Criminal Law for Dummies 101

[BeachBaby]

Okay. I just spent the last hour (of which I wish I could get back) reading some of the latest threads - and I see that nothing has changed. OCTers stand by the story that nineteen men from the Middle East hijacked American commercial jets, managed to fool multiple American govt agencies and our military, and pull off aviation feats that even our most well-seasoned pilots admit they could never pull off.

Anybody who looks at other alternative theories is called a "twoofer", "tinfoil hat wearer", or "woo-woo".

A little lesson for all you people who slam anyone who questions the events of that day, or who question the government response, or who question the govt's fight for no investigation:

I've worked in the legal field for 13 years - first as an intern for the county prosecutor's office, and then accepted an offer for a criminal defense firm, where I've been ever since. In other words, I've had the opportunity to see how both sides of a case handle a criminal investigation.

After the events of 9/11, it didn't take long before all we heard was the name Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It was stated that they were behind the attacks. That's all we heard - over and over, ad nauseum.

Three weeks later, we invaded Afghanistan to supposedly capture Osama bin Laden and "bring him to justice".

When the American people asked for an investigation, BushCo fought it tooth and nail, but reluctantly relented - BUT ONLY UNDER THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS. And their terms and conditions made a mockery of the criminal justice system.

Meanwhile, many individuals across America and the globe were not pleased with how the investigation was being handled; so they took it upon themselves to do some quite extensive independent research. It wasn't an easy task, and still isn't - because the independent researcher has very little access to physical evidence; so independent researchers, like myself, were given no other alternative than to work with what we *could* gain access to. And it wasn't much.

Contrary to popular opinion, circumstantial evidence carries quite of bit of weight in a courtroom - but this type of evidence must have the credibility to stand up in court. And the more, the better. If a judge is presented with a well-correlated stack of circumstantial evidence, it's difficult for him/her to turn the case away. Such was the case in the AnnMarie Fahey murder case in Wilmington, DE - and also in the recent arrest of a women whose daughter, Caylee Anthony, has been missing since June of this year. In both cases, the circumstantial evidence stacked up and it couldn't be denied - even without bodies to prove that there was a murder in the first place.

In the case of 9/11, both the FBI and Cheney himself have stated that they cannot charge OBL with the atrocities of 9/11, because they don't have enough evidence against him to charge him. So....even though the world has been told for 7 years that OBL is the mastermind behind 9/11....and even though we've waged wars in the Middle East because of this belief....our government will not charge OBL with the 9/11 crimes.

Now, in your basic prosecutor's office, there are several options on how to handle a case that comes to a dead end: they can continue the investigation until they do have enough evidence to press charges; they can declare the case a "cold case" and file it away in archives; or they can cooperate with a private investigation that the victim's family wants to conduct. And if it should happen that a private agency takes over the case, they treat it as if it is brand new. They start from scratch. Clean slate.

So this is what we've got here: the OCTers in this forum are representative of the 9/11 Commission Report - and the CTers in this forum are representative of the private investigation. The OCTers may ask "Well why are you investigating anything at all?" Well the answer is simple - we were all told from day one that the culprit was OBL. One problem, though - the OCT case didn't support it at all, and the case fell apart, so much so that the person supposedly responsible for the 9/11 event is a free man and will never be charged with it. In judge's chambers, you would quickly be told that you have no case. So now what?

As far as I know, the 9/11 investigation is closed. Or should I say that the "official" 9/11 investigation is closed. So, there are two other choices here - BushCo will yearn for answers, and re-open the investigation....or another entity will take it upon themselves to investigate the case.

That's what the Truth Movement is, OCTers. We are the "agency" responding to a botched case that was filled with lies, secrecy and multiple violations of the criminal justice system. And while there are many "branches" of the truth movement, one thing is clear between all of us - and that is the fact that the 9/11 official story was filled with lies, withheld information, and horrendous conflicts of interest. So we will continue to muddle through the murky waters of "contaminated" evidence, as well as build one hell of a circumstantial case, since physical evidence is regularly refused to us when requested.

