What Happened to the Third San Bernardino Shooter?
The initial reports that came out after the San Bernardino shootings is that there were three assailants. Then all of a sudden there were two dead people and no more talk about a third shooter.
For the longest time President Obama and the liberal media downplayed the narrative that this was an Islamic hit — bringing more Islamic terror to America. We heard stories of workplace violence, postpartum depression, and even anti-Islamic harassment from one of the people murdered — a Messianic Jew who argued with Farook over how peaceful Islam was.
Everything was blamed except Islam. Is there a cover-up going on? Is there a wider Islamic connection that the media, CAIR, and Obama want to suppress? I don’t know, but there are a lot of people who are suspicious of this administration. What aren’t we being told?
“This was not, you know, an oddball terrorist couple. This was a cell,” Rush Limbaugh said. are we being kept in the dark so Obama can go through with his immigration reforms before opposition reaches a tipping point?
So back to the original question. What happened to the third shooter? The following is from Arnold Ahlert at The American Spectator.
This is one American who does not have high expectations for our mainstream media. Yet, is it too much to expect a moderate level of curiosity about a critical part of a major story… even if it is not in line with the progressive agenda? Apparently so, as two nagging questions about the terrorist attack in San Bernardino remain unanswered.
Worse, they remain unasked!
First, what ever happened to the third shooter? Using several search parameters, one can find a substantial number of media reports on the day of the shooting indicating that police were searching for three suspects. In addition Sally Abdelmageed, an employee at Inland Medical Center where the attack occurred, insisted as much during an interview with CBS News.
“I heard shots fired and it was from — you know — an automatic weapon,” Abdelmageed stated, adding that it was all “very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on. They were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”
In describing the assailants Abdelmageed admitted she “couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […] huge assault rifle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same.”
The reporter then asked Abdelmageed again, “You are certain you saw three men?”
“Yes,” she insisted. “It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”
A second witness, Juan Fernandez, corroborated Abdelmageed’s account, telling reporters he also saw “three white men in military fatigues” who “took off” in a “black Impala or SUV.” Moreover, after the police killed Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook in a shootout, the media were still reporting the “house-to-house” search for a third suspect being conducted by police.
Since then? Nothing. Certainly eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but isn’t that precisely the reason one might expect the media to clarify the discrepancies between their original reporting and the current status quo?
As bad as that lack of closure is, the second question is far more troublesome: why did the FBI abandon their investigation of the townhouse rented by the terrorists and allow media access to it only two days after the shooting — and leave shredded documents behind?
Former NYPD Det. Harry Houck illuminates the insanity. “This apartment clearly is full of evidence,” he explained. “I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected to these two. You’ve got documents laying all over the place — you’ve got shredded documents that need to be taken out of there and put together to see what was shredded,” Houck added. “You have passports, driver’s licenses — now you have thousands of fingerprints all over inside this crime scene.”
The explanation offered by David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, strains credulity. “Once the residents have the apartment and we’re not in it anymore, we don’t control it,” he said. “Once we turn that location back over to the occupants of that residence or once we board it up, anyone who goes in at that point, that’s got nothing to do with us.”
Read the rest of the article at The American Spectator.