OpenCDA

January 24, 2023

Who Did His Applicant Interview at WSU?

Filed under: General — Tags: , — Bill @ 7:44 pm

It may surprise OpenCdA readers outside 10 counties of North Idaho to hear that we do occasionally get murders committed up here. Among those relatively few incidents, even fewer are multiple homicide incidents that will be charged and prosecuted as first-degree murder.

Consequently, many people here were genuinely shocked and surprised when we learned that on November 13, 2022, between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m., University of Idaho students Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, Kaylee Goncalves, and Ethan Chapin had been stabbed to death while sleeping inside their home on Kings Road in Moscow (Latah County), Idaho. Two other residents of the house were unharmed.

Then on December 30, 2022, we learned that a suspect in the four homicides, Bryan Christopher Kohberger, age 28, had been arrested in Pennsylvania and would be extradited back to Moscow to be formally charged and tried for the murders.

Almost as shocking and surprising as the homicides themselves was the revelation that at the time Kohberger allegedly committed them, he was pursuing a PhD in Criminal Justice and Criminology at Washington State University (WSU) and living in Pullman, Washington, about eight miles from Moscow. He was also a Teaching Assistant in the Criminal Justice and Criminology Department. Prior to enrolling at WSU, Kohberger had earned his bachelor’s degree in psychology and master’s degree in criminal justice at DeSales University in Center Valley, Pennsylvania.  

The Idaho criminal justice system will deal appropriately with Kohberger in the continuing investigation and eventual trial. We’ll have to wait until the trial for some the answers relating to the crime itself.

However I believe there are some logical questions WSU System President Kirk Schulz should insist be answered immediately to see if there are any necessary improvements that can be made in the admissions and hiring processes for graduate students and faculty in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology.

  • Who from the WSU Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology personally interviewed Kohberger prior to his admission to the doctoral program?  
  • What did the interviewers hope to observe and to learn that they did not already know from reviewing Kohberger’s application materials?
  • How had the interviewers prepared to conduct Kohberger’s interview?  Had they researched and read all available records and writings (including social media) about and by Kohberger?  Had they spoken to instructors and students from his graduate program in Pennsylvania?  Had they reviewed his employment, education, and criminal history?  
  • Did Kohberger’s interviewers have extensive law enforcement, counterintelligence, or other career experience interviewing to detect deception and assess behavioral anomalies?   Were they professionally experienced eliciting information that might have revealed malevolent intent or raised questions about Kohberger’s suitability for a criminal justice career?
  • Had any of Kohberger’s interviewers ever worked in occupations in which their regular duties required them to have and exercise the legal authority to determine if an interviewee should be involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation?
  • What were Kohberger’s career aspirations?  Why was he seeking a doctoral degree now?  Why did Kohberger decide to apply specifically to WSU’s doctoral program in Criminal Justice and Criminology?  Had he applied to other institutions’ doctoral programs and been rejected?  If so, which programs had rejected him and why?

Graduates pursuing any advanced degree from WSU’s Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology may be employed in a wide range of occupations. In some occupations such as law enforcement, their duties and obligations will require them to make timely and accurate assessments of a person’s state of mind, particularly an assessment of whether the person being interviewed represents a danger to himself or others. It seems reasonable to require that the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology should be making that assessment of its applicants for its master’s and doctoral programs.

May 8, 2021

ChiComs Planning Biowarfare Against US?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , — Bill @ 8:19 am

 

PRC Biowarfare Lab

A  news article headlined China was preparing for a Third World War with biological weapons – including coronavirus – SIX years ago, according to dossier produced by the People’s Liberation Army in 2015 and uncovered by the US State Department appeared in the May 8, 2021, online edition of the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail newspaper.

If this article is factually complete and accurate, it further discredits the bovine organic  fertilizer story the ChiComs and its sock puppet the World Health Organization, have been pushing about the SARS-CoV-2 virus being a remarkable natural evolution of the COVID-19 disease from bats to you by way of the zoo.

The Daily Mail’s article provides further evidence that the Chinese Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China (ChiCom) has been planning the offensive use of biological warfare against us at least since the Obama administration.  That revelation raises several questions:

  • When did the US Intelligence Community (USIC) first learn of this preparation and how did they learn of it?
  • What did Obama and Biden know and when did they know it?
  • What did Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it?  In 2015 she was the presumed Democrat nominee for the 2016 Presidential election.
  • What did Donald Trump know and when did he know it?  Maybe more importantly, because Hillary Clinton was presumed to be a shoo-in to win the Presidential election in 2016, what information was withheld from candidate and then-Republican nominee Trump until he was the nominee and then the President-elect?
  • What did the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infections Diseases (USAMRIID), the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) know and when did they know it?
  • Assuming that at some point the information about the ChiCom biowarfare preparation was deemed to be credible and therefore “actionable intelligence,” who in the US Congress was briefed, by whom, and when?

