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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
4 pages and only one flag? i have to give this man a flag




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrix12
4 pages and only one flag? i have to give this man a flag


thanks! it's lonely up here. I had a whole room full of critics but I guess I scared them off, before they could answer some of my questions. Oh well.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
i dont think we will ever see that video! not saying he is innocent at all but the offical story has more holes than swischeese



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
They are still trying to dress Loughner, the latest item on the menu claims he took himself to be a Nietzschean.

www.slate.com...

Thinking of famous historical criminals that were inspired by Nietzsche brings Robert Franklin Stroud to mind.

en.wikipedia.org...

Stroud was a man with a violent temper who had a sympathetic side as well and cared for birds while in prison. Though his birds were free to come and go Stroud loathed his prison guards, killing one in the dining hall.

More shoe throwing.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Bordon81
 


Nietzche is not my favorite philosopher at any rate, but the slate article calls him a nihilist, I don't really think that is a proper label for Nietzche but of course I see where they are trying to make it fit in with Loughner. Nietzche's famous "God is dead" quote is usually taken out of context, where Nietzche is not saying this but one of his characters is telling a group of people that "God is dead" because they killed him. It's actually quite religious and spiritual. However, I'm not a huge fan of Nietzche but I just thought I'd point that out. And yes, they will continue to try and paint Loughner as this or that. I think he's the proverbial "mirror" where anything you want him to be, he's that. If you hate conservatives, he's a conservative. If you think he's a nihilist, he's that. It's almost like a fetish. I guess the guy is just so strange that it's easy for the imagination to run wild.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
they are already releasing giffords from the hospital!! this is so fake noone recovers from a wound like that so quickly



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by matrix12
 


Wow, that's impressive, this article says she may move to a rehabilitation center, so I'm not sure what that entails exactly, it's not like she is going to walk home or anything, but yeah, for a gun shot wound to the head and she is already recovered that is quite exceptional.

voices.washingtonpost.com...

I think it's odd that out of all the people killed, his "target" is making a remarkable discovery. I have my doubts that she is the real target, and that the judge maybe was the real target. They also said after he shot her he fired indiscriminately into the crowd with 32 bullets. On one hand this guy is an excellent marksman and yet on the other hand it seems like he was a complete buffoon to fire that many shots and not even kill his target. I've been reading up on the JFK conspiracy and I can tell you that JFK didn't recover in a week after getting shot in the head.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


whoops, I guess I was wrong, apparently she can stand on her own.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by phishybongwaters
 


Well, no real need for me to say anything other than what was said by PHISHYBONGWATERS. That's the right answer without debate. Look, I'm not on ATS because I don't believe in conspiracies. I think that there are a few who troll here that don't, that simply like to agitate the members because they think the notions are weird and they're bored. However, I think that this type of fervor is partly what gives conspiracy theorists a bad name. Trust me, don't plant your flag on this story...give it a second. Like PHISHYBONGWATERS (love the name by the way) says, if in 5 years after the trial is done they still won't release any footage, then yes, we've got a reason then to ask why, what's being hidden? However, you can't demand such things even before trial because you're curious.

And to the OP, you keep bringing up points as to why it wouldn't matter if they released it anyway, that it wouldn't adversely effect the jury pool. But! They don't do this! You can justify it forever, but we have lengthy legal precedent, they simply don't release this type of footage while an investigation and prosecution is on-going! That's the way it is...simple. You may not like it, but a conspiracy it does not make. Not everything is a conspiracy, some things just are...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


The FBI has the video? The video will not be released, it's as simple as that.

It won't be admissible in court proceedings either.

Consider their track-record, or their lacking thereof...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
You seem to be interested in defending the shooter? Am I wrong here?

Lots of witnesses. Victims who saw him shoot them. Pinned to the ground until arrested.

This is not so much a trial as deciding on the punishment. To think him innocent is bordering on insane or even worse a ruse to defend his crime.

Or did you drink to much coffee and your working it out here? Perhaps you just like the controversy and attention? You want real fame, find a real conspiracy and prove it. A person who had a psychotic break is a bad choice. There is no hidden reason or mystery to it. Right now he is probably happy as a clam with all the attention. Why ruin it for him. It's what he wanted.

You demand to see the gruesome tape of the crime, not caring about the families or victims or endangering his prosecution, but you won't watch a video that demonstrates his psychosis clearly? To many adults on here for that to float. But then again, perhaps your getting the exact response you wanted in the first place. Hardly new here.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Don't make too much out of the fact that she is standing. Head wounds aren't always the miracle murder shot people than they are. If the bullet grazed the brain or missed it all together she could be up and rolling pretty fast. If the bullet didn't lodge in to the brain must of the energy just pushed the brain around. It would be like a severe concusion with a lot of swelling. A bad thing but not necessarily a permanently crippling injury.

I had a friend get shot in the head with a .38 special. Becasue of the angle it blew a small chunk of skull out. He was knocked out for about two or three minutes. Then he woke up, tied a towel around his head, and drove himself to the hospital. He was out of there in three or four days.

ETA:
From the CNN article, and another I heard on the television, it seems like she has the strength too stand. Her body just isn't cooperating. So she is being aided in standing by someone else. However, her condition has stabilized so they are making room for more critical patients at the hospital. Where they are sending here is basically like a high end rest home with a good physical training staff. So, her body is still effed up and she has a long way to go. They were basically just clearing rooms at the hospital.

