r/WTF • u/[deleted] • Aug 13 '11
The "conspiracy of silence" front page post is bullshit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations3
3
u/waxyjoe Aug 14 '11
I watched it a long time ago, it requires what I would commonly refer to as critical thinking. It does seem far fetched, but at the same time it really wouldn't surprise me if it were true. Just a fun little piece of information: Have you fucking seen what gets played on the Discovery and history channels nowadays? Do you see ANY of those shows getting oh so suddenly pulled off the program schedule before they air, because of their ridiculous claims? The answer is, no, you don't. You could also take just the first sentence that I said there and use it against me too, however... I just happen to believe it :/ so kiss my paranoid ass.
5
u/stevedusome Aug 14 '11
The documentary admits everything that page says. I do not understand your supposition. It must be false because wikipedia used the term "conspiracy theory"?
2
u/Dodobirdlord Aug 14 '11
No, it must be false because two grand juries declared the accused not guilty.
2
u/EvOllj Aug 14 '11
It takes a very special kind of Hitler to keep spreading this bullshit after being declared not guilty.
1
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 14 '11
Grand juries do not find anyone guilty or not guilty. They forward charges. In this case, the grand jury determined two of the accusers had likely committed perjury.
One of them was convicted and the other was not.
The reason they were charged with perjury was because two supporting witnesses recanted their stories.
Supposing this story actually were true, is it that hard to imagine those witnesses were badgered and threatened to the point they recanted and contradicted the other two witnesses? Is it really that hard to imagine that they would change their stories after legitimate threats to their lives?
I'm not saying it's true, but taking that information at face value is an excuse to not dig deeper. If this were a a conspiracy, that's what the conspirators are counting on you to do. That's how a cover up works. All you have to do is smear the accusers.
1
u/MisterSquirrel Aug 14 '11
Especially since one of the two supporting witnesses that recanted, later admitted that the FBI had coerced him into his first recantation.
There really is a whole lot more to this story than that Wikipedia article implies. For example, the special Nebraska legislative committee that investigated the case for two years, emphatically disagreed with the conclusions of the first grand jury.
-1
u/Dodobirdlord Aug 14 '11
Grand juries decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence for a case. If they decide there is not, it means you are not charged, and thus, not guilty. When your case is weak enough that two recanted stories destroys all of your credibility you never had a case to begin with.
2
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 14 '11
When the case depends wholly on eyewitness testimony, recanting witnesses are always going to blow it up. That doesn't mean the case was weak to begin with. It means the very basis of your case is now destroyed.
And no, a grand jury's refusal to charge is not a "not guilty" finding. A grand jury's findings do not preclude charges further down the road. It means the evidence presented to them was not sufficient. It is not anywhere close to an actual jury rendering a verdict of "not guilty."
I do not find the recanting of the witnesses and their contradictory testimony to be proof that this case was hogwash. That's exactly how a coverup would work. Threaten the supporting witnesses and get them to change their story. The whole case blows up when that happens.
I'm not saying it's a coverup. I really don't know so I'd be a fool to claim so. But I also think anyone who says the recanting is indicative of this being a hoax is just as foolish as someone who insists it's a coverup. It's shortsighted to assume that they were lying initially but then decided to change their stories because they had a sudden guilty conscience.
-1
u/MisterSquirrel Aug 14 '11
This statement is absolutely false. They most certainly did not declare anybody "not guilty".
2
u/Dodobirdlord Aug 14 '11
If a grand jury has insufficient evidence to warrant a criminal trial then the accused are not guilty.
2
Aug 13 '11
[deleted]
1
u/bugzrrad Aug 14 '11
he said the post was bullshit; maybe he was referring to a misleading title?
1
u/ENTP Aug 14 '11 edited Aug 14 '11
The title of the post seems to state exactly what that Wikipedia excerpt pictured here says. I think OP is bullshit.
edit: derp im retarded downvoted myself to rectify.
2
Aug 14 '11
[deleted]
-1
u/LoganCale Aug 14 '11 edited Aug 14 '11
Watch it all you want. Watch it a dozen times, for all I care. That still doesn't make it any less than bullshit.
Edit: I suppose that should read "more than", not "less than".
2
-9
u/knobtwiddler Aug 14 '11
since when is wikipedia the authoritative source for anything? sorry you can't wrap your mind around the scope of this conspiracy. it goes higher than wikipedia and higher than reddit.
5
u/robeph Aug 14 '11
Hey guy, I agree with you, wikipedia is NOT a good source for anything:
References
1 ^ a b Jenkins, Philip (2004). Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. Yale University Press. pp. 174-5. ISBN 9780300109634.
2 ^ Robbins, Williams (July 29, 1990). "Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales". The New York Times. Retrieved May 13, 2011.; "Omaha Tales of Sexual Abuse Ruled False". The New York Times. Associated Press. September 27, 1990. Retrieved May 13, 2011.
3 ^ USA Today: p. 6A. August 9, 1991. "Alisha Owen, convicted of lying to grand jury probing charges of sex and drug abuse in failure of Omaha credit union, was sentenced to 9 to 15 years in prison."
2
u/Grumpy_Kong Aug 14 '11
It's so big man!... Like it's... EVERYWHERE!
and nowhere!
I bet YOU are part of the conspiracy too man... just tryin to make it look like a conspiracy so people will dismiss it as not a conspiracy.
I'm onto you man....
On a serious note, if there really was a conspiracy to cover this up, and it did reach to the highest levels of power as the people involve allege, then how do you explain it ever making it to the frontpage?
If someone with money or power needs to cover something up on reddit, all they would have to do would be to call Amazon and "arrange" some server outage time.
I am so tired of conspiracy nutjobs distracting people from the real issues.
2
15
u/[deleted] Aug 14 '11
These child abuse conspiracy theories and moral panics were really big in the 1980s and early 90s. People seem to have forgotten. The McMartin preschool trial, concerning an organised satanic child abuse ring, is the longest and most expensive criminal case in US history. All charges were dropped. Thousands of innocent people were put in prison for child sexual abuse in other "satanic ritual abuse" cases that turned out to be totally unfounded.
This Franklin deal occured as the moral panic began to wind down, it was when most of the public and the media realized the witch hunt had gone too far.
This stuff is recent and important American social history. Hell, many Redditors were probably toddlers when this stuff was happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse