A.L.F. Scapegoated in “Researcher” Car-Sabotage
A.L.F. again becomes scapegoat in vandalism case of a researcher who doesn’t experiment on animals
Just after the Animal Liberation Front was falsely blamed for the release of a kangaroo from a roadside zoo, this week investigators are hinting the A.L.F. may be behind the sabotage of a UC-Santa Cruz researcher’s car. The punchline? The researcher doesn’t experiment on animals.
The story: Early May 23rd, person(s) unknown severed the brake lines on an SUV as it sat in a Santa Cruz driveway. The owner was someone described only as a “UC-Santa Cruz researcher”. The FBI and police swarmed the scene. There were no reports of graffiti, and no claim of responsibility by any underground group. By all appearances, it was a case of generic-brand vandalism. The San Jose Mercury News admitted:
The scientist’s research did not involve animals
In light of this admission, the Animal Liberation Front should be immediately ruled out. Yet sill, investigators immediately hinted at a possible animal liberation motive.
So far, it has been a case of “indictment by suggestion”, with investigators indirectly implicating the A.L.F. by stating the perpetrators “may not necessarily be an animal rights group”. The subtext being: not necessarily, but probably.
Here is the quote from Santa Cruz Deputy Police Chief Rick Martinez:
“It may not necessarily be an animal-rights group and it may not necessarily be an environmental group,” he said
The media covering this case is the larger part of the problem, with local papers sparing no opportunity to point out “UCSC researchers whose work includes testing on animals have been targeted in recent years.”
There is major precedent for police and FBI in Santa Cruz blaming the animal liberation movement for actions for which there isn’t a hint of evidence. Remember the attempted home arson of a UCSC animal researcher in 2008, where the smoke hadn’t even cleared before the FBI called it a case of “attempted murder” by animal rights activists. No claim of responsibility was ever made, and no other motives or suspects were entertained in investigator’s statements to the media.
There are two forces at work allowing this false and deceptive blame on animal liberation activists:
1) The media’s complete inability to understand the motives of the A.L.F. (to save animals)
2) The Animal Liberation Front making an easy scapegoat in the absence of something better.
There could be several reasons to blame the A.L.F.for generic property crimes. One, it raises the status of an investigation, giving police and FBI a sense of cowboy-style bravado in being involved in a “terrorism” investigation. Two, it could remove the burden from law enforcement for their failure to catch generic-brand vandals: failure to catch a nebulous, shadowy underground group is more easily understood.
As stated on Animal Liberation Front-line several weeks ago, animal abusers and the FBI may have discovered the most convenient of scapegoats in generic vandalism cases: the A.L.F.
– Peter Young
Receive updates via email: Subscribe here.
Looks like the unnamed UCSC researcher is Peter Raimondi:
http://pipl.com/search/?FirstName=Pete&LastName=Raimondi&City=Santa%20Cruz&State=CA&Country=US&CategoryID=2&Interface=46
Note from the link the researcher’s age 55 and address on Laurent Street, as related in the MSM reports.
All our searches have turned up is field (and some lab) research on kelp, mollusks and the like. Unlikely candidate for an animal liberationist attack. The motivation was obviously elsewhere- but hey, why not blame those interested in halting the oppression of non-human animals in order to sensationalize the story.