Dan Oates was Giuliani's head of NYPD intelligence

http://12160.info/forum/topics/aurora-police-chief-was-giuliani-s-head-of-nypd-intelligence?xg_source=activity

Not saying that every last person associated with Giuliani was dirty.

However, some were very dirty:

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

Thanks for posting.

From what I've observed over the years, officials only make claims like that when they plan on running for some sort of office or elected position. They love looking like they're tough on crime.

LOL This isn't even close to the most suspicious thing.

... in your opinion.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/opinion1.gif

See the subject of my post, above.

Oh God....yes!

AGREE.

which is?

The absolute most suspicious thing (and believe me, there are several) is that the father, Robert Holmes, works with a technology (cortronic neural networks) that is likely being used by the NYPD to roll out their "pre-crime" surveillance system that they just announced, and which I predicted here.

Ties in very nicely with the fact that Oates worked for the NYPD for 21 years right up until a few weeks before 9/11.

Another highly suspicious thought is that his father was said to have been a witness next week in the LIBOR fraud, since his technology was used in detection of the fraud.

And even another interesting sidenote is that part of the storyline of the movie is very very similar to all these 'facts'.

AFAIK there is absolutely no evidence of this. The story most likely originated from the pen name 'Sorcha faal' or one of her sisters at whatdoesitmean.com

Whilst articles seem to be well written and loaded real information. It is widely believed that Sorcha Faal is a liar who takes current events and cleverly infuses supposed fact from sources within the Russian intelligence apparatus.

You are right about SF. The modus operandi of that filthy propagandist is that in its articles, everything is linked to some sort of "proof"...except for the One Big Lie. So you have to dissect the article to see which part is the complete bs.

Sorcha Faal.

She cites Alex Jones. This is enough for me to distance myself from her claims.

Thank you for the casual dropping of relevant information.

Why do you consider this suspicious? Unprofessional maybe, but I'm curious as to what you are suspicious of.

I agree with you that he should not be mentioning details. However, maybe his statement was his way of showing resolve and determination. His whole community - friends, family, coworkers - has been torn apart by this senseless tragedy. Maybe he decided to throw PC out the window for a minute and try to give the grieving families some closure.

While this doesn't excuse him, I don't think we should throw stones. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now.

Why do you consider this suspicious?

Exhibit A: Dismissing all other suspects out of hand.

Subsequent evidence after these negligent statements

Exhibit B: Numerous eye-witness accounts claiming there were [at least] 2.

Exhibit C: News helicopter footage clearly shows a gas mask and other evidence all the way down at the end of the parking lot, when his car was parked right there at the emergency exit.

Exhibit D: a trail of arterial bleeding leading toward the theater from half way down the parking lot... when, again,... his car was found right there at the E-exit.

And, of course, let's not forget

Exhibit E: The radio dispatch showed NUMEROUS suspects (no less than 3 different descriptions mentioned in the logs).

But "they got their man, case closed".

Yeah, I'd hate to be in his shoes right now, too, after making such ludicrous public statements. He's either got a lot of pressure on him to hang this one guy from a high tree for all to see, or their department is comprised of dolts.

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I have not been keeping up with the story.

I agree it's suspicious and that they have jumped way beyond the evidence but exhibits B and E are not inconsistent with a single shooter and don't carry much weight imo. Eye witness accounts are incredibly unreliable even when the interrogator/investigator is perfectly competent and that almost never happens.

Exhibit B: Numerous eye-witness accounts claiming there were [at least] 2.

Perhaps I have not followed the story as closely as I could have but is it definitely two shooters seen? I saw perhaps one report of two but many explanations that some heard shot through the wall of the theatres and thought the shots came from within not next door.

Plop "AnAdventureCore" into the search box (include the checkmark to restrict to r/conspiracy). Read the AMA.

[deleted]

Yes. So, he should be dismissed, even though he's the only one we (redditors in r/conspiracy) have heard from. Thanks for pointing that out.

he's some random dude on the internet making claims.

aka a redditor

so why would he be more credible than any given news anchor?

Because a news anchor will spew crap like this, if it's on their teleprompter.

A.) Not any given news anchor was physically present on that day.

B.) News anchors are in the same class as prostitutes.

Though I have more respect for the latter since they're honest about it.

For the sake of it:

I find your analysis very interesting and am glad you've posted your ideas.

I'll be happy to read whatever doodles post.

So keep 'em coming.

Thanks. I'll see what I can do, but can't really promise anything (except this rambling comment).

I really shouldn't be wasting my time on reddit when I need to be looking for a job, but maaaaaan is it hot here (3rd or 4th day in a row of 110F+).

Additionally, I'm not really sure why I even find this case so fascinating. My area of interest has always been the international banksters.

Furthermore, if it turns out this really is about gun control, well... (shhhh.. don't tell anyone) I couldn't care less about that aspect of it. I don't own a gun and likely never will. I'm a pacifist (physically). I find a sharp mind and wit to be the best weapons for the internet (considering I live alone, that's pretty much the only place I interact with anyone).

But, I am anti-corruption... especially in local/regional law enforcement and criminal justice... due to personal experience.

Hmmm... maybe I just stumbled onto it in my musings here.

Holmes dad is working on a "pre-crime" system for the NYPD. Maybe that's what's troubling me, deep down. Because I know that many crimes are crimes of the moment (or day). Inspiration hits someone in desperation and they do something they later regret. Add this to the whole epidemic of methlabs nationwide (which the DAs are simply turning loose again via plea bargans - "we'll let you go this time, if you'll rat on 3 people" - and they inevitably do, because meth-heads don't think properly... the drug makes them believe that no matter what they say or do, they're doing the right/smart/genius thing - it really distorts the ego). So, this notion of "pre-crime" seems highly unreliable and subjective

Oh, well... time to let the ball bounce for a few days and see what happens.

