The DC Sniper Should Start Shooting TV sets and newspaper vending boxes

The BBQ Pit
1

The media couldn’t wait to get it on the air and in ink: behind the middle school where the killer had lain in wait to murder a young child, he had apparently left a taunting clue - a Death Tarot card with a boast, addressed to police. In a case with no real clues, it was like chum for sharks. They screamed it on special reports, splashed it on headlines.

ASSHOLES! The police chief didn’t want that piece of news released! There has already been one phony confession - a disturbed man “turned himself in” to Arlington police, claiming to be the sniper; they were quickly able to discredit his confession because they, as is prudent, knew details of the crime that were not known to the public.

This piece of evidence obviously fits into this category. Perhaps they should at least have the brains to check with police, and run what the police want you to run.

Of course, asshole Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher doesn’t agree. He’s probably in a cast today from the strain he put on his arm patting himself and his media brethern on the back. According to him, the Montgomery County police chief is wrong for being upset with the media:

News for you, Marc: you are not a police officer. You are paid - bewilderingly, I admit - to write newspaper columns. You are not paid to solve murder cases. You don’t know how to solve murder cases. The police are in a far better position than you to determine if the public is better served by release of this news and a hope it will spark someone’s memory, or by withholding details of the crimes, allowing them to invesitgate certain subjects without spooking the targets, friends or the targets, and the like, and allowing them to quickly weed out the inevitable run of phony confessions and false leads that high-profile cases generate.

No better is Bob Long, the News 4 news director:

[quote]
[Chief Moose] wants us when he wants us and doesn’t want us when he doesn’t want us. When he has information he thinks the public should have, he’ll spoon-feed it to us. I think we do have a role to play. There’s no reason we can’t work together.

Uh… yeah. You do have a role to play. But it’s not an equal, peer role. You’re damn right he wants you when he wants you and he doesn’t want you when he doesn’t want you. Release what he tells you to release, and sit on what he doesn’t. When the guy is caught, have yourself an orgiastic media frenzy with all the information. Oh - you don’t want that, because that means your competitors might have it by that time, too?

Tough shit. Eat the defeat for the “public service” that you’re so fond of providing. Funny how rendering public service also helps your ratings, eh? Funny how you’re all in favor of a “public service” when it’s to your benefit.

You two, and your colleagues that share these views, make me sick. Just fucking sick.

  • Rick
2

From Rick’s second link:

“Dave Roberts, WUSA’s news director, would not respond to Moose’s criticism of the story by veteran crime reporter Mike Buchanan. But he said Channel 9 “stands behind our report. The information was obtained from several credible sources actively involved in the ongoing investigation. We made contact with the appropriate police authorities, and a request to withhold the information was never made by the authorities.””

Of course, Davey boy doesn’t point out that the media rarely give police the chance to request that a peice of evidence be kept quiet, because the reporters slither around talking to buddies on the police force and forwarding the information they get immediately to the people in the news room, which ship it to the anchors on TV before it is checked.

I don’t beleive for an instant they called the media liason officer for the police or anyone esle and said “Do you think we should run this information? We just wanted to check.”

The scrabbling for evidential and story scoops before the competition can get them is why we can expect during any newsworthy event to hear a Howard Stern fan say something like “They were running away from Bababooie’s teeth.” on national TV while the anchor blithers like an idiot and tries to not look any more stupid than usual.

Way to go Chief Moose!

3

I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t want to know of potential “calling card” clues or messages by which the killer may be trying to make a connection with the police. Why would I? Just to be “in the know?”

Sure, release the information that can add to my safety, but how foes the presence of a Tarot card make me safer, or get my wife out of the house (she’s scared to leave)?

I know the police want and need help from the public, and certain information can help spark a memory; but the Police/FBI/ATF/etc. should be the ones to make that decision, not the froggin’ Press. They can attempt to hide behind “public service” but we all know it is the “scoop” aspect that drives them. They couldn’t wait to tell about the Tarot card!

