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

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia

 

Hey genius!!!! They kept the pentagon video under wraps until the trial was over.... fact!!

you are obviously a troll. You said his rights were stepped on by the president.. I explained to you, that is false.. yet you just glaze over it.. I am going with troll on this one.

They still have it under wraps...fact!

Technically you are trolling on my thread

So you are okay with the president declaring who is guilty before the trial?

As well as all the other comments about why this won't be released yet, it would be probably one of the most graphic things most people here have seen for a while. Why would you want that released anyway?

A kid was shot, people were shot in the head from very close range. Think about it. Thats not really for public viewing IMO.

CX.

reply to post by filosophia


Did he declare him guilty.. Or did he express an opinion on his mental stability and call him the shooter?

Guilty is for the courts.. Even with your outlandish theory here... He is still the shooter.. So did the president lie?

The president is not held to the same standard as the Judge and Jury presiding over this case.. Lets get that fact clear!

Originally posted by CX
As well as all he other comments about why this won't be released yet, it would be probably one of the most graphic things most people here have seen for a while. Why would you want that released anyway?

A kid was shot, people were shot in the head from very close range. Think about it. Thats not really for public viewing IMO.

CX.

I want to see it in order to see with my own eyes if what they said Judge Roll did was really true and that he was an unintended target. I've stomached a lot, like the taliban beheading videos which I can prove are all fake. Sure some people can't stomach it but as a fellow poster on this thread has said, I'm "special."

reply to post by filosophia


no no no my friend.. The one video they did release, they waited for a long while until the trial was over.
But, they did release it..

Oh wait.. I see where you are going with that.. So now your entitled to see ALL of the videos? One isn't enough..
Filosophia Esq. is in need of proof.. Drop everything and give this man his proof!

This is awful our Govt. is going to need to implement a sector of Govt. to personally give information and evidence to folks that are bat sheet crazy.. great.. Raise taxes!

reply to post by filosophia


You keep comparing this to the pentagon tapes. They are two different things. This is the trial of a private citizen. His constitutional rights have to be protected. I'm sorry if that upsets you. If it was up to me Obama would be answering to a grand jury for calling him the shooter. If I was the judge so would the sheriff of the county and any of his deputys that have leaked information.

The public's morbid curiousity is not a reason to jepordize constitutional protections.

The Pentagon tapes where related to an act of war according to the government. That means we have the right to view them to ensure that the event happened as we're told. Also they have had their investigation and commission. So, they should have released the tapes before now. They claim they know who did it and that those people died during the incident. So, the evidence needs to be made public.

If you can not tell the difference between the two then you need to take some time to study and meditate on some other things besides ATS.

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia

 

Did he declare him guilty.. Or did he express an opinion on his mental stability and call him the shooter?

Guilty is for the courts.. Even with your outlandish theory here... He is still the shooter.. So did the president lie?

The president is not held to the same standard as the Judge and Jury presiding over this case.. Lets get that fact clear!

How do you know he is the shooter?

reply to post by filosophia


This isn't cover up. This is protection of the state's evidence against the accused. If the video was leaked, it taints the jury pool and gives fodder for defense lawyers to dismiss on grounds of the bias it introduces. Not releasing it at this moment is not a cover up.

Sometimes people just want things to be a conspiracy but no matter if you teach a dog to walk on two legs...its still a dog.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by filosophia

 

The Pentagon tapes where related to an act of war according to the government. That means we have the right to view them to ensure that the event happened as we're told.

But, we didn't view them. 5 clips is not viewing the over 70 video tapes they took of the incident. I have a theory that I can not prove because the (Loughner) video has not been released, but when they do, if ever, I'll be able to prove to myself that I was right, until then you are not convincing me that I am wrong, so I'll just tell you right now if you are getting sick of this then you should leave me to my own devices because I'm not gonna quit just because you are not interested.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by filosophia

 

This isn't cover up. This is protection of the state's evidence against the accused. If the video was leaked, it taints the jury pool and gives fodder for defense lawyers to dismiss on grounds of the bias it introduces. Not releasing it at this moment is not a cover up.

Sometimes people just want things to be a conspiracy but no matter if you teach a dog to walk on two legs...its still a dog.

Yes, I know, jury tampering, very bad, like every national media outlet saying Loughner was the lone gunman shooter. If the video was so crucial to the trial they wouldn't be giving a play by play of it either.

reply to post by filosophia


I am using logic...

I am adding the notes found in his safe + The eye witnesses + the call to his friend + The fact that he is smiling like a mad man in the picture.. Using deductive reasoning, I am going to assume he is guilty until I see evidence supporting his innocence.



