Again We Ask, "Is there a school shooter the FBI hasn't interviewed prior to the attack?"

We first posed the question after (yet another) recent school shooting.

Today, we read this:

In September, a YouTube user named Nikolas Cruz left a comment on a video stating: "I'm going to be a professional school shooter." The video's creator alerted both the FBI and YouTube.

It is queer, isn't it?  That the FBI has had contact with numerous mass murderers before they carried out their heinous attacks?

Curious, isn't it, that the victims of the all-too-frequent school-shooting events, being minors, cannot have any information disclosed publicly about them, so that we must take only the "official" account of events?

Just trying to connect the dots, kids.

[Update 2/16/2017] The FBI has claimed that it failed to follow up on not one but two tips about the child-mass-murderer's "disturbing" behavior -- ie his declaration of his intent to be a "school shooter". On its face, this is an admission of complete incompetence and utter mission failure. Coming as it does while the FBI is embroiled in a host of the most egregious of scandals involving its questionable behavior during the 2016 election and subsequent presidential transition, at a time when its handling of the Las Vegas and other recent mass murders has left ordinary Americans scratching their heads, is it any wonder the internet is abuzz with the sound of people rethinking the stories surrounding the agency's involvement in things like the Cliven Bundy debacle, the Waco massacre, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma bombing and even the 9-11 attacks?

In this context, why wouldn't the claim by the FBI of a procedural failure by some functionary somewhere, resulting in the mass murder of 17 at a high school in Florida, awaken the inner sceptic, for that is the version of things that makes it look best under the circumstances? Maybe, perhaps, that version could be likely in some other context, or if this mass-murderer were the only would-be mass murderer that the FBI was aware of before he was an actual mass-murderer. But the FBI has its own "disturbing behavior" to account for, and until it has done so satisfactorily, it has forfeited claim on the benefit of any doubts it creates about itself. In this context, the FBI is looking at best like a serial incompetent, and at worst, like something more horrendous and difficult to imagine: an enabler, perhaps an instigator, of serial bad actors.

Along with its very public admission of this most unforgivable episode of incompetence, the FBI has made a public show of falling on its sword, with copious apologies getting due rotation in the compliant media. But here's a question: What's more damning to the FBI, that it "failed to pass the tips to the Miami field office" or that it did not fail to do so? That this were a case of mere bureaucratic incompetence, or one of willful neglect (or worse - surreptitious incitement; Do your homework - there are examples in the public record)? Another question: What do bureaucrats do more effectively than cover for one another, obfuscate the truth and hold press conferences to propagate their obfuscations?

Since it is a fact that the version of a story that makes a recidivist-bad-actor look best is the one least likely to be true, we can't be faulted for supposing for a moment the possibility that the FBI's claim is a cover story. What would that leave us with? Why, more questions, of course: Was this mass-murder a consequence of bureaucratic incompetence or of willful negligence? Or did the FBI contact the "disturbed" young man prior to his attack? What was the exact nature of such prior contact, and the prior contact with other mass murderers referenced in the previous post?

Ask yourself, "what are the odds?"

[Update 2/20/2018] Are you following the story, kids? Did you see the student admit, when asked by the CNN newsbabe on national television why he thought the noises he heard were gunshots, that "we were told the police would be shooting blanks to scare us"?!

Did you know that Parkland, FL is in Broward County, which went 66% for HRC in 2016 but, more significantly, was dead center in the middle of the desparate effort by Democrats to overturn the 2000 presidential election, making it something of an epicenter for leftist efforts to subvert US laws?

We illustrate:

Source.

Does this whole thing stink badly enough yet to demand to see autopsies?

[Update 2/23/2018] Armed Deputy present on site at time of attack "takes up position" and STANDS DOWN!? Intentionally!? That means he LET THE ATTACK HAPPEN. Can someone say "WTF"?!

But it's OK, because he resigned. End of story? Don't you believe it. Who told him to stand down? What kind of police offer does that?

[Update 2/24/2018]

A Broward County Deputy, that's what kind. Because...

• "standing down" in the face of young criminal adults is the policy in Broward, agreed upon between the County School Board and the Sheriff, for the purpose of maximizing the School Board's federal grant money. And this policy, it will come as no surprise, was praised by President Obama.
• According to the NY Post, not one but four armed deputies hid at the high school during the mass-murder.

If this is true, then the authorities are guilty not merely of negligence, kids. They're guilty of abetting. One would think that any parent worthy of the title would be steamrolling City Hall by now.

• Teachers told to expect a "Code Red Drill" that day.