In OpenCdA’s series of biowarfare-tagged posts beginning on April 17, 2020 with the post entitled ‘Could Congress Pull the Trigger?, we asked, “Would the present US Congress have the courage to propose, debate, and pass a declaration of war against the People’s Republic of China (PRC) pursuant to the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 if the Wuhan corona virus release is proven to have been accidental but maliciously and fortuitously exploited rather than explicitly created as a biowarfare weapon?”

If the information in the U.K. Daily Mail’s linked article is accurate, then the US people and in fact the world’s people are entitled to know what our Intelligence Community knew and when they knew it, our President(s) and Vice President(s) knew and when they knew it, and our US Congress knew and when they knew it.

To date approximately 580,000 people in the US have died from the COVID-19 disease.  If the disease’s parent, the SARS-CoV-2 virus, was manufactured by the ChiComs to be a biological weapon, then the ChiCom’s explanation of “zoonotic transfer” or even accidental release by the Wuhan Institute of Virology becomes very suspect.

Our question as US citizens should then be, “If 580,000 isn’t enough, then how many more US citizens have to die as a result of a ChiCom biowarfare weapon before Congress and our military act?”

May 30, 2020

Will the Lynching Be Televised?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 3:05 pm

Floyd Newsphoto Composite

 

“What lynching?” you ask.

Why, the lynching of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, of course.

It seems as if every maggot-bait national and syndicated radio and television talk show host and pundit and every television and NPR network skews reader who has watched the eight-minute video of Chauvin with his knee on the side of the neck of George Floyd has already publicly convicted former Officer Chauvin of first or second degree murder.  No presumption of innocence, no indictment, no trial by jury of his peers based on admissible evidence.  Just lynch him in public for all to see.

Hiding under their desks,  Minnesota Governor Walz, his Antifa-friendly Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey seem to desperately hope that maybe rushing to lynch Chauvin will stop the anarchists populating those two highly respected civil rights organizations, Black Lives Matter and Antifa, from burning and looting Minneapolis in memory of George Floyd.   And if using Chauvin’s lynching to sate the blood lust of public officials, anarchists, and entertainers isn’t enough, Walz, Ellison, and Frey might be persuaded to use the same gallows and drop the door from beneath former officers Lane, Kueng, and Thoa for good measure.  Serial lynchings!

No need to bother with a complete and impartial investigation.  Don’t bother with an evidence-supportable charge.  Isn’t the video enough evidence?  And certainly don’t bother with a trial based on a presumption of innocence.  Just march Chauvin out to the gallows, fit the noose over his neck, pull the lever, listen for the neck snap, and wait for any neural post-mortem twitching to stop.  Justice will have been done, won’t it?

Before you start ordering pizza for snacking while watching the lynching, though, please humor me.  I have a few questions. (more…)

May 30, 2019

Just a Few Questions …

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: — Bill @ 11:30 am

Pachyderm SkeletonThis morning’s Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper reported online first that there would be demonstrations at a local restaurant on Friday during the time an invited guest speaker was making her presentation.  In a sidebar to the same article, the paper reversed engines and said the guest speaker would not be attending.  There was no explanation.

Later this morning, the skewspaper posted the sponsoring organization’s explanation about why the invited guest had withdrawn from the engagement.  Here is a link to that article headlined Speech Cancellation Explained.

According to the sponsoring organization’s website, “Pachyderm club meetings are open to the public and encourage non-member attendance.”   That seems pretty clear.

The club’s press release explaining Ms. Pettibone’s withdrawal is clear but incomplete.  It failed to provide some essential information.

  • Was the Friday meeting one of the club’s regularly scheduled meetings or was it in fact a special private meeting?
  • What led Ms. Pettibone  “… to believe that she would be speaking privately at a private meeting.
  • Who extended the invitation to Ms. Pettibone on behalf of the club?   Did that person give her assurances that would reasonably lead her “… to believe that she would be speaking privately at a private meeting?”  Was it implied or explicitly stated to her that news media would be excluded from her presentation?
  • Did our intrepid skewspaper contact Ms. Pettibone for her input to the cancellation explanation story?

September 29, 2018

A Prediction and a Question

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 3:40 pm

Lies-TruthPresident Trump has directed the FBI to conduct a supplemental background investigation to determine if Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh had any relevant involvement in the allegations raised by Christine Ford and Deborah Ramirez.  President Trump further directed the FBI to conclude its supplemental investigations by next Friday, October 5.

