Loughner's defense

The following passages are from "Colonel Bill Badger" - [link to www.youtube.com]

"I was standing exactly where the shooter was standing and one of the aides said I would have to get in line, and they had about twelve chairs set up to my left and so I went down to get in line and I was standing in line, all the chairs were full, I was standing in line and all of the sudden I heard the shots."

"The shooter was about forty feet from me, he was standing right in front of the congresswoman."

"When I dropped I felt this sting in the back of my head where I'd been hit. I was down to the ground."

"When I hit the ground, and when I stood up, after the shooting stopped I stood up, and I didn't realize it but the gunman was standing right in front of me, within a foot of me, and he was moving to my left."

The witnesses not in the line of fire reported the shooter ran NORTH PAST the Walgreens, well over 100 feet from this incident. Badger reports being 40 feet or more SOUTH of the shooter. Badger says from the time the shooting started to the time it stopped, the shooter had moved 40 feet south, while witnesses not in the line of fire reported he was moving over 100 feet north. How was this accomplished by one man? Nobody reports the shooter firing while on the move.

Are we to believe Loughner ran over 100 feet north, then 140 feet backtracking south, all in the time it took Badger to stand up after the shooting stopped? Plenty of time in that 240 foot dash to reload. And why place yourself in amongst the victims of your own shooting after you release every round in your gun? Loughner seems to be some kind of idiot savant, if the stories are to be believed. Tactically with a gun he's exceedingly good but he seems to have implemented the absolute worst strategy to avoid capture.

Zamudio makes a strange claim in one of his earliest reports to the media.

"There was a gentleman who was wounded on top of the head, I think he got hit with a ricochet, or something, the bullet grazed the top of his head."

[link to www.youtube.com]

Zamudio is talking about Badger, here, who claims Salzgeber hit Loughner with a chair, a claim Salzgeber denies. Badger claims he was hit with a stray bullet, was the wound to his head actually caused by Loughner swinging a chair trying to make a break for it? Why would Zamudio specifically say he thought the man was hit with a ricochet? Is it because he knows the shooter didn't aim at Badger? Did Badger have enough time to explain he'd been hit by Loughner with a chair to Zamudio? The "shooter" suddenly deciding to start killing people with chairs would require a lot of 'splaining to do, Lucy.

More strange and rambling commentary from Zamudio:

"I couldn't even really believe it, as I was laying there and I could see the recently discharged gun, to me it was so surreal, you don't believe it's really happening, some of these people are really dying and as the police took him away I looked up and it hit me like a ton of bricks, there were all these people who were wounded and all these people's lives who were changed in an instant, and I am not even kidding, I barely had time to say a sentence to the girl in the store and it was going on already. It happened in five seconds, it was so ridiculously fast, shooting, shooting, down, it was like..."

[link to www.youtube.com]

The way he says "I barely had time to say a sentence to the girl in the store and it was going on already". It's almost as if he's suggesting this supposed transaction of his at the Walgreens buying cigarettes was the initiation of the event, and that he "barely had time" to squeeze this little story into the explanation for his presence immediately on the scene with a loaded and concealed 9mm pistol (which statistically is most probably a Glock).

Zamudio also makes the comment "the third gentleman" when referring to the one waving the murder weapon around when he returned to the scene. It's unclear if he means the third person holding Loughner down (Salzgeber) or if there's a yet unidentified fourth person conjured up to be the person who waved the murder weapon around and told Loughner, "I'll kill you".

More from Zamudio:

"I was standing at the counter inside the Walgreens when the shots rang out. I ran outside towards the shots and when I rounded the corner the first thing I saw was the people wrestling with the gunman. Behind that it was just kind of like people laying everywhere kind of falling and crawling. Kind of realizing you've been shot is kind of a weird thing to go through. I think that people didn't really know, what happened, what was that, and then it started a lot of ow ow I'm bleeding, this is real, this is real, where's the ambulances? It was just like nobody really knew what was going on, nobody could come to terms with it, for a minute it seemed like nobody kind of realized what had happened, as many people as had been shot."

[link to www.youtube.com]

Zamudio says he ran outside and when he "rounded the corner" he saw the scene. What corner is he talking about? It's a straight shot from the entrance to Walgreens to the crime scene, there is no corner in between. This is why the shooter ran NORTH PAST Walgreens, as reported in a 911 call. Did he come out of Walgreens or come around the corner of Walgreens?

And we see more of Zamudio's cold, emotionless delivery when reporting the suffering of others:

"then it started a lot of ow ow I'm bleeding, this is real, this is real, where's the ambulances?"

He describes this in the way one might describe going into the Safeway to get a pound of butter. And the victims were saying "this is real, this is real"? What an utterly bizarre thing for people to say after being shot, and wondering where the ambulances are, seconds after being shot, as if they expect them to be driving by while this happened. Trauma is one thing, but come on, were these victims possibly prepped to the potential of a "fake" assassination attempt on Giffords, to be thwarted by those standing in line?

Giffords isn't even dead, strangely. From the description of her wounds she's been given a lead lobotomy. I recently came across the idea of partial brain transplants, I read about it on wikipedia. Apparently it's possible to transplant just parts of a living brain into a new host, replacing those parts of the brain in the host. The location of a lobotomy surgery is chosen because that's where "personality" and other personal features of people, memories and so on, reside generally.

They opened up a hole in the side of Giffords head about the size of a toy football. They say this was to relieve pressure on the brain. You need a hole big enough to lift the brain out in order to relieve the pressure?

That little girl was one of those kids whose parents dressed her up in evening gowns and makeup and high heels and put her on public display in "beauty pageants". Just like poor little Jonbenet, and died about the same age. A person's skull stops growing at around age 9. A person's brain starts dying around age 40. If you're going to optimize a brain transplant, you want the child host as young as possible and the adult as old as practical.

This girl's parents also foisted political views and behaviours on her, getting her elected to her school's pretend government.

THE FOLLOWING IS JUST MASSIVE CONJECTURAL SPECULATION FEEL FREE TO IGNORE IT:

This 9 year old girl who was said to have been shot on the scene, and later died in the hospital, it's possible she's a clone of Giffords, born 9 years ago, that Giffords is having a partial or complete brain transplant done. Her family would have just been a host family, the mother at best a surrogate mother, the embryo would come from Giffords' eggs and her DNA.

I think they were prepping the girl's body for implantation with Giffords' brain, and prepping her brain for implantation into Giffords' body. If you were to pull something like this off you'd have to explain why a 9 year old girl vanishes and why a 40 year old woman suddenly has a 9 year old's personality. If I were caring for Giffords I'd be on the lookout for phrases like "I was president of my school!", once she learns to talk again, that is.

I found the following regarding the federal judge who was killed:

"In Arizona, U.S. District Court Judge John Roll has become the third federal judge to agree that part of the Brady Law violates the Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

Judge Roll's opinion does not knock out the waiting period for handgun purchases, but it does strike at the very concept of the federal government requiring local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks."

[link to www.thefreelibrary.com]

1994 is the same year one of Loughner's classmates in school injected something into his arm:

"On Sept. 23, 2004, Police were called but Loughner declined to press charges against Anthony 'Tony' Kurz for stabbing him with a 'pin, a stolen type needle,' on his upper right arm. Loughner said he did not realize at first he had been 'poked.' The report goes on to say: 'He stated as soon as he figured out that he was poked with a needle, he started to become pale, got dizzy, could not stand and had to be helped to a nurse's office.'"

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

+1 Ive run thousands of rounds, junk included, through mine and it has never once failed.

Dreaming of this is getting you hard, isn't it?

Not necessarily related, but strange:

"Inducted at: The 1994 Induction Ceremony"

[link to rockhall.com]

John Lennon was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1994. He was assassinated in 1980, the same year Reagan was selected President. Brady shot while standing next to Reagan in 1981 leading to the "Brady Bill".

"In Arizona, U.S. District Court Judge John Roll has become the third federal judge to agree that part of the Brady Law violates the Tenth Amendment.

He is the first to say that part of the Brady Law also violates the Fifth Amendment."

[link to www.thefreelibrary.com]

Judge Roll rules against "Brady Law", is the first to offer fifth amendment objections, in 1994. Roll is killed in 2011.

Roll was a prosecutor in Pima county until 1980. "In 1980, Roll joined the US Attorney's Office as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Arizona until 1987."

[link to judgepedia.org]

"A moment later, Rayle said, he saw a young man wearing sneakers and what appeared to be navy blue sweats approach Gifford with a semi-automatic handgun raised. The man shot Giffords once in the face, he said."

[link to voices.washingtonpost.com]

"The Pima County Sheriff's Department had said on Saturday that it was seeking to identify a white man wearing blue jeans and a dark blue jacket who was at the scene of the shooting.

But the FBI said they have since cleared the man. Police declined to identify him to protect his privacy."

The above is from a reputable news service and has been reprinted many times in the news.

