before we march w/ pitchforks and flaming torches...

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	>From: "Kenneth Hawkins" 
	>Subject: Re: before we march w/ pitchforks and flaming torches... 
>I would much rather start the media blitz when either Scotland Yard or Pete's
>lawyers make a statement that forensic examination of his computers and ISP
>records supports his statements and that no charges are being brought.  That,
>in conjunction with his contacting IWF and ADB, etc. is the ammo that we
>should hold on to.  It has to be short, conclusive, and convincing for the
>press to "get it."

So, we hold on to this, and wait an undetermined amount of time for something that we don't even know will happen (regarding police statement)?

I'd rather take the stand of ensuring the press is getting informed.  Doing it now so as to limit the amount of time we get "no news" and thus let Pete's fate harden in stone.
I'd rather keep it fresh and spur the press on to continue doing their own research.

An article, forget which one, has already stated that the police have found nothing on Pete's computers.
How do we know the police will even make a statement??

We don't.
We hope!
But, we don't know.

By Rich's logic, aren't they *motivated* to keep this low key?
Just as in about all of his examples, the press was clued into the false accusation by the law enforcement agency that then did *nothing* to correct their wrong.
To the presses credit, we now know that each of the examples listed by Rich was a false "trial by tabloid".
Hmmmmm? Wonder how we know *that*?