1. Introduction.
2. Reality, a reprehensible government, and its friends.
3. The on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge.
4. Formerly vegetated area.
5. Subsequent destruction.
6. The location of the rape.
7. The location of the murder.
8. The location the Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing, and the reason they did not want to know where the rape and murder occurred.
9. The location where the key killer came from.
10. Punishment (?) of other guilty.
11. Prior segments of this analysis.
This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex. I did not dignify the main show with my presence.
A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplice.
This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.
2. Reality, a reprehensible government, and its friends.
Yesterday, November 16, 2014, I went to the Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River has been confined without food.
This area, even after its destruction for the Department of Conservation and Recreation by Boston University remained lush and green. BU destroyed the native vegetation and created a lawn, but they did not destroy all of the vegetation. The edges remained heavily vegetated and were used for nesting.
The middle had grass sewn and a silly cinder path created.
As part of the outrage, two openings were illegally created by Boston University. I say “illegally” because, after denying the destruction for six months, Boston University was condemned for it by the Cambridge Conservation Commission. Then Boston University proceeded to brag of it. It was accomplished by an illegal agreement between Boston University and the DCR.
3. The on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge.
Here is the photo of the main entrance at the BU Bridge and the on ramp to Memorial Drive.
It has been brought to the attention of the DCR that there is food across the ramp, and they cannot allow the Charles River White Geese to have food. After all, their sanctified formal admission of vileness, the Charles River Master Plan, calls for killing or driving away all resident animals.
So the DCR has blocked off that entrance.
They cannot allow the Charles River White Geese to have food.
Here is the ramp the Charles River White Geese used to carefully cross to get food. They are good jaywalkers. They look both ways before crossing. Their trouble is that they are geese and they do tend to dawdle.
The drivers like all decent people familiar with them, love them. They stand patiently waiting for these beautiful beings to carefully cross.
The magnificent tree is another excellent piece of evidence of the DCR and Cambridge’s vileness. Ch. 286, of the Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways” calls for $20 million for the DCR, with Cambridge’s “neutrality” that has no business being neutrality, to destroy this excellent tree and hundreds more like it.
And I could go on about the Cambridge participation in this outrage. This analysis is long enough.
Here is another view of the photo from the last segment, giving the human opinion of “neutrality” in the face of vileness.
4. Formerly vegetated area.
Boston University left much lush ground vegetation. The DCR used the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” to do environmental destruction for them.
These are the guys, under their original name, who filed the ONLY complaint against the Charles River White Geese produced by the DCR in response to our freedom of information request. That demand letter got from the DCR this nonsense from the CRC plus a letter from the DCR asking for the letter that the CRC wrote.
The CRC destroyed as much ground vegetation as they could get away with, realizing that the DCR anticipated massive destruction for work on the BU Bridge.
All of the areas in these photos were lush with ground vegetation ad the time of the killing of mother geese on their nests. The first destruction was by Boston University. The second destruction finished the job of the first, except for a very limited amount of native vegetation not destroyed by either.
Further outrages occurred that year on a much more organized scale. In particular a large panel of wood which protected a nest was take away. That could not have been done by one person. The mother goose “disappeared” defending her nest and her babies. Only one baby survived. The father goose went crazy with grief.
These large scale instances of destruction reemphasize the file position of destruction endorsed by the DCR and the Cambridge City Council.
The large destruction was clearly done by friends of the vile DCR and Cambridge, clearly “the right kind of people”, clearly a blessing for outrage
There were nests all over the place when the nut copycatted the DCR, Cambridge and its friends by beating nesting geese to death.
5. Subsequent destruction.
Since then, a railroad crew did work on the railroad, using the most sensitive part of the Destroyed Nesting Area for a parking lot.
The Executive Director of the Cambridge Conservation Commission observed this outrage and objected to the DCR.
