is the coach’s finger, and show him how much of the pen went “inside.” The child points to a spot on the pen. That resulted in the second sexual battery charge. B.E. did identify De Aragon in a photo line-up, so this was enough for probable cause. De Aragon was immediately arrested and taken to the police station.

A third six-year-old girl, A.P. was interviewed the following day. She was in B.E.’s class, and it was established during later depositions that the two girls were friends and had discussed the touching. B.E. told her mother that the man touched A.P. too. B.E. then sent an email to A.P’s mother about this, and police were later contacted.

A.P.’s mother told police that her daughter was in the pool, then went to get a drink, and the lifeguard touched her . . . so this was very different than what the other girls had described. But Gittens didn’t ask A.P. anything consistent with her mother’s statement. He stuck with the same script . . . Did it occur while you were in the pool, etc? A.P. said she would scream if anyone touched her private parts . . . yet she didn’t scream at the pool that day. Gittens conducted the same toilet paper roll demo that worked well with B.E., but A.P. maintained that the pen remained outside the toilet paper roll — so no sexual battery charge this time.

B.E.’s mother also told police a contradictory story. She said that her daughter told her that the coach lined up all the girls wearing two-piece bathing suits and touched all of them. In fact, another lifeguard working that day described how she was the one who split the class in half for the lesson, and it was simply the first ten children who were sent to have their lesson with De Aragon. This apparently wasn’t a red flag to police that the stories weren’t matching up with what the children had allegedly described. Also, the mothers of B.E. and A.P. denied knowing each other, and denied that their girls had ever been to each other’s homes, even though the children said that they had.

The investigation was over at the time of De Aragon’s arrest. Gittens never attempted to determine whether A.P. and B.E. may have jointly planned to falsely accuse their instructor. He did not look into B.E.’s classmate Elijah, despite the fact that she’d named him as the person who did the inappropriate touching during her police interview. Shouldn’t he have considered the possibility that she (and A.P.) may have implicated De Aragon to protect Elijah? Someone that they would see at school each day? He did not question the other classmates to see if they’d observed anything at the pool that day.

Since A.P. and B.E. had been to each other’s homes, the parents may have been friends too, and there may have been collusion to frame De Aragon by coaching the children. Gittens never considered the possibility, or that the parents of these two girls may have known the parents of A.C., the third girl who attended a different school. A.C.’s swim lesson was actually scheduled right before the other girls’ lesson, so it’s quite possible the children knew each other from that, but Gittens never asked.

Gittens also failed to consider the possibility that the parents may have had had financial motives to make false claims. He never arranged for the children to be medically examined, did not collect their bathing suits for DNA, and did not inquire if the pool facility had cameras that may have captured the events of that day. In fact, no investigation took place at all, and the parents were actually brought in to make sworn statements after the arrest.

A spokesman with the Broward Sheriff’s Office informed the public about the arrest on the local news. He stated that he believed this man to be a predator, and asked the public to come forward if they had any information. No one ever came forward.

Detective Gittens was demoted from Detective of the Special Victim’s Unit to Deputy a few months after this incident. In his deposition, he stated that it was due to personal reasons. During a pre-trial hearsay hearing a judge was curious about the demotion and even asked the prosecutor if there was a reason why the detective was no longer a detective with the the SVU. He wondered if it was related to his interview technique. He referenced the end of one of the girl’s interviews in which the detective told the child that he believed her.

“It’s fundamentally flawed for him to say at the end we believe you. It’s fundamentally flawed for him to say at the end of the interview for him to tell the child he won’t do this to anyone else. There’s a huge problem with that because you are now making sure the child is now married to her statement and she has to stand by that statement now. She can never recant because she’s now the hero. They believe her and he’s the monster because of her testimony.”

Is it possible Gittens was demoted because he was involved in a set-up? He moved very quickly and did not conduct a proper investigation. Did he have something to gain?


Fifteen months after the accusations were made, De Aragon’s private attorney, Scott Janowitz deposed the parents, the children, the detective, and the teachers.

A.C. was very quick to mention the touching. It seemed obvious she had been coached. Janowitz did a poor job questioning the witnesses, failing to ask open questions much like the detective.

Q. When you got into the pool, where did he first touch you?

A. In my private part.

This is clearly inconsistent with the earlier story — that she was touched while he was helping her swim.

Q. When you first got into the pool, he immediately touched your private part or did he touch some other part of your body?

