Jared Lee Loughner is INNOCENT!!

reply to post by SyphonX

After reading through several pages of this thread, it dawned on me that there is quite literally no evidence of anything, aside from several casualties and a "crazy person".

Keep reading. You'll see that there is plenty of evidence against JLL.

What ever happened to the "second suspect" who seemingly 'disappeared' without a trace? Who saw whom with a gun in their hands, witnesses claim they tackled Loughner after "someone else" was holding the gun. Among other things.

Second person was the cabbie that followed Jared so he could get paid. They needed change for a $20.

Ever since this story broke, and the emotions went into overdrive, I always had this nagging thought that people were being deceived or that the story was being manipulated and changed in some way. Everything fell into place within the first 24-hours, and the 'story' hasn't really changed since. There are usually many revelations and breaking changes to the story of an incident like this.

Nagging thoughts, and other subjective emotions are useless. When you read something like "doesn't seem right", "can't put my finger on it", "seems to me", "I get this feeling", types of arguments, you can usually toss them into the trash because they are useless.

However, we have been handed a rather "in-depth" character study of Mr. Loughner, when the bodies were still warm. I suppose that's the part that bugs me the most. Seemed too fast, even in the tweeting information age.

"Seemed too fast"? Hardly. There could have been 100 times more info on Gabby, the judge, or other victims in the same amount of time. And there has. Cripes, we've even been deluged with info on Sarah Palin and the TP, the sheriff of Pima County, and a whole lot of other stuff.

Relax. If "they" were going to manufacture a case, they'd be smart enough to dish out the info in dribs and drabs, as needed.

I honestly think that the video of him walking around his community college is FAKE, and the media is trying to paint him as more disturbed then he actually was, this was an act possibly staged through mind control, to either divert the public eye or against the congress woman in general, by political enimies, or PERHAPS both, 2 birds with one stone?? Maybe, the strangest part to this is the new development about the fellow victim, who is now in custody for his alledged "threat" against the Tea Party Rep, Perhaps that man knew too much about the plot, and they had to remove him from society before he was able to talk, let me know if anyone sees this possibly the same way

reply to post by MisterCrowley

Your assumption that he is insane, messed up etc, is different from MSM labeling him definitively as the shooter, how??? There are plenty of eye witnesses, that have been asked not to "go public" pending this investigation... Can you say "Smoking Gun" ???

There is no conspiracy here...Just a mentally ill young man who shot people. He will get a fair trial unless he is too ill to stand trial. He WAS seen shooting and there were people who took the gun and ammo from his hands. Some of you say there isn't any evidence...It just hasn't been shown to YOU. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The media doesn't ALWAYS lie and not ALL cops are thugs and liars.
There is plenty of evidence of his illness...Just read some of his stuff.
A "team of assassins"...BAH
If you really want to talk about missing video evidence...The pentagon on 9/11 is a nice place to start that.

www.supremelaw.org...
judge john roll was a corrupt judge along with others read the federal complaints filed at the above link. I wonder if he wasnt an intentional target too.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Yes...he is legally, definitely innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. But please, don't go defending him until you have all the facts, I do not know this kid and I was not there to see what happened so I can not make any judgement on his innocence or guilt and I really feel bad that this happened, but I will not go out of my way to say he is innocent. I am sure that the people that were there will be crossed examined and he will be judged. If you feel that strongly about his innocence, then go there and try to help him (seriously).

ATS sucks. It used to be semi-good, now it's full of a bunch of people saying "IF I CAINT SEE ITZ, IT AINT IN EXISTANCE!". For 99.99% of murders, there is no video you can watch, but does that mean they are innocent? No. Last time I checked, eye witness accounts were one of the highest forms of evidence in the court of law.

Anyone remember Lee Harvey Oswald? Does anyone really belive that Loughner will be allowed to live to stand trial?

reply to post by Staysay29


I know what you mean. It may well be nothing, but I had a 'feeling' that something was wrong too. Made me think of the Port Arthur Massacre (Aus). It will probably be too late by the time they start to look objectively at this case (assuming he is innocent)

Originally posted by greywolfalyeska
Anyone remember Lee Harvey Oswald? Does anyone really belive that Loughner will be allowed to live to stand trial?

Does anybody have evidence he even exists?

I believe there will be a fair trial and in a case as high profile as this there will be lots of investigation applied.

I believe he more than likely did this, but I also believe that he did not expect to still be alive. He expected to be killed. There has never been a trial after one of these "events". The young man that had a gun on him went running into the scene, saw a man holding a gun not knowing if he was the killer or not. Then just went over and grabbed the man's hand. Then he went on to say he would have killed the shooter, without hesitation if he had got there sooner. (So why didn't he shoot the man holding the gun, unless he knew who the shooter was in advance.) I think the people that took down Loughner, probably saved him from being killed.

Originally posted by gwynned

Originally posted by greywolfalyeska
Anyone remember Lee Harvey Oswald? Does anyone really belive that Loughner will be allowed to live to stand trial?

Does anybody have evidence he even exists?

Why wouldn't he be 'allowed' to live to stand trial? Tim McVeigh 'lived' all the way to execution, didn't he?

Oh..wait! I forgot! McVeigh never was actually executed, was he? They put him in charge of Field Ops for Homeland Security, didn't they?

Originally posted by glimmerman
reply to post by MisterCrowley

 

Your assumption that he is insane, messed up etc, is different from MSM labeling him definitively as the shooter, how??? There are plenty of eye witnesses, that have been asked not to "go public" pending this investigation... Can you say "Smoking Gun" ???

Can you say, "Tainting the potential jury pool?" That's much more likely.

Originally posted by gwynned
reply to post by PlautusSatire

 

But I DO doubt the whole thing happened. It's the Greatest Show on Earth. Kinda like 9-11 in reverse, I would say. That was tragedy. This is farce.

I find it interesting that with all the 9-11 investigators out there, no one seems to applying the same scrutiny to this official story. Shall we begin? What evidence do we have that the event ever happened? There are no videos, no photos of Laughner being hauled into court. All we see are police cars, ambulances, and stretchers in an unidentified parking lot. Why is the media ONLY focusing on Giffords and Laughner? What about the other victims. In a media circus like this, why leave out these important opportunities for more drama? Other than the 9 year old and Gifford's aide, they were all quite elderly. Were they already dead or are they photoshopped images.

The media keeps telling us Giffords was the target, but a Federal Judge who had received death threats is dead and NO ONE is talking about him.

The particular flavor of info coming out of Tucson not gory enough for you? Maybe you should camp out in Tucson for a couple of months and satisfy your lust for ghoul's gourmet? Just try to have some respect for the families and the community that will still be there when the cameras are gone, OK?

reply to post by muzzleflash

reply to post by muzzleflash
I happen to have law enforcement experience, so this may sound slanted to some people. YES, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY is the foundation of American criminal law. This is why arrested persons are called SUSPECTS / DEFENDANTS until final disposition by a court of law. However, the disgusting display of inhumanity that took place in Tucson, AZ was witnessed by so many of the victims who survived, in addition to the men who captured the SUSPECT while in the act of re-loading his weapon, that I think it's safe to say you would be hard pressed to find any takers in Tucson AZ as to the lofty notion of J.L. being presumed innocent. If I had just buried my murdered 9 year old child, the last thing I would care about is the pre-trial legal status of her killer.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Until Proven Guilty!

So PROVE HES GUILTY.

Jared Lee Loughner is not innocent by any means. He killed an innocent little girl in cold blood.

You want evidence, watch his youtube videos, read his myspace postings, and listen to the eye witness testimony!

I hope that this post was made to be sarcastic.

I understand your point, but you are distorting the reality of the situation in a distasteful way.

There is no doubt that he is guilty, there were a ton of people there, they couldn't frame for the act if he didn't actually pull the trigger, I just believe that it goes way deeper then that, the way this kid acted his last few days before the shooting, he WAS CRAZY, now I don't believe that he has been that way all of his life, because if he had, he more than likely would have been institutionalized, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been a college student, his behavior distorted, in the last few weeks/months? This event I believe is going to carry a much bigger impact then it appears right now, this was some kind of plot I am almost certain of it, just wait and see.

reply to post by muzzleflash
I completely agree with your assertion. He is definitely innocent until proven guilty. We do not have credible evidence available to us which proves that Jared was the shooter. We are not aware of all the evidence available in the case. In addition, it is my belief that the evidence which is being made available to us, such as photos and testimony from friends, have many discrepancies, which has been pointed out in several other threads on this forum. However, as you stated, we do not have any video from the shooting nor eyewitness testimony which clearly states it was Jared Loughner who committed the crime. The NY Times states he was driven by a cab driver who claimed he looked like a normal boy to the shooting. Yet, in that same article, they state that he had shaved his head and eyebrows. This seems unbelievable, since anyone with shaved eyebrows would raise a red flag, in my opinion. I stated this in another post, as well, but am restating it here, since we are discussing that he is "innocent until proven guilty" and we only have limited info available to us.

Originally posted by coolottie
I believe there will be a fair trial and in a case as high profile as this there will be lots of investigation applied.

The problem with this is the crime scene was heavily contaminated.

The gun was passed around so much by the time the first cop showed up he could only report to dispatch that the gun was "somewhere in the crowd". Salzgeber is the only person reported by witnesses with the gun in his hand. Salzgeber is the only one claiming the gun was ever in Loughner's hand, he says it skittered away when he tackled Loughner.

Badger says Salzgeber hit Loughner with a chair, Salzgeber denies this. Zamudio says Salzgeber was waving the gun around and threatening to kill Loughner. Salzgeber says only that "someone" did that. Also there are the 911 reports, and the relay of that report by dispatch to officers, that the suspect fled north from the area PAST Walgreens, meaning well out of sight of anyone near the shooting. Zamudio then came FROM Walgreens, which is about 100m away.

Witnesses inside Safeway report the sound of the gunfire sounded like "bubble wrap" or "fireworks" or other quite weak "pops", and the Safeway was three feet from the shooter. How did Zamudio hear the gun from 100 meters away, through very thick brick walls of the Walgreens, and not only hear it but be convinced enough that it was a homicide that he flipped the safety off his gun and sprinted directly to the scene of the shooting. The entrance of the Walgreens is over 90 degrees turned away from the shooting, meaning Zamudio would have had to sprint past the whole length of the Walgreens just to TRY to see what was going on on the ground 100 meters away, past a parking lot full of cars and trees. How did he know to run straight to the Safeway?