The same fraud / manager who spent more than a decade lying of “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese told the crew to obey the orders of the Cambridge Conservation Commission WITHIN THE NARROW JURISDICTION OF THE CAMBRIDGE CONSERVATION COMMISSION. That narrow jurisdiction is a tiny strip. The cars moved out of that strip and continued destruction.
In the above photo, the area "protected" by this destructive fraud is the area under the trees straight ahead, plus, perhaps, a few feet this side.
A responsible government would have parked those cars along the on ramp.
This outrageous example of anything but neutrality is the sort of thing praised in that propaganda show as neutrality.
This stone was all dumped in the sensitive area by the railroad crew with the clear support of the DCR. After they left, “somebody” returned and dumped more.
The woman was raped by the copycats against the foot of the railroad bridge. Here are two angles of the rape site. Remember, the DCR with the blessing / inexcusable indifference of the City of Cambridge has destroyed the dense ground vegetation which was here at the time.
The DCR’s agent for destruction was the folks Cambridge’s propaganda blesses as some sort of neutral party, and the only party on record objecting to the Charles River White Geese.
7. The location of the murder.
Here is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
She was raped under the bridge’s supports. She was murdered on the bridge.
The bridge in the background is the BU Bridge.
8. The location the Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing, and the reason they did not want to know where the rape and murder occurred.
The City Council claimed to be concerned.
The rape and murder followed discussions by the murderous group and the victim in this burial ground in Harvard Square, next to the church. The scaffolding is temporary.
The City Council spent an hour expressing shock at her murder, Harvard Square, Harvard Square, Harvard Square.
The ONLY mention of where she was raped and murdered came from the City Council’s most environmentally destructive member, Henrietta Davis. Naturally she ran as an environmentalist.
I have heard of people swallowing their words. That was the only time I have seen it in person. She swallowed her words, looked around guiltily and joined the lie that Harvard Square was the only place relevant.
People had begged the Cambridge City Council to stand up against the beating deaths of mother geese. People reminded the Cambridge City Council that heartless animal abusers have been known to graduate to humans.
The Cambridge City Council was “neutral” in the manner that the City of Cambridge’s current propaganda defending their impending multiple outrages by distraction, call reponsible.
They were “neutral” with a wink and a nod.
Here, once again, is a message from a responsible person.
He came from a homeless encampment on the Boston end of the railroad bridge. These were reputed to be bad people. The convicted killer had been seen in the Destroyed Nesting Area looking suspicious.
The bad guys' encampment, probably was near the area at the curve in this photo which I have previously published.
There was an encampment of good guys on the Cambridge side. They defended the Charles River White Geese.
Naturally, the DCR drove out the good guys with the bad.
The key killer got a long sentence..
10. Punishment (?) of other guilty.
Vile members of government got to continue their lies of sainthood. And they got to keep the key government official, Robert Healy in office, even after judge, jury, and appeals court panel gave them ample support to fire him for his administrative destruction of a woman's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The real killer went to jail in response to his copycatting Cambridge and the DCR. Reprehensible (using the civil rights judge’s term for Healy’s actions) members of government got to lie about their sainthood, and to protect Healy from judicial outrage for his administrative killing. Healy’s administrative killing of the female department head occurred pretty much in the same time period as this particular outrage on the Charles River.
Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood. This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.
Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.” Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.
Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.
That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand. The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard. Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html
Segment 3. “The DCR did it.” This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior, Standard con game, pass the buck. The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems. One very big one is reality. Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html
Segment 4. “DCR did not do it either’. This segment analyzes Cambridge’s claim that the DCR has some sort of right to claim no duty to protect the animals in the care of the DCR. It includes the graduation of copycats of the DCR / Cambridge outrages to rape and murder in the same location. And analyzes the bizarre claim. It defers until later the reality that Cambridge and the DCR really are responsible for the outrages they claim to be neutral on. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless.html
Segment 5. “World Animal Organization on its sick rationalization” presented the above photo, the normal position of decent human beings, in striking contrast to the outrages posted in the propaganda being passed of as an art show. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_15.html.
