Jared Lee Loughner is INNOCENT!!

page: 37
77
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ericblak1947
Jared Lee Loughner is not innocent by any means. He killed an innocent little girl in cold blood.


Where is the evidence Loughner was the shooter? No witness puts the gun in Loughner's hand except Salzgeber. Salzgeber's testimony conflicts wildly with that of other people. Salzgeber claims the gun went to the ground and skittered away, multiple other witnesses claim he had the gun in his hand and was threatening to kill Loughner. Other harm to Loughner by Salzgeber includes attempting to choke him, forcibly bending his arm so much Loughner cried out that it was breaking. And this being done to a man who was not struggling or struggling only weakly by all accounts.


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


I have no way to positively link the videos you mention or the blog posts with Loughner himself. If you know of some way, please present it, so we can all be as sure as you are that those videos were created and uploaded by Loughner.

I've been compiling witness testimony from day 1, every available witness, and none of them put the gun in Loughner's hand, they all report only hearing the shots and ducking for cover. It would seem the only people close enough to witness the shooting and the shooter at the same time are now dead. This is consistent with a professional murder, as all witnesses must immediately be killed without hesitation. As far as Loughner is concerned it's just another coincidence theory, it's just a coincidence he managed to kill anyone who could have positively identified him as the shooter. If only he hadn't been so ruthlessly efficient, then maybe more of the survivors would have seen the shooter disappear around the corner of the Walgreens just before Zamudio arrived to save the day.




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas

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?


You're responding here to a hoax, I did not make the post you quote and attribute to me, it was made by another person, I presume as a joke or something.

[Edit - never mind]
edit on 17-1-2011 by PlautusSatire because: meh



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Technically, he is presumed innocent, even if he actually committed the crime. It is up to the prosecutor to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he committed the crime or he will walk free... even if he is a psychotic murderer.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Hey, if that's what you believe, that's great. I'm not going to knock you. If you believe he's innocent and the reason is because of a conspiracy that's cool with me. At least you are coming out and saying it.


I didn't say I believe he's innocent and the reason is because of a conspiracy, I said no evidence has yet been presented that is convincing of his guilt. As such, if I were on the jury, I'd have to vote to acquit because the state has not made its case. If this were just a gang drive-by shooting, Loughner would be let go for lack of evidence. The police would be miffed but consider it the cost of doing business when you arrest gang on gang perps.

In this case, however, the police seem more than content to rely on the mere fact that Loughner was on the scene and being held down by a man waving the murder weapon around as evidence of his guilt. I know if I was a cop and I came on that scene with Salzgeber's prints all over the murder weapon, with the obviously concerted efforts between 4 individuals, 1 of which was said to have run from the same direction where the murderer fled (and he was carrying a concealed 9mm pistol), I'd take them all in. I certainly wouldn't leave Zamudio at the crime scene until well after dark, as media reports show this is exactly what Zamudio did, stayed on the scene, and then near the scene by the hospital down the block, for at least two and quite possibly three days, clearly not shaving and very likely not sleeping if his demeanor was any indication.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Panda26
 


Please, people, lets not rush to use the victims as a reason to stop asking questions. This happened after 9-11, and I was a victim of those attacks. The victims ARE the reason we should hold our government and media accountable for a transparent investigation. Hopefully, they won't hide evidence. They sold the steel from the World Trade Center to China before testing it. They were able to get away with things like this because people simply accepted the "official" story, claiming that doing otherwise would be disrespectful to the victims. We should question everything in honor of the victims.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarFromEden
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.


And why are people arrested if they're presumed innocent? Clearly there's a stark contradiction here that's just ignored by most people. They believe in presumption of innocence yet they also believe in arresting "suspects" because they fear "suspects", "suspects" are accused of crimes, how horrifying!


Originally posted by FarFromEden
However, the disgusting display of inhumanity that took place in Tucson, AZ was witnessed by so many of the victims who survived


If you'll read carefully you will note that none of the witnesses put the gun in Loughner's hand except Salzgeber, and Salzgeber claims it skittered away out of Loughner's hand. That same gun, however, was in Salzgeber's hand, he was waving it around and saying to Lounger, "I'll kill you". No other witness reports seeing Loughner and positively identifying him during the shooting, the only ones who both saw and heard the shooter at the same time are in the morgue.


