Jared Lee Loughner is INNOCENT!!

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

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SocratesPupil
People in JLL's class were afraid of him and his friend even mentioned that when he heard the news report that he thought it was JLL.


This is utterly irrelevant to what went on at the crime scene.


Originally posted by SocratesPupil
From 1 of the reports I heard, Fox is still waiting to hear back from the pentagon whether or not JLL was ever enlisted.


The recruiter questioned said he'd been accepted but confessed spontaneously to smoking pot and was "washed out" at that point. No drug test was involved, so we have nothing to audit to verify this story.


Originally posted by SocratesPupil
His behavior warranted a mental health professional and that would appear to be obvious.


Which behaviour is that? And how is his behaviour at junior college relevant to this mass murder?


Originally posted by SocratesPupil
The truth is that people would rather believe that this incident was senseless and could not have been avoided.


I don't know who those people are, I'd much rather believe the lone nut theory, but I need at least a little evidence to convict me. Somebody positively identifying him having a gun in his hand at the scene, a picture of him holding a gun at the scene, anything that shows he did the shooting at the crime scene. Then I'll start leaning toward guilty. In the absence of any evidence and in the presence of many conflicting stories, I can only conclude Loughner was not holding a gun when this shooting took place.

Only one witness puts the gun in Loughner's hand, Salzgeber, and his story conflicts wildly with other eyewitnesses who variously accuse him of beating, strangling and threatening to shoot Loughner with the murder weapon, Zamudio claims Salzgeber said to Loughner, "I'll kill you." A death threat while holding a recently discharged firearm is a felony in every state in the union, but Salzgeber walked. Shall we exempt everyone on scene but Loughner from the law? What if it's discovered this child was held up and used as a human shield? What if we get video evidence proving it? Do we charge that person as an accessory to capital murder?


Originally posted by SocratesPupil
Nobody wants to hear that if the military rejected JLL then they made a mistake.


I'm not sure what the point is here. Are you suggesting Loughner would have made a good soldier? I find that hard to believe. You know who would make a good soldier? Zamudio. He already calls everyone sir, he already knows how to handle a weapon and is willing to kill.




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
He made comments and expressed remorse for what he would do by apologizing beforehand.


Can you provide these comments and the source where you found them? All I've been able to find are a few words taken from this or that context from which no real conclusions can be drawn. Perhaps you've seen more extensive quotes regarding his intentions to commit mass murder. I'd like to see them, nothing would make me happier than to find out the lone nut political assassin theory is right for once.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurrayTORONTO
Here is radio from tucson police.
www.liveleak.com...


I fail to see how this is relevant to Loughner's innocence or guilt. As is typical in most crimes, the police show up after the fact. Given the rampant contamination of the crime scene, the way the gun seems to have been passed around and literally stepped on, the police have nothing to offer but hearsay, which is not admissible in court so far as I know, and I don't accept it as evidence. If I did I'd believe all the tabloid headlines talking about this mountain of evidence supposedly stacked up against Loughner. I haven't seen anything beyond his presence that's been offered as evidence from this crime implicating Loughner.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
This is the court of public opinion and I'm relatively certain that you won't find too many people that think that Loughner is innocent based on the evidence that has been presented.


Can you just briefly describe this evidence to which you obliquely refer? I'm not sure I'm at all familiar with it. None of the evidence I've seen presented through the media would urge me to convict somebody for a mass murder. The only participant who reports seeing Loughner with the gun in his hand is the person other witnesses say was waving the gun around telling Loughner, "I'll kill you" with it.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blazer
Also apparently the day before the shooting, he dropped off some pictures to be developed, which had him posing in a RED G-STRING with his gun. I wonder if he did this and other behavior mentioned to facilitate an insanity plea?
edit on 14-1-2011 by Blazer because: (no reason given)


I don't see how any such pictures prove that Loughner took part in this mass murder. If posing for a picture in a bright red g-string with a Glock up against your butt cheeks is proof of that, we better go arrest this girl as his accomplice:





posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blazer
BTW they have video footage of the incident, according to www.nytimes.com...


Also, it emerged Friday that the F.B.I has video footage — taken from the surveillance cameras of businesses in the shopping center where the shooting took place — of the incident, according to a law enforcement source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the source is not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation. Officials are hoping the graphic footage does not have to be used at Mr. Loughner’s trial, because it would likely be painful for the families of the deceased.



It's interesting that the FBI has all the video. Presumably they brushed the local authorities aside the moment the news hit the televisions. Given that local law enforcement has clearly been superseded here, it's safe to assume the know approximately as much as the rest of us do, which is only what the FBI and the participants tell us. What have the witnesses said? None of them have positively identified Loughner as the shooter.

Multiple witnesses not only put the gun in Salzgeber's hand but have him alternately harming and threatening Loughner while waving the murder weapon around like some kind of action movie antihero. Witnesses not as close to all the shooting and confusion reported the shooter ran north PAST the Walgreens which is 100 meters away. That's approximately 110 meters from where Loughner was apprehended and in the WRONG DIRECTION. The exact same direction Zamudio came from at a dead sprint directly to the scene of the crime where he broke control of the weapon, compounding the contamination by instructing Zamudio to step on it. When police arrived they reported the gun lost "in the crowd". I wonder if the FBI chewed their ass about that or let it ride.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
Remember waaaaaay back when... A high profile crime would occur and it was obvious to everyone what happened.


Give me the same control over that crime scene that Salzgeber, Zamudio, Badger and Maisch had over that crime scene and the same media coverage and I'll convince the world it's obvious that YOU did it.


Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
The suspects' innocence would be defended by some strong patriotic official (take your pick: Sheriff, Congressman, etc.) that reminded the public "Innocent until proven guilty" all the while knowing (or at least suspecting) they had enough evidence to convict the suspect.

Wull, that was decades ago... Many of those 'suspects' were able to get off... I'm not being specific because it happened so much... They get off because some slimey lawyer got them off on a technicality.


You seem to be describing a unique position of somebody who just "knows" everything without proper investigation or skepticism about your own shortcomings and assumptions.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Of course he is not "guilty", he has not even had a trial yet. "I want to see the evidence blah blah blah".. well what makes you so important that you need to see it now?


I, for one, am a citizen of the United States of America. That Giffords woman worked for ME. The FBI work for ME. All those security cameras are there to PROTECT ME. Judge Roll was MY judge. The mass media uses the public spectrum, which is MINE, therefore they exist only to serve ME. What makes me so important? There are 300 million of ME.


Originally posted by MrWendal
What makes you think your opinion on the subject means anythign at all? I am not saying this to be rude, just trying to put things into perspective a bit.


I for one have studiously avoided randomly injecting my opinion into my posts. I try to stick to facts I can verify with sources in the public domain. Where I've strayed from the "official" narrative I've explained it in terms of having no choice, as the public comments from the participants dictated something didn't add up, that there was a hole in the story.

There's a game called stories with holes, maybe you've played it. You get to ask a series of yes/no questions, in order to fully realize what has happened in a story for which you are given only a summary. For example, you can be told a story, "Jill is dead in a puddle of water, Jack hid himself after Jill died." A person who's prone to superficial analysis and abrupt, unwarranted conclusions immediately concludes Jack is the most likely culprit in the murder of Jill. It's later revealed that Jack has water on him when he's found, mere minutes later, clearly confirming your belief that Jack is a murderer. It's revealed later that Jack has a history of taunting and trying to attack Jill. Jack has even captured and killed small animals, like birds and other people's pet hamsters, and he was seen running toward Jill just before she died! Now we know all we need to know, Jack is clearly a murderer! Then we discover there is also broken glass around Jill! There was a struggle! It's all becoming clear now! The broken glass wasn't used to kill Jill, Jill died of suffocation, we finally learn!! That sick animal Jack he needs to be given a lethal injection right away! He suffocated Jill after a struggle when Jill finally fought back against this madman Jack who'd been taunting her and attacking her and stalking her for months and months and now he'd finally snapped and he killed Jill oh my god oh noes!!!111one1...

Oh. That's not right. Well I give up, just tell me, what happened. Oh of course, Jack is a cat, Jill is a fish, the family dog knocked over the table while chasing the cat and thus the fish died of being a fish-out-of-water, or in other words the-wrong-person-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time. I knew it all along!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
These nuts are screaming for evidence before most of it is even submitted as evidence.


I don't hear those screaming nuts. Are these nuts imaginary?


