It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Judge: Detective can testify on Holmes' computers

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 3 2014 @ 01:28 AM
There is something specific about this story that caused me to share it here. It's certainly not a rehash of John Holmes and the Aurora shooting. There are many threads which cover that. This case is the place it's being done, but that's all it is in this context.

DENVER (AP) — An investigator who said James Holmes' computer was used for an internet search on the words "rational insanity" can testify at Holmes' trial in the Colorado theater shootings, the judge ruled Friday.

Okay, now that isn't necessarily what bothers me. Thats becoming common and if someone doesn't want the issues, don't go searching for things before doing something that puts the police in a position of finding it. In principle, it's not a problem, especially being used at the trial phase, when it's one piece of many and many are far more important than that one.

So what is the issue? Oh.. Just a wee little one of CARING if it's even relevant by EITHER side.

Aurora Police Detective Michael Leiker (LY'-kur) testified during a pretrial hearing in October that he found evidence of the internet search. He didn't say if he knew who did the search or when it was done. Neither prosecutors nor the defense asked him to elaborate.

I guess he doesn't rate real high end legal counsel, eh? Just a guess and opinion by the note about neither side asking for at least a bit of elaboration to something like that. You'd think it didn't even matter, anymore.

He was a graduate student in a Neuro-psych program. Of all the people who might end up where he's at right now, he's the one who MIGHT just have had a legitimate and alternate reason to be looking up the term. Some of the things I've looked up for college assignments have been wild if looked at without that context to put with it. loose is it getting these days?

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 06:32 PM
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

The testimony occurred at a pre trial hearing. Depending on the type of hearing they can deal with -

* - determining if the evidence supports the charges.
* - initial appearance - guilty / not guilty
* - Evidence suppression hearings
* - amended charges / additional charges
* - discovery motion issues
* - motions dealing with what can / cant be argued at trial (affirmative defense vs no affirmative defense).

In this case there would be no reason to ask who was at the computer / time at computer. Generally Prosecution wont directly challenge evidence that can support their position. Defense will do all they can to limit / get evidence thrown out for whatever reasons since their goal is to zealously represent their client.

If the information makes it to the trial version, then either side can come back and challenge its use in court. Also bear in mind the Prosecutor knows what the case has / does not have since his office is prosecuting and has turned over all evidence to the defense under discovery.

What seems highly important now may be worthless down the road and what seems worthless now may be the lynchpin down the road.

Since its a pre trial setting my guess is that particular piece of evidence was not the focus.

new topics

log in