98 2 mins 8 yrs

The State has announced it will seek the death penalty for the Colorado Cinema shooter who killed twelve people and injured many more during a Batman movie.

I am opposed to the death penalty in almost all situations. I am opposed to it here, as understandable as the urge might be to subject him to it. It is always a more difficult case to argue against when we know the shooter to be guilty (the presumption of innocense is for the Court case, not for discussion outside of it). While I feel he might be deserving of it, I don’t want to give the State such an irrevocable power in thsi type of circumstance (murder, even mass murder). But as cases go, it is easy to see merit in the arguments in favor of the death penalty as well. But I am not persuaded by those arguments. What do you think?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

98 thoughts on “Death Penalty in Colorado

  1. Let him spend the rest of his life in a small prison cell where there is no brutality but where there is also no nonsense.

    We do know that this bastard is guilty, but idiot prosecutors / juries also think that they ” know ” that innocent people are guilty too.

  2. //It is always a more difficult case to argue against when we know the shooter to be guilty //

    I don’t see why. Killing someone who is at your mercy is always wrong.

  3. “The State has announced it will seek the death penalty for the Colorado Cinema shooter who killed twelve people and injured many more during a Batman movie.”

    Whereas if James Holmes had called it “foreign policy” and had kiiled a dozen innocents with a hellfire missile, that same state would have paid him a salary reward.

    Last September a Stanford/BYU stidy estimated that 176 children had, to then, been killed by drone attacks along with hundreds more adult victims. If James Holmes deserves the death penalty, so does the commander of the forces who have committed incomparably worse crimes.

    No, if it’s wrong for you and me to kill, it’s wrong for the state to kill. Putting on a magic uniform with a magic rank doesn’t get around it.

  4. //if James Holmes had called it “foreign policy” and had kiiled a dozen innocents with a hellfire missile, //

    As bad as the killings of innocents by drones are, they are on a totally different moral plane to this kind of mass murder. There is first of all the (lack of) intention, then the different motivation etc etc.

  5. The lack of intention, Noel, or the conscious refusal to recognise that a deliberate policy had the foreseen consequences of civilian victims?

    It’s not credible to drop thousands of bombs and missiles in civilian-populated areas and then claim that you didn’t intend for civilians to be killed. The history of modern warfare is clear on what will happen, and there’s no moral distinction with murderers.

  6. So the bombing of German and Japanese cities were acts of murder?

    Should we prosecute the surviving bomber crews?

    After all, they’re murderers and everything.

  7. “I don’t see why. Killing someone who is at your mercy is always wrong.”

    Twisted logic Noel.
    If I know the penalty for murder is death by hanging, how then am I at the mercy of anybody? I am held to account for my actions as a free man by the law.

  8. Pete – There is in fact a distinction, although to the dead it may be a distinction without a difference.

    The idea with the drones is to eliminate terrorists and avoid civilian deaths if at all possible. It is not done to target civilians, although it is done wit hthe risk that civilian deaths could occr. I don’t support the policy because it is ripe for error and I think it is missing safeguard protocols. I also think it is too secretive and allows for too much discretion. That being said, it is not the deliberate targeting of civilians for its own sake.

  9. Phantom –

    “So the bombing of German and Japanese cities were acts of murder?”

    In some cases, of course. Also, in some cases, they were military stupid and counterproductive.

    Agit8ed –

    As a Christian, how do you reconcile your defence of capital punishment with the Sixth Commandment to not kill/murder?

  10. They were crude instruments, unlike the more precise drones, but they saved many hundreds of thousands of allied lives, and at the end of the day they could well have been a net savior of Axis lives by bringing the war to a sooner end.

    The Japanese, in particular, would have fought to the last man on the Japanese mainland, as they fought to the last man in many battles in the Pacific.

  11. Mahons –

    “The idea with the drones is to eliminate terrorists and avoid civilian deaths if at all possible.”

    Insufficient.

    The many hundreds of civilians deaths suggest that it’s not a robustly applied policy. The Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 3[1]) pleaces a legal obligation on forces to treat civilians humanely “in all circumstances”. Not just where possible, but in all circumstances.

    It’s a great shame that the Fourth Convention isn’t enforced absolutely. A few presidents and prime ministers in the dock will soon curtail their taste for war.

  12. War crimes can be real, but they are generally reserved for the most flagarent violations as the line between what is justified and what may not be is often blurred in a war. It is certainly a topic for consideration and debate, but it isn’t this topic which deals with the death penalty as a punishment for a criminal act and not an act of war.

  13. Pete – The number of civilian deaths indicates that the drones are not as precise as we wish. One of the issues I have with the drone program is that even the classification of who is a civilian is troubling. Male adults in the vicinity of a strike can be classified as legitimate targets, whic hmay not be the case.

    frankly, I don’t know if the drones are as productive as claimed to warrant their use except in all but limited circumstances.

    But is still isn’t first degree murder.

  14. Mahons –

    Well, no, so back on topic and the punishment of Holmes – would it make much of a difference?

    He’ll never be a free man again. He’ll leave prison in a box, either in a few years or a few decades. If the accused is guilty, I don’t see much of a difference between capital punishment and a whole life sentence.

  15. Pete,
    Being a Christian does not abolish the law. If I commit a crime even as a Christian I cannot expect to escape the consequence of breaking the law.

    The sixth commandment is part of the Jewish religion, and God’s law was not abolished by Christ’s coming, but rather to save sinners from the eternal consequences of sin.

    “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.” 1 Peter 4:15
    “But let none of you suffer as a murderer,…. The punishment for murder was death by the law of God, Genesis 9:6”
    Killing people in a just war is rather different, although some Christians wouldn’t do that either.

  16. Pete – some think life without parole is worse. He certainly dies in prison one way or the other. Even a captial conviction might get appealed for years.

  17. Pete,

    “If the accused is guilty, I don’t see much of a difference between capital punishment and a whole life sentence.”

    Have you changed your position? You used to argue that a whole life sentence was more inhumane than capital punishment (which is not a bad argument).

    For me the principle is that only the minimum necessary force in self-defence is justified. Imprisoning somebody for life and killing them are about as bad as each other, but at least you can partly compensate somebody if you make a mistake in locking them up.

  18. Frank

    not -about as bad –

    There is nothing bad with keeping a dangerous person away from human society.

    Even if you skip past the need for punishment, society has every right to protect itself.

    If there was certainty that you’d only whack the bad guys, there would be nothing wrong with the death penalty, no matter what any religion said. But you can rarely if ever have that certainty, since humans are very fallible.

  19. Phantom,

    “There is nothing bad with keeping a dangerous person away from human society.”

    The fact that it is justified and necessary doesn’t mean there is nothing bad about it.

    Depriving somebody of their liberty is a very grave step, always.

    Imagine for example somebody is suffering from a brain tumour that makes them go on killing sprees (not a hypothetical, this has actually happened at least once). Would it be justified to lock them away to protect people? Sure. Would that be a terrible thing? Yes.

  20. Well, most of the bad guys don’t have that excuse.

    And a lot of them don’t have the poverty excuse either! John Gotti Jr. grew up in a fair amount of luxury, but he wanted to be a thug and so a thug he was.

    I think that there should be a lot more talk about what happens in jail.

    I think that there should be a lot more talk about prison reform, too. But almost no one cares about that subject.

  21. Frank O’Dwyer –

    I haven’t changed my position. In the event that the accused is guilty and obviously so, a whole-life tariff seems to me at least to be no more humane than capital punishment. Mistakes can be made in court of course. Wherever there’s a shade of doubt no-one should suffer the ultimate sentence, but that also demands rigid adherence to due process and I wouldn’t necessarily argue if someone an make the case that that’s not possible.

    I do think I’d be a touch more hesitant as a juror to find someone guilty if capital punishment was the penalty, so the prosecution case would need to be absolutely compelling.

  22. The point of punishing criminal behaviour is that civil society is rendering punishment and justice against those whose acts are deemed to be outsided of civilised behaviour. Civilised society shouldn’t copy uncivilised behaviour by performing the same acts on the criminal.