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Not to mention just because you want to know everything you are privileged to the evidence, like it should be passed around to conspiracy theorists for show and tell.


The gun and the magazines were contaminated by multiple participants. When the police arrived they didn't have a clue where the gun was, reporting it lost in the crowd "somewhere". Really any evidence relating to the murder weapon is dubious at best. None of the public statements made by participants of this event ever stated they saw Loughner with the gun or shooting. Witnesses report seeing the gun in the hands of other people. Witnesses report the shooter fled north PAST the Walgreens over 100 meters away, exactly where Zamudio came from, at a dead sprint, safety off, ready to execute somebody. Zamudio reports Salzgeber told Loughner "I'll kill you" and was waving the murder weapon around. So as you can see we already have about as much evidence as matters. No witnesses saw Loughner with the gun, only one witness that survived claims to have been close enough to see who the shooter was, everyone dove for cover and kept their head down. They remember virtually nothing but the sound of gunshots and in some cases people near them dropping dead or wounded.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I think it should be illegal to leak and report evidence before trial. All that succeeds at is tainting the jury pool.


All the bold declarations that Loughner "obviously" did it could taint a jury, mass speculation about his sanity in the popular press can taint a jury, internet gossip can taint a jury, factual evidence that's admissible in court can NOT taint a jury. They don't disqualify a juror because he knows the facts of a case, only if he's already determined innocence or guilt. If this forum is any reasonable cross section and if all jurors were honest they'd have to cycle through thousands of potential jurors to find one who was not already convinced of guilt. He'd be better off with a bench trial, at least a judge will typically demand evidence before convicting somebody of murder.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Staysay29
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I completely agree with you. I felt from the very beginning that there was something "wrong" with this picture.... and people are too quick to judge instead of trying to look at it from other aspects. Thanks for posting this.


really??? 6 dead and all those people wounded, and somehow there are other aspects?? apparently all those wounded by him did not see him pull the trigger, and all the bystanders didn't see him pull the trigger, and the old woman that knocked the next loaded ammo magazine from his hand didn't see him pull the trigger, and the people that held him down didn't know he pulled the trigger... let me be the first to judge quickly...he's guilty of murder.
edit on 17-1-2011 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SocratesPupil
The purpose being that most people will latch onto the hard evidence such as forensics and witnesses and that will be enough to condemn JLL.


I'd like to have a similar faith in the future appearance of some evidence actually showing Loughner was the shooter. As of yet, no witnesses put the gun in his hand, most report never seeing the shooting, only hearing it, anyone close enough to identify Zamudio as the shooter is in the morgue or ran like hell in the other direction after the first shot.


Originally posted by SocratesPupil
Would most people really prefer to just execute this crazy, flag burning, mentally unstable, reclusive, atheists in an act of pure revenge. Doesn't seem that righteous....


It's worth noting that "flag burning", "reclusive" and "mentally unstable" are terms that could readily be applied to most soldiers. That's how they teach soldiers to destroy tattered flags, by burning them, which is exactly what was in the video. Why are the police leaving that YouTube channel up if they have seized the Myspace account? Is it because they suspect somebody else uploaded them from IP records? I have no doubt the account was maintained from wifi hot spots around Tuscon. The police were initially looking for another suspect, unconvinced Loughner could have done this, but they've since abandoned the public mention of it. The YouTube channel is surely being monitored to see if anyone accesses it with the password, no doubt a vain hope.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 


He did it.. To think otherwise is simply delusional and frankly... pathetic.

He had a safe .. inside were papers with assassination and Gifford's name written down..

There are witnesses - Their account will be made public record soon enough...The woman I spoke of earlier, saw him shooting.. She grabbed the clip out of his hand.

They will find his finger prints on casings/gun/clip. What will you say then? Will you delve further into fantasy land and call it a set up?

Let me guess, you think the pic was dr.'d too? Typical here in lala land of conspiracies...

He is innocent until proven guilty in the courts... But, a person with 1/2 of a brain knows he did it..

Anyone that has not fell victim to the "everything is a conspiracy" bug, knows he did it..

There are no life points for finding a conspiracy in everything... You wont be able to cite your ability to force a conspiracy, to pick up women... I love ATS.... But, am beginning to hate the "everything including the time of day" is a conspiracy..



