FBI on San Bernardino massacre: Alleged shooters did NOT post support for jihad on social media

[azurnoir]

Source: Salon

The attacks, which were previously attributed to Islamic extremism, have led to a wave of anti-Muslim hate crimes across the U.S.

San Bernardino was mentioned 19 times in the Republican presidential debate last night. The candidates invariably blamed the shooting on “radical Islamist jihadists.”

CNN host Wolf Blitzer echoed the claims, stating “Americans have witnessed terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. The FBI director says the country now faces the greatest terror threat since 9/11.”

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2015/12/16/fbi_on_san_bernardino_massacre_shooters_did_not_post_support_for_jihad_on_social_media/

[billhicks76]

1. WTF!! The Media Lied Before?

Something very strange is going on.

[840high]

2. WTF is right. FBI sux

[Brainstormy]

4. well Blitzer certainly does

what a hack. No talent. No brains. No nothing.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. He knows all about being in Jeopardy....

[navarth]

22. LOL that is precious. nt

[They_Live]

42. Go Andy!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

3. at the time of the attack.

But Comey told reporters during a press conference at the New York Police Department that reports of public social media posts were incorrect, and that the FBI has so far only found that the shooters were communicating via private messages, which law enforcement agencies would have been unable to see without a warrant. In other words: no public pledge to ISIS online.


“These communications are private direct messages, not social media messages,” Comey said. The FBI has searched back to late 2013, Comey said, when the couple were in touch electronically but hadn’t yet met in person. Farook was living in California, and Malik was living in Pakistan. The shooters were “showing signs in that communication of their joint commitment to jihad and to martyrdom.”

But, Comey added, “So far in this investigation, we have found no evidence of posting on social media by either of them at that period of time and thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom. I’ve seen some reporting on that and that’s a garble. The investigation continues but we have not found that kind of thing.”

DailyBeast

Regardless of the revelation that there was no facebook oath of allegiance to ISIS, this was a terrorist attack.

[former9thward]

5. "alleged shooters"?

Does someone think they didn't do it? Or the people weren't really shot?

[DougW659]

7. No, this is about the competence of the Obama administration

Several members of the GOP have claimed that the Obama administration is incompetent because they didn't read the 'Facebook Post' created by Tashfeen Malik during the process of granting her a K-1 visa. As it turns out, she DID NOT post anything about radicalism on Facebook. She sent a private message which is kept hidden from law enforcement by Facebook unless they produce a warrant. There was NO incompetence, just more GOP lies....

[former9thward]

9. No, the headline reads "alleged shooters".

Can't you read that?

[WatchWhatISay]

13. I think the confusion comes from the fact that many are unaware

that there even is private messaging on Facebook. When they hear Facebook they think of the way most people use Facebook most of the time, which involve posting or reading public posts on someones page. So when they heard Facebook they just assumed it was that - a public posting that the "watchers" should have caught. But it wasnt that, and the "watchers" are prohibited from reading private posts.

[LiberalArkie]

20. I think it will stay "alleged" until all the ballistic tests are complete. If all the shots were

fired by only the 4 guns in possession then they can say that they were the shooters. However if something different shows up, it will get interesting.

[PSPS]

30. Plus there's the apparent disappearance of the third shooter multiple witnesses say they saw.

[LiberalArkie]

31. I would hope that they know who the person is (if he exists) and are just watching the person

and checking his/her contacts. The feds like it when that situation arises. When the feds know and the person of interest believes that they got away.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

33. If they had discovered which mosque she attended

in Pakistan that would have been a big red flag right there.

[mhatrw]

60. And what mosque was that?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/tashfeen-malik-mom-california-rampage-became-very-devout-report-n475031

Pakistani media have also reported that Malik had ties to a mosque in Islamabad with alleged ties to Muslim extremists, a charge that mosque officials vehemently deny.

"This is a conspiracy by the media to drag our name into it," spokesman Abdul Qadir told NBC News. "The Red Mosque has never been associated with this woman and Maulana [Abdul Aziz] has never met her," he said, referring to the mosque's chief cleric.

LOL. More unfounded speculation, rumor and innuendo from more "unnamed sources".

