|
TOP shenanigans
being referenced as they are "happened along" |
|
WORK ON THIS PAGE IS STILL IN PROGRESS
shenanigans being referenced as they are "happened along" in the Fall 2005 repair, update and reorganization of this website, including the possible tie "deciphered" to later incidents:
from Preface of Addendum - Evidence of Possible Infrastructure Involvement.doc LOCAL CULTURE AND
ENVIRONMENT From what I've observed through my contact with various members of this particular "gang," it is likely that, once someone gives in to the pressure of doing "one small favor* " for one of them, that person has now set a precedent in what the gang will expect that person to do. And that person has most probably carried out that "one small favor" because he was afraid not to comply, knowing that the local area is so small that it would be pretty much impossible for him to avoid these "certain people" in the future. He was also likely not told why that "one small favor" needed to be done, if fact, most probably he was told "Don't worry about why*." Particularly in the last year, it may be that people are being "blackmailed" into continuing to "go along" with gang wishes by being made aware, afterward, that they may have implicated themselves in a crime when they performed that "one small favor." [* This gang often employs these two exact phrases when this tactic is being used.] At this point, this can probably be described as a "good old boy" world that has gotten out of hand. The people involved in this operation, in which Dave is being held, appear to be taking advantage of the characteristics of this culture to reinforce both of the two major factors in this situation: gang terrorism of a community and what appears to be a possible network of corrupt or, at least, dysfunctional authorities. As additional incidents occur, it becomes more obvious that this gang and/or it's ties possibly has "influence over" components of the Town of Stonington, as well as possibly members of other local police departments and governments, CT's police force, state government, U.S. post offices, even possibly the State Prosecutor's/State's Attorney's office and the local FBI office. In recent weeks, there have been signs of even possible corruption through human trafficker infiltration of federal offices charged with dealing with these matters. As a result of all of this, members of the community have come to the realization that calling 911 for something like this won't work. Because of this, threats of abduction carry even more weight in getting cooperation in gang activities, including preventing investigation. In the meantime, the yet unsolved suspected murder of Leslie Buck last May, as this all began, and the Venturi drug case, both connected to Stonington, has probably amplified the sense of terror under which the community appears to be being held. The way the first case seems to be going probably reinforces a common belief in the community that authorities "won't do anything to," i.e., won't prosecute "certain people" and that, if anyone is prosecuted, it will be a scapegoat. Media coverage of the Venturi case that stressed how money accumulated in illicit activities enabled him to pay lawyer expenses and post higher and higher bonds suggests that this is allowing him free to continue the same activities, possibly extending operations that would bring in even higher illicit revenue and, thus, greater protection from prosecution. It's been suggested that members of the community will not be willing to cooperate in an investigation regarding the gang involved in Dave's situation if they don't believe that these people will be prosecuted. Most likely, this is because of fear of retaliation for doing so if these people are still free to carry on their same activities afterward. The type of behavior by authorities that may be evidenced in this material has served to reinforce this gang's grip over that community. The ACCOUNT OF LABRECQUE ARREST OF JUNE 16, 2003 may be an example of how police are possibly "going along" with helping this gang in its terrorism of the community. The account may also possibly reveal signs that even those being coerced into carrying out the wishes of gang members may be doing it in a way that would possibly help bring an end to all of this. It's too soon to tell.
In other than this type of indirect communication, members of the community are afraid to even talk openly about this, so possibly similar situations, much less try to locate and help free David or other possible victims. As possibly indicated here, this may include members of the infrastructure, particularly members of local police departments. But the behavior of that infrastructure is mostly upon which this gang seems to depend to continue and expand activities unchallenged. As I said in a letter to Stonington First Selectman Peter Dibble, on October 29, 2002, regarding police issues surrounding this situation:
Mr. Dibble's response to me over the phone was that he did not know anything about this and did not want to know anything about it. ( He would not put that in writing. ) As possibly evident in
what follows, Stonington Police and government are not the
only part of the infrastructure that, inadvertently or not,
is being instrumental in preventing investigation of
suspected criminal behavior. What may also possibly be
apparent in these accounts is that the impact this gang
appears to have over this locale and the possible extent of
"influence" the gang and/or it's ties may have
over these various parts of the infrastructure, may bring it
under the FBI's definition of organized crime and possibly
even criminal enterprise. ( See Addendum - Research &
Basis of Terminology) RECENT FINDINGS
RELATING TO POSSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE INVOLVEMENT Using tactics often seen in corporate America, administrative staff can easily prevent investigation by diverting phone calls that come in to individuals who will say things aimed at discouraging the person requesting the investigation to abandon efforts to do so. It may be a staff person who gets the information by accessing faxes from those stored in the fax machine, possibly searching for "suspected phone numbers," the number of someone who is suspected of requesting an investigation. There have also recently been indications that emails of key agencies have possibly been diverted and/or accessed, which would be possible though the internal IT department or by system hacking. It may also be a staff person who is asked to call the person requesting the investigation to get some additional information prior to a meeting, and who will then use that opportunity to do the same thing. In any of these ways, the staff person can then call the person requesting the investigation and tell the person something that would cause the complainant to cease trying to pursue the matter with that office or agency. This could be followed up by telling the person who would, rightfully, have been one to have handled the request that the person requesting the investigation had never called, or just fail to deliver phone messages, telling the person requesting the investigation that person that should have been contacted is out or not available, whenever that person calls, etc.. This is made easier by FBI New Haven's office practice, for example, of reportedly, per telephone conversation with Pat Ford, Special Agent, having all calls go through one number and all faxes go to one number. It would definitely explain why agencies often charged with handling cases such as these would respond in a manner that make it appear that they are not really familiar with this type of situation and/or have policies and practices that would make it almost impossible for any investigation to be done, such as requiring that the suspected victim being held in this type of custody be the one to report it or, if the suspected victim has been taken by force, the person reporting it be required to produce a medical report which proves that. The fact I have not received any of these responses in writing, despite my request for that, adds additional weight to this possibility. There is a possibility
that this is happening, for this case, in the DOJ office. I
seem to be having or have had the same problem with FBI in
New Haven. Based on this realization, response to requests
made earlier have now become suspect, including contacts in
August or September, 2002 and late March, 2003, with U.S.
Attorney Kevin O'Connor's office, the Irish Embassy
Consulate Office in New York and, possibly, the Irish Bureau
of Foreign Affairs in Dublin. Office Practices
and Procedures
Particularly in small town environments, requiring that complaints be made through the mails also provides a method for human traffickers to monitor efforts being made to request investigation as well as the agencies being contacted. In a community already in the grip of gang terrorists and in which many people are not permitted to drive for various reasons, this requirement may also subject potential complainants to vulnerability of abduction in merely attempting to reach the post office. Also see U.S. Post
Office under POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
INVOLVEMENT. Ease of administration
is also a reality in agencies already short-staffed and
overwhelmed with a number of other priorities. Requiring
hard copy documents that are more cumbersome to review, make
the complaint more difficult to analyze and evaluate.
Electronic documents can take advantage of features such as
those that enable the reader to merely point to something in
a document to maneuver to another part of the document to
which that refers. Allowing electronic documents may be able
to reduce possible occurrences of cases not taken because
there is no time to review all the material that was
required to substantiate justification for an investigation. These are just some of
the many ways that these rings can so very easily continue
their operations unchallenged and that could keep people
like David in a hellish captivity for the rest of his life,
a life that his captors can then just as easily end
unchallenged. REASON GANG WOULD
ALSO NOT WANT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTIGATED But it is possible that the "infrastructure" is not as opposed to investigation as someone outside this area may suspect - the people who are a part of that infrastructure are being just as terrorized as the rest of the community. But the "gang" in question has depended on that infrastructure to protect its activities and, if that area is "cleaned up" the gang will lose a considerable amount of the protection upon which it depends.
Also see :
WORK ON THIS PAGE IS STILL IN PROGRESS Click to return to top of page
|