Also, (footnote) remember a while back when the same PD (Aurora) detained 2 dozen people because "there might be a robber in the area"? Seems inconsistent with dismissing all other suspects in the Batman case.

I need sleep. G'night.

I'm not saying "go forth and type for my amusement" or anything. I'm only saying that you're a pretty clear thinker is all. If you type more I'll read. If you don't I won't. My only point was that you're not screaming into the wilds with no one listening. Find a rock and speak. Sooner or later some asshole [myself] will plop down and listen. The more coherent you are the listeners you get. I know, by reading the comments section, that I'm not the only one to have sat down.

I also agree about the bankers. I'm highly interested in that sphere. And yet I find this case to be interesting. It smells of something. I don't even know what. But it just ain't right.

As for your position on the use of weapons Sun Tzu would agree. The best general doesn't need to engage.

The pre-crime thing is also intersting, however, my understanding of the mechanism is that you sit in a chair. So the pre-crime aspect is limited to maybe that morning or that day. And even then it seems completely unreliable. I'd give a positive every time, but that's because I have chronic anxiety. Sooner or later some lawyer will catch on to this.

Then again - who knows. I'm later for an appointment.

Cheers

I hope you get some sleep.

"Throw PC out the window" sounds like a brave stance. "Throw due process out the window" is different.

Genuine question: does this statement actually violate due process?

I don't think it does. His statement had no legal ramifications. He is not the prosecutor, judge, or jury. He was expressing confidence as a community member, not an official of the court, that justice would be served. Holmes is still innocent until proven guilty.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I really don't know too much about the law.

Every damn time someone talks about Holmes in this case, I think they're using the cute synonym for "homes/my homeboy". Brain, catch up.

"Holmes is still innocent until proven guilty"

Hahahahaha....

Correct me if I am wrong.

I am no law scholar either. To my mind, this prediction was as prejudicial as Obama's pre-indictment of Manning, or the rush to judgement on Osama in the morning hours of 9/11.

Unrelated point: he confessed on video.

Counterpoint: that was the fat guy.

He just poisoned every possible witness

Correct me if I'm wrong,

Okay.

not an official of the court,

You're wrong. Law enforcement officers are part and parcel of the entire Justice system.

Actually, you're wrong. Police are not officers of the court. They derive their authority from the executive branch, not the judicial branch.

They do not apply law, interpret law, or pass judgement on the people they arrest. The only capacity they can serve in court is as a witness.

They do not apply law,

The are law enforcement. They are part of the legal system... the criminal justice system.

You can't use random terms interchangeably in a context like this. The "legal system" is irrelevant here. Courts are not part of the legal system, they are part of the judicial branch.

The legislative branch writes laws.

The executive branch (police) enforces laws. They gather evidence against people that they believe may have committed a crime then pass it off to the judicial branch.

The judicial branch interprets and applies the law to the case. A state/city/federal district attorney is part of this branch and they attempt to convict criminals.

Since police officers are part of the executive branch they have zero authority in the courts. A police officer has no say in a person's conviction, they just investigate and pass evidence off to the judicial system.

At no point of judicial proceedings (a trial) is a police officer in any authoritative position to do anything to a plaintiff.

Ooops. Look what I just found on wikipedia...

Officer of the court

The generic term officer of the court (not to be confused with court officers) applies to all those who, in some degree in function of their professional or similar qualifications, have a legal part—and hence legal and deontological obligations—in the complex functioning of the judicial system as a whole, in order to forge justice out of the application of the law and the simultaneous pursuit of the legitimate interests of all parties and the general good of society. [emphasis mine]

They can be divided into the following functional groups; in most case various synonyms and parallels exist as well as a variety of operational variations, depending on the jurisdiction and the changes in relevant legislation: [emphasis mine - because marshal, sheriff, and constable, below, would be synonymous with "police officer"] [remainder abridged]

Investigation and expertise

• coroners, medical examiners, and other medical experts

• other judicial experts in various fields, such as state certified appraisers, certified public accountants and other professionally licensed or certified persons retained by the parties to give expert advice, the testimony and exhibits of which is admitted by the Court. [emphasis mine]

• amicus curiae is a vague term for other persons consulted by the court

• marshal, sheriff, constable [emphasis mine]

You said "official of the court" which is closer to "Officers of the court" than "court officers".

So... there you have it.

EDIT: Also (while digging) I was reminded that "the court" is an arena for adversarial arbitration, but I won't dive off into that because I don't know if it would clarify or muddy this already muddled discussion.

EDIT2: Downvote the comment with full citation which proves you were making up bullshit rhetoric all along.

You are the one mixing terms.

It is a court of law, not a court of the judiciary.

Judges are part of the judiciary. Courts are part of the legal system.

Any law enforcement officer involved (in any way, shape, or form [EDIT: except in those instances when s/he's the defendant]) in a legal case is part of that court of law, as representatives of their respective agency (or branch of government, if you prefer), just as the judge represents his agency (or branch).

Explain to me exactly what role you think police officers play during a trial.

In theory , presumably their role is to gather evidence pass it onto the prosecutors who decide if there is a case , and then testify as witnesses during a trial.

Exactly. Thank you.

DONK DONK!!!

They testify to the crimes they saw committed. Without a police officer, you have no trial.

Exactly. Like I said above, the only capacity they serve is that they testify. Citizens testify.

When the little old lady who lives down the street gets called to testify, is she suddenly an officer of the court? No. She has no authority or influence on the legal proceedings. She is just offering her testimony.

Gotcha.. Upvote.

No. How about you tell me what branch of government a bailiff belongs to.

No? Really? Lol. Because you couldn't come up with anything? At least cop to it man. It's cool we all misunderstand things from time to time.

