Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvey’s Casino Bomb

fbi.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 134 posts

Re: Harvey’s Casino Bomb

#41

Post by dogorman »

adventured wrote: post #35
dogorman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best crimes do not look like crimes. Sure, but there is really no shortage of known unsolved crimes. > The police does not put out press releases repeatedly with 'we got no leads'. They do, in all the cases I listed they've asked the public for help for years. Certainly they don't do that for crimes they don't know occurred, but there is no shortage of known crimes that are very publicly unsolved. For that matt…

> Sure, but there is really no shortage of known unsolved crimes. That's certainly the nice way to put it - "If you're murdered in America, there's a 1 in 3 chance that the police won't identify your killer. To use the FBI's terminology, the national "clearance rate" for homicide today is 64.1 percent. Fifty years ago, it was more than 90 percent." ... "Criminologists estimate that at least 200,000 murders have gone…

Yes, police are pretty good at solving "the spouse did it" crimes, the most obvious sort. When the victims were chosen randomly, the clearance rate becomes abysmal. They're also bad at solving crimes when the victims come from the marginalized fringes of society. Jack the Ripper is a famous unsolved case of a serial killer who targeted prostitutes more than a century ago. Modern examples include the Long Island killer, the Eastbound Strangler, and plenty more.

When the existence of such a serial killer is recognized, it tends to make the news at least regionally. Sometimes they become internationally famous for many years. But to my point, the public hearing about it is not contingent on the culprit being caught. If anything, the ones who are caught fast and easy tend to make the least amount of news. You can 'juice' unsolved crimes for stories a century after the fact, but stories that follow the "husband did it and we caught him" format tend to disappear from the news after the culprit has been sentenced.

Re: Harvey’s Casino Bomb

#43

Post by kumarvvr »

55555 wrote: post #21
kumarvvr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As always, with any crime, the more people involved, the greater the possibility that human factors will sabotage the operation. The perfect crime has one perpetrator. It is also why its fascinating that people will believe in conspiracy theories that supposedly involve tens / hundreds / thousands of people. Theories that we faked the moon landing always intrigue me. Or that the earth is flat.

I see your point! I totally do. I also used to hold this belief. But then the Snowden revelations came out and it was revealed that probably 10,000 people in government were aware of a system that was sucking up all of our data for warrantless search and they had successfully kept the secret for something like 10 years (or more?). For sure it's true that a secret can be kept by three people if two of them are dead. B…

Eventually, Snowden came out with the truth isn't it.

Also, not all of those 10k people might not be knowing what they are doing or don't care. You can cloak a lot of espionage activity with forms, sheets, memos, brainwashing and what not.

Re: Harvey’s Casino Bomb

#44

Post by adventured »

55555 wrote: post #21
kumarvvr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As always, with any crime, the more people involved, the greater the possibility that human factors will sabotage the operation. The perfect crime has one perpetrator. It is also why its fascinating that people will believe in conspiracy theories that supposedly involve tens / hundreds / thousands of people. Theories that we faked the moon landing always intrigue me. Or that the earth is flat.

I see your point! I totally do. I also used to hold this belief. But then the Snowden revelations came out and it was revealed that probably 10,000 people in government were aware of a system that was sucking up all of our data for warrantless search and they had successfully kept the secret for something like 10 years (or more?). For sure it's true that a secret can be kept by three people if two of them are dead. B…

> But then the Snowden revelations came out and it was revealed that probably 10,000 people in government were aware of a system that was sucking up all of our data for warrantless search and they had successfully kept the secret for something like 10 years (or more?).

Illegal domestic electronic espionage/surveillance wasn't a vast secret. It was widely known that the Feds were making every effort they could to push down that road, and the Feds had a very long history of illegal domestic espionage. Frankly, it was obvious that it was going on. A lot of people I know in tech had crossed paths with other people that knew pieces of the puzzle, that some domestic espionage programs were going on (particularly supercharged after 9/11). You'd get snippets of it in discussions. Snowden's revelations were not the first, it was the bombshell that was comprehensive (and only for a small part of what they were doing).

It wasn't yet proven, and the full extent wasn't yet known, there wasn't enough credible public evidence to demonstrate exactly what they were doing. There's a huge difference between something not being secret, and being proven, and that's what Snowden's actions helped to correct.

While it's in the not-yet-proven stage, the malevolent skeptics in particular will all sandbag any attempt to reveal it, by burying discussions under conspiracy tags and swat away any attempts to dig into what's really going on. Some skeptics do that on purpose because they have a vested interest in doing so, some do that because they're cowards (which is what is represented by the common statement: "if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear" - it's cowardly people hiding from a moment of confrontation).

Ready for another one? They're still performing illegal domestic electronic surveillance. That too isn't some vast secret. Oh I know, but but but they're not supposed to be doing that! Golly.

Re: Harvey’s Casino Bomb

#46

Post by dylan604 »

dogorman wrote: post #41
adventured wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but there is really no shortage of known unsolved crimes. That's certainly the nice way to put it - "If you're murdered in America, there's a 1 in 3 chance that the police won't identify your killer. To use the FBI's terminology, the national "clearance rate" for homicide today is 64.1 percent. Fifty years ago, it was more than 90 percent." ... "Criminologists estimate that at least 200,000 murders have gone…

Yes, police are pretty good at solving "the spouse did it" crimes, the most obvious sort. When the victims were chosen randomly, the clearance rate becomes abysmal. They're also bad at solving crimes when the victims come from the marginalized fringes of society. Jack the Ripper is a famous unsolved case of a serial killer who targeted prostitutes more than a century ago. Modern examples include the Long Island kille…

Except for when the husband didn't do it after being convicted, where it turns out the wife was having an affair with a golf pro, and someone comes in and kills them both. I bet that one would even lend itself into making a great movie.

Re: Harvey’s Casino Bomb

#49

Post by clipradiowallet »

raldi wrote: post #32
the-dude wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is because you don't hear about the cases which don't slip up.

Huh? Big unsolved crimes receive unending fame.

This is not always the case... the DoJ reminds me of a sales organization. Crimes are sales leads. Publicized leads are usually very close to being closed(solved).

That doesn't always work though - the crime may be something the public is aware of, and then the pressure to "close" the lead is even greater. There are numerous "big" crimes that the public has no awareness of though.

Re: Harvey’s Casino Bomb

#50

Post by vmception »

dogorman wrote: post #41
adventured wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but there is really no shortage of known unsolved crimes. That's certainly the nice way to put it - "If you're murdered in America, there's a 1 in 3 chance that the police won't identify your killer. To use the FBI's terminology, the national "clearance rate" for homicide today is 64.1 percent. Fifty years ago, it was more than 90 percent." ... "Criminologists estimate that at least 200,000 murders have gone…

Yes, police are pretty good at solving "the spouse did it" crimes, the most obvious sort. When the victims were chosen randomly, the clearance rate becomes abysmal. They're also bad at solving crimes when the victims come from the marginalized fringes of society. Jack the Ripper is a famous unsolved case of a serial killer who targeted prostitutes more than a century ago. Modern examples include the Long Island kille…

Still shocking to me that nobody looks at the life insurance broker who knows that the spouse would be vulnerable to a sure conviction if the other spouse was found dead within the next few months after opening the policy
Post reply on HN