Judge approves use of 'truth serum' on accused Aurora shooter James Holmes

Judge approves use of 'truth serum' on accused Aurora shooter James Holmes

www.guardian.co.uk

Legal and medical experts are questioning the decision of a judge in Colorado to allow James Holmes, the suspected gunman in the Aurora cinema shooting, to be tested with a "truth serum" should he plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

Judge William Sylvester ruled that in the event of Holmes pleading insanity his prosecutors would be permitted to interrogate him while he is under the influence of a medical drug designed to loosen him up and get him to talk. The idea would be that such a "narcoanalytic interview" would be used to confirm whether or not he had been legally insane when he embarked on his shooting spree on 20 July last year.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't know if this was posted already, but I find it very disturbing. When and where will they draw the line? When will the application of the "truth serum" become standard protocol because they will continue to "justify" reasons for using it?

Just a shame... I don't want to cover for a killer, but this is just blatant invasion of personal space and privacy. Not to mention a major violation of your 5th amendment right to remain silent.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

This could have a positive effect; if there is something we aren't being told about the shooting this could cause it to come out.

So called truth serum is also used as the active ingredient in mind control programming methods. They might want to re-start someone who has become noncompliant to their mind control technology so needs a dose refresh.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
This could have a positive effect; if there is something we aren't being told about the shooting this could cause it to come out.

Violating the constitution NEVER has a "positive effect."

the 5th ammendment is for testimony in court

this would be an interview with a psychiatrist to determine his sanity I believe

either way, and interview done under influence of a drug is total BS

Originally posted by SilentKoala
This could have a positive effect; if there is something we aren't being told about the shooting this could cause it to come out.

Yeah, but do you honestly think they'd let that little doozy out? I'm sure the people who orchestrated this aren't just going to be like "Oh, the truth serum deprogrammed him and made him spill the beans? Sure go ahead and televise that. No big deal."

I don't find this to be unreasonable at all. If Holmes' plan is to play the insanity card why not check out his story to make sure it corroborates? I do understand your fear of the slippery slope this may lead to, but if it is being used strictly in the context specified (which it is) then I do not see any issue here. The guy [Holmes] shot up a movie theatre in cold blood. If he was "brain washed by the CIA" like some people on here speculate then he has nothing to hide when his story comes clean. In fact, wouldn't that be damning to the people that did that to him if that conspiracy theory possessed any truth?

The fact of the matter is that this is not a government conspiracy. James Holmes killed many innocent lives, and my opinion is that if someone is going to claim (or have their legal team claim) they are not of sound mind, I do not see the harm in administering the truth serum.

In before SneakySleuth911 is a "disinfo agent."

reply to post by endats01


Barbiturates are poor behavioral modifiers. They are great inhibition overrides however. IE they work only in the short term. That is why the CIA kept experimenting and moved onto psychotropics and hallucinogens. Thorazine works as a short term behavior modifier - the caveat being a dose strong enough to achieve mind control also renders the subject too sedated to function.

The reality is that getting a person into a state of suggestibility is far more easily accomplished by deprivation, taboo violation, mood stabilizers, and the creation and manipulation of Stockholm Syndrome. Just ask Patty Hearst - or anyone who has made it through military basic training.

~Heff

If this goes through, will this set a precedent for using truth serum when someone pleads insanity?

I have never heard of this being done before, and it's scary to think if approved, this will probably be done again in the future, for more reasons than an insanity plea.

Well the Great America where now judges have the right to tell how people can get tortured, by the so call "authorities" I wonder when they will legalize water bording.

The Aurora shooter was a killer, the judge have the right to say that mental insanity could not be use in this case, plain and simple, he is the one that hold the power, it seems to me that this judge is either insecure or insane himself and not fit to use judgment when it needs a torture method to make a decision.

Hell, can we use now the truth serum for case of divorce? you know to make sure the spouses are not lying about cheating against each other? how about employers to make sure the employers are not making up that they are sick to avoid working?

Open the door, police could carry the serum for random stops to make sure you are who you are.

If a so call "experts" can not tell who is mentally insane by established medicine this days then they should not be licensed in the subject plain and simple, they are joke to the medical comunity.

We should used the serum on the judge to make sure he is not also mentally insane.

Originally posted by SneakySleuth911
I don't find this to be unreasonable at all. If Holmes' plan is to play the insanity card why not check out his story to make sure it corroborates? I do understand your fear of the slippery slope this may lead to, but if it is being used strictly in the context specified (which it is) then I do not see any issue here. The guy [Holmes] shot up a movie theatre in cold blood. If he was "brain washed by the CIA" like some people on here speculate then he has nothing to hide when his story comes clean. In fact, wouldn't that be damning to the people that did that to him if that conspiracy theory possessed any truth?

