Christopher Mahan wrote:
Finally, how is wikipedia not a primary source? How do you know that the people who entered the information in the Wikipedia in the first place don't have personal knowledge of this? Maybe they do work for the Department of Homeland Security.
It wasn't sourced as such, so the logical thing is to presume it isn't. It was a statement with no attribution, which gives me no reason to believe it's true. I can assume it's probably true, as it doesn't seem like something anyone would lie about, but there's no evidence given in the article that would lead me to that conclusion, or that would allow me to follow it up to more authoritative sources. For all I know, the judge could have inserted that information himself before quoting it!
-Mark