Bailiffs have no influence in criminal proceedings. They are there as the "muscle" of the court and they do what the court/judge tells them to do. They don't make judicial decisions. They have no influence on the proceedings.

Lol? That's the best response you could come up with? Then you try to dismiss it?

I did come up with something and you dodged it.

Bailiffs are:

• sworn law enforcement officers, (executive branch)

and...

• officers of the court. (the court of law, over which judges preside)

Go away now. You just lost.

Jesus dude. Are you a child? Trolling? Maybe just dense?

I dodged nothing. I explained how bailiffs have no influence on the actual judicial process. They enforce the law of the court and that is it. They are officers and their jurisdiction happens to be the court. That does not make them judicial officers of the court. Do you ever see bailiffs reading motions or cross examining witnesses? No.

Bailiffs aren't out arresting James Holmes at the movie theatre, police officers are. Police officers working in the same capacity as Oates.

You still haven't mentioned what role police officers serve in the trial process. Here's a hint: two posters above you responded correctly while you sat around mixing up basic legal definitions and telling me "you lost go away."

I usually love to engage in intelligent conversation and teach what I know. I love to learn new things when I happen to be wrong. That being said, this will be my last response because the only way I can possibly "lose" here is by wasting more time on this nonsensical circular talk.

I apologize for my last few responses. I've been awake for 36 hours and your badgering me over this triviality just infuriated the shit out of me.

What Oates did was irresponsible and unethical.

I won't delete my comments. I deserve whatever downvotes I get.

But, please do go away now. You won.

[deleted]

Yes. You are correct. I accede to your superiority. Bring your downvote brigade from r/conspiratard and bury me. See if you can remove all of my comment karma just to teach me a lesson. I deserve it.

[deleted]

nah.

Making that statement prematurely was just WRONG. I agree. This suggests either corruption ("The fix is in) or incompetence. If it is incompetence, it is on the same level as the prosecution seizing the notebook the defendant sent his doctor, and then releasing information about the contents to the public. Quite possibly it's all scripted, but parts seem oddly off-key. If I were his defense attorney, I'd eat the State's lunch on errors they've made already. This defendant should be kept safe & secure for further study. Nothing is served by keeping in a Big Max.

My understanding is that contact with the media should only be done via press releases, not via interviews with national news outlets within a couple days. That's why I find this so suspicious.

[deleted]

And so I just admitted. Thanks for reminding me, though.

Go back to the front page with the rest of your 16 year old friends.

[deleted]

you'll never be as old as me.

Considering the median age of a redditor has dropped to about 15 and the front page is covered with acne advertisments, that probability isn't really saying much.

I actually think this guy was an actual loon & heres why.

I found this when reading the Dark Knight returns a few weeks ago, LOOK! (No doubt it will now be reposted every 5 minutes for the next day or 5, sorry chaps!) I actually thought someone else would have came across this by now. Its too similar to be purely coincidence, also of note is the crazy reddish hair. (media kept saying joker hair despite the fact the joker has never had red hair to the best of my knowledge)

The Dark Knight rises was heavily based on this comic, I think the guy may have just been a common house hold variety loon, but whos to say, another distration tactic nowadays to could simply be for the cops to lie & act suspicious when theres no reason to, we know they lie pretty much all the time so it wouldnt be hard for them to make the truth look like a lie, they'd only have to start talking!?

I dont know, I just find the page from the comic to be very strange indeed, was it an accidental prediction? Was it his or someone elses inspiration for the attack? Or is completely unrelated? Who knows, but Id say there are too many similarities to completely ignore it.

Wow the quote from the comic...

"Three slain in Batman-inspired theater shoot-out. Details to follow..."

So eerie.

[deleted]

I worked a high profile case once. It was THE MOST hush-hush case we ever had. Speaking to the press was grounds for dismissal.

Who's going to dismiss him? He's the police chief.

commissioner gordon.

see Daniel J. Oates (born 1954 or 1955)??? is the police chief in Aurora, Colorado. In August 2001 he left his 21 year job as head of intelligence for the New York police department : conspiracy

at what point do all the coincidences stop being coincidences??

When they're proven not to be coincidences.

What constitutes "proof", then? The opinion of the reader (See that proves! vs. That doesn't prove anything.)?

IMO the shooting was most likely just some crazy guy, but this is becoming one big coincidence. I suppose if you look hard enough at anything, you can see a pattern.

That's how I feel about it. The father though... That's some weird shit.

If this was a hollywood script, we would never believe it would be possible.

I like what someone said about the situation where the kid committed suicide in the back of a cop car while handcuffed. It's either the weirdest set of circumstances that Las Vegas could ever put odds against happening or someone is not telling us the whole truth.

I dont get why he wore riot gear if he was just going to give himself up to the police. I have a feeling he intended to have a shoot out but either pussied out or was a bit overwhelmed by the massacre

And then came down with amnesia.

it's possible that he didn't think things through.

[deleted]

How would voting for Obama make them feel safer?

[deleted]

Have gun sales gone up or down since the shooting?

Thank you.

Ive been trying to debate this guy for the last couple of days and he still denies the fact that there was two shooters after all those witnesses saw another guy...

Shills and trolls man. Fight the good fight.

not everyone who is unconvinced by wild speculation is a shill or a troll.

I apologize if you are a normal common lemming just having a hard time confiding with us truth seekers. See, everything about this case seems to be wild speculation, either from their side of the story or the one presented here. It's good to be skeptical and I honestly wish that this was not an inside job psy opp. But, I find that I can no longer believe the mainstream media what so ever, I dare you to try to convince me that the media 'news' outlets tell truth about shit like this. It will be a huge waste of your effort to do so. Bring it on trolls and shills!!

