Jared Lee Loughner is INNOCENT!!

page: 39
77
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 


HA. Me obsessing about a lone nut theory? Whoa...
Okay in some respects you're correct, not all evidence presented at a criminal trial is pristine. In fact it is hardly ever the case. However, as I said before, the evidence so far that is public overwhelmingly asserts he is guilty. Many things have come up, like there was no second shooter, etc that help to clarify the events, yet NOTHING has come up that says JLL is innocent. It all still points to him being the shooter. Speculation about deficiencies in the evidence such as where you "think" the cameras in parking lot were pointed, is pure conjecture and has even less bearing on the truth of the events than even ambiguous or contradictory eyewitness testimony. The video may not show everything, in fact it probably won't. Yet not accepting it for that reason is ridiculous. It sheds additional light on the events, which is enough for it to be pertinent.
When you ask any witness or victim a broad general question about what happened you will likely get very similar descriptions. If you ask everyone to rattle off other details, you'll probably find 15 different answers on what color his socks were. To some, that's a flaw, to me, its irrelevant.
comm




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
This is just a correction, since it's too late for me to edit some of my older posts, I've been saying the Walgreens is 100 meters from the Safeway, it's actually 100 feet, so each instance of that is off by a factor of about three, not 100 meters as I stated but 100 feet.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 



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?


So now Zamudio is the shooter? Really?


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.[


Nah, I don't read tabloids, except ATS. And I don't believe much of what I read here, either.


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.


So now Zamudio "The Shooter" has accomplices? This is getting better by the minute!



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?


It's not yet established knowledge. Right now it's just my opinion. But it's one that is shared by many LEO.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by commdogg
Speculation about deficiencies in the evidence such as where you "think" the cameras in parking lot were pointed, is pure conjecture and has even less bearing on the truth of the events than even ambiguous or contradictory eyewitness testimony.


You're right, my comments about any video that might exist are entirely conjectural, since those videos are not being released.


Originally posted by commdogg
Yet not accepting it for that reason is ridiculous. It sheds additional light on the events, which is enough for it to be pertinent.


I'm "not accepting" the video because I haven't seen it. You apparently have, since you feel comfortable making bold claims about such video being pertinent and shedding additional light on this event. It's entirely possible the video won't show anything useful, for a start. It's also possible the video will cast even more doubt on Loughner as a suspect. At this point it's moot, since the FBI is apparently not interested in finding other suspects. It's one thing to say "we have evidence this person was involved", it's quite another to say "we have evidence showing nobody else is involved". The first statement is possible, the second is impossible.


Originally posted by commdogg
When you ask any witness or victim a broad general question about what happened you will likely get very similar descriptions. If you ask everyone to rattle off other details, you'll probably find 15 different answers on what color his socks were. To some, that's a flaw, to me, its irrelevant.


You'd consider it irrelevant if each and every participant in this event gave drastically different accounts of the same event? I think I understand now why you're not the least bit concerned that Loughner might be innocent. The one similar detail that all the witness stories seem to share is lack of any clear memory of what happened and nobody remembering seeing a gun in Loughner's hand. We also have a 911 report saying the shooter ran past the Walgreens over 100 feet away.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
So now Zamudio is the shooter? Really?


Sure looks like the most likely suspect to me. He's the only participant I've seen who could pass for Loughner with a black hoodie on. He carries a gun and when he came from the Walgreens he said he was ready to execute Loughner if he'd been trying to run. Now he's content to wait for the lethal injection. That Zamudio stayed so long that day at the crime scene is very suspicious in itself. One wonders why the police let him wander around there like that carrying a concealed weapon inside his black wool coat and his black hoodie.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 


Again, if anything came forward to asset he was innocent I would evaluate it. Let me ask you this though, what has? Has anything direct come up to assert he was not the shooter? Or are we still of the opinion that because recollection of witnesses may be flawed and have variations, we reach the conclusion that JLL must not have done it, because a bunch of people remembered things a little bit different?
And just because we do not get to see the video does not diminish its value. Security camera footage of a crime in progress. That's important no matter what is on it.
Comm



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlautusSatire

Originally posted by mishigas
So now Zamudio is the shooter? Really?


Sure looks like the most likely suspect to me. He's the only participant I've seen who could pass for Loughner with a black hoodie on. He carries a gun and when he came from the Walgreens he said he was ready to execute Loughner if he'd been trying to run. Now he's content to wait for the lethal injection. That Zamudio stayed so long that day at the crime scene is very suspicious in itself. One wonders why the police let him wander around there like that carrying a concealed weapon inside his black wool coat and his black hoodie.


You can't be this naive. Ever hear of ballistics?

Hey everybody! Zamudio was the shooter. He used Loughner's gun. How did he know JLL would be there with a gun at that time? It doesn't matter!

Btw, what did Zamudio pack that day...????



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


And here I though Zamudio was a model of restraint for just helping subdue JLL instead of shooting him. When did he become the villain?
This is cool. We don't just debate conspiracies on ATS, we CREATE them now too. One has been born before our very eyes. Take that Lee Harvey...
Comm



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by commdogg
 


Yep! I love storytelling time! It always seems that the bad guy is actually INNOCENT or CONSPIRED!


