Chilling Video Shows Suspect Drop bag, and Take Cover: So, where is it?

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


What about all the other footage of these guys? Why was that released, and not saved for the prosecution?


Because this is the smoking gun, so-to-speak..




posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa
I would guess that it is considered evidence, and will be presented as such for the trial. It's not often that evidence is given freely to the public, you know, to assure a fair trial of the accused? IF everyone on the planet saw the evidence before the trial, then there would be no chance of the accused receiving a fair trial anywhere, right?

You will just have to bite your lip, and WAIT for it to be released to the public, like everyone else.
edit on 22-4-2013 by Krakatoa because: spelling and fat fingering....



Your logic and thoughts are obviously not what they want to hear.

"GIMME DA VIDOES!!! NAO!!" = ooh stars and hollars.
"But that's not how it works." = BOOOOOooo Shill!!!!!!!

What about that guy on the roof. I think he may be the naked man. No one has focused on him in the past week.

Where is the naked man on the roof!!!!



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by valmont325
 


Your right, it is the equivalent to the footage of the plane hitting the pentagon. Apparently they have it, yet we have not seen it! Release the tape, put to bed the conspiracy theorists, right?




If you really believe that, .. you don't believe that at all. What a lie.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


What about all the other footage of these guys? Why was that released, and not saved for the prosecution?


See this is what happens when you lack critical thinking.

They were SUSPECTS then, and being LOOKED FOR.

Now they are found, anything that could prejudice the case has to be withheld, so as to not make the entire case get thrown out of court.

You'd probably like that.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
The answer is rather simple.

The FBI reased enough photo evidence to catch them, that was all that was necessary.

They do not have to convince you, me, or anyone else. They only have to convince a jury of his peers in a court of law.

The public jury of inquiry just doesn't matter.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa
I would guess that it is considered evidence, and will be presented as such for the trial. It's not often that evidence is given freely to the public, you know, to assure a fair trial of the accused? IF everyone on the planet saw the evidence before the trial, then there would be no chance of the accused receiving a fair trial anywhere, right?

You will just have to bite your lip, and WAIT for it to be released to the public, like everyone else.
edit on 22-4-2013 by Krakatoa because: spelling and fat fingering....



Originally posted by winofiend

See this is what happens when you lack critical thinking.

They were SUSPECTS then, and being LOOKED FOR.

Now they are found, anything that could prejudice the case has to be withheld, so as to not make the entire case get thrown out of court.

You'd probably like that.

Ok, just a question: I don't quite understand that. Is the reaction gonna be different if they wait to show it in court? I mean, wont it either show them doing it, or not doing it? That makes absolutely no sense. How is showing someone blowing (or, as some people say, not blowing) people up gonna lead to an unfair trial? Evidence is evidence; isn't it unchangable? I mean, logically, my reaction is gonna be the same if I watch the video now, as it will be if I watch the video post-trial. And the people on the jury are going to see it. Is there reaction supposed to be any different just because they're actually trying the case?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jjsr420
 


If they show it prior, then the jury pool could be tainted by folks seeing it without any lawyer present to explain or set the context of the video (as happens in court). Finding jury members that either do not have any bias, or (in the case of the defense) a leaning toward sympathy for their client, is how jury selections occur.

So to avoid this (which would be a circus even MORE than it will be), they are playing their cards close the their chest so to speak. The only ones to see it will be those involved int eh trial (lawyers, judge, jury, etc...). Once it is shown in open court, it will be i the public record, and available to the masses.

Unless of course a copy is "leaked" to the press first..........



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I gotta laugh at some peoples reasoning.

Cannot show the evidence because it could lead to an unfair trial.

"WE GOT EM" Banner headline, Boston Police high fiving about catching the "boston bomber", Saying its "time for a beer" over the scanner and "God bless everyone involved" etc..etc.. Those things are fine towards a fair trial (read some of the statements from "officials") but showing us the basic evidence they are TELLING US THEY HAVE (with a detailed description) would hurt their case?
EDIT- They are not saying "we have evidence you will see at trial"- They are saying "we have a photo showing X doing Y to Z" (full description OF the alleged evidence- But we cannot see the evidence they so colorfully describe to us?
edit on 22-4-2013 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I find it astonishing the way some people rag on the media and call them a bunch of liars , but use it as the gospel truth, when it fits their agenda. How stupid is that?