[LARED]

1. So this is what we've got here:

the OCTers in this forum are representative of the 9/11 Commission Report - and the CTers in this forum are representative of the private investigation.

Ah, no, your wrong.

[HamdenRice]

5. uh...

It's spelled "you're."

:hi:

(Where are the protocol droids when you need them?)

[LARED]

6. Thanks for pointing out my typo. Your a gem (oops, make that you're) nt

[William Seger]

2. Even with circumstantial evidence...

... you would be expected to explain what story it tells. Can you please tell us what really happened on 9/11?

[BeachBaby]

9. Who said anything about *knowing*?

My point is that the people who support the OCT don't have a case anymore - and the CTers are independently researching and gleaning circumstantial evidence, a little at a time.

No matter which "side" a person stands by, 9/11 is a beast of a crime. I don't think anybody expected/expects to find a clear-cut, decisive conclusion, given that resources are extremely limited.

My point is that we were handed a story that doesn't add up - so it's time to start over.

[William Seger]

12. You've got overwhelming, stand-up-in court circumstantial evidence of...

... something or other?

[Ohio Joe]

3. I agree with a lot of what you said

But... not all of it. I really have no issue with anyone that feels they don't have enough answers for what happened. That Bush and company used 9/11 to perpetrate horrors on a global scale, I have no doubt and I don't recall seeing anyone here say differently.

I was born and raised, right across the river from the towers. My mother saw the events beginning shortly after the first hit until both towers had collapsed. My brother was a paramedic on site that day. I know a lot of people in the area, I had friends in both of the towers as well as the surrounding area, some made it out and some did not.

I've heard a lot of first hand accounts from people I've known from just a few years to my entire life.

So, if someone says out intelligence agencies should have worked better and it should be investigated and people take responsibility for the failures. I agree. If someone says our government used 9/11 to take us into war that had nothing to do with it, I agree. If someone says people should be held for war crimes, I agree.

But... if someone tries to tell me there were no planes that flew into the towers that day, I know its bullshit. The "no planes", "mini nukes", "demolitions", "lasers from space", etc. etc. theories are bullshit.

Did the 9/11 commission report answer everything? No, nor was it intended to. Did the 9/11 commission report get everything 100% correct? No and I've never seen a government report on anything that did. Should there have been/be a thorough investigation that does cover everything? Yes. Did Bush and company do everything they could to get people to not look as close as should have been to what happened? Yes, and I believe that to be for two reasons. First, so they could cover up their intelligence failures and second so they could lie us into war.

I believe there are very real crimes surrounding the events of 9/11 that should be investigated. I also believe as long as people pursue bullshit fantasies, nothing will be investigated because it all gets lumped into bullshit.

[BeachBaby]

10. "That Bush and company used 9/11 to perpetrate horrors on a global scale, I have no doubt and I

don't recall seeing anyone here say differently."

I personally don't focus on each individual facet of the 9/11 events, as many others do. While the towers, the planes, Shanksville and the Pentagon are all very fascinating to me, they are not what I study. I don't think anyone here will say that those separate issues were all singular events that had nothing to do with the other. They were all separate happenings of one big event. I will be the first to admit that how the towers fell looks more than peculiar to me, as well as the Pentagon hit - but from the angle I'm coming at, that's not what I am trying to figure out.

Like I said in my OP, I am looking at the 9/11 crime as a "whodunnit". The ONLY reason the focus has been on OBL since 9/11, is because that is what we have been told; but 7 years later, they still can't charge him with the crime.

My focus has been on relationships between former - as well as current - elected officials and Saudis; stolen elections; money trails; the CIA; the Bin Laden family; the Bush family; the oil industry; and the PNAC. Most of all, though, I research the behavior patterns of said entities - and how they conducted themselves before, during and after 9/11.

