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.

 

Jared Loughner the alleged Tucson shooter - So many questions - so few answers .

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by theamnesiac
I see that the few people on this forum that have a real active interest in this case have assembled in this thread. Something crossed my mind a couple days ago: this case is might be the easiest assassination/massacre situations for the general public to pull strings at in history, in part because of the proliferation of the internet and in part because of many peculiarities and "things that just don't sit right" about this case.

The Virginia Tech shootings caused a buzz in the conspiracy community back in 2007 but interest seemed to die down very quickly (and there are many things about that case that still make me wonder). Every once in a while someone will kick up the dust about Cho and VT, but for the most part everyone's just kinda forgotten and moved on. However, because the target/targets are of such high profile this time around the public will most likely have a more vested interest in the trial and the psychodrama of it all, which therefore presents us with a very unique opportunity to try and stab at chinks in the armor of a conspiracy (if one is present in this situation) while the case is ongoing and fresh.

Think about if 9/11 happened today in a world where everybody has the internet and there are exponentially more online communities where people share information than in 2001. I think this might be where we find ourselves with the Tuscon shootings. If there is in fact a conspiracy going on with all of this, we are watching it happen in real-time.


Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Yes I heard this too my friend . Apparently his mother and Giffords attend the same small synagogue ?
I dont know if its true but if it were , id say it looks suspicious very much so .


Do you have any kind of source for this? Even if it's just hearsay from a forum post I am interested in reading it. As Christoph Waltz said in Inglorious Basterds: "Facts can be so misleading, where rumors, true or false, are often revealing."

@filosophia: can you elaborate more on this "blocked confiscation" by Judge Roll? This is the first I've heard of anything like that. I'm really starting to come around to the idea that Giffords may not have been the intended target. More information about the Roll angle would be appreciated.



funny how things all come together!



Originally posted by xuenchen
AND there's even MORE!!!

from Jan 11 2011:


On Saturday in Tucson, Jared Lee Loughner allegedly used a Glock 19—a lightweight, $500 semi-automatic commonly carried by law enforcement officials—to kill six people and injure 13 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. In 2007, Cho Seung-Hui used the same gun, along with a Walther P22, to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech before committing suicide.

And Giffords herself boasted to the New York Times in 2010: "I have a Glock 9 millimeter, and I'm a pretty good shot."


see the article

can anyone find the NYT article?

[color=cyan]if so, forward it to the Sarah Palin people!


oh wait ... here it is!

www.nytimes.com...


AND,


Politically, Ms. Giffords, 40, is as passionate as she is independent.

She is a longtime proponent of gun rights and tough border security — she once put out a news release ahead of President Obama announcing an increase of troops at the border.
She also sided with motorcycle riders who favor state legislation to ride helmet-free, as she does.


see: topics.nytimes.com...

are these "sources" really "reliable"????



edit on 25-1-2011 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


We are only investigating and trying to find the truth . IF we see evidence that Loughner 100 % did it we will believe it .
Again bro , we have Zero proof that what their saying is true .
Innocent til proven guilty , just like I would expect of all of us .

Research the case , you will see many discrepancies . Like the fact that Loughner may have not even known Giffords would be at the location .
RE SEARCH .



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
www.azcentral.com...

headline: Judge wants trial by September.

Well, if you compare this to the KSM trial, I guess September is better than never, but September is 7 months away, is that really a speedy trial? Remember they claim to have video surveillance. Why so long of a wait?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Why so long of a wait?


Perhaps it's called due process for a reason.


Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person, without following the exact course of the law, then that is a due process violation which offends the rule of law.


en.wikipedia.org...

Just sayin.'



edit on 25-2-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by filosophia
Why so long of a wait?


Perhaps it's called due process for a reason.


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Excellent retort.
Touché.

The last time I got a speeding ticket I contested, the trial date was set 5 months away. Court backlog?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Well if I was convicted of first degree homicide, then I guess I'd be okay with a trial 7 months away, but of course then I'd at least know if I committed the crime or not. Loughner pleaded not guilty but he's also not talking as to what really happened. Which is his right of course, I'm just curious, and I guess if 7 months is considered a speedy trial we're all screwed. A woman could almost have a baby in that amount of time.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Guys am I right in thinking that he Cant plead insanity and innocent ? If he says hes insane hes not allowed to plead not guilty , only guilty ?

Whos decision was it to plead innocent ? Loughner's or Judy Clarke ?

If September is what the judge is saying , what do you think will be discussed/released in March which is the next session ?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by theamnesiac
 



" which therefore presents us with a very unique opportunity to try and stab at chinks in the armor of a conspiracy (if one is present in this situation) while the case is ongoing and fresh. Think about if 9/11 happened today in a world where everybody has the internet and there are exponentially more online communities where people share information than in 2001. I think this might be where we find ourselves with the Tuscon shootings. If there is in fact a conspiracy going on with all of this, we are watching it happen in real-time."




You are right there bro . Until they release evidence that unequivocally convicts Loughner I feel compelled to investigate and Re -search this case .
Like 9/11 there are many holes in this case - Every new detail released brings more and more doubt into my mind that he actually did it .
This a strange story that makes less sense as time goes on and more research is done .



