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: 14
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Without reading the rest of the responses (my bad), the first thought that occurred to me is: To reduce the chances of tainting the jury. I mean, it's hard finding unbiased jurors who do NOT know the case all that well. So by not releasing the video prematurely, the mind-controlled victim, err, I meant, the insane guy known as Jared here, will hopefully get a fair trial. That's all.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Your quote says it won't be released until trial. That's not a coverup. That's standard procedure. They are making a modest effort to protect the jury pool from bias. It's going to be difficult but you don't want to give his defense attorney free ammunition for a mistrial. You need to settle down.
edit on 20-1-2011 by andrewh7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

edit on 20-1-2011 by andrewh7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
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?


The police were the ones that told them their accounts.

www.youtube.com...

Pima County Sheriff, Richard Kastigar describes shooting video, so I guess the police could not stop the police from telling them their accounts?
edit on 21-1-2011 by filosophia because: stuff happens



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
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.



But wait, the FBI is describing the video? Isn't that leaking evidence before the trial commences? Looks like more double standards.
edit on 21-1-2011 by filosophia because: stuff happens



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


You should change your title to "I realized that demanding the video, was like a child having a temper tantrum... Now I am simply arguing semantics" The end!
edit on 1/21/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 


You should change your title to "I realized that demanding the video, was like a child having a temper tantrum... Now I am simply arguing semantics" The end!
edit on 1/21/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)


You should change your name to "I don't answer questions when asked."
edit on 21-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


You said: the police could not stop them from telling them their accounts

I said: the police were the ones telling the accounts

You ignore and make ad hominem attacks

Way to go, you just got yourself reported.
edit on 21-1-2011 by filosophia because: stuff happens



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I did not ignore.. I don't know what the police are allowed to do.. the fact remains.. The cops can't stop average joe from giving the media an interview.

Possibly the police are having meetings and deciding what to release.. I do not claim to know exactly what they are allowed or what they should do.. I leave that to the cops and lawyers/judges.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


What question have I NOT answered? I have answered every question you have asked... Are you have issues with comprehension AGAIN? Jeesh.. tad bit slow?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Ok guys/girls,

Lets stop the tit for tat comments, Please lets focus on the topic at hand and not each other,


Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


How did I ignore... You made a statement.. Are you making statements expecting them to be addressed like questions? ok point taken
edit on 1/21/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Ok lets recap......

OP creates thread titled "FBI won't release Jared Lee Loughner video. Therefore, coverup" Several people explain to the OP that his claim is ridiculous. (pointing out, that the video is evidence and shouldn't be released. OP then retreats from the thread title and sticks to the information that the police are releasing. The entire time, back peddling and saying that other members are not answering his questions, which is 100% false.


Op, I have answered every single question you have asked me, If you scroll back through the pages you will see I am telling you the truth. Now, I have noticed that several times you were unable to "notice" my answers, and continued to demand answers...

You are again claiming I am ignoring your questions... Please point out the question I did not answer..

You have asked me or made statements about the police releasing info, and describing the scene..
I do not know what the laws are on evidence. I do not know why they would even release what they have. I do not agree with them releasing ANYTHING! I don't think I or anyone else has the right to see ANYTHING to do with this case.

Lack of a video tape does not prove anything... You have basically admitted this yourself.. Now your sticking point is "why are the police releasing information, if the video can't be released?" I can only liken this to a couple of children arguing about something.. Little Johnny says "Mom, why can't I go out and play, Steve is allowed to go out and play!!"

My opinion is, you have backed away from your title, and moved onto another sticking point... I feel this thread should be moved to the HOAX bin..

I will give you this... If overly dramatic was your goal.. Mission accomplished!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


So are you arguing "double standards" or are you still convinced that the "lack of" something means a cover up? Be specific... I have answered each and every one of your senseless questions... How about detailing how this thread is even relevant any more?

The video will be released.... It will back up witness statements... You and the rest of the people, that find a conspiracy in EVERYTHING, will find another story to say "The official story has more holes than swiss cheese" - Then rinse and repeat!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio

I do not know why they would even release what they have. I do not agree with them releasing ANYTHING! I don't think I or anyone else has the right to see ANYTHING to do with this case.



Let's just agree on this and then agree to disagree on the rest. If they didn't give me an animated reproduction of what is on the video I wouldn't have cared in the first place to see the video itself. Aside from that, let's agree to disagree because I do not want to get into any more heated debate that may lead to insults.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok so you agree that the lack of the video does NOT mean it's a cover up?

I will agree that it is fishy that they are releasing the details..

Kosher?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok so you agree that the lack of the video does NOT mean it's a cover up?



