NY Times Applies 'Damage Control' and attacks Independent Investigator over Jared Lee Loughner

Connie A. Tusheon | Contributing Writer | May 25th, 2011
thegovernmentrag.com

Were Actors involved in the Tucson shooting? In a news article that posted today from the NY Times, written by Marc Lacey, called 'Hoax Site Distressing for Victims of Shooting," the article claims that Ed Chiarini of Wellaware1.com is a conspiracy website that is claiming the shooting in Tucson on 01/08/11, involving Jared Lee Loughner that allegedly killed six people, including Judge John Roll and 9-year old Christina Taylor Green, and injured 13 others including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is a hoax investigation. The article claims that "obviously fantastic claims would usually not merit the attention of law enforcement, but they have in this instance because some believers have become confronting, and alarming, some of the people associated with the case in recent weeks."

The Government Rag Editor, Stephanie Sledge, who has also been conducting a separate independent investigation as well on the Jared Lee Loughner shooting that took place in Tucson tried to contact Ed Chiarini, on short notice, by email, to get a response on the NY Times article. Stephanie has appeared on The Power Hour w/Joyce Riley to give different view points of the Tucson investigation, along with Ed Chiarini sharing airtime but have shared independent thoughts and findings on the case as it unfolds.

Stephanie Sledge, makes this statement about the recent NY Times article, "Although I am an independent investigative journalist that is trying to put together the true facts for the People of the United States of America and make sense of the January 8, 2011 shooting that took place in Tucson, AZ, I was utterly shocked at the mayhem and rhetoric that was found in the NY Times article that clearly shows a writer that did not follow up on accusations or get verification before publishing the article. Instead, they just demonized the researcher and tried to discredit his work. I cannot say for sure if in fact these people listed on Wellaware1 site are actors without verification but to insinuate that anyone looking into this investigation is a conspiracy theorist or just looking for trouble is just borderline mental abuse. This type of journalism is just not what I would have expected from such a prestige news organization like the NY Times. I am utterly ashamed for the writer and the company for even allowing this article to be published. It is not because I am defending Ed Chiarini's findings, it is because the article tries to demonize all investigative journalists that are researching this horrific event across the country. The message portrayed to the People, because of this NY Times article, is - if you ask questions, you will be turned over to the authorities to be investigated and then demonized. That to me resembles the globalistic protocol of "damage control."

In the article, Richard Kastigar, the investigative Chief of the Pima County Sheriff's Department said the following, " he passed information about the Web site to his intelligence unit. He reacted angrily to those denying the shootings. “There were bodies sent to the morgue, people’s loved ones,” "Mr. Kastigar said. Manuel J. Johnson, a spokesman for the F.B.I., said the bureau was aware of the site, but he declined to say whether an investigation was under way." An investigation for what? People in America, under the 1st amendment have a right to ask questions and have Freedom of Press. I am not sure what is alarming about the WellAware1 investigation considering the web site does announce, "he would like nothing more than to debunk his own theory" and asks the people who are in question to contact him. A real conspiracy theorist would just post the findings and not offer up anything to back up the evidence. Maybe Ed Chiarini should ask the writer, Marc Lacey if he is a conspiracy theorist since he did not verify any information that was offered up to him in this article. This type of unprofessional reporting by the NY Times could be considered a HOAX by the People who are following this story as it unfolds from all the way around the block."

The Government Rag, a web site that offers educational alternative news, acknowledges after conducting its own independent investigation that there are victims and people suffering from losses in this case. The alleged assassination of Judge John Roll is enough for the People of America to ask questions. The Government Rag has conducted its own independent investigation and tries to take the considerations of the victims and their family members who may be affected by the surfacing evidence. This is why the hard questions are being asked and many journalists are also conducting their own investigation. If the media didn't put out so many alleged lies in the past including 9/11, Oklahoma City Bombing, the Underwear Bomber, Times Square shooting, Gulf of Tonkin, and recently discovering others are presenting evidence about discrepancies in Obama's birth certificate , Osama resemblances, and DHS and TSA running-a-muck in the nation then People would trust the media. Instead, the People are unplugging their televisions and unplugging their minds. Plain and simple, tired of the entertainment news over and over again.

Just today, on the Joyce Riley Show, Riley responds to the article by responding to Mr, Radford, the research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, "ok, Mr Radford and Author of the article Marc Lager, we've been lied to so many times, if your listening, and I hope you are, we've been lied to so many times." Joyce cites the lies that have emerged including the lies the government put out over the atomic vets cover-up , the Vietnam vets and Agent Orange/Dioxin cover-up, the Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Hoax, the Gulf War Depleted Uranium cover-up, the recent Japanese meltdown radiation cover-up, 9/11, Building 7 and how it was reported hours before it fell, and the Waco cover-up. " See we have been lied to so many times and let's not forget about the Fluoride poisoning, the aspartame poisoning, and the GMO cover-up. We have been lied to so many times. We are just uncovering 'your-dirty-laundry' so we can give the truth to the people."

