"Six gentleman in casual clothes emerged from the vehicles..." (updated)

[ProSense]

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2013, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

From Michele Catalano's piece

I was at work when it happened. My husband called me as soon as it was over, almost laughing about it, but I wasn't joining in the laughter. His call left me shaken and anxious.

What happened was this: At about 9am, my husband, who happened to be home yesterday, was sitting in the living room with our two dogs when he heard a couple of cars pull up outside. He looked out the window and saw three black SUVs in front of our house; two at the curb in front and one pulled up behind my husband's Jeep in the driveway, as if to block him from leaving.

Six gentleman in casual clothes emerged from the vehicles and spread out as they walked toward the house, two toward the backyard on one side, two on the other side, two toward the front door.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/government-tracking-google-searches

She said she wasn't home. Here the photo The Atlantic Wire attached to its story, and it's now being spread as the actual photo.



Google 'Pressure Cookers' and 'Backpacks,' Get a Visit from the Cops
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/

The Guardian:

New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online

A New York woman says her family's interest in the purchase of pressure cookers and backpacks led to a home visit by six police investigators demanding information about her job, her husband's ancestry and the preparation of quinoa.

Michele Catalano, who lives in Long Island, New York, said her web searches for pressure cookers, her husband's hunt for backpacks, and her "news junkie" son's craving for information on the Boston bombings had combined somewhere in the internet ether to create a "perfect storm of terrorism profiling".

Members of what she described as a "joint terrorism task force" descended on Catalano's home on Wednesday. A spokesman for the FBI told to the Guardian on Thursday that its investigators were not involved in the visit, but that "she was visited by Nassau County police department … They were working in conjunction with Suffolk County police department."

The Guardian has contacted the Suffolk County and Nassau County police departments for comment.

Catalano was at work, but her husband was sitting in the living room as the police arrived. She retold the experience in a post on Medium.com on Thursday. She attributed the raid largely to her ongoing hunt for a pressure cooker, an item used devastatingly by the two Tsarnaev brothers in Boston, but also used by millions across the country to prepare vegetables while retaining most of their nutrients.

- more -

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker

This was local police, and there is no indication that her claim about "pressure cookers" is accurate. It could be, but this story is full of contradictions.

The NSA is not the FBI, and it's definitely not the local police.

Edited to add The Atlantic Wire update:

Update: Now We Know Why Googling 'Pressure Cookers' Gets a Visit from Cops

<...>

Update, 7:05 p.m.: Because the Googling happened at work.

The Suffolk County Police Department released a statement this evening that answers the great mystery of the day.

Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.”

After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches. The incident was investigated by Suffolk County Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Detectives and was determined to be non-criminal in nature.

<...>

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/

[Rex]

1. Those are cops? Funny, the look just like 11 bravos.

Ya but there is NO police state...please move on, nothing to see here...

[ProSense]

8. Clearly, the photo doesn't correspond with her account. n/t

[Rex]

13. Ya this is going to be a strange story of 'he said, she said'.

But the point is those look like soldiers and not cops...we need to demilitarize law enforcement or we just need to admit that there is a War on the Citizenry.

[Luminous Animal]

31. Why did Atlantic Wire put that picture with the story?

The picture originally accompanied this story on the Boston bomber search...

http://www.seattlespectator.com/2013/04/25/after-lockdown-boston-pd-arrests-suspect/

[JDPriestly]

85. When are they claiming that these events occurred?

[arcane1]

86. Because it generates more clicks, especially when shared on Facebook n/t

[JDPriestly]

82. Why not? What doesn't correspond?

Why do you think the photo does not correspond with her account?

[arcane1]

89. Because that's not her, or her home, in the photo, for one thing.

[JDPriestly]

92. Thanks.

[treestar]

80. If she wasn't even arrested

How is it a "police state?" And did they have a warrant? Has she been disappeared? Has her First Amendment right to talk about it been compromised?

