ATS: Have a question about the James Holmes case? I may be able to help...

I'm keeping this short because I'm on my phone...mods, feel free to place this where it goes.

Ok, ATS, I need to hear your genuine questions (questions please, not theories or accusations) about the Batman Massacre involving James Holmes.

Why? I just recently found out that a good friend of my family is a news producer whom has worked very very closely on this entire case. (I knew they are a producer, I did not know they were working on this case.) This is a close friend of my mother. I've known this person throughout my entire life and know they are a very genuine, real person and is very trust worthy. They have worked on many past news stories that I guarantee you are familiar with.

My friend was on scene the night of the shooting, has spoken directly with the psychiatrist and authorities and has been in the courtroom with James for every hearing.

Yes, i know you don't know me or this person. You have no reason to believe me, and i am well aware of all the skeptics and those who never believe unless they see a picture... and then see a picture and claim photoshop.

But, for those willing to be open: ask me a question and I will do my best to relay it to our friend. I plan on contacting them soon.

Please keep the questions rational, genuine and as unbiased as possible. I promise my friend is NOT involved with any cover up, and I have no desire to accuse them of anything.

I'm interested to hear what you are wondering.

reply to post by eleven44


Why are you prepared to give inside information to the curious? Why not let justice run it's course and we can get the information from the courts directly when it's all said and done.
Giving James Holmes any time is a waste of time. I urge everyone to ignore this and forget the man existed.

I'm rarely a negative nancy, but why would a producer be on scene.....I worked DC news for a number of years, and the producers never left the newsroom. The assignment desk would have gutted the information down to just what is show critical. I just don't see a colorado news room running any different than ours did. A producer is concerned with a shows layout, not fact gathering. You will have to give a bit more than this to have credibility.

reply to post by TheCanuckian


I'm not sure I understand your sentiments ...

Even if we forget he existed, the shooting still happened and many lives changed as result.
I'm not necessarily saying i'll give insider courtroom news that isn't out yet...but if people are wondering about the validity of the official story, or want to know what eye witnesses said or anything else i may not have thought about... this may be able to shed light.

reply to post by TheCanuckian


I hear that, and I agree with the point your making... I.e. not giving Holmes what he wanted-If it was indeed a crazed maniac trying to get attention.
On the other hand, this could result in this "producer" looking into some controversial aspects of the case that have been discussed here on ATS (Sure, the OP could just search for previous posts on the topics and get the questions there... but it's been a minutes since I see a fresh post on the Batman massacre, and frankly I hope the time lets us ask questions that are STILL a mystery). IMO the best that could come from this would is the OP reporting back with news that said producer was told coldly "not to push the subject," followed by a nefarious "or else..." implication.

Originally posted by TheCanuckian
reply to post by eleven44

 

Why are you prepared to give inside information to the curious? Why not let justice run it's course and we can get the information from the courts directly when it's all said and done.
Giving James Holmes any time is a waste of time. I urge everyone to ignore this and forget the man existed.

Oh, by all means let's wait until they've completed the illusion and gotten their "official story" completely together. The whole point of this site is to be skeptical of official stories.

Thanks, OP, but I don't have any questions at this time. I'll continue to read and wait for any others who may like to participate....

reply to post by pointr97


They are a 'Field Producer.' ( i just checked on their LinkedIn.)

Sorry if I didn't make that distinction earlier.
But they are always one of the first to be on the scene

Ask him if he personally feels suspicious about anything regarding this event. Has he been instructed by anyone to NOT discuss or question certain things about the event? And if so, what may they include?

Because these shooting events STINK TO HIGH HELL and we need answers. REAL answers...

Originally posted by eleven44
reply to post by pointr97

 

They are a 'Field Producer.' ( Just check on their LinkedIn.)

Sorry if I didn't make that distinction earlier.
But they are always one of the first to be on the scene

No, sorry, a photog is the first on the scene....Unless they are CNN, FOXNEWS, or the othere national big boys, they don't have a budget for a field producer....And if it is someone your mothers age, she isn't in the field anymore. Field Producers rarely if ever spend their day sitting through lengthy court sessions, they farm that to the reporter, that is their job. Your going to have to give more specific info to your source, ie, the network or something that would give a reason why she has detailed information. I have a couple of friends that are in CO that could validate the position and credibility of your source, pm me with details and I will be happy to second her testimony.

reply to post by eleven44


No offense but... How many millions of dollars will it cost us to prove he did it when there is probably 3 camera angles of the whole thing?

Oh on a serious note... Ask him why he thought it was important to stay alive to stand trial to get the death penalty and not commit suicide on his own terms. Seems odd to me that he controlled the deaths of so many but not his own.

Another question...

Does he have a suspicion of any camera footage of the event being "kept quiet"?

reply to post by eleven44


You edited your first post 3 times and the all others you also edited at least once for such small content.

I find you hard to believe actually.

reply to post by bluemirage5


Firat thing I said is that I am ony phone.
If i left all the typos and mistakes i made you'd be questioning either my sobriety or my literacy.

Look and the reason given for my second edit of the OP.

**EDIT**
Two mistakes in my reply to you.
i didn't catch them until after i replied.
i will leave them there.
(I do long sections with speech recognition. It's not always accurate.)

I'm curious, so is this the same 'friend'? She can happen to prove UFO's don't exist because a 'leading' general gave her a tour AND has inside information on Aurora shooting.....Wow...that is a special lady

Same Person?

I have a good family friend, we'll call her 'Kate.' She is one of my mothers best friends from back in the day when they were growing up. They're both 50 now. I've known Kate since I was a little kid, she really is a great person and even though she loves to have fun, she also tells 'it' like it is. Kate has been a news Producer now for about (I think) the last 25-30 years. She's worked mainly for CBS, but has produced stories for most of the other major news channels as well. You're more than likely familiar with some of the stories she's been in charge of, even though you probably wouldn't recognize her name (unless you worked within the field. You would know her Aunt's name...but that's a whole other story.)

They general, very seriously, replied, "Ma'am there are nosuch thing as UFO's. We identify every object that comes within American air space." She said there was a very 'telling' look that accompanied the way he said it. You know, basically saying, "Yes, alien crafts exist, but our technology is good enough to 'identify' them, thus they are no longer ufo's, they are ifo's."

Originally posted by pointr97
I'm curious, so is this the same 'friend'? She can happen to prove UFO's don't exist because a 'leading' general gave her a tour AND has inside information on Aurora shooting.....Wow...that is a special lady

Same Person?

Yes, actually.
Notice in that situation she was in Colorado. Same as this case.

I really don't care if people believe me. I am a 100% honest person and have nothing to hide.

EDIT:
For the record, I was trying to not give away any indication as to who this maybe (gender or otherwise.) if she happen to give us any information I do not want anybody to find out specifically who it is, given that there's only a few amount of people specifically working on this case and in the courtroom. (For respect of their own privacy and safety.)

Edit edit:
As for how her station runs, I don't know what to tell you. She has been a field producer with them for over 20 years. She hasn't had much work as field producer in the last few years, but when a big story comes up she's the first a call, especially if it is in her area.

Originally posted by eleven44

Originally posted by pointr97
I'm curious, so is this the same 'friend'? She can happen to prove UFO's don't exist because a 'leading' general gave her a tour AND has inside information on Aurora shooting.....Wow...that is a special lady

Same Person?

Yes, actually.
Notice in that situation she was in Colorado. Same as this case.

I really don't care if people believe me. I am a 100% honest person and have nothing to hide.

When a person says they are being honest.....that is the first hint they are lying. Look, here it is, I can corroborate her credentials privately. Until then, this is a nice piece of fiction.

Originally posted by eleven44

Originally posted by pointr97
I'm curious, so is this the same 'friend'? She can happen to prove UFO's don't exist because a 'leading' general gave her a tour AND has inside information on Aurora shooting.....Wow...that is a special lady

Same Person?

Yes, actually.
Notice in that situation she was in Colorado. Same as this case.

I really don't care if people believe me. I am a 100% honest person and have nothing to hide.

For the record, I was trying to not give away any indication as to who this maybe (gender or otherwise.) if she happen to give us any information I do not want anybody to find out specifically who it is, given that there's only a few amount of people specifically working on this case and in the courtroom. (For respect of their own privacy and safety.)

edit on 28-12-2012 by eleven44 because: (no reason given)

Uhm, great job, you gave her gender....this is getting more and more as if you are back peddling trying to cover your 'facts'

edit-indignation is the next sign, 'fine, you don't want my truth as i give it, to hell with you'.

Next, what do you mean there was only a small group of people, any and every station in the country/world who could send a crew, did.....they were all trying to get info that the others didn't have.

Why don't we try it this way......let's cred her previous story out...What was the 'leading' general's name? Considering there are a lot of generals that give tours.

reply to post by eleven44


Hi, I have a question, is there any real proof that James Holmes was inside the theatre that night?
Security footage or witness statements, I've been waiting to see proof of that.
Also is he still looking out of it when he is in court, not knowing what's going on?
Thank you.

ETA. I have more questions, does she know anything about there being more than one shooter?
Does she know anything about the information the lady in the red dress with the shaved head tried to give to the court?
Is there any truth in the story that his father was due to give evidence?
Any idea when you might have answers for us?
Thanks.

reply to post by pointr97


I have no idea what the name of the general was, it was a quick story she told us while we were drinking margaritas at dinner.

I didn't purposely give her gender this post, you did so by referencing the other post. What was I supposed to do, say that I have another friend is a producer? Or say that I was lying about the gender of my friend in the previous post?

Every new station in the world is covering this, but very few news reporters have been in the courtroom as much as she has or covered it as extensively as she has.

Either believe me or don't, I'm not saying this to sound indignant, and if you think so then that is your interpretation and not the tone of my voice or the spirit of my attitude. I would simply rather talk with those who have good questions instead of continuously explain away somebody else's attacks against me and my credibility.
What do 'honest' people say, 'I'm lying?'