Terry Mauro Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 (edited) Anytime Colby comes up with "evidence" attempting to prove me wrong, it's best to do some checking to see if it's really true or not. Jose Trias was on a list of murdered micro biologists .. It was never mentioned on that list that he was not a scientist, but rather a lawyer who obviously knew too much about top secret programs and allegeldy decided to share that information with a "friend" the day before he and his wife were brutally murdered. The fact that your sources research was so poor he did not know what Trias' profession was shows him not to be credible. Then Colby decided to make the Trias murders appear to be just a run of the mill armed robbery, with a suspect already proven guilty .. NOT TRUE, as proven by the information he decided not to post here.Double-murder conviction of Arnold man is overturned New trial ordered in deaths of lawyers July 31, 1996|By Scott Wilson | Scott Wilson,SUN STAFF The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned yesterday the double-murder conviction of Scotland E. Williams, ordering a new trial for the condemned Arnold man in the May 1994 slayings of two prominent Washington lawyers. The state's highest court ruled unanimously that Williams was unfairly convicted last year on charges that he murdered Jose Trias and his wife, Julie Gilbert. The two were found dead in their Annapolis weekend home, hand-cuffed and shot in the head. "Mr. Williams is once again presumed to be innocent," said Michael Braudes, a public defender who argued the Williams case before the Court of Appeals. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-07-31/news/1996213008_1_williams-case-anne-arundel-court-of-appeals "NEWS Son said he had slaying victims' bank cards, mother testifies Williams being retried in 1994 double slaying By Andrea F. Siegel | Andrea F. Siegel,SUN STAFF | May 14, 1998 Scotland E. Williams, accused in a double killing, told his mother he had bank cards belonging to the victims a day or so after their bodies were discovered, the woman testified yesterday. Rosezelma J. Williams told an Anne Arundel Circuit Court jury that her son, who was staying at her Arnold home, also said he had gotten a car from "a parking lot or something" and taken it to Baltimore.Prosecutors are trying to show that the automated teller machine cards belonged to Jose E. Trias, 49, and Julie Noel Gilbert, 48, lawyers who were found dead May 16, 1994, in their weekend home in Winchester on the Severn. Much more here... http://articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/trias/recent/3 I was unaware of the conviction had been overturned. The decion was based on technicalities, Duane omitted the following from the 1st linked article: The appeals courtruled that Anne Arundel Circuit Judge Eugene M. Lerner made three crucial mistakes during the trial: He did not allow defense attorneys enough latitude in challenging the credibility of DNA evidence. He allowed prosecutors to question a defense witness about his juvenile crime record. He should not have allowed the prosecution to admit a pry bar and a can of Mace into evidence. He was later found guilty again and that conviction withstood appeal: An appeals court panel upheld yesterday the murder convictions and life without parole sentences of Scotland E. Williams, who was convicted of killing two lawyers in their waterfront retreat outside Annapolis in 1994. Anne Arundel County prosecutors, who had retried the high-profile case in which they had initially won the death penalty only to lose it on retrial, said they were pleased with the Court of Special Appeals opinion, which was not unanimous. Williams was convicted of fatally shooting and robbing Washington- area lawyers Jose E. Trias, 49, and Julie N. Gilbert, 48, his wife, in what police suspected was one of several burglaries Williams committed in the area around their Severn River-front home. He received two sentences of life without parole plus 70 years. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/52622419.html?dids=52622419:52622419&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+13,+2000&author=Andrea+F.+Siegel&pub=The+Sun&desc=Court+upholds+convictions,+sentencing+in+1994+killings;+Divided+ruling+says+little+about+key+objections+from+Williams'+defense&pqatl=google He admitted to forcing them to give him their bank cards and PIN numbers then using the cards and stealing their car. But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed. And there was more evidence: County police Detective Ed Stratton first recognized [scotland E. Williams] on a wanted poster, which police made from the bank surveillance video. After the suspect was arrested, Stratton discovered a key piece of evidence. He had obtained - and kept - a photocopy of Williams' shoe print after arresting him in a earlier burglary. It turned out that that shoe print matched one found in the victims' kitchen. "We happened to be talking about [the shoe print in the kitchen]. Stratton went out to the trunk of his car and came back with the photocopy 30 seconds later," said [Jeff Cover], who described Stratton as the behind-the-scenes star of the case." http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/94200875.html?dids=94200875:94200875&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+09,+2001&author=Laura+Barnhardt&pub=The+Sun&desc=Arundel+police+unit+to+be+featured+on+cable+TV+show+;+Episode+to+focus+on+1994+murder+case&pqatl=google So yes they were murdered for a reason Scotland Williams wanted their money. These are some technicalities! That's funny, "technicalities" I was unaware of the conviction had been overturned. The decion was based on technicalities, Duane omitted the following from the 1st linked article: The appeals courtruled that Anne Arundel Circuit Judge Eugene M. Lerner made three crucial mistakes during the trial: He did not allow defense attorneys enough latitude in challenging the credibility of DNA evidence. He allowed prosecutors to question a defense witness about his juvenile crime record. He should not have allowed the prosecution to admit a pry bar and a can of Mace into evidence Then you write: He admitted to forcing them to give him their bank cards and PIN numbers then using the cards and stealing their car. But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed The robbery victims "never" called the police to report their automobile, and bank cards stolen?! Is that what youre saying? I wonder why the defendant admitted to a crime never reported? Was he represented by an attorney? You have to wonder why a defendant would confess to a crime that was never reported by the victims. Furthermore why would the victims not report their car and bank cards being stolen? If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that? Otherwise does this seem like reasonable behavior to you? Edited October 14, 2010 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 People like Lewis and Colby, etc. can deny the existance of chemtrails all they like, but the evidence proves they are not only real, but of grave concern to many citizens around the world. Since this forum is based in the UK, the readers here might find these letters, from these concerned citizens, interesting. Topic: Letter published in Shropshire Star, Feb 19th 2010. On February 19th 2010, the Shropshire Star published Robert Wilson Stapeley's letter regarding Chemtrails under the title 'Mystery Of The Trails Crossing Our Skies'. This letter was sent to the opinion, comment and letter pages of local Shropshire newspapers and all national ones on Feb 5th 2010. Shortly, I will scan this letter as published in the newspaper to this group. The original letter is posted below, their is a difference but in all fairness, they have done a fair job. A comment was received from Andy Simpson, the