A lawyer representing the family of San Bernardino gunman Syed Farook has questioned accounts of the massacre which saw Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik kill 14 at a holiday party on Wednesday morning.
Attorney David Chesley said they also doubted the accuracy of information released by the police and FBI.
….sheesh. And I thought I wore a tinfoil hat.
Apparently he went on to say,
‘But it doesn’t seem plausible to us that this petite woman would be involved in this sort of hyper-caricatured, Bonnie and Clyde crazy scenario.
I don’t know what part of it is NOT plausible.
According to the Daily Mail:
While the exact motive for the massacre remains unclear, lawyers for the Farook family said the gunman had been subject to a series of disparaging comments about his traditional Muslim appearance.
So, Muslim is teased, and goes postal killing 14. What, are these two killers supposed to be the victims now?
Next they’ll blame it on the killer coming from a broken home…. . Or post-partum depression.
Clearly, these killers can’t be painted as “normal.” Normal is not turning your home into what has been described as a bomb-making facility. Normal is not attacking and killing most of your co-workers, none of whom pose any threat to you. Normal is not dropping your infant child off at “nana’s” before going off on that spree. This, is not “normal”:
And a short while ago on CNN – “Farook family attorney says the deceased shooter(s) only stockpiled ammo for target practice….” and that “just because someone stockpiled ammo does not make them a criminal… .” Well, the latter is true. The former, not so much. Farook had a stockpile for target practice, and for shooting up co-workers at a Christmas party. And for getting into a shootout with law enforcement.
An interview with that attorney this morning… :
One of two lawyers hired by Syed Farook’s family, David S. Chelsey, made some pretty outrageous claims in an interview with CNN:Chelsey: There’s a lot of disconnects and unknowns and things that, quite frankly, don’t add up or seem implausible. She was never involved in shooting. She was probably about 90 pounds. It’s unlikely she could even carry a weapon, or wear some type of a vest or do any of this. Where the couple was found, from what I understand, is that they were handcuffed, lying face down in this truck, shot up. There’s a lot of things that just don’t make sense. You know, no one has ever seen Sayed with any of the things that they, I mean – with some of the things we found on the scene, they haven’t seem them with them.Chris Cuomo: Like what?Chelsey: The pipe bombs, for example. No one had ever seen him use or have anything like that. It just doesn’t make sense for these two to be some kind of Bonnie and Clyde or something. It’s just ridiculous. It doesn’t add up. It doesn’t add up, the military skills to carry out something like this. Really. Frankly.Cuomo: Authorities go back and forth on whether or not this shows sophisticated or lack of sophisticated, in terms of how it was carried out, but are you saying you’re not sure that they did this?Chelsey: I’m just telling you straight out that it doesn’t make sense. It looks like — if somebody had military training or something, yes, but there was none of that. And this person was not aggressive. We sat with the FBI for three hours and they tired to identify some characteristics or some affiliations that he might have had, that could have led to him acting this way. They couldn’t find anything. They were totally stumped, totally frustrated.Is this lawyer contending that he’s surprised that Sayed Farook never said to the neighbors, “hey, why don’t you guys come over and I can show you my elaborate home IED factory and my collection of pipe bombs?” The lawyer’s objections seem even stranger, and less plausible, in light of the fact that three U.S. officials say female shooter Tashfeen Malik posted a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook.It’s understandable that this family might be in denial about what happened — assuming, of course, that no one else in the family had any inkling of what the pair was planning. But the lawyer’s rant sounds like a stew of “false flag” or Truther conspiracy theories, post-Ferguson police-demonization, wishful thinking (90-pround women can’t wear tactical vests?) and a sprinkling the O.J. Simpson defense strategy.
The lawyer’s contention turns the perpetrators into victims and the cops who risked their lives responding to the attack into villains. Credit Chris Cuomo for some expressions of incredulity during the interview, but one wonders if outlandish, unsupported conspiracy theories really deserve so much attention from CNN.
That’s pretty outrageous.
Now look here, I post crap. First to admit. Ok. But my BS meter is flitting. I am a lawyer, so, um…. .
Video of that interview here: