It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Judge Napolitano: “Nobody died until 05:13 in the morning”

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:49 AM
a reply to: onequestion

I think it would be helpful to transcribe his actual words.

“These are in two parts, theres an actual transcript, and then theres a summary of the rest. Here’s whats news in the summary, nobody died until 05:13 in the morning, when the SWAT team entered. Prior to that no one had been killed. The 53 that were injured, and the 49 that were murdered all met their fates at the time of, and during, the police entry into the building.”

What the hell...

How do those broads simply skip over a mind blowing comment like that?

At 50 seconds in:

edit on 28-6-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:14 AM
link is the question to answer. If there were survivors in the club that were killed (or allowed to die)...who benefits and how?

Answer that, and you have your answer.

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:37 AM

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: onequestion

How do those broads simply skip over a mind blowing comment like that?

Because they know that his comments are not based on fact, and that he is sensationalizing and twisting this one?

Sometimes Napolitano says things that make sense, and sometimes he does not. This one caused him to jump a few notches down in credibility.

The other things they were talking about, with removal of ISIS from the record, make sense. But throwing this stupid comment in there is taking away from the real issues.


posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:39 AM

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: onequestion

If an exact time of death is uncertain, a coroner will usually call the time at the time the person is found and identified as deceased.

Since they probably could not get to the deceased until the scene was secured, it makes sense that the first time of death would be after they could access the bodies.


And come on guys its Forensics, not Ballistics.

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:50 AM

originally posted by: darkbake
Why do people spread this disinformation? I've seen plenty of eye-witness testimony of people hiding in the bathroom for hours next to dying bodies and one of the other survivors said that the shooter started shooting and it lasted a whole song.

Right on where I stand.

Why do people have to insist and come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories anytime a shooting like this happens?

I'm all for a good conspiracy, but this? We're basing a conspiracy off of what the Judge said on FOX?


posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 10:21 AM
I do like the judge, this comment not so much, as it's not thought through accordingly. As the tragedy developed people reported hiding around and under the deceased. One source example Then of course there's that not until SWAT arrived(sadly as news reported did contribute to some deaths but not all) and brought in help for people inside after the shooter was killed and the death count more known of.

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:58 PM
a reply to: onequestion

I can understand why the Judge stated what he did, basing his statements upon the released, unredacted log and, possibly, whatever else he knows.

Would it be fair to say the Judge, having been a judge, still has contacts inside of the law enforcement system?

There's also this:

(While the FBI will not be releasing transcripts of OPD communication with victims, significant information obtained from those victims allowed OPD to gain knowledge of the situation inside Pulse.)

which is from the following link I've posted twice before:


Where I'm at with all of this is, and was before the Judge said what he said, is the usual internet subterfuge exploded onto the scene right after another one of these "events" to shroud the whole situation in confusion and contradiction.

I don't buy there were that many people killed and wounded.

I've not come across any "witness" testimony which I found to be convincing but I could've easily missed something. There are a couple of videos online stated to be from inside of the building; one of people in the darkened bathroom stall comforting each other and another of a young lady with glasses standing in the crowd when rapid shots can be heard over the music a few moments into the video but she doesn't really move or react. I know if it was me, in that kind of environment, I'd probably freeze at first as I tried to understand what was happening.

That gunfire could very well be between the initial police responders and the gunman.

It's not possible to gather an accurate accounting from the internet. It never is. I'd say parts were staged and parts were real. It's been coined another "hybrid" event by others.

Just my two cents.

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:33 PM
timing is everything, lol

this has to be the biggest fail in conspiracy history

this is so sad, so many people slaughtered

the judge is an idiot

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 04:44 PM
So how come the EYE WITNESS don't back this up ?

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:33 PM

originally posted by: neo96
So how come the EYE WITNESS don't back this up ?

they do, lol

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 10:03 PM
As a 9 year SWAT officer, I have to speak up here. I AM TRAINED AND DO TRAIN TO ACQUIRE MY TARGET FIRST BEFORE ENGAGING. Is it plausible an innocent pop up in my sight picture while engaging my target? Absolutely. But, I am mentally and spiritually prepared to take suspect fire before I shoot a hostage.... that's the job. As of this writing, do not judge too quick until facts come out. Deny ignorance and embrace facts. If officers did shoot hostages, they will face repercussions.

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 10:26 PM
a reply to: onequestion

Could it be that, that was when they where pronounced dead?

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:49 AM
a reply to: BlueAjah

Take your common sense somewhere else. It has no place here.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:52 AM
Tavistock Institute.

A engineering anyone?

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:07 PM
So what time do the victims that lived say the shooting started? What time were all the calls out of there during the attack made? This is a rather easy thing to prove one way or the other. What time does the place close? I think last call is like 2 AM.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:21 PM
a reply to: onequestion

Not that logic matters...but how would the FBI know the precise time of death of anyone inside the building during the shooting spree?

What (not so bright) Napolitano is confused about is this part of the Transcript:

Based on OPD radio communications, there were no reports of shots being fired inside Pulse between the initial exchange of gunfire between responding officers and shooter, and the time of the final breach.

◾2:02 a.m.: OPD call transmitted multiple shots fired at Pulse nightclub.
◾2:04 a.m.: Additional OPD officers arrived on scene.
Look above...the shootings had already occurred before the officers "Initial exchange" below
◾2:08 a.m.: Officers from various law enforcement agencies made entrance to Pulse and engaged the shooter.
The stand-off was then ended at 5:14 the meanwhile the shooter had said he had bombs that he would etonate if their was a breach ...and officers were rescuing people.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:29 PM
"eye witnesses"

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:46 PM
He means when the officers started triage and confirmed time of death of people. I've been on countless calls and had to call a class 4's (Dead). When officers arrive they get my information and I call dispatch with the time and the incident number. Officers can do the same thing. Most likely EMS came and did a quick "start triage"

Start Traige

Approx means when the body has been dead a while. After a few hours, blood starts pooling, rigor mortise sets in, becomes cold.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 03:15 PM
I think there is some misinterpretation here.
The Judge was saying what was new in the summary.
He does not say when shots were fired, he is simply saying the summary says from the time of the initial shootings and the time of the police entry no one is saying shots were fired (he says "died" but I think he means shot).
Keep in mind this is a casual commentary program and I dont think he was trying to imply everyone was killed by the cops and Omar during their shoot out.
I think he is stating that Omar fired a lot initially but then spent most of the time walking around and talking on the phone. He then began firing again when the police began to conduct their operation around 5.

If anything I think the Judge is implying that this was a hostage situation that failed to develop.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 03:49 PM
a reply to: onequestion

The casualties do seem to be increasing in these 'random' shootings.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in