<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Preliminary Critique of the Danforth Report http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1075995
Preliminary Critique of the Danforth Report
Jon Roland 2000 July 22
This critique is based on news reports and television interviews of
Danforth, as I do not yet had a copy of the complete report. However,
several conclusions can be reached.
Jack Danforth is lying. It is not possible to reach the conclusions he has
announced based on the evidence that has been discussed. Such evidence and
analysis cannot prove a negative, and therefore one cannot be "100 percent"
certain that government agents did not start the fire, direct gunfire at the
Davidians on April 19, 1993, use military personnel, properly or otherwise,
or conduct a coverup.
Danforth maintains there must be a "presumption" of innocence of the
government. Nonsense. The standard of presumption of innocence unless proven
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies to individuals charged with a
crime, but not to institutions or government offices. The appropriate
standard for those who hold a public trust is merely "probable cause to
suspect", and if such probable cause exists, it justifies defunding the
agency, excluding its personnel from further government employment, and the
creation of a new agency with new personnel to take over its functions. Such
probable cause to suspect certainly applies in this case and justifies such
terminating action for the FBI.
First, Danforth is lying about the alleged tape of the Davidians presented
as evidence they started the fire. Even if they had started some fires, that
is not proof the FBI or Delta force agents did not also do so, and their use
of incendiary rounds during the engagement is strong evidence that the
agents either intended to start a fire or were reckless in their use of
methods that could be expected to cause one. The Davidians might have been
intending to use Molotov cocktails against the tanks. The injection of CS
gas alone could be expected to have caused a fire in that environment, when
any spark or even gunfire could have set it off. The progress of the fire
clearly indicates the detonation of CS, and therefore the injection of CS
must be considered the primary cause of the fire, along with those who
decided to inject it.
I have heard the tape before it was "enhanced" and it is incomprehensible.
That is not to say that computer "enhancement" could not extract voices
saying words like that. I would have to have the original tape and try to do
it myself. But from what I heard, I doubt that it is possible to extract
what they presented in court from that tape. Nor would it be possible to
reliably use such an enhanced version either as evidence or to identify the
person speaking. At best it is an indication, which might be used to find
other evidence, if it existed, but not as evidence in itself.
Similar considerations apply to computer enhancements of video or film
footage. You might be able to identify, say, a license plate number, which
might point to which vehicle to further examine for evidence it was involved
in a crime, but lacking such further evidence, the computer-enhanced image
alone should not be used as evidence.
Second, Danforth is also lying about the gunfire. He stated categorically
that there was no credible evidence of gunfire by government agents, when he
has the preliminary report of Carlos Ghigliotti and the earlier report by
Allard, which are nothing if not credible. Perhaps not conclusive in the
view of some, but certainly enough to doubt and prevent any conclusion that
one can be "100 percent" certain no gunfire occurred. The fact that
Ghigliotti is no longer alive to present his conclusions in personal
testimony, and that Allard is unable or unwilling to do so because of his
stroke, is not grounds to dismiss their work from consideration, and accept
only the work of a contractor controlled by the government.
However, the fates of Ghigliotti and Allard could explain why Danforth is
lying. Perhaps he got the message.
Third, Danforth is lying about the use of military personnel. He states that
their use was not "improper" in a way that is intended to convey the
impression that they were not used at all, but that is tergiversation.
Statements by military personnel make it clear they were used, and any such
use was not just "improper" but illegal, despite attempts to wiggle out from
under the Posse Comitatus Act.
Fourth, Danforth is lying about the absence of a coverup. He admits the FBI
had a "bunker mentality" and failed to "be forthcoming" with evidence,
especially about the use of incendiary rounds, but claims that is not
obstruction of justice? Of course it is a coverup. It continues to this day.
Does he think the American people are idiots to believe such a preposterous
quibbling over words? That it depends on what "is" is? Gimme a break!
It is reported that polls indicate 61 percent of the American people think
the federal government caused the tragedy at Mount Carmel, and is guilty of
crimes in that matter. After the Danforth Report, that percentage will only
increase. The only thing that will make this issue go away is to criminally
prosecute all the government personnel involved, up to the President of the
United States, to exonerate the Davidians charged with crimes, to fully
compensate the survivors of the victims, and to make reforms to insure that
nothing like this ever happens again. Nothing less will do.[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
Preliminary Critique of the Danforth Report http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1075995
Preliminary Critique of the Danforth Report
Jon Roland 2000 July 22
This critique is based on news reports and television interviews of
Danforth, as I do not yet had a copy of the complete report. However,
several conclusions can be reached.