[magical thyme]

14. legally I guess they're currently innocent until proven guilty

even though they're dead and obviously guilty.

[mhatrw]

19. What makes them so obviously guilty?

Haven't we seen this movie before?

[NickB79]

29. The carload of guns and ammo they had on them when they engaged in a firefight with police?

The firefight caught on multiple cameras, from multiple angles?

Using the same types of guns used in the shooting?

The fact that Farook worked at the office and left angrily shortly before the shooting occurred?

The only way to explain away the shootout with police would be to claim the police executed two innocent citizens, then planted the guns and ammo on them in a massive conspiracy theory/false flag operation.

That's the same type of lunacy that drives the "Sandy Hook Truthers" who think 20 kids didn't actually die that horrible day, and it was all a conspiracy theory.

[mhatrw]

57. Produce the videos taken from multiple cameras at multple angles.

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 02:54 AM - Edit history (2)

I'm sure they must exist. Why haven't we seen any? Why can't you produce any?

And there are dozens of possible explanations that do not include a massive conspiracy nor ISIS-inspired terror, from Farook going postal at his office solo and only later hooking up with his wife to the couple getting set up by any of dozens of people or organizations who might stand to benefit from the murders or the resulting Muslim "terrorist" scare mongering.

Individuals and small groups of people try to frame other people for their own crimes all the time. And the police shoot first in tense and dangerous situations all the time. And federal agencies spin the info they release to their own benefit all the time. None of these scenarios require a massive conspiracy.

The trope that there are only two possibilities

1) a massive conspiracy, or

2) believing without question everything unnamed "official" sources say

is ridiculous.

It is still OK to ask questions and ask for actual evidence before assuming something the media reports that doesn't add up is the gospel truth.

[magical thyme]

74. they apparently knew the police were after them

when they ran from their home with a carload of ammo.

Shootout with police, entire chase overheard for those of us listening on the police radio.

Their home was filled with more ammo.

ps, that doesn't preclude the possibility that they had help.

[mhatrw]

75. Yeah, a guy with guns had some ammo in his house. So what?

There is no evidence they "ran from" their home.

According to police reports, an uncover police car watched the SUV do a "soft drive by" of the house before pursuing the vehicle.

Again, I have seen no actual evidence that this couple ever shot at the police. Have you?

[magical thyme]

76. do you have a link to those police reports? because my searches are coming up empty

A witness gave Farook's name to police, who quickly learned that he had rented a black Ford Expedition SUV with Utah license plates four days before the attack.[13][17][46] Based on a tip provided by one of Farook's neighbors, officers went to the perpetrators' Redlands home on North Center Street for surveillance but had to give chase when the perpetrators fled the house. At least one fake explosive—a metal pipe stuffed with cloth made to resemble a pipe bomb—was thrown at the police during the pursuit.[3][43] After the SUV was stopped, the couple exchanged fire with police from inside their vehicle on East San Bernardino Avenue, about 1.7 miles (2.7 km) away from the scene of the mass shooting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_shooting

In the meantime, a number of us were listening on the police radio bands. The wiki report fits with what we heard going on.

One thing on the radio band was that a man was shooting out the back window of the vehicle during the chase.

Oh, and his best friend and relative by marriage -- the one who disappeared the day of the attacks and helped them buy 2 of their guns -- has apparently been found and arrested today. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/criminal-charges-be-brought-against-enrique-marquez-ex-neighbor-san-n481666

[mhatrw]

21. I think she did not do it.

What makes you think the wife had anything to do with the shooting at the husband's workplace?

Not a single eyewitnesses reported seeing a short, slight woman shooter. Don't you think someone would have noticed that?

[99th_Monkey]

6. Did they ever find that 3rd shooter?

multiple eye-witnesses say flatly there were "three tall athletic white men" doing the shooting.

which morphed somehow into a m/f couple, who are shot dead and proclaimed the only shooters?

This doesn't pass my smell test.

[NickB79]

8. So the massive gun battle the couple had with police was what, then?

Three athletic white men shot up the office, and the cops just happened to accidentally pull over and exchange HUNDREDS of rounds of fire with a couple driving the same type of vehicle with dozens of pipe bombs in their house?

