Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:28 am

The widow of the gunman behind the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history knew he was planning an attack and concocted a cover story for him, federal prosecutors said in a California court on Wednesday.

Prosecutors revealed new details about their case against Noor Salman, 30, as they argued she should remain jailed on charges stemming from the June 2016 shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu did not immediately rule, instead ordering psychiatric and psychological tests for Salman.

Salman was arrested earlier this month in the San Francisco Bay Area on federal charges of obstructing justice and aiding her late husband, Omar Mateen, in his attempt to provide material support to a terrorist organization.

She admitted knowing Mateen left their house with a firearm and a backpack full of ammunition before the Pulse nightclub shooting, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Sweeney told a federal judge in Oakland.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/florida-nightclub-gunmans-widow-knew-of-his-plan-us-prosecutors/

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:20 pm

Thorin wrote:The widow of the gunman behind the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history knew he was planning an attack and concocted a cover story for him, federal prosecutors said in a California court on Wednesday.

Prosecutors revealed new details about their case against Noor Salman, 30, as they argued she should remain jailed on charges stemming from the June 2016 shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu did not immediately rule, instead ordering psychiatric and psychological tests for Salman.

Salman was arrested earlier this month in the San Francisco Bay Area on federal charges of obstructing justice and aiding her late husband, Omar Mateen, in his attempt to provide material support to a terrorist organization.

She admitted knowing Mateen left their house with a firearm and a backpack full of ammunition before the Pulse nightclub shooting, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Sweeney told a federal judge in Oakland.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/florida-nightclub-gunmans-widow-knew-of-his-plan-us-prosecutors/

That's the allegation. I've yet to see any proof.

by eddie Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:24 pm

Isn't the proof, the very fact that he left the house looking like a bag of explosives?

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:38 pm

eddie wrote:Isn't the proof, the very fact that he left the house looking like a bag of explosives?

What does that prove?

In a big federal drug case in Tucson one time, the facts showed a wife silently stood in the presence of her husband and a drug smuggler while they transacted a load. She was charged along with her husband, just as they are trying to do in this case.

The judge said with a chuckle: "Maybe she's stupid...there's no evidence she knew what was going on. Case dismissed."

Assumptions are not facts.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Isn't the proof, the very fact that he left the house looking like a bag of explosives?

What does that prove?

In a big federal drug case in Tucson one time, the facts showed a wife silently stood in the presence of her husband and a drug smuggler while they transacted a load. She was charged along with her husband, just as they are trying to do in this case.

The judge said with a chuckle: "Maybe she's stupid...there's no evidence she knew what was going on. Case dismissed."

Assumptions are not facts.

Mainly because Eddie is going off facts

The widow of the gunman behind the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history knew he was planning an attack and concocted a cover story for him, federal prosecutors said in a California court on Wednesday.

Prosecutors revealed new details about their case against Noor Salman, 30, as they argued she should remain jailed on charges stemming from the June 2016 shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

by eddie Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:44 pm

Well that's what I thought didge...that I was going off the facts as I read and understood them? scratch

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:48 pm

eddie wrote:Well that's what I thought didge...that I was going off the facts as I read and understood them?

I will give Quill the credit of him failing to read the OP article and just going off your post

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:06 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What does that prove?

In a big federal drug case in Tucson one time, the facts showed a wife silently stood in the presence of her husband and a drug smuggler while they transacted a load. She was charged along with her husband, just as they are trying to do in this case.

The judge said with a chuckle: "Maybe she's stupid...there's no evidence she knew what was going on. Case dismissed."

Assumptions are not facts.

Mainly because Eddie is going off facts

The widow of the gunman behind the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history knew he was planning an attack and concocted a cover story for him, federal prosecutors said in a California court on Wednesday.

Prosecutors revealed new details about their case against Noor Salman, 30, as they argued she should remain jailed on charges stemming from the June 2016 shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

Honestly didge, don't you know an allegation from a fact? The word I used, quite advisedly, was 'PROOF'. And you give me: "federal prosecutors said..."??

Don't you even know what an adversarial legal system is?? Obviously, one side says one thing, and the other side says another thing. PROOF comes at trial, afterwards. Each side is a co-equal litigant.

You need witnesses. What the co-equal litigants say in out-of-court statements (or in-court, but not testimony) are puff...allegations. Of course, to the press they are going to give lots of spin...they are trying to influence the jury pool. And you buy it?

Back to school, kid.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Mainly because Eddie is going off facts

The widow of the gunman behind the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history knew he was planning an attack and concocted a cover story for him, federal prosecutors said in a California court on Wednesday.

Prosecutors revealed new details about their case against Noor Salman, 30, as they argued she should remain jailed on charges stemming from the June 2016 shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

Honestly didge, don't you know an allegation from a fact. The word I used, quite advisedly, was PROOF. And you give me: federal prosecutors said...

Don't you even know what an adversarial legal system is?? Obviously, one side says one thing, and the other side says another thing. PROOF comes at trial, afterwards. Each side is a co-equal litigant. What they say in out-of-court statements are puff...allegations. Of course, to the press they are going to give lots of spin...they are trying to influence the jury pool. And you buy it?

Back to school, kid.

Yes i do know the difference especially when said person has confessed

She admitted knowing Mateen left their house with a firearm and a backpack full of ammunition before the Pulse nightclub shooting, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Sweeney told a federal judge in Oakland.

Seems you do not know what evidence is
And you claim to be a lawyer?

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:25 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Honestly didge, don't you know an allegation from a fact. The word I used, quite advisedly, was PROOF. And you give me: federal prosecutors said...

Don't you even know what an adversarial legal system is?? Obviously, one side says one thing, and the other side says another thing. PROOF comes at trial, afterwards. Each side is a co-equal litigant. What they say in out-of-court statements are puff...allegations. Of course, to the press they are going to give lots of spin...they are trying to influence the jury pool. And you buy it?

Back to school, kid.

Yes i do know h difference especially when said person has confessed

She admitted knowing Mateen left their house with a firearm and a backpack full of ammunition before the Pulse nightclub shooting, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Sweeney told a federal judge in Oakland.

Seems you do not know what evidence is
And you claim to be a lawyer?

What confession? The federal prosecutors are conflating an incidental fact (firearms in a backpack) with their own theory of the case. That's what lawyer's do in legal argument...conflate, twist and exaggerate. Do you know how many guys in America walk out the door with a firearm, and their wife knows it? THINK: Second Amendment! This is America, fgs. And the lawyers' testimony is not even under oath...nor could it be, as legal representatives cannot testify in their own case.

BUT, it's for the jury to make the ultimate connection. What the lawyers say is puff, didge. It's because of guys like you, making assumptions like that, that we need such rigorous rules of evidence. You would certainly not qualify for the legal profession.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes i do know h difference especially when said person has confessed

She admitted knowing Mateen left their house with a firearm and a backpack full of ammunition before the Pulse nightclub shooting, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Sweeney told a federal judge in Oakland.

Seems you do not know what evidence is
And you claim to be a lawyer?

What confession? The federal prosecutors are conflating an incidental fact (firearms in a backpack) with their own theory of the case. That's what lawyer's do in legal argument...conflate, twist and exaggerate. Do you know how many guys in America walk out the door with a firearm, and their wife knows it? THINK: Second Amendment! This is America, fgs. And the lawyers' testimony is not even under oath...nor could it be, as legal representatives cannot testify in their own case.

BUT, it's for the jury to make the ultimate connection. What the lawyers say is puff, didge. It's because of guys like you, making assumptions like that, that we need such rigorous rules of evidence. You would certainly not qualify for the legal profession.

She has admitted as seen through her own admission to him going out armed.
She has thus previously lied about this to the media and the FBI
It seems you are defending an Islamist extremist, which is odd.
I have no doubt the Jury will find her guilty based on the evidence.

Lets see who is right shall we Quill and lets not forget how many innocent people were murdered in this incident

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:19 pm

Thorin wrote:She has admitted as seen through her own admission to him going out armed.

Everybody in America does that. It's legal to have a firearm in Florida. That's like saying 'she has admitted to seeing him carrying a wallet.'

Thorin wrote:She has thus previously lied about this to the media and the FBI

Show me the order of conviction. It should be on-line if it is a Federal Court record. There is no crime for false statements to the media...Trump would be in prison if there were. There is admittedly a law for lying to a federal officer, but again, show me the conviction. Again, federal authorities are co-equal litigants. Need proof...and then a conviction.

Thorin wrote:It seems you are defending an Islamist extremist, which is odd.

I don't know what an "extremist" is; is there a code? I would be proud to defend a Muslim, particularly if s/he were innocent. But even if she were not, she is entitled to an attorney under the America system.

Thorin wrote:I have no doubt the Jury will find her guilty based on the evidence.

A total value statement...no need to comment.

