Sunday, May 16, 2010

Plead the 5th? Not when you can plead "Ongoing Investigation."

I am often proclaimed a "Tin Foil Hat" wearer by various skulking anonymous commentators out there in the ether. For instance, what ever became of that WILD story I told over the last year an a half (approximately) regarding Some Unknown FBI Agent in San Angelo Texas calling FBI Agent Steve A. Smith in Colorado Springs? I mean really, Agent Smith? I just fell asleep watching "The Matrix" and thought I called that guy.

Except there was some unreported testimony in Walther's court on Friday or Saturday. In fact very little has been said in the media about FBI Special Agent John Broadway testifying at all. But he was there. He was there and someone asked John Broadway a question. The question was, "Did the FBI in Texas/San Angelo call the FBI in Colorado Springs on or before April 13th, 2008?"

What was Agent Broadway's answer? Reportedly his expression changed, and he said he couldn't talk about it because it was the "subject of an ongoing investigation."

That's not exactly "The 5th," I know, but it's what creative law enforcement does when they don't want to answer an uncomfortable question. It beats "The 5th," because if you do have an ongoing investigation that you're dragging your feet on, purposely, you can always shut up when asked uncomfortable questions that might evoke "The 5th."

Why was the question uncomfortable? Because the arrest warrant of Rozita Swinton, and the accompanying affidavit justifying that warrant would have us believe that Texas Ranger Brooks Long called CSPD Lt. (then Sgt.) Sean Mandel, and that was the contact that led to "Oh yeah, we know whose phone number that is, it's Rozita's!"

Never mind the fact I've harped on before that you don't "discover" who owns a phone number by calling the police department whose jurisdiction might overlap that cell phone exchange. You call the FBI who looks up the phone number, you don't call CSPD. On top of that, there's no reason to think that CSPD would KNOW anything about a phone number, not attached to a name.

As we learned in early 2009, that's not what happened anyway. It was an unknown FBI Agent in Texas that called FBI Agent Steve A. Smith, who then called CSPD Sex Crimes Unit Sgt. Sean Mandel, who was on detached duty with an FBI task force. Sean Mandel went through great pains to tell me, that he wasn't in CSPD offices during that time. See above, "detached duty."

At any rate, it was Sean Mandel carrying a note from Agent Steve A. Smith to CSPD, and Hugh Velasquez that got the message from the Texas FBI to the Colorado Springs FBI. Apparently the message was "Hey, Brooks Long wants to talk to someone about this phone number."

As observed before, that means that someone in the communication chain already knows whose number it is. The discovery is not being made by calling CSPD, the discovery has been made, and CSPD is being called. It's supposed to look like Brooks Long got on the phone on Sunday, April 13th, 2008, called Sean Mandel at CSPD and Sean told him the number he had, was Rozita Swinton's.

Only that is NOT what happened, and I am the only one who has reported that fact.

Now, FBI Special Agent John Broadway says he can't talk about it.

He can't talk about it? Wouldn't he have said "why are you reading crackpot blogs?" He didn't though. That's because what I told you is true.

Think about this all over again. I know I've asked you to before.

Why is there a communication channel between Texas and Colorado Springs regarding the raid?

Item one. Such channels take a while to set up. It was not set up on April 13th, 2008, to make a call on that day. It had to have taken several days to set up, more likely, a week, maybe more.

Item two. Why did it exist at all? You have to KNOW there is some role being played by Colorado Springs in the raid, to set up a back channel off the record, time consuming method of communication.

Item three. Such channels are meant to be secret, to set up for us an appearance in public that is being arranged behind the scene. Such a channel for orchestration of events and secrecy.

Conclusion. Law Enforcement knew of the existence and role of Rozita Swinton much earlier than they told us. They tried to keep it secret that they knew until after the raid was over. They might have even known about her before the raid, and if they did, it virtually shouts that they either contracted for the call to be made, or knew at the outset it was fake.

Sphere: Related Content

1 comment:

kbp said...

There certainly has to be a statute of limitations on the minor charges they could have against "Sarah".

I suppose they could then claim they found some other charge, having a longer life, and investigate more.