So What About the White Van?

Associated Press ^ | Oct 25, 2002 | AP

[spycatcher]

In the end, it wasn't the white van. Or the white box truck. It was a blue Chevrolet Caprice, the favored undercover car of police departments across the country.

On Thursday, after arresting Gulf War veteran John Allen Muhammad, 41, and John Lee Malvo, 17, investigators said their 1990 sedan was the vehicle from which they killed 10 and wounded three.

[spycatcher]

Mistakes were made. Looks like Chief Moose overruled D.C. Chief Ramsey and the task force went off on a wild duck chase

[pocat]

The white van will be the subject of conspiracy fans for years to come. Chalk it up with the "grassy knoll".

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Actually, driving through D.C. recently I saw a ton of white vans.
Got to thinking, how many of them are workers and how many of them are 'keeping an eye on things'.
Not to sound conspirational, but you'd think at least some of them might be surveillance vans.
Definitely watch too many movies.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

One of the witnesses in the Alabama case is supposed to have mentioned seeing "a white van". Hmmmm....

[Clock King]

Something mentioned on Rush's show: if the sniper is smart, and an opportunity killer like most serial killers are, he probably waited until a white van appeared, and then took his shot. Then the police are off on a wild goose chase looking for a specific vehicle while he (and his accomplice) drive off in a blue Capri, passing right through roadblocks. Another smart move would be to just sit there after the shot and wait. No one is looking for a blue car with two black guys in it, so the police probably would either ignore them or actually tell them to get out of the area ASAP.

[Paul Atreides]

I had wondered if the white van was just a decoy. In one of the early shootings, have the kid screech off in a white van, so that everyone notices. Then, while everyone is out looking for a white van/truck (only a gazillion of those in the U.S.!), they are using the car with the hole in the trunk.

[Rocksalt]

""Is it possible the killer could be shooting from the back of the van,using a small hole to shoot out of? I am still amazed no one has spotted this person/persons in the act. ACB is having a show on the hunt for the killer tonight,it will be interesting to see if they talk about this latest development."

I posted this comment back on oct.14th on another sniper thread.I suspected the sniper was firing through a porthole in a vehicle,as is seemed unlikely he would not be spotted by someone.

[TShaunK]

No, No, they meant white man.

[spycatcher]

It's just amazing that with all the media speculation they didn't look more deeply into the question of why the Caprice was not being considered -- at least as a possible second vehicle.

After all, the car was the only other vehicle mentioned seriously early on, but just got swamped by white van hysteria. It was never discounted. It was pretty much understood anyhow that these guys would no longer be using a white van once that became the sole focus of police.

[txdoda]

Any news on the "co-owner of the Caprice.????

Ya don't think he's driving around somewhere in a
White Van, looking for some new partners, do ya ??

[spycatcher]

I've always been suspicious about the "Duck in Noose" message. I would not be entirely shocked to hear of a sniper shooting this weekend by an accomplice. But I really don't think they were that smart. They probably would have bragged about it already if others were involved.

[TShaunK]

Maybe they aren't the ones who sent the message.I agree with you. Could be patsies.

[Talldocs1]

Okay, but what about the mexicans that drove up in a white box van to the gas station, where one actually crossed the street from one gas station to the other,on foot, to get to the infamous phone booth? In addition, it seems to me this line should have been tapped, and if so.......what was the conversation prior to them being assualted by the SWAT team?

Questions...questions....

[TexKat]

There could still be someone else involved that was driven the white vehicle as a decoy. Remember Moose just blew this off when asked about it. This is far from over. And we are in it for the long haul.

[txdoda]

. But I really don't think they were that smart. They probably would have bragged about it already if others were involved.>>>>>>>>>>

We know Malvo's short a few bricks, he snitched himself off.
Malvo might brag....Muhammad probably not...
Co-owners name Osbourne, also Jamaican (illegal), so far
warrent issued for witness only. Be nice to find him in a
white truck.....

[mlo]

"Eyewitnesses are not reliable," said James Starrs, professor of forensic science at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

This is what you should take from the story. I hope every time we see another thread about some secret conspiracy to hide the truth, these words come back and echo. It is the "white vans" that most of those tales are based on.

[txdoda]

Okay, but what about the mexicans that drove up in a white box van to the gas station, where one actually crossed the street from one gas station to the other,on foot, to get to the infamous phone booth? >>>>>>>>>

Four picked up/arrested in this case......three out of
four illegal........more proof we're being invaded...

[spycatcher]

I always hear that eyewitnesses aren't reliable, but yet out society and legal system uses eyewitnesses everyday to jail and excecute people.

In other words, eyewitnesses are more reliable than anything else... like profilers, psychologists and psychics!

[mlo]

I always hear that eyewitnesses aren't reliable, but yet out society and legal system uses eyewitnesses everyday to jail and excecute people.

In other words, eyewitnesses are more reliable than anything else... like profilers, psychologists and psychics!

No, you've taken the wrong conclusion. Even if you are right about the legal system that can't make eyewitnesses more reliable than anything else when they aren't. And it is a fact that they aren't. All it means is that juries have to make a decision based on the information available to them, and that is often eyewitness testimony. This is not the question.

The question is, if you have some physical evidence that says one thing, and an eyewitness that says something else, what do you go with? The obvious answer *should* be, the physical evidence. The conspiracist often says the eyewitness and insists the phyical evidence must be faked.

[general_re]

This is what you should take from the story. I hope every time we see another thread about some secret conspiracy to hide the truth, these words come back and echo. It is the "white vans" that most of those tales are based on.

Well said. Eyewitness testimony is very often the weakest evidence presented in courts, particularly compared to forensic evidence, and yet it's the evidence given the greatest weight. Old habits die hard...