You gotta love it!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


HA. Do not ever drink the kool aid here. I'm just waiting on the little green snack cakes...
MMMM Soylent Green. I wonder what its made of. HA.
Comm



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by commdogg
 


Hey what happened to PlautusSatire's blank star? Not that I was going to give him a star... was just wondering?

Never mind.
edit on 17-1-2011 by mishigas because: Add 'never mind'.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


banned .... He was trolling.. I looked through his posts earlier.. He was causing problems and conflict where ever he went.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


So you're saying we were feeding the troll? Dangit... We need a sign that says "Don't feed the trolls."



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by commdogg
 


If this doesn't work, maybe we could tie a cowbell around the troll's neck...?

edit on 18-1-2011 by mishigas because: change pix



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I LOVE IT.

This is my new Phone Wallpaper!!



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 



What makes anyone think this guy INS'T insane? That's a perfectly legal defense.


Sure, it's a legal defense. But JLL is not innocent by reason of insanity. He made comments and expressed remorse for what he would do by apologizing beforehand. That means his murders were premeditated and he knew they were wrong to do. people who are innocent by reason of insanity do not realize their actions are wrong, therefore they do not apologize to anyone beforehand.


edit on 14-1-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Absolutely correct. My post was not well thought out in that I was already awake 30 hours.

I didn't mean to imply that he's innocent by reason of insanity. I meant to say AND imply that many 'authorities' would remind the American knee-jerking public (justifiably so!) that in America a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

The fact that many suspects have escaped the death penalty by reason of insanity has escalated uncounted!

Slimey lawyers that win at all costs (or plea bargain crimes down is still a minor victory) are not equal to public sentiment.

Twinkie defense is a farce and we all know it. Execution for high crimes is rare. Personally, I don't believe that he will be... I expect the insanity plea. Quietly convicted some years down the road when all the exploitation of the event subsides.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlautusSatire

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.


I feel you



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Joined ATS after reading this intriguing thread. Imho, a lot of great points have been raised here by those who doubt the "official" story of the Tuscon shooting. We have been treated to a typical MSM lynching, which invariably happens in these tragedies. The "lone nut" is scrutinzed relentlessly, featuring ominous interviews with his friends and associates, and now in the information age, every cyber footprint he's ever made on the internet is analyzed. This serves as the modern equivalent of "journalism."

Meanwhile, all the points raised the critics on this thread will never be addressed, let alone investigated by the MSM. Real reporters ought to be very interested in the kind of imporant conficts in testimony that have been brought up here; the 911 call regarding the shooter running from the scene, the fact only one witness seems to have actually seen Loughner with a gun, etc.

Another bizarre aspect of this story is the fact the woman who accompanied the 9 year old girl to the event, Susan Hileman, is listed as an alumni of the Human Ecology Project at Cornell University. Documents obtained under the FOIA revealed that the Human Ecology Project dealt with CIA funded mind control/brainwashing experiments. Considering how Loughner certainly seems to epitomize the kind of young man who might have participated in such a program, and the further eerie coincidence that the little girl, Christina Green, was born on 9/11, there seems to be quite a bit of fodder here for further study.

What is missing here, as plautussatire so aptly pointed out, is any real media focus on the crime scene and the shooting itself. I certainly hope Loughner gets a fairer trial than Timothy McVeigh did. McVeigh's "trial" consisted exclusively of wrenching testimony from the families of lost loved ones and the introduction of various "extremist" and "hateful" political rants McVeigh had written as well as similar periodicals he read or subscribed to. Incredibly, the prosecution never even introduced any evidence McVeigh was at the crime scene. They couldn't, because every witness who saw him reported he was accompanied by the notorious "John Doe #2," and they didn't want to go there. Let's all be open minded and think for ourselves.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 
As a retired law enforcement officer, and a father of a daughter in law school, I am at a loss as to what your point is. A person is arrested and charged because evidence points to their guilt. If a plea of not guilty is entered by the suspect, they are now a defendant and the evidence is " tried " in a court of law. ONLY 2 COMPONETS OF A TRIAL ARE NON-PARTIAL....THE PRESIDING JUDGE AND THE JURY. They and they alone are the ones bound by the presumption of innocence. The arresting officer and the D.A. are partial as hell. THEY ARE ADVOCATES FOR THE VICTIMS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. So what is your answer to public safety?? Let the Charles Mansons of the world walk the streets?? You obviously have led a sheltered life and can afford to pontificate as you have so far. The rest of us live in reality.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 
As for your insulting remark questioning if I cared who was executed....First of all, I am against capital punishment. Courts make mistakes far too often and being put in prison with no hope of ever getting your life back is a living hell. As a kind of bonus, a life sentence is actually cheaper than execution. I am all about justice and have the emotional and physical scars after having put myself between people like you and the people who would gut you like a fish just to watch you die. Yes, I chose that life as have many others like me, so I took the risks knowing what could happen as a peace officer. But if people like me stopped protecting people like you, no civilization, no culture worthy of the term could exist. You are free to pontificate all you wish, because someone you don't even know swore an oath to protect you and your family.





top topics
 
77
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join