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


online.wsj.com...

this says that Loughner was silent in court, and the media was talking about how an insanity plead would go over. I'm thinking, unfortunately, that if there is a conspiracy Loughner may be "in on it" which is not what I would want but it does seem like it is the case, otherwise I am wondering why he is not trying to give his side of the story. Maybe he is waiting for trial but I don't trust his lawyer, she's too high profile. Unfortunately with this case we have to do a lot of waiting. But I for one will not give up the chase, and I know others feel the same way. Let's stay strong.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


online.wsj.com...

this says that Loughner was silent in court, and the media was talking about how an insanity plead would go over. I'm thinking, unfortunately, that if there is a conspiracy Loughner may be "in on it" which is not what I would want but it does seem like it is the case, otherwise I am wondering why he is not trying to give his side of the story. Maybe he is waiting for trial but I don't trust his lawyer, she's too high profile. Unfortunately with this case we have to do a lot of waiting. But I for one will not give up the chase, and I know others feel the same way. Let's stay strong.



To be honest ? I can't believe they haven't attempted to verify if he's insane . All hes ever said in court is "yes " does he even know what hes saying yes to ?
Like you say why hasnt he tried to give his side of the story ?
Is he being told by Clarke to keep quiet ?
Is loughner just some drugged up incoherent physco that they picked up of the steet to frame ?

His silence contradicts his " extremist , political anti government mind control obssesed conspiracy theorist internet persona "
IS this case fake from start to finish ?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla

IS this case fake from start to finish ?


there's a good possibility of that, which would mean that Loughner does know what he's doing because he trusts whoever is handling him. However it's impossible to say, maybe they just have him so much under mind control that he doesn't know what's going on. But if he is conscious of what he's done, and proud of it, he'll at least try and tell his story. So far he hasn't and that is the strangest part of the story.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


" But if he is conscious of what he's done, and proud of it, he'll at least try and tell his story. So far he hasn't and that is the strangest part of the story."


Yes exactly , this "internet activity" of his paints the picture of a guy with a grudge and mistrust of the government who killed for his beliefs . I
It doesn't make sense .
The case is full of conflicting information and noone can say we know if he did it or not .
You can believe the official story but its not logical too as it consists of discrepancy after discrepancy .

Just like 9/11 7/7 etc etc .



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
www.aolnews.com...

So the police are saying they have photos of him wearing a g-string but these are not on the internet, so unless we trust what they say no one can say this is true or not unless they saw the photo somehow. Oswald was also framed as having pictures of him holding guns.






posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I bet the g string photo doesn't exsist or if it does it was faked , just like the "confession " planted evidence that we'll probably never get to verify .
So wtf should we believe the story ?

Sorry government you have to show us the proof we are not sheeple who believe everything you say ok ?

Prove he was actually at safeway 1st then we'll get round to the other issues .



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
For me the most striking anomaly of this case is the shooter's magical shooting abilities. Shooting 19 people in a span of 12-15 seconds means either a super-skilled mechanic or multiple shooters. My gut feeling is you had at least one sniper armed with a rifle on a roof overlooking the scene. I would like to see a picture of what other buildings were across the parking lot from the Safeway store entrance.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 


Yes thats another issue ,
We are told that he got kicked out of the army so he didnt learn to shoot there .
One of his "friends" claims they used to shoot together .


If any of Jareds friends are reading this ( and why wouldn't they ? Im sure they have more of a interest in this case then we do , they knew him ! )
Are you certin jared did this ? If he was my friend , I would need to know for certain .
I expect you wont talk to on ats because your probably under gag order
But if there was even 1 % chance that he didnt do this I would speak out in your situation even if it was anonymously .
Our loyalty lies with Family and friends 1st not the government .



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 


crazy + skilled shooter = MKULTRA, or at least that's what I think. If you are a crazy individual psychologically, but somehow are a skilled shooter, there might be more than meets the eye, just like the Fort Hood shooting. Most likely there were multiple shooters. Something else the surveillance video may show.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 



I know we're discussing the possibility that the pictures are of different people but I just don't see how we can explain it .
Are either of them Loughner in your opinon ? The 2nd one looks more like a 22 year old , but still quite different from the picture of "jared in 2008 . in my humble opinon .
Is it feasible that Both are just fakes computer generated from real pictures of jared so they can frame him , because hes dead ? If so who is the guy they have in custody ?
Or is jared under mk in which case did they doctor his 1st photo .









posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I've seen a couple posts by people asking about why he's not trying to tell his story, or why he plead not guilty.

What I'm getting from this is that he's pleading not guilty in hopes that he will be found not guilty.
If he pleads the 5th all the way through, and he has so far, then they have no testimony from him, which means no self-contradictory testimony from him.

This youtube video explains what I mean, but it's very long.



This means that the prosecution must rely on:
1. The testimony of several eyewitnesses, which have already been shown to have conflicting stories, none specifically describing the shooter..
2. Surveillance video, if it does indeed show the incident, as we're told..
3. Forensics to prove the "confession note" was actually written by and placed in the safe by Jared.
4. Forensics to positively match the victims' wounds to Jared's gun and to identify Jared as the only shooter of the gun.

For cases 3 and 4 though, the defense can bring up many cases in the past where fingerprints and ballistic fingerprints and the like have been used as evidence in cases where the convicted were later exhonorated based on further evidence.. This provides a very difficult environment for the prosecution..
edit on 2/25/2011 by nasdack24k because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join