    We wouldn’t punish a rapist by passing a sentence that he should be raped so why would it be OK to punish a killer by killing him ?

  23. I think you’re a bit confused here Colm.
    The idea is to make the punishment *proportionate* to the seriousness of the crime, not make it exactly the SAME as the crime.
    If that were the case then pickpockets would have their own pocket’s picked of the same amount of money, and then sent on their way.

  24. I was in the bank earlier today and on the drone-screen (the flat screen TV through which the BBC injects its BS) was footage of the prosecutor requesting the death penalty for Holmes – and Holmes just sat there staring blankly into space. Now, if YOU were in the dock and that were said in front of you, would you not react? I can’t find the footage provided by the BBC but this is as close as I can get:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/01/justice/colorado-theater-shooting-prosecution/index.html

    I read further that Holmes is offering to plead guilty in order to avoid the death penalty. Does that mean that there will be no need for a trial andno need to hear anything from Holmes at all?

  25. They are not accepting his “offer” to plead guilty in exchange for taking the death penalty off of the table. And he need not testify in any event as I am sure he would invoke his 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

  26. So mahons, picture yourself on trial for your life. Would you remain silent throughout the proceedings?

  27. Doped up the the eyeballs as he obviously is, he probably couldn’t testify anyway. I’m still not convinced the pre and post-shooting James Holmes are the same person anyway.

  28. Allan – Well being handsome and drinking Budweiser are not capital offenses in the United States so I am not anticipating being placed in such a position.

    The decision to testify on one’s own behalf is something that needs to be discussed with one’s counsel as it opens the door for cross-examination among other things and is quite often not in the client’s best interests. In his case, I would think invoking his Fifth Amendment rights would be clearly indicated.

  29. Pete – just forget what you lying eyes tell you and leave out the ‘conspiracy’ nonsense. There – that’s better, now keep your mind in neutral and the what is that big screen.

    From what my lying eyes could see from all video footage and photographs takne in court, Holmes did not look capable of discussing anything with counsel. However, if he isn’t drugged up to the eyeballs, it would be evident when he testifies in his defence. The idea of not speaking in one’s own defence when faced with the death penalty is absurd.

  30. Well why should your conspiracy theories be put aside, everyone here knows you have them?

    One doesn’t always advance one’s case be speaking. Or, as demonstrated by Allan and Pete, by typing.

  31. So all it takes to disguise your self so that Pete Moore wouldn’t recognize you is a bit of hair dye.

  32. So mahons, you are on trial for your life yet you can envisage NOT speaking in your own defence? In what condition would you have to be in to consider that as advantageous or favourable to your case?

  33. There are many criminal cases where the defendant does not speak in his own defense.

    Here, the defense attorney evidently decided that the guy could not help his own case, and would very likely harm it.

  34. Allan – Personally I can establish a very decent alibi for the time of the Cinema shootings, so I would likely testify in my own defense if charged with this crime. I have never been to Colorado even.

    The shooter here, on the other hand, well the case agaisnt him is a tad stronger. And he presents a far poorer witness than I would make.

  35. In fact I would think anti-government lunatics would at the very least applaud the right not to be compelled to testify by the State. But then that would require consistency on their part….

  36. “If the guy is a loon” then his lawyer would plead insanity. As for presenting himself as a poor witness, yes – he does look in some difficulties as the photos which Pete attached show and especially the video footage of the proceedings in court when the prosecution announced intention to invoke the death penalty and Holmes’s reaction was……there was no reaction, none at all.

  37. Mahons – is anyone who is ‘anti-government’ a lunatic? Btw where has anybody mentioned compulsion to testify? I’m asking about what anybody here would do if their own life was demanded by a prosecutor. Surely, at the very least, there would be some noticeable reaction – a defiant smirk, a plaintive shout in objection, just something visible and evident. In Holmes’s case, there was nothing.

  38. Until the shooting James Holmes was doing a PhD in neuroscience. All of a sudden he’s too loony to defend himself.

    Allan and I aren’t expecting him to argue his way to liberty. His life is on the line. Staying mute out of choice would seem a strange way to go about your defence.

    Phantom says: “There are many criminal cases where the defendant does not speak in his own defense.”

    Yes, a very close relative sang like a canary in a federal court. He, like almost all accused, did so because of the plea bargain they’re intimidated into agreeing. We’ve been here before

    The triumph of plea bargaining in the federal system, which has gathered pace in recent years, is nearly complete. Guilty pleas last year resolved 97% of all federal cases that the Justice Department prosecuted to a conclusion.

    But what would be in it for James Holmes? If he’s lined up for the death penalty then there’s no plea bargaining to be done.

  39. I dunno how the Colorado system works.

    An OJ jury could let him go.

    The defense attorney thinks its smarter not to let him speak. Respect his judgment.

  40. But James Holmes will speak. His Fifth Amendment rights will be violated when psychoactive drugs are pumped into him to make him speak.

  41. “I’m asking about what anybody here would do if their own life was demanded by a prosecutor.”

    What’s the relevance of what the average person would do? The average person hasn’t shot up a movie theatre or anything like it. The average person would not even be accused of doing so.

    Somebody who’d shoot up a movie theatre or even wind up in the dock accused of it isn’t normal so it’s hardly surprising if they do other things you don’t think are normal.

  42. The defense attorney thinks its smarter not to let him speak. Respect his judgment.

    Exactly what are you saying? Either the guy is a loon in which case insanity is a valid plea or he is capable of reacting when his life is demanded by a prosecutor. No reaction at all when the prosecutor demands the death sentence is bizarre, and I saw that today.

  43. Somebody who’d shoot up a movie theatre or even wind up in the dock accused of it isn’t normal

    “Somebody who’d wind up accused of it” – so why bother with a trial given that being accused is good enough? Indeed, given that the trial doesn’t begin until February 2014, a ‘suicide’ or some misfortune would ensure that Holmes doesn’t get anywhere near testifying

  44. “Somebody who’d shoot up a movie theatre or even wind up in the dock accused of it isn’t normal”

    So he can’t be tried.

  45. Hang on …

    “Somebody who’d shoot up a movie theatre or even wind up in the dock accused of it isn’t normal”

    “Or even wind up in the dock accused of it”? That makes you abnormal? Simply being accused by the state?

    Bullshit.

  46. Pete – it’s a comment by Frank. He’s clearly winding us up because nobody can be that totalitarian.

  47. Allan – Not every anti-government person is a lunatic, but every anti-government lunatic is.

    Conspiract Theorists – A person may have many problems, even mental problems, but not be not meet the threshold for an insanity defense (which is rare). A defendant is quite often best served by not testifying, even in a case in which the death penalty is involved. I suppose we could rely on the amateur opinions of conspiracy theorists instead of the considered professional judgment of his defense counsel.

  48. Pete – Are there many people who are indicted for mass murder for shooting up a movie theater in your neck of the woods? Do yout think this defendant was selected at random?

  49. “Or even wind up in the dock accused of it”? That makes you abnormal? ”

    Do you think it makes you average?

    Also note that Allan asked the question of the people here, as if how we’d behave has something to say about how James Holmes would behave. He might as well ask us if we’ve got our hair dyed orange. I haven’t – does that mean James Holmes doesn’t?

    ““Somebody who’d wind up accused of it” – so why bother with a trial given that being accused is good enough? ”

    I said it means he isn’t normal, not that it means he isn’t innocent.

    Of course it is possible and even likely that he is guilty. If that’s the case then there’s even less reason to expect his reactions to anything to be those of the average person. The average person’s reaction to a Batman movie is not to shoot the place up.

  50. Mahons –

    Is it possible that this defendant has been set up? Absolutely. The federal government and prosecutors have done it many times.

    Do I think this defendant was selected at random? I have no idea.

    How to find out? Ohhh, maybe having a clear-headed defendant allowed to speak in court might help clear up that one. That’s the point of a trial, really, to ascertain facts instead of simply passing sentence.

