Woody Johnson. Seriously?
Don’t get it at all.
Unless this thing is notated or crossreferenced in the files I have to think somebody was reading it and it just got left in with the case files. Obviously no connection. What I want to know is about this Wilson guy. You said FOIA papers given to your Dad had lots of the Wilson info LE thought they had kept secret? What about printing some of that for us?
Yes–Let me make sure that I understand what the issue is–it is no secret what Wilson saw, and when and what he told the police he saw, the question is why did the police back in 1977 fail to follow up on his statement and circulate it, particularly amongst themselves?
I can provide an educated guess as to the second part of the question: Law enforcement agencies HATE to share any information with anybody, even other law enforcement agencies. Read the report of the 9/11 commission at http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf The section starting on page 73 details the woefully inadequate information gathering/analyzing/sharing capabilities of US federal state and local law enforcement, and the utter failure of those agencies to share relevant information about the terrorist plot with one another prior to 9/11/01. The most famous example is how hijacker Mohammed Atta was pulled over in Delray Beach, Florida, for speeding on 7/5/01, by officers unaware that (a) Atta had overstayed his visa and (b) there was an arrest warrant for Atta, in Florida, after he’d failed to show for a hearing on a citation for driving without a license in Ft. Lauderdale less than two months earlier. Unaware of this–for whatever reason, Atta was let off with a warning.
As a USF student in the fall of 2010, I attempted to write a research paper on post-9/11 information sharing among law enforcement agencies, asking the simple question: Have attitudes among law enforcement officials towards interagency information sharing improved or even changed at all? I contacted a number of agencies around the state of Florida, both local and Federal via e-mail. Unfortunately, my paper proved to be utter smoke and mirrors; I was unable to make any conclusion whatsoever, as not a single law enforcement agencies which I contacted was willing to so much as give me a “yes” or “no” response to my question.
This is the misanthropic culture in which law enforcement officers exist, the culture which they have created for themselves–one in which they must answer only to each other. They place an emphasis on avoiding any accountability, particularly to non-law enforcement entities or parties. The excuse is usually something about “ongoing investigations”, and often that excuse is a valid one, but more often than not, it is more about the agency attempting to simply be in control. Sadly, the nexus between cops and criminals can be very narrow when one considers the compulsive control issues that both, in certain instances, share.
The bottom line is that as I read many of these documents, and ponder why more in law enforcement were unaware of Busch and Green, or the statement of Wilson, this conclusion seems the most reasonable–the instinct of any cop with a good lead is to keep that information from those outside his or her immediate circle, for no better reason than they want the credit for the bust. I’m convinced that if more cops have been aware of Chris Busch, one of them would have ultimately leaked his name–not some polygrapher.
Further studies into premonitions it seems. Or, the premise for OR8.
@Andrew Wellman-the failure to stop terrorists from ramming our own commercial airplanes into the trade towers has more to do with the Predident (Bush, Jr.) order for the U.S. Air Force to “stand down” the morning of 9-11 than it did of problems of law enforcement inter-agencies in regards to their information sharing capabilities. President Kennedy had rejected this type of domestic terrorism (Operation Northwoods) in the 1960’s that would have given the U.S. an excuse to invade Cuba much the same Bush had used the “Trade Towers attack” to invade Afghanistan nearly 50 years later. Oil pipelines that circumvent Russia to the European market were much more “plausible” to the Bush Administration than the Bay of Pigs was to Kennedy.
This was a very touching story & this article from the Reader’s Digest has to have something to do with the FBI’s investigation of Doug Wilson. My guess is that this info is linked to the other 118 pages not released by the FBI, but couldn’t Mr. Wilson be able to tell you? Surely, he must know the connection, right?
Without access to those 118 pages one can only make a very uneducated guess. Here is mine:
Because the FBI were present at Mr. Wilson’s “hypnotism” and were interested in whether his sub-conscious mind could be of help in remembering certain details about Tim’s abduction, the article tells a story of the sub-conscious being able to draw the portrait of someone “her eyes” would be able to see (in mirror) in the future. It was her eye (left) that would become a part of someone “she had never met” at the time of her drawing. Is it possible for someone to know details about someone in future and be able to draw their portrait of them ahead of time? This is very similar to the work of “hypnotism” and at that time FBI agents might have been trying to gather information that gives credibility to the field of “hypnotism” (in detective work), or it may be that they were “hoping” that someone who could be of such valuable use in remembering crucial details for the past (Wilson) could also “remember” events connected to abduction that may have still been in the future. If Wilson was under the “hypnosis” between March 16th-22nd (1977) then I would say it had to do with where Timmy may have been held at. If it had been taking place post-March 22nd then I would guess FBI was looking for a description on the next “victim” if that at all make sense. How law enforcement would have been able to use that info or warn the public is anyone’s guess.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,211 other subscribers