![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 17, 2002, at 18:02:42
If you live in Maryland, you have to be getting tired of the constant fear of the unknown. But what is really getting on my nerves is the media's absolute disregard for the facts.
The other day, NPR reported that the police would be able to have a composite of the shooter due to all the good witness reports, and that they actually have (don't remember the number) 11 (?) people under surveillance.
During the press conferences, the police said none of this was true.
I just heard a press conference today during which one of the detectives (or a higher up--I wasn't looking, only listening) said there are about 8 (?) different guns that use this type of ammunition (or something to that effect. I didn't know I'd need the details later, so...).
Then tonight on the news, the reporter said, "One thing is for certain: the bullets could have only come from one type of gun."
Sheesh.
beardy
Posted by IsoM on October 17, 2002, at 18:13:45
In reply to The DC Sniper, posted by BeardedLady on October 17, 2002, at 18:02:42
Yeah, that sort of reporting makes you really wonder how credible the media is. Up here in Canada, there was a case that the police didn't want certain evidence to get out as it would make it more difficult to track the person. They'd be aware that the police had uncovered something & could compensate. Still, it didn't stop the media from blabbering about it.
But then there's the times that police haven't let women or parents know about something that's happening in their neighbourhood so they could try to protect themselves better. It's not until some more women & children are assaulted before the police finally release the details. A little late for those hurt or killed.
I don't know enough of the facts to form a judgement of what's said most times. And it gets harder & harder to know who to believe, doesn't it?
Posted by Kamikazi_Ladybug on October 17, 2002, at 19:17:27
In reply to The DC Sniper, posted by BeardedLady on October 17, 2002, at 18:02:42
*I hope I'm posting this right*
We live in Maryland, my hubby told me today that he heard, one of the "witnesses" was a fraud and they are contemplating charges. He is the one who said he saw the creme colored van and one with the gun. I thought I heard last night they were having trouble coming up with a composite of the sniper because all of the witnesses could not agree, maybe that was why. I know what you mean though it is getting so tedious with the not knowing, and the feeling of when or if he will strike again. I just want it over with!!!
Kamikazi
Posted by Roman on October 17, 2002, at 21:20:53
In reply to Re: The DC Sniper » BeardedLady, posted by Kamikazi_Ladybug on October 17, 2002, at 19:17:27
Posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 7:56:11
In reply to Re: The DC Sniper » BeardedLady, posted by Kamikazi_Ladybug on October 17, 2002, at 19:17:27
I actually heard someone on the news say the witness admitted he was drunk and the reporter was wondering whether the person would be arrested for that admission. I have not heard that comment again, and no one had ever said it in the press conference.
Some have said that 9 dead, 11 shot has something to do with 9/11, but that's ridiculous, as those other two shot could easily have died from their wounds.
It's also a time for newscaster stupidity, as I have heard reporters talk about incidences, instead of incidents, and the other day, someone announced that a victim had been fatally killed!
We have also read in the papers that there was a motiveless killing in VA before the spree started and that it is being investigated as the first in the spree. But no one has reported this on television, nor have I heard it from the press conferences.
But I also wonder why they had to announce the sky surveillance. Does the media or the public have to know EVERYTHING? I mean, do they think the sniper doesn't watch TV? Why tell someone you're watching him from the sky, especially when it may send him to more underground parking garages or even another city?!
This whole thing is terribly frustrating.
beardy
Posted by Kamikazi_Ladybug on October 18, 2002, at 8:00:41
In reply to Re: The DC Sniper » Kamikazi_Ladybug, posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 7:56:11
I don't watch alot of news, or listen to the radio, my news comes from my hubby and my dad. Hubby listens to the wbal channel on the radio and he said that alot of people were calling in calling the sniper a coward and saying at least the children were safe. Don't you know within days the little boy was shot. Yes, indeed this "sniper" is listening/watching to what is said about him. The media is putting its big ole foot directly in the mouth!!!
Kamikazi
Posted by Mal on October 18, 2002, at 8:05:55
In reply to The DC Sniper, posted by BeardedLady on October 17, 2002, at 18:02:42
> If you live in Maryland, you have to be getting tired of the constant fear of the unknown. But what is really getting on my nerves is the media's absolute disregard for the facts.
>
> The other day, NPR reported that the police would be able to have a composite of the shooter due to all the good witness reports, and that they actually have (don't remember the number) 11 (?) people under surveillance.
>
> During the press conferences, the police said none of this was true.
>
> I just heard a press conference today during which one of the detectives (or a higher up--I wasn't looking, only listening) said there are about 8 (?) different guns that use this type of ammunition (or something to that effect. I didn't know I'd need the details later, so...).
>
> Then tonight on the news, the reporter said, "One thing is for certain: the bullets could have only come from one type of gun."
>
> Sheesh.