Jack Danforth is lying. It is not possible to reach the conclusions he has
announced based on the evidence that has been discussed. Such evidence and
analysis cannot prove a negative, and therefore one cannot be "100 percent"
certain that government agents did not start the fire, direct gunfire at the
Davidians on April 19, 1993, use military personnel, properly or otherwise,
or conduct a coverup.
Danforth maintains there must be a "presumption" of innocence of the
government. Nonsense. The standard of presumption of innocence unless proven
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies to individuals charged with a
crime, but not to institutions or government offices. The appropriate
standard for those who hold a public trust is merely "probable cause to
suspect", and if such probable cause exists, it justifies defunding the
agency, excluding its personnel from further government employment, and the
creation of a new agency with new personnel to take over its functions. Such
probable cause to suspect certainly applies in this case and justifies such
terminating action for the FBI.
First, Danforth is lying about the alleged tape of the Davidians presented
as evidence they started the fire. Even if they had started some fires, that
is not proof the FBI or Delta force agents did not also do so, and their use
of incendiary rounds during the engagement is strong evidence that the
agents either intended to start a fire or were reckless in their use of
methods that could be expected to cause one. The Davidians might have been
intending to use Molotov cocktails against the tanks. The injection of CS
gas alone could be expected to have caused a fire in that environment, when
any spark or even gunfire could have set it off. The progress of the fire
clearly indicates the detonation of CS, and therefore the injection of CS
must be considered the primary cause of the fire, along with those who
decided to inject it.
I have heard the tape before it was "enhanced" and it is incomprehensible.
That is not to say that computer "enhancement" could not extract voices
saying words like that. I would have to have the original tape and try to do
it myself. But from what I heard, I doubt that it is possible to extract
what they presented in court from that tape. Nor would it be possible to
reliably use such an enhanced version either as evidence or to identify the
person speaking. At best it is an indication, which might be used to find
other evidence, if it existed, but not as evidence in itself.
Similar considerations apply to computer enhancements of video or film
footage. You might be able to identify, say, a license plate number, which
might point to which vehicle to further examine for evidence it was involved
in a crime, but lacking such further evidence, the computer-enhanced image
alone should not be used as evidence.
Second, Danforth is also lying about the gunfire. He stated categorically
that there was no credible evidence of gunfire by government agents, when he
has the preliminary report of Carlos Ghigliotti and the earlier report by
Allard, which are nothing if not credible. Perhaps not conclusive in the
view of some, but certainly enough to doubt and prevent any conclusion that
one can be "100 percent" certain no gunfire occurred. The fact that
Ghigliotti is no longer alive to present his conclusions in personal
testimony, and that Allard is unable or unwilling to do so because of his
stroke, is not grounds to dismiss their work from consideration, and accept
only the work of a contractor controlled by the government.
However, the fates of Ghigliotti and Allard could explain why Danforth is
lying. Perhaps he got the message.
Third, Danforth is lying about the use of military personnel. He states that
their use was not "improper" in a way that is intended to convey the
impression that they were not used at all, but that is tergiversation.
Statements by military personnel make it clear they were used, and any such
use was not just "improper" but illegal, despite attempts to wiggle out from
under the Posse Comitatus Act.
Fourth, Danforth is lying about the absence of a coverup. He admits the FBI
had a "bunker mentality" and failed to "be forthcoming" with evidence,
especially about the use of incendiary rounds, but claims that is not
obstruction of justice? Of course it is a coverup. It continues to this day.
Does he think the American people are idiots to believe such a preposterous
quibbling over words? That it depends on what "is" is? Gimme a break!
It is reported that polls indicate 61 percent of the American people think
the federal government caused the tragedy at Mount Carmel, and is guilty of
crimes in that matter. After the Danforth Report, that percentage will only
increase. The only thing that will make this issue go away is to criminally
prosecute all the government personnel involved, up to the President of the
United States, to exonerate the Davidians charged with crimes, to fully
compensate the survivors of the victims, and to make reforms to insure that
nothing like this ever happens again. Nothing less will do.[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com