It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI won't release Jared Lee Loughner video. Therefore, coverup

page: 13
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


The phrase "shooting indiscriminately into the crowd" was echoed by the people who saw the video, that's why I mentioned the video, of course I can't verify if that really happened or not, and neither can you.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by phishybongwaters

Sigh.....

You can't release potential evidence before a trial.


You mean before the "trial" of high-profiled, very rich, highfalutin people with clout and ties to Washington, right?

Because surely this wouldn't apply to the average schmuck because after all, COPS wouldn't have one single episode to air!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Its seems as though the discussions within this thread are a great example of how incredibly important information is. The lack of information leads to a RELIANCE on those who do/would have that information. Some people don't like or feel uncomfortable with (myself included) RELYING on anyone to tell me what reality is. They like to find out for themselves and make their own decisions (as I myself do).

Others however do not seem to care much for their "world view" and don't mind it being handed to them by whomever, even if its people who have historically been less than willing to be truthful.

As far as this whole shooting fiasco goes, I think OP has made a very valid point several times several ways over and over to everyone that the REASONS for withholding the tape are contradicting the INFORMATION they are releasing about it. The actions of the officials and media don't give legitimacy to the notion the tape would hinder the trial and persecution as they have already released much of this information verbally.

This is what is making the OP say the withholding of the video evidence is "fishy" or "cover-up".

Personally I think it is just truly a circus show of madness where there is no consistency between officials and the media and the information they are releasing. Basically they are incompetent.

The OP's theory that the judge was the main target could hold water depending on the analysis of the video evidence, which he cannot do. Because he doesn't have access to the truth he has to fill in the blank spots and he has done so by saying the Judge was the main target. This consequently would explain why the Judge is dead and not miraculously recovering from an apparent "point blank" shot to the head...

The video could also determine exactly how close she was shot in the head and determine if her recovery is legitimate or fictitious.

What interests me in this case is that the witnesses involved in this most spectacular tragedy are all pretty damn 100% sure of what was going on, who was shot, who was shooting and what the shooter was intentionally aiming for. I would highly doubt that people within such a chaotic adrenaline rushed situation would be able to make such for sure observations. When the adrenaline kicks in there is a "tunnel vision" that limits your ability to witness the full event accurately. They all seem to know quite clearly what happened...hmm

I know If I was standing at a Safeway and someone started poppin off 32 rounds I wouldn't be able to witness much as I would be scrambling for dear life in any which direction. Regardless witnesses of chaotic catastrophic events are notorious for being horrible and unreliable. Yet that is exactly what is being reported to Americans as absolute factual matter of the fact truth. Yet the only objective and indifferent source of evidence is being witheld...

We will see, I don't believe they will ever release it and if they do it will be a pentagon 5 frame version that tells you nothing of what really happened. Its only designed to feed closure within those still interested.

to the OP, I believe you have presented yourself and your ideas well and have given legitimate reasons for your questions. You also did a good job defending against the flames.




edit on 20-1-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


uhhh, until trial... because its evidence and they dont want his lawyer making a case against it?

your title is so misleading that I think this thread is a coverup!

like they say in the article... won't be released UNILT TRIAL...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
The actions of the officials and media don't give legitimacy to the notion the tape would hinder the trial and persecution as they have already released much of this information verbally.



Very well said and I'm glad my point has gotten across that the legal process is upheld sometimes and ignored other times. And thank you for the personal encouragement it means a lot to me.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
32 rounds?
isnt that the same amount that the military doctor was able to squeeze off?

not calling a conspiracy, just making a little correlation between the 2 incidents....



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ahmonrarh
 


I keep hearing on ATS 32 shots.. Can someone please provide a source for the 32 shots???.. All I keep seeing is 15-20



The shooter has been described as a man in his late-teens or early twenties, and reports say about 15-20 shots were fired into the crowd. Sixteen other people, including some of Giffords’ staff, were shot, and officials confirmed six fatalities, including federal judge John M. Roll and a 9-year old child. The gunman, identified as Jared Loughner, has been detained.





U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, and 11 other people were shot at an event today in Tucson. The congresswoman was holding a “Congress On Your Corner” event at a Safeway grocery store when someone fired 15-20 shots. A spokesperson for the Pima County sheriff told reporters at least 12 others were shot and confirmed the representative was “shot point blank in the head.




Witnesses said the suspect, Jared Loughner, walked calmly up to Mrs Giffords and fired at point blank range.

Loughner then fired 15-20 shots into the crowd, witnesses said. He was tackled to the ground by two brave men.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...




# Reports claim federal judge John Roll, an aide to Gabrielle Giffords and a young girl also died in the shooting
# Obama says Mrs Giffords is 'gravely wounded'
# But hospital says she is out of surgery... and they are 'optimistic' for her recovery
# President says 'at least five are dead'; Sheriff says six are dead and 12 wounded
# Gunman in custody, identified by AP sources as Jared Loughner
# Witnesses say man ran into crowded area and fired 15-20 shots
# Lawmakers told to 'take precautions'
# Mrs Giffords' father: 'The whole Tea Party were her enemies'
# Mrs Giffords is mother-of-two who is married to astronaut Captain Mark Kelly, who piloted shuttles Endeavour and Discovery



I smell a rat!!! Some conspiracy theorist undoubtedly came up with the 32 shots to make it look like 2 shooters..