I can only hope that law enforcement has some information they are withholding so that a copycat or glory hound can be more easily dismissed.

Besides, the more the police allow the killer to believe there is some sort of special connection, the better the chance that the killer’s ego will be what trips him up.

4

The information about the tarot card was released BY the police to the press. The chief might not have wanted it released, but from what I’ve heard the police department was asked by the Post if the authorities were going to issue a formal request that it not be released, and the police declined to do so.

Also, this information might actually be helpful (and remember, there’s been precious information actually released by the police, who are relying on witnesses calling in). If people know that a tarot card has been used, perhaps they’ll remember there’s a person they know who’s obsessed with them. Heck, it could trigger any number of memories for information.

I realize that the police have a very tough job to do, with few leads and a lot of pressure. I realize that the chief believes that if too much information is out there, the investigation could be hindered. And since he’s under a lot of pressure - pressure he’s not used to - he might be even less likely to surrender info.

Personally, I think that because the police are under such a microscope with this case in particular, the chief is a little more on edge than he might normally be, and he’s overreacting to the release of this information.

Funny thing is, they’ve received thousands and thousands of calls with reliable tips, but nothing’s been released as to how productive those tips have been. Might be that they have a detailed profile of the sniper but don’t want to release that info - which I can certainly agree with. I don’t think the release of the info about the tarot card is damaging, however.

5

dantheman, I agree it’s possible the information may be helpful. But it also may be hurtful. I’m not in a position to reliably judge which is more likely, and neither are you. More importantly, neither are the press. The police are.

Now, of course, the press got this information “from the police.” But there is a world of difference between getting it from the 20-year-old police cadet that found the thing, and from the official, police-approved source of information.

The question from the Post puts the police between a rock and a hard place. As I read between the lines, the Post didn’t ask if they should run it. They asked if the police were making an official request that they not run it, with no guarantees of complying with the request. It would be entirely possible for the Post to run it anyway, along with a quote from the police that suggested police were trying to cover up the clue, or that the polcie were infringing their First Amendment rights by attempting to quash the story with their “official request.”

I don’t mean to sound offensive here, but your opinion about how damaging the news release was doesn’t mean squat to me. The police are in charge of catching killers, not you. You would, frankly, have no idea how to do the job. Nor do I, of course. Nor does the news staff at Channel 9 or the editorial staff at the Washington Post. But the police do. Give them the deference necessary to do their job, and don’t complicate it by releasing information they don’t want released.

And don’t second guess them with ill-informed opinions about how important the news actually is, mmm-kay?

  • Rick
6

Actually, since you don’t have the slightest idea what my job is, please don’t presume to know how well I might do the job of catching killers, even though that’s certainly not my aim with these posts. My apologies if you really felt otherwise.

The press was handed this information. They did not find it themselves. They have every right in the world to run it. If the police do not want them to run it, then all they need to do is ask that it not be run. Did the police actually think that after they supplied the press with the information the press would not use it?

I think you’re impugning the entire press, too, which seems a little short sighted. According to the Post, several sources close to the investigation had no problem with the information being released. If any of them did not wish the information to be released and did not state so to the press, then that’s their fault. If any of them harbored doubts that the information should be released, then they should have asked their superiors.

Who was the “20-year-old cadet”? I think that’s an unfair assumption; why couldn’t it have been a seasoned veteran?

Actually, shame on me for responding to this in the Pit. You’ve obviously already made up your mind and have no intention of discussing it rationally.

7

Rick:

I agree with you in principle, but we need to take into account that Moose seems to be a complete idiot in the way he’s running this thing. He holds like 6 news conferences a day, in which he doesn’t say anything.

More importantly, where did the news come from? Moose needs to exhibit leadership within his own department, and make the press an ally. That’s his job.

It seems he’s doing neither. There’s confusion within his own department, and he’s attacking the press.

With an important piece of information like this, he should have made it very clear, both to his officers and the press that he did not want it leaked.

What actually seems to be happening is poor control and communication.

8

dantheman, if you wish to claim a particular expertise in order to bolster the credibility of your claim, then by all means do so. You cannot, however, point out that because I don’t know your profession, your profession therefore may involve running complex murder investigations, and therefore your opinion about the damage this news release did is as credible as the Montgomery County police chief.

Sorry. It doesn’t work that way. If you want to claim that you know as much or more, then present some evidence of this. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The odds are vastly on the side of your profession not adding anything of value to this debate.

I have a background in the criminal justice system, and I don’t think it qualifies me to know how to run a murder investigation.

My criticism goes first to the organs of the press that reported this story without getting permission from official police sources. If, in my anger, my words seemed to target the entire Fourth Estate, I withdraw that portion of my criticism.

However, it’s of no moment that “several sources close to the investigation” had no problem with the information being released. This is a mult-jurisdictional task force, with federal agencies, Maryland’s Montgomery County, Prince Georges County, and State Police, DC’s Metropolitan Police, Virginia’s Spotsylvania and Prince William County police, all with participation in the event. Given the number of police involved, it doesn’t surprise me that one or two may have chosen to leak this to the media, for some inducement, even if only promise of future consideration. We don’t know how senior these sources were, but we do know one thing: as “close” as they may be to the investigation, they are not in charge of it.

A long time ago, on a client’s behalf, I was able to get the criminal charges against him dismissed by playing on the dispute between officers in the department which had arrested him at a roadblock, and raising questions as to what guidelines were followed for the roadblock. Internicine squabbling within a single department is common; between departments, practically guaranteed. But there is still a LEAD AUTHORITY on the investigation, and it is that authority’s wishes that should be followed regarding the direction and tactics of the investigation.

Your attempt to substitute your judgement for Chief Moose’s as as ill-placed as WUSA and The Washington Post’s.

  • Rick
9

One article I read about the card claimed that a message–besides the “I am God” one–accompanied it, asking that the card/memo not be released to the media. Police were then a bit upset about the coverage, because it lowered the chances that the killer would choose to communicate with the police again. Did anyone else read/hear this?

10

belladonna: yes, I had read that as well, on on of the major news sites’ web stories.

By itself, that doesn’t make the decision to release it automatically wrong. I can easily imagine a plan in which they decide that ignoring the killer’s desire will produce a better result than following it.

But the key is that someone’s got to be in charge, and decide on a strategy and follow it. If the official plan is to ignore the killer’s request – fine. But what frosts me is the willingness of some news organizations - and some apologists - to go with their own pet theories of how the investigation should be run, rather than defer to the folks in charge.

  • Rick
11

Yes, belladonna, it was a front page story in today’s Washington Post:

Officals Angry at Media Leak of Sniper Note

The Post reports that, according to Moose and other investigators, “such disclosures threatened to impede one of the biggest criminal manhunts in the region’s history.”

How anyone can construe that the police (as opposed to “a policeman”) had condoned the release of the information is beyond me.

12

Huh? Of course I can say that my profession may involve murder investigations. The problem isn’t that I have that expertise, it’s that you don’t know I don’t. See the distinction? Now, you’re certainly correct about the second part - but I am not saying I am as credible as any of the police, let alone the chief.

I’ve seen the story reported both ways - that the press did get permission (or, to be technical, that they weren’t asked not to do it when they did ask). I honestly don’t know for sure that they got permission from whomever they asked, but of course neither do you. It just seems unwise to assume they had no such permission.

We don’t know that, either. There’s no one person in charge of the whole shebang, as you’ve just noted. Each chief of police is running the end in his own jurisdiction, and from what I gather the FBI is helping, but is not “in charge.” This isn’t necessarily good, as it can lead to disorganization and potential problems with information that’s not shared from one force to another.

