Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 9/6/2002 11:00:46 AM EDT
It sure seems that Mr. Hatfill is bearing the brunt of a DOJ fvck-up. The man's life is in a shambles from casual remarks from Ashcroft, but it doesn't look like he is a serious suspect, nor has the government presented any evidence to support their "remarks". He also does not strike me as the type to mail anthrax. What do you guys think?
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 11:05:57 AM EDT
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 11:10:10 AM EDT
Don't know what the DOJ does or doesn't have on him, but he sure doesn't match what I had pictured the anthrax mailer to look like. I'm picturing more of a Unibomber dude.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 11:16:12 AM EDT
this guy looks like he will be the Richard Jewell of the 2000s, btw how did his lawsuit turn out, didn't he sue for defamation?
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 11:18:36 AM EDT
Either they didn't learn a thing from Richard Jewel or it's a case of you did it, we know you did it but we can't get enough evidence to guarantee a conviction. I'm thinking it's another case of Richard Jewel.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 11:19:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
View Quote
The widely publicized comments made by Ashcroft would make finding a fair and impartial jury nearly impossible. I swear, this country is going to Hell in a handbasket, and the Republicans are doing their best to help it along. Ashcroft is an blowhard jackass. He is responsible for one of the worst Constitutional violations in history, the Patriot Act. He needs to cover his own ineptitude by claiming the DOJ doesn't have enough power. What a POS. Lesser of two evils my eye.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 11:27:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
View Quote
I believe that these days it's guilty until proven innocent....
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 7:30:27 PM EDT
That's a tough one. His past is pretty schetchy, but show me someone who has TRULY lived that hasn't stumbled into some weird shit. I think even if he is guilty, which I have my doubts, that he has absolutely NO chance for a fair or impartial jury. What disturbs me the most is the fact that the DOJ leaked (flooded???) the information in the first place. We are supposed to have due process in this country, and having your ass pasted all over the 6 o'clock news is not exactly what I had in mind. "Welcome To Idaho The Standoff State" [x]
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 8:01:00 PM EDT
It would be very easy to make a case against just about anyone on this board. Look on your bookshelf, look in your gun cabinet, look at your past e-mails,look at what you've posted on this board and think about what you've said in casual conversations that may be regurgitated by your "friends" BP
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 8:21:16 PM EDT
Ok, I'll be dumb. Wasn't Ashcroft merely asked if the rumour that Hatfill was being investigated was true? And all Ashcroft said is that Hatfill is a person of interest? Which is true, and reasonable, given Hatfill's history? The "innocent until proven guilty" only counts in a courtroom. They can still investigate people can't they? Or must they stop as soon as the media finds out who is being investigated?
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 8:29:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2002 8:30:38 PM EDT by Fearandloathing37]
There's a faction inside the U.S. Goverment that is bent on coming up with a domestic source for the Anthrax Attacks, no matter what and is willing to do anything to prove it. I think the whole thing smells of cover up.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 8:37:20 PM EDT
Actually, I've allways believed (even back when everyone KNEW it was Al Queda) that the anthrax attacks were domestic... A) If Queda was doing it, the letters would have gone to Bush & other prominant Eepublicans, not your various and assorted Democrat senators. B) Also Anthraxed were the National Enquirer and a few post offices (probably due to leakage)... Not targets of terrorist significance... D) It wasn't dispersed to cause mass death & destruction, but rather to make the news and kill a few targeted Pols if possible. Anthrax in JFK or O'Hare, think Queda. Anthrax in a few minor Pols mailboxes and a supermarket tabloid office? Domestic whacko... Now all we need to find out is: Socialist Whacko or 'Right-Wing' Whacko? We won't know untill they catch the right one (if they do)!
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 10:00:37 PM EDT
I agree that John Ashcroft's irresponsible handling of this man and the FBI's irresponsible statements made to the press about him being 'of interest' have cause him irreparable harm. 'of interest' is about as ambiguous as you can possibly get... interest being a matter of context and subjectivity. I am interested in what possesses a person to hack up and eat another human being from a psychological perspective. But if I say, "I am interested in cannibalism", the masses would interpret that to mean me saying that "I would like to kill and eat a human being" rather than "I am interested in the underlying psychology of Jeffery Dahmer." That is why I say the government's handling of Hewitt and their official statements have been irresponsible, and probably will a) render the man unconvictable if he IS a true suspect; and/or, b) cost the taxpayers millions in remuneration to Hewitt in the inevitable lawsuit.
Top Top