There is no lack of the video. There is a video, but they are not showing it. So if you have a problem with the word cover-up, it can be reworded to say the FBI is concealing/not releasing/holding/ the evidence, YET, and this is the important point, they are giving a play-by-play animated version of the video. So if it is bad they are releasing evidence, as you seem to agree, why would they give an animated replay of the video? Why not just show the video. They already have their suspect (even though there was initially two suspects) so why not just keep quiet about the whole thing until the trial? And if you then say "well why not you keep quiet" they are the ones coming out with animated reproductions of the video. Not the media, mind you, the FBI are making the video and showing it. How is THAT not a breach of trial evidence?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok ... so you agree that it should not be released..

So, your not surprised that the video is NOT being released!

Your only problem is that they are releasing other evidence...


edit on 1/21/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok ... so you agree that it should not be released..

So, your not surprised that the video is NOT being released!

Your only problem is that they are releasing other evidence...


edit on 1/21/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)


I do not have a problem with the law, so long as it is consistent. But with them releasing the police mugshot (obviously an attempt at provoking the public since he looks like a skinhead and is smiling), the animated reproduction of the video by the FBI (how is that not a breach of the trial?) and the police (not citizens, police) talking about what is seen on the video. How can you argue that they must preserve the decency of the trial when they are doing everything possible to form a guilt mentality of the suspect, eliminating any decency at all?

Actually, I am in favor of all information being released. I don't even like the notion of how juries are not allowed to talk about a trial. You may think this sounds blasphemous but as an anarchist I don't hold the sanctity of the state, mostly because of the blatant hypocrisy. Again I will reiterate: I am not against the law, I just am against the law having double standards, and so as a result I would rather live in a free society, not one suffocated by rules which help the establishment and hurt the individual. What harm could it possibly be to release evidence? The defense has to be able to see the evidence regardless, this isn't a football game where the one side must hide their playbook from the other side, I'm not a lawyer but I think that would be illegal. As JFK stated before his death, secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society. What are they doing with the video? being secret about it.

Side story, but the lady who voted not guilty for Blagojevich said that before the trial she had some knowledge of the case, but after seeing the lack of evidence decided to vote not guilty. So this is a juror knowing about the case before it happened. A high profile political case. Different city and state, yes, but it's just an example of how the law is never consistent.


Though she knew he had been arrested and impeached, she ignored his pretrial efforts to curry public favor and never saw his stint on "Celebrity Apprentice."

"I wasn't impressed with his shenanigans," she said.


articles.chicagotribune.com...

Notice how they are trying to make it seem like she didn't see his media appearances, but then she calls them "shenanigans" (which they were). So how could she know they were shenanigans if she never saw them? You see, in this case, she knew some aspects of the case before the trial. As it turns out, she still voted not guilty, much to the anger and accusations of the public (I suspected from the start Blago was a political hit).

Back on point, if they really wanted to preserve the legality of the issue, would the FBI release an animated video representation saying Gifford was the target? Again, in the Blago case the FBI releases one snippet of their wiretapping (wiretapping is illegal for everyone but the FBI, more double standards) of Blago saying "he has something golden" or something to that effect, minus the expletives.

Then look at the FBI's involvement in 9/11, how they confiscated the surviellance videos from private businesses near the pentagon, just like with the Arizona shooting. So sorry if I am not overflowing with trust for the FBI. If the FBI comes out with an animated reproduction of the video, and a note saying "I planned ahead" I am going to want to see the video and the note.

Should they have released the video, or the note? You seem to think they shouldn't have, so why do you have more beef with me than with the FBI?
edit on 21-1-2011 by filosophia because: grammar, what else?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Why do I have beef with you? Your about as consistent as mud. You initially started the thread insisting that there was a cover up, simply because the video was not released. You slowly shifted gears toward "double standard" after you realized that your "lack of something proves something theory" was not going to be accepted by the ATS community. You have now fully flip flopped 180 degrees and stuck on the double standard.

When I say they are not releasing the video so to not taint the jury, I am assuming. I don't know law...
But, it makes sense to assume that they would want to keep the evidence close to the chest on something this big. Could they be protecting the families that lost loved one? Possible.

All of this is fine and dandy... But your thread title states "FBI won't release Jared Lee Loughner video. Therefore, coverup".. Do you still believe this?

Lets look at this realistically.... They are releasing witness statements describing the attack... They are releasing computer generated reenactments... I feel that they will eventually release the video.. So eventually we will be able to fact check the already known info against the tape, right??

So where is the conspiracy? All we have here is a difference of opinion on what should and shouldn't be released to the public...

I dont understand this sense of entitlement you have... You do NOT have ANY right to see the video... Or any of the evidence for that matter.. None of us do!
It has become SOP to release info to the public. I will admit that I am curious about anything like this... But, I do not assume that I am entitled to see this..

You initial claim was "If they wont release it (2 weeks after the murders) there must be a cover up.. That is 100% false and irresponsible!

It seems that you no longer believe that, but have transformed this thread into a "double standard" discussion about the release of the evidence.

Of course I want to see it... I am sure 90% of the people here are curious about it.. I think the main difference here is, I am not willing to throw a temper tantrum and accuse the authorities of a heinous crime simply because I don't get my way!
edit on 1/21/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join