[99th_Monkey]

11. Good questions all.

To which I don't have any answers. Do you?

I do know what "patsies" are though.

And I know that 3-2 does NOT equal 0.

[NickB79]

15. Occam's Razor would suggest the witnesses were incorrect

Because eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and a mass shooting would be the most chaotic scene you could imagine to get good witness statements.

Other witnesses who survived the shooting ID'ed the coworker as one of the shooters, and weapons consistent with those used were found with the couple AND traced back through purchases to them. Forensics should be able to prove or disprove if the bullets recovered at the shooting match the guns found on the dead couple in their SUV. Plus, there are multiple videos of the shootout from police cruisers and local residents.

I don't see them as patsies here.

[mhatrw]

17. Name one witness who saw a woman shooter. You cannot.

Nor can you name one witness who "recognized" Farook as a shooter. There isn't one.

According to the surviving witnesses, the shooters never said a word and wore masks as well as full tactical gear. I stand ready to be corrected. Please provide a link. Accepting that Farook was indeed the shooter after the fact, after the FBI and media assured you that this was a fact, is not the same as recognizing Farook as the shooter.

[NickB79]

28. Wait, they wore tactical gear and facemasks, but unnamed witnesses say they saw white muscular men?

That is, after all, the leading claim made by those currently saying Farook and his wife were patsies.

How could both be true?

Also, it was reported that survivors identified Farook by his voice after the shooting: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/02/458196942/active-shooter-situation-reported-in-san-bernardino-calif

A source tells Dina that witnesses appeared to recognize his voice and build even though he was wearing a ski mask.

And again, you're ignoring the videotaped police shootout and the car filled with assault weapons and ammo.

[99th_Monkey]

40. San Bernardino Shooting Eyewitness (Sally Abdelmageed) "3 Tall Athletic White Men"

San Bernardino Shooting Eyewitness "3 Tall Athletic White Men" CBS News

[mhatrw]

43. What? That's not a witness talking. That is an unnamed source in the "fog of war".

Here is what the witnesses actually said:

No one interviewed recalled the assailants saying anything.

And where is that videotape showing the Farooks shot at the police first? Where is the video tape showing that the Farooks were even armed? Did you just imagine it?

[99th_Monkey]

39. Forensics

"Forensics should be able to prove or disprove if the bullets recovered at the shooting match the guns
found on the dead couple in their SUV." <-- agreed ...

However, since both the suspects are dead, what would be the point of doing Forensic work necessary to
prove they were really the shooters? Have you heard reports of Forensics work going on in this regard?

[mhatrw]

70. Forensics? We are the Federalis! We don't need no stinkin' forensics! nt

[mhatrw]

18. They were not pipe bombs.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooters-had-been-radicalized-quite-some-time-fbi-n475736

Bowdich also said that the search of the couple's Redlands home turned up 19 pipes capable of being turned into bombs.

And there are several explanations that are more likely than the one the FBI has been desperately trying to sell a gullible public.

1) Farook did it alone because he went postal on his co-workers, and his wife was only part of the getaway.

2) Farook enlisted his friend who got him the guns to help him go postal on his co-workers, and his wife was only part of the getaway.

3) Organized crime wanted to take out some honest county employees and set up the Farooks as convenient patsies.

4) Any individual or small group of individuals who saw an opportunity to profit from this event set up the Farooks as convenient patsies.

Criminals look for innocent people to cast suspicion on for their crimes every day. The police want someone convenient for them to blame. When that someone is served up to them, they typically don't go out of their way to search for alternative explanations. That's one of the reasons why we have defense attorneys and private detectives who are hired by defense attorneys.

The Farooks were already dead. They are convenient to blame. Blaming them serves the interests of scare mongers, war mongers, and everybody else who eats at the Homeland Security or DoD trough. Why search for alternative explanations?

[NickB79]

24. And the shoot-out with police, caught on camera?

1) Farook did it alone because he went postal on his co-workers, and his wife was only part of the getaway.

2) Farook enlisted his friend who got him the guns to help him go postal on his co-workers, and his wife was only part of the getaway.

