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.
Originally posted by matrix12
4 pages and only one flag? i have to give this man a flag
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.
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)
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...
Originally posted by filosophia
Interesting challenge. I can however show you two videos that were taken down
wn.com...
www.youtube.com...
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.