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
apparently all those wounded by him did not see him pull the trigger


Ignoring the assumption that they were wounded "by him", there is the fact that none of the witnesses who've made public statements report seeing Loughner with a gun, shooting. Virtually all witnesses report seeing but not hearing the shooting. Everyone close enough to clearly see the shooter's face is in the morgue. Everyone wounded suffered the effects of gunshot wounds, they basically panicked and fled or played dead and so on, none of them have any clear memory of the shooting, not one wounded person has said they know who shot them.


Originally posted by jimmyx
and all the bystanders didn't see him pull the trigger


This area was an entrance to a grocery store and it was concealed by large brick pillars all around. As a consequence there was a lot of cover and the shooting went largely unobserved, people only heard it. The witnesses who were distant reported a man wearing a black hoodie fleeing the scene PAST the Walgreens over 100 meters away. Loughner was apprehended after that about 10 feet from the shooting, when Zamudio returned from the Walgreens and immediately started controlling the crime scene. Zamudio stayed there and nearby for most of two or three days, if media reports are any judge.


Originally posted by jimmyx
and the old woman that knocked the next loaded ammo magazine from his hand didn't see him pull the trigger


Drifting already into urban legend here, this woman says herself she simply grabbed a magazine from the ground, not that she took it from his hand or that he was attempting to reload it. Badger and Salzgeber both insist he was immobilized utterly once they grabbed him, also negating this myth that the Maisch disarmed Loughner. Multiple witnesses report the gun in Salzgeber's hand at this time, alternately harming Loughner and threatening, "I'll kill you" while brandishing the murder weapon. She also claims not to have seen the shooting.


Originally posted by jimmyx
and the people that held him down didn't know he pulled the trigger...


Salzgeber claims to have seen the shooting out of the corner of his eye, threw his wife down, hit the pavement himself and didn't raise his head until the shooting was over. Though people on either side of him were shot and killed, he and his wife were not shot. Badger claims to have heard the first shot and immediately hit the pavement, seeing nothing until it was over and Salzgeber was taking down Loughner, Badger says with a chair, Salzgeber denies hitting anyone with a chair. Maisch also reports hitting the pavement the instant the first shot was fired, both she and Badger right next to Loughner, Salzgeber coming up behind him. Salzgeber doesn't explain how the shooter simultaneously ran north 100 meters, past a Walgreens, while making his way with an empty gun past the 4th and 5th positions in the line which were occupied by Salzgeber and his wife. Zamudio claims to have heard the shots from over 100 meters away inside the very thick brick walls of the Walgreens, the entrance of which is pointed more than 90 degrees from the scene of the shooting, yet people right inside the doors of the Safeway reported the gunshots sounded like "bubble wrap" being popped. So you're right, none of the people that held him down said they saw him pulling the trigger. Zamudio is the most likely suspect, unless the FBI is concealing evidence.


Originally posted by jimmyx
let me be the first to judge quickly...he's guilty of murder


You're far from the first. What you're doing is called jumping on the band wagon. Probably millions of people "knew" Loughner did it before you ever even heard about this incident.
edit on 17-1-2011 by PlautusSatire because: tough -> though



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 


Let me get this straight.. You seem to consider yourself bright and intelligent... right?

Yet, you are picking apart immediate accounts of the incident, accounts often change once a person is allowed to calm down and get the blood flowing through their brain again..

This was a traumatic situation for these folks.. Their initial testimony is going to all be different in the begining.. It is almost always the case..

How about we wait for an official account to be laid out, and see if the accounts make sense..



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
He did it.. To think otherwise is simply delusional and frankly... pathetic.


I'd prefer to base my beliefs on the available evidence, rather than shooting-from-the-hip psychological diagnosis over the internet or one person's personal opinion that using facts to determine what's true is "pathetic".


Originally posted by Resurrectio
He had a safe .. inside were papers with assassination and Gifford's name written down..


I've seen such reports, that he had an envelope that had "My assassination" written on it. When I read "My assassination" I take that to mean the author's assassination. Perhaps Loughner was already in fear for his life and wanted to leave something behind in case he was killed. It's also possible, since the family reports being absent from the time of the shooting until long after the police arrived, it's possible that evidence was planted at the house.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
There are witnesses - Their account will be made public record soon enough...The woman I spoke of earlier, saw him shooting.. She grabbed the clip out of his hand.