I never said I believed the mainstream news version of events, but I've read every thread on this subreddit regarding the case and see nothing beyond constant wild speculation.

sure, all of these multi shooter theories could be true, but there's just as much evidence for fairies and unicorns.

I see no reason to give /r/conspiracy more credibility than the msm.

Do you believe 9/11 was false flag op? or is that all wild speculation too?

no, that has more than a decades worth of investigation. regardless of what I think happened on 9/11, we've had lots of time to think it through and examine evidence.

contrast that with the several weeks since aurora, where the investigation (or coverup) is still in progress. I think its simply too soon to make claims because nobody has access to facts right now, certainly not a bunch of redditors.

all we have is speculation, most of it wild.

I hear you. I guess there is a duality to our different points here so i'll explain mine better.

From my shoes, and a lot of others as well, it seems that these high profile events are staged scripted and spun to serve a purpose or agenda.

Without getting too involved with the specifics, 9/11 just being a glaringly obvious example we cite, alternative media readers and reporters see the motives behind big money and believe most of what the government investigates and reports on is smoke and mirrors.

So from our point of view, the only real instrument that can effectively make light of such an event is the contribution of thousands of individual investigators. Sure the facts are not clear, and they most likely never will. And of course, we are met with resistance from those who rather just stick to the narrative of the mainstream while they slander and mock anybody who questions it.

People who are scared out of their minds and panicking can think they saw a lot of things they didn't actually see.

They can also NOT see things that actually were there. That blade cuts both ways.

and thus there is no reason to give credibility to one versus the other.

So, cometparty's comment is more valid than mine?

eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I see no reason to believe eyewitnesses at all.

Well, there'll be a whole bunch of them testifying at the trial.

yeah, our courts are slow to incorporate science. I suspect the case will not be decided based on eyewitness testimony.

you forgot the quotes around "fact".

that guy is a d bag

He's an idiot too.

Why is he an "idiot"? Because he does not agree with your speculations about a 2nd shooter? A 2nd shooter that was reported by a minority of eyewitnesses who were under distress during this event? Why didn't a majority of eyewitnesses report multiple shooters?

Why were bullets only fired from one person, according to most witnesses?

Open your eyes. Open your mind. Just don't let it get soo open that your brains fall out. That is what skepticism is about. A true skeptic is open to the possibility of anything being a conspiracy, you just have to be able to prove it. Speculation, out of context quotes and no evidence do not prove a conspiracy, just the same as stacking 1000's of claims based on blatantly false science do not make a truth (9/11 conspiracy hypothesis (theories actually have evidence that can stand up to a little scrutiny)).

Duress means they were being threatened.

When you use that word people might think you're saying that the police were threatening the witnesses. Just saying.

Fixed, I meant distress, sorry.

Not at all.

I edit posts more than I should.

I'm generally too impatient to do a spell check, let alone a grammar / usage check.

No, because he takes everything he sees on the news as fact. He told me this already.

If he'd said that to me, I'd have stopped interacting with him immediately.. just so I didn't get any of that on my clean clothes.

I am a skeptical person. I must say I agree, there are some forms of creepy control and filtration in the mainstream media of most countries. But a global news conpsiracy of sorts? I'm not really sold on that idea, seems like it would be big, massive, have thousands of people involved, and be impossible to manage or contain and keep private.

Networks controlling what goes on and doesn't? Of course. We have evidence for that.

Global news conspiracy? That's another ballgame that requires a lot of damning stuff to prove.

You put a lot of words in my mouth, there, doc.

Sorry. User CowzGoesMoo was the poster who I was speaking of with the media conspiracy thing, my apologies.

That's one. You still owe me two.

Please feel free to point out the other.

I did, five hours ago, immediately after you made the three accusations (in one comment)... which you edited to include one apology (identical to this one) after I posted it. I was furious about your accusations at the time, so it isn't very polite, but I'm not going to edit it.

here.

Okay, I see what you mean now. Sorry about that. The comment was sarcastic and I even included a footnote regarding that.

Overall I just find it rather odd that someone who used to work in law enforcement and criminology would be sitting here on a conspiracy forum saying this seems like some sort of conspiracy. Talking about speculation of a "psyop". That just bothers me. It makes me think maybe you never were in law enforcement, or maybe something else is going on.

Think whatever you want, but I had my life destroyed by a corrupt District Attorney, which took me five years of pro se legal legwork to overcome. Point being, I lost my respect for "the system".

So yeah, make up your own fantasy theories about me to discredit me while you accuse everyone here of doing the same thing.

Hypocrite.

Sheesh.

You have to excuse me. Its just rather odd and unusual to hear someone say "I worked in law enforcement" then speak of wild conspiracy theories tying together bad or loose forms of evidence.

I'm sorry you had your life ruined.

I'm also done with saying sorry.

I honestly don't think you are sorry, or even apologetic. I think you're a troll.

What more do you want from me?

I wasn't trying to troll you. I was trying to make a point. I don't know what else I could type that would possibly convince you.

You really have no credibility at this point. You're not even able to keep track of whom you're interacting with.

What more do you want from me?

Go away.

Do you shun everyone who doesn't agree with your conspiracy hypothesis, or just me?

In reading over everything that's happened in this thread I see no reason for you to act like this.

You really have no credibility at this point. You're not even able to keep track of whom you're interacting with.

Right. Because I was reading a sub-thread which you had replied to and didn't realize you weren't the original poster. I could have been distracted for any number of reasons. It also seems to me you're getting very very defensive the second I even postulated the idea that you could be lying about your history in law enforcement. I apologized once you said your life was ruined, wasn't looking for any specifics, yet you still play the asshole card.

So, what you're saying, then, is that you can dish it out (the asshole card), but you can't take it?

More hypocrisy.

Bye.

No.

What I'm saying is, you've turned into an asshole despite my apologies.

Good day to you sir.

As you'll see in my lower post, I partially agree with you regarding the mainstream media and its controls and checks.

I must point out though, that just because he said as one of his points of argument that "They said this on the news" does absolutely not equal "I believe everything I see on the news".

He might disagree with your global news control conspiracy theory (as do I) but I highly doubt he does not realize the filtration that goes on in various news networks. Its obvious, there is very good evidence for it.

Why didn't a majority of eyewitnesses report multiple shooters?

Because they were fully concentrating on trying not to get shot? It doesn't matter one bit that not everyone saw an accomplice - the important factor is that some people did. Do you seriously not understand that?

oh sure, but the people who "saw" two shooters weren't so busy not getting shot?

In a chaotic situation, some people will notice and recollect more than others. This is a far more likely explanation than they are just making it up.

eyewitness testimony is famously unreliable. i doubt that anybody in Aurora is fabricating anything. you simply can't trust eyewitnesses:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but eyewitnesses are more likely to miss something than to make something up.

not true. here's one example: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=men-who-hold-a-gun-appear-taller-an-12-04-14

You're saying "all those witnesses saw another guy", that sounds like a lot of people saw a second guy. Where is that credibly documented?

I know of one witness who thought he saw a smoke grenade come from the other side of the room, though nobody actually saw a second person throw a smoke grenade that I know of. Apparently many did see the shooter throw one or more himself.

Another witness thought they saw the shooter waive or gesture at someone, though again to my knowledge that person wasn't actually seen.

I know of a set of pictures that seem to show an extraneous gas mask on the sidewalk outside the theater. It's something, but certainly not an eyewitness account of an accomplice.

I read somewhere that the police dispatcher initially referred to 2+ shooters, but I didn't listen to the recordings myself and I'm not sure what was said, with how much certainty, or why. Incorrect information going over police radios in the very early minutes of a mass shooting seems entirely likely, considering the source of their information is highly distressed people on adrenaline kicks who are trying not to be killed.

What other evidence of an accomplice is there? Please don't get angry at me if I missed something, I don't know everything.

The different sources which you have cited all suggest an accomplice. It doesn't mean there was an accomplice - they could all be mistaken, but for the police to be categorically discounting an accomplice at this stage just does not make sense.

In addition to the eye-witness who claimed he saw a grenade come from the other side of the room, there was a woman outside who was shouting at the police "THERE WERE TWO!" who was quickly scurried off to a police interrogation vehicle.

...there was a woman outside who was shouting at the police "THERE WERE TWO!" who was quickly scurried off...

Alright well, again I have not come across that in my previous searches and the one I just did turned up nothing within the first couple dozen results or so, so would you mind providing a link to a credible source for this?

...a police interrogation vehicle.

I don't know what that is. They usually interrogate suspects, not witnesses, and they have rooms at the department for it, but I've never heard of an "interrogation vehicle". How is it distinguished from an ordinary squad car, or a transport wagon or something else?

The "police interrogation vehicle" was some sort of mobile command center thing. I may not have called it by it's proper technical name.

I got this information from the AMA done by AnAdventureCore (link goes directly to the comment in question) a couple days ago.

NOTE: AnAdventureCore was at the movie in theater 8, not 9 (where the shooting happened). However, he was evacuated to the same area as everyone else and his AMA is an account of HIS experience and what he witnessed in the AFTERMATH (the evacuation, initial interrogations, treatment, etc. of the victims and others).

Fascinating. I think there's enough inconsistencies that it's certainly worth keeping in mind until after the trials are done and the gag orders are lifted, and the police should be routinely questioned about their work regardless of their credibility and integrity.

However I don't find it remarkable that the police are already ruling things in and out at this point, when they have access to most if not all of the available evidence and a lot of resources to analyze that evidence with, while the public is left with only a basic idea of what happened and random, fuzzy and often dubious details.

At this point, a single suspect hypothesis with a few mistaken accounts of an accomplice out of 100+ witnesses still seems to be the simplest explanation to me. It's not my conclusion or anything, just more of an expectation. We will know more in the months and years to come to be sure.

does anyone have any insight into his actual motive has there been anything presented to explain why he would carry put this attack?

There's been a lot of speculation that it was a psyop intended to bolster the case for gun control.

I don't think a psy op would have been worth all this effort for gun control. I'm pretty sure they can pull that one off when it suits them best. More than likely they'll wait till economic hardships are riffe across the country, and then they initiate gun buy back programs, guns and ammo exchanged for food.

Main point of my comment, I think this was something of a smokescreen for the media to focus on. As well as the olympics, and other events.

The father of the shooter was gonna testify before congress against the big banks in the LIBOR scandal. Probably more a message to other people in higher circles who might consider speaking out. The proof of "manchurian candidates" has been released in declassified documents showing our gov has had the capability since the 50s so this is more an "inner party" war move that was a big "don't mess with us" to others.

The father of the shooter was gonna testify before congress against the big banks in the LIBOR scandal.

That's completely unsubstantiated.

speculation.

I suppose I should have said that.

You're suggesting it was some sort of 'psyop' sort of thing. You used to work in law enforcement (or, so you claim anyway). You're posting in /r/conspiracy, result? Now we are going to hear conspiracy theorists saying "it was a psyop, I talked to a law enforcement officer and he confirmed it".

Well maybe not all of them, but some of these people here definitely will do such a thing.

You're suggesting it was some sort of 'psyop' sort of thing.

Someone asked a question. It was in my inbox (since it was a top level comment and I was the OP). I answered honestly. Because that has been the primary speculation in this subreddit.

What other people say or do based on their [mis]interpretation of my statement is not my responsibility. My answer to the question was clear and unambiguous.

Well put. Thank you for your information.

