I tried to check on the accuracy of that claim by looking on the docket for that case in PACER. They have no new ruling listed. I don’t know exactly what that means because I don’t know if a “preliminary ruling” would show on a docket, or how a person would find out if he had indicated in any way what he was going to rule.
When I brought up this subject others immediately said that there would be no motive to assassinate Judge Roll if the ruling had already been made. For there to be no ruling on it - or for there to at least be no official record of a ruling on it - would leave the case to be decided by whoever Obama appoints to replace Judge Roll.
It’s called stacking the deck - like Obama did by having 2 “justices” (cough) on SCOTUS whose salaries and positions totally depend on Obama not being found ineligible to be POTUS refusing to recuse themselves when eligibility cases come up for conference - in spite of a clear and direct financial and personal conflict of interest.
The fact that the stories about how Judge Roll came to be at that event and who might have known he was going to be there are constantly changing, as well as discrepancies on who found what documents that show Giffords as the intended target... leads me to think there may be more to this story than we are being told, and the people doing the investigating are not particularly interested in making a set of genuine, documented facts and timeline available to the public. The “facts” from the sheriff’s office and the FBI are constantly shifting, and that doesn’t sit well with me.
Another thing that doesn’t make sense is the initial claim that the bullet wound went in from the side and came out the front. That switched to coming from the back and going straight through the left hemisphere and through the front. And then that switched to the bullet going into the forehead and out the back, with bone fractures in the front suggesting that the bullet sort of glanced off the bone and went through the brain superficially.
If the people reporting this stuff were talking to witnesses - such as the guy who said Loughner went up to Giffords and shot her in the face - then why were we getting media reports claiming the wound was to the side of her head.... and then reports that it went in the back of her head?
The stories have way too many discrepancies. If the reports we’re getting are in any way based on eyewitness testimony, these errors/shifting stories don’t make sense.