Thorin wrote:Lets see who is right shall we Quill and lets not forget how many innocent people were murdered in this incident

Two entirely different questions: 1) how many were murdered (and were they innocent)?; and 2) who did it? You are not suggesting we just lock up any old person, are you?

If she is guilty of aiding and abetting her husband, a jury will convict her; if she is innocent, a jury will acquit. That's the way the system works.

by eddie Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:22 pm

See I'd make a crap lawyer. I keep changing my mind every time I read opposing views/facts on a thread!

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:24 pm

1) So they initially lie to the media and Police do they?
Odd, hence why she has been charged, which you seem to be missing at every turn. She has again admitted to lying, by the fact she now admits that he was heavily armed. Do you know many people that go out into public that heavily armed not intent on violence? She clearly failed to warn people.

2) You would be proud to defend a Muslim particularly if they were innocent? So you clearly would be proud to defend them if guilty?
Wow, very interesting to know. So why would you be proud to defend someone guilty?

3) If she was complicit to the murder in its planning or also knew of the planning and failed to warn the authorities. You do understand "The Duty to Warn" in US law?

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:44 pm

Thorin wrote:1) So they initially lie to the media and Police do they?

Who said that? Sounds like a universal declaration, which can't be true.

Thorin wrote:Odd, hence why she has been charged, which you seem to be missing at every turn. She has again admitted to lying, by the fact she now admits that he was heavily armed.

Again, charging is an allegation, not a conviction. Only a jury can convict.

Where did she lie? If it was true she said she saw him, and he did in fact walk out "heavily armed', sounds like she was telling the truth. Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors 2190311264

Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors 2190311264

Can you point to proof of a contrary statement...and not according to a co-litigant like the police. Right now their story is all spin. We would need a written statement or a film clip specifically showing her saying she did not see him walk out "heavily armed". A lie and retraction is a contradiction, and that requires two statements.

Thorin wrote:2) You would be proud to defend a Muslim particularly if they were innocent? So you clearly would be proud to defend them if guilty?
Wow, very interesting to know. So why would you be proud to defend someone guilty?

Because everyone is entitled to an attorney under the US Constitution.

Thorin wrote:3) If she was complicit to the murder in its planning or also knew of the planning and failed to warn the authorities. You do understand "The Duty to Warn" in US law?

Certainly...that will be the government's case to prove. So far, they claim she aided and abetted, bur can't prove it; they claim she lied, but they can't produce two contradictory statements; they claim she knew, but they can't prove state-of-mind with what little and confusing evidence they have. Tough mountain to climb there.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:49 pm

1) Why would he be heavily armed going out, when he is not working at his security job and at such a later hour of the night? You are evading answering why?
Can you explain why someone would need all that ammunition and guns going out into the public? She has admitted that he did and you are telling me she never asked to question him why?

Not only that in the 10 days before the attack, the couple spent $30,000, mostly on credit cards, including $8,000 for a one-karat diamond ring for Ms. Salman, Ms. Sweeney alleged. Mr. Mateen’s annual salary was about $30,000, she said.

In the weeks leading up the attack, Mr. Mateen added Ms. Salman as a beneficiary on his bank account, Ms. Sweeney said.

2) Are you also telling me she was unaware of his views to ISIS and he kept them secret and all the while sharing a home together?

3) Yes I know they are entitled to an attorney, you though said you would be proud, eluding to even if they were guilty and failed to reason why. So why would you be proud?

4) It will be the case to prove and it will be down to the Jury to decide, which is why I said to you lets wait and see how this pans out.

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:09 pm

Thorin wrote:1) Why would he be heavily armed going out, when he is not working at his security job and at such a later hour of the night? You are evading answering why?

Define 'heavily armed". When he walked out of the house I understand he had firearms, but I don't have an inventory at that time. These are logical questions that need to be asked. That's what a jury is for.

Thorin wrote:Can you explain why someone would need all that ammunition and guns going out into the public? She has admitted that he did and you are telling me she never asked to question him why?

How much ammunition did he walk out with? Do you have an inventory at the time she witnessed it, substantiated by an affidavit of custodian? A jury would need to see that in proper evidentiary form.

Thorin wrote:Not only that in the 10 days before the attack, the couple spent $30,000, mostly on credit cards, including $8,000 for a one-karat diamond ring for Ms. Salman, Ms. Sweeney alleged. Mr. Mateen’s annual salary was about $30,000, she said.

The couple? I didn't know there were even two signature lines on credit card vouchers. How do they intend to prove that it was both of them, given that her allegations are separate? The mountain gets steeper.

Thorin wrote:In the weeks leading up the attack, Mr. Mateen added Ms. Salman as a beneficiary on his bank account, Ms. Sweeney said.

I think there's no question about Mr. Mateen.

Thorin wrote:2) Are you also telling me she was unaware of his views to ISIS and he kept them secret and all the while sharing a home together?

I've seen no evidence of that specifically. Perhaps they have some that they will present to the jury.

I will say this: I look up a lot of things on Google, largely because you or someone else start a thread on it. It doesn't mean I"m that interested; maybe I just want clarification. Was he interested in ISIS (OMG, I just triggered the NSA search? Are you now a suspect?) It's all pretty loose... and words can be stretched to mean anything. That's what I mean when I say attorneys twist, exaggerate and mismatch (conflate). You can't take allegations and turn it into fact right off.

Thorin wrote:3) Yes I know they are entitled to an attorney, you though said you would be proud, eluding to even if they were guilty and failed to reason why. So why would you be proud?

Because it's a needed, vital service in a society governed by laws.

Thorin wrote:4) It will be the case to prove and it will be down to the Jury to decide, which is why I said to you lets wait and see how this pans out.

I agree.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:21 pm

1) Well he had an Sig Sauer MCX rifle and a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol. We know he killed 49 people and injured 53. He had fired at least 110 rounds of ammunition. Now the defense claims the wife thought it was normal based on his security job. Come on, how many security Guards do you know that are this armed to the teeth? Let alone he was not working. Also from his car, "hundreds of rounds" were found along with a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver; this gun was not used in the shooting.

The fact he was so heavily armed and she did not inform the Police is very suspicious in itself, especially armed in the manner he was and at the late hour.

2) As to the money they spent, clearly they have the details from the credit cards, but again this is avoiding the point on why thy spent so much money in a short space of time before the shooting.

3) Now again looking up things on google is one thing, but if he was clearly and believe he was an ISIS operative. Then clearly some of his views on their Islamic doctrine would have come through whilst living together. So even if he was not open supporting ISIS, clearly she must have witnessed ways he viewed this extreme form of Islam. Those indoctrinated with ISIS Islamic ideology give tell tell signs as to how there views on Islam change. I would find it very strange he kept this from his wife, especially in connection to the money being spent.

4) That is still not answering why you would be proud to represent someone guilty

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:34 pm

Thorin wrote:1) Well he had an Sig Sauer MCX rifle and a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol. We know he killed 49 people and injured 53. He had roughly around 264 rounds of ammunition. Now the defense claims the wife thought it was normal based on his security job. Come on, how many security Guards do you know that are this armed to the teeth? Let alone he was not working.

You are jumping to the Pulse Nightclub? I thought we were talking about what she witnessed when he walked out the door. I haven't seen the verified inventory.

Thorin wrote:The fact he was so heavily armed and she did not inform the Police is very suspicious in itself, especially armed in the manner he was and at the late hour.

Didn't he work as a security guard or something? Anyway, lots of people own guns.

Thorin wrote:2) As to the money they spent, clearly they have the details from the credit cards, but again this is avoiding the point on why thy spent so much money in a short space of time before the shooting.

I thought we were talking about her, specifically. How are they going to prove that she participated in the purchases, or that she knew what they were for? Unanswered questions that a jury will ask.

Thorin wrote:3) Now again looking up things on google is one thing, but if he was clearly and believe he was an ISIS operative. Then clearly some of his views on their Islamic doctrine would have come through whilst living together. So even if he was not open supporting ISIS, clearly she must have witnessed ways he viewed this extreme form of Islam. Those indoctrinated with ISIS Islamic ideology give tell tell signs as to how there views on Islam change. I would find it very strange he kept this from his wife, especially in connection to the money being spent.

Do they have proof of that? I don't know. Does it matter what his "views" were? The crime was more specific. I would have to see the evidence. But unless she saw specific and clear plans that he was writing about, it's just smoke as to charges against her. I've even heard you say you can't be guilty by your associations with someone. As you can see, the government will have to get down to real specifics in this area, because she was married to him. I mean, it sounds kinda lame to say, she musta seen him!

Thorin wrote:4) That is still not answering why you would be proud to represent someone guilty

Why? What do you find wrong with that reason? One should be proud to participate in the political and legal processes of one's nation.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:39 pm

1) She admitted to him being heavily armed. Why would you need to see an inventory, when she admitted to this? You are thus evading the point that she has stated that he was. So why again at such an hour did she not call the Police, if we are led to believe she is innocent. As again who goes out that late armed to the teeth?

