|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Southport Inquiry has uncovered an al-Qaeda training manual and images of Jihadi John on Axel Rudakubana’s devices, indicating the motive for the attack was an Islamist ideology.
Rudakubana had also searched for “Mar Mari Emmanuel stabbing” just 40 minutes before the attack and was in possession of other violent material, including content on Nazi Germany and ethnic violence.
Despite the findings, authorities insist the attack was not an act of “religious extremism or terrorism.”
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
The Southport Public Inquiry, chaired by Sir Adrian Fulford, is currently examining the events leading up to the 29 July 2024 knife attack at a children’s dance class in Southport, which resulted in the murder of three young girls – Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe, and Alice da Silva Aguiar – and the serious injury of ten others.
The inquiry is focusing on the perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, and the multiple missed opportunities by various state agencies, including education, social care, healthcare and counter-terrorism services, to intervene and prevent the attack.
The inquiry has heard evidence of Rudakubana’s history of violence, his access to weapons and his disturbing online activity, including searches for graphic violent content shortly before the attack.
In the following, JJ Starky comments on what has been revealed by the Inquiry so far.
Further reading:
- Southport stabbings: Who trained Axel Rudakubana? Could he have learnt from his father?
- Leaked Home Office counter-extremism report downplays the Islamist threat to focus more on misogyny, “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories”
- Muslims should stop brushing the rape of white girls by gangs of Muslim men under the carpet
The Southport Story Unravels Further
By JJ Starky, 19 September 2025
The Southport Inquiry is in full swing – and with it, we’re learning more about Axel Rudakubana’s potential motives.
Alongside an al-Qaeda training manual, investigators told the inquiry this week they had also uncovered images of Jihadi John – the infamous Islamic State executioner – on Rudakubana’s devices.
It follows the revelation that just 40 minutes before the attack, Rudakubana had searched for “Mar Mari Emmanuel stabbing”.
Mar Mari Emmanuel, a Christian bishop, was repeatedly stabbed by an Islamic extremist in April 2024 during a live-streamed service in New South Wales, Australia.
Other violent material found in Rudakubana’s possession – on his laptop and other devices – includes content on Nazi Germany, ethnic violence in Sri Lanka, Somali clan cleansing and the Rwandan genocide.
Additionally, a teacher who had worked with Rudakubana when he was 14 discovered he had posted images of Muammar Gaddafi on his social media accounts.
Put simply, the material found in Rudakubana’s possession appears to be heavily weighted towards Islamist ideology. Yet, it is varied enough to muddy any attempt to identify a clear motive.
Some have suggested the general tone is “anti-white” or “anti-Western.” Unconfirmed reports further allege he was known to speak of “Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda” and openly declared the need for a “white genocide.”
Curiously, our authorities still appear determined to make one thing clear. They insist the attack was not an act of “religious extremism or terrorism.” Counsel to the inquiry, Nicholas Moss KC, repeated such on Tuesday.
Authorities did much the same when they announced terrorism charges against Rudakubana last October. Merseyside police said they were unwilling to classify the case as terrorism, citing a lack of evidence of a clear “motive.”
In other words, suspects charged with terrorism for possessing terrorist materials are not necessarily terrorists. It’s true, such is theoretically possible and could be the case.
What this rather inconveniently exposes in the interim, however, is the selective caution our authorities exercise in determining motive.
Just two days after the murders, Merseyside Police issued a statement referring to people who committed violence outside a mosque as “believed to be supporters of the English Defence League (EDL).”
Then, on 4 August 2024 – five days after the attack – Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer stood at the Downing Street lectern and labelled the protests and riots “far-right thuggery.”
The Metropolitan Police Service’s Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, doubled down on 8 August, claiming his officers had quelled “extreme-right disorder” following a large-scale policing operation.
At the time, no thorough investigations had taken place to ascertain a clear motive. In fact, a later police inspectorate review (HMICFRS) found “no conclusive or compelling evidence” of premeditated coordination by extremist groups.
Much of the disorder, they stated, underpinned broader factors like social deprivation, austerity, migration policies and declining trust in policing.
Starmer, Kennedy and Rowley got ahead of themselves. They didn’t have the material, objective evidence to back their labels.
Indeed, such selective caution takes on even greater significance when contextualised with how the Crown Prosecution Service – not just the police – treated those who merely referenced Islam in the aftermath of the attack.
Consider the case of Jamie Michael.
He posted a video on Facebook in which he speculated about the then-suspect being a migrant, further referencing extremism deriving from mosques.
Next, he was arrested, held on remand and prosecuted under the Public Order Act 1986 for “publishing threatening material … intending to stir up religious hatred” – an offence carrying a maximum sentence of seven years, a fine, or both.
So, our authorities show caution where there appears to be credible evidence of terrorism, yet speculate about extremism where little evidence exists and then prosecute certain citizens for doing the same.
Imagine if the Crown Prosecution Service, the Prime Minister and our police chiefs were held to the same standards.
As for the Rudakubana’s true motive, we can only hope the inquiry reveals more. That said, police have already reported that he deleted much of his internet browsing history on several devices on the day of the attack – so it may be wise not to hold our breath.
You can access more about the Southport Public Inquiry HERE.
About the Author
JJ Starky is a pen name for a former political strategist who is now a part-time citizen journalist based in the UK. His work has been published in The Salisbury Review, Off Guardian and The Conservative Woman. He is the proprietor of the Substack pages titled ‘The Stark Naked Brief’ and ‘Project Stark’.
Featured image: Screenshot taken from ‘Southport Inquiry Chair Statement – 16 September 2025’. Source: YouTube
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, UK News