Based on how everything is lied to us at all levels, I have no issues believing this is a lie too. They want us afraid of lone wolfs. Just look at the two pictures of the suspect from school and after the shooting. Two totally different people! What about the second shooter? How did this kid get all the equipment? How could such a smart kid with a bright future do such thing? Why was he so blatenly drugged during the only court video taping we're allowed to see? What about his whistle blowing dad? And of course the point you bring up... More questions than answers means we are being deep throated lies on TV again. If you people out there fail to see that 2 + 2 is not = 4, go hang out on the front page and comment about cats and bieber,where critical thinking is not cool.

In context, I think you meant 5, but yeah.

You can beat a dead horse, but you can't make it drink.

he's a sick individual maybe. just like serial killers or rapists.

Many skeptics here reported that he just had basic riot gear that you can find in a surplus store.

It turned out that he had full body ballistic armor.

Anyone who had a concealed carry weapon wouldn't have been able to take him down.

That way, they could have said that even if you were armed, you would have been ineffective against him thus "proving" that people shouldn't have guns.

Actually, the strongest ballistic armor you can get is Class IV. Class IV armor will stop a .338 Lapua Magnum or .44 magnum round but be effectively useless afterwards. The plates shatter and the body still absorbs the full force, usually knocking the target over. Usually, class IV armor is a heavy kevlar weave with ceramic plates pocketed. Class IV armor is only purchasable by law enforcement and military operations, though the vest and plates can be bought separately. The armor is also extremely cumbersome and difficult to use without proper training/highly restrictive.

The body armor James Holmes used was never specified, but if it was simple riot gear as all signs seem to point, it wasn't even Class I. Riot gear that covers the areas of the body that thoroughly are usually made of a plastic compound that can't stop a bullet. If James Holmes was using any sort of kevlar, he was likely using a Class II(due to mobility). Class II body armor can take maximum a .357 magnum round or a .223(whereas a Class III will stop .40 S&W, .357 SIG, 7.62x39 and some similar calibers - maybe one or two FMJ .45 ACP rounds; Class I will stop .22, 9mm, and .38 special).

Now why is all this info important? My father is in a biker club that I hang out with on the weekends sometimes. Every one of those guys has their concealed carry permits. A couple have 9mm's, .40s&w, .357 magnum(one guy uses a SIG), but the majority of them carry .45 ACP. A shot to the face would have killed him, the gas mask has no ballistic prevention capabilities. A standard ballistics helmet can take one round of a small caliber(9mm)before shattering, and the head will have absorbed the full force of the bullet leading to unconsciousness. A .45 ACP, .40s&w, or even .357 mag would have pierced straight through the helmet(provided they were FMJ). Several shots on his body would have taken him down in moments, and the rounds would have eventually pierced through the vest, shot exposed joints, any number of possibilities.

Not saying that I don't think this was completely set up, just pointing out some things for you.

You should read over the NIJ's body armor classifications just so you are a little more clear. Levels I through IIIa are all designed to stop blunt, lower velocity handgun rounds. Soft level IIIa armor will stop .44 mag or a standard slug with little enough blunt force to ensure survival. Levels III and IV are achieved with plates of ceramic, polyethylene, or metal. Metal plates have the most durability, but they cause large amounts of spalling and are heavy as hell. Ceramic plates will often fail to stop even mild steel core ammo such as m855 and are temperature sensitive. Ceramic plates do shatter somewhat, but most are rated for multiple hits of m80 (the level III defining threat) or .30-06 m2ap (level iv). And you can buy all of this shit on eBay. None of it is restricted.

not when you have a grenade

So what you're saying is to keep the victims' odds absolutely at zero, because he has an advantage to absorb some damage from his torso?

That's some cold thinking.

EDITED TO ADD (8/2): Seems that the amount of body armor Holmes wore was exaggerated.

....

The biggest problem I see is that NO ONE has yet to witness a guy in orange hair shooting everyone. The tear gas, the dark theatre, everyone getting under the seats etc ~ and still not one eye-witness to who was shooting at them. How can you have a case without an eye-witness in such an ordeal?

We all know he was on the scene, but is there any actual evidence that points to him firing upon the people? Gun-powder residue/traces? etc

The biggest problem I see is that NO ONE has yet to witness a guy in orange hair shooting everyone.

Because everyone was witness to a guy in a helmet and mask shooting everyone. They found these things in his possession, if not on his body still.

Also, in a dark theater, where he is being backlit by different colours of light coming from the screen. Even without the helmet you wouldn't have seen his hair colour.

[deleted]

Planted on his body? Head? Face?

That's getting a bit esoteric, though.

could have been beamed on to him by a spaceship orbiting uranus, also. what's the most plausible explanation?

In this instance I don't think plausibility is necessarily a point of measurement. It seems to be "which will be easiest for the public to swallow: that this guy is a crazy person who did it, or that he's being setup as a patsy to influence his father who is working on NYPD's new pre-crime system?". Oh, wait... that's just more aliens, fairies, unicorns and you're an anus.

In any case, witness to a crime is paramount. If the injured cannot point to that which wronged them, there is no case.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/531367_395896033805525_1127378481_n.jpg

Its "THEM" working on getting citizens FOR gun control. Within a year,they will try to amend,or delete, OUR 2nd amendment rights. BUY em now while u still can. WE the PEOPLE have the right, for now...

I hear this same shitty mantra every time a democrat takes office. Never mind the fact that your guns never vanish nor your right to buy them.

True as that may be. There is no doubt the guy shot up the theater. The only question so far has been why. Not to mention after a trauma like this, people (victims and the general public) want to hear that this horrific person will be punished. The officer who guarenteed it might have gotten into trouble for saying it. We don't know that. But at the end of the day, he told us what we wanted to hear.

(No witnesses positively identified James Holmes.)

What if he was just sitting in the car the whole time?

Exactly.

with the gas mask and helmet on, would it be possible to see the orange hair at all? No one even mentioned orange hair in the post-interviews and shit.

we have a thing called a "jury trial" to determine if this was the case. fortunately such trials are not held on reddit, because it seems people here have no understanding of "heresay" or the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

unfortunately, however, Dan Oates has already convicted him in the court of public opinion. Where will they find an impartial jury for this jury trial now?

yeah, that's a common problem these days. maybe they can reuse the jury from the Zimmerman trial.

How could they? It was a dark theater, but I have heard on the news some witnesses did identify him. However, the guy was found dressed up as Bane and called himself the Joker. Boobytrapped his apartment with explosives much like in the Dark Knight and even told police that his apartment was rigged. He sent a diary to his psychologist with stories and pictures of shooting up the theater. There is no doubt that he did it. The guy is a killer.

I have heard on the news some witnesses did identify him.

Impossible without x-ray specs

However, the guy was found dressed up as Bane and called himself the Joker.

He was dressed as a SWAT officer and we've been told that he called himself the Joker.

He sent a diary to his psychologist with stories and pictures of shooting up the theater.

It didn't arrive until after the shooting. This has been confirmed. This is exactly like a 9/11 hijacker's passport being found.

There is no doubt that he did it.

On the contrary. There is reasonable doubt.

The guy is a killer.

I spy a shill.

you're confusing "shill" with "patsy".

get your wild, baseless speculation labels straight!

In context, it appears tankjr is calling courtney1213 a shill.

If you are so sure he didn't kill those people then go be his lawyer. I hear ignorance is a great defense these days. Riddle me this though. Why would his parents call the police and tell them they had the right guy?

His parents didn't call the police. The police called his mother and repeatedly asked questions to clarify whether or not the suspect was her son. She said "yes, you have the right person" (not guy) and later explained her statement to mean that they had contacted the right "Mrs. Holmes", not that they had arrested the right person. And this, dear courtney1213, is precisely why you cannot trust what the media tells you. They distorted her statement into something that would convince you that even his parents believed him to be guilty. Which is NOT the case.

courtney1213 why do you believe everything you are told.

Now if that were true I wouldn't be on r/conspiracy

I hear ignorance is a great defense these days.

Dohoho, you're so clever.

Why would his parents call the police and tell them they had the right guy?

Hearsay. What do you know about the case other than what you've heard in the media?

The chief of police in Aurora was also head of security for Giuliani in NYC on 9/11. That means he was in building 7 along with the CIA. This is a blatant CIA psyop designed to draw attention away from LIBOR and the riots in Anaheim.

Enough is enough. You people are such bullshit. This guy went psychotic in a movie theater ending a lot of lives including children, and all you damn frothing conspiracy theorists can think is that it was somehow a "cointelpropsyopsinsidejob".

Got news for you: Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Not everything that happens which shocks the public is a conspiracy. Not everything has a super awesome, secret and entertaining conspiracy behind it. Not everything can nor should be made into a long documentary full of bullshit claims and false science for you to watch and be entertained by. Shit happens.

Ask questions when serious shit happens, fine. Thats totally cool and its also the right thing to do. But don't sit there and come up with a wild conspiracy theory based on a few moot points. Its bullshit, and it only hurts people and confuses others.

And what will happen? Probably nothing (other than a conviction of the killer, of course). I wouldn't count on this vicious event being used to enact any "gun control laws". Go ahead and cry foul. Cry foul right now. Make your prediction about gun control laws. Then in six months, or two years or whatever amount of time from now it takes for you to realize that you were wrong, you can come and admit it.

Maybe then you'll actually be open minded.

Most frustrating conspiracy ever.

I spy a shill.

Oh yeah, a government agent is totally posting on reddit. Man, I want his job they could pay me for this shit.

I smell a bucket head, someone who claims to be a "truth seeker" of sorts, but the only "truth" he "seeks" is the truth he wants to find. Not truth based on evidence, but truth based on speculation and bullshit.

/rant

This guy went psychotic in a movie theater ending a lot of lives including children,

And you have just as much proof of this as anyone else in this subreddit has proof of their opinion. You believe he's guilty. Others here believe other things.

And he hasn't even been tried yet.

You accuse me of jumping to conclusions yet you do basically the same without direclty saying he is guilty or directly saying there is a conspiracy. You sit there and post "evidence", in favor of your theory. Then you say there is speculation that its a psyop. You're very careful not to be definitive, but its obvious what you believe here and what agenda you are pushing.

Hell, maybe your a shill. You did work for law enforcement afterall! Did they hire you to come here and distract people? (sarcasm)

You accuse me of jumping to conclusions

citation please? (You won't be able to find one, because I didn't make that statement, someone else did.)

Now, however, after reading all of your responses (to me and others), I'll kindly ask you to please stop putting words in my mouth. This is the second time in this thread you've done this (the first being the global media conspiracy which I also never mentioned).

You mentioned it in another topic. You also linked to the post and called the guy you were talking to in the post "stupid" because he didn't agree with you.

Stop putting words in your mouth? You didn't try to claim I jump to conclusions?

citation:

And you have just as much proof of this as anyone else in this subreddit has proof of their opinion. You believe he's guilty. Others here believe other things.

You know, I never actually said I believe he is guilty. Probably guilty, should burn in hell all of that sure. Appears to be guilty, sure.

Edit: It wasn't you who mentioned the news conspiracy, it was user CowzGoesMoo, sorry about that man.

You mentioned it in another topic. You also linked to the post and called the guy you were talking to in the post "stupid" because he didn't agree with you.

You are a baldfaced liar mistaken.

You didn't try to claim I jump to conclusions?

No. I most certainly did not.

I never actually said I believe he is guilty.

Your exact words were

This guy went psychotic in a movie theater ending a lot of lives including children,

Are you saying now that you don't believe the words you wrote as a point blank assertion of "fact"?

Stop putting words in your mouth?

Yes, please... bitch. And, as you can see, I'm tired of asking politely.

You've been conditioned from birth to believe these 'lone nut' theories. It's sad really.

Make your prediction about gun control laws. Then in six months, or two years or whatever amount of time from now it takes for you to realize that you were wrong, you can come and admit it.

This is not my contention. Fucking conclusion jumper.

Oh yeah, a government agent is totally posting on reddit. Man, I want his job they could pay me for this shit.

Ya, that would never happen. Oops, I guess it does.

I smell a bucket head, someone who claims to be a "truth seeker" of sorts, but the only "truth" he "seeks" is the truth he wants to find. Not truth based on evidence, but truth based on speculation and bullshit.

Inductive reasoning, my good man. In the same vein as Sherlock Holmes.

Got news for you: Some people just want to watch the world burn.

That's not news to me, kid. I'm one of them.

Go back to sleep and stop trying to make sense of the world around you. Your benefactors will tell you what to think.

I'm not going to sit here and defend Israel, not for one second. The sheer disgusting amount of war crimes they are guilty of do not give them any credit in my mind and they are totally capable of doing something like this and would probably be willing to waste time and money on it. As we can see we have some evidence that they have done this in the past and are possibly still doing it now. Good for them. They're a bunch of fucking crooks anyway, most of the world knows it.

Go back to sleep and stop trying to make sense of the world around you. Your benefactors will tell you what to think.

Being a skeptic does not mean I am all about "official stories". I believe in some conspiracy theories. Ones that have evidence that stands up. I've said that in the past and told people I'm willing to list those things if they would like me to. No one ever seems to want to hear about it though.

Maybe that's a fabrication.

The officer who guarenteed it might have gotten into trouble for saying it.

He was the Chief of Police. Who would he get in trouble with? The Mayor? Oh, golly. I bet he's really scared of that.

Politics are everything these days.

What police (and definitely prosecutors) are allowed to say to the press depends upon the state they are in.

no doubt that a, or number of, guy(s) shot up the theater.

[deleted]

That video is creepy. The theater scene in the end with the skeletons makes me uncomfortable.

There's been a lot of speculation that it was a psyop intended to bolster the case for gun control.

Plop "AnAdventureCore" into the search box (include the checkmark to restrict to r/conspiracy). Read the AMA.

Jesus dude. Are you a child? Trolling? Maybe just dense?

I dodged nothing. I explained how bailiffs have no influence on the actual judicial process. They enforce the law of the court and that is it. They are officers and their jurisdiction happens to be the court. That does not make them judicial officers of the court. Do you ever see bailiffs reading motions or cross examining witnesses? No.

Bailiffs aren't out arresting James Holmes at the movie theatre, police officers are. Police officers working in the same capacity as Oates.

You still haven't mentioned what role police officers serve in the trial process. Here's a hint: two posters above you responded correctly while you sat around mixing up basic legal definitions and telling me "you lost go away."

I usually love to engage in intelligent conversation and teach what I know. I love to learn new things when I happen to be wrong. That being said, this will be my last response because the only way I can possibly "lose" here is by wasting more time on this nonsensical circular talk.

That video is creepy. The theater scene in the end with the skeletons makes me uncomfortable.

Well put. Thank you for your information.

Based on how everything is lied to us at all levels, I have no issues believing this is a lie too. They want us afraid of lone wolfs. Just look at the two pictures of the suspect from school and after the shooting. Two totally different people! What about the second shooter? How did this kid get all the equipment? How could such a smart kid with a bright future do such thing? Why was he so blatenly drugged during the only court video taping we're allowed to see? What about his whistle blowing dad? And of course the point you bring up... More questions than answers means we are being deep throated lies on TV again. If you people out there fail to see that 2 + 2 is not = 4, go hang out on the front page and comment about cats and bieber,where critical thinking is not cool.

oh sure, but the people who "saw" two shooters weren't so busy not getting shot?

You accuse me of jumping to conclusions yet you do basically the same without direclty saying he is guilty or directly saying there is a conspiracy. You sit there and post "evidence", in favor of your theory. Then you say there is speculation that its a psyop. You're very careful not to be definitive, but its obvious what you believe here and what agenda you are pushing.

Hell, maybe your a shill. You did work for law enforcement afterall! Did they hire you to come here and distract people? (sarcasm)

You're saying "all those witnesses saw another guy", that sounds like a lot of people saw a second guy. Where is that credibly documented?

I know of one witness who thought he saw a smoke grenade come from the other side of the room, though nobody actually saw a second person throw a smoke grenade that I know of. Apparently many did see the shooter throw one or more himself.

Another witness thought they saw the shooter waive or gesture at someone, though again to my knowledge that person wasn't actually seen.

I know of a set of pictures that seem to show an extraneous gas mask on the sidewalk outside the theater. It's something, but certainly not an eyewitness account of an accomplice.

I read somewhere that the police dispatcher initially referred to 2+ shooters, but I didn't listen to the recordings myself and I'm not sure what was said, with how much certainty, or why. Incorrect information going over police radios in the very early minutes of a mass shooting seems entirely likely, considering the source of their information is highly distressed people on adrenaline kicks who are trying not to be killed.

What other evidence of an accomplice is there? Please don't get angry at me if I missed something, I don't know everything.

he's a sick individual maybe. just like serial killers or rapists.

I did, five hours ago, immediately after you made the three accusations (in one comment)... which you edited to include one apology (identical to this one) after I posted it. I was furious about your accusations at the time, so it isn't very polite, but I'm not going to edit it.

here.