[Rex]

84. Many good questions.

That picture is not even from the event in the article! Clearly the paper is trying to use sensationalism to get readers. I say it is a police state, because we have militarized our LEO. THAT should NEVER happen.

Crime is at an all time low in America, the LAST thing we need is to turn our police force into another military branch.

[pnwmom]

111. She wasn't even home! And no one was arrested. They didn't even wake up the son. n/t

[The Stranger]

118. That seems like an incredibly naive response.

Once they've started arresting people, it's far too late.

The question is why innocent, private behavior is being monitored and questioned illegally.

[treestar]

119. Oh Good God.

[chimpymustgo]

2. Jesus. This has been posted 3 times here already.

[Cali_Democrat]

45. Board nanny much?

[Logical]

72. Whine about other posters much? n-t

[jberryhill]

93. Superior "I'm above all that" comment much?

[Dash87]

98. "Much" much?

[jberryhill]

99. As much as I can, thanks!

[Dash87]

100. But does a much "much" much? That is the question.

[pnwmom]

112. There was a post sitting on the home page all day about how Catalano's story

was "proof" about the NSA spying on all our our computer searches.

So I'm glad people keep posting that it's not true.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. I am a bit lost with this post

What exactly are you trying to say here?

[enlightenment]

17. I believe the OP is suggesting

the woman made it up.

No doubt because she hates the President.

Or something.

[Vinnie From Indy]

20. I believe the OP is suggesting that very thing!!!

She continues to post on this thread, but will not address my question. It is a simple question.

Is the OP asking DU'ers to doubt Catalano's story because another publication used a photo that was not of the actual incident?

[sweetloukillbot]

23. I doubt Catelano's story because there has been no corroboration

Every police force has said "It wasn't us, check with them." The only person saying it happened is the blogger who wrote it, who also writes fan fiction about John Kerry's Cambodian Christmas drug adventures and formerly wrote for Pajamas Media. Not a reliable source IMO.
Everyone has breathlessly been posting this story, but not doing any reporting till after the fact. All the stories posted have lists of corrections at the bottom as the story comes out.
Maybe someone did visit her, but I'd like some corroboration from a neighbor or someone before jumping on the bandwagon.

[Vinnie From Indy]

26. Fair enough!

Some corroboration would be prudent before making a judgement.

Cheers!

[JDPriestly]

88. Maybe it happened some time ago, or maybe someone imagined it.

So, what is the evidence that debunks it?

[frazzled]

101. When did you stop beating your wife?

Now, what evidence can you provide that debunks that statement? (Don't bring your wife, because we'll just assume she's terrified and will say you never beat her; the neighbors won't talk either).

Point: it is incumbent on the teller of a story to provide evidence that SUPPORTS it; it doesn't remain "true" until the rest of the world debunks it. Geez.

[JDPriestly]

109. Someone pointed out that the picture used in the Atlanticwire story appeared in a story

about the arrest of the bombers at the Boston Marathon. Unless this story dates as far back as that, there is definitely a problem with this story.

[ProSense]

22. What about the Guardian story?

Does that suggest "the woman made it up"?

Something happened, the story is being embellished beyond what likely happened.

[sufrommich]

39. The Guardian has a section called "comment is free", anyone

can post there and sources are not checked,it shouldn't be confused with actual Guardian reporting,although I see it confused as such all the time. That being said, I think this story will not pass the smell test, the woman has already shut down her twitter feed and refuses to talk to any media although earlier she claimed she couldn't talk about it while at work,she now says she doesn't want to talk about it. Also, the FBI never claimed that this was the work of her local police department, they said it wasn't them and they don't know who it was.

[enlightenment]

46. So why not just say that?

ProSense, you muddle up your posts so much that you do yourself a disservice.

I don't absolutely believe this story because no one has corroborated it - as far as I know. Obviously you have doubts about it as well.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply say that, instead of posting what amounts to a "here's the proof that things aren't the way she said they were" - especially when the image posted clearly has little to do with what the woman claimed?

