My cousin, from my understanding, and how he phrased it then laughed, said he took my aunt who had high blood pressure to get the J&J shot, he said he told her, "it's one then your done", and he laughed. The timing that he took her corresponded to the news reports that the J&J was being linked to heart attacks. That was, I believe in June or July, the roll outs started in January, February according to risk factor, age, illness, etc., so he waited all those months to take her and she really wasn't at any risk at all. She was about as isolated as isolated can get, and I highly doubt he just up and decided to get it himself like he said, I just think he told her that. Technically though, it was the perfect murder what he did, and he got away with it. She didn't even have neighbors to speak of, she lived on, I'd guess, at least a quarter acre of land. She was dead three days after the shot. I just don't see where any accountability of what he did, nor anyone at J&J going to be held accountable. To top that all off, to force anyone within the government in the executive branch, to hand over any information, they have to have a solid proof case they knew, same goes for anyone who conducted business with the executive branch, and all executive branch employees, thanks to Trump's immunity case. It wasn't about presidential immunity, it was about executive branch immunity. It goes one step up further when Jack Smith agreed to let Trump take Edwin Meese amicus brief, withdraw it from the immunity case, and introduce it on its own standing, let standing by the SC is what allowed all employees within the executive have immunity. Now, you take all that together, right, and apply it along the lines of trying to make a criminal case, for say, insurance fraud, say for instance, someone took someone to have something done that they knew the chances were greater than not it could kill them, and you also had to have had the power to shield yourself away from any prosecution, and you did it all so you could gain control over everything that person owned, all these steps if taken by law enforcement, investigators, etc., forensics, whatever, he'd be in prison, not setting in her house, because they'd unravel it, because she and he are nobodies so they'd actually not let him get away with it, we're not talking about that here, they are talking about people shielded by power, protected by the very means of having the power to protect themselves. My mom, technically the same thing, only it took longer for the vaccine to kill her, it was a different vaccine, but you have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that vaccine interfered with proteins in the body that kept cancers in check. Undiagnosed cancers, they are spots that if they don't grow, doctors don't mess with, most people die with them, not of them. She had that spot for thirty years, it never grew until she got the vaccine. Six months later she was dead. But who is going to talk, who is going to be made to hand over documents. You can't, you simply can't without a smoking gun to compel someone to talk or hand stuff over. The sticky wicked of it all, in my opinion, is different vaccines produced different results. The government controlling them, they were distributed, again, in my opinion, according to highest levels were people were found to have the highest rates of one out of the three main causes of death costing world governments billions in health care cost, diabetes, cancers, and heart disease. That's as much of a motive as someone looking for a payoff example concerning my cousin, and you come up with the same problem, proving it, first you have to surmise or have a compelling reason a murder was committed, and find a motive, both instances it's in plain sight, but they will never get their hands wrapped around it. They are the intouchables.