Jared Loughner's defense

I've been following the Loughner story since it began and I've still yet to see any convincing evidence of his guilt. If I was his defense attorney I'm sure I could get the case dismissed for lack of evidence. If anyone has any evidence they can point to in the public domain that suggests his guilt, I'd like to see it here in this thread.

Here is a link that says the FBI has footage of the shooting. ABC

I guess I thought he was on a few vid's showing that he was clearly the shooter, but maybe I was misinformed.

Interesting thought.....

ETA: I believe it is quite clear he was the shooter. Now was he some sort of MK Ultra project? That is the real question!

reply to post by StalkingGoogle


Well, there's the obvious multiple eyewitnesses. Oh, and the video. And then again, Loughner left a letter that said "I planned ahead...."

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Here is a link that says the FBI has footage of the shooting. ABC

I guess I thought he was on a few vid's showing that he was clearly the shooter, but maybe I was misinformed.

Interesting thought.....

ETA: I believe it is quite clear he was the shooter. Now was he some sort of MK Ultra project? That is the real question!

edit on 4-8-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

Yes of course I've seen reports that there are videos of the shooting, but I haven't been able to locate these videos.

Most of the descriptions of the video describe somebody coming out of the Safeway and shooting people. According to the witness testimony Loughner was standing in line when this man came out of the store and started shooting. How could he be both standing in line and putting earplugs on in the Safeway before coming out shooting? This is what I mean when I say there doesn't seem to be any evidence actually suggesting he's the shooter. All the evidence in the public domain seems to suggest otherwise.

As for some sort of mind control, which is what you seem to be suggesting, that seems pretty far-fetched. Even if he were somehow under some sort of mysterious and vaguely-defined mind control, he still can't be in two places at once. Either he was standing in line when the shooting started, as all the witness testimony suggests, or he was in the Safeway putting in earplugs before coming out shooting, which only media hysteria suggests.

And dont forget about the old man taking him down with the help of others and getting the weapon out of his hands, ya thats not enough proof at all, not in these United States of Lies
Im still not sure for myself if he is a dumbass, crazy ra'tard, or MK plant, nothing has really been heard since he declaired he wanted to be his own defense.

Originally posted by Heros_son
reply to post by StalkingGoogle

 

Well, there's the obvious multiple eyewitnesses. Oh, and the video. And then again, Loughner left a letter that said "I planned ahead...."

Yes, of course, the multiple eyewitnesses, none of which identified Loughner as the shooter, virtually all of which put him standing in line when the shooting started. The videos I've addressed in a previous post. As for the letter, have you seen the entire contents of the letter or just a few words taken out of context and repeated hundreds of times? I myself have not seen the letter in its entirety. It doesn't take too much imagination to propose many things which could be planned that are not multiple murders.

I stand by what I said in the original post. None of the evidence I've seen put forth suggests Loughner did this shooting, if any shooting even took place. If anyone does know of any evidence that suggests his guilt, please present it here in this thread, which can become a sort of clearing house for all the evidence against him (if there is any). So far as I can tell the only thing suggesting his guilt is media hysteria and a bunch of conclusions that have been leapt to over the heap of evidence and testimony suggesting otherwise. Media hysteria is not evidence, neither is an erroneous conclusion based on ignored evidence and testimony.

Originally posted by Patrioitinsheepclothing
And dont forget about the old man taking him down with the help of others and getting the weapon out of his hands, ya thats not enough proof at all, not in these United States of Lies

Im still not sure for myself if he is a dumbass, crazy ra'tard, or MK plant, nothing has really been heard since he declaired he wanted to be his own defense.

If you're talking about "Colonel Badger", yes, I'm familiar with him. He's the old man that is a literal spitting image of a man who admittedly had a concealed weapon on the scene, one "Joe Zamudio". Their faces are nearly identical, which suggests to me that they are related. In my opinion Badger and Zamudio are father and son, which makes one wonder why they have different last names and seem to be totally avoiding the fact that they are very closely related. Zamudio was probably raised from a young age to be a shooter.

Badger was most likely a participant in this shooting, if any shooting actually even took place. It's difficult to say really, since the town where this happened was not even really Tuscon but an unincorporated little privately owned community.

I've gone over and over the witness testimony, none of them actually say they saw a gun in Loughner's hand. The stories they tell all converge on Loughner standing in line when the shooting started. How could he simultaneously be standing in line and also putting in earplugs inside the Safeway before coming out shooting?

reply to post by StalkingGoogle


Patricia Maisch said: "He shot the lady next to me." She is the witness that is credited for keeping Loughner from reloading. She's credible. She got a good look.

Quote is from CBSnews

Many witnesses, including witnesses who called the police, claim the shooter fled the scene, running PAST a Walgreens store and disappearing. Walgreens is where Zamudio says he was when he allegedly heard the shooting. Walgreens is the direction Zamudio came from when he returned to the scene after the shooting stopped. To me that makes him the number one suspect, not somebody who was standing in line when the shooting started, like Loughner.

Zamudio was also a highly trained shooter. He's the kind of person who could quickly cap off an entire clip from a Glock and hit nothing but net. Again and again he expressed admiration for the shooting skill of the shooter, in his television interviews. All shots hit a target, some shots hit multiple targets. Is this what we should expect from a kid just out of high school and flunking out of junior college? Maybe. But he still can't be in two places at once. How could he be standing in line while also inside the Safeway putting in earplugs and coming out shooting?

I stand by my original post. I've seen nothing but media hysteria and erroneously jumped-to conclusions suggesting Loughner is guilty.

if it was a "CIA op" then "they" could have easily finished the job the whole time she was in the hospital.

if it was a "CIA op" there wouldn't have been someone in the crowd at all.

If it wasn't in fact JL.. then we have a case of coincidence, where two people decided to bring a gun to the same event, with the same intent.

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle
if any shooting actually even took place.

...you could make a good living as a defense attorney, if you're not already doing so...

Originally posted by Heros_son
reply to post by StalkingGoogle

 

Patricia Maisch said: "He shot the lady next to me." She is the witness that is credited for keeping Loughner from reloading. She's credible. She got a good look.

Quote is from CBSnews

Yes, I'm familiar with Maisch. Her story is approximately as follows:

I heard shooting, people around me were shot, I hit the ground and by the time I looked up again there was a guy right next to me on the ground with two people on top of him. One of the men on top of him told me to grab the gun, which was on the ground. When I didn't do it they told me to grab a magazine, which was also on the ground, so I grabbed the magazine and clutched it like it was a morphine drip trigger.

At no time did Maisch say "I saw the shooter shooting and he was tackled while trying to reload", that is nothing but media hysteria and erroneous conclusions jumped to over a slew of testimony and evidence suggesting otherwise. Witnesses put Loughner standing in line when the shooting started. Him being taken to the ground by "Colonel Badger" is not evidence of his guilt. If anything it's evidence of assault on Badger's part against Loughner.

Also, as I've said in a previous post, witnesses on the scene reported the shooter disappearing out of sight around the corner of the Walgreens right next door to the Safeway. It was literally the same building as the Safeway, just another store front in that building. How could Loughner simultaneously disappear behind the Walgreens (where Zamudio later emerged) and be on the ground with three people on top of him?

I stand by my original post, there seems to be no evidence suggesting Loughner was actually the shooter and a slew of evidence suggesting otherwise, that other people were doing the shooting, namely Zamudio with Badger on the scene to control Lougner and offer him up as the shooter when the police arrived.

reply to post by StalkingGoogle


You're suggesting that Zamudio did the shooting. What would have been his motive? Wanting a positive story to support gun carrying?

What is your premise for suggesting Zamudios guilt? Just vicinity and skill? Loughner also had vicinity. And for skill; many weapon carriers are skilled.

reply to post by StalkingGoogle


Interesting take, and I by no means am any kind of expert on this issue.

Could you provide some links to this scenario you are talking about? Like witnesses seeing him in line, etc.... I would like to read up on that!

reply to post by Heros_son


And in a Crowd of people, skill doesn't have to account for anything

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by StalkingGoogle

 

Interesting take, and I by no means am any kind of expert on this issue.

Could you provide some links to this scenario you are talking about? Like witnesses seeing him in line, etc.... I would like to read up on that!

I second this motion. I'm ashamed to admit ignorance on this matter. I bought what was fed to me hook, line and sinker. I'd really like to see a credible source detailing what you are talking about StalkingGoogle.

reply to post by Kingbreaker


Good Point. Star for you, for being astute.