  51. Mahons – you’re right. Why bother with the trial. Think of the money saved in legal expenses and I’m sure that the example of Stefan Kiszko will underline that nobody gets arrested at random and that the judiciary and police never attempt to set somebody up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

    And that leads us back in good order to the first two comments of this thread.

  52. Pete – Amazing what lengths they went to set him up here, managing to kill so many people a pick him as an innocent fallguy AND keep it a secret. I would have thought that someone as convinced of government incompetence as yourself would become curious at their ability to accomplish such a thing.

    Mass murders are often less than common in both their appearance and their activities (such as murdering people in massive numbers). The laws against self-incrimination are hard won and centuries old. Dimiss them at your own risk, not someone else’s.

    As for trials, we both live in places where the vast majority of those tried are in fact guilty, which is as it should be. Holmes is getting a fair trial.

  53. Allan / Pete ( or Pete / Allan )

    As has been said before here, your skepticism of government at all times would be more credible if you even once displayed any skepticism about any conspiracy theory. Youse fall for each and every one.

  54. Mahons –

    How can your government NOT be able to set up a dupe for a mass murder? If it can (and has) sparked wars with lies and convinced millions to believe those lies, it can set up one man.

    Don’t tell me about laws against self-incrimination. Tell the judge who ordered Holmes to be injected with drugs to make him talk. Clearly this violates his Fifth Amendment rights, clearly you don’t give a shit.

    Phantom –

    I can assure you, it’s my eyes and no-one else’s that tell me the pre and post-shooting Holmes might not be the same man. You tell yourself they are because you think you’re supposed to think they are.

  55. An astonishing thread, even by the standards of ATW! Clearly, those in the system believe that anybody who questions what they are seeing with their own eyes (and all links are there for viewing) is a lunatic and should not be saying anything at all.

    When I saw absolutely no reaction from Holmes when the prosecutor announced pursuit of the death penalty, it was no ‘conspiracy theory’: there it was right in front of me. There wasn’t even anything to show that he knew that the court was talking about him. Is there any evidence that Holmes has said anything at all in court?

    Show me footage of Holmes having spoken. Does he even know his name? And now the trial is postponed until February 2014.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9421644/Colorado-shooting-James-Holmes-appears-groggy-and-confused-in-court.html

    The former doctoral student did not speak throughout the hearing and his lawyers answered for him when he was asked whether he understood his rights

    HIS LAWYERS ANSWERED FOR HIM WHEN ASKED WHETHER HE UNDERSTOOD HIS RIGHTS – what sort of show trial is this, and yet I’m the ‘conspiracy theorist’? This is happening in front of our faces.

  56. Frank O’Dwyer –

    “Do you think it makes you average?”

    No, no-one’s average, but you didn’t say that. You said that to be accused of a heinous crime like this means you’re abnormal.

    This is clearly bollocks.

  57. I can assure you, it’s my eyes and no-one else’s that tell me the pre and post-shooting Holmes might not be the same man.

    And a very convincing hair dye job.

  58. Fews – can you find any footage or photgraph showing Holmes speaking in court, just a little something to show that the guy knows where he is and that he is who the prosecutors wish to have executed?

    From everything which I have seen so far, and I’m looking and checking, there isn’t anything showing him speaking to his lawyer. Very much a Stalinist show-trial – but why the postponement to Feb 2014?

  59. but why the postponement to Feb 2014?

    That one has me puzzled. I am fairly sure no trial has ever been postponed in the entire history of jurisprudence.

  60. Fews – can you find any footage or photgraph showing Holmes speaking in court, just a little something to show that the guy knows where he is and that he is who the prosecutors wish to have executed?

    Clearly you must have found something otherwise the absence of any footage which showed Holmes as aware of anything would have had you puzzled.

