We're hoping that local law enforcement investigators and County Attorney Smith will now expand their investigations to identify and punish those "sources close to the investigation" who seem hell-bent to "try this case in the public press"
Disturbing Tim Gurrister story in this morning's Standard-Examiner, quoting a "source close to the [1/4/12 Ogden Shootings] investigation speaking on condition of anonymity" that Weber Crime Scene Investigation unit technicians came across the bomb in a closet of [suspect Matthew David Stewart's] home, and that the same investigators "...also found a picture of the suspect dressed as a terrorist... posing in a suicide bomber's vest.":
And why do we consider this story to be disturbing? Because in the early stages of the investigation, wherein all investigators are operating under strict policy to keep their mouths shut, some anonymous source close to the investigation has now gone straight to the public press and released highly inflammatory information which is plainly designed to pollute the local jury pool.
Even more disturbing is Mr. Gurrister's report that "[a] news release on the incident is expected today from the Weber County Attorney's Office."
As to the latter, we'll welcome whatever information we can get from Dee Smith's office, so long as information-wise, law enforcement authorities don't "cherry pick." In the Standard's main article, and down in the lower comments section, in the midst of a story where law enforcement officials have been unusually tight-lipped, we're only only getting discussion of the incriminating information which as been leaked; and thus the lumpencitizens are already uttering words such as "demonize" and "cover-up" and "independent FBI investigation."
Don't forget we live in the United States of America folks, where the suspect, Mr. Stewart, is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and more than a "showcase" trial. Given the manner that the incriminating evidence is being "leaked" however, that's something which Mr. Stewart foreseeably might not get.
Our view here at Weber County Forum? If the Weber County Attorney is intent to release information regarding this case, they should release ALL of it, or alternatively, nothing at all. Additionally we hope that local law enforcement investigators and County Attorney Smith will now expand their investigations to identify and punish those "sources close to the investigation" who seem hell-bent to "try this case in the public press."
That's our take and we're stickin' with it.
So what say our gentle readers about all this?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
13 comments:
It's a pity the debate rages over on the SE website and not here.
Anyway, this line caught my eye:
"It consisted of chemicals," said another source with knowledge of
Saturday's bomb, also speaking anonymously. "I'm not sure how complete it
was, but a controlled explosion was needed to dispose of it."
So what are we talking about here, a bag of fertilizer in the shed? It wasn't much of a bomb if it required a controlled explosion to get rid of. You can get rid of most anything that way, no? Bombs on the other hand, tend to get rid of themselves without much help, yes?
It appears that the die is cast. Withholding of information and disinformation is the order of the day in this appalling situation.
Trust me on this for now. The family of the so-called "shooter" will soon be retaining a "world-class civil rights lawyer," not only to help his crimianal defense lawyer to defend this guy against the criminal charges (which haven'tr been filed yet), who was assaulted in his own home by a squad of poorly trained, but obviously ande thoroughly botched the "bust," in this unfortunate circumstance.
Will Weber County law enforcement authorities "bury the evidence" in re this seminal Ogden City case?
Interesting story indeed.
It's not going to be possible to for this man to have a fair trial here in Ogden.
I'll be interested to see what charges are filed and what deals are offered. (I'm especially interested in the terms of the deal---gag order on the defendant?) The longer we go without any substantive information, the more likely it is that something hinky is going on. Further, given what we know and how we know it, it's hard not to wonder...
"The longer we go without any substantive information, the more likely it is that something hinky is going on. "
Exactly right!
Oh, one other thing I forgot:
Where is the reporting? Where is the press operating without a bias here in the state? Everything I have seen in every major newspaper and seen on television seems hell-bent on demonizing Stewart. Nothing questioning the process. No questioning period.
It's a very, very dangerous thing to believe that the fourth estate is protecting us from the first three when the order of the day is to report what you're told rather than investigate and find the truth (before reporting). To wit, at the time of this writing, the SE is still calling it a bomb in their headline (note: "...to characterize it as a bomb or device is not accurate at this time," said Brad Beyersdorf of the ATF).
There's nothing objective about sycophancy. In my view, the press _should_ have no more loyalty to or sympathy for the police (or any governmental organization) than they do to you or me. In short, discover and report the truth. When parts of the story are missing, curious, or even suspect, say so. It's not a free press when it's self-exiled to an echo chamber.
Will there also be an investigation for why a crime of “cultivation
of marijuana” was sufficient reason for these morons to turn Ogden into Dodge
City? Other than defending himself
against heavily armed assault (something our government trained him and
conditioned him to do) “cultivation” was his only crime, if he even did
that. Will the irresponsible boobs in
charge of this fiasco pay any price?
I think it's funny to see that all you WCF readers are a bunch of druggies, upset that the Narcotics strike force would dare strike against drugs. Danny, Ozboy are now confirmed drug users. Rudy is at least sympathetic. One look at hippy Dan S and the marijuana use is presumed. All seem to be willing to come down on the side of the drug dealer v. 6 shot up cops.
You people are crazy.
Using the logic and statements by by the county attorney anything can be made to look sinister. Does this mean that those of us who occassionaly research topics on the internet can be made to look guilty? What of the many people who still posess a copy of the Anarchists handbook? Or even old army manuals that show various fighting techniques and procedures? Is anything safe from being labeled suspicious?
There was an article in the USA Today rethinking the use of raid tactics by the police. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/police-deaths-training-raids/52488196/1) The Ogden event figures prominently.
The headline reads, "In light of police deaths, training is scrutinized." The only justification of rethinking made in the article--by both the press and the police--is that these raids may not always be a good idea because an officer might get injured or killed. No one expressed interest in the law itself, justice, or the safety of the public.
If the article is a reflection of the sentiment of the state (small ess), the press, and the police specifically, something's gone terribly wrong. If such an us-against-them attitude truly exists, the power to police, enforce laws, and keep the peace have been greatly diminished across the nation.
End the Insanity...
Help LEAP End the War on Drugs
Exactly right, DD. Here's the local money quote, via Weber County Sherriff Terry Thompson:
"Weber County Sheriff Terry Thompson said that the incident and the
officers' actions remained under investigation and that the activities
of the strike force are "on hold" because about half of the unit was
involved in the shooting."
The link below has an absolutely incredible article re my last comment about echo chambers. The writer is so much more articulate and thoughtful than I.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/arthur_brisbane_and_selective_stenography/singleton/
Thanks for the link, DD. It's a "chewy" article to say the least.
Here's link to the original NYT article, btw, for the benefit of those readers who missed the original Arthur Brisbane piece:
Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
Post a Comment