Originally posted by FarFromEden
in addition to the men who captured the SUSPECT while in the act of re-loading his weapon


Again, starkly conflicted by the witness testimony. Badger and Salzgeber claim they clamped onto Loughner and held on tight to both his arms, preventing him from even moving, let alone reloading. The magazine grabbed by Maisch was on the ground, by her own admission several times. She has consistently corrected people saying that Loughner did not have it in his hand and was not trying to reload since the gun was in Salzgeber's hand at that point anyway. Salzgeber and Badger both report Loughner could NOT move while he was being held. He had multiple knees and legs on his neck, back and legs. Badger reports putting him on the ground and subduing him with relative ease and speed.


Originally posted by FarFromEden
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


I bet a least one resident, Zamudio, knows Loughner is not the trigger man. Zamudio came running from around the Walgreens, exactly where the shooter fled after the shooting, as described in 911 reports and later relayed by dispatch to officers entering the scene.


Originally posted by FarFromEden
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.


Would you care about getting the true killer or would you be satisfied giving anyone a lethal injection over it?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeoriaAZ
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 triggerp


We often see comments like this explaining Sylvia Browne and other psychics, as well as many other spurious belief systems. When a magician on stage makes a tiger disappear, do we conclude that since so many people were watching that the tiger really did vanish? Or is it a trick? How difficult do you think it would be to confuse people at the scene of a mass murder? People in theaters all over the world are routinely fascinated by "magic" that they're expecting. When you're simply on your way to the Safeway to get some Frutopia, it's that much easier to fool you. When you're the police who arrive on the scene after the magic trick is over, it's even easier still to fool you.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by backup
Gun residue was found on his hands consistent with taht of gun residue found on the massacre weapons. Sorry to say this bro. But its a closed case.


Can you provide a link to a news story documenting this "gun residue"? Even if it's true, can you rule out that he didn't get this "gun residue" while shooting a pistol at a shooting range earlier in the day, or even the day before? One would expect at least one witness to put the gun in the shooter's hand. In fact the only witness saying they saw Loughner with a gun in his hand is Salzgeber, who many witnesses do identify as not only having the murder weapon in his hand but waving it around and telling Loughner, "I'll kill you." I'm afraid this case is far from closed. If Loughner did this and acted alone I'd be much more comfortable with the idea that we are all safer now because he's locked up. As much as I'd like to believe the Loughner lone nut theory, the evidence in the public domain is screaming otherwise.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by commdogg
1) The murder weapon had his prints on it.


That would be absolutely astonishing, considering numerous people report seeing Salzgeber not only holding the gun but waving it around and telling Loughner, "I'll kill you." The first officer on the scene reported the gun was "somewhere in the crowd", so at least one other person had it in their possession. Were they carrying it around with a ball point pen like they do on CSI?


Originally posted by commdogg
2) Ballistics will match.


Speculative, and irrelevant if Loughner was not the shooter.


Originally posted by commdogg
3) Dozens of people saw him do it.


Can you name any of these dozens of people who positively identified Loughner with a gun in his hand and shooting and provide links to their public statements?


Originally posted by commdogg
4) They have video of the incident, and no they probably wont release it.


From an analysis of the still images as well as video footage and satellite maps of the area I've determined that it's unlikely any camera on any of those buildings captured this event. Cameras mounted on the Safeway building appear to be pointed outward looking at the parking lot, only cameras inside the store cover the entrance. I'll go on record predicting if this video footage ever does surface, it will show two men exiting a cab. No footage of the parking lot will be released, because such video would show what the witnesses reported to 911, that the shooter fled PAST the Walgreens over 100 meters away, the same Walgreens Zamudio came from. One wonders why Zamudio didn't fire any shots at that gunman, he surely must have passed him in his sprint to the crime scene. Why didn't any witnesses report Zamudio running past the shooter in the opposite direction with his hand stuffed in his jacket grabbing the concealed pistol in his shoulder holster? Zamudio demonstrated this move on live television.


Originally posted by commdogg
5) He had photos of himself in a "g string" posing with the murder weapon being processed at the drug store next to the shooting scene.


You've seen the pictures? Did it look anything like this:



That image is from a web site called The Jawa Report, and features primarily stories about horrors experienced by muslims with a sarcastic, gloating attitude. Also notable on that site is the clear reference to muslims as "jawas", the tiny robed creatures from Star Wars. The picture was posted by the blog's main author and presumably creator, a man going by the name of "Rusty Shackleford, PhD" or "Dr. Rusty Shackleford". Some might recognize this as the pseudonym of "Dale" on "King of the Hill". What is this guy's malfunction and why does he feature what I can only conclude at this point is the only picture on the internet of a Glock stuffed in a bright red g-string.


Originally posted by commdogg
6) He bought ammunition that morning and dumped it in the woods behind his house when he ran away from his father. They found the bag of ammunition with the receipt.


So the fact that a bag of ammunition and a receipt was found is proof he shot 20 people? Throwing away ammunition and a bag you just bought suggests you plan to mass murder people?


Originally posted by commdogg
I could go on forever.


This seems unlikely. Life is short, try to enjoy it more instead of obsessing on lone nut theories.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panda26
I think its a bit disturbing that you jump to write this, when so many peoples lives were tragically changed.


That many people died in such a public and brutal fashion is the exact reason why everyone should scrutinize this event, instead of trusting to sensationalist and tabloid headlines to do their thinking for them. And this thread was started many days after the shooting, if anyone is "jumping", it's the people jumping to conclusions about this event based solely on a superficial analysis of tabloid headlines.


Originally posted by Panda26
A 9 year old child lost her life to this nonsense.


Again, this is a good reason to give this event extra scrutiny. That said, you and probably everyone reading this knew absolutely nothing about the girl before the shooting. Now you only know what the family and the media have told you, and that amounts to very little. Did you know her parents dressed her up, put makeup and high heels on her and entered her in beauty pageants? Just like the Ramsey family did with poor little Jonbenet, just about the same age when she died. It's tangential but that reeks of kiddie porn to me, dressing up a 9 year old girl to look like a supermodel on a provocative cover of Vogue or Cosmopolitan.

The point is we don't know what was going on, it could be something utterly bizarre and unimaginable, the kid could have been a clone of Giffords prepped by another family with a background similar to Giffords and used as the recipient of a partial brain transplant so Giffords could extend her life, and the shooting just a ruse to explain why Giffords had her skull opened up and now acts like a 9 year old, a 9 year old's skull has stopped growing and a 40 year old's brain has just started dying.




Again, the point is we just don't know, wild speculations abound, very freaky things happen in this world and it's easy to misdirect people away from them with sleight of hand and control of information and debate.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 


Will our own extra scrutiny in anyway effect the court proceedings? Is there anything we can prove based entirely on our own imaginations and conjecture?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LegalTender
ps. the guy DID have a gun when he got tackled..and i don't think people would just tackle him for the sake of playing the blame game.


This is a detail that's repeated many times in this thread, but the witness reports conflict wildly with this assertion. The only one who positively identifies Loughner with the gun in his hand is Salzgeber. Salzgeber is the only one seen by other witnesses with the gun in his hand, except for the shooter, who 911 calls show fled the scene PAST the Walgreens over 100 meters away. Loughner was subdued approximately 10 feet from where Giffords lay. Salzgeber claims the gun fell from Loughner's hand and skittered away. He and Badger both claim they never turned loose of Loughner and he never moved once they got ahold of him, nullifying the tabloid headlines saying an old woman "tackled" Loughner or disarmed him. If the gun skittered away and they never turned loose of Loughner, how did Salzgeber then get the gun in his hand and start waving it around telling Loughner, "I'll kill you"?

The police reported the loaded magazine was inoperable at that point in any case due to a spring malfunction. When the police showed up they had a gun floating around in a crowd of people, a non functioning magazine in the hand of an old woman and eyewitness reports that the shooter had already fled the scene. They also have a man carrying a concealed weapon claiming to have come from the very spot to which the shooter fled. All in all they must have carried out a pretty piss poor investigation if they simply concluded immediately that the guy subdued on the ground was the shooter.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Will our own extra scrutiny in anyway effect the court proceedings? Is there anything we can prove based entirely on our own imaginations and conjecture?


You'll have to quote this "imaginations" and "conjecture", I'm not sure which of my posts you mean so I can't address this.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by windwaker
They have pictures of him posing with the gun in a g-string before the shooting. You must be out of your mind.


Have you seen the pictures you describe?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gamecock
He was tackled to the ground and the fun was wrestled away from him at the scene of the crime.


Only one person claims they saw the gun in Loughner's hand. Other witnesses reported to 911 that the shooter had fled the scene PAST the Walgreens over 100 meters away, the same Walgreens where Zamudio claims to have been when he heard the shots and ran out ready to execute somebody.

Salzgeber is the one claiming the gun skittered out of Loughner's hand when he took him down. Other witnesses put the gun in Salzgeber's hand, waving it around and telling Loughner, "I'll kill you." That's a felony death threat right there, but Salzgeber has not been charged. Salzgeber's prints are all over the gun, along with another person's most likely, as the first officer on the scene reported the gun was lost "in the crowd".

All in all I've seen nothing suggesting anything remotely like an investigation was done. The media began immediately pronouncing the arrested man guilty, the next day identifying him by name and an obviously slanted photograph and a steady stream of pseudobiographical information about Loughner gleaned primarily through internet stalking ever since.

None of the online presence has ever been conclusively tied to Loughner with the possible exception of the Myspace account, which was pulled. That it was pulled tells me the police are certain the account was his. That all these other accounts still exist is a pretty clear indication to me the police hope to lure in an accomplice who they obviously presume might try to use the accounts again. Why else would, for example, the YouTube account remain while the Myspace account was yanked?

The police brass were saying from day 1 that they were looking for an accomplice and don't think Loughner could have pulled it off himself, then they backed off but took the actions I just described. Police know the difference between somebody spraying a crowd with bullets and the work of a professional soldier. That bank robbery in Hollywood, those two guys girded for war, they sprayed thousands of rounds at police, EMT's, journalists, helicopters and civilians, and had nowhere near that kind of accuracy.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 


Our imaginations, as in the beliefs people have that maybe everyone is lying, maybe none of the information about what happened at the scene is true. There is no evidence contrary however there is evidence that what was said to have happened happened. Whether those witnesses are truthful we don't know, though I would bet they are. That means without any contrary evidence the theories you are contriving are based solely on imaginary scenarios.

Everything that cannot be directly attributed to someone that was at the scene or has handled evidence is conjecture.
edit on 17-1-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Trust me when these people go after your life they just make it all up.

They will turn you talking innocently to someone as a crime, lol. Thats how bad these people are.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


I think you are thinking of THOSE people, THESE people are alright.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAELENIUM
Obviously some one did the shooting and obviously JARED LOUGHNER was observed doing it by more than just one or two witness.


Can you name these witnesses who say him dropping the hammer on people? So far I've only been able to find one person claiming Loughner had a gun in his hand, Salzgeber. Other witnesses say Salzgeber not only had the gun in his hand but he was waving it around and telling Loughner, "I'll kill you," as well as twisting his arm so much Loughner cried out it was breaking, as well as trying to choke Loughner before Badger told him to let him breathe. All these things in any circumstances constitute felonies, Salzgeber is given a pass because he has Loughner to offer up. Zamudio is given a pass because nobody who saw him pulling the trigger lived to tell about it.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Our imaginations, as in the beliefs people have that maybe everyone is lying


I haven't suggested anything remotely like that, and I haven't seen anyone else suggesting it, either. Are you talking about something that happened in this thread or is it just something you imagined and now believe?


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
maybe none of the information about what happened at the scene is true.



Some people might say this, I haven't. In fact I've said people should rely more on the information about what happened at the scene and rely less on tabloid headlines that have already convicted Loughner.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
There is no evidence contrary however there is evidence that what was said to have happened happened.


And the gun observed in Salzgeber's hand? How did he manage to get it from Loughner? He says it skittered out of Loughner's hand, but also says he never turned loose of Loughner and denies hitting him with a chair that "Colonel Bill Badger" reported. Why does Salzgeber's testimony differ so wildly from the rest? Why did he tell Loughner, "I'll kill you," while waving the murder weapon around, as reported by Zamudio? Why was Zamudio prepared to execute somebody as he returned from the Walgreens with his hand stuffed in his coat and the safety off his pistol therein? What other witnesses besides Salzgeber report seeing the gun in Loughner's hand?


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
That means without any contrary evidence the theories you are contriving are based solely on imaginary scenarios.


Again and again I've cited facts, not "imaginary scenarios" but what the witnesses reported and only what they reported. Can you show even a single witness report where a witness says something to the effect of "yes I saw that man with a gun in his hand blazing the crowd and I never took my eyes off him from the time the shots began to the time he was apprehended". Every single witness reports either immediately running for cover, being shot or dropping to the ground before they ever saw anyone with a gun in their hand. The only ones who saw Zamudio pulling the trigger are in the morgue. I've only seen one witness report of actually witnessing the shot said to have hit Giffords in the personality, a photographer there to take pictures who didn't capture even a single photograph of somebody with a gun in their hand shooting.





top topics
 
77
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join