According to the NY TIMES article, "Manuel J. Johnson, a spokesperson for the F.B.I, said the bureau was aware of the site, but declined to say whether an investigation was underway. Once shooting victim notified the F.B.I recently after two men showed up at his home claiming to be investigators and saying they were trying to determine whether the shooting was a Hoax." The question remains as to why this practice of investigation is considered unethical or illegal. Any investigative journalist and/or just inquiring citizens with good credentials and capabilities of asking questions would have done the same. The only thing that seems to be lacking in AP News sites these days are the true investigative journalists. This is precisely what we see in this article posted by the NY Times.


The Government Rag contacted one of the several independent researchers one of which resides in the Tucson area. He went to the home of an alleged victim as well as one who was not a victim, but who was photographed with Gabrielle Giffords and asked to see the photograph of him and Giffords before she was shot. The victim of the shooting spree, however, was asked if he would like to be interviewed about his experience of the Toscana Plaza event on January 8, 2011. The victim was apprehensive at first until it was explained that he was there to hopefully dispel the allegations made against the crime scene victims. It was made clear that he was there not as an advocate of the conspiracy theorists, but to find whether the allegations were founded.

He stated, "as citizen enquirers and independent researchers, I went there because I wanted to understand what happened the day of the shooting and because it occurred in my own back yard. I care enough about the people that were alleged victims in this case to ask the hard questions on their behalf. After all, they are the victims and were hurt the most. I just want to report back to them with the answers that were publicly announced. We are deeply disappointed that the NY Times allowed for the misconstrued the intent of the journalist against those who are honestly asking questions that would solve a sensitive issue. They want to be sure they know the truth despite the conflict of interest between what the media reports compared to the findings of the alternative news venues. We are citizen investigators who seek credible and well balanced information. The agencies should expect that when a researcher disseminates information to the public on such a case, it must be as thoroughly studied and researched as possible. But, these same agencies neglected to ask these same questions themselves it seems. We are convinced that the victim was indeed victimized and are now satisfied with the outcome of the visit as too should the victim.

The Tucson citizen also continues by describing the meeting. "I knocked on the door of which was answered by a man who stepped outside to the front porch. His wife followed moments later after the reason for the visit was explained. The reason for the visit was repeated when his wife inquired. "They were really nice people," he commented and said that they freely shared the experience as well as answer questions, show evidence of the bullet wound, and an article from a magazine. The man described the suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, in which he said he also shared with other interested parties, citizens as well as journalists. When the conversation ended, I kindly thanked the couple and left.

A Texas web site business card was never given because there was no such card made available by Ed Chiarini. He may not have cards to hand out. The website address was provided when asked by the couple so that they could view the allegations set forth about the event. We were deeply saddened and disappointed when the NY Times and Associated Press mismanaged the information in the article. It seemed that it was crafted to mislead the reader into a fixed mindset that unscrupulous activity against the couple was taking place, when in fact it was not. The victim and his wife had no reason to end the conversation for if they did, they would have made it clear with the abundant opportunity to do so at any time during the visit.

It is not yet against the law to knock on a neighbors door. It is suspected that if the NY Times article was firm and accurate about the victim feeling "alarmed", and that the person asking the questions attempted to enter their home, why then did this go unreported? Perhaps it never was and that the information became convoluted when translated by the authorities to the author of the article? Or could it be the author himself craft such a diversion. There is no blame we hope. We hope that logic and wisdom prevail for the reader following this example. It is not against the law to assume responsibility when the media is not writing factual information and that clarification be made civily. That is what civility really means -- it is when a person between two separate ends of a problem attempts to bridge the information gap. In this case it would be before the news media chronicles a potentially biased opinion masked in factual events that did not take place.. Obviously, the message was not translated correctly."



The Government Rag also questions as to why the CSI Committee for Skeptical Inquiry website link is placed in the NY Times article. The concern that Stephanie Sledge, editor of The Government Rag expressed, "it concerns me because it shows that the writer was not presenting a view of a journalist who puts out well-balanced articles. I also question the motive behind the NY Times adding the link because it could be perceived by the reader a message that suggests all journalists, researchers, individuals, and investigators must think the same theory and agree on the same stories and not reach outside the box and form their own theories on news stories. The reader might be led as well to believe that if they read something outside of the box, then they should be refereed to CSI, who appears to hold a radical scientific skeptical theory that individuals who seek their own theories and think beyond what the average mainstream or associated press says, then they might need to be scientifically studied and labeled an alleged con artist - the bigger the story grows, the bigger the hoax must be. This is utterly ridiculous to those with higher intelligence that practice in this field. It appears to be a ploy to try to dismantle all the different theories taking place on the Tucson shooting until they end up with the usual one world theory. Lastly, asking for donations to help fund an investigation really is not out of line. Donations are quite common for non-profit or other organizations to pursue to help fund a cause. I cannot speak for Ed Chiarini but that statement just sounds ridiculous across the board."

This pic is from the website wellaware1.com

Related Post