3) Organized crime wanted to take out some honest county employees and set up the Farooks as convenient patsies.

4) Any individual or small group of individuals who saw an opportunity to profit from this event set up the Farooks as convenient patsies.

Options 1 and 2 have Farook as the killer, and his wife at the very least complicit by driving, if not firing a weapon.

Options 3 and 4 completely ignore the fact that the husband and wife were both killed in a videotaped gun battle with police. It's kind of hard to frame a person or people when they're TAPED shooting at police, and end up riddled with bullet holes while holding the same types of weapons used in a mass shooting.

FYI, they also recovered a remote-controlled pipe bomb setup at the scene of the shooting that failed to explode: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-attackers-left-remote-controlled-bomb-party-n473621

Again, the evidence for them being patsies is slim to nil at this point.

[mhatrw]

44. LOL. Even after the anthrax attacks & the WMDs, some still believe anything they try to sell you.

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 03:00 AM - Edit history (2)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/before-the-final-shootout-four-mysterious-hours-in-san-bernardino/2015/12/14/95dd65f4-a299-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html

authorities described the remote-control device they hoped to use as a “toy” remote and said it proved to be a dud.

Show us the tape showing them shooting at the police. Show us the tape showing either of them so much as wearing or wielding a gun on that day. I'd really like to see any of these video tapes since you have so confidently assured all of us of their existence. Please link them up!

[840high]

25. and weapons in their vehicle.

[mhatrw]

45. Show me the tape showing weapons in the vehicle.

I have seen an aerial shot of the guy in a pool of blood with a weapon near his body, and an an aerial shot of the wife on the road with a weapon near her body. That's it. No action. Not one still or video frame of either one armed or actively shooting anyone.

[99th_Monkey]

72. Tiz amazing.

the gullibility of some folk. the 'official story' comes out, they fall in line lockstep.

and fight tooth and nail to make a lame narrative 'stick'.

[markpkessinger]

12. But it sure didn't stop Comey from using San Bernardino as a pretext . . .

. . . for furthering his anti-encryption campaign!

[mhatrw]

16. LOL at anyone who believed the FBI's story on this workplace shooting

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)

While actual evidence may indeed be forthcoming, please let me recap "evidence" that has been presented to us to date.

There is no evidence other than FBI and unnamed source innuendo that Farook was anything more than a garden variety devout Muslim born in the USA.

There is no evidence other than FBI and unnamed source innuendo that his wife was anything more than a garden variety devout Muslim who was born in Pakistan and who had traveled to Saudi Arabia.

There is no evidence other than the FBI's vague claim that she visited unknown firing ranges at unknown times that Farook's wife even knew how to fire a pistol, much less that she was capable of mass murder using an automatic assault weapon. Do you really think a Muslim couple, including a woman in a full hijab, visiting a firing range to shoot off two automatic weapons together would not raise any eyebrows?

There is no eyewitness or video confirmation that the three completely covered and masked shooters who "never said a word" even remotely resembled a husband and tiny wife couple.

There is no evidence other than FBI and unnamed source innuendo that the Farooks were "self-radicalized" in any way to commit acts of violence.

There is no evidence other than the statements of the policeman in charge of the chase that the Farooks ever initiated any "firefight" with the police. No explanation has been proffered for why the couple was just a couple miles away from the original attack more than 4 hours after the attack, nor what they were doing during that 4 hour time period.

There is no reason to believe that the FBI "investigation" into this mass murder is anything other than poorly executed stagecraft. The couple's home (but not garage) was opened up for reporters to trash. Shredded papers, IDs, passport photos, electronic equipment, etc. were left behind to serve as corporate media "reporting" props. And the guy who supposedly bought the couple their automatic weapons checked himself into a mental hospital and has yet to be charged. The grandmother who lived with the couple has also yet to be charged with anything.

Even the "pipe bombs" the FBI once claimed to have found are now classified as "pipes that could have been turned into bombs."

I am not saying that these folks were not horrible, hate-filled Muslim terrorists. What I am saying is that to date no credible evidence has been presented in the media to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that they are.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

35. She wasn't wearing a hijab in the suburban

Why do you think she would have worn one to a shooting range?

And there is quite a bit of evidence that the mosque she attended in Pakistan was involved in radicalism.

Not to mention videos of the shoot out, while many of us were listening to the police scanner while it was happening.

[mhatrw]

46. There is no evidence whatsoever that she ever used a gun in her life.

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 02:45 AM - Edit history (1)

There is no video of the shootout, and police scanners can't show who was shooting whom.

How any of y'all can find this extraordinary yarn about the first mass murdering stay-at-home mother with a 6 month old baby jihadi in the entire history of universe credible is completely beyond me.

There is no proof she had any military training. There is no reason other than the FBI's vague proclamation that she visited unknown firing ranges someplace at sometime in the past (without anyone noticing a Muslim couple including a tiny woman whose body and face were completely covered by traditional Muslim clothing shooting off two AKs) to believe that she ever shot a gun in her life. There is no historical precedent for:

1) a wife joining her husband in a murderous live shooting at his workplace for any reason

2) any female jihadi striking anywhere in the United States

3) any jihadi couple committing a live shooting together anywhere in the entire history of the world.

But y'all are wholly prepared to believe, without a shred of hard evidence against her, that a 90 lb stay-at-home wife with a newborn infant, no known firearms training, and zero history of violence or wrongdoing set all these historical precedents and more?

I just don't get it. Nobody questions anything. Nobody demands proof of anything.

There is quite a bit of evidence that the mosque she attended in Pakistan was involved in radicalism.

LOL. I guess that's all it takes to convict you when you are a Muslim.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

50. The mosque she attended in Pakistan was radical

and apparently no mosque here was good enough for her since she didn't attend mosque here. And, again, if she was engaging in firearms training what the heck makes you think she would wear a hijab to a firing range? She wasn't wearing one in the car!

[mhatrw]

53. I don't think she ever fired a gun in her life.

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 03:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Unless and until the FBI releases any specific information about when or where she learned to shoot an automatic weapon, I will continue to shake my head at all the chicken littles decrying ISIS terror.

Two different firing ranges have reported that Syed Farook visited them. He was a known gun enthusiast, so that makes perfect sense. However, I have yet to see any credible evidence that suggests that his wife Tashfeen ever visited a single firing range. All we have to date on this is Comey's say so that this happened at some unspecified time and some unspecified location.

And why wasn't she wearing a hijab in the SUV that her corpse was pulled out of if she were such a "radical" Muslim on a premeditated suicide terror mission?

The mosque she attended in Pakistan was radical

Did the mosque encourage jihad or terror? No. So what is that even supposed to mean? How is that relevant? It's like saying, "She was very orthodox!"

How is that qualify as evidence of mass murder?

I do not see a mass murdering terrorist when I look at an immigrant Muslim women who lives with a newborn and her husband's mother. I realize that most Americans do. But I do not. Thus if my federal government wants to convince me that this woman is indeed a mass murdering terrorist, the very first of her kind to ever murder people in the United States for ISIS, I would like to see some evidence that actually convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) she was actually even capable of using an automatic weapon, 2) she actually committed some of the murders, and 3) she did so because she wanted to unleash ISIS-inspired terror on the US populace.

I realize that you think this is far too much to ask before jumping to the "inescapable" conclusion that she riddled her husband's co-workers with bullets for Allah. Having been assured by my federal government that we needed to invade Iraq once because of Hussein's WMDs and before that because Hussein unplugged Kuwaiti baby incubators, I do not.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

54. Sorry, but there were too many witnesses to follow

your conspiracy theories. Not to mention your statement that her mosque - the Red Mosque - did not encourage jihad. Really? So what do you know about that mosque in Pakistan other than what has been reported? You have firsthand knowledge?

Have a good evening.

[mhatrw]

59. What witness saw a women shooter? Name one.

What named source has ever tied Malik to the "Red Mosque"?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/tashfeen-malik-mom-california-rampage-became-very-devout-report-n475031

Pakistani media have also reported that Malik had ties to a mosque in Islamabad with alleged ties to Muslim extremists, a charge that mosque officials vehemently deny.