A. No. First he keep pushing me and pushing me. And then until he just touched my private part. And then we were done I went home. And then, like in the night time I tell my mom, and then my dad came, and then my dad called the police.

A.C. did not seem to understand any questions about penetration.

B.E. was reluctant to discuss this again.

Q. Do you remember a day in which the swim instructor touched you? (Again, the attorney’s line of questioning was exactly like Gittens’)

A. No.

Q. Okay. Do you remember a time where the swim teacher put his hands inside your bathing suit?

A. No.

Then Janowitz began asking her about private parts and at that point she responded “yes” when asked about the touching. B.E. stated clearly that his hands remained outside her private part, thus no penetration. Stupidly, Janowitz was trying to encourage her to admit to the penetration, and even brought up the toilet paper roll demonstration. He asked her if she knew a boy named Elijah, and she said she did not.

Incentives to lie

Sometimes children are coached to lie about sexual abuse. Unfortunately, it’s common in divorce and child custody cases. One parent will accuse the other of sexually abusing the children to win full custody. Sometimes teachers, daycare workers, relatives, and youth counselors are falsely accused. The Tonya Craft case is well known — a kindergarten teacher falsely accused of sexually abusing three girls. A possible motive was that one of the mothers was upset that Craft didn’t believe her child was ready for first grade. A vendetta can be the incentive, and children can be coached. Craft had a strong defense team and was ultimately acquitted, but many aren’t so lucky. These cases are difficult because the physical proof isn’t needed to win a conviction. The child’s story is often enough.

One of the other incentives is financial. A false allegation can result in a massive lawsuit. In fact, at a hearsay hearing before trial, Judge Bailey was considering any possible motives for the children to have made false claims, and one of the things he referenced was civil lawsuits.

“I don’t find any motive to fabricate, as far as some of these cases end up in lawsuits, and civil actions, and so on. I don’t find anything of that nature here. It may be a question of whether because there’s a discussion at the school going on, that there’s no motive to fabricate.”

The judge stated that he didn’t see anything of that nature, however, there had been a pre-suit filing just five weeks after the alleged incidents. It was filed against the schools and the City of Deerfield Beach by A.C.’s and B.E.’s mothers, yet De Aragon’s attorney, Scott Janowitz did not bring it to the court’s attention. In fact, at trial, both women denied that they’d gone to the attorney together which was odd since both their names were on the documents. During De Aragon’s trial in May 2017, one of the mothers was asked if she was planning to pursue a civil lawsuit. She stated that she had no plans to do so.

In June 2017, De Aragon was convicted of capital sexual battery, three counts of lewd and lascivious acts and one count of battery. The first charge carries an automatic sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The children all testified, yet much like the questioning by police and during the depositions, claims of actual penetration were unclear, despite lots of coaxing. There’s a hearsay exception in cases like this, with children under the age of twelve, so all of the mothers were able to testify about what the children allegedly told them about the touching. All three women cried on the stand, even though they did not cry during any of their interviews or depositions. And this was two years later.

It didn’t matter that the sexual battery charge was never confirmed through testimony, because the jury was shown the taped interviews of the children and the responses to the toilet paper roll demonstrations were accepted as the children having admitted to there being penetration. The defense case centered around witnesses who were at the pool that day. Many lifeguards and teachers testified that they did not witness anything unusual, and that none of the children reported being touched inappropriately. At the sentencing hearing, De Aragon’s family testified about his character and how he’d been swimming since he was very young, and loved teaching people of all ages how to swim. Both of his parents were coaches as well. The family is obviously devastated.

In November 2017 a civil suit was filed by all three families against the school, the City of Deerfield Beach, and Francisco De Aragon. A quick look at their public records revealed that one of the fathers is currently being sued for $170,000 in a lawsuit that was initiated close to the time of the accusations against De Aragon. Another father was arrested in 2018 for domestic violence and drugs. One of the mothers has a history of foreclosures. Maybe police should have investigated the families. The lawsuit could potentially yield a multi-million dollar award. Could this have been an incentive for what appears to be obvious false allegations? Did the families conspire to put an innocent man in prison for life for money? It certainly seems possible.

