And in those intervening hours, there were rumors and false leads and, briefly, the report of a third person being picked up by the police. As early as half an hour after the first shots were fired at the IRC, police were telling journalists there were one to three shooters involved. After Farook and Malik were shot, police said a third suspect was on the run.
But by the news conference that night, police said only two shooters had been involved in the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, and both were dead.
The reports of a possible third shooter grabbed the imagination of some in the public, and Twitter posts, Facebook memes and YouTube videos began to circulate in the days after, suggesting either that law enforcement had let another terrorist slip away in San Bernardino or some sort of conspiracy was keeping the whole truth from the public.
That alleged third shooter was a man fleeing the area of the final gun battle, possibly for his own safety, but who was picked up by police as he ran.
At a news conference held on the night of Dec. 3, San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said the man was detained, determined to not be involved, although he was booked for an outstanding misdemeanor warrant.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department confirms that version of events:
“Basically, he was contacted because he was found running in the area and he was released,” said Deputy Adam Cervantes. “We’re not going to be putting out any additional information about this individual.”
The department does not routinely release the names of those picked up on such minor warrants, he said.
But by the weekend, belief in a third shooter , prompting Burguan to reiterate the non-existence of an alleged third shooter on Monday:
“Initial (information) was chaotic and indicated three may have been involved,” he on Monday. “Extensive follow up interviews have shown two were involved.”
Laurie Levenson, professor of law and director of the Center for Legal Advocacy at Loyola Law School, and a former federal prosecutor, isn’t surprised that some members of the public are confused on the issue.
“I’m not surprised at all. In a matter of this gravity, you would expect people to want nearly every question answered,” she said. “I’m not sure they’ll ever get that, but there’s so much fear, so much suspicion, that saying ‘we don’t know, we won’t know,’ won’t be a satisfactory answer.”
Levenson doesn’t believe that there is a third shooter:
“It would be great to be able to account for everybody at the scene, but I don’t assume that person is part of the terrorism group, and I don’t think that people should: I think that’s a myopic way of looking at the case,” she said.
She’s less sympathetic to the people apparently spreading hoax images, repurposed from other terrorist incidents.
“If there’s really more information, the authorities will follow up,” she said. “But just creating fictitious images of attackers, not helpful, not helpful. There are limited law enforcement resources, so you really don’t want law enforcement to engaged in wild goose chases.”
The official story makes sense from Levenson’s experience as a prosecutor.
“In my experience, the most likely explanation is that this person had other small matters involving the law that they didn’t want to get caught up in,” she said. “They’re in shock, they didn’t want to be there. All of those are more likely explanations than they were a third shooter.”
But Levenson said such explanations are unlikely to satisfy everyone:
“People are still trying to find the person on the grassy knoll,” she said. “Some people will make this their life’s work.”
———
©2015 the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, Calif.)
Visit the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, Calif.) at www.dailybulletin.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
