Current
70 Fair
3-Day Forecast
HI: 85°
LO: 53°
HI: 85°
LO: 53°
HI: 85°
LO: 53°
Aurora movie theater shooting day 54: Prosecution hopes to move to next sentencing phase
Day 54 in the Aurora movie theater shooting trial – People vs. James Eagan Holmes. Today, prosecutors hope to move on to the second phase of the sentencing hearing. The jury found Holmes, the admitted gunman, was sane when he went into the midnight premiere of the Dark Knight Rises in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater and opened fire on the audience, killing 12 and wounding 70. 7NEWS and TheDenverChannel.com will have gavel to gavel coverage of the trial starting at 8:15 a.m. (MST) everyday and ending around 5:30 p.m. (MST) Watch new live video on our YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/7NewsDenver/live Additional resources:LIVE VIDEO & BLOG: http://bit.ly/theatertrialTIMELINE of the case: http://bit.ly/theatertimelineJURY PROFILE: http://bit.ly/theaterjury CONTINUING COVERAGE: http://bit.ly/theatercoverage
-
For review, here are the five different aggravating factors claimed by the prosecution (and conceded by the defense): 1. Multiple victims, with universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to human life. 2. Intentional killing of a child under the age of twelve. 3. Knowingly creating a grave risk of danger to another person in addition to the intended victims (this would include those people in Theater 8, as well as others at the complex). 4. Murder in the first degree in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner (teargassing and shooting people in a darkened theater as they sat with their families). 5. Murder in the first degree while lying in wait, or ambush (The murders were certainly a form of ambush. Holmes cased the area thoroughly and arrived early). Veronica was the only child murdered by Mr Holmes in that theater. Therefore, she is the only victim for whom all five aggravating factors apply. For the other eleven victims only four apply. Therefore, there are a total 98 aggravating factors [ (22 X 4) + (2 X 5) = 98], every one of which clearly applies to the rampage of Mr Holmes.
The jury only needs to find ONE. -
-
I find it quite interesting, that people who come here and comment, if they are not here every day and don't fall into single file, then they are called trolls, whatever that really means. I have not commented here in a very long time, because I find this arena to be extremely juvenile in the way that people behave here, so I just watch the video, and the live feed, and basically don't discuss anything with this discussion forum.
-
-
@fascinated, I thought so too. I thought the prosecution has clearly proved all five of those aggravating factors. I think the court was even thinking they would finish deliberating yesterday. I have an attorney here at my job and I was asking him questions about this yesterday (and the trial throughout). He said that if they don't finish today, they'll probably end up hung next week by Tuesday or Wednesday, they'll come back in but he said the judge could send them back out to deliberate again.
-
-
-
-
Theater shooting trial judge bans Newsweek from being on the court house premises for rest of trial
7NEWSThe judge in the movie theater shooting trial banned Newsweek from the court house premises for the rest of the trial. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
@Tim. You are not a Troll. A Troll is someone that wants to go to any type of social media and just cause havoc. There is actually proof of "Trolls" being paid from other countries to create havoc on a social media topics to sway public opinion or create a disturbance. They are not always harmless and bored people. -
Anica-don't want to beat this into the ground, but I was wondering: could the weird group from yesterday sign in with some of our established user names? It seemed that some of the weird stuff came from some folks/names who were NEVER offensive, melodramatic, or controversial before...and the attacks were on people making observations totally unrelated to those user names...Can that happen as a part of an effort from a group of trollies, etc? It's not a hacking thing-or is it? It made no sense. I mainly ask because I do see some of those same names from yesterday back today, & I'm feeling cautious...
-
-
-
@fascinated I think the jury wants to feel unanimously confident that the aggravators presented were proven. My understanding is that mitigators are weighed against the aggravators. It would have to be pretty convincing in phase 2 mitigators for me personally to find anything to outweigh the aggravators if i believed they were proven.
-
@Tired: I just created an Instagram account last year so I'm new to it all too. I don't have a FB page. It seems everywhere you go, especially the beach, there are numerous "selfie sticks". The world has gone crazy being viral way way way too much. Everything we do doesn't have to be "posted".
-
I find it interesting that Newsweek "regrets" their actions instead of saying "sorry" or apologizing for their actions. Words matter. "Regret" indicates they do not take responsibility. "Sorry" indicates they take responsibility and will change. Hmmm. Semantics, I know, but still....
-
-
-
-
-
we have to remember...those of us out here have seen more than the jury....so it seems clear on the mitigating factors....however, getting 12 people agreeing to DP is not going to be an easy task. That's the beauty of the system....it is weighed heavily in that jury room.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I meant to post this yesterday, Officer Grizzle the heroic officer who transported many that night, is going through some personal health issues with his wife. He has been on leave to take care of her (always the hero!) and it has cause tremendous financial strain on their family. They have set up a gofundme to help out. Here is the link if you want to help. www.gofundme.com -
-
-
@anica i know you don't like when we mention other news outlets, but 9news ran a great story on detective grizzle (who testified about it being a 'nightmare' and wanting to answer the ringing phones) and his wife. she's got a lot of health issues (brain tumor, breast cancer) and they have started a gofundme. the day he testified, he had to leave her side in the hospital.
-
-
-
All of the mitigating facts and circumstances will be balanced against any one of the aggravating factors, no matter how many are found by the jury, not the cumulative number. Apparently this simple logic has escaped the jury which seems to have lost the forest for the trees. I understand their desire to be thorough and deliberate but this is all clearly unnecessary, isn't it?
-