As an advocate for the wrongfully convicted, I became interested in this case after Francisco’s wife, Savannah posted about it on a social media site. I read the articles, and had to learn more. She provided me with the case files, and I’ve spent many hours reading through everything. I am convinced he is innocent because it defies common sense that any abuse could have occurred unnoticed in a public pool with dozens of people around. I will do what I can to raise awareness to this case, and hopefully one day he will be cleared of these charges.

You can listen to an exclusive jailhouse interview by WFORTV that occurred shortly after the conviction. De Aragon has appealed his conviction, but things seem to be moving rather slowly. I will post updates on this site.















Rogue prosecutor’s influence on hair expert’s testimony highlighted in ruling overturning conviction

Wrongful Convictions Blog

The January 26 opinion overturning the conviction of Massachusetts inmate George D. Perrot, which you can read about here, was important in several respects.

First and foremost, the opinion written by Hampden County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Kane was important because it could lead to the release of Perrot 30 years after his conviction on rape charges even though the victim repeatedly said the then-long-haired, bearded Perrot didn’t look like the clean-shaven, short-haired man who raped her.

Second, the opinion is important because Judge Kane’s reasoning could influence thousands of past convictions that were based on now-discredited hair-comparison analysis like that used to convict Perrot.

Equally important, though, was Judge Kane’s finding that Wayne Oakes, the FBI hair examiner who testified as an expert in the case was unduly influenced by the overzealous prosecutor in the case. In his ruling, Kane noted that the prosecutor, Francis W. Bloom, hand-delivered the hairs and other evidence to the…

View original post 243 more words

Many Inconsistencies in the David Thorne Case

Crime Scene Photos 005The David Thorne case has many of the classic tell tale signs of a wrongful conviction – tunnel vision, poor evidence collection at crime scene, poor defense representation, coerced witnesses and lies.  A lie can be so powerful in a criminal case.  Evidenced by the many convictions overturned in recent years, we now know that many of them were built solely on lies.  It typically takes new physical evidence to finally bring the truth to light.  The problem with some cases is that when the investigations are so poorly handled such as the Thorne case, it is difficult to find that new information that can help free the wrongfully convicted – but we must keep searching.  We do this because we know the State’s case doesn’t hold up.  We know there must be something or someone that can help the person and we must continue to try.  Though an excellent website already exists, I would like to highlight some of the major problems with the case that I recently observed while reviewing all of the files once again.  These things demonstrate how unlikely it is that either Joe Wilkes or David Thorne had anything to do with this horrible crime and why we must keep searching for a way to free these men.

A personal crime?

VincentFor those new to this case, Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her home on April 1,1999.  She was found with her throat slit in a pool of blood in the center of an oddly staged crime scene with furniture items carefully placed on and near the body.  A photo of an unknown baby girl was found on the floor between her legs as was an overturned potted plant.  The staging is indicative of a personal crime as it’s unlikely that a random person would take the time to stage the scene.  Also, though 3 of her children were locked in upstairs bedrooms, a 4th child (age 4) was found walking freely in the home and he was clean and dressed and wearing shoes that were tied.  The child was unable to dress himself and certainly couldn’t tie his own shoes. The fact that a child was somehow kept away from his mother’s blood for so many hours and was clean and dressed indicates that someone cared for him.  Certainly only someone close to him would take the time to ensure that he was clean. Police believe that the murder took place the night of 3/31.  If that’s true, this child would have been alone with his mother’s body for potentially as long as 17 1/2 hours and certainly should have had blood on him. Someone ensured that he either remained clean or was cleaned up and dressed before police arrived. When studying this case however, it is clear that those closest to the victim were never investigated.  The police made up their minds right away that David Thorne was responsible.

Why did police focus on Thorne?

Thorne agreed to speak to police the day after Yvonne was found.  Unbenownst to Thorne, his grandfather had arranged for an attorney to send a letter to police requesting immunity in order for Thorne to speak to them. Police were unable to ask Thorne any questions and they felt that Thorne was hiding something by sending the immunity letter.  David Thorne knew nothing about this letter!  Had he known, he would have never agreed to it.  He would have answered questions and it’s very likely that he would have never been pursued as a suspect and certainly wouldn’t have been convicted.

How did they build a case against Thorne?

Joseph Wilkes: The State’s theory is that Joseph Wilkes murdered Yvonne in a murder for hire scheme – that David Thorne paid him a sum of $300 to kill her.  Investigators had custody of Wilkes for 20 short minutes and in that time they received a confession.  That 20 minute interview was not recorded.

  • Wilkes didn’t have a lawyer present.
  • Police lied to Wilkes and told him that David Thorne implicated him in the murder.
  • Police told Wilkes that he could potentially receive the death penalty if he didn’t “confess”.
  • Police told Wilkes that if he “confessed” he could be out in 7 years.
  • Police told Wilkes where he stayed that night.
  • Police told Wilkes that he purchased a knife at K-Mart that night.
  • Police told Wilkes how the murder was committed – a complete scenario.
  • Police took Wilkes to a drain ditch near Yvonne’s home and told him that the knife was found there; police claim that Wilkes directed them to the location – a lie.

Why Joe Wilkes?

Once police understood that Thorne couldn’t have murdered Yvonne because he was in another town taking a class that night, they looked closely at all of his associates.  There is a police record of an incident in which a car windshield was broken.  Joe apparently blamed David for the broken windshield, David accepted responsibility for it even though he said that Joe broke it.  I believe this is how police set out to frame Joseph Wilkes.  He knew David Thorne, he was young and he was easy to manipulate.

Lies and inconsistencies begin:

Crime Scene Photos 376Rose Mohr and Chris Campbell both stated that they saw Joe the night of 3/31 at the Carnation Mall food court in Alliance. That places Joe in the same town as Yvonne Layne – he was staying with the Enoch family 20 miles away at the time. Rose came into this case when she allegedly told her mother that she had information about that night. .The story goes that her mother told the apartment manager who then contacted the police.  Police first contacted Rose’s mother and then Rose. I believe that the statements from Chris and Rose enabled police to frame Joe.  In any case, lies and inconsistencies are flags – an indication that it can’t be trusted, an indication that it was probably manufactured. This case is filled with lies and inconsistencies, beginning with Rose and Chris and in turn the entire case against Joe.

  • Rose testified that Joe was hired to do a job by some guy; Chris testified that Joe was hired to do a job by his girlfriend.
  • Rose testified that Joe said he was “hired to kill a girl”; Chris did not testify that Joe was in town to kill a girl.  He only said that he was hired by his girlfriend to do a job.
  • Though Chris testified at trial that Joe was hired to do a job, in his police interview he said Joe was hired to kill a girl. (Why did he change his testimony?  Was he coerced during his police interview?)
  • Both said that Joe showed them a knife purchased from K-Mart.  Rose described it as a hunting knife in a sheath.  Chris described it as a folding knife.
  • Both said in police interviews that Joe was wearing white pants.  At trial, Rose said he was wearing dark pants. Chris wasn’t asked about the color. (Prosecutors presented evidence of dark pants that Joe allegedly wore that night).
  • Rose never mentioned anything about Joe discussing his “trainer” in either her police interview or at trial.  At the end of the police interview, Chris said that Joe spoke of his trainer that night but he couldn’t recall his name. At trial, Chris said the trainer was David Thorne.
  • Rose testified that Joe wrote his number down on the back of a business card and gave it to Chris. Chris placed it in his wallet.  Chris never mentioned the card.  In a post conviction hearing, it was revealed by a handwriting expert that it was not Joe’s hand writing. Rose later admitted that she wrote it.
  • Police have some sketchy hand written notes from a July 9th interview with either Chris, Rose or both.  There is no mention of the Comfort Inn and no mention of a K-Mart knife purchase.
  • On a supplemental report dated July 20th, police state that they visited a clerk at the Comfort Inn on July 9th and verified that Joe Wilkes stayed there on March 31st.  (Did he really stay there or was this also manufactured?)
  • Rose testified that while sitting with Joe that night, she became nervous and got up and walked around the mall for a while.  When she returned, Joe had left. Chris testified that all 3 sat there until Rose’s father arrived to pick them up; then Joe left.  Both testified that as they were driving away from the mall they saw Joe walking toward the center of town and that Rose’s father beeped at him after Chris said “There’s my friend,  beep at him!”.
  • Interestingly, both Chris and Rose were fired from their mall job on April 1st for not showing up for work for 3 days.
  • When police interviewed Joe, he never mentioned Chris and Rose and police never questioned him about them.  At trial, Joe’s version of meeting them again was inconsistent with their stories.  For example, Joe said he saw them as he was walking through the food court.  When asked what they talked about, he had no recollection whatsoever.