It's pretty hard to believe the media or the authorities because neither one has a very good record of disseminating the truth. Thus everything is a conspiracy until I'm given enough information to make a logical conclusion.

The real conspiracy is between the authorities and the media to shape public opinion. Buy into it if it makes you feel comfortable. Take the easy way out and don't question anything....

P T Barnum had it exactly right. "There's a sucker born every minute"




edit on 22-4-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Whether you like it or not, that's the law. It is a criminal prosecution case now, not a manhunt. The rules have changed. I certainly hope you never have to learn this by experience.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by jjsr420
 


If they show it prior, then the jury pool could be tainted by folks seeing it without any lawyer present to explain or set the context of the video (as happens in court). Finding jury members that either do not have any bias, or (in the case of the defense) a leaning toward sympathy for their client, is how jury selections occur.

So to avoid this (which would be a circus even MORE than it will be), they are playing their cards close the their chest so to speak. The only ones to see it will be those involved int eh trial (lawyers, judge, jury, etc...). Once it is shown in open court, it will be i the public record, and available to the masses.

Unless of course a copy is "leaked" to the press first..........


Ok.....so what you're saying is: Having a lawyer present to explain that the video is indeed showing them blow up (or...not blow up) people is going to change someone's mind? You're saying that, in order to me to have a unprejudiced mentality there HAS to be a lawyer present, otherwise I wont understand they're showing me a video of people blowing (...again, or not blowing) people up?

That makes absolutely NO LOGICAL SENSE TO ME!!!

May be me, but I highly doubt it. IMO, the footage should be released. It aint gonna taint nothing. Either it shows them doing it, or it don't; simple as that. Having lawyers, or a judge present aint gonna change reactions to a video.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjsr420

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by jjsr420
 


If they show it prior, then the jury pool could be tainted by folks seeing it without any lawyer present to explain or set the context of the video (as happens in court). Finding jury members that either do not have any bias, or (in the case of the defense) a leaning toward sympathy for their client, is how jury selections occur.

So to avoid this (which would be a circus even MORE than it will be), they are playing their cards close the their chest so to speak. The only ones to see it will be those involved int eh trial (lawyers, judge, jury, etc...). Once it is shown in open court, it will be i the public record, and available to the masses.

Unless of course a copy is "leaked" to the press first..........


Ok.....so what you're saying is: Having a lawyer present to explain that the video is indeed showing them blow up (or...not blow up) people is going to change someone's mind? You're saying that, in order to me to have a unprejudiced mentality there HAS to be a lawyer present, otherwise I wont understand they're showing me a video of people blowing (...again, or not blowing) people up?

That makes absolutely NO LOGICAL SENSE TO ME!!!

May be me, but I highly doubt it. IMO, the footage should be released. It aint gonna taint nothing. Either it shows them doing it, or it don't; simple as that. Having lawyers, or a judge present aint gonna change reactions to a video.


Are you a lawyer? Do you understand the rules of evidence? Have you ever been in court, even if just on a jury trial? It sounds like no to each of these questions based upon your reaction and postings.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Whether you like it or not, that's the law. It is a criminal prosecution case now, not a manhunt. The rules have changed. I certainly hope you never have to learn this by experience.

I disagree.
This was a criminal prosecution since the beginning- One with the eyes of an entire nation watching. Something which has already been officially and publicly released (full description of the suspect dropping bag) in no way hurts a case to now show the pictures.

-We never seem to see the pictures, ever. I cannot understand this for the life of me. I DO NOT think everything is a conspiracy but I do think there is alot of lies and the precedent is being set to easily (if they wish) frame anyone for anything, show NO evidence whatsoever and easily get away with it. We need to watch the watchers.

We need to demand proof since we all know we will never see those pictures. or any of the James Holmes pictures, or anything else they tell us they have (and we never see.)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Whether you like it or not, that's the law. It is a criminal prosecution case now, not a manhunt. The rules have changed. I certainly hope you never have to learn this by experience.

I disagree.
This was a criminal prosecution since the beginning- One with the eyes of an entire nation watching. Something which has already been officially and publicly released (full description of the suspect dropping bag) in no way hurts a case to now show the pictures.

-We never seem to see the pictures, ever. I cannot understand this for the life of me. I DO NOT think everything is a conspiracy but I do think there is alot of lies and the precedent is being set to easily (if they wish) frame anyone for anything, show NO evidence whatsoever and easily get away with it. We need to watch the watchers.

We need to demand proof since we all know we will never see those pictures. or any of the James Holmes pictures, or anything else they tell us they have (and we never see.)


No, it was a manhunt for suspects. Now that they have caught one of the suspects, it is a criminal case.
Then, I hope you get chosen for the jury so it can satiate your need to see the evidence before everyone else. It's the way the law works, whether you agree with it or not. Please stop throwing a temper tantrum, it's not becoming and not helping your cause, only hurting it IMO.
edit on 22-4-2013 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


So then if these men did nothing, does that mean an INNOCENT man was killed? Why were they running from the police, and why did they murder a police officer? Oh wait, they are innocent right? You know, sometime, you just have to get justice the good old fashioned way. Truth is, this kid is lucky he is even alive, for now....



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


So then if these men did nothing, does that mean an INNOCENT man was killed? Why were they running from the police, and why did they murder a police officer? Oh wait, they are innocent right? You know, sometime, you just have to get justice the good old fashioned way. Truth is, this kid is lucky he is even alive, for now....


Innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. However, they still can be suspects in the crime, and evidence collected to PROVE them guilty is what is needed. Hearsay and Internet rumor is not a court of law. Do I believe they did all of this, YES, I DO. Is it up to me to be judge and jury here, no. TH\hat is up to the legal system to determine. It's the same for him you (if you are an American citizen), me, and every other American citizen.

For the record, I happened to know two of the women that were attacked that Monday. One is recovering in the hospital (she just stood up a few days ago) from shrapnel throughout her entire lower body. The other, lost both her legs below the knees. This is one of the reasons I stated up for 40 hours straight, listening to the police scanners, posting here on ATS all night long, to get the real story, first hand, to know the closest thing from the truth without needing ti believe the MSM or internet rumor.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman
Well I guess the non reading of his miranda rights will have no bearing on the trial, huh



The Miranda rights were read to him by Judge Marianne Bowler.
link to transcript



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
My question exactly. For the folks on here that believe everything is on the up and up, all they do is quote this. Well, they do have video they just haven't released it. Probably at the trial.

Yeah, sure.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
S/F

This is especially important since the FBI exploded-bad evidence matches the MilCon backpacks more than either Tsarnaev's



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by olaru12
I find it astonishing the way some people rag on the media and call them a bunch of liars , but use it as the gospel truth, when it fits their agenda. How stupid is that?

It's pretty hard to believe the media or the authorities because neither one has a very good record of disseminating the truth. Thus everything is a conspiracy until I'm given enough information to make a logical conclusion.

The real conspiracy is between the authorities and the media to shape public opinion. Buy into it if it makes you feel comfortable. Take the easy way out and don't question anything....

P T Barnum had it exactly right. "There's a sucker born every minute"




edit on 22-4-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


There is only one problem with the reasoning this time.

Millions of people heard this go down live on scanners. What is being reported fits what went down.

It is impossible that all of those people at the Boston Marathon, and then 600 copa and SWAT are all in on some conspiracy you seem to have been left out of.

Logic deems the media is, therefore, struggling to tell the story as close to the truth as possible. There are just far too many people poised and ready to call them on it.

In fact, the few inconsistancies that have happened, were pounced on like a fat kid on cake.

Example: the New York post publishing pics of the 17 year old kid and naming him as the bomber, with his coach as an accomplice. They will never live that down.

After recent media events, in case you didn't notice the readily apparent hesitancy of most media outlets, they were extremely careful in the information they published.

By comparing multiple media accounts, you can also find parallels in the story this time. Not all media outlets are just parroting the AP like they usually do. Most had real, boots on the ground, repoting for a change.

So, yes, the once disparaged media is for once doing their job the proper way, and the stories are easy to vet, and are being, and have been. Those outlets with a clue have figured out, we are watching. They have tanking ratings to salvage, and the best way to fix them is by returning to basics. Truth in journalism. They only hope it's not too late, and events like this give them the chance to prove themselves.

Of course you still have the vapid haters that are gonna hate, and from the beginning were crying that it was right wing extremist pro-gun Christians. But, that's what you get with state-run media.

edit on 23-4-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join