Now, you brought up the idea of the information being leaked to the press, and I definitely concur - it’s not as if the chief, based on his behavior now, really wanted the press to have the info. But someone probably did okay it, leaking it. If the official policy was not to give the press that info unless explicitly permitted by the chief himself, then shame on the police for leaking it.

I understand that the chief in each jurisdiction is the lead authority, and I also believe the chief in PG County is trying his damnedest to keep control of the situation (considering all of the people offering “help”, that has to be difficult). But there’s no clear authority over the entire investigation, from MontCo to PG to DC to even the recent shooting in Manassas. Makes it tough for people to communicate, unfortunately.

13

This modern age of report first ask questions later makes much of televised news a hoary thing. I remeber another big event over a year ago where people were inundated with false news and scare reports that were reported without thought of ramifications or validity!

The only thought most (If not all) news have these days is to be first with the scoop to maintain the ratings.

It was irresponsible to report that evidence as it really does not serve any public service. What it does is give a chilling mad man sign that sells papers and gains viewers. Think about it it sounds like something out of a movie and so would make great press.

Had the clue been less sensational they probably would have either not reported it or waited for permission.

14

My view is that in a situation like this, the investigation is paramount, and ANYTHING that may hamper it should be considered off limits to the press. I think the press should take a little goddamn responsibility, and not report these sorts of items. This isn’t a scoop on Harrison Ford’s new girlfriend, or a report that a baseball player is gay, this is life and death.

If this report delays the capture of the sniper, it could very well result in a persons death. That makes this sort of stunt reprehensible. Who released the information anyway? Lemme guess, an “anonymous source”? I’m sure things get officially released by anonymous sources all the time…

15

And if the information is instrumental in the capture of the sniper, would you have the same opinion? I guess I’m just not seeing how this is definitely a horrible thing. If the information is helpful, that’s good, right? Do we see evidence that it definitely won’t be helpful?

Here’s an interesting thought from Howard Kurtz of the Post. Now, it is an opinion, so please take it for what you will:

16

dantheman, the example of the Unibomber is inapposite. In that case, authorities asked the media to run the manifesto. The officer in charge of the investigation made a determination that the publication was of value. If that were true here, obviously this thread never would have been started.

  • Rick
17

Point taken.

It still would be nice if there were one person running the whole show. Just seems that there are too many ways things can get screwed up when there are several cooks in the kitchen.

18

Well, I agree with that point. And I suppose I could have ranted about the confusion inherent in the police’s ad-hoc task force, when there is no clear absolute authority in place. But frankly, that’s part of the territory. The shooter, very inconsiderately, has ranged over two states, one federal district, and four counties within those two states. It’s an unfortunate given that there will be too many cooks in the kitchen.

On the other hand, the Post, and WUSA, had the choice of complying with the lead agencys’ top officials, and they chose not to do so. This is not a given - or, more realistically, I guess I’m saying it SHOULDN’T be a given. Why add to the inevitable mess by creating more?

I stand by my original assertion that the Post and WUSA were motivated more by their competitiveness than by the opportunity for public service, and by my denigration of them.

  • Rick
19

Yes, agreed. The press does not always act purely in the best interest of the public. Sometimes this is a gray area, and as always hindsight will be a lot clearer than our current perspective. After all, if the information actually turns out to help the police find the killer, then the decision could be hailed as a positive one; and if the information hinders the investigation noticeably, then the decision could be hailed as negative.

20

dantheman, I’m uncomfortable with that line of reasoning: that the ultimate results will determine the rightness of the action. We don’t permit police to search without a warrant and, if they find incriminating evidence, point out that it was obviously the right decision to search. The reasons for the action must be apparent and supportable ahead of time.

If this publication has either no effect or a positive effect, then they (and we) are lucky. But that luck shouldn’t be translated into an endorsement of the original, flawed, decision.

  • Rick