It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Accused Colorado movie theater gunman charged with multiple counts of murder

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesickoThe fact he was arrested at the scene with weapons and was dressed in riot gear...says nothing to you.

Or are you just trying to pull a conspiracy out your butt, just to have one..


Do you know what the term 'circumstantial evidence' means? My guess is, no, you don't.

Circumstantial evidence can, and often is, used to convict. Especially compelling circumstantial evidence, such as standing with a murder weapon at your feet at the scene of a a murder, is often used with great success. That said, without positive ID it's still circumstantial. That doesn't mean he's not guilty, it just means that there's no positive ID of him actually committing the crime. In other words, a good defense attorney can sufficiently muddy the waters of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and get an acquittal. Is that what will happen here? Probably not.

However, saying that this is an open and shut case, as many have done, is intellectually and factually dishonest. This will be an interesting trial, to say the least.
edit on 30-7-2012 by samcrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by samcrow

Originally posted by flyswatterAdditional time to formulate a plea though, that can show any number of things, so I think it would be wrong to assume that they need that time to come up with a defense as to his innocence. But regardless of the reason, them requesting additional time is a good thing, as more time will do nothing but help their client. Could be that they want to plead not guilty. Could be that they want time to talk with their client to talk about a plea. Could be that they need more information to help them base an insanity plea on.


Correct, and I should've elaborated on that point a bit more. This is going to be a 'Not Guilty' plea. The question is whether they go the insanity route. I'm going to hazard a guess here right now that this is a straight-up 'Not Guilty' plea.

Also of note: The prosecution is being squirrely about turning over discovery on that notebook. The defense claims it's privileged information and that its leak damages the ability for Holmes to have a fair trial. The prosecution got the motion denied because the defense alleged that the notebook was leaked, which they claim was factually inaccurate. So, we now have this absolutely critical piece of evidence tied up in a procedural argument.


The notebook is a tricky thing. It was sent to a psychologist, which is (from what I understand) at least part of the reasoning that they are claiming it is privileged information. What I did not hear was if it was sent to the psychologist that had been treating him. If it wasnt, the argument about it being privileged information should be thrown out, as it would not be considered private information between client and doctor. If it WAS the psychologist that was treating him, I think the best way to deal with it would be to have it brought before the judge in a pre-trial hearing. Let him take a look and see what information is there, then make a determination on it being privileged or not.
edit on 30-7-2012 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatterThe notebook is a tricky thing. It was sent to a psychologist, which is (from what I understand) at least part of the reasoning that they are claiming it is privileged information. What I did not hear was if it was sent to the psychologist that had been treating him. If it wasnt, the argument about it being privileged information should be thrown out, as it would not be considered private information between client and doctor. If it WAS the psychologist that was treating him, I think the best way to deal with it would be to have it brought before the judge in a pre-trial hearing. Let him take a look and see what information is there, then make a determination on it being privileged or not.
edit on 30-7-2012 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)


There's also another 'gray area' in that it was never actually received and opened by its intended recipient. Mental health professionals are bound to report perceived or actual threats, which removes the issue of privilege. So, one of the arguments being made is that if it's never actually seen by the person who can override privilege (the doctor) it can't be admitted.

And I don't think it has been established (at least I haven't seen it) whether or not this individual was actually treating/seeing Holmes or was just another university employee.
edit on 30-7-2012 by samcrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by samcrow

Originally posted by flyswatterThe notebook is a tricky thing. It was sent to a psychologist, which is (from what I understand) at least part of the reasoning that they are claiming it is privileged information. What I did not hear was if it was sent to the psychologist that had been treating him. If it wasnt, the argument about it being privileged information should be thrown out, as it would not be considered private information between client and doctor. If it WAS the psychologist that was treating him, I think the best way to deal with it would be to have it brought before the judge in a pre-trial hearing. Let him take a look and see what information is there, then make a determination on it being privileged or not.
edit on 30-7-2012 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)


There's also another 'gray area' in that it was never actually received and opened by its intended recipient. Mental health professionals are bound to report perceived or actual threats, which removes the issue of privilege. So, one of the arguments being made is that if it's never actually seen by the person who can override privilege (the doctor) it can't be admitted.

And I don't think it has been established (at least I haven't seen it) whether or not this individual was actually treating/seeing Holmes or was just another university employee.
edit on 30-7-2012 by samcrow because: (no reason given)


Maybe the right thing to do in that case would be to show it to the person that it was intended for and let them determine, in their professional opinion, if it constituted something that they would have to report to the authorities as a threat. If it is something they would report, then allow it.

If we take the stance that the leaked information about the notebook (and what it contains) is accurate, then my guess that the psychologist would have reported it very quickly.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Okay, James Holmes is charged as being the alleged shooter in the Colorado mass murder. Lets get this show on the road! However, lets not get too ahead of ourselves either. I have heard some off-the-wall theories on here. Like he was a victim of MKULTRA, Aurora was a Illuminati blood sacrifice, and of course the favorite around here, another false flag. My personal favorite is false flag, because every problem in the wold can be attributed to a false flag.

Excuse the sarcasm, but did it not dawn on anyone that this incident may very well be a lunatic going postal on a bunch of innocent people? You know, your garden variety spree killing? There is no conspiracy there or secret cabal pulling the strings, and it is just plain cold and calculated murder. I take what ever the MSM has to say with a grain of salt, because each big news story persistently shows how inept they are at gathering the facts and putting it all together. They are more comfortable covering celebrities, sport events, or whatever tabloid fantasy they can come up with to inebriate the masses.

Therefore, I anxiously await the actual trial with evidence and eye witness testimony. I wanna know the facts before making any judgments on this or anything. That is just me, and I am not much of a reader of the National Inquirer. So forgive me, if I am not up on the blood sacrifices and false flags.
edit on 30-7-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattdel
Dear anyone involved in the case, legally or not: We're still waiting for conclusive evidence that links JAMES HOLMES as the shooter. As it stands, these charges are nothing but hearsay and grandeur for the public.

Show me the proof that JAMES HOLMES pulled the trigger, 130+ times.


There would be gun powder residue on his hands, I have heard no reports of this. Police always test suspected shooters hands for residue.

Has anyone got word on this?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth

Originally posted by mattdel
Dear anyone involved in the case, legally or not: We're still waiting for conclusive evidence that links JAMES HOLMES as the shooter. As it stands, these charges are nothing but hearsay and grandeur for the public.

Show me the proof that JAMES HOLMES pulled the trigger, 130+ times.


There would be gun powder residue on his hands, I have heard no reports of this. Police always test suspected shooters hands for residue.

Has anyone got word on this?


Well, yeah. Its assumed that they'd always be doing these tests. Or if he was wearing gloves, they'd test the gloves and clothing, etc. I'm going to assume that these tests have already been done, but we're not likely to see any results publicized for the time being. Smart move on all accounts.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by riddle6
 


I have to admit, I posted a similar post to this one earlier. I didn't realise that somebody could be charged twice for the same murder. Is this unprecedented? Again, this is in no way myself being sarcastic, I genuinely have never heard of this happening before today.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
And also, I don't understand why people on this forum seem to feel that they're entitled to be given any kind of 'proof' or evidence of anything. Why do people seem to think that we're owed an explanation before the guy has even gone to trial? Once everything is over I'm sure we'll get more details but they're hardly going to release any of the gritty details beforehand.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaemonD14
reply to post by riddle6
 


I have to admit, I posted a similar post to this one earlier. I didn't realise that somebody could be charged twice for the same murder. Is this unprecedented? Again, this is in no way myself being sarcastic, I genuinely have never heard of this happening before today.


It's fairly common, if not expected, in trials like this. I posted a link to the criminal complaint a few posts back. You'll see the separate charges explained there. Basically, the prosecution has to throw everything it can at the case and let the jury sort it out lest they have to worry about an acquittal on specific charges and/or double jeopardy, etc. So, what they've done here is charge Holmes with 'basic' murder as well as 'murder with extreme malice/indifference.' The prosecution wants the 'murder with extreme malice/indifference' charge because it carries stiffer penalties, but they have to prove the malice/indifference part. If they went to court only charging him with that and weren't able to satisfactorily prove it (even though they might prove the actual murder), the jury has to acquit him. However, if they include both charges and the jury acquits on malice they can still convict on 'basic' murder. He won't get convicted of all 24 counts.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Witness stories will never match up. You can take five people and have them watch the same thing, and all five of them will give you different stories of what happened. Now add onto that the chaos of being in a dark theater admist gas and people running hysterically and screams and moans and groans and a person indiscriminately shooting everyone, there is no way you are going to get all the witnesses to agree on what happened.

For people to continue to use this as an excuse that it must be conspiracy is beyond me.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth

Originally posted by mattdel
Dear anyone involved in the case, legally or not: We're still waiting for conclusive evidence that links JAMES HOLMES as the shooter. As it stands, these charges are nothing but hearsay and grandeur for the public.

Show me the proof that JAMES HOLMES pulled the trigger, 130+ times.


There would be gun powder residue on his hands, I have heard no reports of this. Police always test suspected shooters hands for residue.

Has anyone got word on this?


It"s alledged that Holmes played with evidence bags that were put on his hands to preserve substances. So we could assume tests were done.

I say alledged as many early reports in this story are being taken back. Surely the point here is that none of the victims saw Holme's face or hair. The police at the scene who were said to arrest him could testify but they probably didn't see him shoot anyone.

thedenverchannel.com...

I thought he was a lone madman at first but after reading all the transcripts and looking at photos, I doubt he acted alone.


edit on 30-7-2012 by DrHammondStoat because: Link

edit on 30-7-2012 by DrHammondStoat because: Sorry, having trouble with links today!



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Nothing will happen to this clown, he is getting 5 star treatment like Charles Manson. Underground passage in his cell.
edit on 30-7-2012 by Fox666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I'm there with ya about it being MKULTRA

and I'm sure he will be 'Jack Ruby'ed' pretty soon.

I think that he was 'programmed' to respond '"YES" to the charges.

Holmes is clearly a PATSY.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
I'm there with ya about it being MKULTRA

and I'm sure he will be 'Jack Ruby'ed' pretty soon.

I think that he was 'programmed' to respond '"YES" to the charges.

Holmes is clearly a PATSY.


Sure thing. Now, if you have any proof of that, we'd all love to see it. You know, just like all of the other cases that people claim the government orchestrated.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


I think it's worth mentioning that the state must prove someone is guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.. That means they have to prove without a doubt that Holmes in fact was the only lone gunman that killed / injured all those people....

I personally think he is guilty, but I personally believe it will be emotion that decides this verdict not facts in evidence.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by flyswatter
 


I think it's worth mentioning that the state must prove someone is guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.. That means they have to prove without a doubt that Holmes in fact was the only lone gunman that killed / injured all those people....

I personally think he is guilty, but I personally believe it will be emotion that decides this verdict not facts in evidence.


They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed people in the theater. Me thinks that this wont be terribly difficult to do


I agree that he is guilty. I also agree that emotion will play a part in deciding this verdict, but as humans judging humans, that will always be the case, at least to some extent. There is at least a sliver of emotion in anything that everything that we do.

I want this guy to get a fair trial, and in all likelyhood that will end up with a guilty verdict, or not guilt by reason of insanity. Either way, I dont see him having another free moment in his life.

But regardless of feeling, emotion, etc ... it will be interesting to see what the final charges end up being at the time the trial starts, and how the trial plays out.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
My mind reels at the thought of how long this could take to play out in court given all the well known court antics that most likely will be played. Wouldn't be surprised even to end it with a hung jury or acquittal. Damn. Trial maybe wrap up sometime around 2017? Guess I'll refrain from posting on Holmes threads 'til trial starts, don't have five years to spare, gonna be interesting. How come no one's been asking if he has an alibi?

edit on 7/30/2012 by shockedonlooker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


I think the primary issue will be the fact that the "Shooter" (aka holmes) was wearing a gas mask during the event and that will undoubtedly make him harder to identify specifically as being in the theater and not someone else. The only problem with this is he was found in his car later... So there is doubt that he was in fact the sole shooter.. He may end up claiming he was the getaway driver.

Now I'm not completely clear on all the facts of the case, especially with contradictions among eye witnesses.. I do however think that the points made previously could be argued on part of the defense. I also know it would make it much harder to get a guilty verdict on all counts.
edit on 30-7-2012 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 


Won't ever go to trial. They will seek death penalty and his parents will convince him to plead out.
shut and sealed forever.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join