[PatrickSMcNally]

4. This would have read better ...

had it been written as a statement of an individual's position. You've given it a collective form with statements such as "we will continue to muddle through the murky waters" which make it sound as if you were speaking for some collective group. You'd be better off leaning on the "I will continue to muddle through the murky waters" so as not to put yourself in the position of having to stand up for what someone else says. Unless you're posting here as a representative for some specific group (e.g. STJ911), in which case you should clearly identify the group so that people can look it up and assess it, there is no reason for you to adopt such collective forms of pronoun. If you do, it only means that people are going to dig up something said at some point by someone claiming to be a truther who asserts that, for example, Building 7 fell in 6.5 seconds (when we know it took 18 seconds according to seismographic records). Rather than letting be yourself be put in the position of having to defend what others say, speak forthrightly for yourself and don't pretend to be a spokeperson for anyone else unless you explicitly hold such a position in an identifiable organizational capacity. You'll get a lot further with that approach.

[BeachBaby]

11. I'm not "pretending" to be anybody.

Ask anybody who researches 9/11 why they're researching, and they'll tell you that it's because the story they were told doesn't jive. It's vague. It's murky. It's filled with holes.

That's all I'm saying.

I don't agree with many of the theories that I see floating around in this forum, as well as other websites; and as I said upthread, the actual causes of falling towers and Pentagon holes are not my focus.

My focus is finding out who was responsible. And since OBL can't be charged, we're back to square one.

[AZCat]

14. "Responsible" is itself a murky term.

Obviously those who (at least according to the so-called OCT) were directly responsible are no longer with us and cannot be held accountable. Who then shares the rest of the burden? The financiers of the attacks? The organizers? Those who years ago dictated that America's intelligence organizations would operate the way they did prior to September 11th?

[BeachBaby]

15. To be honest.....

I keep falling back on the CIA, and the relationship they've formed with Osama Bin Laden - and I'll tell you why:

The CIA "trained" him.
He worked for "us".
He's been "protected" from US capture more than once.

And as an aside, it's more than disturbing to me that Building 7 of the WTC had these agencies as tenants:

Dept of Defense - 25th floor
Central Intelligence Agency - 25th floor
Office of Emergency Management - 23rd floor
Securities and Exchange Commission - 11th through 13th floors, and also housed all documentation regarding the Enron and Worldcom disasters
United States Secret Service - 9th and 10th floors

[AZCat]

16. Why is it so disturbing?

Perhaps I'm missing the point. Why would it be disturbing that those five groups would have offices in the same building?

[BeachBaby]

17. Because looking at it from my perspective....

*if* 9/11 was planned from the inside, the CIA would be the group to do it. Covert operations are their specialty.

Furthermore, covert operations are intensely supervised before the plan is carried out; *if* there was more to those falling towers than just planes, what better position for the CIA to be in, than in a building right across the street.

Just in case anyone doesn't fully understand the meaning of a "covert operation":

From wiki....

"A covert operation is a military, intelligence, or political activity carried out in such a way that the identity of the sponsors of the operation (the parties responsible for the action) is concealed or kept secret. While the operation may become known to the enemy or the world, covert operations are intended so that the parties responsible cannot be traced, or at worst proven."

*If* 9/11 was a covert operation, the party or parties involved have to make the operation's roots untraceable (as stated above); so the collapse of Building 7 doesn't surprise me at all.

And just in case anyone doesn't grasp the legal definition of "circumstantial evidence":

From Legal Dictionary at FreeDictionary.com....

"Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence."

Again - I'm not claiming to actually KNOW what happened that day; that's why I emphasize the "ifs". I just look things up, and connect the dots. I've looked at several angles - the Middle East/US relations; interpersonal relationships between US powers-that-be and Middle Eastern royalty and government; the PNAC objective, with its corresponding RAD dissertation - and its overwhelming tie-in to the current administration; the CIA and their relationship with OBL.

Above all, though, I look at the behavior patterns of several of these groups - before 9/11, as well as during and after the event. All of these angles would be placed in a "circumstantial evidence" case.

[PatrickSMcNally]

23. >The CIA "trained" him.

