اسئلة لا تزال تبحث عن اجابات في جريمة جيرسي ستي.

[fredy_kroger]

سلام و نعمة....
بالرغم من توجيهة الاتهام بصورة رسمية الي إدوارد ماكدونالد (25 سنة) و هاملتون سانشيز (30سنة) لقتل حسام أرمانيوس (47سنة) و زوجته أمل جرس (37سنة) ، وأبنتيهما سليفيا (16 سنة) ومونيكا (8 سنوات) بعد ان انتشرت انباء موكدة توكد ضلوع الارهاب الاسلامي في تلك القضية الا ان هتاك اسئلة كثيرة لن توجد اجابة لها باتهام امريكين في الحادث و هي :

-اقر البوليس أن ماكدونالد لم يستخدم المسدس الذي كان يحمله ، وإذا كان المتهمان يملكان سلاحا ناريا فلماذا استخدما سكاكين من مطبخ البيت لطعن ضحاياهما؟

-وإذا كان المتهمان غير متهمين إلا بالحصول على بطاقة الأئتمان والرقم السري كان في إمكانهما الحصول عليهما من أمل دون حاجة إلى أنتظار عود الأب من العمل !.

-هل من المعقول أن يضحي الأب بأسرته وتحمل طعنات عديدة برفضه أعطاء بطاقة الأئتمان للمتهمين ؟ وهل يعقل أن ماكدونالد يقتل الأسرة ويستمر في سكنه في الطابق العلوي وهو يعلم أنه من المرجح أن البوليس سوف يستجوبه على ضوء سجله الأجرامي؟

-وكان سانشيز يعيش في نيوارك في خلال فترة مراقبته كسجين سابق فى بيت اصلاحى حيث تفرض عليه الأقامة الجبرية بعد الساعة الحادية عشرة . ومن يتجاوز هذا الوقت يعتبر هاربا ويصدر أمر بالقبض عليه ، ولم يصدر هذا الأمر ليلة 11 يناير

-واستمر ماكدونالد وسانشيز في عملهما بعد أكتشاف الجريمة . وقال زملاءهم في العمل إنه لم يظهر عليهما ما يجعلهما موضع شك طوال الأسابيع العديدة قبل إلقاء القبض عليهما

- وحصلت شبكة مخابرات شمال شرق الولايات المتحدة على معلومات عن ماكدونالد اثناء فترة تقويمه بعد سجنه في معهد تقويم المجرمين في معهد فورت ديكس بعد قضاء فترة الحكم في قضية توزيع المخدرات .. وتفيد هذه المعلومات أنه أرتبط بمجموعة من المساجين النشطاء فى التوجيه الاسلامى الاصولى ،واستلم منهم مطبوعات اسلامية متطرفة

وقال نيافة الأنبا ديفيد الذي كان يحذرعلنا من التسرع إلى أية أستنتاجات قبل ظهور الأدلة ، أن المعلومات المعلنة بعد القبض على المتهمين تبدو غير كاملة وقال " إن ما طلبناه هو أمرين : الحقيقة الكاملة والعدالة . فإذا كان هذا هو الحق الكامل ، فإن الجميع مستعدون أن يقبلوه ، وهذا سيعطي الكثير من السلام لشعبنا . ولكن هناك أشياء كثيرة غير واضحة ... فمن الصعب جدا أن أربعة أشخاص يقتلوا لمجرد سرقة بطاقة أئتمان للحصول على مبلغ من المال من ماكينة السحب الآلية .. هناك أشياء كثيرة تحتاج إلى مزيد من الشرح بالتفاصيل
وما هو جدير بالذكر أن المدعي العام لهدسن كونتي دي فازيو صرح بأن المحققين مستمرون في البحث عن آخرين يشتبه أن لهم علاقة بقضية القتل

نحن لا نتهم احد و لكننا نريد الحقيقة لان دم الشهداء يصرخ طالبا العدالة.
نقلت المعلومات التي جاءت في هذا المقال مما نشرته صحيفتى "ستار ليدجر" التي تصدر في نيوجيرسي ومن "جيرسى جورنال " التي تصدر في جرسي سيتي ."

[yaweeka]

أنظر تساؤلات أخرى هنا

http://copts.net/forum/showpost.php?...&postcount=171

المشكلة الآن فى رأيي هو تسارع بعض المنظمات القبطية لاعلانها عن قبولها لهذه القصة الأضحوكة التى قالها وكيل النيابة فى أول يوم واصدار بيانات أضاعت حق الأقباط وهو ما تلقفته المنظمات الاسلامية فى أمريكا وعليه فقد طالبت الأقباط بتقديم الاعتذار عن توجيه الاتهام للاسلام !!!
كان من الأجدر للمنظمات القبطية ان تصدر بيانا تقول فيه انها ستراقب التحقيقات عن كثب ولن تصدر رأيها النهائى حتى انتهاء التحقيقات والمحاكمة .
اما ان يصدروا بيانا يشكروا فيه وكيل النيابة (الغبى) وكأن الموضوع انتهى بالنسبة لهم فهى خيابة سياسية ما بعدها خيابة اذ قتل اصابت وجهة النظر القبطية فى مقتل امام الاعلام الأمريكى.

