-Caveat Lector-   <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-

from:alt.conspiracy
As, always, Caveat Lector
Om
K
-----
Click Here: <A HREF="aol://5863:126/alt.conspiracy:596224">Excellent TWA 800
Article</A>
-----
Subject: Excellent TWA 800 Article
From: <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
Date: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 4:18 PM
Message-id: <88knft$ptp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


THE NEW YORK OBSERVER - Week of February 21, 2000
========================================================


<A HREF="http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage6.htm">http://www.observer.com
/pages/frontpage6.htm</A>


T.W.A. Flight 800 Skeptics Paying a Heavy Price

  by Philip Weiss

  J. Bruce Maffeo came out of Federal District Court at 40
Centre Street on Feb. 9 after arguing the appeal of his client,
investigative reporter James Sanders, and looked around to see
how many journalists had shown up. Just three: me, Allan Wolper
of Editor & Publisher and Mr. Wolper’s student at Rutgers, Tina Bui.

  Mr. Maffeo got a disgusted look. "The press marginalized Jim as a
kook," he said. "And now they walk by him like he's a dog run over by a
semi."

  Back in 1997, Mr. Sanders got two swatches of seat material
from a disgruntled source inside the investigation of Trans World
Airlines Flight 800 to test for rocket fuel. The test backed his theory
that a Government missile brought the plane down, he
reported, thereby enraging the Government, which prosecuted him
and his wife, Liz, for aiding and abetting the removal of parts
from a crash site, a law aimed at scavengers. Since then, the
couple has lived a journalist's nightmare. They had to sell their
house, their son had to leave college. Mrs. Sanders lost a beloved job.

  Their case has what her attorney Jeremy Gutman calls
"totalitarian" overtones: The Government has repeatedly characterized
the couple's crime as putting out "misinformation" or, as NBC put
it, "what the [F.B.I.] calls a plot to rewrite the history of T.W.A.
800."

  That should have been a wake-up call, said Eve Burton, deputy general
counsel for the New York Daily News, but she couldn't get other news
organizations to support a friend-of-the-court brief. "I regret to say
there was not a lot of enthusiasm," said First Amendment lawyer Victor
A. Kovner. "I thought the Reporters Committee was filing something."
No, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said it didn't
know about Mr. Sanders' appeal in time. "They never stepped up to the
plate," Mr. Maffeo grumbled.

  The truth is the press never liked Jim Sanders. "He's a little bit of
a wacko and belligerently antigovernment," said a media source.

  What's fascinating about this case is not whether Mr. Sanders is
right or wrong (though I think he's mostly right). It's how the media
exercises self-censorship. The same year Mr. Sanders was
indicted, two women in important jobs whom he worked with in
challenging the official story on T.W.A.800 left their jobs
following painful ordeals: Kelly O'Meara, administrative assistant to
Representative Michael Forbes, whose district was nearest to
the crash, and Kristina Borjesson, a producer for CBS News.

  Their stories point up a deep divide in our public life between a
highly paid institutional press that instinctively trusts
Government and a segment of the public educated by Waco and the
Clinton scandals that doesn't. In the old Soviet Union, critics
were put in psychiatric hospitals. Now the media merely labels
them "wacky" and ignores them.

  IN JULY 1996, T.W.A. FLIGHT 800 crashed in the Atlantic Ocean off
Long Island, killing all 230 aboard. Jim Sanders, then a 51- year-old
former cop who'd published books on conservative causes, was a natural
to write about it. His wife, Elizabeth, was a
longtime T.W.A. employee who knew that many at the airline had
doubts about the official investigation.

  Mrs. Sanders called Terrell Stacey, a top T.W.A. pilot who had flown
the plane the day before it crashed and was a member of the National
Transportation Safety Board investigation. Captain Stacey was
disturbed. He knew that a veteran pilot who had witnessed the crash
from the air had been warned not to use the word "missile" to describe
what he saw to the press. He felt that the F.B.I. was not sharing
information and had lagged in testing a suspicious
red residue on some seats.

  The author and pilot met secretly, and in January 1997 Captain Stacey
removed two two-inch swatches of foam from two seats and
sent them by Federal Express to the journalist at his Virginia
home. Mr. Sanders said he felt he was acting legally. All he
wanted were "scrapings." There was plenty of material left.

  He had one strip tested at a California lab. He said the test
revealed high percentages of magnesium and calcium, consistent
with solid rocket fuel, and he shared the findings with an old
friend, David Hendrix. A seasoned reporter at the Riverside,
Calif., Press-Enterprise, Mr. Hendrix had investigated T.W.A.
800 for months for a simple reason: The Government had misled
him when it said initially that no military assets were near the crash.
On March 10, 1997, the Press-Enterprise bannered Mr.
Sanders' news on the front page.

  The F.B.I. was enraged. It called Mr. Hendrix and summoned
the Sanderses, threatening to indict the couple if they didn't
reveal the name of the source Mr. Sanders called Hangar Man. In
the noblest journalistic tradition, the Sanderses refused. Mr.
Sanders feared that the F.B.I. would raid his house and seize
the second sample. He sent it on to the Press-Enterprise to
preserve it for a corroborative test.

  The newspaper felt lonely. Its bombshell story had been all
but ignored by the mainstream press. "James Kallstrom [the
F.B.I. chief in New York] finally called us back the day before
the story ran and said, 'I can tell you that it is not traces
of missile fuel,'" said Mel Opotowsky, former managing editor. "'What
is it then?' we said. 'I can't tell you,' he said. Then the next day we
published our story, and he and his lieutenants
said, 'It was glue.' Why didn't he tell us that before? He
didn't even try, off the record. I don't trust that man."

  But the media took Mr. Kallstrom at his word (this in spite
of later tests showing that 3M glue used in the 747 has a tiny
percentage of heavy metals). Fearing legal consequences, the
Press-Enterprise sent the package on, unopened, to a CBS
producer to whom Mr. Sanders was talking. Kristina Borjesson
was media elite: a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate
School of Journalism, an Emmy Award winner for investigative
reporting at CBS Reports.

  The F.B.I. got wise to Ms. Borjesson when it found her name
on an overnight package at Mr. Sanders' house. It called CBS
and asked if it had the material.

  "CBS rolled over," Mr. Sanders recalled. "Kristina was beside
herself. She was describing the fear inside CBS, the terror
inside CBS when the Government threatened to come in and destroy the
place, instead of describing the excitement of joining the
battle with an agency out of control."

  CBS dissociates itself from Ms. Borjesson. Josh Howard, a
senior producer at 60 Minutes, said, "Her official relationship with
CBS ended before she pitched that story. She had maybe a
month to go on her contract. She was anxiously looking around
for other projects to prolong her employment."

  Ms. Borjesson said there was more to it. She had been told
to look into T.W.A. 800 months before. "I was unwilling to accept the
fabric without permission from a CBS executive, and senior
producer Josh Howard gave me that permission--which is why the
fabric ended up in his desk," she told me. "I had offered it first to
CBS Evening News, and they said No. I told Josh, 'Be
aware that a grand jury sitting in Brooklyn wants to subpoena
anyone interfering with evidence. Josh said, 'We've dealt
with grand juries before.' I was thrilled. I remember telling
him that 60 Minutes was the last broadcast with balls."

  Mr. Howard said he has no recollection of those events, and
that he never saw the sample. "All I got from her was a proposal for a
story. It sounded kind of wacky, and we said, 'No thanks.'"

  (Ms. Borjesson said Mr. Howard was lying. She faxed me a
typescript of a memo, dated April 13, 1997, that she wrote to
Jonathan Sternberg, CBS counsel, setting out the sequence of
events. The memo said she offered the material to Mr. Howard,
and "Howard agreed to take it." The memo was C.C.'d to Mr. Howard, who
told me he does not recall seeing it.)

  In any case, CBS gave Mr. Sanders' sample back to the
Government, and Ms. Borjesson soon left the network (and
eventually went to work for CNN). "She was expendable," said someone
who then worked at CBS. "Kristina wanted to find out what happened. She
didn't care where it ended up. In this
instance, she was going against the grain of what the network
had committed to."

  The showdown between the Government and CBS, virtually
unmentioned in the mainstream press, set the tone for events
to come. The network had refused to air Ms. Borjesson's
interviews of Mr. Sanders. It believed its senior correspondents, who
had close associations with Government sources and assured
their desks that Mr. Sanders was out to lunch. "The guys I talk to who
I have a history with and I trust, they saw nothing, not
a scintilla of evidence of a missile," said Bob Orr, a Washington
correspondent for CBS. He said he was never impressed by Ms.
Borjesson. "What was her level of access and expertise, and who did she
talk to? Who were her sources? One, and he was alarmingly thin."

  When CBS folded, it put wind in the Government's sails. "I was
devastated," Mr. Sanders said. "My chance for vindication, to force the
media to turn around, was gone. I realized I was
in serious, serious trouble."

  In what was later ruled an illegal seizure, the Justice
Department took Mr. Sanders' computer. And violating its own
guidelines for investigating journalists, it subpoenaed his
phone records, thereby discovering Terrell Stacey's number.
Captain Stacey pled guilty to a misdemeanor and cooperated
with authorities, and in December 1997 Mr. Sanders and his
wife were arrested, paraded before a mob of reporters with
their hands handcuffed behind their backs. In a press release,
Mr. Kallstrom inveighed against Mr. Sanders' views, saying he
had "increased the pain already inflicted on the victims' families."

  This Orwellian theme was later sounded by Jim Hall, the
chairman of the N.T.S.B., in a letter to the judge seeking
stiff sentences. "[T]his was not a so-called victimless crime," Mr.
Hall wrote. "These defendants have traumatized the families with the
release of misinformation, the only plausible cause
for which is commercial gain."

  Mr. Hall's statement apparently backfired. In sentencing
Jim Sanders and his wife to probation last July, the Federal
judge called Mr. Sanders a serious journalist.

  The press doesn't want his company. The New York Times
slurred Mr. Sanders, who has published two books about the
crash, as a "self-styled freelance investigative journalist." And many
journalists distance themselves from him, saying
there is a crucial difference between taking documents and
property.

  Maybe, but Victor A. Kovner warns that under the Government's theory
of the crime, journalists might be criminals if they ask
sources to give them documents that are illegal for those sources to
remove. Moreover, the samples were a form of information,
there was plenty left, and the whistle-blower, Captain Stacey,
testified that he gave them to Mr. Sanders "of my own volition," seeing
them as a way to expose corruption.

  "This was not some wild grabbing at things," Mr. Gutman argued in
appeals court. "We don't depend on the authorities as the sole source
of information on their doings. We need
journalists."

  That's the problem. The institutional press has always
accepted the Government's line and never seen Mr. Sanders'
story as legitimate. Worshipful of Government sources, CBS
two years ago hired James Kallstrom, who had by then left
his F.B.I. job, as a commentator on law enforcement matters!

  "You can investigate the underbelly of America all you
want--the disenfranchised, the dispossessed," Ms. Borjesson said. "But
you start looking into the Government or the powers that be, you walk
into a buzz saw."

  Finally, there's Ms. O'Meara. A tenacious blonde with a
street-smart manner and 17 years of experience on Capitol
Hill, she was the administrative assistant to Representative
Forbes when the plane crashed in the waters off his district.
Mr. Forbes asked her to look into the crash. Over the next
year, she shared information with the reporter David Hendrix
and, like him, concluded that the Government had lied about
how close military assets were to the plane.

  Mr. Forbes did not return phone calls about Ms. O'Meara,
but Diana Weir, his former chief of staff, said that the
Congressman initially pressed Ms. O'Meara to get answers,
then cooled on the case. A crisis occurred when Ms. Weir
and Ms. O'Meara got permission to tour the hangar containing
the recovered debris, and brought along Ms. Borjesson, late
of CBS. Mr. Kallstrom called Mr. Forbes. "I was furious," he said,
according to a new book about the crash, Deadly Departure, by Christine
Negroni (Cliff Street Books). Mr. Kallstrom saw
Mr. Forbes' office as a center for "conspiracy" thinking, orchestrated
by "some strong person with a lot of leeway."

  That was Ms. O'Meara. No longer on speaking terms with
her boss, she said, she quit. She later became a reporter at
Insight on the News, a weekly magazine published by The
Washington Times.

  She and Ms. Borjesson also worked on a documentary about
the scores of eyewitnesses who say they saw something streaking
from the ocean toward the plane. This documentary was for a
show, Declassified, that was being produced by Oliver Stone
and slated to air on ABC. But the Stone connection grew
controversial, and ABC canceled the program. "I talked to 30
eyewitnesses and then wrote them letters saying we were sorry," Ms.
O’Meara said. "It took a lot for them to agree to come forward."

  The point is not whether Ms. O'Meara, Ms. Borjesson and the
witnesses are right or wrong (though I think they're right).
It's that democracy depends on airing such views. Yet simply
raising questions about the official version has meant being
discredited. "Once you've lived through this thing, you say, 'Whoa,'"
said Ms. Weir, now a town council member in East Hampton, L.I. "It has
nothing to do with politics, Democrat or Republican, it has to do with
the Government. It's like, you hear about
the Tuskegee experiments 40 years later."

  Last summer, Ms. O'Meara developed startling information,
radar data the N.T.S.B. released three years after the crash,
showing a score of unidentified vessels in a military warning
area 25 miles from the crash.

  Preparing her story, Ms. O'Meara went to the N.T.S.B. and
interviewed three officials. The meeting was tense. The
officials made gratuitous comments like, "Is he part of the
conspiracy?" and scoffed at the notion that the blips might be
significant. "Did you identify any other military planes out there?"
Ms. O'Meara asked. "It all depends on what you mean by 'out
there.'" "How about a 30-mile radius from the crash site?" "I don't
know, I just can't answer that question off the top of my head."

  Minutes after the interview ended, Howard Kurtz of The
Washington Post learned of it and called Ms. O'Meara's editor.
Then he published an item on Ms. O'Meara, quoting N.T.S.B.
managing director Peter Goelz saying that Ms. O'Meara was
"extraordinarily antagonistic." The piece said she had had
several "incarnations" before she was a reporter, including work on an
Oliver Stone "docudrama." (It was a documentary.) Needless to say, Mr.
Kurtz did not consider the new data, or
the Government's failure to release it earlier or explain it.
His piece gave the impression of Ms. O'Meara as a nutcase
who did not know how to behave in company.

  I asked Mr. Kurtz what value he saw in printing a one-
sided story (Ms. O'Meara didn't return his calls) undermining
a reporter before she even published her work. He said it was
like writing about George Stephanopoulos becoming a commentator.
Readers should be forewarned about Ms. O'Meara's background
as an "advocate."

  But what was she an advocate for?

  "At a minimum, skeptical of the official explanations in the T.W.A.
800 case."

===========================================








Sent via Deja.com <A HREF="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</A>
Before you buy.
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
All My Relations.
Omnia Bona Bonis,
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to