Mass Murder "Investigators:" What's it to you?

DJW001
reply to post by Boadicea

 

I see what you did there. Interesting. So we no longer have a "right to know" and you (the politician) do have the right to hide the truth? No. Here's the thing: YOU (as the politician) are the one who cannot be trusted. It is up to YOU to explain to me, the constituent, why you want to hide facts and evidence in direct opposition to 200+ years of open and public legal proceedings -- AT EVERY LEVEL! From the cop walking the beat to the supreme court.

Please read the Constitution. You have never had a "right to know."

No worries! I don't need to read the Constitution (again) to know that the public's "right to know" is not one of our enumerated rights; however, I also don't need to read the Constitution (again) to know that our rights under the Constitution are not limited to those specified therein. Let me quote the 9th Amendment here: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And, again, I see what you did there... The Constitution is not intended to limit our rights and power; the purpose of the Constitution is to limit, restrain and restrict the power yielded by the federal government over the states and the people, thus empowering we the people.

You have freedom of speech and assembly, you cannot be forced to quarter troops in your home, your property is secure from unwarranted seizure, you can even join a militia and protect the commonwealth. Nothing in there about a right to know anything.

Odd that you conveniently omitted the right to freedom of the press (or maybe not), which, of course, is the means by which the public is informed, thereby fulfilling our "right to know."

True, tradition dictates that court cases be open....

It is more than tradition, it is law, and in fact one of those pesky rights enumerated in the Constitution. The 6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." We have a RIGHT to a PUBLIC trial, with all evidence displayed for all to see, including accusers and/or witnesses. And rightly so. No secret trials, no secret evidence, no secret witnesses, no secret accusers, no secret convictions, etc. Only by making all legal and judicial proceedings open for all to see can we protect everyone from judicial malfeasance, including ourselves.

In the hypothetical situation I have explained, as a servant of the people, why I have chosen to handle on ongoing investigation the way I have. If you have a problem with that, you can file a complaint in the legal system, but you had better have a better and more compelling case than: "I want to know, whether it is in the best interests of the citizenry or not."

Actually, your reasons protect a few from the truth (including, perhaps, the guilty), but does nothing to protect the citizenry as a whole. My reasons go far beyond "I want to know." My reasons do indeed protect the citizenry as a whole, as opposed to your reasons which protect only a few and create a situation which is ripe for abuse.

Actually, the tradition is that every suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If adverse publicity can prejudice the process, it is in the best interests of fairness to treat evidence with a certain amount of discretion. ...[snip]... I did not say, in this hypothetical case, that I would never release any evidence; I merely pointed out why I would not want to release information that could jeopardize an ongoing investigation and fair trial!

And yet, as a result of this secret investigation, Adam Lanza has been declared guilty pretty much on hearsay from government officials, without benefit of a trial, no evidence made public, no witness statements for public perusal, etc. He's dead. There will be no trial. There are no defendant rights to protect before trial when the evidence has been examined by the defense attorneys, and properly admitted in court. I completely understand the need to protect the rights of James Holmes until trial, when all evidence will be made public... much like for Nidal Hassan, who was ultimately tried and convicted in a court of law, according to proper rules of evidence. But there is no need to protect the rights of Lanza because he will never go to trial.

Can you think of anyone whose best interests would be served by having large numbers of obsessive conspiracy theorists posting their theories on the internet?

Of course not... all the more reason for complete disclosure -- not the secrecy and subterfuge which creates an environment for crazy conspiracy theories to flourish.

reply to post by Boadicea

Odd that you conveniently omitted the right to freedom of the press (or maybe not), which, of course, is the means by which the public is informed, thereby fulfilling our "right to know."

Not exactly. There is no assurance that what the press publishes is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The implication of your interpretation is that any reporter can use any means to obtain personal information about a person and publish it. You are denying any possible "right to privacy." Of course, the Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy, does it?

The 6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." We have a RIGHT to a PUBLIC trial, with all evidence displayed for all to see, including accusers and/or witnesses.

Do you see anything there about providing evidence to the public before it is provided to the accused and his defense, do you?

And rightly so. No secret trials, no secret evidence, no secret witnesses, no secret accusers, no secret convictions, etc. Only by making all legal and judicial proceedings open for all to see can we protect everyone from judicial malfeasance, including ourselves.

Absolutely. The accused also has a right to be tried in a court of law, rather than convicted in a court of public opinion. So long as the defendant and his council are provided with all the prosecution's case before the trial, there is no reason for the general public to know the details before the trial. In fact, it can prevent vigilantes from fabricating false evidence and making false testimonies.

Actually, your reasons protect a few from the truth (including, perhaps, the guilty), but does nothing to protect the citizenry as a whole. My reasons go far beyond "I want to know." My reasons do indeed protect the citizenry as a whole, as opposed to your reasons which protect only a few and create a situation which is ripe for abuse.

But the Constitution was drafted precisely to avoid the "tyranny of the majority." Just because everyone in town thinks someone is a witch does not mean she should be tried as one.

This thread is not about any specific mass murder, but rather an attempt to explore why people can become obsessive about them.

Can you think of anyone whose best interests would be served by having large numbers of obsessive conspiracy theorists posting their theories on the internet?

Of course not... all the more reason for complete disclosure -- not the secrecy and subterfuge which creates an environment for crazy conspiracy theories to flourish.

In the hypothetical I proposed, I fully explained the reasons for all my actions. You have yet to address them with anything but self-righteousness. I have made it clear you will learn all the facts at the trial. Remember, in this hypothetical, you do not even know whether the alleged shooter is dead or in custody! For all you know, he is still at large. Why don't you ask me whether he is in custody or at large? There is a public interest in knowing that!

FlyersFan

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (Freud) and ...
Sometimes a crazy person with a gun is just a crazy person with a gun ...

Sometimes a conspiracy is just that: A conspiracy to mislead the public.

reply to post by Starling

Sometimes a conspiracy is just that: A conspiracy to mislead the public.

And sometimes people don't know how to mind their own business.

DJW001
There. Try to convince me that your "need to know" outweighs what I firmly believe to be in the best public interest

Any damage a private individual can do by given access to government acts is much less than the harm a government official can do if they are allowed to keep information secret.

Daughter2

DJW001
There. Try to convince me that your "need to know" outweighs what I firmly believe to be in the best public interest

Any damage a private individual can do by given access to government acts is much less than the harm a government official can do if they are allowed to keep information secret.

So if the plans for D-Day were not kept secret, no-one would have informed the Germans so they could prepare their defenses? And the loss of Allied lives there would be worth it?

DJW001
reply to post by Boadicea

 

Forgive me, but I must respond to your comments out of order, because I want to start where we agree 100%

"Absolutely. The accused also has a right to be tried in a court of law, rather than convicted in a court of public opinion. So long as the defendant and his council are provided with all the prosecution's case before the trial, there is no reason for the general public to know the details before the trial."

Yes! Definitely! Protecting the rights of the accused is vital, because it protects us all. And I think we also agree that this can (and sometimes should) begin with the investigation process. The wheels of justice usually turn slowly, but this is necessary to prevent hasty judgments clouded in the emotion of the moment. As long as the accused and his defense counsel have immediate access to all evidence pending public trial, the system is doing its best to balance the best interests of all parties. I previously used Nidal Hassan as a recent example, and James Holmes as a current example.

I am also a big proponent of victim's rights, and thankfully more and more states are recognizing and legislating for victim's rights. This is where the public's "right to know" becomes "wants to know." The victims are not an active or potential threat to public safety, and have a right to be left alone.

The problem with Sandy Hook is that it doesn't fall into the above category, and the lack of hard facts about Adam Lanza and the crime itself has created a vacuum of information, opening all kinds of doors... including suspicions about the victims and their families. Since the accused is dead, there will be no trial, so there is no need to protect his right to a fair and public trial. Which then begs the question: Who is being protected by hiding the evidence? No matter how noble the intentions (or not), it is this very vacuum of information that allows rampant speculation and conspiracy theories.

"In the hypothetical I proposed, I fully explained the reasons for all my actions. You have yet to address them with anything but self-righteousness."

You presented a legal hypothetical based on the opinion of one person; I responded by citing the law and the Constitution. Who is self-righteous???

"I have made it clear you will learn all the facts at the trial. Remember, in this hypothetical, you do not even know whether the alleged shooter is dead or in custody! For all you know, he is still at large. Why don't you ask me whether he is in custody or at large? There is a public interest in knowing that!"

So... wait... why do you want me to ask questions when you've said you won't answer questions? Why would you tell me I'll learn everything at trial if you don't even have a perp? And if the perp is dead, then why are you saying I'll learn everything at trial? Are you holding a trial for a dead person? See what happens when "you" play fast and loose with the truth? Just imagine how many conspiracy theories could be fabricated from just that -- especially when the truth is being deliberately hidden!

