Questions
Reasons to be suspicious about the investigators motives
(Food for "conspiracy theorists")
-
The picture
Facts: First contact with my websites was made at 16:44:21 GMT May 4, 2005 on my blog. There were 10 or 15 posts visible. After four minutes, at 16:48:20 GMT, WD31448 went to my photo gallery. They looked at the picture of Barb and I. They went away for over five hours. At 22:17:30 GMT they came back and at 22:18:04 GMT only looked at the picture above of me wearing a gun in a holster in front of my computer. They then broke contact for two days. When they came back on May 6 18:02:59 GMT they looked at the main page of my blog for 50 seconds, clicked the link to my personal web page at 18:03:49, clicked on a couple links spending a total of 52 seconds and then at 18:04:41 looked at the picture above again.
Questions: Why did they come back to specifically look at that picture the first time? Did someone tell them about the picture? Was that picture considered important in some way? Why did they again look at the picture, almost immediately, when they came back the next day?
-
The tipster
Facts: When the investigator returned, the day after first contact, they looked at two blog postings then viewed my web page on how airplane passenger screening is a failure. This web page was based entirely on publicly available Government Accounting Office reports and other entirely open sources. I have not had access to any restricted information about airplane security. There is something very odd about this particular viewing. It was not referred from any other web page. WD31488 did not get to it by clicking on links on my web page or via a search engine unless WD31488 typed it in. WD31488 might have clicked on a link in email or they might have typed it in by hand as someone read it to them. A similar thing happened in regards to my post about talking to the Counter Intelligence person upstairs who was going to solve the problem of people searching my web site wanting to build bombs.
Questions: Was this a tipster who didn't care for my views on guns? Did the investigator have anti-gun owner beliefs also? Did this tipster give the investigator a tip about the picture too? Did the tipster think the post about talking to Counter Intelligence could be a problem for me?
-
Boomershoot or Blog
Facts: I was told they were investigating my boomershoot site and from there they found my blog. This is false. First contact was via my blog and the boomershoot site was much later. Boomershoot.org wasn't touched until the second investigator, PUCK, was brought in. It took PUCK over 15 minutes before they touched Boomershoot.org at all and then it was only three minutes to read the article in the Chicago Reader that just barely mentioned Boomershoot. PUCK then went to the main page for Boomershoot.org and spent only 30 seconds there. From there it was back to my personal website to spend 51 seconds reading about Firearm Instruction, 89 seconds reading about Self-Defense and Firearms, 115 seconds reading about Civil Disobedience, 303 seconds reading The Jews In The Attic Test. WD31488 first made contact on May 4, 2005 at 16:44:21 GMT but it wasn't until May 5, 19:38:49 GMT they made contact with my boomershoot site after spending nearly two hours looking at other stuff.
Questions: Why did they lie to me about which was first? Was it because they were really more interested in my firearms and politics than in my interest in explosives? If it wasn't because of a greater interest in firearms and politics then why did they spend so much more time on firearms and my politics than on explosives?
-
The printouts
Fact: During the first meeting I was shown a pile of printouts from my websites and/or blog but was not allowed to make copies or look anything but the top page.
Questions: Why was I not allowed to look at the material they had problems with? Was it because a lot of the material was regarding my political views and they knew it was unacceptable grounds to terminate me? If the material was "sensitive" material then why wouldn't they want to make sure it was "cleaned up"? If it wasn't important enough to be cleaned up then how could it be important enough to be used against me?
- Performance reviews removals
Fact: I requested a copy of my personnel file. Before sending it they removed all performance reviews, goals, and mention of a bonus.
Questions: Why? Was it simply malice because I had outstanding reviews and they didn't want those used in my search for a new job? Or was it because the goals for the next review period were to write research papers on the very topics I was apparently accused of would show those accusations baseless?
Answer: Performance reviews and goals are kept in a different file. They call it a "Field File". However, even asking for the Field File received a denial. This was later "reconsidered" after I "hit them with a blunt instrument".
- Co-workers interviews
Fact: No co-workers or project/program managers were interviewed during the investigation prior to the termination.
Questions: Why not? And how could they possibly know if there was any "unauthorized disclosure of or use of information that is proprietary or confidential to Battelle and it's clients" unless they talked to the people that knew the nature of the information disclosed on my blog? Was it because they needed a legal pretense and they didn't want that pretense undermined?
- Personal items
Fact: It was three weeks before my personal belongs were packed up and shipped to me. Several of the boxes were falling apart on arrival. A letter from Peggy Hevland said they were waiting on a locksmith because they didn't have a key. The keys were given to my supervisor Bryan McMillan before I left.
Questions: Why the long delay? Even if McMillan had lost the keys who believes they had to wait three weeks for a locksmith to arrive? Was it malice?