I predict:   Between November 28 and October 5, Christine Ford and her attorneys will try to file a criminal complaint against Brett Kavanaugh with the state of Maryland.   Fox News is reporting that “Earlier this week, a group of Maryland lawmakers, all Democrats, called for the state to conduct its own criminal investigation into decades-old sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh …”  A letter in response from the Montgomery County Police and the Montgomery County  State’s Attorney’s Office indicated they would conduct a state level investigation into such allegations if the victim filed the complaint.

If as I predict Ford files the complaint with the state of Maryland, the investigation would be difficult to complete by Friday, October 5.   Almost certainly Senate Democrats would demand under penalty of #MeToo that the Senate confirmation vote on the Kavanaugh nomination must be postponed until the Maryland state investigation has concluded and the State’s Attorney has made a charging decision.

Question:  Why did President Trump assign the Brett Kavanaugh supplemental background investigation to the FBI and not the Office of Personnel Management, National Background Investigations Bureau ?  Why were Senate Democrats and some Republicans so intent on getting the FBI involved in this?

Given the allegations of FBI and DoJ wrongdoing in connection with the 2016 presidential campaign, and particularly considering the mounting evidence that the FBI and DoJ knowingly submitted  applications which intentionally included false and misleading information to obtain a FISA warrant and three renewals to surveil Carter Page, a Trump campaign low-level staffer,  why would anyone want the FBI anywhere near the Kavenaugh mess?  The supplemental BI does not require the involvement of any criminal investigative body, certainly not the FBI.

The supplemental BI is an administrative investigation, not a criminal one.  NBIB agents would not be asking questions predicated on proving or disproving criminal allegations; they would be investigating to gather factual information which the sponsoring agency could use to determine an applicant’s suitability or fitness for federal employment.

September 28, 2018

The Swamp (ABA Division)

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 9:07 am

Lies-TruthThe Democrat-led inquisition designed and unashamedly executed to destroy the lives of US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his family goes on even after being exposed by Judiciary Committee member Senator Lindsay Graham on Thursday, September 27.  Note that at 3:17 / 4:33 of the video, Senator Graham reads from the American Bar Association’s (ABA) earlier letter favorably evaluating Judge Kavanaugh for elevation to the US Supreme Court.

Today we see that the ABA’s President Robert M. Carlson penned a letter yesterday urging that <Democrat echo chamber>”… the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (and, as appropriate, the full Senate) to conduct a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States only after an appropriate background check into the allegations made by Professor Ford and others is completed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” </Democrat echo chamber>.

I wonder if Carlson actually listened to Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony before sending the letter or if he sent it immediately after Christine Ford’s performance concluded.

The second paragraph of Carlson’s letter states the request is made “… because of the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law.  The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI.”

His request is pure, unadulterated hypocritical “bullshit.”   Carlson apparently lacks any level of understanding of the federal background investigation process.

If Carlson had been paying attention to yesterday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, he would have heard references to sworn statements about the “accusations and facts” he demands now be re-investigated by the FBI.  I wonder if it occurred to Carlson to ask who contacted the people identified by Ford, administered the oath, and took those sworn statements before Ford gave her testimony yesterday?   I wonder if Carlson knows that even if the FBI special agents had gathered the background information, the “careful examination of the accusations and facts” would still have been done by the Senate Judiciary Committee and its staff, not by the FBI?  That’s generally how the federal background investigation program works.  Here’s a more complete description.

Is Carlson suggesting that only the FBI has the integrity and competence to conduct personnel security background investigations?  If so, he needs to contact the CIA, NSA, DoD, DHS, Congress, and other agencies as well.  They may not yet have been informed that their in-house BIs don’t measure up to The Swamp (ABA Division) standards.

Then again, maybe Carlson’s idea has some merit.  There are a lot of now-former FBI agents who have plenty of time and probably still recall how to conduct BIs.  Let’s see:  How about Earl Pitts?  Or Richard Miller?  Or Robert HanssenJames ComeyPeter Strzok?

Oh, and don’t forget Andrew McCabe.  In fact, he should probably have the inside track.  He is being represented by attorney Michael Bromwich, one of the attorneys engaged to represent Christine Ford during her testimony at the Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

As for what Senate Judiciary Committee Rankest Member Senator Dianne Feinstein and her only slightly less rank cohorts have done to Judge Kavanaugh and his family, I suppose that’s a representative example of  “… the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law.”

September 25, 2018

Oh, Please, Mr. Bromwich!

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , — Bill @ 12:18 pm

Lies-TruthChristine Ford’s latest attorney (joining Katz and Banks) is Michael Bromwich.  Bromwich has been a federal prosecutor, a special prosecutor, and a Department of Justice inspector general.

On Monday we learned that Bromwich is objecting to the Senate Judiciary Committee planning to use an outside attorney who is a woman and an “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” to question Christine Ford when she testifies (or doesn’t) at the Committee on Thursday.

(ADDENDUM:  09-25-2018 at 19:44 PDT — Late word is that the “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” engaged by the Republicans to question both Ford and Kavenaugh will be Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney’s office in Phoenix, Arizona.)

The wording of Bromwich’s letter to the Committee Chairman Grassley was, I believe, an effort to portray Bromwich in the image of a knight in shining armor lawyer who will protect his client Ford from that evil outside prosecutor intent on bullying  Pure-as-the-driven-snow Chrissie with a withering examination to humiliate and demean her as if she is some mopus erectus child molestor.

In fact, that is exactly the kind of treatment of Ford that Bromwich and the Democrats would like to see the Republicans on the Committee inflict.  It would forever etch in viewers’ minds that Christine Ford is somehow being victimized by the old white Republican men on the Committee and, by extension, by Brett Kavanaugh.

Bromwich’s real concern, though, is more likely to be based his knowledge of how an “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” is really likely to question Ford during the nationally televised Judiciary Committee Circus on Thursday.

Bromwich is likely worried that instead of the viewing public seeing some aging great white Republican sharks cruelly playing with the bloody defenseless seal before leaving its carcass floating in the ocean, we are more likely to see the “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” woman having a sympathetic conversation with another woman, Christine Ford, who may very well have been a victim of an attack by someone some time in her high school years.

The “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” likely is a trial prosecutor with several major cases in front of juries.  On Thursday the real jury will be the viewing audience, and every Senator on the Judiciary Committee knows it.  Ideally, the “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” will draw on her criminal trial experience to gently point out the inadequacy bordering on complete absence of Ford’s information supporting her allegation while at the same time avoiding anything close to a personal attack on Ford.

In simple terms, Bromwich fears the woman prosecutor will be able to show the insufficiency of Ford’s information while generating the kind of sympathy for Kavanaugh and his family that Bromwich, Katz, Banks, and the Democrats hoped the curmudgeonly male Republican Senators’ questioning would produce for Ford.

It’s a lot to hope for, but I also hope the so far publicly unnamed “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” will be the one to question Kavanaugh.

It will be difficult for the ego-engorged Senators to surrender their coveted on-camera bloviating face time to an outsider not really a member of their club.  However, this same woman prosecutor can accomplish something more than just a respectful, professional examination and elicitation of Ford’s information.  She will be able to allow Kavanaugh to articulate his unquestionably superior professional qualifications.  She will be able to elicit from Kavanaugh the scope and frequency of the background investigations he regularly endured, thus pointing out the unproductive redundancy of yet another time-consuming background investigation.

Beyond that, the woman prosecutor will be able to appeal to the sympathies of viewers at home for Kavanaugh, his wife, Ashley, and two young daughters, Liza and Margaret, who have endured personal physical threats of unimaginable violence and vulgarity.

Although Brett Kavanaugh is the President’s nominee to be an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, he and his family are being subjected to mental violence that most of us would be unwilling and unable to endure.

And for what I believe is the first time in the history of Judiciary Committee hearings for appointments to the US Supreme Court, the nominee is being threatened by members of the Democrat Party that if he is confirmed by the Senate and sworn by the President, he will be impeached and removed from the Court as soon as the Democrats have sufficient numbers in the House and Senate to impeach and convict.  No evidence of wrongdoing will be necessary; his being appointed by President Trump will be sufficient to justify impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.

The last thing Michael Bromwich wants is an “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” who can show the viewing public that if anyone is callously exploiting Christine Ford’s early life circumstances, it is members of the US Senate who want partisan surrogate legislators rather than impartial justices on the US Supreme Court.

September 24, 2018

09-24-2018 Kavanaugh Letter to S. Judiciary Committee

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 12:13 pm

Lies-TruthHere is a link to Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee today, 09-24-2018.

Not surprisingly, you may have some difficulty finding this entire letter linked in any of the national skews media’s online sites.

The only disagreement I have with Judge Kavanaugh’s letter is his politely addressing Feinstein as “The Honorable Dianne Feinstein.”  Among all the adjectives that could be used to describe the Rankest Committee Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Honorable” is not among them.

September 23, 2018

Next …!

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 8:01 pm

Lies-TruthTo very few people’s surprise, certainly not mine, just as Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation about Brett Kavanaugh began to unravel, the Hit Team has “found” another woman to raise another aged allegation.  Next …!

This allegation goes back to 1983-84 when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale.

Notice that the time frame of Ford’s allegation was in about 1982.  Deborah Ramirez’s allegation is in 1983-84.

Ramirez’s allegation addresses many of the credibility-damaging defects in Ford’s allegation.  Imagine that!  It’s a miracle!

When, I wonder, was the first background investigation (BI) report completed on Brett Kavanaugh by the federal government?   Did his first BI include the time frame of either the alleged Ford or the alleged Ramirez incidents?  If so, were the incidents included in the BI report?  How did the adjudicator discuss and assess the “facts” surrounding these alleged incidents?

Given the time frame of both the Ford and Ramirez allegations,  it is very likely the “facts” allegedly associated with them would (or should) have shown up in the reports written as part of Kavanaugh’s first full-field BI.   If they weren’t reported in Kavanaugh’s first full-field BI, then it may mean these  alleged incidents were never officially reported to police, schools, hospitals, etc.   If the alleged incidents were reported to officials or were derived from interviews of listed and derived (spinoff) references, then they should be in the first BI reports.  So should any adjudication of any effects the information had on Kavanaugh’s suitability determination for government employment or security clearance.

In some agencies’ BI reports, the investigator who conducted the interview is permitted to separately include his or her personal observations concerning the credibility (e.g., stated biases, cooperativeness, etc.) of the reporting party.  When permitted, these are almost always under a separate, clearly marked heading such as “Agent’s Notes.”

If you’re part of a Hit Team trying to “find” witnesses who will compose credible derogatory information about an older applicant, you would try to “find” witnesses whose acquaintence with the applicant preceded the applicant’s first official BI.

The kind of allegations raised so far against Brett Kavanaugh would almost certainly have been reported and adjudicated in his first or subsequent full-field BIs if the incidents leading to the allegations occurred.

To believe that the US Senators who are screaming the loudest for another “FBI investigation” of Kavanaugh, you have to also believe the screaming Senators are too ignorant and too stupid to have security clearances themselves.

Then again, the Rankest Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, did for decades have a driver allegedly with connections to the intelligence service of the People’s Republic of China, so …

September 21, 2018

Provenance? We Don’t Need No Stinking Provenance!

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 11:59 am

Lies-TruthIf you believe the national skews media, the Rankest Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, is refusing to let Committee Chairman Charles Grassley see the original Kavanaugh letter from Christine Blasey Ford.

Why not?  Supposedly that is the letter that has launched the current phase of the “intergalactic freakshow” known as the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing.  As far as we know, the letter is the best evidence of the collective thoughts of Christine Blasey Ford (and no one else) about Brett Kavanaugh’s suitability to be an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Why doesn’t Feinstein want to hand over the original letter to Grassley?  Very likely it’s because Grassley would want to know every detail of the letter’s provenance.    He would quite properly want the letter authenticated.  That is important because the original letter “locks in” Ford to the information in the letter.

That letter is represented to be the original work of Christine Blasey Ford, a present-day writing of her recollection of an alleged incident that occurred in 1982 involving Kavanaugh and her.   Presumably that letter contains all the relevant information in her recollection of the alleged incident.  So for her to suddenly now in September 2018 remember some highly relevant detail from 1982 that isn’t in the letter would be highly suspicious.

Among others, she should be asked these questions under oath and under penalty of perjury:

  • Did you write and send this letter on your own initiative?  With whom did you discuss writing and sending a letter concerning Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination before doing it?
  • Confirm that these were your words and and ideas only rather than the words of any second party such as attorneys Debra Katz or Lisa Banks, Representative Anna Eshoo or her staff, or Senator Dianne Feinstein or her staff.
  • Were prior versons of this letter prepared and then modified in any way or even completely rewritten after consultation with any other parties such as Eshoo, Feinstein, Katz, Banks, etc.?     Identify all persons with whom you discussed this letter before preparing and sending this (original) version.

The purpose of Grassley’s reasonable demand for truthful answers to those questions is to reassure the Judiciary Committee that Ford’s testimony is based only on her own personal knowledge and belief of the incident as it occurred in 1982.

Asking those questions of Ford under oath gives her the opportunity to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in her own words, not the words of some attorney or political hack or staffer or polygraph examiner.     If someone has applied either subtle or coercive outside influence on Ford to get her to testi-lie under oath before the Judiciary Committee, she needs to reveal that to avoid committing perjury and to keep her own and Judge Kavanaugh’s reputations intact.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved