I colored Pickering's message in dark red, and apparently the rest of the message is from Lisa Guliani. She included the text to the two news articles. I removed the text (it said it was copyrighted), so click the links to read them.

Think!!!!
 

Notes re:  Christopher Bollyn Police Incident

According to Lt. Russo:

1)  There were no FBI present on the scene.  The law enforcement officers in the unmarked car were part of a gang suppression unit that makes routine surveillance of the neighborhood.  When they drove by, Bollyn was on his lawn with his kid and Bollyn told the kid to "wave to the FBI".    The Hoffman Estates cops heard him say that, but since the kid waved to them, they waved back.    They drove by.  Next thing, the police get Bollyn's call of a suspicious vehicle and so these same cops decided to respond to it because they knew that it was him who made the call, since they had just driven by Bollyn's home.

2)  The police, according to Lt. Russo, were not in the neighborhood looking for Bollyn, surveilling Bollyn, or there because of Bollyn.  They were doing a routine circuit of the neighborhood, which they do regularly.  There is nothing to support Bollyn's claims that they were initially in the neighborhood BECAUSE of him, but they did stop at his home to respond to his 9-11 call.  The police are allowed to be in a neighborhood that is on their beat and don't need the permission of residents to patrol the streets.

3)  When the officers arrived at the Bollyn home to respond to his "suspicious car" call, Bollyn  became confrontational and belligerent with police,  yelling at them, making gestures with his fist (clenching his fists) as if he was going to strike one of the officers.  He was screaming things to them like, "You're following me, you're watching me!!"  Lt. Russo says the police were not following or watching him, they responded to his call.  The unmarked car of officers was making its regular, routine surveillance of the neighborhood and responded to his call since they were the unit that was closest at the time.  Remember, they had just driven by Bollyn's home, so they knew it was him that had made the call.

After the cops arrived about the call and Bollyn became confrontational, Bollyn tried to run into his house and they restrained him, not knowing whether he was going for a gun or some kind of weapon, since he was acting so irrationally.  the police didn't know what to expect from him.  They made a judgment call to restrain him. 

4)  He was tazered by the police as he tried to enter his home, which is standard procedure, according to Russo, when someone is being combative/belligerent like that. 

5)  The firefighters/paramedics were on the scene because the police called them (also standard operating procedure), to give any necessary medical assistance to Bollyn in case of  any potential injury sustained by the tazer.  Bollyn was NOT injured - neither by the tazer or by the police themselves - and this statement is supported by both Bollyn and the police department.  Lt. Russo says it is not their policy to beat people up/rough people up when they respond to a call. 
(We're not talking about the LAPD here.) 

6)  Every cell in the jail has both a toilet and a sink that is also a water fountain.  So when Bollyn says he was put into a cell without any water and told to drink from the toilet, the question is, why doesn't he mention the water fountain inside the cell, from which he had every opportunity to drink?  Russo says nobody told him to drink from the toilet. 

7)  Russo said, "Our actions were based upon HIS actions."  We used only the  force necessary to restrain him and get the situation under control.   (It seems to me that it wouldn't have been a "situation" at all if Bollyn didn't MAKE it into a situation. )   Bollyn was yelling and screaming at the police, making a spectacle of himself, acting in a confrontational manner, making gestures with his fists and using body language that indicated he might become violent/physically aggressive toward the police.  (clenched fists, etc..)  The police made a judgment call based upon Bollyn's behavior.

8)  Russo wanted to know what Bollyn was talking about when he relates this incident of August 15th to 9-11.  I explained that Bollyn has been investigating the events of September 11th and written several articles based upon his investigation.  But since the police had no idea who Bollyn was at the time of the incident, then how could the police incident possibly have anything to do with his 9-11 investigation or any of the articles he's previously written on this subject?  Answer:  it couldn't. The police have emphasized that they did not even know who Bollyn was at the time.  They had no knowledge of his 9-11 articles or investigation or his journalistic focus.  The question then, why is Bollyn trying to tie the police incident of August 15th to the issue of  9-11?  His claims regarding this police incident having anything to do with his 9-11 inquiries/investigation are not supported by facts.. 
Is this a publicity stunt?

9) I asked Russo if any police car video footage was recorded at the time of the incident and he says he's got to check on that, he's not sure.   There is a court date set, so he cannot tell me all the specifics of this incident, but I'm hoping that we can speak with him today on our show.  I've scheduled a tentative interview with him for 1:30 pm eastern time, so that he can respond to Bollyn's claims publicly and we can present the other side of the story.

question:  Why didn't Chris Bollyn seek immediate medical attention at the scene or after his release from jail?  If you're beaten by multiple officers and tazered, wouldn't you want official documentation of the injuries sustained?  Photographs? 
Why is he going to the doctor (supposedly) today when he should have gone ASAP afterward release from jail?

Why are the photos shown on his article showing no injuries, but instead, a smiling Chris Bollyn using previous photographs?

Where is the supporting evidence to prove that this incident has anything to do with his 9-11 inquiries or with zionists or jews?
If the police officers initially were NOT in the neighborhood BECAUSE of surveillance of Bollyn, but on a routine patrol instead, and didn't even know who bollyn was at the time, how can this have anything to do withhis previous 9-11 inquiries or investiagation or articles?
The timing of this incident is very curious to me as well, coming directly on the heels of the Sam Danner  proven hoax story, which Bollyn has as yet refused to retract.

Also, just so you know, there was another police incident on the same day at Hoffman Estates, so this neighborhood is not such a non-happenin', crime-free dead-zone as Bollyn presents:

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_228092750.html
 
 

Report # 2:  Chicago Tribune

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/northwest/chi-0608160256aug16,1,2139719.story
 
 

Bollyn's version of events simply doesn't make sense to me. 
Why would the police do something so extremely stupid?  where is the evidence supporting Jewish or zionist involvement in this matter?  Where is the evidence to support Bollyn's claims that this is even remotely related to the issue of 9-11?

The Lt. Russo interview is accessible by clicking on this link:
www.wingtv.net/todaysshow/humancheck_check.php

Lisa Guliani
WING TV