ومازال العامل الدينى وراء الموضوع غير مستبعد خاصة مع توافر معلومات مؤكدة عن تلقى ادوارد ماكدونالد المتهم الرئيسى فى القضية للتعاليم الاسلامية فى السجن وممارسته للصلاة الاسلامية قبل ان يطلق سراحه يوم 30 ابريل عام 2004
وهو لم يتقدم للسكن عند عائلة ارمانيوس سوى بشهرين فقط قبل الجريمة

والمشكلة الأخري تتمثل فى المحامى ماجد رياض المتحدث الرسمى باسم قداسة البابا شنودة !!! فانك تشعر فى حديثه دائما انه لايبالى بمشاعر الاقباط بل كل ما يهمه هو ان يظهر بمظهر المدافع عن المسلمين ، ولابد ان نعرف ان ماجد رياض يرتبط بمصالح شخصية منها انه محامى البنك الأهلى المصرى فرع امريكا. وهو ضيف عزيز على القنصلية المصرية بنيويورك والمجلس المصرى الامريكى وهو المجلس الذى تختفى خلفه المخابرات المصرية - بعضهم معروف بالاسم كمان !!! - لاختراق الجالية القبطية ولاندرى ان كانت مهمة ماجد رياض هى تسهيل مهمة اختراق العمل السياسى القبطى فى امريكا ام لا
ماجد رياض لا يتمتع بأى احترام فى الوسط القبطى بأمريكا بل ينظر له الكثيرون بعين الريبة فعلى اى اساس اختاره البابا ليتحدث بإسمه؟

بعض الأسئلة وصلتني عن طريق مجموعة بريدية على الياهو من قريب للعائلة :
two suspects caught in Armanious killings
As it was pointed out earlier, there were two suspects caught who had used the Armanious’ credit cards to withdraw money from ATM machines and were dumb enough to show their faces which were caught on tape. How convenient that a politically correct solution would show up out of nowhere, don’t ya think?
Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch:
Two suspects in the Armanious case have been arrested, and authorities are saying that religious hatred had nothing to do with the crimes — it was just a robbery gone bad.
Considering all the evidence to the contrary, I think that’s a bunch of hooey. I’ll grant you that these neighborhood thugs may have gotten a hold of some credit cards, but does that mean they were the people who committed these heinous crimes? People knew the Armanious family had very little, jewelry was not taken, and those are just a couple of the reasons robbery was out of the question.
It does, however, seem to eliminate the possibility that these killings were an American version of the Theo van Gogh murder in Holland: a Sharia-prescribed killing in a non-Muslim country for what is a crime only under Islamic law.
CAIR-NJ President Magdy Mahmoud declared: “All those involved in the investigation of this brutal crime deserve praise for their diligence and for resisting efforts by hate-mongers from outside our state to use the tragedy as a way to damage interfaith relations.”
I’m sorry but I don’t think very much of the President of CAIR -or the organization, which has close ties with Hamas. Being that the Egyptian consulate went to talk with the family members after the murders to hush them up and prevent them from speaking out on this case, there are still too many unanswered questions in my mind for a “politically correct” solution to show up and for me to swallow it. Does this seem terribly fishy to any of you out there?
And by the way, the “hatemongering” statement is equally as ridiculous.
Is that all it was? Hatemongers trying to stir up trouble and portray a robbery as something it wasn’t? There is no doubt whatsoever that that is how the media elite will portray the weeks between the discovery of the bodies and the arrests of McDonald and Sanchez.

Sounds to me like another couple of people have been given up by the Islamists to take the rap–just as they’ve done in the past. In the case of Richard Reid, or the Oklahoma City Bombing, to name a couple off the top of my head.

But as Robert Spencer so aptly points out:

But legitimate questions remain, and I am neither going to apologize or accept Mahmoud’s “hatemonger” tag for asking them.

Why don’t you take your little whining arguments over to the Northeast Intelligence Network or the Jawa Report? Or go over and visit Stephen Decatur of The Islamic Threat and read a little to understand what I’m talking about.

I hope that facts will come out at the trial that will explain some of the features of this case that make it appear not to have been a simple robbery:

1. Early reports stated that Hossam Armanious regularly engaged Muslims in discussion on the PalTalk website — discussions that became so heated that one Muslim threatened him: “You’d better stop this bull—- or we are going to track you down like a chicken and kill you.” This was reported in the New York Post and attributed to an eyewitness who saw the threat on the site at the time.