"This is a conspiracy by the media to drag our name into it," spokesman Abdul Qadir told NBC News. "The Red Mosque has never been associated with this woman and Maulana [Abdul Aziz] has never met her," he said, referring to the mosque's chief cleric.

You have presented no evidence whatsoever, and that is because no evidence that is actually presumptive of her guilt has ever been presented to us.

[GGJohn]

52. OFFS,

stop, just stop, you're making a fool of yourself with this CT nonsense.

[mhatrw]

55. You are the one who unquestioningly believes in a conspiracy theory.

And I'm not even disputing that what you believe may indeed be true. What I am concerned about is the ability of law enforcement to convict US citizens in the eyes of 99% of the public without releasing a shred of evidence to the public that is presumptive of actual guilt.

I am simply asking for some actual evidence (rather than more unnamed sources who will be "corrected" again next week) before I convict these people of ISIS-inspired terror in my own mind.

I simply don't find the yarn the FBI is spinning credible. If this couple were actually an ISIS-inspired SWAT team, why would they have targeted the husband's co-workers, including a woman who prayed with him at the same mosque? What about a workplace shooting screams ISIS to you?

[GGJohn]

56. Without a shred of evidence?

The evidence was the shredded SUV the 2 terrorists used to try and kill the police as they closed in on them, the evidence was the bomb making factory the FBI found in their house.
There's plenty of evidence if you want to look at it, however, I don't believe you'll believe any evidence, you'd rather believe in CT's.

[mhatrw]

61. You have not been keeping up with the news.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooters-had-been-radicalized-quite-some-time-fbi-n475736

Bowdich also said that the search of the couple's Redlands home turned up 19 pipes capable of being turned into bombs.

Yet another "correction" of an original report.

How is a SUV shot up by the police presumptive of guilt of any kind, much less presumptive of the wife definitely riddling the husband's co-workers with bullets for Allah?

[GGJohn]

63. Maybe you missed the part where I said "bomb making factory" in their house?

But it you want to live in CT land, it's cool, more power to you, the vast majority of Americans live in reality and know the difference between lunatic CT's and reality.

Have fun in CT land.

[mhatrw]

64. Have fun in unquestioning fear mongering CT land.

Because only Muslim families with newborn babies conspire to commit crimes.

[GGJohn]

67. Not what I said, nor have ever said,

but, then again, you knew that, you just had to get in the cheap shot.

[99th_Monkey]

41. I like how you think beyond the smoke & mirrors, to ask the right questions.

I've been haunted by these reports of numerous eye-witnesses all agreeing that there were "3 shooters".

Regardless of whether they were all "tall athletic white men", or if one was actually a small female, three
shooters is three shooters. It's very difficult to imagine someone mistaking a male / female couple for
three male shooters. It just makes no sense to me.

If you haven't seen this, I posted it in reply to another post on this string. It's a CBS Scott Pelley phone
interview with one of the witnesses saying there were 3 shooters. I was glad I found it because much
of the chatter on the inter-webs is on RW sites, ones that can't be posted here.

[ucrdem]

23. Props to Comey for admitting it.

If it turns out that Farook and his wife were shot mistakenly I hope someone will go on record with that too.

[840high]

26. Were they not shooting at

the police from their vehicle?

[ucrdem]

27. If they were I haven't seen any evidence of it.

What I've seen are photos of Farook and his wife lying on the pavement after they were killed. Neither is wearing body armor or weaponry that I can discern. The windows of the SUV haven't been rolled down. We haven't been told who the third person in the car was, only that the person was detained and released. So the story isn't over.

[840high]

37. They were identified at the Xmas party.

[ucrdem]

38. There was a story in the SB Sun about a man at the IRC. Update: link

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

who ran from the police and was apprehended and released. But there was also a third passenger in the SUV who fled on foot after the shootout on SB Ave followed by a very serious effort to locate him/her. That was around 3-4 that afternoon. That evening it was announced that the SUV 3rd man had also been apprehended and released. But they were different third men.