Second line cheat

reply to post by StalkingGoogle


If thats true, then wheres the hard proof on Zamudio and Badger being the shooters?? Is there enough out there that firmly plants them as the shooters in your mind, or are they your scape goat considering how you feel about JL being the non-shooter.
If you can answer your own questions but in regards to Zamudio and Badger being the shooters with hard proof, then Id be willing to look, Im surely open to other options at this point. But for the most part, it all points at JL, and thats all thats needed for scape goat.
Just because you can shoot a nat's ass off at 100yrd and you carry a gun out in public, doesnt make you suspect.

Originally posted by Kingbreaker
if it was a "CIA op" then "they" could have easily finished the job the whole time she was in the hospital.

if it was a "CIA op" there wouldn't have been someone in the crowd at all.

If it wasn't in fact JL.. then we have a case of coincidence, where two people decided to bring a gun to the same event, with the same intent.

It's a mistake to conclude that Giffords was even shot. I've mentioned the extreme likeness between Zamudio and Badger. They look like the same person just a generation apart, in other words father and son.

One likeness I didn't mention yet is the extreme likeness between Giffords and the young Green girl. Facial recognition software matches them as the same person, for some reason. If Giffords was to undergo a partial brain transplant into a nine year old clone of herself, a perfect cover for that operation would be a gunshot wound to the head. Partial brain transplants are feasible, especially since the advent of stem cell technology. Reproductive human cloning is also quite practical, which would not only produce a baby that was a serial ovotype but could also be used to produce an excess of embryos just to harvest stem cells from for stem cell therapy of many kinds. That's what I think has happened here. Giffords is at the upper limit in age for a practical partial brain transplant. At age 40 the brain undergoes changes that make it much more difficult. At age 9 a young clone's skull would have finished growing, the brain would be fully developed, so that is about the minimum age possible on that side. Of course coincidence theorists would say all this is just a coincidence, the availability of human cloning, of stem cell therapy, of partial brain transplants, of the two having identical facial features, of the "gunshot wound" to the head that was "miraculously" survived, no end of coincidences here for the coincidence theorists to chew on.

But none of this actually addresses Loughner's guilt or innocence. I stand by my original post, there is no evidence in the public domain that suggests Loughner did any shooting. I haven't even seen a parafin test or other tests that could show he even fired a weapon that day. If anyone has any such evidence that suggests his guilt, this thread can be used to present it. I'm not talking about anecdotaes about what people thought was evidence or what they assumed or surmised based on hysterical media shrieking, I'm talking about actual evidence that's been presented. Here are a few examples of evidence:

o - actual verbatim witness testimony (not malformed summaries that stray into hallucinatory terrain based on hysterical media shrieking)

o - actual physical evidence (again, not just fifth or sixth-or-more hand stories based on hysterical media shrieking but actual references to actual physical evidence collected on the scene or on Loughner's person)

o - actual video recordings (again, not just assumptions based on one-line descriptions of video or hysterical media shrieking but the ACTUAL VIDEO)

o - ??? what else constitutes evidence?

Originally posted by Heros_son
reply to post by StalkingGoogle

 

You're suggesting that Zamudio did the shooting. What would have been his motive? Wanting a positive story to support gun carrying?

What is your premise for suggesting Zamudios guilt? Just vicinity and skill? Loughner also had vicinity. And for skill; many weapon carriers are skilled.

Yes, I'm suggesting Zamudio is a more attractive suspect than Loughner. I can't say what his motive would be, but if I had to guess, I'd say it was to collect some money. In other words he was a paid shooter. It's interesting that you mention gun carrying in a positive light, though, because though this was supposedly a heinous shooting, the concealed carry Zamudio was hailed as a hero, negating the high-capacity pistol used in the shooting. Guns aren't bad m'kay?

As for why I think Zamudio was the shooter, I've already given a couple reasons. He was on the scene with a concealed firearm. So far as I know, nobody else admitted such. He's also an expert marksman, and he claimed in an interview that all his years of shotting at gun ranges prepared him for that day. If he wasn't shooting, how could years of shooting prepare him for that day? He told on himself, in other words. He also flashed a fist-under-chin at the end of one interview, with his masonic ring quite clearly shown. He also came from the precise location where witnesses reported seeing the shooter disappear, the Walgreens. Multiple witnesses and police dispatchers repeated this claim, that the shooter fled the scene around the Walgreens. How could Loughner simultaneously have fled the scene and been taken to the ground by Badger?