So.. it looks like 15-20 is the general consensus.

Is this another case of an ATS member reading something, then repeating it like a parrot that knows the facts?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by circuitsports
Who cares how many bullets he fired, he only needed to pull the trigger once and that would be too much. Stop trying to micromanage un-important issues by trying to strip away other peoples rights.
edit on 20-1-2011 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)


To the OP you can't be serious, releasing damning evidence before trial is a fast route to a mistrial stop being paranoid and start being realistic.
edit on 20-1-2011 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)


And what rights would that be?

Your right to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Please don't try and compare guns to Cars or Alcohol or Cigarettes, because that is just stupid.
1. People who kill using cars often kill themseleves as well
2. Alcohol, Cigarettes are self Inflicted
3. There is no harm to a Shooter, only the person at the other end dies

There is the other excuse, I'm too slow, fat and pudgy and I need a gun for Defence.
Unfortunately the same gun can be used for Offence. They just don't make guns that can only be used for defence.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
It makes perfect sense to me why the video would not be released prior to a trial. If the video were released now, today, it would make jury selection much more difficult. The key to a jury trial is to find an impartial jury. Releasing the video now, which would be covered coast to coast on every MSM News outlet would do nothing but "taint" the potential Jury pool.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
If only they would have had a few dozen of those Mobile Police Watch Towers in the Carpark, it might have been avoided.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 



In all, sources said Loughner allegedly fired 32 rounds before he was tackled by participants in Giffords' public event.


If you want the link all you had to do is look at the very FIRST link I posted on the OPENING post!

abcnews.go.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
It makes perfect sense to me why the video would not be released prior to a trial. If the video were released now, today, it would make jury selection much more difficult. The key to a jury trial is to find an impartial jury. Releasing the video now, which would be covered coast to coast on every MSM News outlet would do nothing but "taint" the potential Jury pool.



I'm not denying that it is standard procedure to not release evidence before a trial (yet they have released eye witness accounts meaning they broke their own rules) but try and find a mainstream article specifically saying they won't release the video because it will make the jury prejudice. I'm not saying it's impossible to find said article, but it's harder than you think. What I'm trying to say is that the media is not even saying the obvious: that the video is in FBI custody because it would tamper with the case, most people on ATS who argue in favor of keeping the video secret are simply going off of their instincts to obey the law, because I have a hard time finding an article that specifically says why they won't release the video.

And if you don't believe me, watch this curious video by CNN

www.youtube.com...

Where the newscaster asks the police why they won't release the video because it might tamper with the jury, and the video cuts off before the officer has a chance to respond. Keep in mind that this is the CNN's youtube account and not just someone who did a bad job editing.
edit on 20-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I believe there were more Cameras than at the Pentagon running. If the FBI has them their never going to see the light of day (maybe 2 or 3 Frames). You know, In the Interest of National Security and all.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 
You need to study up on evedientary proceedure.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 
Terribly sorry! I forgot where I was for a moment. lol



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


What you are missing is.. The police confiscated the videos... Citing evidence.. The witnesses are not controlled by the police.. Nor is the media.. So the police could not stop them from telling their accounts..

Is it that difficult to process?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Ok this is what I keep trying to say, you just said in one of your last posts, "Some conspiracy theorist undoubtedly came up with the 32 shots to make it look like 2 shooters" then moments later you were provided evidence that there really might have been 32 rounds fired. There is too much lack of evidence and contradictions to what is being reported right now to make definate comments. I would understand if you were saying that there is more evidence right now that he did do it than he didn't but when you make such comments as if they are undebatable and beyond dispute I lose respect for what you are saying. Not because there won't eventually be enough evidence to make such a claim but as for now there just isn't. Maybe he did do it but maybe he was brainwashed and drugged, the witnesses who had him on the ground said he was motionless and mesmerized. All im saying is that there is not enough proof to be claiming beyond a reasonable doubt, however there is proof that the little evidence that there is has some possible holes in it and should be questioned. When indisputable evidence rises to the surface of this case then this thread will be over, but for now I see no reason not to question the reports that the media has provided us with.
edit on 20-1-2011 by pondereternity77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pondereternity77
 


Oh.. By that do you mean statements like

FBI won't release Jared Lee Loughner video. Therefore, coverup


Or like this?


this guy was not the only shooter and the congress woman may not have been the main target at all, possibly the Judge fellow known to be a citizen judge protecting citizen rights...


how about this one?


The Zionist congress(man) wasn't shot. Its a fraud. The target was the Catholic judge. The other deaths are ancillary to the cause of Zionism in America. She will MIRACULOUSLY "recover" in a very short time. I repeat - GIFFORDS WAS NEVER SHOT!!!!!!!!!


Someone is calling this a conspiracy before ANYTHING is known... Someone has to be the voice of sanity!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Here is some sanity for every one, try not jumping to conclusions, over every knee jerk reaction.


FBI describes surveillance video

Posted: Jan 19, 2011 10:46 PM
Updated: Jan 20, 2011 10:00 AM
source


Looks like they did a digital recreation for the public, the evidence, is probably being combed over for the and by the prosecution.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


Ok so 32 shell casings.. I wonder what the skeptics will say about this.. Looks like judge was shot protecting another victim.. Or is it all set up?



There are ZERO life points for finding a conspiracy in everything!




top topics



 
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join