So which was it? A drill, a mass murder, or both? Surely truth is stranger than fiction. So unreasonable, so unbelievable are the facts that continue to emerge about this event that it makes believing the moon landing was faked seem reasonable.

• It is now revealed that the Broward County Sheriff, pictured above with Hillary Clinton, is an enthusiastic enabler of the radical Islamist infiltration front organization known as "CAIR". So much so, in fact, that he has made one of its leaders a Broward County deputy. "Deputy Hamas" goes to mosques teaching the faithful how to -- are you ready for this? -- how to use guns.

Things are as strange as ever, but now they're starting to make sense. The Muslim Brotherhood, having been evicted from the White House, has gone "grassroots." That would make the shooting in Parkland, Fl seem as though it were a domestic act of terror enabled, if not aided and abetted, by some combination of FBI, Broward County Sheriff, Broward County School Board, CNN, et al.

Who knows how high up the chain of command the guilt flows?

[Update 4/7/2018]

Finally, something about this fiasco makes sense.

• Florida Obituaries show no Parkland school shooting deaths.

"These people are sick."

innocent, until.

A reprise of this post follows:

The New York Post, presumably egged on by the major slander wire services, continues its daily article containing details of Dr. Bruce Ivins' Internet records, emails, myspace and other social networking site posts -- at least, posts that have user names that resemble his, and so they must be his, right?

This pursuit of theirs raises questions about the veracity of the "documents" they cite, to be sure. And if they indeed originated with Dr.Ivins, where on earth are they getting them? Who has an exhaustive inventory of all Dr. Ivins' online activity, requiring access to private, password-protected user accounts?

Who sought and obtained the required access? Who granted it? What are the implications for any Internet user? And, is an Internet citation that is made by a user name that can be imagined to be somehow linked to someone really conclusive evidence of anything?

Conclusive evidence. Indeed, that's the rub. Dr. Ivins' every utterance has been aired publicly in the context of "mad scientist" for over a week now. Has it proven anything?

It has. It's proven that there is apparently not enough information to convict the man of anything in a just court. Not yet, at least. So who's behind the relentless smear campaign? We already know that tabloids like the New York Post are enabling it, but who initiated it, and who continues to feed it, and why?

It only takes a few hit pieces to obtain a conviction in the court of public opinion. And yet, it seems, judging from blog and website comments, that all the jury is sure of in Dr. Ivins' case is that his apparently weird behavior seems to stem from the effects of being a fragile person in a pressure cooker of suspicion. Weird, perhaps, but not quite malicious. He yapped a lot, so it would appear, but an Internet post isn't exactly a smoking gun.

If Dr. Ivins turns out to be guilty, let it be proven. His lawyer doesn't think so, and nobody ever accused a lawyer of being naive. His surviving co-workers don't believe he is, and they understood completely the sort of pressure he was under. His family seemed oblivious to it, if he was, and that seems to be very unlikely.

On the other hand, the FBI has a track record of pursuing the wrong person, even to the point of having to pay millions of dollars for damages they wrought in his life. As to the notion of an agency of government making malicious use of the media, we have the recent example of the disgraced former governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer, who had quid-pro-quo relationships with the news media which he used as a weapon to harass those he decided to make "suspects." It wouldn't be a terrific stretch to imagine that the FBI, presumably at least as long on power and short on accountability as Governor Spitzer was, might employ the same despicable tactics.

In fact, the evidence suggesting that is less circumstantial than the littany of innuendos offered up by the news media to suggest Dr. Ivins' guilt as a postal-anthrax-mad-scientist-murderer. If the government really has a case against him, why continue to feed the media suggestive gossip?

A state of mind, however unstable, is not a crime. A crime is a provable criminal act. The man is innocent until proven guilty, despite the childish tale-bearing of the New York Post and its peers in the slander trade. And if he is innocent, the act of harassing a man until his state of mind grew unstable, and then using that as evidence against him, will not likely be subject to justice in this life. But in the next, it might be.

FBI "Had Interviewed" New Mexico School Shooter

How many notorious mass shooters over the last 3 years or so hasn't the FBI "interviewed" prior to their killing sprees?

Are they recruiting?

Edit 12/12/17: (Here's a case we didn't include because we just learned of it today,  nearly a week after first publishing this post).

suicide by cop. conviction by tabloid (posthumously).

If this piece had a soundtrack, it would be "Pressure."

By now you've heard the "news." Dr. Bruce Ivins was the Feds' main suspect in the Anthrax-by-mail murders following 9-11.

Consider the damning evidence, as enumerated in a recent NY Post article:

He was an Anthrax expert.
He was "nerdy."
A shrink said he was "homicidal" (he actually had thoughts of killing someone).
He played the organ in Church.
He was pro-life.
He was against euthanasia.
His brother hadn't spoken to him in over twenty years.

And the Baltimore Sun alleges that he stood to gain "tens of thousands" of dollars from an Anthrax scare, as if that's a compelling reason to go on a killing spree.

Clearly the FBI need look no further. And the clincher, is, of course, that the prime suspect is dead, having killed himself. If that isn't proof enough of is his guilt, what is?

Unfortunately, you have to wait for the very end of the article before finding any balance, like this:

"The relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo takes its toll in different ways," said Kemp, Ivins' attorney. "In Dr. Ivins' case, it led to his untimely death."

Or this:

A co-worker, Dr. W. Russell Byrne, added, "I think he was just psychologically exhausted by the whole process . . . If he was about to be charged, no one who knew him well was aware of that, and I don't believe it."

Good job, Feds. After failing to produce a case against Steven Hatfill, and having to pay him $5.8 million for slandering him, you harass a man to the point of suicide and launch a PR campaign to convict him in the court of public opinion. Symptoms of a very flimsy case, indeed.

But, we should all feel safer, as the case is neatly closed.

Dr. Bruce Ivins.

Or not. We just don't buy the "nerd next door is a freak" angle. We can't see how this man had time to orchestrate, execute, and cover up a mail-order serial killing. We don't think this prosecution-by-innuendo answers the questions raised by the post 9-11 "suicides" of several other bio-weapons researchers, now forgotten by the media.

To be relentlessly harassed by heavy-handed gun- and subpoena-toting Storm Troopers might indeed prove to be too much for a gentle soul.

The known, verifiable facts are that Dr. Ivins is something of a scientific prodigy whose pastimes spoke of doing service for the benefit of good: he served his country by his work (36 years an expert in his field), his community through Church and the American Red Cross, the cause of life by his convictions. Those are the facts. Innuendo, suspicion and systematic character defamation cannot outweigh them.

Somebody at the FBI probably won't lose his job if they can pin this on someone. But Dr. Bruce Ivins got crushed, and his reputation, and the dignity of his surviving wife and twins, publicly demolished.

Editorial here.

[edit] August 3, 2008 5:40 pm:

To be sure they aren't outdone in trash journalism, the New York Post picks up on the Baltimore Sun theme above and raises the level of character defamation a few notches, quoting Tom Ivins referring to his tragically deceased brother as a "wussy." This is the same gentleman who stated that the accomplished Dr. Ivins "thought he was God." Perhaps the real story is a case of malicious sibling rivalry.

Also, the Post couldn't resist the "...and he bought a handgun!" angle, complete with pictures.

So, there you have it: nerdy scientist who was pro life, owned a handgun, had thought about killing someone (and was innocent enough to admit it), has a paranoid social worker, has comments added to his social worker's file in pen (as in, ex post facto, perhaps), had a jealous brother, and stood to make "tens of thousands of dollars" by carrying off an evil letter-writing campaign, somehow managing to keep it all hidden from his wife and two children for 7 years.

Case closed?

Hardly. The WaPo runs this: Ivins could not have been attacker, some say.

Achievements of Modern American Democrats, Part 1

Recently released FBI documents show that Al Sharpton became an informant and was used to sting the mob. But in this interview, the Reverend Sharpton says it was not so "in my mind."

This is progress! Fifteen years ago Bill Clinton winked at the American people and invited them to believe that the word "is" might mean anything one wants it to mean.

Building on that achievement, Al Sharpton publicly shucks, jives, and negates objective reality. Only he doesn't merely invite us to believe it; he invokes the alleged contents of his mind as a matter of fact.

It's the idea of "standing on the shoulders of giants" turned upside-down; a monumental achievement that would have every sane, honest person from Plato to George Washington spinning in his grave.  And it was accomplished by Modern American Democrats!

Who's Calling the Tune?

Bust a white hick in Minnesota with "ties to a militia" and the first press release declares that a terrorist plot has been foiled.  (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/06/fbi-arrests-minnesota-man-believed-to-be-plotting-terror-attack/ )

Scrape body parts off the streets of Boston and then spend a day and a half chasing down two armed Muslim teenage bombers and everyone from the president on down remonstrates us against a "rush to judgment".

Obama appealed for Americans to avoid a rush to judgment, saying people should stay true to the "unity and diversity that makes us strong."(http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/20/us-usa-bombings-boston-obama-idUSBRE93J05I20130420 )

Unless, of course, you're a white American male.