What was done to investigate this threat? Did they find and question any Muslims who had had discussions online with Hossam Armanious? Did the Hudson County Prosector’s Office question the man who asserted that it was made? Did they determine that the threat had not, in fact, been made at all? That seems most likely. If that is the case, on what evidence did they arrive at that conclusion?

Whatever the case, note that the report of this threat came not from “hatemongers outside the state,” but from a Coptic Christian friend of Hossam Armanious.

Those are valid questions, and I will be looking forward to more information as to the details surrounding this case, as it seems quite obvious to ME, anyway. Considering these people have a history of getting away with these things in the land of the infidel and running back home to the land of sharia. An investigation, my dear friends, should not be based on political correctness and only questioning certain individuals, ignoring certain facts as if they don’t exist. Doing that could have you arrive at the wrong conclusion, right?

2. If the motive was robbery, why was the family killed? Presumably to prevent them from identifying McDonald and Sanchez. But then we are evidently to believe that McDonald and Sanchez made repeated trips to ATM’s to withdraw money — with the quite visible ATM camera staring them in the face each time. Maybe they are irredeemably stupid — certainly there is a lot of stupidity among petty criminals — but it does at least raise eyebrows.

And that’s to put it mildly, Mr. Spencer.

3. If the motive was robbery and the family presumably surprised McDonald and Sanchez by being at home, leading the pair to murder them, why were the murders done with such precision? Why was so much care taken to slit their throats in a uniform manner? Why wouldn’t these guys simply have killed them in the quickest, easiest way possible?

Yeah, why bother to go through the painstaking trouble to make it appear as though an Islamist halal butcher did it-complete with boring the holes in their necks like on Al Jazeera? If these guys were stupid enough to have their mugs caught on tape at an ATM when withdrawing money, don’t you think they wouldn’t have a clue about halal butchery? We’re supposed to believe on the one hand that a guy by the name of SANCHEZ killed this whole family like on Al Jazeera for a couple of CREDIT CARDS?

4. Not long after the murders, I was contacted by a Coptic Christian who identified himself as a close friend of the Garas family (Hossam Armanious’s wife’s family). He claimed to have detailed information about the murders, and he gave it to me. His sources and his information appeared to be solidly based and at very least worth investigating. Some of it has been reported recently: a halal butcher whose daughter was converted to Christianity planned the murders for several months in revenge for the conversion. He fled the country shortly after the murders, but he planned them along with three others who are still in the country. The Copt gave me the names of all four, along with phone numbers and other details for two of them.

I had no idea whether or not the information I had been given was true, and I never claimed that it was. But it warranted investigation. I passed it on to the Hudson County Prosecutors Office. Neither I nor my source was contacted about any of this information for three weeks after I filed the initial report. The only time I spoke to an official there, he was unfailingly polite but unmistakably condescending and clearly believed nothing that I had to tell him. From what I understand the Copt who told me all this fared little better.

Meanwhile more information was coming from other sources, including but not limited to relatives and other close friends of the victims, that seemed to corroborate what I had already been told. When Edward DeFazio was asked about all this, his answer was self-contradictory — leading me to a few more questions: Did his office make any attempt to find out if a halal butcher had really gone missing in the Jersey City area? Did they make any attempt to question the others named by the Copt? I happen to know that a reporter called one of these men and asked him what he thought of the killings. He began smoothly to speculate about robbery, drugs, etc. But when the reporter asked him about the possibility that it was a revenge killing for a religious conversion, his shock was palpable. His smooth veneer vanished and he suddenly began to sputter and search for words. Did this happen when the police questioned him? Did they question him at all? If not, was it because they had a presumption that this information was worthless on its face? If they did, on what did they base that presumption?

And one more time for Mr. Mahmoud: the information I got did not come from “hatemongers outside the state,” but from several friends and relatives of the murdered family.

These are credible witnesses who should have been called upon, yet interestingly, this is all being swept under the rug as if it never happened, and they’ve got their men now, haven’t they? No investigation needed into the Islamist angle now, heh? So no more hateful talk about the religion of peace©™, Spence.

5. If the motive was simple robbery, what are we to believe about all this? That a Copt invented the story of the death threat, and that other Copts invented the story of the conversion and revenge plot? That it was just coincidental that a couple of lowlifes happened to murder this family in the same manner in which Muslims murder blasphemers and other enemies of Islam?

I hope Edward DeFazio will be courteous enough to answer. But considering that he recently forbade a reporter even to ask him about possible religious motivation for the killings, I won’t be holding my breath.

And let’s not forget the halal butcher who fled the country after the murders took place, or the jihadis celebrating on their website afterwards. Something stinks to high heaven on this one, folks.

http://caosblog.com/archives/2005/03...ious-killings/