Jared Lee Loughner Surveillance Re-Enactment in Virtual Reality 1/19/2011

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

and embedded for ease of access

Look how overly dramatic they made Judge Roll defending the other man. Combine this with the fact that Judge Roll was a good man, defended the constitution and rule of law, and now ask yourself if maybe they are stretching a bit too far in making it seem like Roll was an unintended target.

As for "not releasing evidence because it is a federal trial" how about the FBI releasing this "reenactment?" How about the FBI saying there was a confession note signed by Loughner? I want all of you who claim to know the law so much to ask yourself a question: if you were on the grand jury for this case, and the FBI said in court there was a confession letter, and then you told this to the media, what do you think would happen to you? Yeah, you'd go to jail for leaking information. But, the FBI does it and it's okay.

The only thing more disgusting than the FBI doing this is how many people act like sheep and agree that "well they can't release the evidence'" BUT THEY ALREADY RELEASED EVIDENCE!

Originally posted by filosophia

Look how overly dramatic they made Judge Roll defending the other man. Combine this with the fact that Judge Roll was a good man, defended the constitution and rule of law, and now ask yourself if maybe they are stretching a bit too far in making it seem like Roll was an unintended target.

So you are claiming that Judge Roll was the intended target here?

As for "not releasing evidence because it is a federal trial" how about the FBI releasing this "reenactment?"

From what I have seen, this was a reenactment put together by ABC news from the desciptions provided to them by the FBI. Every good reporter has an inside man that speaks on conditions of 'anonymity'

How about the FBI saying there was a confession note signed by Loughner? I want all of you who claim to know the law so much to ask yourself a question: if you were on the grand jury for this case, and the FBI said in court there was a confession letter, and then you told this to the media, what do you think would happen to you? Yeah, you'd go to jail for leaking information. But, the FBI does it and it's okay.

You can kow everything there is to know about the pending trial, but you will not see the evidence. You know that there is surveaillance footage but you can not see it, you know that a letter exists that was found in a safe, but you will not see it. This is common, very common actually....

The only thing more disgusting than the FBI doing this is how many people act like sheep and agree that "well they can't release the evidence'" BUT THEY ALREADY RELEASED EVIDENCE!

What evidence have you seen? Disclosing the existence of evidence and releasing the actual evidence are two seperate issues. The evidence that will be avail for trial will still go through evidentiary hearings where it can be challenged by Judy Clark. But I still want to know what evidence you have seen because all I have seen is the possibility of evidence, but have yet to see any with my own eyes.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


You're avoiding the question: if you were on the jury, and the FBI said there was a confession letter and then you told the media there was a confession letter, you could not get out of trouble by saying "what evidence? You didn't see any evidence."

and yes I think it could be possible that Roll was the real target.

It's not just about what you see with your eyes. And they said more than just that there was a letter, they said the letter had "I planned ahead" "My confession" and with the signature at the bottom, which I believe the signature was forged because if Loughner wrote a confession letter he wouldn't have pleaded not guilty in trial, that would call into question the legitimacy of his not guilty plea if he signed a confession letter.

Jurors can not say anything about their trial, imagine a jury member walking around in a cafe during a trial saying "Oh yeah, there was a confession letter, it said 'I planned ahead' and the signature was at the bottom. I can say this so long as you don't see the letter, right?"

The FBI has released evidence, the evidence they want the public to know, such as

-Gifford was the target
-Roll was unintended victim
-Loughner already pleaded guilty by his confession letter

I want to see the video because it will most likely prove that they are lying about Roll saving another man. I'm going off my gut instinct on this one. But as for not releasing the video, it's not because they don't want evidence to be leaked, they've already determined what is suitable for the public and what is not.

It's not just about what you see with your eyes. Eye witness testimony is evidence, so the FBI telling ABC news the play by play of the video is leaking evidence, but apparently no one seems to care when the FBI does it. There is a double standard where the FBI is allowed to leak certain evidence but then keep a hold of other evidence and everyone thinks this is fine and legal and they praise that this happens.

reply to post by filosophia


The question hold multiple layers, it is not cut and dry.

We are talking about actual evidence, not disseminating that said evidence exists. That is what Rule 6 covers.
And Rule 6 only covers the sowrn in grand jury members as well.

Rule 6 does require that grand jury members maintain a level a secrecy as to all matters before them, until the point where the evidence becomes public record when it is introduced at trial. At that point the secrecy imposed by Rule 6 no longer applies.

However Rule 6 does not apply to anyone but the grand jury members and others who are present in the courtroom during grand jury proceedings.

Any one speaking of the possible existence of evidence prior to this is nothing but hearsay. Unil someone actually leaks the actual video, or provides the actual letter found in the safe or the video at the gun store, there is nothing amiss. Once that happens, then we can have this discussion.

The discussion of the possibility of evidence. That is all this is.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


what you are saying is that if you were on a jury and in court they showed you a confession letter with the phrase "I planned ahead on it," and before giving the conviction you had some type of lunch break, and during that break you told the media that there was a confession letter saying "I planned ahead" on it, that would be entirely okay so long as you did not show the media the letter.

I am thinking this won't be okay.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

what you are saying is that if you were on a jury and in court they showed you a confession letter with the phrase "I planned ahead on it," and before giving the conviction you had some type of lunch break, and during that break you told the media that there was a confession letter saying "I planned ahead" on it, that would be entirely okay so long as you did not show the media the letter.

I am thinking this won't be okay.

No I am not saying that would be ok, but this is a hypothetical. We are talking about a sworn in grand jury member who operates under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
you can read it here

This is a different issue. You might believe that it should be different under the law, but it is not.
The rule of law prohibits a grand jury members from disclosure of any matters presented before them and are sworn to this fact, until such time when it is entered into public record.
Discussing what might be raised as evidence before hand is not in violation of the law.

You might believe that is should be, but at the end of the day it is not.

More release of evidence which taints the jury pool but it isn't really evidence it's just evidence that points to the existence of evidence so it's ok:

www.kgun9.com...
"A man accused in the deadly Tucson shooting rampage reportedly researched lethal injections, solitary confinement and political assassinations in the days before the attack. .... A source close to the investigation into 22-year-old Jared Loughner told The Washington Post that a review of his computers turned up the Internet searches."

Well now it's obvious the guy was planning the killing ahead of time, though good thing my opinion ain't been tainted.

reply to post by starviego


Thank you for bringing that to the table here.
I am starting to try and think about the possible defense that Judy Clarke will be presenting, and these tidbits make that train of thought even more intersting.

And when they're not busy slandering the suspect they are busy changing the rules to benefit themselves:

www.kpho.com...
The top federal judge in Arizona has declared a judicial emergency because of the death of her predecessor in a shooting rampage in Tucson. The declaration by Chief District Judge Rosyln Silver means that part of a federal law requiring a trial to start within 70 days of a defendant's indictment are temporarily suspended. .... A defendant's right to have a trial begin within 70 days is extended to 180 days during the emergency.

Funny how they keep saying this is an open and shut case yet can't seem to get the prosecution off the ground. It seems like they are stalling for time.

Now here is a fascinating quote:

www.washingtonpost.com...
"Ultimately, legal experts said, Loughner's defense team almost certainly will not try to make the case that he was not the shooter. There were dozens of witnesses, and the rampage was caught on multiple surveillance cameras at the Safeway outside which the shootings occurred."

Why would they even make this extraneous comment? The media has been telling us for two weeks that Loughner did it. Or is the defense attorney starting to ask some pointed questions?

reply to post by starviego


or it could be because of the fact the the federal courts in Arizona are overbooked.
A Judicial Emergency exists when:

in a circuit court:

any vacancy in a court of appeals where adjusted filings per panel are in excess of 700; or
any vacancy in existence more than 18 months where adjusted filings are between 500 to 700 per panel.

in aDistrict Court

any vacancy where weighted filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship; or
any vacancy in existence more than 18 months where weighted filings are between 430 to 600 per judgeship;or
any court with more than one authorized judgeship and only one active judge.

source

In fact the road was already paved towards this before the shooting, the request was originally made on Nov 24 2010.by, ironically, Judge Roll, who was at the time the Chief District Judge.

source

Originally posted by starviego
Now here is a fascinating quote:

www.washingtonpost.com...
"Ultimately, legal experts said, Loughner's defense team almost certainly will not try to make the case that he was not the shooter. There were dozens of witnesses, and the rampage was caught on multiple surveillance cameras at the Safeway outside which the shootings occurred."

Why would they even make this extraneous comment? The media has been telling us for two weeks that Loughner did it. Or is the defense attorney starting to ask some pointed questions?

This is just speculation as to what the defense srategy will be by legal experts, not by anyone involved in the case. Is the defense asking pointed questions? What questions would they ask? They have already been provided with each piece of evidence, even exculpatory evidence. Ms Clark has seen all of this, and according to your source, probably believes that JLL was the shooter, therefore will not take that defense. But we will find out at the next pretrial hearing. March 6th I believe.