The Package and the Defense Motion

[Liz]

Absolutely not. Colorado has a strong journalist shield law which does not allow a Court to force a journalist to reveal anonymous sources whereas in other States without such laws journalists can and have been held in contempt and jailed for not revealing sources.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 2

Thank you for clearing that up so quickly, Hastings!

 

[~n/t~]

In a preview of likely battles to come, the defence lawyers also argued that the contents of the package should not be used as evidence because communications between Holmes and his psychiatrist, Lynne Fenton, were "protected".

The filing said Holmes was Ms Fenton's psychiatric patient.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-28/james-holmes-was-seeing-doctor-over-mental-health/4161278

Any thoughts as to why the defence would not want the contents of the package be used as evidence? IF the media reports are true and the note contained details of the attack using stick figures wouldn't that help their client towards perhaps a mental illness defence? OR would it add to the already premeditated evidence against him which would perhaps destroy any chance that he would be deemed incompetent to stand trial?

I think I answered my own question. lol

 

[jjenny]

Absolutely not. Colorado has a strong journalist shield law which does not allow a Court to force a journalist to reveal anonymous sources whereas in other States without such laws journalists can and have been held in contempt and jailed for not revealing sources.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 2

Then what exactly was defense asking for in their motion? Defense wants a hearing to obtain "appropriate sanctions for misconduct" I presume toward the supposed law enforcement sources (if they exist).

 

[~n/t~]

I believe the motion was against the State and not the sources but I'll have to reread it.

 

[~n/t~]

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...727_011819_2012-07-27 12CR1522 Motion D11.pdf

 

[jjenny]

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...727_011819_2012-07-27 12CR1522 Motion D11.pdf

Defense wanted identities of all people that could possibly be the source.
Prosecution then responded that these supposed sources are very inaccurate.

 

[~n/t~]

Defense wanted identities of all people that could possibly be the source.
Prosecution then responded that these supposed sources are very inaccurate.

No the defence is accusing the State of leaking to the sources, imo

 

[jjenny]

No the defence is accusing the State of leaking to the sources, imo

What? Defense is accusing the state of leaking to the media.
And wants to know the identities of all the persons who could possibly be those who leaked.

 

[HastingsChi]

Then what exactly was defense asking for in their motion? Defense wants a hearing to obtain "appropriate sanctions for misconduct" I presume toward the supposed law enforcement sources (if they exist).

In all likelihood the defense team feels the prosecution or law enforcement leaked this information and the judge can investigate if the leaks came from either of those entities but cannot force a journalist to reveal their source.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 2

 

[jjenny]

In all likelihood the defense team feels the prosecution or law enforcement leaked this information and the judge can investigate if the leaks came from either of those entities but cannot force a journalist to reveal their source.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 2

But unless somebody admits to leaking, how could the judge possibly investigate? Anyhow, prosecution says that there was a lot of incorrect information published, suggesting that the press might have even made some of it up.

 

[HastingsChi]

But unless somebody admits to leaking, how could the judge possibly investigate? Anyhow, prosecution says that there was a lot of incorrect information published, suggesting that the press might have even made some of it up.

These things are not uncommon and with LE and prosecutors smartphones, computers and office phones all being owned by the State, so is all the information contained in those things. In these situations a Court investigator would examine the digital trail of all those who could be the source of violating a judge's order.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 2

 

[~n/t~]

You know I thought about what was leaked and as far as I know it was mention of stick figures carrying out the crime. No detailed description, not how many stick figures, etc. We don't even know if there were weapons depicted in the drawing or if the movie theatre was even part of the plans.

I seriously doubt FOX would make up such a thing . Heck if you have to make something up why not go for the big picture but they didn't. So it is my belief that someone leaked the information and the details were quite vague.

:moo:

 

[Tucarra]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing........but I have several letters in my box at home that haven't been opened yet.

My hubby even has a huge box outside in the garage that was delivered from fed-ex about 3 weeks ago. It's un opened. We think/hope it's all the light bulbs we ordered.

Just saying....maybe there is no big rush on the teachers part to open mail, especially if it's unknown mail. Don't professors also receive a lot of junk stuff and other journals from other sources?

Concur with this. Many mail rooms operate differently. A long time ago it was common for daily distributions to people's offices, but for cost reasons and the onset of electronic communication, many mail rooms slowed or stopped distributions. My personal experience in business is that paper mail was, as stated above, mostly "junk mail"..

 

[jjenny]

You know I thought about what was leaked and as far as I know it was mention of stick figures carrying out the crime. No detailed description, not how many stick figures, etc. We don't even know if there were weapons depicted in the drawing or if the movie theatre was even part of the plans.

I seriously doubt FOX would make up such a thing . Heck if you have to make something up why not go for the big picture but they didn't. So it is my belief that someone leaked the information and the details were quite vague.

:moo:

University said that source was inaccurate and package arrived on Monday. Prosecutions also described things published by the media (including fox news) as inaccurate. So I am not sure why I should believe that there was anything correct in what we were told by the media about this package.

 

[shadowraiths]

I question the belief that the package is sitting in evidence, unopened. Esp in light of the prosecution's response ( link, pp 1-2, item 3, emphasis added, mine ) to the "improper discovery motion" made by the defense ( link ) :

3. The Defendant argues in Motion D-11 that "the content of these materials was leaked by the government to the media. . ." Certainly the media, including Fox News and NBCNEWS.com have said this, but that does not make it so. In fact, the content of the news stories would seem to indicate that whoever provided information to Fox News, if anyone, did not actually have knowledge of the facts of this case. For instance, the Fox News story stated that the FBI took possession of the package and its contents--this is incorrect, as it was the Aurora Police Department. The NBCNEWS.com story indicated that the Aurora Police Department had obtained two search warrants, one for the package itself and a second one for its contents. This is not correct, as the Aurora Police Department obtained only one search warrant. Other stories have stated that the police are currently examining the contents of the box—again untrue, as the contents were secured and not examined, and held for potential in camera review. These factual errors lead the People to believe that there may not even be a "law enforcement source" "leaking" confidential information and that the media is getting information from hoaxers, fraudsters, or maybe from nobody at all by creating fake "law enforcement sources" out of whole cloth. To put it bluntly, the People are extremely dubious of the media assertions that "law enforcement sources" exist. The court need not, and should not, accept that the media is correctly identifying the affiliations of the persons they claim are providing them with "information."​

 

[jjenny]

Prosecution doesn't claim they didn't open the package.

 

[21merc7]

Prosecution doesn't claim they didn't open the package.

Yeah, I think they are just saying "the evidence is not ready yet". I have no idea how they will get through all the evidence, witnesses, victim families, respective experts, etc... in a year. They would need a full team of lawyers for both sides, and more forensic labs than are available, more support staff than the White House!

 

[HastingsChi]

Yeah, I think they are just saying "the evidence is not ready yet". I have no idea how they will get through all the evidence, witnesses, victim families, respective experts, etc... in a year. They would need a full team of lawyers for both sides, and more forensic labs than are available, more support staff than the White House!

in the discovery process, there are guidelines that govern the who, what, when regarding the sharing of evidence. Frankly at this point with formal charges not yet filed, the defence is months away from getting to see the package and a ton of other State's evidence.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 2

 

[February]

I question the belief that the package is sitting in evidence, unopened. Esp in light of the prosecution's response ( link, pp 1-2, item 3, emphasis added, mine ) to the "improper discovery motion" made by the defense ( link ) :

3. The Defendant argues in Motion D-11 that "the content of these materials was leaked by the government to the media. . ." Certainly the media, including Fox News and NBCNEWS.com have said this, but that does not make it so. In fact, the content of the news stories would seem to indicate that whoever provided information to Fox News, if anyone, did not actually have knowledge of the facts of this case. For instance, the Fox News story stated that the FBI took possession of the package and its contents--this is incorrect, as it was the Aurora Police Department. The NBCNEWS.com story indicated that the Aurora Police Department had obtained two search warrants, one for the package itself and a second one for its contents. This is not correct, as the Aurora Police Department obtained only one search warrant. Other stories have stated that the police are currently examining the contents of the box—again untrue, as the contents were secured and not examined, and held for potential in camera review. These factual errors lead the People to believe that there may not even be a "law enforcement source" "leaking" confidential information and that the media is getting information from hoaxers, fraudsters, or maybe from nobody at all by creating fake "law enforcement sources" out of whole cloth. To put it bluntly, the People are extremely dubious of the media assertions that "law enforcement sources" exist. The court need not, and should not, accept that the media is correctly identifying the affiliations of the persons they claim are providing them with "information."​

Hi Shadow

do you personally believe that the package are not opened and read if that is a notebook?

 

[jjenny]

Hi Shadow

do you personally believe that the package are not opened and read if that is a notebook?

They didn't say the package was never opened. But they say they are not examining its contents until in camera review.