You have called him the shooter.. But an MKULTRA agent - laughable!

Do you even have a direction you are going?

reply to post by filosophia


I never said the five frames were enough. Actually I said they "should have" released the Pentagon video by now. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

I also never said I was sick of you.I never said your theory was wrong either. It seems to me that you have a bit of a narcisism thing going. Your curiousity is more important than some one else's constitutional rights and anybody that disagrees must be a government shill, a sheep, or have something personal against you. Buddy, it sounds like you might want to consider that it is time to back away from the computer and seek fresh air.

I will leave you to your thoughts.

reply to post by filosophia


The only time they would be culpable of tainting the jury pool is to directly say he was the shooter. I know its semantics, but that is how it is.

If you and I say he is the shooter or not the shooter it doesn't matter. If a newspaper columnist declares his guilt before due process then that is a problem.

But just because you want to see the video and they are not releasing it doesn't equate to conspiracy and cover-up. Step away from the "I want it and I want it know" mantra and try to critically think about why are they not releasing the video.

Maybe the video has evidence not yet known to the public. Maybe the video shows something that would change everything. We just don't know but to just assume that it is a cover-up neglects the other possibilities on why they would not release it in the first place.

reply to post by filosophia


Perhaps puting the film into the public domain may prevent the shooter from having a fair trial. Remember the trial will be adversarial and the Defence will use every trick in the book to win the case including unfair trial.

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia

 

no no no my friend.. The one video they did release, they waited for a long while until the trial was over.
But, they did release it..

Allow me to recap:

A shooting in Arizona leaves a congresswoman in critical condition and a judge murdered among other victims a 9 year old girl. The media immediately begins to blame this on the tea party until it is realized he was mentally unstable and his political agenda was more of the left than the right. Then Obama holds a rally where he tells us not to politicalize this while he is politicalizing it. Then information is revealed that Judge Roll made some decisions that perhaps the federal government did not like. Combine this with Loughner's mental instability and you have a candidate for an MKULTRA, a stretch, but then they have a video where they further try to imply that Judge Roll was an unintended victim and he was merely guarding someone else when he was shot. A very plausible story, however, no video footage, all under the sanctity of preserving evidence. So yes, I will have to wait, but I'm enjoying my investigative work as well as the bantering with you but unfortunately you are not really telling me any type of new information.

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by filosophia

 

I am using logic...

I am adding the notes found in his safe + The eye witnesses + the call to his friend + The fact that he is smiling like a mad man in the picture.. Using deductive reasoning, I am going to assume he is guilty until I see evidence supporting his innocence.



You have called him the shooter.. But an MKULTRA agent - laughable!

Do you even have a direction you are going?

yes, see my signature.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by filosophia

 

I never said the five frames were enough. Actually I said they "should have" released the Pentagon video by now. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

I also never said I was sick of you.I never said your theory was wrong either. It seems to me that you have a bit of a narcisism thing going. Your curiousity is more important than some one else's constitutional rights and anybody that disagrees must be a government shill, a sheep, or have something personal against you. Buddy, it sounds like you might want to consider that it is time to back away from the computer and seek fresh air.

I will leave you to your thoughts.

edit on 19-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

duly noted.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Maybe the video has evidence not yet known to the public. Maybe the video shows something that would change everything.

Like what? That he really is a tea partier? I mean wouldn't they jump all on that? Maybe there was a second shooter, now that would be interesting, but why would they announce one shooter but not the other? I mean use your imagination for a second, what could be on the video that would change everything, as you said? I'm interested in what you think would be on the video, unfortunately all we can really do is speculate.

So I'm told to rethink why they are keeping the video under lock and key. Ok, so the video has to be kept in secret because it would hurt the case, but then the Arizona sheriff's department goes over every detail of the video...hmm, isn't that the same thing as releasing the video?

No, because if the video was released, people could see for themselves what happened, whereas if it wasn't released, people would have to go by what the officials say.

Am I missing something?

Here's a question for y'all

Show me in these article where it says the video must be with-held from the public so as to not tamper the trial

www.dailymail.co.uk...

abcnews.go.com...

And now, a very interesting video





Fast forward to 4:30, the reporter asks Kastigar if the video was handed over to the FBI to not impair the trial, and asks "is that about right?" And then what happens? NOTHING. The video cuts off before he can answer. Oh, sorry CNN, should have edited that one a little better. Or maybe you edited it too well. Go on, try and explain why that happened?





So it seems like they will talk about the video, but don't even mention the legal reason why it can't be released, and when they do, the video suddenly cuts out. Out of three articles, you'd think they would mention something that is common knowledge that the video has to be withheld, but if that were the case, they probably wouldn't be talking about it.