• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Gary Talis found innocent.

The moral to the story is some guilty parties are found not guilty, correct?
Where on Earth could this reasoning apply? Anyways, Gary was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Whoever started the assault story should retract their statements.
 
Tweeter said:
The moral to the story is some guilty parties are found not guilty, correct?
Where on Earth could this reasoning apply? Anyways, Gary was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Whoever started the assault story should retract their statements.
Click to expand...
Why should they? The little snot scared and harmed people. That it did not rise to a prisonable offense does not make him a victim here. The family of the disabled girl and the other people in the crowd were victims. He is, as verified by the video, an obnoxious punk. He is slander proof. He cannot say that his reputation is damaged by our derision. He is not hindered from enjoying his life in such ways as do not directly interfere with the lives of others. Can you say that about Larry Silverstein, who has to worry about crowds of shrieking sociopaths following him around.

Get a life. Talis has it coming.

And the little snot had best not try to take any action against the girl's father.
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
Wrong. Then jurors said that F. Lee Bailey proved that the timeline proved that OJ was innocent, when he cross-examined detective Tom Lange and Phillip van Atter. Nothing that happened after the first two days of the trial had any impact on the verdict, if OJ wasn't there, he was innocent. The real killer was Jason Simpson.

Race had nothing to do with the verdict. Your racist smears of honest hard-working members of the jury is disgusting.

You have no respect for the jury system or our country.
Click to expand...

Another fact free post from you, Bailey cross-examined Mark Fuhrman, not those detectives, and it was Cochran who introduced the time-line. OJ, like Tails, was found not guilty, not innocent of the crime. Also, OJ was found guilty in a civil trial, as Mr. Talis might be facing.
 
Talis may have been found innocent by a jury. But he is still guilty of being paranoid, stupid, irrational, and brainwashed.
 
parky76 said:
Talis may have been found innocent by a jury. But he is still guilty of being paranoid, stupid, irrational, and brainwashed.
Click to expand...

... and, fittingly: it's a sentence he'll have to live with for the rest of his pathetic, wasted little excuse of a life.

Justice, of a ruder sort. ;)
 
parky76 said:
Talis may have been found innocent by a jury. But he is still guilty of being paranoid, stupid, irrational, and brainwashed.
Click to expand...

None of which, of course, rises to the level of a prisonable offense, in and of itself.

The problem is, that this sometimes leads to the commission of some rather dastardly acts.

It is just natural for those who observed his actions to conclude that Talis had such acts in mind, or that he might, at the very least, cause injury by his actions, and that he needed to be controlled.

He has nothing to whine about in the way he has been treated. His discomfiture is of his own making and well-deserved.

Nothing that anybody said about him has been positively disprovben. It was just not adequately proven to justify locking him up.
 
The thinking in this thread is just amazing. So-called skeptics refuse to aknowledge the verdict because they have a pre-existing belief that Talis is a scumbag. Why not just admit you were wrong or make the concession that he did not actually do what he was accused of doing? There are real conspiracy believing criminals like Richard Poplawski out there, attacking the proven innocent Gary Talis is disguisting.

The Post article says that everyone testified against Talis, is it possible that the jury was shown the security camera footage that Talis told he was refused access to? Can the documents from the trial be found in the internet?
 
Last edited:
Infoexcavator said:
The thinking in this thread is just amazing. So-called skeptics refuse to aknowledge the verdict because they have a pre-existing belief that Talis is a scumbag.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge the verdict. I have not reposted Talis' name on the blog because he was found not guilty.

Why not just admit you were wrong or make the concession that he did not actually do what he was accused of doing? There are real conspiracy believing criminals like Richard Poplawski out there, attacking the proven innocent Gary Talis is disguisting.
Click to expand...

Proven innocent is wrong. Determined not guilty by trial is right.

The Post article says that everyone testified against Talis, is it possible that the jury was shown the security camera footage that Talis told he was refused access to? Can the documents from the trial be found in the internet?
Click to expand...

I assume that the story Talis told AJ that has been reported on the thread is basically true, that the Secret Service Agent's testimony indicated he did not strike the young Ms Lovetro. Is there a possibility that that the SS person was not concentrating in that particular area and missed it at the time? Yep. Okay so you've got conflicting stories and Gary's has one extra witness.

So I can still believe he did it and also believe that his verdict of not guilty isn't something bizarre. I do feel for the Lovetros who (as many may recall) were besieged with phone calls and death threats from the kooks.
 
Last edited:
Infoexcavator said:
The thinking in this thread is just amazing. So-called skeptics refuse to aknowledge the verdict because they have a pre-existing belief that Talis is a scumbag.
Click to expand...

We are, for the most part, disappointed that he gets off without so much as a civil infraction on his recoprd, but acknowledge that sometimes the system determines other outcomes than we would expect It was determined in this case that he did not commit acts which are punishable under the law.