Your OP wasn't posted as an opinion - you rarely post something that you state is your opinion. You post things as fact, and offer little by way of evidence beyond blue links back to your own posts and comment free links to articles that oft times don't even support the point you seem to want to make. What are people supposed to make of that kind of thing?

Seriously, PS, your pronouncements don't carry any more weight than any other pronouncement made on DU.

It's kind of sad, actually, because there have been occasions when I've seen you post your actual thoughts on things and those thoughts are pretty worthwhile.

[ProSense]

49. No,

"So why not just say that? ProSense, you muddle up your posts so much that you do yourself a disservice."

...don't blame me for your accusation. The OP is perfectly clear, and it includes the Guardian article.

[enlightenment]

53. Whatever, PS.

I tried. You want my way or the highway? Have at it.

[ProSense]

57. No, I don't

"I tried. You want my way or the highway? Have at it."

You made an accusation. There are people discussing the discrepancies I mentioned in the OP. Your accusations was inaccurate, and now you're trying to blame me for you making it. Now you say it's because I want "my way or the highway."

No, I want you to accept that your accusation was inaccurate.

[Vinnie From Indy]

59. You are right!

It is quite sad that she seems impervious to good advice. I commend you for trying!

Cheers!

[ProSense]

63. No, you're

being disingenuous, as I pointed out here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023387587#post61

[Cha]

110. What's "sad" is your psycho babble about ProSense. It says everything

about you and nothing about her.

[enlightenment]

113. Your defense of someone you have probably never met

is touching. I'm sure she is grateful.

[leveymg]

69. You don't understand how Joint Terrorism Task Forces and Fusion Centers work, do you, ProSense?

The FBI and DHS will usually dispatch the lowest priority available resources to check out live leads like this. In this case, that means county and local plainclothes, not Moulder and Scully. The fact that it was local cops not FBI does not in the least diminish the credibility of the report of the "victim" (the person of interest) in this incident.

The facts don't support your implied conclusion that this wasn't, in fact, a terrorism investigation set off by the internet searches of US persons inside the US. Sorry, this is yet another demonstration of how misleading your postings have been.

[ProSense]

77. Well, I don't have to be condescending

"You don't understand how Joint Terrorism Task Forces and Fusion Centers work, do you, ProSense?"

...to suggest that your point has nothing to do with the discrepancies in the reporting of this story.

[leveymg]

107. Turns out to have been something of a hoax. And you are owed something of an apology.

I was being condescending, and I apologize.

[ProSense]

108. Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

4. clearly some federal involvement, Nassau County doesn't have electronic eavesdropping

last time I checked.

Weird, weird story.

[GlashFordan]

5. Horrible, disgusting, incomprehensible.

I don't care what the uniform says, those are military troops.

Squint your eyes a little bit and it's Nazi Germany SS Einsatzgruppen taking the Jews and Gypsies from their homes.

[frazzled]

7. Because it's not a real picture of the incident.

See my post below. Someone's pulling your leg.

[GlashFordan]

10. Doesn't matter, the picture is real.

And the rest of my post stands.

[frazzled]

14. It may be real about something, somewhere, sometime ...

but it sure ain't about this. It could be from 2003.

Why is the OP trying to put this over as an illustration of the incident being discussed--which, by the way, most people think is pure fiction (she's a fiction writer).

[ProSense]

19. You are

"Why is the OP trying to put this over as an illustration of the incident being discussed--which, by the way, most people think is pure fiction (she's a fiction writer)."

...dismissing my point, which is that the photo is being spread with the story, giving the impression that is what happened.

At the same time, you're dismissing the story as "fiction" when the Guardian Report shows that there was an actual incident.

[Just Saying]

70. Yes I see what you're saying.

I kept coming back to the photo which just doesn't jibe with the story that

1. Only her husband was there.
2. The police (or whoever they were) were dressed in soft clothes
3. The only kid she mentioned was a 20 yo man. (True, she may have others.)

I don't know why they add pictures that have nothing to do with the story. It just makes me question other things in the story.

I wonder if there are other things that led whoever it was to their door? Feels like there's a lot to this story we don't know.

[jberryhill]

94. It's from the search for the boston bomber according to tineye.com

[frazzled]

62. So is this one

[GlashFordan]

64. That one is from unicorn and rainbow land.

The one I noted is from Anytown, USA when the mili... I mean the police need to flex some muscle.

I myself live in a city where the PD has a fucking armored vehicle, damn near a tank. Why?? The local law enforcement is gearing up for the day when it's necessary to do bad things to the innocent public.

[frazzled]

66. And yours is of the house-to-house search for the Boston bomber

It has only the most tangential relationship to this "story"--and does not illustrate anything relating to the supposed visit to the writer's husband by a group of six plainclothes ("casually dressed&quot agents, if that ever really happened.

Do you think this story about John Kerry in Vietnam (by the very same author) really happened? (Hint: it's one of many examples of her fiction on the internet):

http://michelecat.wordpress.com/

[GlashFordan]

68. I guess it's impossible to do police work

Without looking like Marines in Fallujah. Did you hear the story about the man in SoCal who was drunk sitting on the porch of his friends apartment playing with a garden hose nozzle? The local storm troopers drilled him 20-30 times as he sat there playing with the hose nozzle.

[frazzled]

6. That picture is not attached to the AtlanticWire story at the link

And it doesn't even match the text of the story:

(1) The author (a woman) is at work in the story. Who's that in the picture? The Nanny? And who took the picture?
(2) She says, according to her husband, there were "Six gentleman in casual clothes"--not a group of uniformed stormtroopers--and only two came to the front door (the others going to the side and back). Also, according to the text, the men "greeted him by flashing badges. He could see they all had guns holstered in their waistbands."

This seems like more bullshit to me. This is a fictional story that has wrongfully been picked up as documentary. One thing for sure: that's not a photo of the incident, which didn't even mention children. Just a husband.

[KittyWampus]

29. That picture is most certainly attached to the AtlanticWire story at the link. I just checked.

Here- I will hot link to it for you.

[frazzled]

34. Not when I press the link: it's a generic picture of yellow police tape

Obviously merely illustrative, not documentary.

[KittyWampus]

40. That is the first link to the Guardian. Scroll down to the second link & you'll see, I promise.

BTW, I have no dog in this hunt.

Here's the link:


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/

[frazzled]

60. Fine--it's still just a stock photo that doesn't match the story in the least

[tridim]

73. Sorry for the long URL, but here is the source of the image...

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiuxwWWb4mMwoU2DbAPrAIr6WFQoqg-I6b-XkDAl0ZKIZbmceo-CQ0BOf0QclyyphOsjG7SamM06sR1ZtqW1p-DQPbXV8acTfgCtIcIyljkknxIZ5p2X_1e-pu-aBK1KVGhejU85t_1IZLEGxR2eFLhAg1CcYRf3QtSySiHYldwl5-LKSt-Ju4idyenJqabHXka9m6KsD4vXd6sNfIOHk9agUbKOuR5SQU36_1bBT1dlSb02bPgQZN_142wDMCZCitKODOALm2HTHrkT9yWy_1lFJRnOfg0TpZvtUVMh5vEqSJJuxgOoZUcJMx-ekahBQH0oo1X1kCmOJxqgjMY6orJ03fT1exfCLGqKSyrnO4vTTl8vZAgB08qTUFyovJFkyG6wOXESxDCDYTN2-dd_18Buyxg5-ljdq-2xFqsxyot1KZaYNZ1VkpfffqWz0yqU_1WiE1cqTpDLV7pi01FDXcwEYEEMoQ8sKqzFndNxiXDKiKshs4O0m6ijw-XNdznBwPxAnGH7aAXsd584XbPhPxO1JSW5uAf_1cJjaiL3bck42tb5BcHGAYAppKJ2gZrQ_1FpiHNIX4QGs6orcEeJk8_1Wm-4KqGDioSzuHMs1h2-X2AdIjuQk_1QA6Hp4ypvil26D4Qqydd-WvFah6flho7ZjVRhv-jazyOChyrfMgEyRMe8_10iCeIb4D1dQJ4ZS4FMxVbjJtPtfeZFaQGn61Ju0OuE_1nSPRpYqZhUphrIXRrYFyyrBSH-UtLPMPO_1le5J5xRrCk4mlIVxrIfvDM_1wTQ4qOCtkcH1EKejOchMWyRIUL45K4XF_1ZxE0DjrpN8Kw5aCbZ6hVpew8R0FmdLeMuuLnu5XwRSmXVZWVR9berbMopXEw2qit3U8Pn4sVDY2kRx7F3QCpCtDpVUXHqbeIe9zg5thQEGOnuTVtrBtRDbjjtIWGZOua8zbrT9sTDyuyl9B0cFGj1vKH7YXjnc4w7rknyslC4WzeADlg9gqs1cEHR-5UIQxf8rRKcoFEXzgDP7nrG_1S8tLjAKp_1DnzhLUKGVTo0h_1b7G6wHxFHJn70xQZ0pYa5LKHKGPVzBtahamIBawAmjyl5ycH8gP5hRoucIkkl40brpoWUuwTuh5ld4s3G4qaqMpfQJyv-7VHxhHwH8caPrBvIJVAUayZz2KjKwWgQuXkiuspn6DGKvxdsuNcsWmWiKo8UoolJKq3yaKxO70STZcHeqlOoEepxHj647QO5vqi45yvEm46qlbvD_1NLC2JxUfK2Yb5EOcekPiU8RD7KCbQZzHsAK5czb76Gkspeqenk06Nmk_14gojFOLpD3HS18CT5Jpa3XgdM&hl=en&bih=728&biw=1310

[sufrommich]

50. It's the picture that comes up for me. nt

[JDPriestly]

90. Not for me.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Normally that show of force is reserved for dying cancer grannies who are growing pot.

Maybe they had the wrong address.

[Robb]

11. Wait. I thought this was the photo:

[Bay Boy]

12. The headline says "casual clothes" the picture shows men in uniforms..

...what did I miss?

[frazzled]

15. You missed nothing: the OP is misrepresenting

That's the nicest word I can use without getting booted.

[ProSense]

16. No, the photo is attached to the story, and is being tweeted to represent this story.

That is clearly the point made in the OP.

"Here the photo The Atlantic Wire attached to its story, and it's now being spread as the actual photo. "

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. So, if I understand your position correctly,

DU'ers should doubt the original story by Catalano because some Atlantic Wire writer or editor used this photo on the story? Even though the writer nor The Atlantic Wire claim that this photo is of the actual event? Is that correct?

[ProSense]

21. You clearly

"So, if I understand your position correctly,

DU'ers should doubt the original story by Catalano because some Atlantic Wire writer or editor used this photo on the story? Even though the writer nor The Atlantic Wire claim that this photo is of the actual event? Is that correct?"

...don't understand the point. I mean, her tweets say FBI, the FBI says local police. The photo is a separate point about the impression it's creating. The story is filled with holes.

Wife searches online pressure cookers, husband a backpack. Terrorism task force shows up at house http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/01/1228194/-Wife-searches-online-pressure-cookers-husband-a-backpack-Terrorism-task-force-shows-up-at-house

Michele Catalano @inthefade

THANKS, OBAMA.
4:23 PM - 31 Jul 2013

15 Retweets 14 favorites

[Vinnie From Indy]

25. "...don't under the point."

I do not understand what that means.

Why is it so difficult for you to explain yourself in plain English? You offer that the story is filled with holes. You offer those holes include a discrepancy between Catalano's understanding that it was the FBI at her house vs. a statement by the FBI that it was the local police and that a picture appearing on a story at The Atlantic is not of the actual event. Is that correct? Are these the "holes" that you are presenting to the DU community? Do you have a link to the FBI's statement by the way?

[ProSense]

27. Oops, accidently deleted part of the word.

Why is it so difficult for you to explain yourself in plain English? You offer that the story is filled with holes. You offer those holes include a discrepancy between Catalano's understanding that it was the FBI at her house vs. a statement by the FBI that it was the local police and that a picture appearing on a story at The Atlantic is not of the actual event. Is that correct? Are these the "holes" that you are presenting to the DU community? Do you have a link to the FBI's statement by the way?

Seriously, is it that complicated for you to understand?

And, no. I don't have "a link to the FBI's statement."

[Vinnie From Indy]

48. I am not a mind reader and your post here is quite ambiguous.

Why not simply state that you have doubts and these are the reasons why?

Cheers!

[ProSense]

51. No, it isn't, and

"Why not simply state that you have doubts and these are the reasons why?"

...if you cannot see the contradictions pointed out in the OP, that's your problem not mine.

[Vinnie From Indy]

56. Speaking of not seeing things...

You must have missed this line IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STORY:
(The photo above is from the door-to-door sweep in Watertown at that time.)

AND this line at the bottom of the story:
Photo: Massachusetts police search a home after the Boston bombings.


Did you miss those or did you ignore them?

[ProSense]

61. No, nothing was "missed"

"Did you miss those or did you ignore them? "

The point is photo is misleading.

Still, why are you pushing this point when you are making the same claim:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023387587#post47

[Scootaloo]

28. To be fair, the use of such "cover images" is misleading journalism

I'm not doubting the woman's story, but being a long-time follower of middle east news, I'm very familiar with hte use of inaccurate photographs, "stock footage," and photoshopping, all to "sell" the article.

[leftstreet]

37. +1

[Vinnie From Indy]

47. I agree completely!

It is very bad journalism. I have written the author of the Atlantic piece and asked him why the photo was used, if it was an actual depiction of the actual raid and, if it was not, why it was not labeled as such. I also scolded him for having to change his headline from Raid by Feds to Raid by Cops. He does a great disservice to the issue of NSA spying by being so careless.

Cheers!

[snagglepuss]

71. I'd like to know if it is honest mistake or is the Atlantic doing someone a favor

by deliberately obfuscating what really happened. Just look at what happened to the discussion on this thread - rather than discussing the outrageous response to a google search, people are discussing a photo that has nothing to do with the story.

[Jenoch]

24. This is the second

thread on DU today about someone Googling backpacks and pressure cookers. They were not the same in their descriptions. I'll need some more evidence that this kind of raid has ever actually happened.

[TeeYiYi]

30. "Photo: Massachusetts police search a home after the Boston bombings."...

...from the link provided in your OP.

TYY

[KittyWampus]

33. That caption is not at the AtlanticWire link. I just checked.It's in the comment section.

[TeeYiYi]

36. That's where I copied it from. Check again. ..nt

TYY

[KittyWampus]

43. AHA! You are correct!

The men identified themselves as members of the "joint terrorism task force." The composition of such task forces depend on the region of the country, but, as we outlined after the Boston bombings, include a variety of federal agencies. (The photo above is from the door-to-door sweep in Watertown at that time.) Among those agencies: the FBI and Homeland Security.

[leftstreet]

38. No, it's actually in the article. Very weird n/t

[Rex]

42. Yep, second link in the OP leads to a picture

of cops searching a house after the Boston bombings. I think someone is going to have to retract a picture and apologize.

[ProSense]

35. Also posted at the

end of the article:

Correction: After confirmation from the FBI that its agents weren't involved in the visit, the headline of this piece was changed to "Visit From the Cops" instead of "the Feds."

Photo: Massachusetts police search a home after the Boston bombings.

[The Straight Story]

32. OK, so my question on it all is this: Why did the cops (not feds) show up? How,

supposing it was related to the searches, did they get this information?

Tip off from a Fusion center by chance?

[TeeYiYi]

41. I don't think they're sure yet just who showed up...

Since the FBI denies that it was them, the Atlantic Wire changed their heading to "cops" generic.

TYY

[The Straight Story]

44. The photo is from the boston bombing:

Photo: Massachusetts police search a home after the Boston bombings.

from your link

[msanthrope]

55. Right--so why did the Atlantic put it there? nt

[The Straight Story]

58. Stock police photo perhaps? Not saying they should have, but they did note that

in the article.

[PowerToThePeople]

52. Everyone click this link

www.google.com/search?q=pressure+cooker+bomb

NSA signal to noise ratio will be bad on this one...

[Rex]

54. HA!

[Logical]

91. I googled the following all day.....

Pressure Cooker Bombs
How to make a pressure cooker bomb
How to make ricin
Backpacks that hold pressure cooker bombs
How to overthrow the government

Waiting for FBI to show up.

[BklnDem75]

65. One of her twitter responses:

"You don't believe my story? Ask any of my followers about my credibility. Then kiss my ass. Thanks."

https://twitter.com/inthefade

I see mention of JITF, which is Homeland Security.

[Rainngirl]

67. Whether true or not...

if I need a pressure cooker, I won't be getting it online. Jeez!

[Boom Sound 416]

75. Ding!

And let the list of items begin

The title of the list is "fighting the last battle"

[tridim]

87. I'll buy you a top of the line pressure cooker if the feds show up after your search.

Hint: They will not show up at your door.

Paranoia makes you sick, be careful.

[JoePhilly]

115. LOL!!!!

[SunSeeker]

74. That appears to be a Chinese Magnolia in the upper left of the photo...

...which flowers in the early spring; then fruit and seed production start in mid spring until summer. That picture looks like it was taken in early spring, not last Wednesday as the incident is reported to have occurred.

[Boom Sound 416]

76. Nice observation. Whatever it is , not much flowers

In the last week of July

[SunSeeker]

83. And the family is dressed pretty warmly for a late July on Long Island. nt

[Boom Sound 416]

97. Agreed

[jberryhill]

96. How did you do it Mr. Holmes?!?

[SunSeeker]

106. LOL. Elementary, my dear Watson. My neighbor has a beautiful Chinese Magnolia.

And it had those flowers months ago. Now, it is all leafy and I don't see any flowers...

[Retrograde]

78. Casual clothes? My, have standards fallen!

When the FBI showed up at my door they were wearing neat, dark suits (twice: once looking for someone who had lived there several years before we moved in and had been running some sort of mail fraud scheme, and once doing a security clearance check on a neighbor).

[treestar]

79. If she wasn't home, what is that photo of?

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. Read The Article (nt)

[JDPriestly]

81. Could you point out the contradictions please?

[longship]

102. The point of the thread and the OP is that there are real problems with this story.

As it is told, something just doesn't add up. I won't believe it for a second until this is report is verified by a reputable source. The claims seem to be something somebody with an agenda would make up.

I am very skeptical of this.

[ProSense]

103. See the update. n/t

[longship]

104. Yup! Meanwhile the thread has gone into near meltdown.

I will attempt to preempt inevitable responses by reminding people that there is no expectation for privacy on a work computer. None!

So much for The Guardian's cred on this story.

[msanthrope]

105. Pics of explosives on her Facebook....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153008673760061&set=pb.500530060.-2207520000.1375381160.&type=3&theater

This was a winger set-up from the start.

[Safetykitten]

114. Our Future. Get used to it.

[tridim]

117. Yes, online liars are our future. Unfortunately.

I do love that they are finally getting called-out and ridiculed at light speed.

[Earth_First]

116. Prosense is using TheGuardian as a source...?