-Caveat Lector-
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Let's first acknowledge Revcoal's apparently vast understanding of
>police procedure. From reading Revcoal's comments, this person
>must have previous experience in the following fields:
Less than your flame states, more than YOU actually have.... ;-)
>None of Revcoal's opinions can change a single fact.
>
> 1) The police entered the LIBRARY, several HOURS
> after the initial flurry of bullets took flight.
Yes, and if you think I am DEFENDING what the police did on the 20th, you
are mistaken...
But the event now being done, what I was responding to was your rant
against what is being provided (or, more accurately, NOT provided) in the
PD's press conferences...my contention is that just because they
obviously screwed up on the 20th, they should not now further screw up by
revealing details of the investigation just to suck up to the media...
And what I've noticed is that when the media is trumpeting some new
'fact', such as the supposed suicide note, that in the press conferences
the spokesman is NOI rising to the bait and confirming -- or denying --
the existence of the note, the contents of the note, and whether it's
valid or not...
Because if he did, he may reveal to those who were also involved in the
shootings exactly what the police do, and do not, know...
Because even tho it was later announced that the suicide note was a hoax,
it is STILL evidence, as it may have been sent by someone who was also
involved, and who's intent on throwing investigators off their track...
So anyone conducting a press conference has no business discussing with
the media (and hence the public) that the note was considered a hoax,
until its validity, or lack thereof, had been conclusively determined,
and an investigation into who exactly had sent it when was conducted.
> 3) The heavily armed and bullet-proofed S.W.A.T. [team] waited
> outside--- while shots rang out for AT LEAST TWO hours.
Again, if you think I am defending this action -- or lack thereof -- you
are mistaken...
> 5) Police stood by, KNOWING there were innocent, UNARMED
> men, women, and children inside the building....AS SHOTS
> CONTINUED TO RING OUT FOR SEVERAL HOURS.
Yes, and we've been told they didn't do anything because they feared for
their own lives...so why did they take the job? Seems to me someone
wanting to be a cop, especially a SWAT cop, is agreeing to be paid by the
taxpayers just to do that very thing, to take the risk of being harmed or
even killed themselves, to defend and protect the public...
><<I like it that Davis doesn't seem to be a robot parroting the
>'official' line...*...I'd be really bothered if he was spoonfeeding
>the press (and hence the public) packaged 'answers'...>>
>
>Comments like these above, truly reveal Revcoal's abscence
>of insight and lack of common sense for what is taking place.
At least I know how to spell 'absence'...
And again, what makes you feel the cops HAVE to reveal details of an
ongoing investigation to you?
>The "official" line *IS*:
>
> 1) "I don't know".
> 2) "I am not aware at this time"
> 3) "I am not sure"
>
>And these *ARE* the very lines that Davis
>"roboted" and "spoonfed" to the press.
No, it was the response of someone inexperienced in dealing with the
major media who didn't want to reveal exactly what the cops know or don't
know, because if he did, then he'd be tipping the PDs hand to anyone else
involved in the shootings who the cops are watching...
So instead of giving any sort of answer which might compromise the
ongoing investigation, Davis instead lamely answered 'I don't know',
'I am not sure', etc. Lame answers, but not for a lame reason...
You're too used to LA cops who play up to the media, more concerned with
becoming pseudo-stars by playing up to the media and saying more than
they should about a current case, than in maintaining professionalism...
>There is a distinct separation between parroting versions of
>"I don't know", and at least acknowledging what has become
>the common stock of public knowledge through not only the
>first hand reports of students, but those of adults as well.
But what is 'common stock of public knowledge' is part of an ongoing
investigation, and there's no reason we should expect the cops to
COMPROMISE that investigation (and hence risk not getting anyone else
involved) by chatting it up with the media airheads...
>Initially, the official police statements on the subject of
>"other suspects", was a FLAT OUT, "NO, there are no
>other suspects, both suspects are deceased."
No, what I heard were various MEDIA outlets claiming that was what the
police said...but in every press conference, Davis pointedly NEVER said
they had conclusively determined that there were only 2 suspects, that
they were still trying to 'find that out'...again, an answer that one
should expect, since why should the cops tip off other perps that the
perps indeed are considered suspects?
>Secondly, the truth of the matter is that police did not begin to
>acknowledge the possibility of another assailant, UNTIL the
>public outcry on numerous radio stations (and various TV
>interviews with eyewitnesses), made it clear that Coloradans
>were not going to be brainwashed into forgetting facts like so
>many of those in Oklahoma City were.
Again, it was the mainstream media on which I heard the 'partyline' of
'only 2 suspects, who committed suicide' story, and not from the lips of
any official police spokesperson...
>In a message dated 99-04-25 09:37:01 EDT, revcoal spins:
><<Which was his way of saying "You'll get the answers on OUR
>schedule, not YOURS..."...again, since this is an ongoing invest-
>igation, I have no problem that he's not sucking up to the media
>by giving them what they want, just so he can become a media
>darling...That is called PROFESSIONALISM...>>
>
>We must evidently add the title of professional psychic to the
>already growing list of Revcoals assumed talents.
No, just knowledge of the usual line given to the media when you're
required to meet with them, but can't, or won't, provide them any real
details....
>We are most
>fortunate to "really know" what he was "actually saying" via our
>new talented medium.
And you somehow ARE privy to his innermost thoughts? You know for sure
that he doesn't know anything?
>What is the purpose of holding a press conference?
Because the media demands it, and it allows those giving it to give out
the information THEY want to give, in the manner they wish to give it...
usually not everything the media would want...
>If a press conference is held to unleash FACTS, then we have
>no need to "read between the lines" of "what he meant to say."
Press conferences are NEVER given to 'unleash facts'...they are given to
'sell' something those holding the conference wish to provide....and in
so doing, some 'facts' may indeed be provided, but that is NOT the
primary reason ANY press conference is EVERY held...whether by police, or
a corporation, or someone running for office...
You probably think you get 'facts' from advertisements, too...
>If the purpose is to buy time and string along facts and make
>statements--which at base deny the truth of [now] well known
>eye-witness accounts, then Davis held an excellent press
>conference. And this, Revcoal calls "professionalism".
What is professional is not falling for the bait of becoming a darling of
the media by telling them what they want to hear, thereby compromising
the ongoing investigation...what is professional is preferring to risk
the wrath of the media, and fools like you, by not spoonfeeding you what
you want to hear, the results of such chattiness be damned...
You are obviously of the generation where you grew up with everything you
demanded being given you, and now throw a temper tantrum because someone
is denying you something you want.
>911 dispatchers are directly linked via telephone/radio to the
>officers enroute to, or who have arrived at the crime scene.
No, only if they make a specific link...and then, only one point-of-
contact will be in touch with officers enroute, NOT the whole 911 staff
currentlky on-shift, because that would lead to confusion...
Those 911 operators on line with victims at the scene would NOT have been
online with officers enroute, rather they would have forwarded the info
to the person who was...
Other 911 operators had to remain at the ready to answer other calls, say
a house fire broke out, someone would have to be able to contact the
local fire department...
>The full-time security guard on campus was in direct con-
>tact with police from the moment the shooting began.
You have citations to support this claim?
Even if he was, that means nothing...security guards as a rule are
worthless in defending the public, rarely if ever receive any sort of
professional training, rarely if ever even get trained in first aid and
CPR...
>Revcoal's comments seem to conveniently exclude the FACT
>that the directions of the 911 operator, COINCIDED WITH THE
>PLAN OF THE POLICE-- who did NOT enter the building for
>SEVERAL HOURS.
Again, you are mistaken if you think I'm defending the police's lack of
action; I also think it suspicious that the SWAT team seems to have been
at the ready by the time the first calls came in to 911; but with the
information that's been provided, I can't see any fault with the 911
operators themselves.
I also think it suspicious that shortly after this thing started playing
out, Harris' father's attorney called the cops and said they thought one
of the kids involved indeed was Harris, and that the father was
volunteering to try to talk to his son to try to end the massacre, and
that the attornery was told the cops weren't interested...
Highly suspicious...
>Are we to assume that the 911 operator "took a guess"....and it
>just happened to be a coincidence that the instructions of "try
>to lock the door, and HIDE", happened to PARALLEL the police
>and S.W.A.T. teams lack of action toward entering the building?
The instructions to lock the doors and hide occured approximately FOUR
MINUTES after the initial call...even if cops were arriving at the scene,
one of the shooters was right outside the library door...so it's not
suspicious or indicative of anything ominous on the 911 ops part that she
told the teacher to try to lock the door and hide...
Even if the cops stormed the school at that point, the gunman being right
outside the library, could have still burst in there and slaughtered
everyone inside, BEFORE the cops could have gotten to him.....
And yes, I realize the cops didn't even TRY to get in, and there's no
excuse for that...but it's a little much to expect anything from the cops
FOUR MINUTES after the initial 911 call was logged...
><<Presumably because the switchboard got overwhelmed with incoming
>calls; remember, there are just so many lines available, and they were
>keeping some tied up, as in the case of the teacher you just mentioned,
>where they made sure they kept her on the line...>>
>
>Other list members have already pointed out the
>folly of Revcoal's statement,
Gee, I seem to have missed them...
>The same might be said toward Revcoal's
>argument for the 911 lines being busy.
It happens...and YOUR comment amply displays your ignorance in this
matter...
There ARE just so many lines, and it IS possible for the 911 switchboard
to be overloaded so that no further calls can come in...at best,
depending on the system, the caller may get a recorded message stating
all lines are busy, and that their call will be taken at the soonest
possible time...
>While the graveness of this tragedy is a certainty, the shock
>and horror of it's reality does not change the event's opening
>moments into the magnitude of an emergency that SHOULD
>clog 911 lines; such as an earthquake or fire in an community
>of apartment buildings.
Remember, you had DOZENS of teachers and kids using their cell phones to
call 911, all within the span of a few minutes...
>If in an actual emergency of this magnitude the 911 lines are busy,
>then the system is inefficient.
Yep. Many systems ARE.
>Next, this brings up another subject,
>which is that the time sequence of events places students outside--
>fleeing into the surrounding neighborhood from one gunman, while
>within a minute other students report the assailants in the library,
>while other students report a gunman on the roof.
Yes, which lends credence to more than 2 perps being involved...
>It is impossible that the fleeing students caused the
>911 overload,
Why not? Some of them could have had cellphones and called 911, in fact
one of the 911 calls I heard broadcast on a news show was specifically
from a girl who was OUTSIDE the school, and was confirming to the 911
dispatcher that police cars were arriving on the scene...
Remember, there are over 2000 students at this school...even if only one
percent of them tried to call on pay and cell phones, you're talking
approximately 20 calls coming in at once on a system that probably only
has about 20 lines operational...
>and to suggest that keeping the teacher
>on-line helped contribute to the "busy signal" that these
>students WITH the teacher reported, is nonsensical.
The teacher was only one of DOZENS of callers who were kept online...
911 operators are trained to keep the caller online until professional
help arrives...so EVERY ONE of the calls that came in reporting the
attack would have been kept online until the caller reported that cops
had arrived...
Again, you amply display you lack of knowledge on how 911 works...
June
=======================================================================
"To love another person is to see the face of God."
-Les Miserables
=======================================================================
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
revcoal AT connix DOT com
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
It is UNLAWFUL to send unsolicited commercial email to this email
address per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a fee of
$500.00 US currency for reading and deleting such unsolicited commercial
email. Sending such email to this address denotes acceptance of these
terms. My posting messages to Usenet neither grants consent to receive
unsolicited commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial
email.
*========================================================================*
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
