Law & Legal Definition: Person Of Interest V. Suspect

Image
Person of Interest

Unlike “suspect” and “material witness,” “person of interest” has no legal definition, but generally refers to someone law enforcement authorities would like to speak with or investigate further in connection with a crime. It may be used, rather than calling the person a suspect, when they don’t want their prime suspect to know they’re watching him closely. Critics complain that the term has become a method for law enforcement officers to draw attention to individuals without formally accusing them.

There is concern among critics that innocent people will be tainted by being labelled a person of interest.

The use of the term increased in popularity in 1996, after investigators and reporters named Atlanta security guard Richard Jewell as potentially responsible for the Olympic Park bombing. He was later cleared and won at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements due to his claim that his reputation was forever ruined.

Suspect

In criminal law, a suspect is someone who is under suspicion, often formally announced as being under investigation by law enforcement officials. Probable cause for an arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Once a person is determined to be a prime suspect (the person believed most likely to have committed the crime), the police must be careful to give the “Miranda warnings,” or or else any statements or admissions by the suspect may be excluded from evidence in trial. Once a suspect under arrest tell a law enforcement officer that he wants an attorney, all interrogation must cease, subject to certain exceptions.

Advertisements

REPOST: Secrecy, cover-ups, and crafted perceptions: False Flags – Introduction

aerial 911 collapse - NYPD lightened 1

Darwin saw what everyone saw, but thought what nobody thought. – Author unknown1

False flags revisedThis is the first part in Barrie Zwicker’s 12-part series on false flags. The next installment isMaximum Illusion Time.

Everyone has seen a False Flag Operation, but few have recognized one. The classic example is 9/11, seen by millions on TV but not recognized for what it really was – a treasonous inside job.

Unlike 9/11 and the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin “attack” (that never took place) and the 1933 torching of the Reichstag, the German parliament building, by Hitler (but which he blamed on “the communists”) not all False Flags are both large and brazen. In this series I will try to give some idea of the dizzying array of forms that False Flags take: false flag events, false flag pseudo-events, false flag front organizations and false flag operators. You can barely open a newspaper without seeing the telltale markings of a False Flag – if you know what these markings are.

What all False Flags have in common is that they are deceptions, a category of phenomena too ambitious for this series. But I will argue that historically, materially and politically the False Flag is the most important and damaging type of deception.

The word deception and the concept it describes are familiar because of the fact, again known by everybody, that deceptions abound.

Equally important, if you stop to think about it, is that there’s this well-established word,deception, that names the phenomenon. It has a well-grooved place in our neural pathways. The concept and its emotive and other nuances can be instantly retrieved when we encounter an obvious deception.

In contrast, the term False Flag is not yet widely known. No well-grooved neural pathway leads to a mental storage area.

Additionally, those familiar with the term offer similar but varying definitions of what it means. (The sizable definitional issues will be addressed later in this series.). Continue reading

REPOST: “Contractors” at Boston Marathon Stood Near Bomb, Left Before Detonation

“Contractors” at Boston Marathon Stood Near Bomb, Left Before Detonation

(Photos) Seen across street after blasts talking with FBI bomb squad. Who were they? What were they and the FBI doing?

Global Research, April 19, 2013
le-bilan-de-l-attentat-de-boston

 What appear to be private contractors, wearing unmarked, matching uniforms and operating an unmarked SUV affixed with communication equipment near the finish line of the Boston Marathon shortly after the bomb blasts – can be seen beforehand, standing and waiting just meters away from where the first bomb was detonated.

The contractor-types had moved away from the bomb’s location before it detonated, and could be seen just across the street using communication equipment and waiting for similar dressed and equipped individuals to show up after the blasts.

Image: An already widely distributed photo showing the contractor-types on the bottom left, just left of where the bomb was placed and detonated. The men are wearing matching, unmarked uniforms, large black bags, and appear to be waiting, separately, and “behind” the rest of the crowd. In the upper left corner, a wooden structure forming one half of a temporary photography “bridge” over the finish line can be seen and serves as a useful reference when establishing the contractor-types’ position in other photos.

….

Image: After the explosion, two of the contractors seen by the wall next to the bomb, appear across the street, both using communication equipment. This photo too has been distributed and enlarged many times across the Internet. (click to enlarge) Continue reading

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Rankled by Question About Saudi National

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan’s question

Duncan: “We have someone who’s being deported due to national security concerns. We’ve got this guy who was there, we know he was there…and yet we’re going to deport him? We’re going to remove him from the scene?”

Napolitano: “If I might, I am unaware of anyone who is being deported for national security concerns at all related to Boston.”

Duncan: “He is being deported.” Napolitano said as she understood it, the man was not technically a person of interest or a suspect, and “this is is an example of why it is so important to let law enforcement do its job.”

Duncan: “I want them to do their job. Wouldn’t you agree with me that it’s negligent for us as an American administration to deport someone who was reportedly at the scene of the bombing and we’re going to deport him, not to be able to question him anymore?”

Napolitano: “I am not going to answer that question it is so full of misstatements and misapprehension that it’s just not worthy of an answer…there’s been so much reported on this that’s been wrong I can’t even begin to tell you, congressman. We will provide you with accurate information as it becomes available.”

Continue reading