Split Thread AA77 FBI Investigation [split from: AA77 FDR Data, Explained]

[Arus808]

ultima, why didn't you read this book yet?

http://www.pistore.com/criminal-investigation-practice-second-edition-p-87.html

Right in the summary:

This book provides the fundamentals of the criminal investigation process, from arrival on the scene to trial procedures.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Carrying a piece of wreackage is not a crime scene investigation.

Please look up what is involved in a crime scene investiagtion.

And where would I do that? Any good references, specifically that direct agents investigating a scene not to carry fragmented airplane parts?

 

[Arus808]

sorry ultima, this book proves that you are wrong.


http://www.pistore.com/criminal-investigation-practice-second-edition-p-87.html

Right in the summary:

This book provides the fundamentals of the criminal investigation process, from arrival on the scene to trial procedures.

 

[ULTIMA1]

And where would I do that? Any good references, specifically that direct agents investigating a scene not to carry fragmented airplane parts?

DO i need to do all the research on here, you guys do not know how to do research?

 

[ULTIMA1]

sorry ultima, this book proves that you are wrong.

No it does not. Only you think it does.

 

[Arus808]

nope it does prove you wrong. i read the summary and preview via Google

http://www.pistore.com/criminal-investigation-practice-second-edition-p-87.html

Right in the summary:

This book provides the fundamentals of the criminal investigation process, from arrival on the scene to trial procedures.

 

[FineWine]

GEE how many time must i keep repeating this for the closed minded.

Picking up stuff IS NOT the official crime scene investigation, only 1 small part.

The official crime scene investigation started on Sept 21 after the rescue and recovery operation.

How many times must I repeat this for the...well, for the you-know-what?

Yes, you are right that picking up evidence is part of the official crime scene investigation. Here's how human thought is structured:

Premise 1: All men are mortal;
Premise 2: Socrates is a man;
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

This arrangement of premises leading to a conclusion is called a syllogism. When the conclusion follows from the premises, the syllogism is said to be valid. For the conclusion to be true, the premises must be true. In a sense, the way I have presented the syllogism is a form of shorthand. What I'm saying is that IF all men are mortal, and IF Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

Moving to a more relevant syllogism:

Premise 1: The FBI started gathering evidence, restricting certain areas, and interviewing witnesses on September 11;
Premise 2: Gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, etc. are parts of a criminal investigation;
Conclusion: The FBI started its investigation on September 11.

The syllogism is valid in that the conclusion follows from the premises. To demonstrate that the conclusion is not true, you must show that at least one premise is not true.

You cannot do this. Premise 1 is a matter of fact. Premise 2 is true by the definition of a criminal investigation. Therefore, the conclusion is TRUE.

When you reject logic, you render communication very difficult.

 

[ULTIMA1]

nope it does prove you wrong. i read the summary and preview via Google

Oh i forgot Google is such a good source, LOL,,LOL

 

[ULTIMA1]

When you reject logic, you render communication very difficult.

I do not reject logic. I also posted several sources that suppot my post.

 

[Arus808]

By the way, I took classes in Administrative Justice (I was going to join the police force in Hawaii), and we covered the basics of investigation techniques in our class (its in the first year courses)

My text books are out of date, but the investigation starts as soon as the team required to start investigation arrives on the scene. And no, they do not make an announcement stating that they are starting the investigation.

 

[FineWine]

I do not reject logic. I also posted several sources that suppot my post.

I know that you are "challenged" but the syllogism I posted is elementary. Perhaps you can find a child to explain it to you.

 

[TJM]

Oh i forgot Google is such a good source, LOL,,LOL

Yeah, not like the beacon of truth that is the Wayne Madsen Report, right bub?

 

[Arus808]

unfortunately your sources Prove what we are claiming. they do not support what you are claiming.

 

[BCR]

No it does not. Only you think it does.

No U1, he is not the only one. Unlike you (an NSA security guard), I spent the first half of my working life doing crime scene and criminal investigations. I have worked joint investigations with the FBI and other federal agencies. I've done the evidence collection and spent time sitting in court testifying as to the details of its collection.

So no sir, you are flat out WRONG! From the moment the FBI officer picked that debris up, he has to account for it. He has to insure that the location and recovery was fully documented. He is responsible to who he gives it to next. It is all part of the crime scene investigation, more commonly known as the chain-of-evidence. And he will be responsible for testifying to all of that in court if required.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Yeah, not like the beacon of truth that is the Wayne Madsen Report, right bub?

But too bad i have other sources and read the actual document to show the truth.

 

[FineWine]

But too bad i have other sources and read the actual document to show the truth.

Read the two premises and the conclusion very slowly.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Why thank you so very much...so very kind of you

No problem. Just so you know, when using the

 

[ULTIMA1]

No U1, he is not the only one. Unlike you (an NSA security guard),

Well you did not figure out enough of the information i posted did you or you would know that i was not a security guard but a federal police officer.

From the moment the FBI officer picked that debris up, he has to account for it. He has to insure that the location and recovery was fully documented. He is responsible to who he gives it to next. It is all part of the crime scene investigation, more commonly known as the chain-of-evidence. And he will be responsible for testifying to all of that in court if required.

Yes i know but as stated and proven the offical crime scene investiagtion did not start until Sept 21 after the rescue and recovery operation.

 

[TJM]

But too bad i have other sources<snip>

Name the sources.

 

[FineWine]

Well you did not figure out enough of the information i posted did you or you would know that i was not a security guard but a federal police officer.



Yes i know but as stated and proven the offical crime scene investiagtion did not start until Sept 21 after the rescue and recovery operation.

Premise 1: The FBI arrived on the scene on September 11 soon after the crash and began collecting evidence, interviewing witnesses, and restricting certain areas;
Premise 2: These activities are parts of a crime scene investigation;
Conclusion: The crime scene investigation began on September 11.

There is no escape for you. Persuading everybody that you're insane is not a way to win an argument.