"And they're worse than anyone thought- where we find that not
only did Justin implicate Peter, but who had knowledge of the fur farm
raids in advance, as well as who gave him places to stay and paid for his
ticket out of the country in the aftermath."
so I read the transcript and it seems that they had many questions to ask about the person whose name was omitted. and right from the beginning of the grand jury's questioning. anyone have their thinking cap on? anyone who missed this, try giving it another read.
it looks like Justin never said that the omitted person was involved with anything illegal he and Peter did, contarary to the above post's claim.
he did tell them about the omitted person buying bus and plane tickets for him after they were caught and that the person had no knowledge of what they had been doing. last I knew it wasn't illegal to buy someone bus and plane tickets. it doesn't seem like a smart thing to talk about, regardless, but without knowing what the government had evidence of it's hard to know if this was even news to the feds or just confirmation.
it also looks like whenever they asked for new names Justin called in his attorney and didn't answer those questions and didn't answer those questions. if he just was saving his own ass it seems like a pretty odd thing to do, no? he actually seems like a politician than an informant through a lot of that transcript.
where did he say that others had "knowledge of the fur farm raids in advance"? I didn't see it. that's a pretty hefty accusation. did I miss something? i would assume people with knowledge of crimes in advance would have been charged with something.
it does appear that Justin told them everything, or everything as far as we know, about the actual acts of releasing mink with Peter. if that is enough to make him an informant, despite any other evidence that may exist, then he is in fact an informant.
given the other discussions it sounds like Justin has never denied what he told the grand jury and claims that it was okay to do so in light of the other evidence from them getting caught. of course it's never okay to talk to a grand jury, but after reading this transcript with my thinking cap firmtly in place I get a new feeling about this whole affair.
is there more that will be released by Peter related to the evidence the government claimed they had? I'd be curious if there was anything else besides Justin's testimony implicating him or if the rest was flimsy as people seem to say. if this was icing on a cake, then it would be disappointing. if this was the cake itself, then it would be betrayal.
I expected that there would be more to it then what I just read, especially with regards to implicating other people besides Peter.
it seems anti-climactic. and right now this all seems even more like bickering and name calling than before.
oh yeah, big point, GOOD JOB omitting the person's name and leaving plenty of information there that can be used to find out who the person was with a few minutes of googling (not that I just did, or anything). we're talking rocket science here, eh? the level of common sense exercised through this whole thing has been absolutely stunning.
unless you take that Rove/Plame attitude of "I didn't actually say her name, I just said it was the wife of this other person". it's the same genius at work with Peter releasing that transcript with just the name omitted. in fact, assuming there really was good reason to keep the person's name private, I would call this a catastrophic fuck up. whoever it was you were keeping it from most definitely knows it now.
the smartest thing would have been to just say you can't release anything because Justin implicated too many people and it would affect those people's lives, even if just personal lives because the government of course has their names. instead you went and put a big dent in your own claims about Justin by releasing his testimony for us all to read while at the same time putting others at risk.
this may be the most selfish thing I've seen in this case yet. but i'm sure it will get stupider from all sides as human egos have no bounds. maybe Justin can make some wonderful statement in his defense that drags other people into the public eye that we don't know about yet and it can screw up their lives, too. and they can just go back and forth until we all vomit and nobody is left who respects animal rights activists.
BC
C'mon people. Think about this. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to be putting others at risk just to out one person who seems to be well outed already. Everybody has already heard enough to have anyone concerned not work with Samuel. To go and start releasing portions of a case that had seemed to not affect anyone but two people so far is just insane. Maybe people were just lucky that nobody was indicted because of that testimony but nothing, absolutely nothing, could justify dragging this out into the open. What a friend Peter must be to do this knowing that it talks about other people besides the person he is angry at.
Some of my friends have met Peter, though they don't really know him, and among them they are split down the line. Some thing he's a great person and a hero while others think he's a complete asshole. I get the impression that not only is that split quite common but there's this feeling among the people who think he's great that he can do no wrong. I'm sorry to tell you this but even if you think he's great it doesn't mean you should do something just because he asks you to. I might not have thought of looking further to find out someone's name reading this but I know the enemies of animal rights would be that cunning. So if someone asked me to publish this I am fairly sure all of the flags would have gone off in my head that say "whoa, i really need to think about this and maybe talk to some more people and maybe an attorney, and really do what I know in my heart is right even if it isn't what my friend asked me to do".
With it being like ten years after their mink releases and nobody else ever being in the spotlight or going to prison besides the two people who were caught it seems obvious that the best thing to do now would be to just wrap things up and move on. Peter should just be doing his time. People can keep posting about not associating with Samuel. Why was this testimony needed? It didn't actually convince me one way or the other. The only jumping up and down I do when I read it is in frustration that someone has put this out there for peopel to read when the whole thing is obviously about more than just the two people who got caught. If you were that person who's name was removed would you be pissed at Peter now? I think so and I know I would.
This whole thing is frighteningly cult-like. There are irrational actions being taken that stem from the idealization of one person and that person's requests. People, do yourselves and others a favor and remove these transcripts and anything else like it from your website. Tell Peter "sorry, I didn't feel right about it as it could affect other people". Who is it helping? Or maybe the problem is that only that question got asked, but nobody asked the other question which is who is this hurting?
really
1. this is public information
2. the reason it needed to be done is because of all of the controversy with david agronoff and his wife? introducing justin back into the animal rights movement and the excuses/lies that were made for him, this shows people the real truth, people had be influenced otherwise
although in reality it is unfortunate that it had to come to this, and some people won't care because they will defend their "friends" no matter what the crime they've committed
my input
you must be a samuel sympathizer,
you make it sound like this 3rd person is going to get in trouble
maybe it's not clear to you that this was a court case that took place years ago and the person's actual name was used in the court case by justin samuel and if the feds wanted to take action they would have or did, this isn't letting out some secrect,
the person to be pissed at is justin samuel for mentioning this persons name
none
