This is one American who does not have high expectations for our mainstream media. Yet, is it too much to expect a moderate level of curiosity about a critical part of a major story… even if it isnot in line with the progressive agenda? Apparently so, as two nagging questions about the terrorist attack in San Bernardino remain unanswered.
Worse, they remain unasked!
First, what ever happened to the third shooter? Using several search parameters, one can find a substantial number of media reports on the day of the shooting indicating that police were searching for three suspects. In addition Sally Abdelmageed, an employee at Inland Medical Center where the attack occurred, insisted as much during an interview with CBS News.
“I heard shots fired and it was from — you know — an automatic weapon,” Abdelmageed stated, adding that it was all “very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on. They were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”
In describing the assailants Abdelmageed admitted she “couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […] huge assault rifle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same.”
The reporter then asked Abdelmageed again, “You are certain you saw three men?”
“Yes,” she insisted. “It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”
A second witness, Juan Fernandez, corroborated Abdelmageed’s account, telling reporters he also saw “three white men in military fatigues” who “took off” in a “black Impala or SUV.” Moreover, after the police killed Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook in a shootout, the media were still reporting the “house-to-house” search for a third suspect being conducted by police.
Since then? Nothing. Certainly eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but isn’t that precisely the reason one might expect the media to clarify the discrepancies between their original reporting and the current status quo?
As bad as that lack of closure is, the second question is far more troublesome: why did the FBI abandon their investigation of the townhouse rented by the terrorists and allow media access to it only two days after the shooting—and leave shredded documents behind? Former NYPD Det. Harry Houck illuminates the insanity. “This apartment clearly is full of evidence,” he explained. “I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected to these two. You’ve got documents laying all over the place — you’ve got shredded documents that need to be taken out of there and put together to see what was shredded,” Houck added. “You have passports, driver’s licenses — now you have thousands of fingerprints all over inside this crime scene.”
The explanation offered by David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, strains credulity. “Once the residents have the apartment and we’re not in it anymore, we don’t control it,” he said. “Once we turn that location back over to the occupants of that residence or once we board it up, anyone who goes in at that point, that’s got nothing to do with us.”
Houck wasn’t buying it. “I tell you I am so shocked. This is detective 101 for crying out loud,” he insisted. “It looks like there are dozens of people in there totally destroying a crime scene which is still vital in this investigation because we don’t know how many other people that they were connected with in this thing. There might be tons of fingerprints in there that we need to look at to see if there is any kind of connection to those fingerprints or some people that may be on a watch list or something else.”
Today we know far more than we did on the day of the attack. “A $28,500 deposit was made to Syed Farook’s bank account from WebBank.com on or about Nov. 18, some two weeks before he and his wife Tashfeen Malik carried out the San Bernardino massacre,” Fox News reported Monday.
In other words, it is possible many more people were involved in this attack — and just as possible that the apartment could have yielded valuable clues in that regard.
Something stinks here. Given the track record of Islamic terror denialism embraced by the Obama administration — along with innumerable examples of media malfeasance protecting that approach — the unmistakable odor of a coverup, or an orchestrated disinformation campaign, hangs heavy in the air.
Most Americans wish to discuss Islamic terror and the threat it poses to our way of life. Progressives would rather talk about gun control that would have done nothing to stop the attack, blast people for praying afterwards, and threaten people with federal prosecution for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, as U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch did last week.
If these questions remain unanswered, it is impossible to believe anything other than the most reasonable explanation for the silence: the progressive agenda of multiculturalism, diversity and political correctness must be preserved, even if truth is the ultimate casualty.