That's a bit of an overstatement. It was a part of Cold War strategy, which I never liked even as a teenager when the original war in Afghanistan was going on (though what I liked and disliked then is pretty meaningless), that the US government did seek to stir up a Muslim hornet's nest in the underbelly of the Soviet Union across Central Asia. For that reason Washinton did plan on setting off a war in Afghanistan and then feeding it to the maximum limit. I didn't support that policy, to the extent that my opinion as a teenager mattered. But one should distinguish between this and the assertion that the CIA "trained" Bin Laden. The funding for the Afghan Muslim insurgency was provided through Pakistan and went predominantly to Afghan insurgents. Bin Laden would have indirectly derived benefits from this, but there's no clear indication of him ever having worked directly and closely with the CIA. It would be better to say that the decision in Washington to fund a Muslim holy war in Afghanistan worked to Bin Laden's advantage, but not necessarily that the CIA was training him.

[PatrickSMcNally]

21. "Ask anybody who researches 9/11 why they're researching ..."

Well that type of opening does ring of pretension. So all anyone here has to do is dig up one person who says they're researching 911 because they expect that this will allow them to uncover the UFOs which have been visiting planet Earth for the last 2000 years, and you're statement will be proven wrong. A more properly formulated statement of position would go along the lines of "I and the friends I have contact with are researching 911 because ..." The fact that you claim to know what "anybody who researches 9/11" is thinking has already put you out on a limb in an unnecessary way. Focus on telling people what you think, not what "anyone who researches 9/11" may think.

[BeachBaby]

22. Ah, yes.....

I knew it would just be a matter of time before someone jumped in with some sort of unrelated complaint.

Okay. Fine. Some researchers may research the 9/11 event to find out if the Brits actually left their homeland to escape the Church of England, or if they left because of something else much more sinister. <<<insert Twilight Zone theme song here>>>

Jeez - and the Truth Movement are the ones who get called "woo-woos". Unreal. :eyes:

[hack89]

7. I know the 911 commission report was a political white wash

I do stand behind the NIST reports. As hard as it for you to accept, the government does not hold a monopoly on engineering and scientific knowledge. There are many here with the education and background to evaluate what the NIST says. The truth movement on the other hand depends on the scientific ignorance of some to further CD, no planes, mini-nuke and other imaginative theories.

When the truth movement rejects pseudo science then I will take them seriously.

[BeachBaby]

13. And it's statements like this that bother me the most:

"The truth movement on the other hand depends on the scientific ignorance of some to further CD, no planes, mini-nuke and other imaginative theories."

That's NOT the objective of the Truth Movement. The Truth Movement, in and of itself, has become quite the beast - and certainly NOT something I would describe as a "fringe movement". The Truth Movement is self-descriptive, in and of itself: it wants to find out the truth of 9/11. If I were to call anything a "fringe movement", it would be the many branches that have grown off of the Truth Movement itself: the no-planers, the nukers, the hologrammers, etc.

[hack89]

18. So CD and no-planers are not part of the real 911 truth movement?

do you think they would agree with you?

[BeachBaby]

19. Where did I say that?

Would you please stop putting words in my mouth?

The 9/11 Truth Movement is defined here:

"The 9/11 Truth Movement is the name adopted by organizations and individuals that question the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks against the United States."

The goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement is stated here:

"Proponents of the 9/11 Truth Movement describe their primary goals as evidence gathering, research and promotion of the proposition that government insiders were complicit in the attacks. Many international, national and local organizations have been created to pursue these goals such as research groups, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ911.org)."

The viewpoint of the 9/11 Truth Movement is stated here:

"Frequently expressed propositions among movement supporters are that the mainstream account of the events of 9/11 is false and that the perceived anomalies in the official account can better be explained by the theory that a "rogue network,"<6> including individuals in the US government, planned, carried out, and covered up the attack or deliberately allowed the attacks to take place. There is a wide range of alternative theories about how and why the attacks were carried out, including belief that US air defenses (NORAD) were deliberately rendered ineffective,<7> that the two World Trade Center Towers and WTC 7 were demolished in a controlled fashion, and that the motives for the attacks were to justify overseas wars and to increase domestic control."

*courtesy of wikipedia* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement

It questions the basics we've been handed. OBL/AlQaeda trained 19 individuals, had them sent to the US, and then they hijacked 4 planes, two of which flew into the WTC North and South Towers, one crashed in Shanksville,PA, and the other slammed into the Pentagon. It questions whether planes alone caused the collapses, or if there were other elements involved.