2) Yes lots of people own guns, but do they go out late at night armed with an assault rifle and armed to the teeth?

3) Well clearly if the credit cards are in both their names and they have the ring worth 8,000 might be a dead give away to the fact she has the ring.

4) I never said I had proof, I am asking you on this, which you seem incapable of answering, so try again. Now again looking up things on google is one thing, but if he was clearly and believe he was an ISIS operative. Then clearly some of his views on their Islamic doctrine would have come through whilst living together. So even if he was not open supporting ISIS, clearly she must have witnessed ways he viewed this extreme form of Islam. Those indoctrinated with ISIS Islamic ideology give tell tell signs as to how there views on Islam change. I would find it very strange he kept this from his wife, especially in connection to the money being spent.

5) I am asking why you would b proud to represent someone guilty. For example hypothetically, would you be proud to represent Pol Pot?

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:17 pm

Thorin wrote:1) She admitted to him being heavily armed.

Again, define "heavily armed". I know a F-35 is heavily armed. But is a man with a .25 cal. handgun? It's imprecise. A jury would want to know.

Thorin wrote: Why would you need to see an inventory, when she admitted to this?

"Heavily?" She admitted to an adjective? Law deals with facts, not adjectives. Adjectives are for closing arguments. An inventory would specify what exactly is being factually testified to.

Thorin wrote:You are thus evading the point that she has stated that he was. So why again at such an hour did she not call the Police, if we are led to believe she is innocent. As again who goes out that late armed to the teeth?

Armed to the teeth, was he? What does that man? Sounds like an attorney trying to avoid the inventory of the weapons as he was walking out the door. What exactly did she witness? It's a case against her. What is she guilty of?

Torin wrote:2) Yes lots of people own guns, but do they go out late at night armed with an assault rifle and armed to the teeth?

I haven't seen the inventory of what she saw as he walked out the door. Do you know for a fact that he had an assault rifle as he walked out the door. How can you prove she saw it? Remember, it's the case against her: what did she know, and how did she know it? That's what the government has to prove.

Thorin wrote:3) Well clearly if the credit cards are in both their names and they have the ring worth 8,000 might be a dead give away to the fact she has the ring.

What does that have to do with aiding and abetting the shooting at the Pulse Nightclub?

I think husbands and wives often share credit cards. How would that prove her state-of-mind as to what she observed when he walked out the door, and what did she know? I think the credit card purchases lead nowhere.

Thorin wrote:4) I never said I had poor, I am asking you on this, which you seem incapable of answering, so try again.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Thorin wrote:Now again looking up things on google is one thing, but if he was clearly and believe he was an ISIS operative.

What is an ISIS operative and how does that fit into a shooting at a gay nightclub? How do you prove she even knows about his contacts with ISIS, if any?

Thorin wrote:Then clearly some of his views on their Islamic doctrine would have come through whilst living together. So even if he was not open supporting ISIS, clearly she must have witnessed ways he viewed this extreme form of Islam. Those indoctrinated with ISIS Islamic ideology give tell tell signs as to how there views on Islam change. I would find it very strange he kept this from his wife, especially in connection to the money being spent.

You want to convict her of having "tell tell" signs regarding the thoughts of her husband? Her husband shot up a nightclub...how does she aid and abet that by observing what he was doing on the computer? How do you even prove she knew what he was doing on the computer?

Thorin wrote:5) I am asking why you would b proud to represent someone guilty. For example hypothetically, would you be proud to represent Pol Pot?

Many legal scholars and professors of law were recruited to represent the defendants at the Nuremberg Trials. You gain a sense of pride in knowing that your craftsmanship contributed to a just outcome.

A lawyer is not responsible for the acts of his client. But if he (the lawyer) does a good job, and the client is convicted notwithstanding, the good job of the lawyer is reflected in the assurance that justice was done. Compare: if the lawyer did a sloppy job, then questions will always come up whether the justice system worked. You are not sharing the guilt of your client; you are assuring that he has had benefit of all of his rights...and indirectly, that the entire system is sound.

A mason is proud he built a good wall. An attorney is proud he built a good justice system.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:

Again, define "heavily armed". I know a F-35 is heavily armed. But is a man with a .25 cal. handgun? It's imprecise. A jury would want to know.

"Heavily?" She admitted to an adjective? Law deals with facts, not adjectives. Adjectives are for closing arguments. An inventory would specify what exactly is being factually testified to.

Armed to the teeth, was he? What does that man? Sounds like an attorney trying to avoid the inventory of the weapons as he was walking out the door. What exactly did she witness? It's a case against her. What is she guilty of?

I haven't seen the inventory of what she saw as he walked out the door. Do you know for a fact that he had an assault rifle as he walked out the door. How can you prove she saw it? Remember, it's the case against her: what did she know, and how did she know it? That's what the government has to prove.

What does that have to do with aiding and abetting the shooting at the Pulse Nightclub?

I think husbands and wives often share credit cards. How would that prove her state-of-mind as to what she observed when he walked out the door, and what did she know? I think the credit card purchases lead nowhere.
I don't know what you are talking about.
[
What is an ISIS operative and how does that fit into a shooting at a gay nightclub? How do you prove she even knows about his contacts with ISIS, if any?

You want to convict her of having "tell tell" signs regarding the thoughts of her husband? Her husband shot up a nightclub...how does she aid and abet that by observing what he was doing on the computer? How do you proves she knew what he was doing on the computer?

Many legal scholars and professors of law were recruited to represent the defendants at the Nuremberg Trials. You gain a sense of pride in knowing that your craftsmanship contributed to a just outcome.

A lawyer is not responsible for the acts of his client. But if he (the lawyer) does a good job, and the client is convicted notwithstanding, the good job of the lawyer is reflected in the assurance that justice was done. Compare: if the lawyer did a sloppy job, then questions will always come up whether the justice system worked. You are not sharing the guilt of your client; you are assuring that he has had benefit of all of his rights...and indirectly, that the entire system is sound.

A mason is proud he built a good wall. An attorney is proud he built a good justice system.

Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors E8e6f829_circular_argumentmid

When you actually answer my points, we will continue

Thanks

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:25 pm

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:Non sequitur.

I lost interest after you refused repeatedly to answer points and do as you always do offer up misdirection

So I shall just await for the outcome of the trial.

The daftest was your point on heavily armed.

Just lots of wishy washy lawyer crap

Laughing

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:38 pm

You didn't lose interest. You failed to keep up.

There's a difference between losing interest, and losing track. That's why there are rules of evidence, rules of order and rules of procedure. People are not always logical, and want to drift off into their own whims and whiffs. 'Heavily armed"? "Armed to the teeth"? "She had to know..." What do those expressions mean? Stick to the facts. By following rules people will stay on track.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:You didn't lose interest. You failed to keep up.

There's a difference between losing interest, and losing track. That's why there are rules of evidence, rules of order and rules of procedure. People are not always logical, and want to drift off into their own whims and whiffs. 'Heavily armed"? "Armed to the teeth"? "She had to know..." What do those expressions mean? Stick to the facts. By following rules people will stay on track.

No when I have repeatedly asked you points on for example where she has admitted to him leaving heavily armed, and you use misdirection to answer the points, as if I am the opposing lawyer, is boring. Its just you using cheap lawyer tricks to get out of answering my points. I asked on this if people would not want to call the police and if it was not strange, you though went into lawyer mode avoiding possibilities.
I lose interest and the debate stops all because you simply cannot answer Quill
I asked for your views on points and then you fired back with deflections questions and did so in over 5 replies, of which I have zero interest.
She is on trial, not mee

by Tommy Monk Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:51 pm

She was also with him on some of his recon drives up to the club wasn't she...!?

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:13 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:You didn't lose interest. You failed to keep up.

There's a difference between losing interest, and losing track. That's why there are rules of evidence, rules of order and rules of procedure. People are not always logical, and want to drift off into their own whims and whiffs. 'Heavily armed"? "Armed to the teeth"? "She had to know..." What do those expressions mean? Stick to the facts. By following rules people will stay on track.

No when I have repeatedly asked you points on for example where she has admitted to him leaving heavily armed, and you use misdirection to answer the points, as if I am the opposing lawyer, is boring. Its just you using cheap lawyer tricks to get out of answering my points. I asked on this if people would not want to call the police and if it was not strange, you though went into lawyer mode avoiding possibilities.
I lose interest and the debate stops all because you simply cannot answer Quill
I asked for your views on points and then you fired back with deflections questions and did so in over 5 replies, of which I have zero interest.
She is on trial, not mee

Unfortunately didge, you have asked for nothing. You have been unclear and imprecise. Case dismissed! Laughing

Gotta go. I've got a transit committee meeting.

by Sponsored content

Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors

Re: Florida nightclub gunman’s widow knew of his plan: US prosecutors