Can you spot the differences?

Do you remember the picture puzzles in little kid magazines where there were two seemingly identical drawings next to each other and you were supposed to pick out the subtle differences? Here’s one for the adults:

The second document was the version from the FOIA response provided by Jessica Cooper and Paul Walton to the FOIA request made by the media.

Rewriting a tip sheet can’t be typical protocol, can it?


6 Comments on “Can you spot the differences?”

  1. Judi Coltman says:

    Words matter. It’s all in the details.

  2. changer says:

    wth?

  3. KP says:

    Wow, you wonder what else they modified in all those documents you received. It’s interesting they didn’t redact, instead they edited.

    I hate them.

  4. Crime Buffy says:

    Wow, their deception never ends!!
    What are the statue of limitations on tampering with evidence?
    Wish a reporter with kahunas of steel would question RT, JC & PW regarding this proof in black & white.

    • cathybroad says:

      These two tip sheets were obviously written back in the day. However, the illegal redactions and selective production of documents, contrary to the letter and spirit of FOIA are evidence of fraud and to cover the crime of obstruction of justice. Therefore, despite their protestations, Cooper and Walton had no claim of attorney work-product. I am sure they were well aware of the crime-fraud exception. There’s more where this came from. Fuck these people.

  5. Paul Jolliffe says:

    The “Cooper” copy replaced the name “Busch” with the word (provocative!) word “informant”, followed by what appears to be a redaction. This is not the original “Cooper” copy of Tip 370, instead it is a xeroxed copy of the “Cooper” copy with whatever description that followed the word “informant” redacted.

    One might almost be tempted to think that somebody identified “Busch” as an “informant”.

    Hmm.

    I wonder which agency decided that the descriptive information following the word “informant” needed to be redacted . . .


Leave a Reply