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.
Thanks for the heads up that was a helpful post by Smokin Joe.
I’m wondering though I don’t quite understand this portion:
“I find it odd that the forces (yes, plural City, county, Texas, and Federal agencies including the BATFE) present even brought their lawyers with them, even though no violence had ocurred.”
Why do you say no violence had occurred? I’m confused. Were these lawyers present after the shootings or before?
Thanks again,
CLEAT is the largest police union in Texas. Their chief organizer was there to distribute drinks to police officers shortly after the shooting, which likely meant he had headed that way beforehand.
It is unclear when he left.
According to the article, the lawyers arrived shortly after the shooting, which may well mean they left for the scene beforehand.
From the article here
"“Organizer Tracy Chance,” who was there to keep the machine gunners and lawyers and CLEAT staffers hydrated is a retired El Segundo and Inglewood, California police officer who is now double dipping in Texas. He previously worked for the Texas Municipal Police Association and his office is in Austin which is about 102 miles and an hour and 37 minutes south of Waco. It might have taken him as long as two hours to get to Waco, depending on how long it took him to pull on his boots. An outsider might wonder why crews were still preparing “to transport the wounded” two hours after the Massacre. Alternately, it might be interesting to find out if Chance started his ride north before the Massacre had even begun."
You: “I find it odd that the forces (yes, plural City, county, Texas, and Federal agencies including the BATFE) present even brought their lawyers with them, even though no violence had ocurred. “
As you can see, your posts says no violence had occurred therefor you are referring to being on the scene BEFORE the shooting.
My Response: LOL! There is no evidence of that.
Your reply:
"CLEAT lawyers and staffers were on the scene shortly after reports of the shooting surfaced"
Notice that your reply says "after".
definitions:
Before: during the period of time preceding (a particular event, date, or time).
After: during the period of time following (an event).
If you like, I can provide you the definitions of period, time, preceding and following.
Link in 815:
Is this the radio traffic you refer to? It begins after shots fired. What WAS your point? Surely you had a point.
Now this is a criminal gang -
ATF offers reward after 93 firearms were stolen from Mister Guns in Plano early Wednesday
And you?
As in the BLM case's the Dept of "Justice"..was all over those cases. And the MSM was quite quick to tar and feather the LEO's..even shading the truth and out right lying.
I don't see that happening...much.
We shall see,,,,,what we shall see.
You?
I tell ya, it was a conspiracy ...
'commit or conspire to commit'
Plainly, the affidavit does not allege that Pilkington or Weathers [and everybody else covered by the same affidavit language] committed one of the underlying offenses of capital murder, murder, or aggravated assault, one of the two means of committing the second main element [the other means is "conspires to commit one or more of the following"].There is a reason that the words of the statute, which you quote, are not an allegation. You're an idiot for not understanding the reason, and a fool for repeating the statutory language as though that creates probable cause of commission.
“Personally, I think they are gullible and not too logical, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t good conservatives in other respects.
One thing I do object to is they tend to accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them of being “plants”, etc. That’s silly and not conducive to good dialogue.”
Ditto that.
That was ONE appeal.
I suspect that for others the ‘commit’ part will apply.
That actually was funny...TG.
Good one!!
Now un-glue your butt from your seat and get out side....soak up some sun...take a break from your 12 hours posting.
I suspect you can't express your thought in a precise way.
For example, what do you mean by "others"?
For example, "the 'commit' part" of what?
For example, "will apply" at what stage of the legal process?
“Now un-glue your butt from your seat and get out side....soak up some sun...take a break from your 12 hours posting. “
LOL! I have been out all afternoon renovating a rental.
Spare me your egristch lesson. I made a mistake and owned up to it in a subsequent post. I didn’t ping you, anticipating you would read that post because, after all, you seem to do little else other than lurk under the rocks on the Waco threads. I guess you gotta make a living, and it beats picking up deposit bottles in the heat and all.
“Spare me your egristch lesson. I made a mistake and owned up to it in a subsequent post. I didn’t ping you, anticipating you would read that post “
I usually respond to posts to me before reading any further.
You posted “Haven’t you been reading along, or have you just been spewing?” to ME which I considered sort of childish so I was just having some fun. Next time ping ME.
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.