From: Adam 

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:44:39 +0100, Adam wrote:
>> I would have thought that covering up a crime was to be an accomplice to it.
>>
> Covering it up is of course.  That is usually an active process.  Much
> tougher to prove if it is passive.  Not so clear cut.  Clearly the closer
> you were to the crime that more likely what you have done is illegal.  But
> I haven't seen enough evidence yet to tell me that those that he is
> talking about took active actions to cover up the crime.
>
> George

I was saying a while back that forensics nowadays are sufficiently precise
to make the above somewhat difficult to justify on passive grounds. e.g.
IED/bomb explosion vs bullet is usually a fairly quick finding for a
forensics person.

  As an example the offer to pay the families of the victims was unusual
& so much of the evidence was sufficiently strong that to ignore it was
a positive act not a mere passive one.

By the sound of it Time got the footage & sent it to the mil people
& then went public when this was "ignored". In fact not just
ignored but positively rubbished/dismissed. "I can't believe you are
buying any of this" etc.etc..

E.g.....the death certificates are all issued with the cause of death being
"gunshot" & yet......the official story held that they'd died
"from the blast of a roadside bomb".

That's not passive, that's willful. For 6 months that was the official
line. Despite all the death certificates stating death by gunfire.

wrt the money for the families of the victims, it came fast & in full
i.e. the maximum the US was offering. It came after the postmortems &
the death certificates as those were required as part of the procedure for
paying the money.

So was the money tied to "death by gunfire" or "death by
explosion"?

As usual with recent American actions you are left pondering willful deceit
or simply staggering incompetence. In this case though one feels that the
brass monkey approach was definitely a positive choice.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5