I wouldn’t use the word cover-up. You simply had marginal cops, prosecutors, and judges...who had to handle a large assortment of cases beyond their comprehension and ability.
I do think that law schools ought to develop an entire course around the ‘Twin Peaks’ episode and talk about the need to assess complex cases early on, and have a written plan or list of objectives.
The sad thing here....the amount of money that just dissolved away to support the cases.
The sad thing is the under cover cops who egged the Cossacks on that sparked the whole thing.
That people getting murdered by trigger-happy cops and nobody being held to account for it thing? That’s the coverup.
“The sad thing here....the amount of money that just dissolved away to support the cases.”
No, the really sad thing here was what this malicious prosecutor did to those whom he arrested’s lives. These guys didn’t work on Wall St., they had jobs that they lost by reason of what Whacko did to them. In a just world, Whacko owes them all reparations in seven figures.
>>I do think that law schools ought to develop an entire course around the Twin Peaks episode and talk about the need to assess complex cases early on, and have a written plan or list of objectives.
You can’t teach that in law school and even if you could, the law students would forget it all by the time it became relevant.
Contrary to what is actually alleged here and elsewhere, I really don’t think the cops shot anyone who wasn’t firing a weapon. Does anyone making that claim have ANY evidence showing that? What I heard immediately after the incident was that the cops stood down and were criticized for that. Later, they were accused of killing the bikers — i.e. the exact opposite of what was alleged before. I don’t think everything was done correctly here (quite the opposite) but murder is a huge stretch. A cop drives up, sees a shootout, and just starts firing his weapon into it. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for several reasons:
— a cop is trained to cover first; you can’t shoot if you’re already shot; covering takes time and this shootout didn’t last long
— the cop doesn’t know that the DA is going to make a mess of the case and cover his actions up
— internal affairs still exists over and above the DA; the cop at the scene has no idea how his actions will be judged
— there’s video literally everywhere and cops know that; they knew this back then; this isn’t 1970; they aren’t going to shoot into a crowd thinking there MIGHT be a video recording that
If the cops expected trouble why were they not on the inside in full uniform instead of outside in basically sniper positions? If the cops where inside this insanity would not have happened. The real question to me is who planned this operation and why it was planned in this manner?
But its a helluva lot more than that.
I will.zay cover up outright, and your complete idiot diatribe completely ignores that to this day the government never provided to the defence of any defendant the complete recordings of the event.
Under the Brady law, they are required to do that. Period. No equivocation.
This isn’t a misunderstanding.
This isn’t overwhelmed.
That’s not a mistake.
If you bother to go back to the articles published the third day after the event, eye witness testimony was contradictory as to how things started and who did what initially. Eyewitness testimony was consistent, however that long after the shooting stopped and the scene should have been declared secure law enforcement was still not allowing medically trained personnel who happened to be on scene tender aid to the wounded.
People bleed out who didn’t have to die.
There is a reason that those recordings were suppressed even though that meant that the guilty must go free with the innocent.
I strongly suggest that you spend some time with a dictionary.
Look into the history of the term “cover up” and how it is normally used.
After that, you might want to reevaluate whether or not this was one.