Daily Mail Letters editor, on Feb 8th 2010, which read: "Perhaps that's why we British call the[m] vapour trails and don't get paranoid about them." Please read the below correspondence in full, it makes interesting reading and quite frankly made Mr. Simpson look rather foolish and ignorant. The response to Mr. Simpson was also sent, in edited format, to all of the original papers that the original letter was sent to, a few days later and before the Shropshire Star published the original. The originial letter: "An area of study which has recently become of interest to me is that of ‘chemtrails, the controversial dark side of aircraft ‘contrails’. This issue is a very controversial one indeed with theories ranging from the sinister to that of covert and classified environmental protection and preservation to completely innocent and natural aviation engine output into the atmosphere. However, it has become a serious concern to professionals and amateurs alike. Indeed, experienced commercial pilots, military personnel and other qualified observers say the phenomena they are observing are not normal contrails. A contrail is the natural output of aircrafts, depending on atmospheric conditions - short lived condensation or water vapour trails emitted by aircraft which dissipate and disappear within seconds to a few minutes. The issue that is arising today, which first reared its head in the 1990’s, and is now widespread over the internet, in books, documentaries and even movies, is that of persistent trails of water ‘vapour’ from aircraft that last for hours, by unmarked aircraft in our skies. This may or may not be natural with technological advances and engine design (but this is denied by official bodies) but what is certainly not natural are the X patterns being left which can sometimes be seen when these aircraft ‘contrails’ intersect. Indeed, more worrying are the chess board trails or large grids which interlace our skies in somewhat perfect formation, and over hours turn what were clear blue skies into think, hazy, and densely “cloudy” ones. This phenomena is not generally discussed in the media, although seldomly, but is being noticed more and more and is making quite an impact on the internet and lecture circuits. It is these totally unnatural and extremely long lasting formations in our skies that have become known as chemtrails (chemical trails), as opposed to contrails (condensation trails) Some believe they are perpetrated by shadowy elements within our government and military for reasons unknown. Let’s face it, its known and undisputed that our government have conducted clandestine airborne biological and chemical testing, without our consent, on the general populace and even their very own military personnel, since the 1930’s. Some believe it to be weather modification experimentation (which our military have conducted) to possibly slowdown global warming or the sinister belief of nationwide mass involuntary medication for population control or dumbing-down. (Well, they do put the toxin Fluoride in our water, Aspartame in our soft drinks, MSG in our food, etc). I do not know the answer and will not speculate but what is known is that this phenomena is happening in our skies and is certainly not natural or even legal, aviationally speaking, when looked at regarding the flight paths creating these X or chess board formations that are deliberately being formed above us. Who else has noticed this? How often do we look up and really engage what is going on above our heads? For those interested I would respectfully draw peoples attention to the free online documentary, ‘Don’t Talk About The Weather’ and the works, websites, lectures, books and articles of the British researchers Andrew Johnson BSc and Phillip Morris and of the acclaimed award winning Canadian journalist William Thomas, and US scientist and former federal employee Clifford E. Carnicom. The truth is ‘up’ there and truth certainly does not fear investigation. I would welcome comment on this subject and can be contacted at ‘ctnewsletteruk@hotmail.co.uk’ Robert Wilson Stapeley Telford, Shropshire After Mr. Simpsons response, the below letter was sent in reply to which there has, as yet, been no reply. As mentioned above, the below was also sent in edited format, to all of the original papers that the original letter was sent to, a few days later and before the Shropshire Star published the original. Dear Mr. Simpson, Firstly, let me thank you for your kind and quick response, although I am a bit perplexed by it. Secondly, let me apologize in advance for such a long reply but I think it necessary in the interests of fairness, and I truly hope you read this in full and take me up on my offer. If you do so, in truth, what you are going to hear is not outrageous at all. It just appears to be so because it is so different from the conditioned “norm.” Was it not orthodox opinion that once held the earth to be flat? Sadly, for many out there, the truth was held in a quote from ‘A Scandal in Bohemia’ in 1892, that reads, "You see, but you do not observe." What exactly do you mean by ”we British”, as in all inclusive, when increasing numbers of us here in the United Kingdom are noticing this augmented output of chess board style patterns by unmarked aircraft? Not only is that very strange in itself, but also the fact that they defy legal avianational flight paths, and in regard unnaturally last for hours as opposed to minutes. "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein. I could agree somewhat if these were just singular and random but what I and many others are witnessing, as expressed in my letter, are these deliberate formations, as the attached photos clearly show. Surely, you can view this as odd? Also, I don’t think that pointing out this information, and questions relating, renders one “paranoid.” This certainly isn’t an ‘American’ thing, and by no means only picked up on by tin-foil hat wearers. Indeed, as I point out in my letter - it has become a serious concern to professionals and amateurs alike - experienced commercial pilots, military personnel and other qualified observers say the phenomena they are observing are not normal contrails. A case in point, to name a few, are British software engineer and college lecturer Andrew D. Johnson BSc, acclaimed award winning Canadian journalist and pilot William Thomas, and US research scientist, computer consultant and former federal employee Clifford E. Carnicom. I am not saying that something sinister is happening, it could be for the benefit of the planet, but I do think that this phenomena should be addressed and as such I wanted to generate discussion – even giving an email address to contact me by the general public, for those that are interested regardless of their take on it. On a side note, as regard to me mentioning weather modification or geo-engineering experimentation, this has been confirmed by the military in this country – see for example cloud seeding and Project Cumulus, etc, as a small example, and the London Daily Express article of October 9th 2005, ‘Weather War?’ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1061). And as regard to the comment I make about nationwide invasive mass-medication and biological testing on an unsuspecting and un-consenting public (which may be construed as fanciful conspiracy theories by those who have not looked into it for themselves), I would draw your attention to the April 21, 2002 Observer article ‘Millions were in germ war tests’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience), the numerous BBC articles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/426154.stm) on illegal Porton Down human experimentation and the absolutely shocking number of biological tests, also detailed in the above article, carried out on the British population as human guinea pigs in the 2004 ITV programme ‘Top Secrets Revealed’ and the Nov 2006 BBC Inside Out programme, ‘Clouds of Secrecy’. In these are far to many experiments to mention here, needless to say that they were carried out in our skies and on our streets and even on occupied civilian trains and on underground factory workers – these can be viewed freely online. I won’t even go into Aspartame, MSG, Bisphenol A and Ritalin, or the toxin Fluoride (with which the Nazi’s used to sedate concentration camp victims) which even organised groups of MP’s, dentists and medical professionals are speaking out against. It might simply be bio-warfare simulation testing on unknowing citizens, which has happened in the past. Could these tests on the unsuspecting public still be something that is being carried out today? Did it indeed stop in 1979? Knowing this, it isn’t quite so easy to brush someone off, or their questions, as being simply delusional paranoia. As for Porton Down, who truly knows the depths to which they have descended for bio-chemical-technological warfare research purposes? Sure, the deplorable and scandalous information that is, for example, coming to public attention in various BBC ‘News’ stories is evidence enough of sinister affairs. Are thry on going after the military say such things stopped in 1979? Could Chemtrails be an extention of such tests? When asked if such tests are still being carried out, spokesperson for Porton Down, Sue Ellison said: ‘It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.’ Indeed, Bruce George MP, and Chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, told BBC News on August 20, 1999 that: "I would not say that the Defence Committee is micro-managing either DERA or Porton Down. We visit it, but, with eleven members of Parliament and five staff covering a labyrinthine department like the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces, it would be quite erroneous of me and misleading for me to say that we know everything that’s going on in Porton Down. It’s too big for us to know, and secondly, there are many things happening there that I’m not even certain Ministers are fully aware of, let alone Parliamentarians." It Is true that, ‘when it comes to intelligence matters, even our Prime Minister is only briefed on a need to know basis.’ I have noticed, as have many others, something very strange happening directly above our heads and because I don’t have all the answers, or for that matter may be ridiculed by the unthinking majority, I am not simply one to brush it off as the delusional ramblings of a paranoid and happily go back and join the sleeping majority content with waiting for the next episode of Coronation Street. Conversely, I am also not one to simply believe the first thing I am told, for as it was quoted of Sherlock Holmes in 1892 as suitably stating, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Facts, as Aldous Huxley correctly pointed out, do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored and I believe it was the pilgrim of peace, Mahatma Gandhi, who aptly stated, “Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” I understand all too well that most will continue on heavy doses of ignorance to maintain their inability to grasp reality and even Sir Winston Churchill once said that "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." Whether you print my letter or not, I truly hope that you will not simply dismiss it. Don’t take my word for it, look into it for yourself. I think it is important and worth discussion at the very least, and I think it would generate considerable comment, whether people agree or not – this, is it not, are what the opinion and letter pages are for? And, as a reader of your newspaper, I would hope you consider, as you do others, that my letter be taken seriously. I have always said, and truly believe, that one cannot form an open, educated, unbiased and rationale opinion on any subject unless they have both sides of a story and truth does not fear investigation, no matter who it may offend. And in respect of that, I would like to draw your attention to two documentaries, one being the independent ‘British’ documentary ‘Don’t Talk About The Weather’ and the other by Mr. Carnicom mentioned above called ‘Aerosol Crimes (aka Chemtrails)’. Both of which I am more than happy to send you for your own viewing. By all means, dismiss this, but not until such time as after processing their information. Furthermore, this issue has even been brought up in the European Parliament by Erik Meijer and even mentioned in legislative bill HR.2977, as introduced on the floor of the House of Representatives, by U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Even the Discovery Channel have taken interest in this, but their bias was exposed by Dr. Stephen C. L'Hommedieu (Discovery Channel "Best Evidence" Chemtrail Coverage: Revealing or Concealing?). There is even an online UK based petition (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Chemtrail-Sprays/) collecting signatures to formally request government officials to investigate Chemtrails. In additional to the two documentaries I recommend, I would draw your attention to ‘version 1.1 June 2007’ of the ‘British’ report, attached, entitled ‘Illegal Aerosol Spraying Operations over United Kingdom Airspace: Request for Immediate, Serious and Candid Study by DoE, CAA and the RAF.’ Arthur Schopenhauer once exclaimed that “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” And I concur. I do highly recommend that you, at the very least, read the attached report, and view the two abovementioned documentaries which I am more than happy to send you on DVD (‘Don’t Talk About The Weather’ and ‘Aerosol Crimes (aka Chemtrails)’). I fully respect your potential decision to not print my letter (although I would hope it to generate comment via the giving of my email address). And I would even respect your opinion if you dismiss the notion of Chemtrails, but I hope you would be open enough to at least do so once having ‘both sides of a story’ with the recommendations and offer I propose. An apt statement from 1859 by John Stuart Mill’s will sum this up nicely, "However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as dead dogma, not a living truth" Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and as George Orwell pertinently exclaimed, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." Indeed, Angela Monet is also fittingly quoted as saying, “Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music.” I sincerely thank you for your time. Kind regards, Robert Wilson Stapeley. Telford, Shropshire. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=331879146773&topic=12660 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 Anytime Colby comes up with "evidence" attempting to prove me wrong, it's best to do some checking to see if it's really true or not. Jose Trias was on a list of murdered micro biologists .. It was never mentioned on that list that he was not a scientist, but rather a lawyer who obviously knew too much about top secret programs and allegeldy decided to share that information with a "friend" the day before he and his wife were brutally murdered. The fact that your sources research was so poor he did not know what Trias' profession was shows him not to be credible. Then Colby decided to make the Trias murders appear to be just a run of the mill armed robbery, with a suspect already proven guilty .. NOT TRUE, as proven by the information he decided not to post here.Double-murder conviction of Arnold man is overturned New trial ordered in deaths of lawyers July 31, 1996|By Scott Wilson | Scott Wilson,SUN STAFF The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned yesterday the double-murder conviction of Scotland E. Williams, ordering a new trial for the condemned Arnold man in the May 1994 slayings of two prominent Washington lawyers. The state's highest court ruled unanimously that Williams was unfairly convicted last year on charges that he murdered Jose Trias and his wife, Julie Gilbert. The two were found dead in their Annapolis weekend home, hand-cuffed and shot in the head. "Mr. Williams is once again presumed to be innocent," said Michael Braudes, a public defender who argued the Williams case before the Court of Appeals. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-07-31/news/1996213008_1_williams-case-anne-arundel-court-of-appeals "NEWS Son said he had slaying victims' bank cards, mother testifies Williams being retried in 1994 double slaying By Andrea F. Siegel | Andrea F. Siegel,SUN STAFF | May 14, 1998 Scotland E. Williams, accused in a double killing, told his mother he had bank cards belonging to the victims a day or so after their bodies were discovered, the woman testified yesterday. Rosezelma J. Williams told an Anne Arundel Circuit Court jury that her son, who was staying at her Arnold home, also said he had gotten a car from "a parking lot or something" and taken it to Baltimore.Prosecutors are trying to show that the automated teller machine cards belonged to Jose E. Trias, 49, and Julie Noel Gilbert, 48, lawyers who were found dead May 16, 1994, in their weekend home in Winchester on the Severn. Much more here... http://articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/trias/recent/3 I was unaware of the conviction had been overturned. The decion was based on technicalities, Duane omitted the following from the 1st linked article: The appeals courtruled that Anne Arundel Circuit Judge Eugene M. Lerner made three crucial mistakes during the trial: He did not allow defense attorneys enough latitude in challenging the credibility of DNA evidence. He allowed prosecutors to question a defense witness about his juvenile crime record. He should not have allowed the prosecution to admit a pry bar and a can of Mace into evidence. He was later found guilty again and that conviction withstood appeal: An appeals court panel upheld yesterday the murder convictions and life without parole sentences of Scotland E. Williams, who was convicted of killing two lawyers in their waterfront retreat outside Annapolis in 1994. Anne Arundel County prosecutors, who had retried the high-profile case in which they had initially won the death penalty only to lose it on retrial, said they were pleased with the Court of Special Appeals opinion, which was not unanimous. Williams was convicted of fatally shooting and robbing Washington- area lawyers Jose E. Trias, 49, and Julie N. Gilbert, 48, his wife, in what police suspected was one of several burglaries Williams committed in the area around their Severn River-front home. He received two sentences of life without parole plus 70 years. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/52622419.html?dids=52622419:52622419&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+13,+2000&author=Andrea+F.+Siegel&pub=The+Sun&desc=Court+upholds+convictions,+sentencing+in+1994+killings;+Divided+ruling+says+little+about+key+objections+from+Williams'+defense&pqatl=google He admitted to forcing them to give him their bank cards and PIN numbers then using the cards and stealing their car. But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed. And there was more evidence: County police Detective Ed Stratton first recognized [scotland E. Williams] on a wanted poster, which police made from the bank surveillance video. After the suspect was arrested, Stratton discovered a key piece of evidence. He had obtained - and kept - a photocopy of Williams' shoe print after arresting him in a earlier burglary. It turned out that that shoe print matched one found in the victims' kitchen. "We happened to be talking about [the shoe print in the kitchen]. Stratton went out to the trunk of his car and came back with the photocopy 30 seconds later," said [Jeff Cover], who described Stratton as the behind-the-scenes star of the case." http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/94200875.html?dids=94200875:94200875&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+09,+2001&author=Laura+Barnhardt&pub=The+Sun&desc=Arundel+police+unit+to+be+featured+on+cable+TV+show+;+Episode+to+focus+on+1994+murder+case&pqatl=google So yes they were murdered for a reason Scotland Williams wanted their money. These are some technicalities! That's funny, "technicalities" I was unaware of the conviction had been overturned. The decion was based on technicalities, Duane omitted the following from the 1st linked article: The appeals courtruled that Anne Arundel Circuit Judge Eugene M. Lerner made three crucial mistakes during the trial: He did not allow defense attorneys enough latitude in challenging the credibility of DNA evidence. He allowed prosecutors to question a defense witness about his juvenile crime record. He should not have allowed the prosecution to admit a pry bar and a can of Mace into evidence Then you write: He admitted to forcing them to give him their bank cards and PIN numbers then using the cards and stealing their car. But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed The robbery victims "never" called the police to report their automobile, and bank cards stolen?! Is that what youre saying? I wonder why the defendant admitted to a crime never reported? Was he represented by an attorney? You have to wonder why a defendant would confess to a crime that was never reported by the victims. Furthermore why would the victims not report their car and bank cards being stolen? If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that? Otherwise does this seem like reasonable behavior to you? Just how dim are you? They were murdered, he killed them. Obviously some else reported the crime, obviously no one reports their own murder. William's story is not only contradicted by the forensic evidence it makes sense he would have you believe he stole their car from a parking lot (which he seemingly could not remember the location of) and their bank cards and forced them to give him their PIN #'s and then they went home with out calling the police or anyone else (and presumably no money)and were killed there by someone else. As for the 1st technicality, it is now moot it was one of the 1st cases where mitochondrial DNA was used, at the time the defense claimed it was controversial it is now now widely accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 (edited) Anytime Colby comes up with "evidence" attempting to prove me wrong, it's best to do some checking to see if it's really true or not. Jose Trias was on a list of murdered micro biologists .. It was never mentioned on that list that he was not a scientist, but rather a lawyer who obviously knew too much about top secret programs and allegeldy decided to share that information with a "friend" the day before he and his wife were brutally murdered. The fact that your sources research was so poor he did not know what Trias' profession was shows him not to be credible. Then Colby decided to make the Trias murders appear to be just a run of the mill armed robbery, with a suspect already proven guilty .. NOT TRUE, as proven by the information he decided not to post here.Double-murder conviction of Arnold man is overturned New trial ordered in deaths of lawyers July 31, 1996|By Scott Wilson | Scott Wilson,SUN STAFF The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned yesterday the double-murder conviction of Scotland E. Williams, ordering a new trial for the condemned Arnold man in the May 1994 slayings of two prominent Washington lawyers. The state's highest court ruled unanimously that Williams was unfairly convicted last year on charges that he murdered Jose Trias and his wife, Julie Gilbert. The two were found dead in their Annapolis weekend home, hand-cuffed and shot in the head. "Mr. Williams is once again presumed to be innocent," said Michael Braudes, a public defender who argued the Williams case before the Court of Appeals. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-07-31/news/1996213008_1_williams-case-anne-arundel-court-of-appeals "NEWS Son said he had slaying victims' bank cards, mother testifies Williams being retried in 1994 double slaying By Andrea F. Siegel | Andrea F. Siegel,SUN STAFF | May 14, 1998 Scotland E. Williams, accused in a double killing, told his mother he had bank cards belonging to the victims a day or so after their bodies were discovered, the woman testified yesterday. Rosezelma J. Williams told an Anne Arundel Circuit Court jury that her son, who was staying at her Arnold home, also said he had gotten a car from "a parking lot or something" and taken it to Baltimore.Prosecutors are trying to show that the automated teller machine cards belonged to Jose E. Trias, 49, and Julie Noel Gilbert, 48, lawyers who were found dead May 16, 1994, in their weekend home in Winchester on the Severn. Much more here... http://articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/trias/recent/3 I was unaware of the conviction had been overturned. The decion was based on technicalities, Duane omitted the following from the 1st linked article: The appeals courtruled that Anne Arundel Circuit Judge Eugene M. Lerner made three crucial mistakes during the trial: He did not allow defense attorneys enough latitude in challenging the credibility of DNA evidence. He allowed prosecutors to question a defense witness about his juvenile crime record. He should not have allowed the prosecution to admit a pry bar and a can of Mace into evidence. He was later found guilty again and that conviction withstood appeal: An appeals court panel upheld yesterday the murder convictions and life without parole sentences of Scotland E. Williams, who was convicted of killing two lawyers in their waterfront retreat outside Annapolis in 1994. Anne Arundel County prosecutors, who had retried the high-profile case in which they had initially won the death penalty only to lose it on retrial, said they were pleased with the Court of Special Appeals opinion, which was not unanimous. Williams was convicted of fatally shooting and robbing Washington- area lawyers Jose E. Trias, 49, and Julie N. Gilbert, 48, his wife, in what police suspected was one of several burglaries Williams committed in the area around their Severn River-front home. He received two sentences of life without parole plus 70 years. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/52622419.html?dids=52622419:52622419&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+13,+2000&author=Andrea+F.+Siegel&pub=The+Sun&desc=Court+upholds+convictions,+sentencing+in+1994+killings;+Divided+ruling+says+little+about+key+objections+from+Williams'+defense&pqatl=google He admitted to forcing them to give him their bank cards and PIN numbers then using the cards and stealing their car. But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed. And there was more evidence: County police Detective Ed Stratton first recognized [scotland E. Williams] on a wanted poster, which police made from the bank surveillance video. After the suspect was arrested, Stratton discovered a key piece of evidence. He had obtained - and kept - a photocopy of Williams' shoe print after arresting him in a earlier burglary. It turned out that that shoe print matched one found in the victims' kitchen. "We happened to be talking about [the shoe print in the kitchen]. Stratton went out to the trunk of his car and came back with the photocopy 30 seconds later," said [Jeff Cover], who described Stratton as the behind-the-scenes star of the case." http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/94200875.html?dids=94200875:94200875&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+09,+2001&author=Laura+Barnhardt&pub=The+Sun&desc=Arundel+police+unit+to+be+featured+on+cable+TV+show+;+Episode+to+focus+on+1994+murder+case&pqatl=google So yes they were murdered for a reason Scotland Williams wanted their money. These are some technicalities! That's funny, "technicalities" I was unaware of the conviction had been overturned. The decion was based on technicalities, Duane omitted the following from the 1st linked article: The appeals courtruled that Anne Arundel Circuit Judge Eugene M. Lerner made three crucial mistakes during the trial: He did not allow defense attorneys enough latitude in challenging the credibility of DNA evidence. He allowed prosecutors to question a defense witness about his juvenile crime record. He should not have allowed the prosecution to admit a pry bar and a can of Mace into evidence Then you write: He admitted to forcing them to give him their bank cards and PIN numbers then using the cards and stealing their car. But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed The robbery victims "never" called the police to report their automobile, and bank cards stolen?! Is that what youre saying? I wonder why the defendant admitted to a crime never reported? Was he represented by an attorney? You have to wonder why a defendant would confess to a crime that was never reported by the victims. Furthermore why would the victims not report their car and bank cards being stolen? If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that? Otherwise does this seem like reasonable behavior to you? Just how dim are you? They were murdered, he killed them. Obviously some else reported the crime, obviously no one reports their own murder. William's story is not only contradicted by the forensic evidence it makes sense he would have you believe he stole their car from a parking lot (which he seemingly could not remember the location of) and their bank cards and forced them to give him their PIN #'s and then they went home with out calling the police or anyone else (and presumably no money)and were killed there by someone else. As for the 1st technicality, it is now moot it was one of the 1st cases where mitochondrial DNA was used, at the time the defense claimed it was controversial it is now now widely accepted. Re read my post genius. Furthermore why would the victims not report their car and bank cards being stolen? If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that? Here is what you wrote. Typical jibberish. He admitted to forcing them to give him their bank cards and PIN numbers then using the cards and stealing their car. But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed. Now I could take your approach and ask: "How big a dim wit are you? How can dead people report their own murder"? Edited October 14, 2010 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 IF it were true that contrails always "dissipate and disappear within seconds to a few minutes" then cirrus clouds could never exist. The conditions that allow the formation of cirrus clouds, which do persist and can grow, are the same conditions that are conducive to persistent contrail formation. By denying a feature of contrails that has been observed since planes could fly high enough, "chemtrailers" are denying that cirrus clouds can exist or indeed ever have existed. Evidence for a history of persistence and the science behind contrail formation can be seen in post 105 of this thread and here www.contrailscience.com Some interesting info about faulty “chemtrail” testing. Carnicoms test: http://contrailscience.com/chemical-analysis-of-contrails/ The KSLA test: http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/ The Arizona Skywatch test: http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-non-science/ The single best evidence "chemtrail" proponents could get would be a sample directly from a trail. If that ever happens I would be one of the biggest supporters. Let me know if they ever get around to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Here are examples of chemtrail operations that were conducted by the US military during the 1950's. Operation Dew Operation Dew refers to two separate field trials conducted by the United States in the 1950s. The tests were designed to study the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents. General description Operation Dew took place from 1951-1952 off the southeast coast of the United States, including near Georgia, and North and South Carolina.