Bonnies and Clydesm (±x)
Enter more text here
Murder, He Spoke
Almost a year ago I referred to the BBC's article entitled "How MI5's scientists work to identify future terrorists" dated 12 December 2016. Some of ...
I refer to this article:-
which was about MI5’s Behavioural Science Unit (“BSU”). As stated many terrorist-type attacks are carried out by ‘couples’ – known as Dyads. They are virtually impossible to break because of their co-dependency which underpins their survival.
The strength of the dyad is dependent on both parties knowing the EXACT POSITION AT ALL TIMES, to ‘get their stories straight’. Common Knowledge is therefore an identifying feature and a signature theme.
Always Two There Are
Within the dyad there is a leader and a follower, although when the activities are carried out those roles may switch as the ‘cowardice of the leader under pressure’ creates an opportunity for the apprentice to be mouthy and/or take the lead – ie “to shine’.
THE FOLLOWER ALSO BECOMES AN EVANGELIST WHEN REQUIRED[insert evidence]
and there is an element of Stockholm Syndrome concurrently.
The follower derives a buzz from the ‘sudden granting of authority’ and can be then manipulated easily. Usually the follower exploits the ‘poor self-esteem’ and a docile personality of the follower.
When convinced that the ‘success of the operation is dependent on them’, and pseudo-courage is created in their minds, the follower feels validated by the [false] statements.
Often at the conspiracy stage
Serious Crimes and Assistance
Background to this Article I am in the process of writing two new articles referencing Forensic Evidence in relation to 'Attempted Murder v Grievous ...
and/or at the early stages once the ‘crime proper’ is underway
Try Hard - Inchoate Offences
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 Attempted criminal liability is governed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which was based on the recommendations of the ...
the leader will demean the follower to demonstrate control:-
This could take the form of the leader being uncommunicative with the follower, such as ‘refusing to take calls’ or ‘appearing busy’:-
or with the leader scheduling calls (‘you may speak to me only when I am ready to speak to you’):-
or the leader talking over or interjecting when the follower is speaking (‘you may speak only when I am not commanding you’):-
Given the fact that the leader cannot lose the follower, the control becomes aggression only near the final act of the crime. When there is markedly more aggression then the ‘grand finale’ is very near…
A type of ‘sweet-mean’ cycle then arises, in which the follower (who has previously been exalted to a high position as a ‘co-strategist’ for example) strives for the elation that that he/she previously enjoyed.
When the leader manipulates the follower in this manner, the follower fails to realise that the follower will never be able to perform a future act that will be guaranteed to achieve the same satisfaction that occurred before.
Accordingly the follower will be always following, craving for the sweet part of the cycle, which will actually never materialise. They follow on the off-chance that ‘one glorious day they may be exalted once more’ 🙂
Skin in the Game
In one sense a dyad is not really two people, entering into a common purpose/joint enterprise as equals – if it were truly that then they would be far more potent. They are more akin to ‘two peas in a pod and one of them is larger’. The dominant one will use the weaker one until the weaker one is thrown under the bus – as a scapegoat.
It is very easy to do – the ‘public’ actions of the crime would be undertaken by the follower so upon its discovery it is the follower who has made the calls. Since both the leader and follower know the identical plan, the follower has 100% of the plan.
However the leader has a further hidden agenda, which is either the real plan or an exit strategy. As such the follower is merely a pawn and once involved the follower’s exit strategy is wholly dependent on the leader providing him/her with one.
When the follower is caught, they would not squeal, because they suffer from the delusion that the leader will ‘protect them’ so blindly cover for the leader. This process would go on indefinitely until the actual arrest of the follower, whilst the entire time the leader would have been negotiating transactional immunity to cover his arse…
I am writing a new article about ‘Forensic Investigation in Criminal Matters’ and will be referring to this article ‘Bonnies and Clydes’ to explain why my investigation of the 12/17 Fraud was conducted in a data-centric manner, and why I decided to ‘investigate the lies’ and spend over 13,000 hours recovering data, rather than ‘move forward [in ignorance]’ as the perpetrators instructed me to do…
the case continues – more evidence uploading…
Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)