Witness testifies he took, deleted video of the Fort Hood shooting

Witness testifies he took, deleted video of the Fort Hood shooting

edition.cnn.com

Fort Hood, Texas (CNN) -- The shooting at Fort Hood was captured on video by a soldier using his cell phone camera as he hid from the shooter, but he was ordered to erase it, the soldier said Friday.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
[url=http://blacklistednews.com/Witness-testifies-he-took%2C-deleted-video-of-the-Fort-Hood-shooting/11049/0/20/20/Y/M.html]blacklistednews.com[/url ]

Aviles said he was ordered by a non-commissioned officer to delete the video on the same day of the shooting. He did not describe to the court what the video contained.

Ordered by a non-commissioned officer to delete the video? Is it me or does that not make any sense whatsoever?

Too bad this guy deleted the video he took on his cell, it may have shed more light onto the whole thing.

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If he still has the original cell/memory card it could easily be recovered.

reply to post by highlyoriginal


Its the Army dude, it never made any sense.
Second...

My conspiracy side thinks: Inside job, delete all evidence.

My rational side thinks: The officer who ordered the video deleted didn't want it leaking online and becoming an 'internet death video' for people to glom onto.

reply to post by againuntodust


It seems to me that the NCO who ordered it would have done his job more appropriately had he taken the soldier with him to their commander then to regimental headquarters and spoken directly with a senior officer about what should be done with the footage on hand; rather than take matters in to his own hands and have him delete it.
Though I dont know who ordered it, as far as name and rank. All it mentions is NCO. Could have been a CSM which carries some weight.

Considering the circumstances of the event however, collaboration with police would have been a much better play in the book. I wonder If I know who did it, I know one CSM who works there for sure who thinks he is freaking god.

reply to post by snowen20


I agree with both points.

Aviles said he was told by a non-commissioned officer, who Aviles said was acting on the orders of an officer, to delete the video on the same day of the shooting.

I don't think it's clear how much time elapsed between the actual shooting and the video being deleted, or what events took place in that time. I infer that somehow an officer ordered a non-commissioned officer to make Aviles delete the information/evidence. I won't call it a video, because it is information/evidence above all else.

So at least 2 people, besides the person who recorded the information/evidence, were aware of it's existence. Who is the officer is now the question and on what authority was he acting upon to create the order to destroy information/evidence?

reply to post by againuntodust


Well what can you do right? The Army isn't a democracy at least that's what they always told me.

I can't say what I would have done in his situation, I like to think I would have lied and said I deleted it, but more likely I would have gone to my platoon SGT and asked what I should do.
I think that's where everything went down hill for the information stored on the phone. Strange still however that such info being evidence was not only ignored but blatantly discarded by people who should IMO know better.

I wonder if the officer NCO and soldier were working for 3 Corps at the time, or for another unit on post.
If it was 3 Corp, I call inside job as they were the ones effected. Any of the cav units or 4th ID would have again IMO turned it over to the feds or CID.

it certainly wouldnt surprise me if the video had information showing this was a planned operation and not a lone nut.

reply to post by justadood


I would be apt to believe that if it wasn't for the lay out of the 3 Corps building.
If this guy really did do the shooting he was said to have done, then everyone would have seen it clearly and also everyone has a big damn mouth.

People tend to think military means secret keeping, that couldn't be further from the truth. Hell I worked next door to 66 MI (military intelligence) and they were always saying "stuff".

What more if it is a bunch of privates? Not to degrade privates alone.
Im just saying I dont know how you would keep it a secret if it was more than one shooter, and not have an abundance of people saying otherwise.

Interesting, but pointless, hearsay, no evidence, and nothing about what may have been captured on video.

Yeah, something strange, and as always when there is a conspiracy involving the government/military/agencies it is nearly 100% impossible to prove, because they have already controlled everything.

Not so in every case, but the majority.

You will never know the truth, especially when they don't want you to.

I wonder, if this guy hadn't deleted the video, and kept silent about what it contained, would he have been among the dead now?

this makes no sense to me at all............evidence is evidence and video is something that cannot lie

yeah you have to follow orders but there are times allowed to question that order right? or have i seen too many movies?

I just dont see any evidence to support the notion that the FT Hood shooter was an inside job.
There are many conspiracies I could jump into to force it to fit an inside job scenario, of course that would be irresponsible.

That being said, I guess Im not sure really what to make of this thread. If the purpose is to point out that a soldier had evidence for something and was forced to delete it what is a person supposed to say?

If however the purpose is to imply that he was coerced into deleting it because he was in possession of "damning" evidence, I have yet to see enough to make a sound or logical judgment on it.

reply to post by neo96


It isn't as simple as that per se.
There may have been a lot that was involved between counselings.
Often times a soldier goes to superiors feeling he or she is doing the right thing, and whatever they are ordered to do, is what is completed because, as my signature says....Always place the mission first..
It is a mantra that is really a form of brain washing.

That being said, yes you can disobey an order when it is unlawful the question then is did the soldier consider it unlawful?

reply to post by snowen20


The other thought is that it looked more like terrorism and could be seen as a feather in the cap of al Qaeda...

That's my rationale

reply to post by snowen20


the more i think about this the more it reminds me of that movie "rules of engagement"

there was video evidence of the innocence of samuel l jacksons character......but the powers that be destroyed said evidence so that there wouldnt be any backlash..........and the backlash in this case is the support of gwb and the war on terrorism..............hmmm crazy notion? its not like obama and the white house wouldnt do that sort of thing..........

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I believe that may very well be the case. I can even go so far as to say that the man who did the shooting was prompted by outside means, NOT Islamic based either but rather government orchestrated.

Im very doubtful of most things when it comes to keeping the "bogyman" Al CIA Duh alive.
But like I said since I have no idea exactly what went on I am a victim of violent propaganda or a victim of violence period.

reply to post by neo96


No kidding, Right?
Yeah it may be a shame that they find a patsy to fit the Islamic stereotype.. Oh yeah it is sooo convenient that we have here a prime example of "home grown terror" in our midst, and a soldier at that. Al Queda is infiltrating us..BS ALERT!

Oh my God, you know what I am so glad Im an Ex patriot now. My life is so much better away from the incessant propaganda of the media and.................Oh whatever... it's 3:15 AM here Im going to bed.

Good night ATS

me and my mother watched this whole fort hood thing unfold on the news and usually I'm the one to comment on such things but she voiced her opinions first an she she didn't believe the "official" take on the matter. and i agree.

In some ways it is odd that he was asked to delete the video. Providing that it was never released into the public domain, there should be no problem and I'm sure that it would have been useful in the trial.

However, it was on his personal phone and he could have placed the video on the internet had he really wanted to, or sent it to someone else and from there it would have spread like wildfire and ended up on the internet one way or another.

He was ordered to delete it on the day of the shooting and rumours were rife of the shooting being a terror attack. If it was, or even if it wasn't, the video would be used as terrorist propaganda on Jihadist websites should it be released into the public domain. There is also the question of why anyone outside of the trial would really want to view it and given that so many people had died and the general horror that took place that day, it is unsettling that anyone would want to view it for their own amusement.

What I find more strange is the fact that he had started filming in the first place, it certainly wouldn’t be high in my priorities in such a situation and he had other responsibilities, like stopping what he was filming.