You appear to be mistaking tabloid headlines for this witness' statements. Her statements flatly refute that she had some kind of struggle with Loughner, she claims she picked the magazine up off the ground on the orders of people standing on Loughner's neck. Both Badger and Salzgeber report they had a firm grip on Loughner, that he wasn't moving or offering much resistance, and was not have his arms free to reload or even fish for ammunition (or anything) in his pocket at this time.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
They will find his finger prints on casings/gun/clip.


Given that the gun was passed around like a hot potato and the police couldn't even locate it when they first arrived, and given that Maisch was juggling the magazine around while performing various other tasks it's unlikely they'll find Loughner's prints on anything at the scene. What will you say then? Nothing, because you'll never hear that on the news. They certainly won't broadcast a national news flash saying only other people's prints are on the murder weapons.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
What will you say then?


See above.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
Will you delve further into fantasy land and call it a set up?


See above where I instruct you to further see above.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
Let me guess, you think the pic was dr.'d too? Typical here in lala land of conspiracies...


Which pic is that?


Originally posted by Resurrectio
He is innocent until proven guilty in the courts... But, a person with 1/2 of a brain knows he did it..


I guess I'm exempt, having a full brain. Are you trying to say Giffords knows who did this? That's cold blooded. Maybe you're the shooter. I've seen as much evidence putting the gun in your hand as I've seen putting it in Loughner's. Give me as much control over that crime scene as Salzgeber, Badger, Maisch and Zamudio had and I'll convince the whole world you're guilty. I may even dredge up your internet history and any gossip I can find about you just to humiliate you on top.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
Anyone that has not fell victim to the "everything is a conspiracy" bug, knows he did it..


An equally valid competing claim can be made about lone nut theorists, who believe every political assassination from the dawn of time was carried out by sexually frustrated lone nuts. Oh wait one President was shot by an anarchist.



Originally posted by Resurrectio
There are no life points for finding a conspiracy in everything...





Originally posted by Resurrectio
You wont be able to cite your ability to force a conspiracy, to pick up women...


I don't pick up women, I'm happily married, and my wife loves the passion I throw into my research.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
I love ATS....


Perhaps you're a bit too emotionally involved. Step back, take a deep breath, nobody is attacking you or ATS. We'll all get through this trauma together.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
Yet, you are picking apart immediate accounts of the incident


Actually I haven't picked apart anything, I've compiled every public statement from every participant I can find. None of them say "I saw the shooter run into the crowd he'd just blazed and get tackled". In fact nearly every single one of them follows the pattern, "I heard shots, I took cover, I don't remember much after that, when it was over I saw a guy subdued by four people". People who called 911 reported the shooter ran north over 100 meters away PAST the Walgreens, which is where Zamudio came from at a dead sprint, safety off, hand on his pistol, ready to execute somebody at the drop of a hat.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
accounts often change once a person is allowed to calm down and get the blood flowing through their brain again..


The accounts I culled were from the media, in most cases at least a day after the shooting, Zamudio is one exception. He stayed at the crime scene until at least well into the evening and was loitering in the area for several days afterwards continuing to give interviews, wearing a black hoodie and a wool jacket, carrying a 9mm pistol (probably a Glock).


Originally posted by Resurrectio
This was a traumatic situation for these folks.. Their initial testimony is going to all be different in the begining.. It is almost always the case..


And you're willing to trust a man's life to the ever-changing stories of traumatized witnesses? Given the utter contamination of both the weapon and ammunition found at the scene, it would seem witness stories are all that's left to convict him. One wonders how the FBI could imagine ever winning such a case.


Originally posted by Resurrectio
How about we wait for an official account to be laid out, and see if the accounts make sense..


There have been many "official accounts" written by police who were not on the scene and probably know about as much as I do about this crime, if not less. Most of the "official accounts" consist of a narrative purportedly describing Loughner's actions in the day prior to this crime.

The only thing conflicting with the witness statements regarding the actual crime (if we excuse Salzgeber for his lies saying "I'll kill you" to Loughner while waving the murder weapon around) are the conclusions being drawn by the media and parroted by people who can't think for themselves and substitute tabloid headlines for research. These repeaters who continually howl for Loughner's blood are nothing better than a lynch mob that's clearly going off half glocked before all the facts are in.

It's clear the conservative approach here is to presume Loughner's innocence until at least some evidence is offered putting the gun in his hand. Even just one story that doesn't trip over itself (like Salzgeber's claim the gun skittered out of Loughner's hand and away yet multiple other witnesses report Salzgeber with the gun in his hand, waving it around and telling Loughner, "I'll kill you" with it) would do. As it stands we have no such story, except from media editorials and internet gossips.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lovinlife
It's hard to discount and question the dozens of witnesses who saw jared point the weapon and fire into the Giffords head. I'm sorry, maybe I'm naive to the power of government and media mind control programs, or maybe I'm just not paranoid enought to believe that these people can see, think and interpret situations for themselves. I guess my glass is half full perspective on life is giving me a false sense of happiness and optimism on life and humanity....


You demonstrate you haven't a grasp of most of the information in the public domain regarding this crime. If you really would like to find out what the witnesses said, you should read all of their statements and compare them to one another. There are no "dozens of witnesses" who saw the shooting take place, virtually all witnesses only heard gunshots, only one person reports actually seeing the shooter firing, and that was right next to her, she ran like hell and made no attempt to verify the identity of the shooter. You don't have to interpret anything, just read the witness statements, which you clearly have not done yet. It takes more than a few tabloid headlines and some internet gossip to make a case for mass murder. Glasses are like skulls, if they're not full, they're bigger than they need to be.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 





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".


And what other words were exchanged between Salzgeber and JLL at that time? Maybe something like "Freeze mf'er or else..." ? It sounds like it was shouted as a warning, else there would be no reason to say it at all, right? After all, 20 or so people had already been shot...why the need for niceties?


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.


Yes, but anything you get at this point is either courtesy or bait. Police are under no obligation to show you anything unless you're part of the case. So, the fact that you are working with incomplete evidence is sad but your problem alone.


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.


Accuracy, you say? His primary target, Gabrielle Giffords, is still alive, and improving daily.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
And what other words were exchanged between Salzgeber and JLL at that time?


If anyone knows of anything else Salzgeber said, they're not talking about it. The shooter, Zamudio, reported Salzgeber threatening to kill Loughner with the murder weapon while waving it around. Is Zamudio lying? Badger reports Salzgeber harming Loughner more than once, violently twisting his arm and choking him when Badger tried to question him. Is Badger lying?


Originally posted by mishigas
Yes, but anything you get at this point is either courtesy or bait.


Likewise. I choose to base my conclusions on the public statements of participants. You apparently choose to believe the tabloid headlines.


Originally posted by mishigas
Police are under no obligation to show you anything unless you're part of the case. So, the fact that you are working with incomplete evidence is sad but your problem alone.


It's pretty obvious the police have only the statements of participants, since they all showed up long after the shooting stopped, and stepped into a crime scene controlled by the shooter himself, Zamudio, and his accomplices. That they quickly drew the wrong conclusion isn't surprising.


Originally posted by mishigas
Accuracy, you say? His primary target, Gabrielle Giffords, is still alive, and improving daily.


Oh, you know who the primary target was in this mass murder? How did you come by such knowledge? Did you participate in it? There's as much testimony putting the gun in your hand as there is in Loughner's hand, where were you when all this happened? Do you have an alibi?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Here are some details from just some of the participants in this event, all other witness statements pretty much follow this same pattern.

azstarnet.com...

Randy Gardner - "Things just started to cave in on me. It was like tunnel vision. I never saw the shooter, I could only hear the sound and I knew I needed to get away from the sound. I saw forms of people moving, I heard screaming. I could see that people were falling to the ground."

Gardner blindly sought cover behind a vehicle in the parking lot and admittedly remembers next to nothing, not even the identities of people passing directly in front of him, people right next to him falling and dying.

Sara Hummel Rajca - "He was to my right. So I ran toward my left, which happens to be where my car was. I ran straight to my car and hid behind it."


Rajca was there taking pictures of the event. She had the presence of mind to run like hell as soon as the first shot was fired, but didn't think to stick the camera up and shoot pictures wildly, she was too busy on her phone.

Sharon Brillhart, Howard Dow - More witnesses who report hearing only shots, never seeing the shooting or the shooter.





new topics
top topics
 
77
<< 35  36  37    39  40 >>

log in

join