>
> beardy
Hey, beardy, just playing Devil's Advocate a little here, but...Perhaps the media are leaking details that the police would rather keep to themselves. I know that if I were affiliated with the authorities, I wouldn't be willing to give deatils to the media on camera or off! In fact, I would probably be willing to lie on camera and say that none of those details were true if I thought it might help the investigation.
By examining bullets recovered from victims, forensics personnel can tell if two (or more) bullets came from the same gun- not just the same TYPE of gun. It may also be true that several types of guns use that same type of ammunition- but that is not to say that several guns fired these particular bullets.
All that said, I have on many occasions heard reporters go on and on about details that were wrong. For instance, a local reporter said that a particular disease is caused by a virus when in fact it is caused by a fungus. This may be inconsequential to 50% of the population, but the other half might know the difference and take action to treat a virus when they should be taking different actions against a fungus. It isn't that hard for the reporters to get it right on something like that, so why don't they???
So there are my two rupees.
MAL
Posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 8:17:14
In reply to Re: The DC Sniper » BeardedLady, posted by Mal on October 18, 2002, at 8:05:55
> Perhaps the media are leaking details that the police would rather keep to themselves. I know that if I were affiliated with the authorities, I wouldn't be willing to give deatils to the media on camera or off! In fact, I would probably be willing to lie on camera and say that none of those details were true if I thought it might help the investigation.
Oh, sure. I agree absolutely. But I'm not always a freedom of the press type of girl. I think there are certain things the media shouldn't tell the public, since none of the details they had leaked (or lied about or simply miscontrued, which is far more likely, in my opinion) had anything to do with the public's safety.
I don't think we have the "right to know" unconfirmed or incomplete details from an ongoing investigation, especially when those details might jeopardize the capture of this guy or these guys.
> By examining bullets recovered from victims, forensics personnel can tell if two (or more) bullets came from the same gun- not just the same TYPE of gun. It may also be true that several types of guns use that same type of ammunition- but that is not to say that several guns fired these particular bullets.
Yes, I misspoke and typed quickly. But what the person had said was it came from one type of gun. She left out that the police didn't know which of the eight or ten guns it could be, making it sound like the police knew which gun (exactly) it was, as it could only be one. See what I mean? It's just misleading because it's only half the sentence.
> heard reporters go on and on about details that were wrong. ...It isn't that hard for the reporters to get it right on something like that, so why don't they???
Uh, I don't know how to say it without getting blocked, so I'll leave that to your imagination!
beardy
Posted by Mal on October 18, 2002, at 8:29:07
In reply to Re: The DC Sniper » Mal, posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 8:17:14
Sounds like we totally agree on this. I don't think the public needs to know EVERYTHING right NOW. This is like the reports on 9/11/01. Why the media insisted on reporting the location of the president completely escapes me. I understand the need of the public to know that the president was safe and in control, but speaking for myself, I didn't need to know where he was.
As for the reporters, my imagination is in fine form. I figure I know what you'd like to say about that. And I figure I'd agree.
You have a good day!
MAL
Posted by BeardedLady on October 19, 2002, at 16:10:18
In reply to Re: The DC Sniper » BeardedLady, posted by Mal on October 18, 2002, at 8:29:07
Last night or yesterday, a box truck was found at Dulles Airport with a shell casing in it (at least that's what I heard!). Police suspended all briefings until Monday so they can get their act together. No one is saying if the casings match. There's also a rumor that they chased down a suspect. This is very frustrating.
There have been no killings since Monday, it seems. And that's a good thing. But all the Maryland schools are still in lockdown during the day (some schools are playing sports; we saw a football game happening today, and it was full--people were even standing outside the fence to watch), and all the field trips have been cancelled.
I hope they catch him soon. My husband wants to take our daughter to the Smithsonian tomorrow, and I won't let him. I just think we should wait.
beardy
Posted by BeardedLady on October 21, 2002, at 10:43:54
In reply to More sniper news., posted by BeardedLady on October 19, 2002, at 16:10:18
They arrested a man in a Plymouth Vogager with a roof rack and temporary tags near Richmond, VA. He had pulled up to a drive-up pay phone at an Exxon, and the SWAT team, which had been waiting, arrested him.
A second person (depending on which news you're watching) may have been arrested at the same time but at a different location.
Meanwhile, in the shooting Saturday night of a 39- or 37-year old man (depending on which news you're watching) at a Ponderosa Steakhouse parking lot, another tarot card was found.
I didn't know there were any Ponderosas left! We used to go to Sizzler, but they're all gone, too.
The plot ickens.
beardy
Posted by Mal on October 21, 2002, at 13:33:12
In reply to Even more sniper news., posted by BeardedLady on October 21, 2002, at 10:43:54
Yes, I was aware that an arrest had been made this morning, but I am at work, so I don't have any real details. I did hear over the weekend that the shell casing found in the box truck was not the right size to be associated with the sniper. My source is MSNBC. (I think it is very important to site (sp?) your sources.)
I hope this is over soon, but I saw an article today on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/816566.asp) that contained an ominous phrase...
"An investigator who read the lengthy message told Bloom that the contents indicate “this could be a very difficult time we are about to go through.”"
Interesting. You take care and still be careful.
MAL
Posted by IsoM on October 21, 2002, at 13:36:50
In reply to Even more sniper news., posted by BeardedLady on October 21, 2002, at 10:43:54
I also heard what an analyst with very good credentials had to say. He said iit's critical to know if those two men had put that 2nd note there. Because the area was flooded so quickly with police personell after this last shooting, it was impossible for anyone to get in to put the note there. It HAD to be left earlier before the shooting. That means whoever did leave that note knew that this last shooting was going to happen there.
I suppose now the police will be checking to see if they can link this last note with the two men in any way.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 21, 2002, at 14:11:30
In reply to Re: Even more sniper news - about last note » BeardedLady, posted by IsoM on October 21, 2002, at 13:36:50
I can cite my sources, but there are three--WMAR, WBAL, and WJZ; they are the local news teams. But their reports vary, and I've been flipping back and forth.
So far, I've heard that there have been several, not just two, tarot cards, or at least that's the belief. I also heard that someone called the FBI's tip line and said to look behind the Ponderosa for a note in the woods. The call was traced to a pay phone, and that phone was staked out by the SWAT team until this white mini-van pulled up to it and used the phone to make a call related to the sniper shooting.
Our expert (a doctor of criminology) says that this was probably just a patsy or someone paid by the sniper to make a call. He does not think there are any more than two people involved, and he doesn't think the shooter is in custody.
The general belief is that the note was left by the shooter from the spot at which he shot (the note was in the woods, not by the victim). Some say he rode a bike in with his gun in a backpack.
One interesting observation from the expert: he thinks it's similar to an arsonist. This guy, he said, may not be making any kind of getaway. He may be going to a local bar or restaurant and watching the breaking news on television in public.
So far, I've not heard anything on the box truck except that it appears not to have been related.
The press conferences this morning were rude. The cops gathered the media and promised a pc following the one in Virginia, which was all of two minutes. Then they decided they weren't giving any press conferences at all, unless they do an impromptu one, at which time they might give an hour notice.
This is very disturbing. There is nothing to stop this shooter from coming here. I have been expecting it, and I don't like the ominous words, Mal. I don't know if it means the police will have a tough time or if WE will.
I am pretty upset.
I'm going to post another thread about my insomnia.
beardy
Posted by sjb on October 22, 2002, at 9:28:41
In reply to what I heard--Iso and Mal, posted by BeardedLady on October 21, 2002, at 14:11:30
To paraphrase from Tom Friedman, of the NYTimes, the Bush Administration wants to spend a lot of money to fight "Weapons of Mass Destruction" but nothing is being done about "Weapons of Individual Destruction." There was another great quote about the Administrations obsession with "Baghad" instead of "Bathesda".
It's TIME for meaningful GUN control and to tell the NRA to get lost.
Posted by mair on October 22, 2002, at 12:13:51
In reply to what I heard--Iso and Mal, posted by BeardedLady on October 21, 2002, at 14:11:30
Beardy
You expressed a fear that the sniper would go back to the areas north of DC, and if this latest shooting proves to be related, you were right. You know the odds are with you - 10+ people is a big number but the greater DC metropolitan area is huge and for every gas station that is hit, there are literally hundreds that aren't. I know the sheer randomness of this is what makes it seem particularly freaky. I know that I would be obsessing in a big way about the safety of my children. But really you can't guarantee her safety from any number of horribles, and you'll surely drive yourself to distraction even trying.
Thinking about you...
Mair
Posted by IsoM on October 22, 2002, at 13:05:35
In reply to Re: what I heard--Iso and Mal, posted by sjb on October 22, 2002, at 9:28:41
All I have to say on this issue is that I'm glad I live in Canada where the idea of people packing guns is rare. Yes, criminal elements do have their share but shootings aren't that common. When you hear about shootings, it's more likely to be someone that took his dad's or uncle's hunting guns that weren't properly locked up. I have no illusions that Canada's a safe & perfect place but the amount of weapons seized at the border as people come through is mind-numbing.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 22, 2002, at 13:49:41
In reply to I'm afraid you were right » BeardedLady, posted by mair on October 22, 2002, at 12:13:51
Well, I was thinking he would be heading to my neck of the woods (oops-NPI). I am awfully tired of this.
beardy
Posted by Gracie2 on October 25, 2002, at 15:06:07
In reply to being right » mair, posted by BeardedLady on October 22, 2002, at 13:49:41
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.