Moved: Richard Jewel Redux

scott_h_phdscott_h_phd
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I'm not sure if this is a "political" thread or not. ?



Anyways looks like this poor shlub is the next Richard Jewel. Feds leaked info that they are looking at him for the anthrax deaths. How much you wanna bet this ends with the FBI paying off a civil lawsuit and getting as close to saying they were wrong without having to say they were wrong?



<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/showcase/ats-ap_top10aug11.story?coll=chi-news-hed&quot; target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/showcase/ats-ap_top10aug11.story?coll=chi-news-hed&lt;/a&gt;



[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Wrong about what?



    Investigating him?
  • Reply 2 of 10
    scott_h_phdscott_h_phd Posts: 448member
    Wrong about fingering him as the anthrax guy.
  • Reply 3 of 10
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Was he ever charged with anything?



    I didn't see that in the article, only that he was investigated. I see a few instances in the article where the FBI (or some other law enforcement agency) didn't even consider him a suspect.
  • Reply 4 of 10
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Bullshit.



    I don't buy the Richard Jewel parallel for a number of reasons:



    1. There's a difference between a threat to national security (whoever sent out the anthrax) and a threat to crowds at the Olympics. Much larger group of potential victims, more dire consequences of their being victims, much longer timeline (almost indefinite). Therefore those with potential to commit this kind of crime will be scrutinized quite a bit more - and righly so. Especially if done within the bounds of the law.



    2. As far as I can tell, most people didn't know this guy's name until he got his lawyer and started calling press conferences to tell everyone how outraged he is. Perhaps he could've made a case of the government badgering him to the point of losing his job (had he kept it in the courts). But the whole "I'm all over the television" thing is more his fault that then Feds' IMO. The cameras were following Richard Jewel into the bathroom from day one - that didn't happen here. Not even close.



    3. He fits the profile much more tightly than Jewel did for his crime. You're literally talking about a few people in a million who have the kind of in-depth knowledge of biological weapons that he has. Whereas tens and maybe hundreds of thousands have the knowledge to make a freakin nail bomb.





    In any case, if he has even a little bit to do with the anthrax scare, and we found out later through means other than a thorough investigation ... how many blow-hard, armchair "analysts" would be chewing out the government and writing "it could have been avoided!" articles in Time magazine and elsewhere? The government is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Let 'em do their freakin' job already.



    I say this guy is an asshole, period. At a minimum he has fabricated many of his credentials (see NYT article) to attain positions where he could get access to these kinds of technologies and research. Maybe he's not guilty (he's obviously spoken out against the weaknesses in our defense), but he sure isn't helping his cause any by doing what he's doing.



    [ 08-11-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 10
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Any accusations based on profiles should not be taken seriously-put up some hard evidence.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Well, that's where the friction comes from. Once someone fits the profile of a crime, you have to investigate them to see if there is any hard evidence. The government is actually now saying they're basically trying to cover every last base to free him from any further investigation in the matter. Basically sounds like they're running out of avenues to explore. They went through his correspondance, hard drives, etc. recently and found nothing supposedly so I doubt we'll hear much of him after a while.



    Like I said, if I had just kept his mouth shut regarding the press and let the courts handle his complaints, he'd have been a lot more "low profile" than he is now. He's only made it harder for him to find a new job, not easier. Though he may get a book deal now.



  • Reply 7 of 10
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Actually the constitution requires hard evidence before any searches are done,that's why profiling should be stopped.Profiling amounts to a de facto standing warrant,a situation that the 4th admendment was specifiaclly written to block.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    This is a high-tech witch hunt. The Feds have really pushed this guy into a corner. As for folks bitching because he got a lawyer and went on TV -- that's the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to fight the Fed bullshit at this stage.



    Now they're showing a picture of the guy around Princeton NJ.



    They don't have enough evidence to arrest, yet they leak his name. Great. Just what we want in a law enforcement agency.



    We can trust, though, that the truth will out. It may ruin the guy in the process.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    [quote]Originally posted by Rick1138:

    <strong>Actually the constitution requires hard evidence before any searches are done,that's why profiling should be stopped.Profiling amounts to a de facto standing warrant,a situation that the 4th admendment was specifiaclly written to block.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Technically, every suspect for every crime not witnessed and reported by another person, was profiled before [having their premises searched / being detained]. This is another case of people throwing the word "profiling" around when they shouldn't.



    How do you get hard evidence in the first place, without first determining who fits the profile of a particular crime, and then investigating them within the bounds of the law (warrants, habeus corpus, etc.)? Technically, everyone who is ever detained without hard evidence being in the possession of the authorities, has been "profiled".



    The government has not done anything wrong, except that some asshole leaked information about this guy's name to the press. So the issue is not profiling but some government official taking [favors] from a press contact, so said person would have an "exclusive". If they had kept this quiet, no one would know who this guy is - therefore his public reputation would not have suffered the kind of damage it has.



    [ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 10
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    [quote]Originally posted by Moogs:

    <strong>



    Technically, every suspect for every crime not witnessed and reported by another person, was profiled before [having their premises searched / being detained]. This is another case of people throwing the word "profiling" around when they shouldn't.



    How do you get hard evidence in the first place, without first determining who fits the profile of a particular crime, and then investigating them within the bounds of the law (warrants, habeus corpus, etc.)? Technically, everyone who is ever detained without hard evidence being in the possession of the authorities, has been "profiled".



    The government has not done anything wrong, except that some asshole leaked information about this guy's name to the press. So the issue is not profiling but some government official taking [favors] from a press contact, so said person would have an "exclusive". If they had kept this quiet, no one would know who this guy is - therefore his public reputation would not have suffered the kind of damage it has.



    [ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The "leak" thing became a popular way of kicking an investigation during the Clinton Administration. Pressed to wrap things up in a hurry, shoddy investigators arrange to have some stuff leaked to 1) stir up peoples' memories and maybe get them to come in and give a "break", or 2) get the person under suspicion to do something stupid and/or fold under pressure. It is, though, a political thing in some cases (keep the story in the news, make it look like we're "doing something" about it -- what happened to Richard Jewel) and an incompetence thing in others.



    Before I get the flames: sure, this type of thing has gone on forever, but it seemed to become standard practice among the appointees in the Clinton Admin. (Justice, State at least). Federal law enforcement REALLY went downhill during the Clinton administration. Whatever their faults now, that's a large part of why.
Sign In or Register to comment.