We have at least two different descriptions here, Rayle says sneakers and blue sweats so he apparently didn't notice anything above the waist. Other witnesses report dark jacket and jeans. Is it possible that's Zamudio? They "cleared the man" by coming to the conclusion he was a concealed carry hero, apparently. They want to "protect his privacy" and not give up the game that it was him witnesses saw fleeing the scene and the witnesses were just confused. The police have 3 people saying no it wasn't Joe it was this crazy nut under our boots, they're not going to believe witnesses 100 feet away who say they saw Zamudio fleeing the scene just after the shooting.

Zamudio could have quite easily worn sweats over the other clothes he was wearing, then peeled the sweats off after disappearing behind the Walgreens. The video evidence from the day of the event shows Zamudio loitering at the crime scene for up to 12 hours after the shooting, not wearing a jacket, yet in other outside interviews he wears his now familiar black hoodie under a wool coat. He loitered around the scene to control it, and to help control the stories the media got, as well as to eventually retrieve the sweat pants and hoodie, which quite likely had blood splattered on them. It'll be interesting if the police ever say if Loughner had blood splashed on him, and from how many different people.

And you probably ALSO have doubts that sunshine comes from the Sun..




.

There's abundant evidence of the connection between light and the sun, as far as Loughner is concerned, there's about as much evidence suggesting that YOU are the shooter as there is Loughner. The only difference is he is known to have been at the scene and you are not. Do you have an alibi?

OP, having read a good bit of Loughner's online trail, I'm not totally convinced that he had the ability to plan and carry out any attack without at least the help of a handler.

Has Loughner given any statement to the police, do you know?

crazy college kids

You refer to "Loughner's online trail", which I've seen. I've also seen a video presented by the junior college Loughner attended, that has been positively linked to him and that he admitted producing. I'm not convinced the YouTube account was his or that he produced the videos on it. I'm convinced the Myspace account that was taken down was his, which explains why it was taken down. Anything that's left is suspect.

So far as I know Loughner has not talked to police about this incident, and I doubt they've tried very hard to question him.

On the video evidence mentioned in the press but never shown:

"In the clearest of the Safeway videos, Loughner is seen emerging from the south entrance, then looping around a table that was set up outside for Giffords's "Congress on Your Corner" event with constituents. He is "hurriedly walking," one source said, then approaches Giffords head-on and shoots his first bullet into her face, where it struck her just above the left eye and exited out the back of her skull."

[link to www.washingtonpost.com (secure)]

This video says the shooter walked out the entrance of the Safeway and went straight around a table and shot Giffords. This conflicts with all the witnesses who say Loughner appeared, was told to get in line, then came back right away and started shooting.

Reports about the video also state:

"The videos create a vivid picture of Loughner's movements through the Safeway store, which he entered sometime after 9:54 a.m., until he opened fire on the crowd at about 10:10 a.m., the sources said. The footage is now in possession of the FBI, which has declined to release it and is holding it as evidence for a potential trial."

This suggests the shooter was loitering around inside the Safeway for 15 minutes or more before he charged out the door and started blasting. Again, this is inconsistent with the reports from participants right around Giffords who said Loughner was sent to the back of the line and came back moments later.

I see two possibilities, if we assume the FBI has properly synchronized the interior and exterior videos.

If it was Loughner wandering around inside the Safeway, he was the shooter, and the witnesses later mistook someone else they'd sent to the back of the line as the shooter.

If it wasn't Loughner in the video, then the witnesses remembered him accurately after the shooting, he was standing at the back of the line near Badger when the shooting started.

I can think of another possibility, that the witnesses mistook 15 minutes for a few moments, but I've dismissed it as it's profoundly unlikely. I also consider the possibility that the FBI has fudged the video but it seems more likely that these killers would know the limitations of the video surveillance in the area, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the had an inside man working security at the location.

More on the shooting video:

"Loughner then turns to his left and begins firing on a crowd of people who were sitting in seats and standing in line for the event. They are not seen on this video, but the camera captures muzzle flashes from the gunfire, the source said."

[link to www.washingtonpost.com (secure)]

This passage mentions that the video showing the shooting does not show the people standing in line. When the witness reports are combined with the video the conclusion that's apparent is that Loughner was standing in that line of people, probably very near "Colonel Bill Badger", where he was subdued once the shooting stopped.

Also right near Salzgeber and his wife, who were fourth and fifth in line according to Salzgeber.