Also a lot of times hospitals try to get you up and moving as quick as possible. It cuts down on the chances of blod clots, respritory infections, and pnuemonia. Basically it cuts down on the chances of complications and liability law suits. So, even if you need help they try to get you up.

Not saying you'rer wrong. I'm just adding information for all that might read this thread.
edit on 19-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
The fact that you are clamoring to see the video actually disturbs me much more than any law enforcement decision to not releasing the video? What conspiracy theory could you possibly even attempt to prove from the video? Nothing at all. Your request is nothing but an attempt to get some twisted psychotic thrill from seeing women and children suffer at the hands of a lunatic.

The only conspiracy that I have noticed with this entire incident is not in the actions of the crazed gunmen, but instead, his motivations. Little to no information has been released as to why the gunman chose his main target. What law did she propose or vote for? What statements of groups did she support that were deemed somehow a threat to this gunmen? Why did he attack these people? This is the vital information that is being kept a secret from the public. Instead, the news is attempting to show the congress woman as nothing but a shining example of the highest virtue and service to God and country. Obviously something that she did triggered this person to make her a target of extreme aggression. What was it? If you could answer that conspiracy, then I would appreciate it, for I have no idea why this lunatic gunmen attacked this particular person and those around her.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by epitaph.one
reply to post by filosophia
 


ive seen one of the videos, it was leaked, i could probably still find it. but its on a website 90% of you wont feel comfortable on, alot of porn, and i mean weiiiirddd porn and weirder stuff.

the video i saw was just him walking around his school talking to himself.


Uhh well that was on here not long ago... so you really waded thru all that weird porn for it?


Lol

And to the guy saying the jury will already think he's guilty so just show it, yeah thats how the legal system works..



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by phishybongwaters
 


Exactly. Not to mention, good luck finding an impartial jury should it get to that point...as if the pool isn't already tainted enough in these high profile cases. If enough things start screaming "coverup," that's another story, but even then this would still be only part of the picture. This in and of itself indicates nothing and is standard protocol.
edit on 1/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


But they cannot legally release the video. Yet because the 'pool' is already tainted, it somehow reinforces the fact that it is a coverup.

This is exactly how the idiocy snowballs. Little bits of sillyness that people just go "Oh Yeah!!" and add it to the already preconceived notion they have, which somehow increases the validity of their opinion, when in fact it has nothing to add at all.

It's a coverup because they wont release the videos, FACT.

But they cannot release the videos.

I agree totally, and the fact it's already suss, means it doesnt matter if they cannot release the videos, Thanks OP.

ugh...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

So they can't release the video because that would make the jury impartial so they say everything that happened on the video? Well that's illogical. Now everyone on the jury will know that Roll was a hero and further make Loughner guilty, which I'm not denying, just saying it's a poor argument as to why they can't release the video.

Plus do you notice how they are overdoing it with making it seem like Gifford was the real target? Sort of like they want us to think that...


You sound like you have no idea how things work. They cannot release EVIDENCE. However they can release details provided by people who saw it. You do know what evidence is?

And are you even aware that loughner was in contact with gilford long before this? I doubt you are.

Really, this is not grade school shenanigans.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Interesting challenge. I can however show you two videos that were taken down

wn.com...
www.youtube.com...


Uhh, yeah youtube TOC prevents scenes of murder, nudity, etc so they will take them down.

But then you're a conspiracy theorist, therefore it must be a conspiracy!




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


The video needs to be ananlyzed so that a timeline of events can be establsihed as so that every single detail (significant, related to event or not) must be listed before the vid can be released.

Plus, the families of the 14 people shot and the 6 families who lost loved ones will get first viewing rights over it and will be the deciding group wirking in conjunction with the FBI that has the power to stop the vid from being released to the media but it will be admissable during the trial and won't expect to hear much about it until then.

The last thing those families need now is the image of their loved ones being shot and killed be played over and over by the media.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Isn't eye witness accounts considered evidence? I don't know, you're the expert here, all I know is they tell us what is on the video without showing it to us.
edit on 20-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by filosophia

So they can't release the video because that would make the jury impartial so they say everything that happened on the video? Well that's illogical. Now everyone on the jury will know that Roll was a hero and further make Loughner guilty, which I'm not denying, just saying it's a poor argument as to why they can't release the video.

Plus do you notice how they are overdoing it with making it seem like Gifford was the real target? Sort of like they want us to think that...


You sound like you have no idea how things work. They cannot release EVIDENCE. However they can release details provided by people who saw it. You do know what evidence is?

And are you even aware that loughner was in contact with gilford long before this? I doubt you are.

Really, this is not grade school shenanigans.


Isn't eye witness accounts considered evidence? I don't know, you're the expert here, all I know is they tell us what is on the video without showing it to us.


Eyewitness accounts are admissable yes but the video will link all of the eyewitness accounts together so that the prosecution can get the full story so that they know how to proceede. Two events identical in nature with one or 2 minor things distinguishing bothrequires two different approaches entirely. All of that will be revealed to the defendant's legal counsel just before trial so that they can begin to establish their counterarguments and counterpoints. Since earlier today (01.19.11) he was indicted tells me that jury selection will not begin until like March or April with the trial not expected until well into June or July so do not expect to hear much about the tapes until the first of June at the earliest.
edit on 20-1-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join