[1][2] Operation Dew consisted of two sets of trials, Dew I and Dew II.[2] The tests involved the release of 250 pounds (110 kg) of fluorescent particles from a minesweeper off the coast.[1] Operation Dew I was described in a U.S. Army report known as "Dugway Special Report 162", dated August 1, 1952.[2] The purpose of Operation Dew was to study the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents.[1] Dew I Operation Dew I consisted of five separate trials from March 26, 1952 until April 21, 1952 that were designed to test the feasibility of maintaining a large aerosol cloud released offshore until it drifted over land, achieving a large area coverage.[2] The tests released zinc cadmium sulfide along a 100-to-150-nautical-mile (190 to 280 km) line approximately 5 to 10 nautical miles (10 to 20 km) off the coast of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.[2] Two of the trials dispersed clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide over large areas of all three U.S. states. The tests affected over 60,000 square miles (150,000 km²) of populated coastal region in the U.S. southeast.[3] The Dew I releases were from a Navy minesweeper, the USS Tercel.[2] Dew II Dew II involved the release of fluorescent particles and Lycopodium spores from an aircraft.[2] Dew II was described in a 1953 Army report which remained classified at the time of a 1997 report by the U.S. National Research Council concerning the U.S. Army's zinc cadmium sulfide dispersion program of the 1950s.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dew Here's a history of the US Biological Weapons program, which still exists and continues today, though it was allegedly made illegal in 1972 during the Biological Weapons Convention. Testing on unwitting civilians Medical experiments were conducted on a large scale on civilians who had not consented to participate. Often, these experiments took place in urban areas in order to test dispersion methods. Questions were raised about detrimental health effects after experiments in San Francisco, California, were followed by a spike in hospital visits; however, in 1977 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that there was no association between the testing and the occurrence of pneumonia or influenza.[55] The San Francisco test involved a U.S. Navy ship that sprayed Serratia marcescens from the bay; it traveled more than 30 miles.[55] One dispersion test involved laboratory personnel disguised as passengers spraying harmless bacteria in Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.[55] Scientists tested biological pathogens, including Bacillus globigii, which were thought to be harmless, at public places such as subways. A light bulb containing Bacillus globigii was dropped on New York City's subway system; the result was strong enough to affect people prone to illness (also known as Subway Experiment).[56] Based on the circulation measurements, thousands of people would have been killed if a dangerous microbe was released in the same manner.[55] A jet aircraft released material over Victoria, Texas, that was monitored in the Florida Keys.[55] GAO Report In February, 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released report GAO-08-366 titled, "Chemical and Biological Defense, DOD and VA Need to Improve Efforts to Identify and Notify Individuals Potentially Exposed during Chemical and Biological Tests." The report stated that tens of thousands of military personnel and civilians may have been exposed to biological and chemical substances through DOD tests. In 2003, the DOD reported it had identified 5,842 military personnel and estimated 350 civilians as being potentially exposed during the testing, known as Project 112.[57] The GAO scolded the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) 2003 decision to stop searching for people affected by the tests was premature.[54] The GAO report also found that the DoD made no effort to inform civilians of exposure, and that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is failing to use available resources to inform veterans of possible exposure or to determine if they were deceased. After the DoD halted efforts to find those who may have been affected by the tests, veteran health activisits and others identified approximately 600 additional individuals who were potentially exposed during Project 112.[57] Some of the individuals were identified after the GAO reviewed records stored at the Dugway Proving Ground, others were identified by the Institute of Medicine.[58] Many of the newly identified suffer from long term illnesses that may have been caused by the biological or chemical testing.[59] Read about other US military bio weapons experiments here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program These tests prove that the US military is capable of any atrocity.. Today's chemtrail spraying operations are very real, despite concerted efforts by certain parties to cover up that fact.. They want people to believe that chemtrails are just another "conspiracy theory" invented by the "lunatic fringe". Wake up people.. We are being sprayed on a global scale! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Re read my post genius. Furthermore why would the victims not report their car and bank cards being stolen? Because they were dead! If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that? Really? Are you asking why the defendant didn't admit to murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Re read my post genius. Furthermore why would the victims not report their car and bank cards being stolen? If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that? Here is what you wrote. Typical jibberish. He admitted to forcing them to give him their bank cards and PIN numbers then using the cards and stealing their car. But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed. Now I could take your approach and ask: "How big a dim wit are you? How can dead people report their own murder"? Perhaps I could have been clearer but the post was aimed at Duane and anyone else following the thread, not someone who popped in because they’d seen that I had posted to see if they could find an error. Even so it should have clear from context that I believed Williams was guilty and killed the couple, thus I was being sarcastic when said “But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed.” His storey, which is so absurd only Duane could believe it, would entail them returning home alone (and presumably penniless) without calling the police, friends or family (and being murdered by someone else) after being robbed of car and cash cards by Williams. Your question “If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that?” made little sense because I had written, “So yes they were murdered for a reason Scotland Williams wanted their money” and no one suggested he robbed them then came back later and killed them. In the ended you helped make my point that the scenario Williams and his lawyer proposed is not plausible, I think Duane and perhaps his mom were the only people to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 (edited) Re read my post genius. Furthermore why would the victims not report their car and bank cards being stolen? Because they were dead! If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that? Really? Are you asking why the defendant didn't admit to murder? No I was asking Len why he formulated his words in such a way as to cause confusion. The question was directed at Len and had nothing to do with anything the defendant did or didnt do. And I see you "split" my question into two seperate parts to alter it's meaning. Here is what I wrote. Maybe it will clear up your confusion Furthermore why would the victims not report their car and bank cards being stolen? If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that? Edited October 15, 2010 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Re read my post genius. Furthermore why would the victims not report their car and bank cards being stolen? If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that? Here is what you wrote. Typical jibberish. He admitted to forcing them to give him their bank cards and PIN numbers then using the cards and stealing their car. But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed. Now I could take your approach and ask: "How big a dim wit are you? How can dead people report their own murder"? Perhaps I could have been clearer but the post was aimed at Duane and anyone else following the thread, not someone who popped in because they’d seen that I had posted to see if they could find an error. Even so it should have clear from context that I believed Williams was guilty and killed the couple, thus I was being sarcastic when said “But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed.” His storey, which is so absurd only Duane could believe it, would entail them returning home alone (and presumably penniless) without calling the police, friends or family (and being murdered by someone else) after being robbed of car and cash cards by Williams. Your question “If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that?” made little sense because I had written, “So yes they were murdered for a reason Scotland Williams wanted their money” and no one suggested he robbed them then came back later and killed them. In the ended you helped make my point that the scenario Williams and his lawyer proposed is not plausible, I think Duane and perhaps his mom were the only people to buy it. Your statement didnt make any sense to me, so that's why I asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 (edited) Here are examples of chemtrail operations that were conducted by the US military during the 1950's. Operation Dew Operation Dew refers to two separate field trials conducted by the United States in the 1950s. The tests were designed to study the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents. General description Operation Dew took place from 1951-1952 off the southeast coast of the United States, including near Georgia, and North and South Carolina.[1][2] Operation Dew consisted of two sets of trials, Dew I and Dew II.[2] The tests involved the release of 250 pounds (110 kg) of fluorescent particles from a minesweeper off the coast.[1] Operation Dew I was described in a U.S. Army report known as "Dugway Special Report 162", dated August 1, 1952.[2] The purpose of Operation Dew was to study the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents.[1] Dew I Operation Dew I consisted of five separate trials from March 26, 1952 until April 21, 1952 that were designed to test the feasibility of maintaining a large aerosol cloud released offshore until it drifted over land, achieving a large area coverage.[2] The tests released zinc cadmium sulfide along a 100-to-150-nautical-mile (190 to 280 km) line approximately 5 to 10 nautical miles (10 to 20 km) off the coast of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.[2] Two of the trials dispersed clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide over large areas of all three U.S. states. The tests affected over 60,000 square miles (150,000 km²) of populated coastal region in the U.S. southeast.[3] The Dew I releases were from a Navy minesweeper, the USS Tercel.[2] Dew II Dew II involved the release of fluorescent particles and Lycopodium spores from an aircraft.[2] Dew II was described in a 1953 Army report which remained classified at the time of a 1997 report by the U.S. National Research Council concerning the U.S. Army's zinc cadmium sulfide dispersion program of the 1950s.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dew Here's a history of the US Biological Weapons program, which still exists and continues today, though it was allegedly made illegal in 1972 during the Biological Weapons Convention. Testing on unwitting civilians Medical experiments were conducted on a large scale on civilians who had not consented to participate. Often, these experiments took place in urban areas in order to test dispersion methods. Questions were raised about detrimental health effects after experiments in San Francisco, California, were followed by a spike in hospital visits; however, in 1977 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that there was no association between the testing and the occurrence of pneumonia or influenza.[55] The San Francisco test involved a U.S. Navy ship that sprayed Serratia marcescens from the bay; it traveled more than 30 miles.[55] One dispersion test involved laboratory personnel disguised as passengers spraying harmless bacteria in Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.[55] Scientists tested biological pathogens, including Bacillus globigii, which were thought to be harmless, at public places such as subways. A light bulb containing Bacillus globigii was dropped on New York City's subway system; the result was strong enough to affect people prone to illness (also known as Subway Experiment).[56] Based on the circulation measurements, thousands of people would have been killed if a dangerous microbe was released in the same manner.[55] A jet aircraft released material over Victoria, Texas, that was monitored in the Florida Keys.[55] GAO Report In February, 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released report GAO-08-366 titled, "Chemical and Biological Defense, DOD and VA Need to Improve Efforts to Identify and Notify Individuals Potentially Exposed during Chemical and Biological Tests." The report stated that tens of thousands of military personnel and civilians may have been exposed to biological and chemical substances through DOD tests. In 2003, the DOD reported it had identified 5,842 military personnel and estimated 350 civilians as being potentially exposed during the testing, known as Project 112.[57] The GAO scolded the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) 2003 decision to stop searching for people affected by the tests was premature.[54] The GAO report also found that the DoD made no effort to inform civilians of exposure, and that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is failing to use available resources to inform veterans of possible exposure or to determine if they were deceased. After the DoD halted efforts to find those who may have been affected by the tests, veteran health activisits and others identified approximately 600 additional individuals who were potentially exposed during Project 112.[57] Some of the individuals were identified after the GAO reviewed records stored at the Dugway Proving Ground, others were identified by the Institute of Medicine.[58] Many of the newly identified suffer from long term illnesses that may have been caused by the biological or chemical testing.[59] Read about other US military bio weapons experiments here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program These tests prove that the US military is capable of any atrocity.. Today's chemtrail spraying operations are very real, despite concerted efforts by certain parties to cover up that fact.. They want people to believe that chemtrails are just another "conspiracy theory" invented by the "lunatic fringe". Wake up people.. We are being sprayed on a global scale! Just because something has been done in the past does not in any way prove it is being done now or will be done. Otherwise I could say "you have lied in the past so you are lying now". Both conclusions are absurd. I note that the releases of bio weapons were done at ground level. That makes sense. Anything released at altitude is impossible to aim and will never remain concentrated. "Chemtrailers" want you to believe they are getting sick from something released at 30,000+ feet. "Chemtrailers" often say the way they can distinguish a contrail from a "chemtrail" is that a contrail is always thin and dissipates quickly. That they can not persist or grow. In truth, contrails can look exactly the same as what are described as "chemtrails". IF it were true that contrails always "dissipate and disappear within seconds to a few minutes" then cirrus clouds could never exist. The conditions that allow the formation of cirrus clouds, which do persist and can grow, are the same conditions that are conducive to persistent contrail formation. By denying a feature of contrails that has been observed since planes could fly high enough, "chemtrailers" are denying that cirrus clouds can exist or indeed ever have existed. Evidence for a history of persistence and the science behind contrail formation can be seen in post 105 of this thread and here www.contrailscience.com The single best evidence "chemtrail" proponents could get would be a sample directly from a trail. If that ever happens I would be one of the biggest supporters. Let me know if they ever get around to it. Edited October 15, 2010 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 In the ended you helped make my point that the scenario Williams and his lawyer proposed is not plausible, I think Duane and perhaps his mom were the only people to buy it. The FACT that the verdict was overturned and that Williams is now presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty in another court of law, has obviously been bought by more people than just "Duane and his mom." Maybe you missed my previous post that was held up due to moderation.. Here it is again. The evidence suggests that it was no random robbery that took out Jose Trias and his wife .. It appears that the two bit petty thief Scotland E. Williams played the role of Lee Harvey Oswald in this little charade. "Long-time biowarfare invstigator Patricia Dole, Ph.D. reports that there is a history of people connected to HHMI being murdered. In 1994, Jose Trias met with a friend in Houston, Texas and was planning to go public with his personal knowledge of HHMI 'front door' grants being diverted to 'back door' black ops bioresearch. The next day, Trias and his wife were found dead in their Chevy Chase, Md. home. Chevy Chase is where HHMI is headquartered. Police describe the killings as a professional hit. Tsunao Saitoh, who formerly worked at an HHMI-funded lab at Columbia University, was shot to death on May 7, 1996 while sitting in his car outside his home in La Jolla, Calif. Police also describe this as a professional hit." http://www.smokershi...com/Choppin.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Just because something has been done in the past does not in any way prove it is being done now or will be done. Otherwise I could say "you have lied in the past so you are lying now". Both conclusions are absurd. What Duane suggests is even more absurd because in your example you would be referring to the same person. It would be like someone saying in the mid 70's "The Chicago White Sox are throwing games, after all they did so in 1919" or since the tests were carried out by the Army rather than the Air Force like saying "The Cincinnati Reds are throwing games after all..." In most or all the example the substances released were harmless. Also most were surface releases, perhaps the biggest flaw in the 'chemtrails' nonsense is the feasibility of spraying something at tens of thousands of feet and having effect people on the ground. At what altitude were the airborne trials and what did they discover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Perhaps I could have been clearer but the post was aimed at Duane and anyone else following the thread, not someone who popped in because they’d seen that I had posted to see if they could find an error. Even so it should have clear from context that I believed Williams was guilty and killed the couple, thus I was being sarcastic when said “But apparently they never called the police to report having been robbed.” His storey, which is so absurd only Duane could believe it, would entail them returning home alone (and presumably penniless) without calling the police, friends or family (and being murdered by someone else) after being robbed of car and cash cards by Williams. Your question “If the defendant murdered the victims before they could report the crime then why not state that?” made little sense because I had written, “So yes they were murdered for a reason Scotland Williams wanted their money” and no one suggested he robbed them then came back later and killed them. In the ended you helped make my point that the scenario Williams and his lawyer proposed is not plausible, I think Duane and perhaps his mom were the only people to buy it. Your statement didnt make any sense to me, so that's why I asked. Though perhaps I should have made clear I was being sarcastic you only got confused because you had not read the earlier posts and didn’t pay enough attention to the one you were replying to. But thanks again for making my point, its probably due to you that Duane dropped pushing the nonsense about Trias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 I note that the releases of bio weapons were done at ground level. That makes sense. Anything released at altitude is impossible to aim and will never remain concentrated. "Chemtrailers" want you to believe they are getting sick from something released at 30,000+ feet. Maybe you missed the fact that the toxins were released from a jet, not at ground level. "Dew II involved the release of fluorescent particles and Lycopodium spores from an aircraft." "Chemtrailers" want you to believe they are getting sick from something released at 30,000+ feet. No, you want everyone to believe that chemtrails are only persistent contrails that are seen at 30,000 feet.. but that is NOT TRUE .. Not only are chemtrails nothing like contrails, they have been observed being sprayed at much lower altitudes.. Some as low as a few thousand feet .. People on the ground have also reported that the chemicals being sprayed are reaching the ground in a matter of a few minites, at some locations. By denying a feature of contrails that has been observed since planes could fly high enough, "chemtrailers" are denying that cirrus clouds can exist or indeed ever have existed. Nobody is denying the fact the contrails exist, or that cirrus clouds exist .. What an absurd accusation to make..It's almost as absurd as denying the existance of chemtrails .. but I guess you have your reasons for that denial. The single best evidence "chemtrail" proponents could get would be a sample directly from a trail. If that ever happens I would be one of the biggest supporters. Let me know if they ever get around to it Actually air samples have been taken while the chemtrail toxins have been seen falling to the ground in the form of a haze.. I'm sure it would be quite difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve any samples directly from a trail.. I asked you before if you knew a way to that, then by all means contact the people and scientists who are researching the chemtrail toxins, to let them know how this can be accomplished. I will produce the test results for the toxic chemtrail air samples in my next post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now