Putting Loughner at sixth in line and Badger at seventh seems reasonable, since Salzgeber and Badger each grabbed an arm and pushed Loughner face-first into the ground next to Maisch, in spot eight.

With Dr. Rayle on the scene we have a doctor, a military nurse, a former army colonel and Salzgeber, a local busybody who volunteered for Giffords' campaign right after her office door was smashed in. All of them and the ones who had spouses on the scene were for the most part unhurt.

A test of this scenario is evident. If videos surface that show the people standing in line but do not show Loughner standing there when the shooting starts, then the scenario fails. If such videos show Loughner standing anywhere when the shooting started, Loughner was not the shooter. If the videos from inside the Safeway correspond with videos showing the shooter outside, and either one is clear enough that Loughner can be positively identified, then Loughner is the shooter.

I'd like to assume that because reporters state "Loughner" was in the videos, that the face of the person in the videos was clearly identifiable beyond doubt. There are other tests that can be applied to videos analysis that could also positively identify Loughner from video evidence, but those generally lie outside the scope of the controlled kind of viewing hinted at by the articles. Basically these viewings consist of watching a video in the presence of an FBI narrator, clearly open for abuse of suggestion. When the FBI says "that's Loughner", you see Loughner, no matter what's in the video.

How these reporters can overlook the obvious contradiction in the video evidence showing the shooter's actions, and the multiple reports of participants claiming Loughner arrived and was sent to the back of the line moments before the shooting started. If the videos show the shooter wandering around in Safeway for 15 minutes before coming out blasting, it's quite obviously not Loughner. But now all the media will dig in like ticks, they're invested in wall-to-wall convicting Loughner on television and internet news, now they only see what they want to see, even when it comes to their own previous reports.

Video Captured ‘Calculated’ Gunman in Tucson

TUCSON — The chief investigator for the sheriff’s department here has for the first time publicly described the brief and gory video clip from a store security camera .

Mr. Kastigar said the video shows Ms. Giffords standing with her back a few inches from the wall when she was shot by the gunman, who approached in “a hurried fashion” with the gun at his side and then raised it and fired a single bullet above her eye at a range of no more than two or three feet.

More than a dozen video clips recorded from cameras at the scene and recovered from the hard drive of a security system at the Safeway grocery store outside which the shootings occurred on Jan. 8 provide other new information about the minutes before the shootings.

A surveillance photo also shows Mr. Loughner inside the Safeway talking to a store clerk and “pointing to his ears because he’s telling the individual that he can’t hear what she’s saying because he’s got earplugs in,” Mr. Kastigar said.
[link to www.nytimes.com]

Yes, I mentioned this video in a previous post, a video that's apparently only been seen by a tiny handful of reporters. If a few reporters can watch it, we can all watch it, these videos need to be released so we can make our own conclusions about what they show rather than rely on vague and most likely misleading editorial reflections by reporters.

I'd like to assume that when these repeaters say "Loughner" it's because they can positively identify him from looking at a very clear picture of his face. Given that I've seen the media routinely distort and contradict witness statements so much already, and the fact that the media has been loudly calling Loughner the shooter from the beginning without even considering other suspects and in the absence of even witness testimony putting the gun in Loughner's hand, I can't make that assumption.

What seems more likely to me is that the FBI handlers that showed the reporters the video showing a guy in a hoodie and said "there's Loughner" and that was good enough. Given that there were already many reasonable doubts pointing to at the very least accomplices in this act, and most likely at Loughner's innocence, the media's blatant sensationalism proves they are nothing but a bunch of attention whores who can't even keep their editorial opinions out of a news story.

See a previous post of mine where I demonstrate how the video evidence (as briefly and vaguely described) when combined with the witness testimony actually supports Loughner's innocence.

OP, the Public is to stupid to figure out JFK after all these years, this will be even worse. The Government has proven time and again they will and can get away with anything, even when its right in front of our faces.

Nothing is going to stop the END GAME. Just sit back and relax, and enjoy the remaining days of our lives.

On Loughner's sanity:

"Yet despite the exhaustive interviews, and a trove of online videos and entries to message boards on gaming Web sites that Loughner made over the years, investigators have been unable to understand what cause him to allegedly erupt into the shocking outburst of violence. Investigators also have yet to nail down why Loughner allegedly targeted Giffords and have not learned of any interaction between the two beyond an event in 2007 at which Loughner asked Giffords a question.

'I haven't seen anything that says somebody knows, somebody heard him say something, that gave an indication of a path to violence,' the senior federal official said."

[link to www.cbsnews.com]

The FBI has interviewed over 300 people who claim they knew Loughner. How many people know you really well? If 300 people came forward and said they had the inside information on you, do you think it would portray your life accurately? Are there even 300 people who know your name?

After interviewing all these people the FBI found nobody who saw this coming. None of them say he was obsessed with this or that, had violent fantasies, made outlandish threats to people, no indication of violence or threat of violence of any kind. This kid never hurt a fly. How many of you could make this claim about yourself if the 300 people who know you best were called in to testify?

This conflicts wildly with the media (and mob) consensus that Loughner is insane, unstable, crazy, right-wing, left-wing, violent, or a problem we all should have seen coming for which we can blame "the system" and not look any further than the lone nut theory.

To put this another way, after interviewing the 300 people that know Loughner best, they can find NO motive.

Once again speaking as a hypothetical juror, I'd vote to acquit, unless I see more evidence. The video evidence of the shooter conflicts with participant testimony regarding Loughner. The FBI needs to present this evidence, but of course they don't like us looking over their shoulder. Too bad, they work for us, and they're anything but trustworthy. If they intend for us to trust their competence they need to display some first, and prove they weren't taken in by a hoax.

A bit on the prevailing police response time in Tuscon:

"Right now, the department is averaging the following response times for 911 calls: 2 to 3 minutes for homicides and fatal accidents; 8 to 10 minutes for fights and weapon-related incidents; 16 minutes for burglaries; and more than an hour for thefts and minor car accidents."

[link to www.kgun9.com]

This is from December, 2010.

OP, wasn't there also a report of another man on the scene who had a gun with an empty chamber?

AGreed.

The only reports I've seen regarding a gun in somebody else's hand is Salzgeber, he reportedly had the murder weapon in his hand, was waving it around and telling Loughner, "I'll kill you" with it.

I've started a thread about the FBI investigating Salzgeber's vehicle at his home last Thursday:

Thread: Giffords Shooting Investigation: Salzgeber's Truck Searched by FBI 1/13/2011

"'I heard the shots and looked over to where (Giffords) had been standing,' Fuller said. 'I saw an athletic young man pumping and taking aim. I was seated and dove to the ground to play dead.'

Fuller was hit as he dove. A few seconds of silence followed. He got up in a daze, looked around and decided that because he didn't have any medical training to help the others, walked to his car and drove himself to the nearest hospital."

[link to www.azcentral.com]

This victim of the shooting was quite understandably "in a daze" just after the shooting. When the shooting started he dove for the ground, yet one more witness who can offer nothing to support that the man who was tackled (Loughner) was the same one doing the shooting. This victim also left the scene immediately, demonstrating just how accessible this crime scene was.

The constant cramped images of this scene surrounded by police tape give the impression the shooter would have had nowhere to run without risking being apprehended. Nothing could be further from the truth. The path taken by the shooter was not only out of sight of the scene of the shooting around a corner, the shooting itself was concealed from at least two directions (north and south) by large brick pillars, limiting the ability of any witnesses not right there to identify anyone or anything happening there.

Zamudio likely ducked quickly into the Walgreens, ordered his pack of cigarettes, then dashed out after pretending to hear shots. The shots would most likely have gone unnoticed inside the Walgreens, it was barely heard inside the Safeway, and the shots took place right in front of the entrance.

I saw a report that there was a man that was on the scene that also had a weapon with some sort of thing pulled back as though it had just been emptied. People were confused. But it was not Loughner.

"Non-deep pocket with a lot of heart. Began life as a computer operator, military service leading to non-physical disability, unable to resume career, left main stream and lived in small towns for a decade studying library books and piano, moved into Tucson in 1994 and worked as a Chauffeur for most of 10 years, presented state-wide initiatives at libraries, worked elections, in '09 worked at the Census Bureau as a field rep and a clerk. Non drinker for one year, non smoker for 40 years."

[link to www.hypnothoughts.com]

The comments above were apparently written by one of the participants in the shooting, he reports being shot in the leg and the back, he drove himself to the hospital immediately after the shooting stopped. He moved to Tucson in 1994, the same year Loughner was jabbed with a syringe in school and fainted as a result, the same year judge Roll ruled against the "Brady Law" on two separate constitutional grounds, one of which invoked the 5th amendment, a unique interpretation by Roll.

Fuller has since been arrested and involuntarily committed to an asylum for taking a photograph of a "tea party" spokesman and saying "You're dead."

Last Edited by Plautus on 01/19/2011 11:48 AM

Of course they confiscated the tapes that is SOP.