"There is no assurance that what the press publishes is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Haha! Agreed -- whole-heartedly! How does hiding the truth help? That only serves to ensure that the press cannot report the truth. If we deny the public access to the truth, therefore denying the press access to the truth, then we are denying ourselves the truth... Actually, it's the government refusing the public access to the truth, therefore refusing the press access to the truth, so it's the government refusing to give us the truth.

On the other hand, make all official reports and documents public, and the press cannot get away with publishing lies, and the truth will be known by all. Hiding the truth protects the guilty and victimizes everyone.

"The implication of your interpretation is that any reporter can use any means to obtain personal information about a person and publish it."

Stating that our 1st Amendment freedom of the press is the means by which the public is kept informed hardly constitutes any interpretation of what can or should be obtained and reported, much less personal and private information about individuals. Generally speaking, we do have an un-enumerated "right to privacy" unless and until we become a threat to the public. But as history attests, finding the proper balance between personal privacy and the public's "right to know" has been and will continue to be a constant battle.

"But the Constitution was drafted precisely to avoid the "tyranny of the majority." Just because everyone in town thinks someone is a witch does not mean she should be tried as one."

Thank you! Yes! We do not have a democracy -- mob rule -- but a Constitutional Republic, guaranteeing basic inherent and civil rights for all, including due process. But another balancing act, finding the proper balance between protecting the rights of the accused and protecting the safety of the public. Hence the need for open and transparent government. Only by public scrutiny of the evidence can we be sure that the accused is not falsely charged and convicted in a kangaroo court, thereby protecting our same rights.

"This thread is not about any specific mass murder, but rather an attempt to explore why people can become obsessive about them."

I understand that. I hope you understand the difference between an ongoing case pending trial like Aurora and a case like Sandy Hook, and why the secrecy surrounding Sandy Hook would raise huge red flags for anyone who understands legal procedure, and especially those who distrust government in general and/or certain arrogant politicians who would hide the truth for their own self-righteous reasons.

DJW001

Daughter2

DJW001
There. Try to convince me that your "need to know" outweighs what I firmly believe to be in the best public interest

Any damage a private individual can do by given access to government acts is much less than the harm a government official can do if they are allowed to keep information secret.

So if the plans for D-Day were not kept secret, no-one would have informed the Germans so they could prepare their defenses? And the loss of Allied lives there would be worth it?

There is a major difference between information being withheld on the basis of national security/protection of troops in active military operations and the findings of an investigation about a mass murderer. You're comparing apples and oranges.

We live within the society who may have played a role in the formation of these individuals. In that sense, it is our "right to know" so that we can avoid those same pitfalls or even perhaps prevent another such event from taking place. Yes, these people are truly insane and their actions are downright criminal; however, there are many individuals who may have one or more traits that do not engage in the kinds of reprehensible activities that mass murderers do.

Ted Kaczynski was a mass murderer. Some of his factors were 1. high intelligence, 2. began college at 16 years of age, 3. isolation, and 4. participated in psychological experimentation on campus.

Now what about Adam Lanza? Curiously enough, initial reports about Lanza was that he was very intelligent and yet, the attorney general's report highlighted that one of the results of an IQ test given to Lanza came back with "average" results. That's interesting for a boy who was accepted to college at age 16. In fact, that wide eyed photo so often used to portray Lanza is, in fact, his college ID photo.

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris of Columbine? Above superior IQ's. Klebold was in a specialized education program called CHIPS and Harris was in yet another specialized program.

Kip Kinkel? Above superior IQ. Kinkel was in a gifted program as a child and became intensely isolated and "dark" according to his mother in middle school.

Luke Woodham? Above superior IQ. Woodham, as well, was in a gifted program in school.

Michael Hernandez stabbed a friend of his to death in the bathroom. He was in a gifted program as well.

TJ Solomon wounded 6 students in his shooting and was in a gifted program in school.

Michael Carneal, Barry Loukaitis, Anthony Barbaros, Charles Andrew Williams, Scott Pennington, Jacob Davis, Nathan Ferris, Andrew Wurst, James Holmes, John Shick--all above superior IQs. That was from a random sample that I took of prior shooters after James Holmes shot up the theater. The Secret Service stated that there was no profile that could possibly be made, including on the basis of intelligence, when they became involved in the 90's.

