From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:35:18 +0800
To: Rich Burroughs <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Nazis on the Net
Message-ID: <m0uBttS-000918C@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:20 PM 4/23/96 -0700, Rich Burroughs wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>[snip]
>> 	However, one reference in this report to Weaver's calling for a meeting
>> to oppose the "Zionist Occupation Government" does provide an argument for
>> calling him a racist of the anti-Semitic variety. On the other hand, the only
>> person claiming this is the FBI's informant; the truth of his statements has
>> been called into doubt.
>
>I'm sure it has been. That doesn't mean his report is untrue.  Is the
>standard of proof the same for both of these issues?  We need proof to
>establish that Weaver is a racist, but not to establish that the FBI
>informant is lying?

I see no contradiction, here.  Weaver's credibility, at least to his telling 
the truth, is apparently unchallenged.  The FBI, however, has been caught in 
numerous lies about Ruby Ridge, and the believability of its informants (at 
least, to the extent that the FBI itself can be trusted to relay their 
reports accurately) is highly in doubt.  

The government spent about $1.5 million to get a minor, first-time (alleged) 
criminal.  There is no obvious or logical basis for such extreme interest, 
even in hindsight based on what we now know.  An objective person analyzing 
this would have to conclude that the government's interest in Weaver was 
entirely different than what it was claimed to be, and if it was that 
important it is logical to conclude that fraud was not beyond their 
capability and motivation.  Given the fact that the 
government actually faked evidence in the trial (photographs of shell 
casings), a fact that was brought out during trial, anything they say is not 
believable.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com