  61. The postponement is because it is a death penalty case…If a jury is being asked to send someone to give someone a potential death sentence then that person’s lawyers must have an opportunity to tell the jurors all the reasons that they should not. It could take months to gather the proof…old medical records, an untold number of witnesses have to be vetted–—much of which would be irrelevant in a nondeath case, such as whether the defendant was abused during childhood or suffers from a mental illness—-though clearly there is mental illness in this case.

  62. why hasn’t he spoken? because he’s likely following his lawyers’ advice…everything he says could be used against him…if he sounds competent or intelligent…there goes his mental illness plea as a mitigating factor against death.

  63. mairin – he hasn’t spoken to his lawyer. Could Holmes’s lawyer have asked Holmes not to speak to her – really?

  64. how do you know he hasn’t spoken to his lawyer…serious question…I haven’t been following the case too closely.

  65. mairin – I watched the video footage of the proceedings released and saw nothing of Holmes even being capable of saying a single word. See my post of 12.03am.

  66. Allan – Lawyers enter their clients plea in Courts every day.

    Pete – Would you really lose your conspiracy theory membership card if you used common sense on occasion? What Allan rat you out if you did? And do you believe you are fooling anyone here?

  67. I think this is the first time I’ve ever typed OMG but bloody f’in hell…OMG…your watching limited video clips released by the state and concluding that he has not spoken to his lawyers is just plain silly.

  68. Allan and Pete are cut from the same cloth as the conspiracy theorists harassing victims famlies, witnesses and local government in Newtown, CT.

  69. Actually, I don’t think Pete believes everything he writes…I think he’s tries to bolster the cases made by less articulate posters in an attempt to keep discussions going and sometimes going deeper. In other words, I think he likes winding people up…but not in a trollish way. His contributions, because they tend to better thought out sometimes prevent threads from deteriorating into mere insults and ‘shouting matches’. He lends credibility to the less credible. A sometimes deveil’s advocate if you will but I don’t think he’d admit it…;-)

  70. Mairin – I would agree that he doesn’t believe everything he writes. And that is not a compliment or an excuse.

  71. He believes it alright.

    There are of Truther and ” Liberty ” and ” Anti state ” subcultures that he taps into.
    They’re a tiny percentage of the population, but they’re out there.

    All of it is pretty divorced from reality. These folks are not of this world.

  72. Bypassing the ludicrous conspiracy theories floated on this thread, I’d say this is one of the rare cases that support death penalty sentencing. Many dead bodies, multiple eye-witnesses, the killer captured on site along with the weapons used to murder so many innocent people.

    It’s a cut and dried case. The man did it, without a doubt.

    I no longer support the death penalty, mainly because the state makes too many mistakes convicting the innocent, and wish it would be abolished. As someone said above, a life’s term in a small cell would be a hellish existence in the extreme and punishment enough in an american prison.

    But if one of my loved ones, relative or friend, had been so callously murdered at this theatre, for no reason whatsoever other than having bought a ticket, I would probably be screaming for this man’s head on a public spike.

    Some careless prick, speeding down our narrow, curving neighborhood lane, crushed my cat’s head early Easter morning. My boy’s watched Ticket Hemmingway’s brain’s splatter across the blacktop as they searched for Easter Eggs in our front yard. A gorgeous Himalayan intent on chasing Spring’s first butterfly is now buried in my backyard.

    I’d like to kill the bastard driving that fucking Lexus. Honest to God, if I’d had my gun sitting next to my first cup of coffee on our front porch steps, I probably would have opened fire on the man.

    Yes, over our beloved cat, the needless trauma he caused my children and for my very broken heart.

    So I can understand the personal and local need to see a brazen, callous murderer like the man in this case die in a very public, state sanctioned execution.

  73. “No, no-one’s average, but you didn’t say that. You said that to be accused of a heinous crime like this means you’re abnormal.”

    average
    noun
    the price is above the national average: mean, median, mode; norm, standard, rule, par.

    Do you think it means you’re normal?

  74. Phantom or mahons or Daphne – what is the ‘conspiracy theory’ to which I am beholden in this instance. I have stated what I saw on TV and then I looked for footage which would show that Holmes actually was capable of speaking and did actually talk at some stage to somebody, anybody in court. I asked all of you if you could show me Holmes speaking or even any report where the reporter witnessed Holmes speaking. Ffs even his lawyer had to answer on his behalf when asked if he understood his rights – clearly he did not. A Stalinist show-trial, and a nice state-sanctioned execution to look forward to at the end of it.

  75. Oops – from the same link:

    In Friday’s early morning hours, a police officer was seen carrying a young girl, described as bloodied and motionless.

    The film was a Batman movie being shown at midnight. In the UK, Batman movies have age restrictions. How were a 4-year-old girl and a 4-month-old baby allowed in a cinema showing that film when there was tight security to remove all concealed-carry guns?

  76. mairin2 –

    I can’t deny that some people deserve to be wound up, but I’m not joking when I say this fella/these fellas don’t look like the same fella to me. Maybe they are, but I’m just going by what my eyes tell me. Same for when I see a bloke who is obviously drugged up in court and in photographs. this is not a conspiracy theory, it’s just what I see.

    No, I’m not suggesting that the feds set him up. As usual, Mahons and Phantom take someone’s quibble about what’s going on and imagine that all sorts of accusations about government black ops are being made.

  77. Daphne –

    It’s not a cut and dried case.

    In civilised jurisdictions, a guilty plea alone is not alone to convict a man of murder. The phenomenon of the innocent putting their hands up for murders they didn’t commit is well known, so the prosecution must still prove the case with other evidence.

    Yes, there were multiple eye witnesses, but the two interviewed seperately in this video both say the shooter was masked and they both think (note, think) he had an accomplice.

    Yeah, so it was James Holmes and he deserves to die, but the prosecution must still present a compelling case with compelling evidence to prove it.

  78. There are eyewitnesses that claim that no planes hit the WTC

    All police will tell you that eyewitnesses can and so get it very wrong, esp during a time of great panic.

    Here, panic in a darkened movie theater.

  79. Allan, in the US movie ratings are intended to help parents decide whether they should allow their children to see a movie. It’s of no legal consequence in most places. So yes, you see children in theatres all the time. I read somewhere that the ratings are higher for films that have sex in them in the US than in Europe but in films involving violence, the US rates them lower than European countries. In the US, the film industry rates its own films. I’ve never seen a Batman movie but I’m guessing it was rated PG-13 or R. An R rating would only mean that a child would have to be accompanied by an adult. A PG-13 rating means parents are advised not to let children under 13 see it.
    Pete, the photos don’t look like the same guy, I’ll give you that and when I have free time today I’ll post why I don’t think it necessarily means it isn’t the same guy…duty calls, however. Thanks for being so honest!

  80. And Daphne, that’s a horrible event for your children to witness, especially on a holiday. Sorry for your loss.

  81. RE: the photos. At first glance, the photos look similar but not identical. There is a four-year difference though…for young people that’s a long time but just think about the development of cameras during that period as well. Remember also that noses and ears never stop growing and we all have different growth rates and spurts. I have photos of my daughter in which she looks just like me but with dark hair and eyes. In reality, she is the spitting image of her father (only much cuter and far more feminine). Think about how much you changed between 21 and 25 years of age; for some it’s like night and day. You also have to consider that the photos are taken under different circumstances—different lighting/camera angles/distance/contrast/etc. And of course, James has different facial expressions distorts the face.
    As for the eye color…I think that has a lot to do with the lighting and contrast and distance the photos were taken. With that said, particularly when I was younger my eye color would shift from blue to green and I could dial up the green at will by clothing color—and of course make-up, which doesn’t really apply to James. Anyway, as I got older, my eyes turned undoubtedly blue. I think the older photo also looks like there’s some camera red-eye effect. And as anyone with lighter hair knows…our hair color can range from platinum to red to brown in photos, depending on lighting.
    Photos are generally unreliable for identification purposes and there are face-recognition studies that show people can look entirely different in photos taken within a short time span. That’s why photos alone are never used to identify someone in court, or for instance, to identify a dead person. There always has to be corroborating evidence.

Comments are closed.