Aurora Shooting trial seems a bit sketchy

www.nbcnews.com...

The article I posted above (which has a misleading title) discusses the decision made on televising the trial of James Holmes, the lone gunman in the Aurora shooting (Dark Knight Rises movie theater shooting).

Both the prosecution and the defense pressed for zero media coverage inside the trial. The prosecution on grounds of protecting his rights (in another article i posted below they cited protecting witnesses from harassment on social media and affecting the jury who will not be sequestered). Both seem flimsy when compared to the publicity it's already been given and the importance of the case.

The defense said they wanted to protect the 70 survivors of the shooting from further trauma. This seems silly since the most traumatic thing for them would be giving testimony or hearing it from other survivors which I assume will happen in the trial itself.

To top off the sketchiness the judge overruled both the defense and prosecution to allow video in response to demands from the media. But wait not really.

The trial will be transmitted only through a single remote-controlled security camera that Samour will be able to turn off at any time, and it will show only the witness stand and the attorneys' podium, he ruled.

Anyone else find it odd that both defense and prosecution said no cameras but the judge gave in to the media and overruled them except not really at all. The judge (and by extension TPTB) have complete control over what's actually shown. Sounds to be like they are doing their god damnest to make this seem 100% legitimate and transparent even though it's clearly not.

Could someone with more legal experience explain this to me? I'm not great with legal stuff so maybe I'm just reading into things too much because I come here too often.......or maybe I'm not . Either way I feel like trials of this magnitude of importance to our society should be public information. Would love some former judge or lawyer to set me straight.

www.denverpost.com...

a reply to: tavi45


Ya it is kinda strange to say the least.

With anything like this, there always seems to be a real story and an official story. Obviously they're doing their best to make sure the people only see the official story. I still think that what happened took place because of the medication he was on, more specifically the change in dosage.

I mean the guy was enrolled as a Ph.D in neurosciences and he graduated with a degree in neuroscience sporting a 3.95 GPA. That's insane. He's far from stupid and while i can only speculate, it is my guess that whatever change in thoughts he had was externally induced. Whether by design or not is another topic all together.

I think that that is what they wish to censor: the medication that he was on prior to and while he committed the crime. They'll try to say that he was just a crazy who had access to guns in an attempt to convince people that guns are the problem.

Very informative ATS thread linking mass shootings

No , it isn't strange at all. This happens with all high profile trials. All of them.

I've seen many televised trials that only show the judge and lawyers tables. You won't see the witness stand. Audio is allowed. It will be this way to be used for news shows covering it, or may be televised live as is, like this as well.

If it shows the lawyers tables, you will see james Holmes seated with his legal team.


I think the blade runners murder trial was like this, but not sure, hardly watched that one.

The problem with the jury not being sequestered means they will enter and exit the courthouse daily. If it's on TV all day, it becomes a media circus. There was an issue with HLN covering a trial last year, forget which trial, maybe Jodi Arias, one of the reporters said something in the presence of a juror. Although the juror did not hear what was said, it was a huge issue because the defense can call for a mistrial, in which thry tried to do on this issue. The prosecution does not want a mistrial. This reason and many others with live trials can be cause for a mistrial.



So this is why neither side wants it aired on TV live. Prosecution fears issues raised to ask the judge for a mistrial and the defense not wanting the jury tainted happening to hear reporters making biased statements about the defendant, James Holmes. Sequestered means they stay in hotels, not being so means they go home at night, and watch too many recaps on TV, or hear chatter about it, even though they shouldn't.

Anyways there's a good chance it will be broadcast live on some channel or live stream. They usually are. Colorado local news station will likely have plenty of recaps.

a reply to: kicked

No. This has nothing to do with censoring. It's about giving the defendant a fair trial. He has a right to a fair trial. Both sides want this.

This is all about the judicial system not censoring conspiracy theories

a reply to: violet

so what you're saying is that i should watch the news for updates on this in the hopes that they are going to be reporting on it impartially and unbiased? right..
Like i said there is always a real story and an official story, and you're not getting the real story from the news.

It's what happens when a patsy who was, most likely, on psychotropics, and being manipulated into new thinking (ie. MK Ultra), goes to trial. Either they make sure the guy gets wiped out first, or they make sure they control the info to the point of creating the info.

I know a few people who were on that sh*t (psychotropics...that legal grey area called 'bath salts', RCs, etc), and They had so many disturbing things to say, and often following the same storyline, even though they weren't together while on it. And, since the stuff is/was 'legal', these people were on it A LOT (one ended up dropping out of college, he/she was so fried).

They told stories about how they began seeing light phase/location shifting (ie. a plane in multiple positions at the same time), which James Holmes was writing his thesis on. They have had that same 'psychotic staring into space' look on their faces, from days and days of being kept awake. They have had grandiose thoughts of 'fixing the problems of the world'...sometimes peacefully, sometimes not so much. They have said they see lights in the sky, like airplanes, but encircling them whenever they start thinking 'abnormally'. They have said they notice strange lights in the woods near where they live...in places where there are no neighbors...and that they think someone keeps sending thoughts into their heads. They have said, I'll repeat, they keep thinking someone is sending thoughts into their heads. They have said, they were told by 'God' to help humanity...again, some peacefully, some not. They have said they saw 'visions' of the future. Hell, one guy wouldn't get off his roof for days...literally just staring at the sky (it's when his wife decided to have an intervention).

Luckily, they've all stopped (I think) doing that sh*t...mostly because the ones they were doing have been banned (I think). They all agree that they know what happened to James Holmes.

