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

So I just read this article that states that the police have footage of the bomber dropping the bag. Where is it? Why would they not release the footage if it did exist? Apparently the Govener has not seen the video, but has been made aware of it So where is the video. There can be no graphic images, what are they hiding?

“It does seem to be pretty clear that this suspect took the backpack off, put it down, did not react when the first explosion went off and then moved away from the backpack in time for the second explosion,” Patrick remarked. “It’s pretty clear about his involvement and pretty chilling, frankly.” Patrick said he hasn’t actually viewed the videotape, but has been briefed by law enforcement officials about it.

They can at least release the video to put an end to the unanswered questions people have. What are they waiting for?
www.theblaze.com...

Originally posted by thesmokingman
So I just read this article that states that the police have footage of the bomber dropping the bag. Where is it? . What are they waiting for?

Somebody a few days ago noted the OUTRAGE that circulates around the internet every time "the Government" dont instantly take action to prove a conspiracy theory isnt true.

I see it again here.

There's enough people in government jobs already, they dont need a "quick, show stuff on the internet to disprove conspiracy nuts" department as well.

This is my first post on this site(Iv been lurking for some time now, and decided to actually sign up) But to me this is one of the MOST important requests out there. Show us the bag being put down. If it was 100% him, 100% his bag....then there is no more that needs to be done before we see this video. Not still photos. Not photos and videos of the 2 guys walking with backpacks down a street with Tons of other people with bags....Show us the VIDEO of him Putting HIS bag down, and then THAT bag Blowing up. Not the hardest thing to come foward with....unless it does not exist.

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.

Speaking on “Meet the Press,” the governor said surveillance video from the attack shows one suspect dropping his backpack and calmly walking away before the bomb inside exploded. It clearly puts 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at the scene of the attack, he added.

Then he says this:

It does seem to be pretty clear that this suspect took the backpack off, put it down, did not react when the first explosion went off and then moved away from the backpack in time for the second explosion,” Patrick remarked. “It’s pretty clear about his involvement and pretty chilling, frankly.”

So which is it here? Like in the title, it shows the bomber "take cover". Next, he calmly drops his backpack calmly walking away. THEN, he says he did not react when the first bomb went off, and then moved away before the second explosion. Am I the only one getting three different accounts here, from a guy that has not even actually seen the film, but is comfortable enough to speak on it at a press conference?

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?

reply to post by Krakatoa

You will just have to bite your lip, and WAIT for it to be released to the public, like everyone else.

Im sorry but I have waited patiently for the last 12 years for the pentagon 9/11 video, when exactly do you think they plan on releasing this? Never would be my guess.

reply to post by thesmokingman


Exactly! How could i not refference that! Feds go in and take any surveillance tapes that show the plane hitting and then dont show them when all it was is a plane hitting the pentagon. Whats there to hide? or save for trial?

Yeah I brought this up earlier.

It will be used by the prosecution as evidence then be released.

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

You will just have to bite your lip, and WAIT for it to be released to the public, like everyone else.

Im sorry but I have waited patiently for the last 12 years for the pentagon 9/11 video, when exactly do you think they plan on releasing this? Never would be my guess.

Your argument is mine.I have thought this from the very begining.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


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

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

You will just have to bite your lip, and WAIT for it to be released to the public, like everyone else.

Im sorry but I have waited patiently for the last 12 years for the pentagon 9/11 video, when exactly do you think they plan on releasing this? Never would be my guess.

Your argument is mine.I have thought this from the very begining.

There is a BIG difference this time folks. Who, exactly did they have to put on the stand for the 9/11 event???? Nobody! So, there was no trial. Here, we have someone to prosecute, right? So, there will be a trial, evidence presented, then released into the public record of the trial.

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, is does not prove their guilt, only proves they were there, and combined with the eyewitness testimony (the man who saw Tamerlan, and had his legs blown apart), was enough to issue the photos for the manhunt. It would not affect a trial later if we caught them.

reply to post by Krakatoa

Washington (CNN) -- Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 terror suspects will face a military trial at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. The decision is a sharp reversal for the Obama administration, which wanted the terror suspects to have federal civilian trials. Besides Mohammed, the other suspects to face charges of participating in the 9/11 plot are Walid bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. All five are at Guantanamo.

What about these guys. They are going to be tried in a military court I believe.

At some point the DA need to build a case, with all the "evidence" Out in the public eye they could be accused of trying him in the media.

Thus ruining a chance for a "fair" trial, something that with all the coverage may be difficult already, they need to hold close the "damning" evidence so as not to taint it for trial.

Not everything is a conspiracy, some like the withholding of miranda warning (key point its a warning thats been with held not his actual rights) are legal tactics.

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....

But....if they are saying that they have footage of the guy setting down the backpack that goes kaboom in the news and that they have footage him doing so, then have they not already poisoned the well for a fair trial? Multiple articles say that they have this footage and directly state what is within that footage--he put down the backpack with the bomb in it. Technically, they've already given a determination of what the video footage portrays and given that determination to the public through the media. Everybody already knows what the video is supposed to portray because they told us that already.

If they were interested in a truly fair trial, they wouldn't have said a word about the video at all and let an unbiased jury decide what it portrayed.

reply to post by benrl


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

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by benrl

 

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

Nope not with the public safety exemption that predates 911 (since the 80s police have used it).

heres an example, cops raid a house, they arrest someone up front, they hear noise further in the house.

THEY than question the first suspect using this exception, he tells them theres someone with a gun further in the house.

The gun and suspect do not get a free pass because the first suspect was not read his rights.

Also the reading of the rights is simply telling you you have rights not granting them.


eta

Thread that goes into detail about the exemption

Cnn the government is invoking the public safety exemption

reply to post by benrl


Thank you for the link, I will check it out.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by thesmokingman
So I just read this article that states that the police have footage of the bomber dropping the bag. Where is it? . What are they waiting for?

Somebody a few days ago noted the OUTRAGE that circulates around the internet every time "the Government" dont instantly take action to prove a conspiracy theory isnt true.

I see it again here.

There's enough people in government jobs already, they dont need a "quick, show stuff on the internet to disprove conspiracy nuts" department as well.

You must be an agent, because obviously ATS should be given evidence before a court, and anyone who says otherwise, is an agent.

I read that on ATS after I posted it, so it must be true.