Re: Former CIA Director and *Strategic Investment* Editor

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 04:46 PM 4/30/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:

> >> last I heard.   Maybe he just decided that he wanted to disappear in a 
> >> comparatively non-suspicious fashion?
> >
> >Having met Colby and being somewhat familiar with his political skills I
> >would be surprised if he would ever think a drowning accident was
> >"non-suspicious."
> 
> Notice that I said "comparatively" non-suspicious.  Can you think of any 
> LESS suspicious way to appear to die and still explain no body being found?

Many.  You lack imagination.

[...]

> >I hope he is found alive and well.
> 
> He might very well be alive.  But it's almost certain he won't be found...

Your conspiracy nut side is showing.

> BTW, the news item I read this morning stated that his neighbors called the 
> cops when they noticed that his car was still at the cabin Sunday 
> night...after the time he normally left to return home.  While most people 
> wouldn't see a problem with this, I do:  How many citizens are so aware of 
> the schedules and habits of their neighbors that they would become 
> suspicious if their neighbor stayed TOO LONG?

Colby was well known and friendly to his neighbors.  He was an
impressively outgoing person, a trait which showed both in his
unprecidented opening of the Agency (he was dismissed for cooperating too
completely with congress), and his personal life.  His neighbors in
Virginia were all close friends and the community there is very close
knit.  A pile of leaves in the wrong place attracts attention.

I used to run a private seminar in D.C.  The two times I asked, he was
happy to come and speak for us.  He was always amazingly frank and
engaging. Not at all a secretive man when it came to his personal beliefs
and activities.

> Not days and days too long, 
> just a few hours?  Or were Colby's habits so precise and predictable (and 
> known to be so!) that his neighbor would call the cops just because he, 
> ONCE, stayed a little longer than normal?

Yes, they were.  He ran an active consulting business in D.C. and returned
to the city on a regular schedule.  In addition, he was very prudent about
letting people know when he was about to go out on the river.  The man was
in his 70s, of course he generated a good deal of concern amongst his
neighbors.

> What's wrong with this picture?

It's not hard to see.  As usual you are theorizing and speculating about
issues and persons you have no connection to.  Even in the face of someone
with personal experience as to the matter at hand you persist in asserting
that you are more 'in the know.'

In this particular case you are discussing someone I know personally.

Given the circumstances, your rumor mongering is both classless and
distasteful.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com