They lied and the public does have a right to know. If you do not believe me that I am correct in my assessment, then please take a moment to consider this:

Page 4, titled "Scary Smart": txgifted.org...

This session looks at the background of the shooters in America's school shootings. All have been called,
"Smart but troubled."

It's available for purview to the public but who would think to look for it? Why don't they discuss this issue publicly or within the media? Could it be due to the fact that it is the highly intelligent from which they draw their employment pools for NASA, DARPA, and the intelligence agencies such as the NSA?

Doesn't the public have the right to know this?

reply to post by WhiteAlice

It's available for purview to the public but who would think to look for it? Why don't they discuss this issue publicly or within the media? Could it be due to the fact that it is the highly intelligent from which they draw their employment pools for NASA, DARPA, and the intelligence agencies such as the NSA?

Intelligent people already face enough hatred and prejudice; just look at a typical thread here on ATS. Why provide more fuel for the flames?

Doesn't the public have the right to know this?

You knew this and I knew this therefore the public knew this whether it is in their best interests or not. "Rights" have nothing to do with it. Intelligent people have a "right" not to be treated with suspicion just because they're "smart."

reply to post by DJW001


Just because you and I both knew this doesn't mean the public does not have a right to know. The question that I have in regards to this is whether or not it is simply a possibility emanating from intelligence alone or if it is because many, if not all, of these individuals were involved in what is mandated by Congress and law to be essentially an experimental program operated by psychologists and psychiatrists. What is one of those professional jokes that society likes to repeat? Kid is screwed up? His parents were psychologists...

The irony is that never once did this fact arise publicly in the spate of shootings in the 90's although there was discussion of the "rage" in a scholarly paper in 2000. If there is an off chance that the programs itself, which can sometimes be extraordinarily competitive (one of Klebold's classmates described CHIPS as being a shark tank) and whose basic framework is positive disintegration (controlled self implosion), have played some role in the formation of these killers, then doesn't a parent have a right to know that a very serious problem may exist in a program that they may be about to allow their child into? Instead of hiding in the shadows and hoping to God that no one notices, we should be demanding proper oversight take place and a thorough examination of methodologies within them nationwide to assure that it's not harming our most talented youth. Those that govern the programs had to have known this in the 90's as Harris' journals included a very serious rant against the public education system here in the US. Did they fix it? Considering Lanza, apparently they did not.

It is inherently within the public's interest when it entails a risk to them either as a student, a movie goer, or a parent. It is inherently within the public's interest because it involves a program that is not overseen by the Department of Education. Outside of national mandates that the programs exist, there is no overt federal oversight. We do not have any special rights simply because we're smart. To say that we have a right to not be considered with suspicion puts Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks, Japanese, and other minority groups that have come under suspicion within the US in the past and present somehow beneath us. If they didn't get afforded special rights to protect them, then why should we?

But no worries. Your hide is protected as is mine. Not a single soul can know who was in these programs as the records for all of the students passing through them were destroyed 5 years after cessation of services to the student and outside of forums, I haven't seen very many outright state they were in the programs at introduction or otherwise because yeah, we learned to be quiet about that one. However, to sit there and demand additional rights in lieu of others' safety--where did your heart for the victims of these young men go?

reply to post by WhiteAlice


If such mind control programs exist, not only does the public have a right to know that they exist, but the government has a moral obligation to end them. Outside of a few experiments on military personnel during the Cold War, there is no evidence that such programs exist.

However, to sit there and demand additional rights in lieu of others' safety--where did your heart for the victims of these young men go?

There is no evidence that can be uncovered by closely examining a crime scene that can prove the existence of alleged mind control programs. People tend to already believe that they exist, then point to the murders as being self-evidently due to them. Consequently, it would be much better for the victims if their privacy were shielded from people attempting to exploit the tragedy for their own agendas, whether that is "proving" that the government is the real culprit or "proving" that strict gun control laws are the only way to prevent such tragedies.

reply to post by DJW001


Now you're equating what I'm talking about to a "mind control" program. How cute. I never said that. Quite the strawman that you're trying to create there though. All I'm talking about is the very much real specialized education program which was mandated by the NDEA of 1958 and the Javits Act, which has zero actual federal oversight through the Department of Education and is mandated by these acts to be operated by psychologists. These boys weren't mind controlled--they were broken. Now, I have some guesses as to why/how they broke but none of it has to do with mind control...

P.S. try reading Harris' journal sometime. He wasn't mind controlled. That's what he thought everybody else was really.