The fact of the matter is that this is not a government conspiracy. James Holmes killed many innocent lives, and my opinion is that if someone is going to claim (or have their legal team claim) they are not of sound mind, I do not see the harm in administering the truth serum.

In before SneakySleuth911 is a "disinfo agent."

I agree that Holmes was not "brainwashed by the CIA." I've posted evidence in numerous threads explaining how that is not possible....but that's not really the point of this thread.

The real problem here is that we have a protection under the Constitution to remain silent. We have a right against self-incrimination. It doesn't matter if he plays an insanity defense or not (which I believe he is insane). The judge has entered a plea of "not guilty." Even if he should plead guilty (which he hasn't), it is a violation of the Constitution to force anyone to talk or incriminate themselves. No exceptions. There is nothing in the world that justifies this.... And it is a slippery slope because once you start allowing "exceptions," that list will just continue to grow. There is ample proof of that....

This is almost as alarming to me as gun control.....It violates the very basis of the premise that we have a right to protect OURSELVES.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy

The real problem here is that we have a protection under the Constitution to remain silent. We have a right against self-incrimination. It doesn't matter if he plays an insanity defense or not (which I believe he is insane). The judge has entered a plea of "not guilty." Even if he should plead guilty (which he hasn't), it is a violation of the Constitution to force anyone to talk or incriminate themselves. No exceptions. There is nothing in the world that justifies this.... And it is a slippery slope because once you start allowing "exceptions," that list will just continue to grow. There is ample proof of that....

This is almost as alarming to me as gun control.....It violates the very basis of the premise that we have a right to protect OURSELVES.

Now that torture and drugs are used on military detainees; rationalized by the phrase "greater good"....

Is it any wonder that now American citizens will be subject to the same type of "information extraction?"

Slippery slope indeed....

It's a brave new world; welcome to the machine....

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the 5th ammendment is for testimony in court

You can plead the 5th at any time, court is not a requirement, you should always plead it when questioned by the police.

That is why this is a problem, questioning him about where he "was on the night in question," is no different they questioning him about his sanity. The problem here is the judge is creating new Constitutional law, and simply because Holmes is an "awful lying scumbag killer." Sadly this bias is making the law his is wholly making up valid.

The man has the right to refuse testifying, ever, it is the job of the State to prove his guilt or innocence without his participation. This will be used, if he is successful in making this happen, very soon to make all manner of folks testify; reluctant witnesses, folks who can't remember, folks who take the 5th for patriotic reasons and so on. The judge has seen way too many movies on the topic of truth serum, maybe he should be put under to see which team he actually plays for. This is beyond bad, when will water-boarding be okay to test a defendant's contentions, is there a difference?

Truth: I havent read ONE reply.

My opinion:

Every single person that is to testify or
give vitness should do the same or be
FORCED to..The oath isnt enough,
and has NEVER been...

If, the serum actually works that is...

First of all, any evidence obtained under the influence of medical chemicals, or narcotics, SHOULD be inadmissable. Forcing the subject to take a needle, or ingest a chemical substance against his will, is a violation of his human rights, leave alone the constitution. Not only that, but any action taken in response to any evidence so obtained, will be smacked down by higher power than the court which orders the drug to be administered.

In short, this SEEMS to be a bid to prevent this case from actually being completed, or at least to prevent the case being completed to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. Those defending the rights of the killer, and those upholding justice for the fallen.

reply to post by CIAGypsy


While I would like to know what really happened that day, I think this sets a dangerous precedent if allowed to occur. Who is next for this bizarre treatment?

If lie detectors are inadmissible, why would this be any different?

Things like this really make me question what the hell is happening to this country. This sounds more like something that would have happened in Nazi Germany in the 40’s rather than the US of A today.

S&F

Why not tase him until he tells them what they want to hear?

Works for desperate investigators every time they do it.

Hasn't anyone heard of MKULTRA? They've been using "truth serums" for years...This really isn't that surprising. In the 50's they experimented truth serums with alcohol, marijuana, lsd and shrooms...I wonder what they have in store nowadays.

And if he really was brainwashed by the CIA to kill all those people I wouldn't be surprised if this shooter "kills himself" a day or two before recieving the truth serum.

Originally posted by TrueBrit

In short, this SEEMS to be a bid to prevent this case from actually being completed, or at least to prevent the case being completed to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. Those defending the rights of the killer, and those upholding justice for the fallen.

This is a very intriguing idea.... Surely the judge has to recognize the coming constitutional challenge, so that would indicate that he is doing it on purpose. In this kind of legal game, you never ask a question unless you know the answer. It's the same premise....you never make a ruling unless you are quite certain of the outcome. Judges are very hesitant to make controversial rulings because they don't want the "egg on their face" if it gets reversed.

So what are they really playing at here? Trying to get the trial invalidated? If so, who, which side, and why?