sfnate wrote:Does law enforcement NOT WANT this evidence to be admissable?
What are you, aconspiracy theor.. - no, I just can't do the irony thing any more, it's no fun.
WTF indeed. I've been calling the US "a post-legal society" ever since 9/11, and the Tsarnaev "trial" was already a farcical lynching-by-media, but the circus really has a new quality to it now. It's as if they have dropped all pretence of a division of powers between the legal system and the corporate media.
The scene of dozens of reporters and camera crews trampling through the home and picking up documents raised troubling questions, considering the authorities are still investigating the couple and their motive.
"Raises troubling questions." I'll say. Question is, is this (choose all that apply):
Standard police procedure ("nothing to see here") Bumbling incompetence ('oops") Calculated negligence ("cover up") Press mob meddling got out of hand ("you can just take a peek, er--wait, stop!")
Occam's Razor is often dulled by absurdity, so it's hard to say which one of these is the more likely.
Some online and elsewhere shuddered at the idea of reporters prowling around a place that, by authorities' own admission, not long ago contained ammunition, pipe bombs and other evidence. CNN law enforcement analyst Harry Houck, a retired New York police detective, said he was "having chills down my spine" looking at the throngs walk around an apartment he felt was "clearly ... full of evidence."
But FBI spokeswoman Lourdes Arocho told CNN, "The search is over at that location."
Will be interesting to see how quickly this travesty disappears down the memory hole.
sfnate wrote: Will be interesting to see how quickly this travesty disappears down the memory hole.
That will depend at least to some extent on how easily people allow it to be forgotten.
Which reminds me to make a Public Service Announcement: The current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom fucked the head of a dead pig, so that he could take his first step towards serious power. He now has Parliament's permission to bomb Syria.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966
nashvillebrook » Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:14 pm wrote:ON the "third man" thing -- this is the "breaking news" from The Young Turks yesterday. There's a short clip at the beginning characterized by the CBS affiliate TV station as "the best description we have so far" from a worker who clearly witnessed THREE "GUN MEN" dressed in black, with ASSAULT RIFLES and extra magazines, wearing tactical gear entering the building.
This witness was observing from an office window as the men entered the building, so the assumption is that she wasn't under stress or trauma. She was just reporting what she saw. My guess is that this description and others like it are being "back burnered" b/c they don't fit the narrative that's emerged with the killing of the two in the SUV. But, it's conceivable that a third person outside of this family unit would have had another form of transportation -- and I'd go further to say that they could have played a slightly different role whereby they wouldn't have been inclined to return to the scene to kill more people (wtf, anyway?!).
The whole third man thing reminds me of the mysterious third man associated with the Oklahoma City bombing. Remember, there was Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and a third heavy-set guy who looked "Hawaiian" and provided explosives.
Thanks for this, nashvillebrook. Just a couple observations after watching the TYT clip:
1. In the Scott Pelley CBS clip that quotes the witness who saw the three gunmen in black with assault rifles, they did say it was "apparently reported by multiple witnesses." I'll be curious to see if any of the wounded corroborate that.
2. It doesn't matter whether there was a "rumor" of a Pasadena SWAT drill or not. Pasadena and San Bernardino aren't even in the same frickin' county. So unless there was a drill across the street, I don't think the three gunmen witnessed at the scene were part of it.
sfnate » Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:44 pm wrote:[url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooters-apartment/index.html]But FBI spokeswoman Lourdes Arocho told CNN, "The search is over at that location."
Not that there's any evidence they bothered to look there in the first place.
stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:12 pm wrote: 2. It doesn't matter whether there was a "rumor" of a Pasadena SWAT drill or not. Pasadena and San Bernardino aren't even in the same frickin' county. So unless there was a drill across the street, I don't think the three gunmen witnessed at the scene were part of it.
A call of multiple shots fired first came in at 10:59 a.m. from the area of 1365 S. Waterman Ave. The Police Department’s SWAT team was training nearby and was suited, “ready to roll” and responded rapidly, Lt. Richard Lawhead said.- link
Again, it would be nice to hear if the witness could state what time it was when they saw the gunmen.
stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:12 pm wrote: 2. It doesn't matter whether there was a "rumor" of a Pasadena SWAT drill or not. Pasadena and San Bernardino aren't even in the same frickin' county. So unless there was a drill across the street, I don't think the three gunmen witnessed at the scene were part of it.
A call of multiple shots fired first came in at 10:59 a.m. from the area of 1365 S. Waterman Ave. The Police Department’s SWAT team was training nearby and was suited, “ready to roll” and responded rapidly, Lt. Richard Lawhead said.- link
Again, it would be nice to hear if the witness could state what time it was when they saw the gunmen.
Thanks for clearing up what the media is trying to sweep under the rug, IanEye. Supposedly there were multiple witnesses. I hope they are not currently being sequestered with the kind of badgering grassy knoll witnesses get. Instead of "you heard echoes!" - now it's "you saw our SWAT team! We weren't shooting people, we were saving them!"
