Posted on 09/07/2015 2:37:39 PM PDT by Elderberry
This is the 114th day of the Twin Peaks Massacre coverup. It is worth noting for two lamentable reasons.
First, the degree to which government officials have been uncooperative, obstructive and evasive about the Massacre is prima facie evidence that there is an official coverup. There was no probable cause to believe that most of the 177, or 182, or so, people arrested that day were guilty of “engaging in organized criminal activity.” There is probable cause to believe that police murdered at least six men and may have attempted to murder 20 more.
The second reason to note the ongoing coverup is the apparent disappearance of what just a few years ago was being called “the investigative impulse” in American journalism. The investigative impulse began, according to Jon Marshall of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, “in the 1600s, when Enlightenment philosophers taught that ‘people have a right to question their leaders.’”
To its inerasable shame, the Waco Tribune-Herald has not noticed the coverup. To its credit, the Houston Chronicle has. “Any time a prosecutor’s office or a politician does not want people talking about something, one should raise a red flag and insist we talk about it,” a law professor named Patrick Metze told the Chronicle this morning. “They may say it is to protect the investigation, but they are protecting themselves from whatever it is that they don’t want us to see or know about.” You can read the entire Chronicle piece here.
Based on information supplied by various sources who believe their lives, careers and pensions are in actual danger and who have spoken with The Aging Rebel under conditions of either “off the record” or “deep background,” this page will continue to report that the Twin Peaks Massacre was the result of a contrived and avoidable confrontation between members of the Cossacks Motorcycle Club and the Bandidos Motorcycle Club. The Aging Rebel believes that the confrontation was engineered by and anticipated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Texas Department of Public Safety and a Waco area law enforcement agency that was not the Waco Police Department. The Aging Rebel also believes that these police agencies, and possibly the Waco Police Department, began physically preparing for an armed confrontation to include the use of deadly force in the Twin Peaks restaurant parking lot at or before dawn on May 17. And finally, this page believes the Massacre was captured in its entirety by at least 44 video cameras. Investigating This Mess
The Associated Press defines information gained “off the record” as information that “cannot be used for publication.” The same news agency and most publications define “deep background” as information that “can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.” Generally, information gained off the record can only be used after being substantiated by additional independent sources. Off the record information tells reporters where to llok and what to look for.
Off the record information about federal police actions is often substantiated by filing Freedom of Information Act requests with, for example, the Disclosure Division of the ATF. The information requests involving bikers are almost routinely denied on the grounds of either what the FOIA Act calls “Exemption Seven” or one of three “Exclusions.”
The exempt information is defined as, “Certain types of information compiled for law enforcement purposes.” The three exclusions are: One, “Subject of a criminal investigation or proceeding is unaware of the existence of records concerning the pending investigation or proceeding and disclosure of such records would interfere with the investigation or proceeding;” two, “Informant records maintained by a criminal law enforcement agency and the individual’s status as an informant is not known; and three, “Existence of FBI foreign intelligence, counterintelligence or international terrorism records are classified fact.”
Exclusion three is one reason why motorcycle clubs are frequently described as “transnational gangs.”
Taken together, the exemption and exclusions explain why “gang investigations” are always classified as “ongoing” even when the newest information in those investigations is more than a decade old.
After a FOIA request is denied, large news gathering organizations and some private law firms have the means to bring suit in federal court to discover exempt and excluded information. The Aging Rebel does not have the resources to pursue such lawsuits at this time. This page is aware that many of its conclusions about what happened in Waco on May 17 are unsubstantiated sand have been described as “speculative.” As one 23-year-old reporter recently put it, “A blog favorable to motorcycle clubs citing an undisclosed source…is not credible.”
Credible or not, the authorities in Texas have been blatantly manipulating public opinion since the day of the Massacre and the Department of Justice has, as yet, not chosen to intervene. One plausible explanation for that inaction is that the Department of Justice has been involved since sometime before May 1.
The Aging Rebel stands by its coverage of the Waco Twin Peaks Massacre and will continue to pursue the story.
You changed from "I know that we will never see all the evidence the jury does at trial" to "we (the public) have not seen most of the evidence that would be presented at trial." The second point isn't contentious. If you claim those two remarks of yours are similar, I have reason to doubt your sanity, honesty, or attentiveness.
-- At the end of the day though there is the right to a trial and the trial results can be reviewed ad nauseum all the way to the Supreme Court so it's very difficult to say the process (albeit not perfect) ends up with a pretty fair result. --
There is a right to one appeal. Supreme Court cases are heard at the option of SCOTUS. Most requests for hearing are rejected.
And appeals are only allowed on arguments that the judge made an error of law. So any time a criminal defendant wins at appeal, it means the trial judge made an error that could have turned the case the other way.
I'll concede that the ultimate result is usually correct, but is it fair for a defendant to be incarcerated (or under bail conditions) for years while discovery, trial, and maybe appeal play out, only to find he or she is not guilty? In metaphysical fact, that has an "it depends" answer. If a person is truly innocent, I submit the process is not fair; and if the person is guilty but got off for want of evidence, or a stupid juror, then the result isn't optimum, but doesn't offend me the same way.
-- There are plenty of cases dismissed for lack of probable cause in affidavits ... --
Again, I don't believe this without some evidence. Maybe we just assign different meaning to "cases" and "dismissal," but IMO, it is HIGHLY unusual for a person to be incarcerated or held on bail without probable cause, where that case gets an indictment and trial.
-- 160 year old court and 2 to 1 decision to uphold probable cause by a system put in place by the voters. --
What's the saying about old age and treachery? Oh yeah, beats youth and skill, every time. I may have an issue or two with details in Texas law and the Texas system, but my argument is fundamental - the DA and the courts are not following their own rules as to what constitutes probable cause; no more than Nifong followed the rules of NC courts.
Hey...TG...point out one day I posted to you 12 times....You might find one...but I doubt it.
Hurts to be you...don't it.
TG...the liar. And I can document it...
Here on a conservative web site....which TG probably doesn't give any money for...to spew her/his obsessive baloney.
I've seen pathetic....enough times.
“And appeals are only allowed on arguments that the judge made an error of law”
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-basis-for-a-criminal-appeal.html
9/9
Yeah, well, I’d tell you to “read on,” but you’re an idiot and it would be a waste of my time.
I only posted a link thinking you would take it with good faith.
No need to get nasty when you find learn you have been mistaken.
You are an idiot.
And I will add...a liar!!
Just keep on being you...and most will know what you are and how you are.
And I will continue to point out your lies....
So...one last time. Do you give money to FR?
Given my recent retorts directed at you, you thinking I would respond in good faith is further evidence that you are an idiot.
-- No need to get nasty when you find learn you have been mistaken. --
No need to have a beer with my crackers either, but I enjoy it.
Hell, make 'em wear yellow stars.
Ha!!!
Are you gay?
Do you wear a wig?
Have you ever?
Let’s just agree to disagree. Short of being one of the investigators or a person receiving discovery we will never see all the evidence in this investigation. Not saying that makes the case stronger (or weaker), but that is the way I see it.
I am not here to split hairs. I think I gave my thoughts and respect your right to yours lest we split hairs. Night and FRegards
There are two forms to the dispute. One is purely academic, outside the courtroom. Take the law and what it says about probable cause, take the affidavit, and analyze.
The other form is the one in courtrooms. For purposes of Texas law, probable cause for conspiracy exists for 177 bikers, and NO probable cause of committing murder, capital murder, or aggravated assault has been alleged against ANY of 177 bikers.
Probable cause exists, says the court, but on the affidavits, only for conspiracy.
That puts 177 bikers on a path through the grand jury. The DA will add evidence and get indictments for some, particularly those for which there is evidence of committing violence. He can add that in grand jury. The only function of probable cause is to justify detention, bail, and bail conditions.
Some of the 177 accused won't be charged/indicted. For them, the issue of probable cause in Texas is exhausted, as a criminal matter. If probable cause DID exist, they would be indicted.
Some of those accused but not indicted are apt to sue for deprivation of civil rights. The question of existence of probable cause is THE issue. If arrested and held without probable cause, the state is liable to the accused, meaning the state has to pay money damages for unlawful deprivation of rights.
So, that's how the royal "we" can dispute the finding of probable cause. Not indicted? No probable cause (probably not, but not "legally/definitively not" until a court says so). Wait for an accused to sue the state, and see that result. Or, study the law and apply it to the facts of this case.
Was out all day, got in about 8, looks like a eventful day around here. Freepathon ended, let me know if you ever get a reply of all these busy people taking up space on here have donated to FreeRepublic.
We aren't splitting hairs, we are talking past each other. I comment on one of your remarks, and you shift the ground a little bit.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, after all, this is nothing more than a chatroom with memory. Still, no argument is advanced - I still don't have a clue as to what we agree on, and what we disagree on, not for sure. Other than the ultimate outcome where you think there is probable cause to arrest 177 bikers (maybe a few less) for conspiracy to commit murder, capital murder or aggravated assault or commission of those; and I see a deficient charging affidavit against a fact pattern that will yield fewer than 40 indictments. That means I see over a hundred people arrested without probable cause in fact, and all of them arrested without probable cause in form.
I do agree that we've exhausted this conversation.
General all-purpose bump. Great post.
Questions regarding probable can take a long time to resolve.
Judge Sullivan: Some Arrests at 2004 RNC Lacked Probable Cause
This forums was easier to read and follow when all used italics to indicate quotes being responded to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.