Because of so many inconsistencies, I find it difficult to trust anything coming from Chris and Rose.  Were they coerced?  Chris Campbell was arrested on a drug charge a few days after his July police interview and held in jail for 6 months – until after he testified at Thorne’s trial. I think it’s very possible that the entire story is fabricated and they never actually saw Joe Wilkes that night.

Additional Key Facts:

  • Phone records indicate that aside from one 8 minute call between Joe and David on 3/25, there was NO communication between them whatsoever in the days leading up to the murder.  Even the 8 minute call can’t be verified as coming from Joe because it was placed from a payphone to David’s home.  Assuming the call was from Joe, that means that the entire plot was planned in a total of 8 minutes.
  • Joe was allegedly staying with the Enochs beginning on 3/27, so 4 days before the murder yet there isn’t one call from their home to David’s home.
  • Joe was kicked out of his girlfriend’s home on 3/27 and desperately looking for a place to stay.  David would have had no way of knowing that Joe ended up at the Enoch’s.  How then did David know to pick Joe up there on 3/31 to drive him to the Comfort Inn to rent a room for the night?  There is no way.
  • The official story is that Joe was given a $100 bill to pay for his stay at the Comfort Inn.  It cost $59.76.  Karen Enoch told police that he came home and said he had $40 and bought a carton of cigarettes.  If this is true, he wouldn’t have had enough money left to pay for the batting gloves and knife he allegedly purchased that night.  If it isn’t true, Karen is lying.  If it isn’t true, is ANY of this story true?  It can’t be trusted once a lie is evident.
  • Karen told police in her initial interview that Joe arrived home at 11AM that morning; at trial it was changed to “morning” with no specific time. If Joe arrived home at 11AM, David couldn’t possibly have driven him as he was verified at work at that time.
  • During Joe’s police interview he said that David picked him up and drove him to the Comfort Inn that evening.  That’s impossible because David was in another town taking a class that night.  At trial, Joe testified that Brent Enoch drove him to the hotel.  Brent testified that he drove him as well. Joe didn’t even know what story the police needed him to recite.  He “got it wrong” so police made sure it was fixed before trial.
  • Prosecutors violated Brady laws and withheld evidence of a neighbor stating that he saw a white male leaving Yvonne’s home at approximately 9:30 the morning of April 1st.  He was shown an initial photo line-up and he identified the man.  Police told him he must be mistaken because that man was a cop.  He was shown a second line-up which included David Thorne’s photo, cop photo removed.  He didn’t identify anyone.
  • Joe reportedly had no change of clothing with him, yet returned home the next day still wearing a white wind breaker and the same pants and shoes.
  • Summer Enoch testified that Joe bought new tennis shoes several days after the murder and put the old ones in the box and disposed of them.  We’re to believe he was walking around in the same bloody shoes for days?  David Thorne’s car had no blood in it.
  • In the police interview, Joe stated that David paid him $100 on 3/31 for the hotel, knife and gloves; and paid him an additional $200 the following morning.  The story changed.  By trial it changed to – “Joe didn’t receive the rest of the money until the day of the funeral, 6 days later.”  The Enochs supported the “new” story and testified that Joe continually asked where David was because he was waiting for his money for “cleaning the garage”.
  • The Enochs allegedly picked Joe up 20 miles away the Tuesday before the murder (so one day prior) but warned him that they were not going to be chauffeurs for him!  We’re to believe that the very next day, Joe asked Brent to drive him to the Carnation mall (again 20 miles away) and Brent said “No problem!”.
  • The Comfort Inn where Joe allegedly stayed that night was 4 miles from Yvonne’s home.  It was approximately a 90 minute walk.  Joe allegedly purchased the knife that he would later use for the murder at 8:10PM and told police that David told him to finish the job by 10PM because David would be “on a surveillance camera at a convenience store” at that time.  Why didn’t Joe choose a smaller hotel much closer to Yvonne’s home?  Why did he register in his own name?
  • Crime Scene Photos 133Police tried to get Joe to describe seeing puppies at the home and a small child; Joe said he saw neither.

There is much, much more to this story and many more inconsistencies.  Of course, probably the biggest issue with the State’s case is that it couldn’t possibly have happened the way Joe described it.  See Brent Turvey’s report. I think it’s important to point out all of the other smaller issues with the case because they all add up to a case that clearly remains unsolved.  We will continue working on this until the case is solved and these men are freed.  If you have any information that could be helpful, please send an email to

%d bloggers like this: