Not to oversplit hairs, but how can it tie a claimant to an
organization? E.G.: The unabomer (note correct spelling) used the
personal plural frequently, but he was just one guy as far as is now
known. In other words: my point remains that in the general case "the
organization" might be one claimant.
Your description takes an organization as a given. All that is in
evidence from the described pattern is that there exists at least one
person who repeatedly uses the code phrase.
"S.J. Van Sickle" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Michael M. Butler wrote:
>
> > Other techniques besides code phrases include the leaving behind of some
> > signature token (also kept out of the press) or the description in the
> > communiqué of details of the event that match (kept out of the press if
> > possible). That ties the act tighter to the claimant. The code phrase
> > ties some claimant to the communiqué.
>
> Actually, it ties the claiment to the *organization*. You are right that
> you need something else to tie to the specific act.
>
> steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:40 MDT