I know it's all anecdotal but, these are people I know, who are well educated (couple who have science degrees, one half way through a nursing degree before dropping out). These are people who were doing psychotropics which were in that 'legal grey market' area...which could easily be tracked, and just a total farce front from TPTB in their 'updated MK Ultra' research.

I'm as doubtful as anyone, regarding things I haven't seen for myself but, the common thread here is way too strong to ignore.

originally posted by: kicked
a reply to: violet

so what you're saying is that i should watch the news for updates on this in the hopes that they are going to be reporting on it impartially and unbiased? right..
Like i said there is always a real story and an official story, and you're not getting the real story from the news.

Im saying if there's media there in the spectators gallery, they will be reporting exactly what was said in court. They have to tell the truth on that, it's transcribed. Of course there will be the usual legal analysis in some news reports which will be biased in their opinions. They may be allowed to show the actual video footage, just not live. The judge decides next week if he will allow live television coverage. He may allow it.

This is all very normal for motions to be entered to alllow certain things or to admit evidence. This arguing back and forth goes on before and during the trial. It's normal. There will be many delays.

It's about Mr. Holmes being given a fair trial, nothing else. If you knew more about Murder trials you might understand this.

Of course if you are that keen on knowing all of it, you are welcome to go to the courthouse and take a seat. It's public. There is nothing stopping anyone from attending. So it's not censoring.

It actually isn't "sketchy" at all. Sometimes, the media is allowed full access to a trial. Sometimes they are privy to the camera feeds in the courtroom. Sometimes they are allowed to attend and take notes for their news, but no video is released. Sometimes in the last example, they will use a sketch artist to create a picture to go along with the news story.

Oh wait, maybe it will be sketchy after all!

a reply to: violet

Maybe censoring wasn't the right word because like you say it is open to the public. It's more of an issue of selective reporting. You say that they have to tell the truth on what is said in court, but they don't have to report on all of it and they can absolutely twist the words and story to blur context and fit a certain narrative as there will be people who feel they will get the full story from a recap on their local news. I do not trust that i get the correct information from the media and if you do then that is your choice. It's already been said that he was on prescribed psychotropics and had just recently had a change in dosage, so let's see if the media reports on that.

I agree with your sentiment that he, like anyone else, deserves a fair trial and with such a high profile case there must be some discretion as to how the media attends to preserve the trial. Maybe it's because i'm a Canadian, and there is no such thing as a televised trial here, that i find it strange when there is discretionary and segmented access to something such as this. But you do bring up good points and i thank you for broadening my perspective on the topic.

a reply to: tavi45

Hmmmm it does seem a peculiar decision on the part of the Judge, but it's 'his house, his rules' and there would have been a discussion before he opted for media circus.

There appear to be clear elements of mental illness which makes it a little macabre. In that context, televising the Trial of a criminally insane multiple-murderer will be sh!t-hot for ratings. Maybe they should show it in black and white for that truly authentic, Victorian ghoul-show atmosphere?!

originally posted by: kicked
I think that that is what they wish to censor: the medication that he was on prior to and while he committed the crime.

I think what they want to censor is the medication he will be on during the trial.

Amy Bishop, alleged killer of three of her colleagues at the University of Alabama/Huntsville back on January 12, 2010, has appealed her life sentence on the grounds that she was so doped up during her trial she couldn't defend herself.

media.al.com...
pg26of57
"Upon arrival and throughout Bishop's entire stay at the Madison County Jail and throughout the guilty plea, colloquy, trial and sentencing Bishop was mentally incompetent ....due to prescription drugs which severely impaired her ability to think rationally... Madison County jail psychaitrist... prescribed Resperidal... Valium... Restoril... and Abilify. ..... These drugs rendered her incapable of rational thoughts, overcame ability to make decisions of her own free will, rendered her incapable of understanding the meaning and effect of her plea, caused her to be indifferent to protecting herself, left her with little determination so that her will could be easily overborne by questions and suggestions."

And that's how they are going to shaft James Holmes. (Plus a 'defense' attorney who will not challenge the official version of events, of course.)

a reply to: kicked

I do see where you are coming from on this.
I don't trust the medics either, but was just trying to say these motions the lawyers go for is all very normal and not censoring.

Anyways as I thought it will go ahead and be televised by which station chooses to do so. I would expect live streaming online will be allowed as well
Here's the ruling from the judge:
source

The media can broadcast the trial of accused Aurora theater shooter James Holmes, the judge in the case has ruled. But the television stations won't be able to set up their own camera in the courtroom, as they'd requested. Instead, they'll be allowed to broadcast footage captured by a closed-circuit camera mounted to the courtroom ceiling. Judge Carlos Samour explained why he's allowing the trial to be televised in an order on view below: "While the media can generally serve as the public's surrogate, members of the public should have the opportunity to see firsthand their justice system at work."

So it's just these two stations that tried the motions just can't use their own cameras. All very normal.,

a reply to: kicked
Re the psychotropic drugs, these stupid drugs can cause homicidal or suicidal urges. See I'm thinking its most likely the medication. Especially when a dosage changes. I'm not so convinced it's the MK ultra theory, not that I discount that happening. These drugs are extremely dangerous. He shouldn't have been on them. He shouldn't have been able to get guns so easily. Lots of mistakes were made that contributed to this tragic event and loss of innocent lives.

I don't know if they will be addressed. The defense may want to claim he was insane so he won't get the death penalty. If you're insane , you don't know right from wrong, you're innocent of the crime. He could be rendered guilty but the jury then goes through a penalty phase to decide on death. Not sure how that works in Colorado.