--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > <snip> > > > > The applicable question is it a crime to withhold knowledge of a > > > > planned murder or crime if not interogated -- as would > > > > presumably be the case of insiders making stock trades based on > > > > prior knowledge. > > > > > > It was a crime for Michael Fortier who received a 12 year > > > sentence for withholding info on the Oklahoma City bombing. See: > > > http://tinyurl.com/mwglh > > > > Assuming you are addressing my point above, > > Hmm. What other point might he be addressing, > I wonder?
I was extending Shemp the courtesy of realizing he might be making a general observation. People do that -- not commenting on a specific point. I notice that some, particularly you, often mistakenly assume a post is about your points, when the post is realy a general observation, or perhaps a response to another posters point. And you flare out in your usual flaming style. In this case, I specifically was being diplomatic, becasue I didn't wand to come across like I have a huge stick up my ass, like you appear to often. > > your cite does not appear to answer the question. > > > > "who previously received a 12-year sentence for withholding > > information about the bombing," > > > > does not indicated if he withheld it during interrogation by LE, or > > was just mum. > > From the link (which you apparently didn't read): Ah the stick up you ass again. It must really be painful Judy. Or perhaps its some deep trauma you have suffered that makes you perpetually snide and condescending. You have my sympathy and compassion for your pain. > "Fortier was also asked to participate in the deadly scheme, yet he > refused to be a part of it. He didn't alert the police of the plot > because he didn't believe Nichols and McVeigh would actually follow > through with their plans, Newsday reported. It was a mistake that > cost 168 lives." While this implies he was just mum, it is not definitive that he was not also interogated by the police -- but not covered by the short story -- and it was on THAT withholding of information that he was convicted. The reason I question this is that the law as some imply (just being mum) quickly gets into very wierd territory. If one hears some old babbling off-meds street person make some odd threat while one is rushing to work, and you brush it off, and the event does happen, then you could be liable for perhaps 12 years in prison? It jsut seems to draconian. We all could be liable. We all have had advanced knowledge of great disasters pending upon the US. (And and the UK). We have assumed the warnings are not credible, even though they come from a man we all have greatly respcted, honored, and given great trust. And we have the knowledge to prevent it. What happens if they come true. Will we have cellblock FFL in Leavenworth? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