There was no finding to the effect that he is not an obnoxious punk who scared the bejeezus put of some people. There was, and could be, no finding to the effect that he is guanophrenic and a threat to society.

Why not just admit you were wrong or make the concession that he did not actually do what he was accused of doing? There are real conspiracy believing criminals like Richard Poplawski out there, attacking the proven innocent Gary Talis is disguisting.
Click to expand...

It looked to a lot of us as though he could have actully hit the girl from the video provided by a clearly biased source, another WACer. It was clear to nearly all of us that he was not, as he snivelled, attacked without provocation. It is clear to any mature person that he is an utter sociopath and cannot conduct himself in a civilized manner, and that people around him had reason to be alarmed and concerned for their own safety and that of the girl in the wheelchair.

If Talis wishes to act like a total punk, he has no right to expect any sort of respect from anyone, nor has anyone the right to demand that we respect him in any way, beyond not calling for vigillante action against him.

Now, would you suggest that the WACers who harrass Larry Silverstein should be ashamed of themselves?
 
Tweeter said:
The moral to the story is some guilty parties are found not guilty, correct?
Where on Earth could this reasoning apply? Anyways, Gary was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Whoever started the assault story should retract their statements.
Click to expand...

Yes, and i guess the Goldman and Brown families should retract their claims, etc...

such a stupid statement you have made...why am I not surprised.

TAM:)
 
Infoexcavator said:
The thinking in this thread is just amazing. So-called skeptics refuse to aknowledge the verdict because they have a pre-existing belief that Talis is a scumbag. Why not just admit you were wrong or make the concession that he did not actually do what he was accused of doing? There are real conspiracy believing criminals like Richard Poplawski out there, attacking the proven innocent Gary Talis is disguisting.

The Post article says that everyone testified against Talis, is it possible that the jury was shown the security camera footage that Talis told he was refused access to? Can the documents from the trial be found in the internet?
Click to expand...

listen...and listen carefully.

No one here has denied the verdict. The verdict does not mean that people HAVE TO believe he was innocent of the crime. He could have gotten off on a technicality, or there may not have been sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime he was accused of.

I still think he is 100% guilty. EVERYONE TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM! sounds to me like he got off with a crime, not innocent of one.

and it is doubtful (yes i know for your ilk it is difficult to understand, let alone except) that the trial documents can be found on de internetz.

TAM
 
So-called skeptics refuse to aknowledge the verdict because they have a pre-existing belief that Talis is a scumbag.
Click to expand...

He didn't even have to assault the handicap women to look like a scumbag. The fact that he was trying to trespass at a children's book event which had nothing to do with 9/11 is proof enough that this guy isn't worth hitting my brakes.
 
T.A.M. said:
your ilk
Click to expand...

That is a racist statement.

Not really, but the two last posts you made contain direct insults towards other posters, do behave.

Brainster said:
The scary thing is that when this happened it was clearly one of the most outrageous things a troofer had done; Poplawski, Fitzgerald and von Brunn have raised the ante on that quite substantially.
Click to expand...

I had never heard of this Fitzgerald fella, but now that I googled him I am pretty shocked. The guys father who he killed had called Alex Jones and I remember listening to it, the other nuts have been involved in 9/11 truth but this guy looks like to have been an actual Alex Jones supporter.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
We are, for the most part, disappointed that he gets off without so much as a civil infraction on his recoprd, but acknowledge that sometimes the system determines other outcomes than we would expect It was determined in this case that he did not commit acts which are punishable under the law.

There was no finding to the effect that he is not an obnoxious punk who scared the bejeezus put of some people. There was, and could be, no finding to the effect that he is guanophrenic and a threat to society.



It looked to a lot of us as though he could have actully hit the girl from the video provided by a clearly biased source, another WACer. It was clear to nearly all of us that he was not, as he snivelled, attacked without provocation. It is clear to any mature person that he is an utter sociopath and cannot conduct himself in a civilized manner, and that people around him had reason to be alarmed and concerned for their own safety and that of the girl in the wheelchair.

If Talis wishes to act like a total punk, he has no right to expect any sort of respect from anyone, nor has anyone the right to demand that we respect him in any way, beyond not calling for vigillante action against him.

Now, would you suggest that the WACers who harrass Larry Silverstein should be ashamed of themselves?
Click to expand...

The witnesses against Talis are liars, as determined by the jury. They should be thrown into prison.
 
Galileo said:
The witnesses against Talis are liars, as determined by the jury. They should be thrown into prison.
Click to expand...

Galileo... if you ever get called in for jury selection make every effort you can to not get chosen. All their verdict indicates is that the evidence the prosecution provided them was in dispute and thereby insufficient to cast reasonable doubt upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant. It does not reflect whether or not the witness -- some or all -- were lying under oath.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom