End of Phase 2 Sentencing Hearing

I started the day by watching/listening to the rest of yesterday’s testimony that I missed, though I skipped the parts where they simply played video recordings of previous testimony, as I saw those things when they were live.

Holmes’ mom was on the stand yesterday, but I only managed to get a short way into her testimony before the feed went live today.  What I did hear so far was sad.  His mom is way more emotional than his dad, but I guess that’s fairly normal.  One thing I did hear was his mom talking about the psychiatrist in Colorado calling them to talk about Holmes.  Apparently the psychiatrist was technically not allowed to do that, but she decided to reach out anyway.  However, she limited what she said to his parents and did not tell them that he said he was thinking of killing people.  His mom broke down and said over and over how she would have been on a plane immediately if the psychiatrist had told her Holmes was thinking of killing people.  From the way she said this, I think she blames Dr. Fenton, the psychiatrist in question, for everything that happened.

On the one hand I can understand why Dr. Fenton was limited in what she could say, but I can’t help but think that she could have simply said “I think you need to come see him.”  Maybe that would have implied heavily enough to his parents that they needed to do something.  I can also understand the guilt his poor mom must feel.  She probably feels that this is somewhat her fault for not noticing anything was wrong.  And I’m sure she feels guilty for not trying to do anything, even though there was really no way for her to know what was going on.

Based on the testimony I’ve heard so far from both Holmes’ parents, it appears that they both noticed things not going well in the spring of 2012, but they never took that to assume he’d go so far as to kill a dozen people.  But then again - who would!?  This guy was pretty normal up until then … even if he was suffering from a mental illness.  And while there is mental illness in his family, none of his family members ever became violent as part of their illnesses, so I wouldn’t think it would be a conclusion anyone would draw about him based solely on family medical history.

I personally don’t think his parents are to blame at all.  To me, while they could have probably been a little more open with their kids in terms of talking about uncomfortable topics, they were trying to weigh interference with independence.  I’m not a parent, but I’m pretty sure I can safely assume that all parents have a rough time with their kids when they’re transitioning from being a kid to an adult.  You want to let them do their own thing, but you also want to continue to protect them.  Based on his age and his circumstances I’m pretty sure his parents were simply trying not to get too much into his business because they probably felt he had to live his own life.

I also don’t think they’re to blame from a nurture perspective.  He wasn’t raised in a household with an alcoholic parent who beat him or abused him.  He was raised in a good family with lots of love and support.  So his behaviour - to me - is more nature.  Unfortunately something in his brain made him think this was an appropriate thing to do - and no amount of education or talking would have prevented him from thinking this way.  I think the only thing that would have stopped him would have been hospitalization or supervision.  Which raises another point.  The defense and prosecution were arguing today about the jury instructions for phase 2.  They disagreed over whether Dr. Fenton had the legal ability to commit Holmes to a mental institution for 72 hours without his consent.  I think the prosecution thinks she had the ability and didn’t do it, while the defense thinks she didn’t have the ability and didn’t do it.

Unfortunately both sides seem to think that the whole event would not have happened had it not been for Holmes’ mental illness - and I do agree with that.  But that creates a slippery slope.  What’s the alternative?  Lock someone up because they MIGHT do something?  This isn’t Minority Report!  And even if his mental illness was the sole reason why he did what he did, I don’t think anyone, including the doctors he say before the event, would have thought he’d do something so quickly.  Where they should have intervened, in my opinion, is when he dropped out of school and said he wasn’t going to see them anymore.  To me this should have been a trigger to get them moving on some kind of intervention.  Hindsight is 20/20 though and I’m pretty sure those doctors feel absolutely terrible for what happened.  I don’t even know if they’re still practicing or if they’ve stopped.

So far the mitigating factors that the defense has presented all have to do with Holmes as a kid and the fact that he was genetically disposed to having a mental illness.  I’ve sort of already talked about the 2nd point - that it’s hard to do anything to someone if you think they might do something in the future.  It’s not like some types of cancer where you can have pre-emptive surgery.  But it’s actually the 1st point that bothers me the most.  I really don’t care what he was like as a kid, or even a teenager.  He didn’t commit this crime when he was a kid or a teenager.  And lots of kids and teenagers grow up and develop different personalities and behaviours.  Actually I’d say most do.  I’m nothing like I was when I was in grade 5 - and I wouldn’t want to be judged NOW on what I was like in grade 5.  I don’t think being a good kid means you’ll be a good adult, and vice versa.  Therefore I have a hard time considering all that stuff as mitigating factors in this hearing.  But I’m not on the jury.

And the jury has already agreed that Holmes wasn’t legally insane at the time of the crimes, even if he was mentally ill.  I don’t think mental illness excuses people from punishment for their behaviour - especially if they were not legally insane.  As such, I have yet to hear a single piece of evidence or testimony that would make me think there is a reasonable mitigating factor to consider for Holmes that would preclude him from the death penalty.  We simply cannot ignore the magnitude of what he did.  He didn’t just kill someone he was mad at, or one random individual.  He planned months in advance to shoot at hundreds of people in a dark movie theater while making sure they were unable to escape or flee.  He purchased, practiced with, and used 4 guns.  He wore clothing and equipment to prevent himself from being identified, hurt, or emotionally damaged by what he was doing.  He created a death trap in his apartment to divert the attention of the police.  These are all proven facts.  It’s not like he ‘started small’ … he went BIG time right away!  I think maybe the worst part is that he STILL thinks this way and believes in his theory of human capital.  He may or may not be sorry for killing 12 people and injuring 70 others.  The only death he’s expressed regret about is the little girl’s.  

**********

I’m confused.  I just watched the rest of Mrs. Holmes’ testimony.  When asked why she had only visited her son 3 times since he was arrested, her comments were that it was partly because the requirements for visiting Holmes are so strict that they’re difficult to do implement regularly.  I’m surprised by this.  In 3 years I’m sure the authorities would have made the proper arrangements more than 3 times if they were asked.  I’m pretty sure that the lawyers of the jailed person in question could argue that not being allowed visitors on a regular basis - just as any other inmate is allowed - is cruel and unusual punishment.  But I didn’t hear the end of Mrs. Holmes’ statement, so I’m not sure what else she said, but I think she must have mentioned something about Holmes not wanting visitors, but I’m not 100% sure she said that.

The rest of Mrs. Holmes’ testimony was what I anticipated.  Nothing unexpected was talked about.  And while she broke down again, it wasn’t as severe as earlier in her testimony.  She did admit that her family is not very talkative and isn’t good at talking about their emotions.  She also talked about how it was possible that she didn’t know her sister-in-law was so sick and claims to have asked her mother-in-law about it and was lied to.  

Ms. Pearson did ask her some follow-up questions, but not very many, and she wasn’t very forceful.

**********

I then went back to watch the rest of today’s testimony that I missed - and wow did I miss something!  Apparently while Mr. Brachler was doing his closing arguments for phase 2 there was a woman in the audience who started yelling in the courtroom.  They arrested her and finished the closing arguments.  Then they had a contempt hearing for this woman - Debra (or Deborah) Cave.  The judge found her guilty of contempt and sentenced her to 3 weeks in the county jail!  But the most interesting part was her continuation of her rant directly to the judge.  She claims she tried to do things the proper way, but was denied.  I have no idea what she meant by that.  But apparently she’s sent Holmes letters and cards and photos while he’s been in jail since 2012.  And she was pissed that authorities at the courthouse asked her questions and made her show them her identification.  She’s also very upset that Colorado has a death penalty and claims that the only thing to come out of this trial is that the court will create 12 new murderers.

The judge, obviously, was not pleased.  But interestingly this is the first time something like this has happened at the trial, so in some ways that’s pretty impressive.  You’d think for a case this big, and one broadcasted live, that you’d see more outbursts, but we didn’t.

**********

I’m now watching Ms. Brady’s closing arguments for phase 2.  She was really good.  And she made a lot of good points.  She played to the jury’s emotions and morality.  The key point she made was that the severeness of the mental illness (i.e. mitigating factor) outweighs the aggrevators they’ve already heard about.  

Ms. Brady very strongly implied that the medication that he was prescribed before the incident caused his delusions to become more real and remove any thoughts he had of doubt.  She basically claimed that it was the medication’s fault.  There’s no actual evidence of that - but I wonder if the drug company will end up being sued by someone?

Now Brachler’s closing arguments for phase 2.  Obviously Brachler’s main argument is that there are no mitigating factors that outweigh any of the aggrevating factors.  That the crime was so awful and terrible that none of Holmes’ personal history or mental illness can make up for what he did.

Brachler made an excellent point.  He mentioned the fact that it is absolutely right for the jury to feel sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Holmes.  But that sympathy for someone other than the defendant isn’t allowed by law as a mitigating factor.  You can’t spare him from the death penalty because you feel sorry for his mom.

Brachler is also talking about Holmes’ childhood and rightly pointed out that kids change as they grow up.  (Brachler is still referring him to as “this guy.”)  

Brachler is asking the jury whether it would make a difference if Holmes only murdered 3 people or 4 people.  And he’s going through each of the murder victims.  Obviously he’s making the point that the murder victim list goes on forever, and it should not make a difference what the number was because what he did was so awful.

Brachler is now poking fun at Ms. Brady’s closing argument and the mitigating factors provided by the defense via the phase 2 jury instructions.  It’s at this point that he gets interrupted by the woman who started yelling.  Interestingly, everyone turned around to see what was happening - except Holmes.  He continued to stare straight ahead.

He’s now making a point that the expert witnesses have said the mental illness isn’t the mitigating factor, but rather if that mental illness affected his ability to function.  

“Malingering” is apparently the word they use to say whether or not someone is faking a mental illness.  The doctors who have all spoken with him have said he is not malingering (i.e. not faking).  

Brachler made another good point - that even though doctors have said that the event on July 20th would not have happened if he wasn’t mentally ill.  But one of those doctor’s also pointed out that the event wouldn't have happened had he not moved to Colorado.  So Brachler is trying to make the point that where do you draw the line?  It’s a good point - do you blame the school for accepting him into the program and then not helping him do a good enough job?  do you blame his girlfriend for breaking up with him?  do you blame the stores where he bought his equipment for shipping the items to him?  do you blame the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for approving his gun license application?

The jury is now in deliberations, but I'm not sure if they're working Friday or have the day off.

Sentencing Hearing - Father's Testimony

I missed most of today's testimony so I'll have to go back and watch the recorded version. I did, however, see most of yesterday's testimony with Holmes' father. It was quite interesting and sad. 

In general it appears the Holmes parents were nice people who did a lot with their kids. But they were talkers or sharers. And as their kids got older they seemed to have trouble dealing with what might be identified as problems. And the father came across as almost devoid of emotion and didn't seem at all comfortable talking about his life and feelings. 

What I did learn from his testimony was a little disturbing. First he has a twin sister. His twin sister has schizophrenia and has been sick for years. He knew she was sick but didn't know what she was sick with until he heard about his sister in testimony during the trial. This is his TWIN sister!  I just find that incredibly odd. Apparently neither his sister not his mother wanted to talk about it - so that's it - he never asked or followed up. 

We already knew from testimony that Holmes worked at a pill factory between undergrad and grad school while living at home. To me it was a pretty typical situation. Holmes hadn't gotten into any of the grad programs he applied to (yet) and was bumming around at home. He was doing nothing but playing video games so his parents told him to get a job (sounds familiar to me). He got a job, but he got that job via a temp agency. To me that's not a big deal - that's what temp agencies are for. But his dad didn't know he went through a temp agency until he heard about it at trial!!  Did they never talk?  They lived in the same house!!

But I also learned that Holmes' father did come to Colorado the day after the shooting. And he's only seen his son 3-4 times since he was arrested because Holmes refuses to have visitors. That part surprised me. Up until that point the fact that Holmes refused visitors was never mentioned (that I heard).  It's almost like Holmes doesn't want to help himself. 

I believe his mom was suppose to testify today but if she did I missed it. I'll have to watch the recordings to see if she did. I know the judge talked about deliberations today so I'm assuming he thought they'd finish soon. 

This will be an interesting deliberation. 

Theatre Trial Sentencing Hearing Day ... I have no idea.

I've completely lost track of what day of the sentencing trial it is. Four or five I think ... maybe. 

Today the jury was back for live testimony. But before they did that the judge polled the jury to find out if anyone had heard about the event in Louisiana. Those who said they had heard about it put their hands up and then were questioned individually. It appears that while some of of the jurors heard about it, none knew any details. 

The "Louisiana event" was the copycat theatre shooting by a man who was mentally ill. There are a lot of differences between the two events, but it certainly doesn't help that it happened during this trial. 

Once they got started the defense called more witnesses, including Dr Metzner. He was a forensic psychiatrist hired by the court to assess Holmes. Well, one of them anyway, the court hired several. The key point with Dr Metzner was that he was not hired by either side nor did he opine that Holmes was legally insane. Unfortunately I didn't get why they questioned him. I didn't really seem to think he had much to say that's important. 

Sometime in the afternoon, I lost track of time, the defense called Chris Holmes, James' younger sister. For the most part they talked about family life. And she said she still loves her brother and misses him. But in general she didn't seem to say anything useful either. 

However I think the fact that no one is testifying about facts and logic, but rather life and feelings, I don't find a lot of it overly useful. But this is the purpose of this part of the hearing, to make the jury feel sorry for Holmes so they don't rule in favour of the death penalty. 

What's interesting is that he's been found guilty of all charges. The minimum he's going to get is life in prison with no parole. Because he wasn't found insane, I don't think he'll be going to a mental institution, but I'm not sure. I can't help but think that locking a seriously mentally ill guy up in prison isn't going to help him in any way. He'll probably end up in isolation and have very little human contact. He's younger than 30, so he'd be stuck like that for over 50 years if he lived to an average old age. I seriously can't help but think that the death penalty might actually be the merciful punishment. It'll be interesting to see how the jury views everything. 

I did hear mention today that they'll probably wrap up phase 2 on Wednesday. This thing is almost over. 

Theatre Trial Sentencing Hearing - Parts I Missed

Last night I watched the recordings of the parts I missed live. I saw the end of phase 1 and the start of phase 2. 

I found it weird that on Friday the defense was tape recording witness testimony. Why would they need to record the testimony if the jury was available?  I'm guessing if they were recording stuff then the jury must have been sent home. 

I also heard the phase 1 verdicts being read. The jury found almost all of the aggrevaters proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only one (that I heard) that they didn't find proven was the one where Holmes intentionally intended to kill a child under the age of 12. 

I'm actually surprised at that. He went to a movie theatre to see the opening performance of a major hit movie. How could he think there wouldn't be kids there?  I'm thinking the jury maybe thought that because it was the midnight showing he hoped or assumed that kids wouldn't be there. But the minute he walked into the theatre he would have seen dozens of kids, including infants, and continued with his plan anyway. He may not have arrived at the theatre thinking he was going to kill kids, but he entered the theatre with guns knowing he might kill them when he opened fire. To me that meets the burden of proof for that aggrevater. But I guess the jury felt differently. 

I'm interested to see Holmes' parents take the stand and what they'll say. I'm curious if the prosecution will cross examine them. 

I also wonder how the outcome of the guilt part of the trial impacted Dr. Gur's reputation. She came off so badly on the stand and the prosecution managed to discredit her work quite nicely. I doubt it impacted her research but I wonder how the press might have reported about her. I should look that up. 

Theatre Trial Sentencing Hearing Day 2

I missed some of today's proceedings. Several times when I checked the Livestream throughout the day they were in recess. 

They would have started the day like that as the jury was still deliberating for phase 1. If they had not been unanimous on their decision that at least one aggrevater was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they wouldn't have moved onto phase 2. The fact that they're in phase 2 indicates they returned that verdict. 

I'll have to watch the recording of the verdict for phase 1 being read later. 

Phase 2 is mitigating factors. Basically the defense is trying to convince the jury to show mercy towards Holmes so they don't decide on the death penalty. To do this the defense is calling witnesses to show that Holmes deserves to live. But so far I haven't seen any witnesses who have convinced me of such mercy. So far all the witnesses I've seen were either former teachers or friends from middle or high school. 

Everyone, so far, has talked about Holmes as a kid and that he was a nice, smart and awkward kid. The older he got, the more awkward he got. And the more introverted he got. He obviously got sicker the older he got - but never did anything bad. 

The defense is obviously attempting any possible sympathy they can get - but they're sure grasping at straws. So far they haven't called anyone who knew him within a year of the incident. Although I have heard that they were going to call his parents at some point, maybe even his sister. I think they're starting with witnesses who are available now and not later to get them all in. 

Most of the witnesses they've called so far haven't seen or spoken to Holmes in years. And they certainly aren't his friend. I think they've been supenaed (sp?) by the defense so they may not have had a choice in whether they testified or not. I just hope the public doesn't mistreat them for testifying on his behalf. 

All the news coverage I've seen about the trial shows a lot of very angry victims who hate Holmes literally to death. It makes me wonder how they've reacted to the various defense witnesses who were there, and Holmes' parents. Some of them might be angry enough to say things to these people, but maybe the court house staff keeps people separate somehow. 

Tomorrow phase 2 will continue, although I'm not sure for how much longer. The judge keeps saying that not all 3 phases are guaranteed. So I guess the jury can decide something after phase 2 that would prevent phase 3 from happening. And I think it's phase 3 where the actual death penalty is decided. 

I wonder if this process is the same in all states or if it's unique to Colorado. 

Theater Trial - Sentencing Hearing Day 1

I'm surprised, they started court today before 9am.  Although it's possible that the jury isn't there yet - I can't remember what time the judge told them to be here today.  

Right now they're going over some last minute requests from the defense (who never seems happy with anything).  And now the judge is making an official record of a decision he made yesterday (they do this a lot - an official record is basically speaking about the reasons for a decision out loud in open court so it can be recorded in the transcripts, which means the decisions can be reviewed and argued about in future appeal trials).  The judge in this case is extremely careful about making a record of everything.  And both he and the lawyers have made specific references to appeal processes several times.  In fact, in some cases, the judge has made specific records about things for the explicit purpose of making sure a appellate court understands his reasons and what law he based his decisions on.

And they're still going ...

... now they're talking about the evidence that is to go back with the jury after phase 1, and the slides the prosecution wants to use in phase 1.

Interestingly, the prosecution raised the fact that there were several pieces of evidence that were only to be used to determine insanity in the guilt phase of the trial.  They suggested that this evidence NOT go back with the jury during the phase 1 deliberations.  This can ONLY benefit the defense, as these items would probably make the jury mad when thinking about their response to phase 1 sentencing.

I'm wondering if the prosecution raised this issue because they knew the defense was going to raise an objection about the presentation they want to use.  Apparently the prosecution only gave the presentation to the defense team last night just before 6pm, which they were upset about, but they still managed to come up with a list of reasons why they objected to the various slides.

In addition, the defense has pointed out that they are not objecting to the evidence about any of the aggravaters that are to be discussed in phase 1.  And in fact they agree that all the aggravaters are truthful.

Oh wow ... the judge is mad!  The defense just went through a 100+ slide presentation from the prosecution with objections for about every 2nd slide.  It took her something like 15-20 minutes just going through her objections.  When she was done, the judge stated that ...

1. From now on both sides had to submit powerpoint presentations at least 2 days in advance of wanting to use them.

and

2. From now on both sides then had to state their objections to the presentations at least 1 day in advance of wanting to use them.

The prosecution argued that the nature of trial law is that you're solidifying your arguments up until you present them, so it's hard to know 2 days in advance what you're argument is going to be.  Then the judge said that if they couldn't come up with stuff 2 days in advance, they'd have to take 2 days between finalizing arguments and actually continuing with the trial.  

He was mad because now everyone has to argue about this presentation while the jury is waiting - AND - that the defense had wanted to move ahead with phase 2 today because they had witnesses that aren't available later.  So now all these people are waiting when they thought they'd be able to move forward.  If the judge had known this was going to happen today, he would probably have told the jury not to come in until tomorrow.

Two other interesting things:

1. The defense says they do not contend that the aggrevaters happened and are accurate, just they are not stipulating to them in court.  This means that even though they do not disagree, the prosecution still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these aggrevaters happened.  I don't understand why the defense doesn't just stipulate this point if they're not arguing it.  During phase 1 I don't believe the jury has to decide punishment ... I think that comes in phase 3.

2. The defense argued that a statement the prosecution makes in the slides - that the tear gas was designed to cause discomfort - is an opinion of the prosecution and not factually accurate.  I find it unbelievable that the defense could use such an argument when tear gas itself is purposely used by law enforcement to cause people discomfort - and that the whole design of tear gas is to cause discomfort!

Finally, the arguments back and forth are done and the judge is taking a recess.  Not only does his staff (and he) need a break, but now he has to review these objections and make a ruling on them.  And all this time the jury is waiting and wondering why they haven't started yet!

The judge also pointed out that he's quite mad at both sides for their powerpoints.  First off, at the guilt phase of the trial the defense objected to the prosecution's use of a powerpoint, but then used one themselves.  AND the defense argued specific points about slides the prosecution had, and then put those same things in their own presentation and the judge noticed.  He hadn't said anything up until now, but he's pointed out that he noticed and he's not impressed.

Finally, the defense lawyer who was speaking (Ms. Brady) was quite upset that the prosecution keeps calling Holmes "that guy" in a sneering tone.  And she said that if they call him that one more time in front of the jury she'll object and state her objection in front of the jury.  And she didn't say this calmly!  She was pissed.  Interestingly the judge's reply was that he'd rule on the objection when the time comes, but pointed out that "that guy" has been used a lot already and no one objected before.  I think at the beginning of the trial the judge ruled that in court everyone was to be called M. Lastname or by their title (i.e. defense, judge, defendant, etc).

*********

Sentencing Hearing - Phase 1:

Is almost done!  It consisted of the judge reading introductory instructions to the jury.  Then both sides saying they had no additional evidence to present.  Then the judge reading the final instructions to the jury.  After he's done this step both sides get to present closing arguments.  Then the jury can deliberate.  I'm not sure if the judge is limiting the amount of time for the closing arguments, he hasn't mentioned yet.  But the prosecution had over 100 slides for theirs, so I would think each side may take up to 1 hour to present.  However, since the defense is not disagreeing with the aggrevaters, so they may not present a closing argument at all.  The fact that they have witnesses waiting for the 2nd phase makes me think they assume the jury will find that the proof for all 5 aggrevaters was met beyond a reasonable doubt - and that they'll find this quickly.  At the rate they're going, I can't see them done before lunch, unless the judge specifically goes until this phase is done before he breaks for lunch.

They're going to break soon, but only for a short time.  The judge indicated that he's given each side only 40 minutes for their closing arguments.  And once the jury reaches a verdict on phase 1, it'll only be 20 minutes before they'll reconvene to announce the verdict.  I'll probably miss the arguments as I'm going to lunch!!

**********

I watched a recording of what happened after I left for lunch, and the jury came back from a break.  The big thing that happened was that the jury foreman came to tell the judge that on the weekend he'd been sent a tweet from someone he did not know, that contained a link to a story in Newsweek about the trial that included his name!

The judge, at the start of the trial, issued a court order that prevented the media from publishing certain pieces of information, including the names of the juror, while the case is underway.  Newsweek had a reporter in the court room for the trial and published stories about it regularly online.  However, after being contacted by someone in the "judicial public relations office" they claimed that the reporter who wrote the story didn't know about the court order.  (One, if she didn't, she's a shitty reporter.  And two, doesn't she have an editor who should have required her to check this?)

Anyway, the juror was quite upset about it, but the lawyers weren't concerned about him as a juror as he didn't read the story.  But they were quite annoyed at Newsweek.  The judge said that Newsweek did take the story off their website, and their tweet about it on Twitter, but it's already made it's way to other websites and Twitter accounts.  The judge has banned Newsweek from being on the court house property from now until the end of the trial - but he initially said he wouldn't charge them with contempt.  The defense really wants them to be charged.

The word "Newsweek" must have been said at least two dozen times in the court room in the last couple of hours.  Major news organizations are already reporting about the fact that Newsweek violated a court order!  And I'm assuming the Newsweek reporter who was at the court house was probably escorted off the property (if they were present).  Someone even made the comment that they're probably watching this right now on TV - and they probably were.  

I can only imagine how much trouble this reporter is in.  Even though they didn't get charged, they are now unable to report the story as it happens.  And they are being bashed in the media.  Newsweek claimed they weren't going to follow the sentencing portion of the trial, but you know that can't possible be true.  Why would you send a reporter to Colorado to watch the trial in person up until he's found guilty, but not stick around to find out if he got the death penalty?

Today is turning into a very interesting day ... but it's almost time for me to leave so I'll probably have to watch everything else once I get home.

July 21st - Between Guilt Trial and Sentencing Hearing - Day 3

[twiddling my thumbs]

Still nothing ... the crappy part is that there's no warning when the livestream is going to start, it just starts.  I guess I'll just wait in anticipation ... at least they start the sentencing hearing tomorrow.

**********

WOW - Holmes spoke in court!!!  The judge is required to read a couple things to him to inform him of his rights in the sentencing hearing - that basically he has the right to testify at all three phases of the sentencing hearing, if he wants.  And that if he does, both the prosecution and the jury would be permitted to ask him questions.  And that he can testify even if his lawyers recommend he doesn't.

The judge then went onto explain that he also has the right NOT to testify and if he chooses this option the judge will read an instruction to the jury that basically states he has the right not to testify and they cannot read any judgement into that decision.

He then asked Holmes things like if he'd talked to his lawyers about this, and if he's had enough time to make a decision, and what his decision is.  He has opted NOT to testify in phase 1 of the sentencing hearing.

The judge had a second statement to read as well, this one about allocution.  Holmes has the right to make a statement of allocution, which would not be under oath and would not be cross-examined.  He asked the same basic questions about being informed, etc., and Holmes has said he will not make a statement of allocution in phase 1 of the sentencing hearing.

An allocution or allocutus is a formal statement made to the court by the defendant who has been found guilty, prior to being sentenced. It is part of the criminal procedure in some common law jurisdictions.

**********

They wrapped up for the day I think ... tomorrow is sentencing hearing day 1!

July 20th - Between Guilt Trial and Sentencing Hearing - Day 2

I finally figured out today what those little laptops are that are on each of the lawyer's tables.  Apparently they're real time displays of what the court reporter is typing.  Either that means she's typing in full english, or she has software that translates her shorthand into english right away.  That's pretty cool as I thought the court report still had to re-type everything into english at a later date.

This morning the thingy at the defense table is causing them trouble.  But they did start court around 9am and I think are spending today and tomorrow going over the details of the sentencing hearing.

Hmmmm ... there's also a new dude at the prosecution's table.  Never saw him during the actual trial.  Maybe he's a prosecutor who specializes in sentencing stuff?

Both sides and the judge spent most of the morning going over the instructions for the jury for Phase 1 of the sentencing hearing (which starts Wednesday morning).  Next on the agenda was to go over the judge's introductions to Phase 1, but I missed that part.  I think at some point today or tomorrow they were also going to go over the introductions and instructions for Phase 2 because everyone thinks the jury won't be out too long deliberating for Phase 1.  The defense is hoping to start Phase 2 on Wednesday afternoon - mostly because they have witnesses they're trying to schedule who aren't available again until mid-August.

I'm not exactly sure what the three phases of a sentencing hearing are, but phase 1 seems to have something to do with 'aggrevations' - meaning the specific circumstances under which the first degree murder was carried out.  Some examples that were talked about were things like ambush, torturous acts, killing a child under 12, and that sort of thing.  I guess if all these things apply it makes the situation that much more worse, and I think pretty much all those things apply to Holmes.

They also talked about the fact that while Holmes could be found guilty on two counts of first degree murder per victim, he can't be sentenced for two counts of first degree murder.  The two counts are technically added together and the sentencing decided upon, in essence, is for both combined.  In reality it doesn't really change anything because there are only two options - death or life in prison without parole.  So it doesn't really matter if you sentence him to death 12 times (for each of the 12 victims) or 24 times (for each of the counts).

Speaking of 'Holmes' - when the judge reads the instructions he refers to Holmes as "the defendant."  But the defense asked that he referred to as "James Holmes."  They claimed it was his constitutional right.  The judge disagree and will be sticking with "the defendant."  He said it's because that's how it's always done and he isn't making an exception in this case.

Mr. Orman, from the prosecution, is doing all the talking for the prosecution so far, but there are at least 3-4 other lawyers with him.  I guess that's his specialty?  But that new guy - whom I'm assuming is another lawyer, hasn't said a word.  Weird.

*********

It's now after lunch - 2:13pm my time and Colorado time - and court is back in session.  This afternoon it appears they're doing an interview with one of the defense's witnesses who is unable to attend in the coming weeks.  They're doing the whole thing with the witness, without the jury, and will play the video of it for the jury at the proper time.  The downside to this is that the jury will be unable to ask questions of this witness, but the defense doesn't seem to think that's an issue.

The witness is referring to Holmes as "Jimmy" because that's what he would have been called in this witness's grade 5 class back in 1998/1999.  The defense was also calling him "Jimmy" and the prosecution objected that the court had been told to always refer to people by their last names or titles (i.e. Mr. Holmes or the defendant).  The judge sustained the objection and now they're having a bench conference as the two sides argue about it further.  The judge still sustained the objection.

The witness, overall, was rather useless if you ask me.  He was Holmes' fifth grade teacher.  He hadn't seen or spoken with Holmes since fifth grade!  That was a long time ago.  He talked about how smart, friendly and popular Holmes was in fifth grade and how he trusted this kid.  That's nice, but he's no longer that same kid.  And I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be judged NOW based on how I behaved or what I did in fifth grade!  I seriously doubt the jury will lend this witness any weight in their decision.

After the witness finished testifying they went back to talking about various instructions, etc., for phase 2.  I went home in the middle of this, so I didn't see how it ended.  It's now 9:11am on July 21st and there's no livestream ... yet.  I'm not sure if that means there won't be at all, or if they're starting later.  I guess it's possible they finished everything yesterday.

Colorado Theater Trial - Verdict Reading from July 16 - GUILTY

Holy cow, I'm listening to the recording of yesterday's verdict reading.  The poor judge is still going after over 30 minutes!  He has 165 counts to read.

I should point out that the jury found Holmes guilty on all the charges, except they did reduce the count to attempted 2nd degree murder for the three folks who were in theater 8 and were hit by bullets that went through the wall.  I guess they thought that while he was purposely trying to kill the folks in theater 9, he didn't intentionally try to kill people in other theaters, that was just an unfortunate circumstance.

Wow, he's just finished ... the defense was able to sit down.

The judge is now asking if the lawyers want him to poll the jurors.  The prosecution said no, but the defense said yes.  He's now going through the 12 deliberating jurors - thankfully he doesn't have to read each one out, he's simply asking if these are their verdicts, the juror just has to answer yes or no.

Obviously we can't see either the jury or the gallery in the live feed, but the news reports I read said that there were a lot of tears in both areas.

And now we're back to where I started yesterday ...

Colorado Movie Theater Trial - Deliberation Day 2 - GUILTY

July 16th, 2015

Well shit!  I had the livestream feed on ALL DAY and nothing happened.  Then I left work at 3:30pm thinking nothing was going to happen today.  But at 4pm they ANNOUNCED THE VERDIT!

The jury deliberated less than 3 hours and found Holmes GUILTY on ALL 165 counts.  The jury obviously didn't believe any of the defense's insanity arguments (I didn't either) and the prosecution gave them enough evidence to prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt that Holmes was legally sane on July 19th/20th 2012 when he opened fire in the Century City Movie Theater #9.

I watched a recording of the first 12 counts being read by the judge, there's absolutely NO REACTION from the defense attorneys or the defendant.  The prosecution, on the other hand, looks quite relieved.  I suspect, as I've said before, that the defense expected this outcome and wasn't at all surprised.  I think they knew from the very beginning that they had an extremely thin case - but they did the best they could under the circumstances.

Now we move onto the sentencing portion of the trial.  That will official start next Wednesday when the jury is back.  However, the judge and lawyers will be in court Monday and Tuesday to work out the details of the sentencing hearing.

Serial - Episode 3

Serial Podcast

Episode 3: It’s February 9, 1999. Hae has been missing for three weeks. A man on his lunch break pulls off a road to pee, and stumbles on her body in a city forest. His odd recounting of the discovery makes Detectives Ritz and MacGillivary suspicious. For instance, why did he walk so far into the woods - 127 feet - to relieve himself? And that’s just the start. A look into the man’s past reveals some bizarre behavior.