Other belief systems, theories and inquiries have branched off of that objective - entertaining everything from no planes, holograms, optical illusion, nukes, etc. These groups are not of the mainstream Truth Movement.

[William Seger]

20. So it's all good

... even the bullshit? No, surely you would agree that no "truth movement" has a need for bullshit. So, why do you resent the efforts to refute the bullshit? Why do you slam the people who think that's important? Why do you use straw man arguments to imply that they don't care about the truth as much as you, when the exact opposite appears to be the case?

[hack89]

24. So why don't you appreciate my efforts?

Don't you agree that undermining the more "esoteric" 911 theories strengthens the "real" 911 Truth movement?

[PatrickSMcNally]

25. "everything from no planes, holograms, optical illusion, nukes, etc."

I think it's more helpful to consider some lesser issues and get your opinion there. One thing I'd be curious about from you are your thoughts on voice-morphing technology and how some 911-activists have approached this matter. Here I can illustrate one thing which really irked me about the 911-movement as it gathered momentum and become more widespread.

I first heard of this concept of voice-morphing technology some time back in 2003 or maybe 2004. It was suggested to me that something like this might have been used on 911 and at the immediate time this seemed like it might offer a whole new avenue of investigation. At the time it seemed like a really serious issue to get the word out that voice-morphing technology exists and may have been used. The man who turned me off most decisively to this idea was David Ray Griffin. At the time when this concept of voice-morphing technology was first pointed out to me the references were all merely news reports such as in this piece from The Washington Post, February 1, 1999:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Running into such a news article made the whole idea very tantalizing, but the suggestion was made by some people that the whole thing might be covered up somehow. That made it seem very urgent to get the word out there that such technology exists. When people started talking about a professor emiritus writing a book about 911 it seemed like this was finally going to be the beginning of turning such guesses based on newspaper reports into real research.

But it turned out that Griffin did not do anything that would remotely qualify as actual research for any of his books. Griffin simply recited the same newspaper articles which I'd already seen. For Griffin the professor emiritus to do some actual research on the topic would mean first of all consulting with engineering specialists who have actually worked in the development of voice-morphing technology. If Griffin tracked down some experts (a quick internet search for "voice-morphing" can bring a set of contacts in academia among people who have researched the subject) then maybe he would begin to make a case for something somewhere. But he never did anything of the sort as far as I've been able to tell. So now many years into the development of a growing 911-truth movement, Griffin is still depending upon some old newspaper articles in The Washington Post to support a case where he suggests that voice-morphing technology was used. Doesn't that fail the standards of real research? I think that it was valid for someone in 2003 to show me an article from a few years earlier which described voice-morphing technology. But for Griffin to still be leaning on such a piece when he is supposed to be well-established for several years now as a leading 911-researcher is preposterous. Any leading 911-researcher whose case involves references to voice-morphing technology should by now be well-acquainted with all of the experts on the subject. The fact that Griffin acts as if all of this is inconsequential is a sign that he is not serious about researching his own proclaimed subject.

What's your opinion then on this matter of voice-morphing technology? Do you put it in the category with alien lizards and discount Griffin as another David Icke? If not, then how do you evaluate Griffin's performance in these respects?

[Bolo Boffin]

8. "OCTers stand by the story" -- ah, no.

Your straw man isn't anything I feel the need to take responsibility for whatsoever.

[sofa king]

26. Hey Jersey, a question:

When prosecutors and investigators are confronted with a major crime and no clear suspect, where's the first place they look?

(Yes, it's a leading question. I believe one answer is, "we look to whomever benefited from the crime." Another is, "whomever tried to cover it up." And still another is, "whomever refuses to talk honestly about it." And in this case, the answer to all is, "the Bush Administration." They should be everyone's primary suspect.)

[William Seger]

27. "no clear suspect"?

Well, thar's yer problem, Sparky.

[Thorandmjolnir]

28. Thank you for a very clear and concise post.

I too work in the criminal law field and completely agree with you.