484. Gunman is a professional killer(4) (5/13/07)
6. The gunman is not Cho Seung Hui.
(1) The gunman is a professional killer. Cho is a new comer. Cho bought the gun on March 13. (There were different saying about the other gun, but it was bought around that time too. ) Only one month before the shooting case. He practiced in a shooting range on Mar. 22. That's all his relationship to the gun.
But according to Professor of Criminology:
Quote, "Seung-Hui Cho Was a Mind Controlled Assassin
Charles Mesloh, Professor of Criminology at Florida Gulf Coast University, told NBC 2 News that he was shocked Cho could have killed 32 people with two handguns absent expert training. Mesloh immediately assumed that Cho must have used a shotgun or an assault rifle.
"I'm dumbfounded by the number of people he managed to kill with these weapons," said Mesloh, "The only thing I can figure is that he got close to them and he simply executed them."
Mesloh said the killer performed like a trained professional, "He had a 60% fatality rate with handguns - that's unheard of given 9 millimeters don't kill people instantly," said Mesloh, stating that the handguns Cho used were designed for "plinking at cans," not executing human beings."
(
http://infowars.com/articles/us/va_t...d_assassin.htm)
From media report, we know the weapon is not assault rifle. It is the 9 millimeter handgun and the killer shot at distance, (shooting at the door, not the execute style) So the gunman is a professional of the professionals.
(2) Cho was 5'8". Gunman is ""He was, I would say, about a little bit under six feet tall, young looking, Asian, dressed sort of strangely, almost like a Boy Scout, very short-sleeved light, tan shirt and some sort of ammo vest with black over it. He just stepped within five feet of the door and started firing.
"He seemed very thorough about it, getting almost everyone down. I was trying to act dead," the freshman mechanical engineering student says. "He left for about 30 seconds, came back in, did almost exactly the same thing. I guess he heard us still talking.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...specialComment
(3) The gunman didn't want to be recognized.
If Cho planned this tragedy, he knew it was a way of no return. He was ready to die himself. It was unnecessary to cover up himself with masks or sunglass..... But the gunman did all the cover up. He seemed know he would be alive and didn't want to be recognized later.
Quote, " Pai Cheong Ming - 27 years old, an engineering student, came from S. Korea - was wounded in breast and arm and was in hospital. He told "Central Daily" (S. Korean Newspaper): "The gunman wore a mask covering face, his brown cap wore low to his eyes. He wore glass," (Though the news didn't say it's a sunglass, I think it should be, because Cho Seung Hui wore contact lens that morning according to his roommate. Or there was another killer.)
Pai Cheong Ming's description was quite different from others. I never saw it from "mainstream media". Perhaps because it would contradict to the Authority's story. I read it from a Chinese newspaper "The Epoch Times" April 20.
(4) If Cho real hated the "rich kids, debauchery and deceitful charlatans", then there must be some model he knew. He shoud target on these models. In fact, he chose unknown as victims.
All witnesses referred the killer as "gunman" or "he". No one call the killer "Cho". It means they don't know Cho. Only media describe the killer as Cho. Did they witness the scene?
(5) Another mark of Feds: Silence the witness.
For a random killer, Cho should pick up easy one to shoot at. He should go on to other classroom where there were plenty of easy targets. But he came back to kill the survivor. "He seemed very thorough about it", "I was trying to act dead" he came back "I guess he heard us still talking" (see reference in (2)) Cho has no reason to be thorough on people he didn't know.
It is only a mark of Mafia or the Feds. They kill witness of their crime. Mafia has no motive in this case. Feds does. (see "480. The real killer behind Virginia Tech. massacre (1) (4/23/07)")
(to be continued)
485. Media censorship on VT case (5) (5/18/07)
7. The issue media accepted and rejected.
(1) For a crime, media used to have a field report. It used to come with a map. Investigate reporter would track every step of the killer to detail the story in minute. VT shooting is the worst camp case in US history. There is no such report. What happened in the dorm when first two people were killed? how many classrooms in Norris Hall building? What did other students in same building react during shooting? There is not a word about that. Different media reported odds and bits from survivors but all silenced later about this case.
(2) The no response of the police and University after the first two killings was the main reason that caused the later mass killing. Media has the responsibility to supervise the government. The criminal negligence should be the big issue in first page. Yet, no media had an article about it. They distract this big topic by gun ban. Let the big criminal skip away.
(3) Instead of reporting the detail of the whole story which might reveal the flaws of the framed case, media concentrated to report Cho's private life, tried to prove he is the real killer. I went through all these materials, find nothing could prove Cho was a violent man. True, he was lonely, life time silent. It fits for a word: autism. But media avoid this word, attribute all these for the killing spree. To prove Cho was anger, they said he wrote violent and profane plays. They even gave a sample of his play. "I hate him." the boy says of the stepfather in a copy of the play on the Web site. "Must kill Dick. Must kill Dick. Dick must die."
It's ridiculous. With such standard to judge a person, Shakespeare would be a big suspect. So were many ancient Greek tragedy writers. Hitch Cock (spelling?) - a terror film producer, would be a suspect too, so was Spieldsburg (spelling? who produces film Indiana Jones, the Temple of Doom).
Cho's only relationship to violence was that he bought a gun (or two) on March 13 and practiced one hour in a shooting ranch of March 22. I think he was going for an operation. Before I talk about this, I'd like you to read a news:
8. Cho was under surveillance
Re: "Cho went to bed early by college standards, about 9p.m. He often rose early, but in recent weeks he had been rising even earlier, frequently before dawn, Aust said. Such was the case Monday.
Cho awoke before 5 a.m., then sat down to work on his computer and awakened his roommate in the process. Grewal, who shares a room in the same suite, saw Cho in the bathroom shortly after 5 a.m.
As usual, Cho did not say anything to Grewal. No good morning, no hello, Grewal said. Cho stood in the bathroom, brushing his teeth, wetting his contact lenses and applying a moisturizer.
He also took a prescription medicine, though neither Aust nor Grewal knew what the medication was for." (Mercury News "Shooter/ classmates feared he would kill", 4/18/07)
To get up early before dawn is not popular, especially for those who do not habituate to. Did Cho's suitemate follow up Cho's routine? The description was so detailed that it seems like Cho was under surveillance.
(to be continued)