......................
ETA - link. Turns out there was only one, at least in this updated version, though I seem to recall mention of another apprehended fugitive from the 11:00 am IRC shooting:

"Here’s what happened to the third San Bernardino shooting suspect"
San Bernardino County Sun | POSTED: 12/10/15, 7:18 PM PST UPDATED: 5 DAYS AGO

That alleged third shooter was a man fleeing the area of the final gun battle, possibly for his own safety, but who was picked up by police as he ran.

At a news conference held on the night of Dec. 3, San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said the man was detained, determined to not be involved, although he was booked for an outstanding misdemeanor warrant.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department confirms that version of events:

“Basically, he was contacted because he was found running in the area and he was released,” said Deputy Adam Cervantes. “We’re not going to be putting out any additional information about this individual.”

The department does not routinely release the names of those picked up on such minor warrants, he said.

http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20151210/heres-what-happened-to-the-third-san-bernardino-shooting-suspect

[mhatrw]

47. Really? Link?

Sorry, but you are wrong.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

32. They're still the terrorists

Even Farook's friend spilled the beans on a prior terror plot that they cancelled because Farook didn't want to get caught in another FBI terrorist roundup that had just occurred.

[ucrdem]

34. Yes, I've heard that responsibly reported,

but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. The FBI interrogated Marquez for five days and there might be more revisions on the way.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

36. He bought two of the weapons.

If he is lying, he is trying to distance himself from "this" terrorist attack, since he can't be charged as an accomplice for something that didn't happen. So, yeah, he does have motive to make up a story about a prior attack that was aborted. If he's lying about anything, it's to protect himself from being an accomplice to the murder of fourteen people.

[mhatrw]

49. He has supposedly waived his Miranda rights and is discussing this w/o a lawyer.

No wonder he checked himself into a mental hospital!

Again, this is all based on reports of unnamed sources.

Just like the story that got walked back earlier today.

[mhatrw]

48. Based on the report of yet another unnamed "law enforcement" source!

Nobody has gone the record with that crazy yarn.

[markpkessinger]

58. But not before using it as a pretext for furthering his anti-encryption campaign ...

... so no props from me.

[mhatrw]

51. If the Farooks really executed the worst Muslim terrorist act on US soil since 9/11,

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 03:14 AM - Edit history (1)

don't you the think the FBI would have wanted to see what was in the documents they shredded?

[NJCher]

62. Two things stuck out to me

The first is that a woman with a baby would pull something off like this. Have you ever heard of a murdering mother with an infant? I have not. I watch an extraordinary number of crime shows and have never heard of such a thing.

Sure, there are women with post-partem depression and other mental illnesses. If that was the situation, however, we've heard nothing of it. In fact, just the contrary. The brother with the blue glasses was genuinely shocked that they did this.

The second red flag for me was when the FBI said they were through with the crime scene so early. The landlord let all those reporters through. Ding ding ding: something is not right here.

Do you remember the Jon Benet Ramsey murder in Colorado? Well, that's what John Ramsey did. He let anyone and everyone through the crime scene. It's a way of contaminating the evidence.

I am very suspicious.


Cher

[Jesus Malverde]

65. Three things that surprised me about the apartment.

paper left in the shredder.

No dust, showing them looking for fingerprints.

Items still on the shelves. Even a most basic drug search involves all items removed from shelves and thrown in a pile.

Not to mention they didn't secure the scene.

Strange really.

[mhatrw]

66. Strange? Considering what this couple has been accused of, I'd go a bit further. nt

[demosincebirth]

68. there are still twelve people dead. Posting support for jihad or not does not ease the grief.

Dumb post.

[ucrdem]

69. 16 shot, including Farook. 13 were county health inspectors, and they were strict.

Their supervisor was also shot. I think getting to the bottom of this is important and will ease the grief of many.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-victims-htmlstory.html

[mhatrw]

71. organized crime meets "homeland security"

But it just had to be that Muslim couple with the newborn baby! That's what the corporate media told me!

[ucrdem]

73. It might take a while to sort this one out.

I don't see the FBI being eager to walk back any more of their story than they have to either.

p.s gambling hotels are a big business in SB and California's largest "casino resort" is in the city of Temecula, in Riverside county next door:

http://www.inlandempire.com/fun/casinos/