Oh my!  Today's episode was specifically about a place in Baltimore called Leakin Park.  Apparently it's downtown, or close to downtown, it's quite large, and it's a well known place to find bodies!  The person who discovered Hae Min's body did so about 6 weeks after she disappeared.  He claims to have stopped at the park to take a piss and stumbled across the body.  But the police are suspicious of his story.

First off Sarah talks about the park in general.  This park is no where near the school.  It's also a place Adnan has never visited before, and isn't even sure how to get to.  In general, it's not a place the students from that particular high school go to.  This should have raised some questions and doubts ... I guess it didn't.

Second, the guy who found the body, Mr. S, doesn't have the greatest of stories.  He claims to have gone home at lunch time to pick up a tool he needed for work.  In the process he grabbed a large sized beer and drank it in the car on his way back to work.  Then, while driving, needed to pee.  He stopped at a pull over spot at the park and walked 127 feet from his car looking for a private spot to pee.  While looking around he noticed some hair on the ground and possibly something that looked like a foot.  It's at this point he realizes he's found a body.

Here are the problems with his story.  First, why did he stopped at the park at all?  He lived 2 miles from the park, and his work was another 3 miles from the park.  Could he not make it to work, or why didn't he pee at home before he left?  Second, why did he walk so far into the forest to pee?  Third, the body was found behind a large fallen tree, how did he happen to be behind this tree?  And why would he step around or over a large tree when he could have gone another way?  Fourth, there was an alcohol bottle found on the scene and Mr. S admits to driving and throwing alcohol bottles out his car window into this park all the time.  Fifth, how the hell did he actually spot the body?  There's so many fallen leaves and dirt on top of it that barely anything is sticking out.  Police officers who go to look at the body after it's reported had a hard time finding it.  Obviously the police are suspicious of him, and think he might possibly be a suspect.

However, when you break everything down, he begins to just look like a guy in the wrong place, at the wrong time.  He's apparently known to police for streaking, and has been spotted in and around that park many times.  He probably didn't actually stop to pee, but to streak and just didn't want to admit it.  When Sarah went to the actual location and walked in 127 feet she found that's the minimum you'd have to walk in order to get any privacy, and even from there you still see the cars on the road.  He was probably behind the fallen log because he was going to streak, so maybe he planned to take his clothes off and leave them there.  The alcohol bottle found beside the body is a brandy bottle, and while Mr. S admits to drinking and throwing empty bottles in there, he only drinks the cheap stuff, and never brandy.  How he spotted the body?  That could simply be because he was looking down or maybe even crouching down and spotted it.  The police gave him a polygraph test and he came back clean.

In the end the area where the body was found revealed nothing useful to the police.  The area is so ridden with crime that there's all sorts of weird stuff in there that had nothing to do with this murder.  And the body had been there long enough that items like bottles would probably have been washed clean if they were related to the murder.

The police have nothing.

Serial - Episode 2

Serial Podcast

Episode 2: Their relationship began like a storybook high-school romance: a prom date, love notes, sneaking off to be alone. But unlike other kids at school, they had to keep their dating secret, because their parents disapproved. Both of them, but especially Adnan, were under special pressure at home, and the stress of that spilled over into their relationship. Eventually Hae broke up with Adnan. And then, depending on who you ask, Adnan was either understandably sad and moping around, or full of rage and plotting to kill her.

I think I mentioned some of episode 2's stuff in my episode 1 blog, but that's okay.  

In this episode Sarah talks about how the prosecution's case is based on the fact that Adnan is furious with Hae Min not only for breaking up with him, but for making him disrespect his religion.  However, as Adnan points out from prison, if he was truly upset about disrespecting his religion, would he continue to behave in the exact same way after Hae Min breaks up with him?  He claims he wasn't upset about the religious aspect at all, nor that upset about Hae Min breaking up with him.  While he wasn't happy about it, one of his friends pointed out that he was a "player" so he didn't have any trouble finding other girls.

Jay - the friend who claims to know the truth - told the police that Adnan had a plan to get Hae Min to drive him home in her car that day.  It would be a rouse to get her alone so he could kill her.  Ironically, I really doubt he actually needed a rouse.  If he simply asked her to go for a drive with him, I bet she would.  Even after they broke up she apparently continued to be friends with him - she would call him, give him presents, etc.  She didn't seem overly upset by the breakup.  In fact, one of the reasons she broke up with him was so she could date another guy named Don, who worked with her.  And to top it off, it appeared that Adnan and Don were cordial with each other.

Several classmates remember a variety of things from the day Hae Min was murdered.  Some have no recollection of Adnan asking for a ride, some do remember some sort of discussion about it at lunch time.  However, many, including Adnan, thought it weird because Adnan had his own car, so why would he ask for a ride.  The owner of a convenience store at the high school remembers seeing Hae Min after school that day, with her car, but not with Adnan.  And some friends who remembered a conversation about cars and rides at lunch time also remember that Hae Min, at some point later in the day, did tell Adnan she remembered she was busy and wouldn't be able to give him a ride.  He didn't seem to care.

Apparently Adnan had claimed to need a ride because his own car was in the shop.  The podcast didn't go into any details as to whether this was actually true.  Or maybe the plan was for him to drop it off that day, so maybe it hadn't gone anywhere yet.  This might explain why Adnan didn't seem to care too much, because he still had his own car to use, he'd just need to make other arrangements to drop it off at the shop.

Regardless of what actually happened with both cars, Hae Min wasn't seen again after the convenience store lady saw her with her car, alone.  What happened after this point still remains a mystery.

Serial - Episode 1

Serial Podcast

In June, while I was in Victoria, a friend told me about this podcast.  It's done by a reporter about a story recommended to her.  The story is about a teenage boy who was found guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend when they were both in high school.  The 'problem' is, he was convicted on the first-hand witness accounts of only one person - whose story changed constantly.

The reporter - Sarah Koenig - goes through the story step-by-step in a 12 part podcast, investigating every part of the mystery she can think of.

Overall Story Synopsis: On January 13, 1999, a girl named Hae Min Lee, a senior at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore County, Maryland, disappeared. A month later, her body turned up in a city park. She'd been strangled. Her 17-year-old ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed, was arrested for the crime, and within a year, he was convicted and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison. The case against him was largely based on the story of one witness, Adnan’s friend Jay, who testified that he helped Adnan bury Hae's body. But Adnan has always maintained he had nothing to do with Hae’s death. Some people believe he’s telling the truth. Many others don’t.

Sarah Koenig, who hosts Serial, first learned about this case more than a year ago. In the months since, she's been sorting through box after box (after box) of legal documents and investigators' notes, listening to trial testimony and police interrogations, and talking to everyone she can find who remembers what happened between Adnan Syed and Hae Min Lee fifteen years ago. What she realized is that the trial covered up a far more complicated story, which neither the jury nor the public got to hear. The high school scene, the shifting statements to police, the prejudices, the sketchy alibis, the scant forensic evidence - all of it leads back to the most basic questions: How can you know a person’s character? How can you tell what they’re capable of? In Season One of Serial, she looks for answers.

Episode 1: It's Baltimore, 1999. Hae Min Lee, a popular high-school senior, disappears after school one day. Six weeks later detectives arrest her classmate and ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed, for her murder. He says he's innocent - though he can't exactly remember what he was doing on that January afternoon. But someone can. A classmate at Woodlawn High School says she knows where Adnan was. The trouble is, she’s nowhere to be found.

The story starts innocently enough, Hae Min and Adnan were high school sweethearts who thought they were in love.  They did typical high school sweetheart stuff.  Hae Min kept a journal, which again sounded very typical of a high school teenage girl.  Both Hae Min and Adnan were the children of parents who had immigrated to the US and had strict cultural and religious views.  But both didn't follow their parent's same views or religion.  Adnan, although raised a Muslim, didn't take it very seriously and had no problem dating a non-Muslim.  While he joked to Hae Min about going to hell for dating her, he apparently didn't mean it.  Although, according to Hae Min's journal, this bothered her quite a bit.

Adnan's mother was quite strict about her son dating girls - in general.  In her view girls are either relatives or wives, nothing else.  She even confronted him at a high school dance when she found out he was there with Hae Min.  While Adnan was not impressed, he was also not angered (so he says).  And what's also interesting is that his mother was the only one in his family who felt this way, his father and brothers were more open to embracing the American lifestyle and actually told her to leave Adnan alone.

On the day Hae Min was murdered, a girl named Asia claims she, her boyfriend, and her boyfriend's friend say Adnan at the library around the time the murder was supposedly being committed.  She even wrote an affidavit outlining what she saw.  But for some reason Adnan's defense lawyer never followed up with her, and she was never called to the stand at his trial as a witness.  During the podcast Sarah tries to investigate why this might be, but can't ask his lawyer, she's dead!  Other defense lawyers do point out that eye witnesses are tricky, but the fact that she never actually spoke to Asia is a major oversight.  Years later Adnan's new lawyers try to enter Asia's affidavit into evidence without success - Asia refuses to testify and then claims she doesn't remember writing/signing an affidavit .  She was scared and reacted badly.  Later, after the judge denied the affidavit from being entered into evidence, Asia admits she remembers the whole thing in detail, but was scared out of her mind when someone showed up at her door to talk about it.

Interestingly, Asia never realized she was Adnan's only means of defense.  She assumed, because his lawyer didn't follow up with her, that there was some sort of physical evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.  She didn't realize until Sarah told her that there was actually no physical evidence what-so-ever to prove he did it.  Obviously she felt terrible and wanted to help.

We also learn that the prosecutions entire case is based on the first-hand testimony of some guy named Jay - a friend of Adnan's from high school.  Jay claims that Adnan was very angry that Hae Min broke up with him and wanted revenge.  He further claims that Adnan told him about the plan for killing her in advance, but he didn't believe Adnan was serious.  Then, the day of the murder, he claims to have met Adnan at the Best Buy in their town - Jay driving Adnan's car, Adnan driving Hae Min's car - Hae Min was apparently dead in the truck of her car.  Apparently they parked her car and drove around for a while in Adnan's car doing nothing, then went back and took Hae Min's body to the middle of no where and buried her in a shallow grave.  Jay admits to helping Adnan do this.

The problem is, Jay's story changes over time.  And he's the only one who apparently saw anything, or knew anything.  Every one of Adnan's friends are shocked that he was capable of such a crime and they all knew him as a very laid back guy.  Apparently this wasn't enough to put doubt on Jay's story.

Colorado Movie Theater Trial - Deliberation Day 1

9:48am:

I was surprised to see the judge and lawyers arriving in court less than an hour after the jury started deliberating today.  Turns out the jury had a request that the judge needed to speak about in open court.  The jury asked for a white board!  Obviously neither side had a problem with this, so they're going to get a white board.

There was also an oral request from the alternates asking if they're able to have access to a fax machine.  Apparently at least one of them is attempting to do work while they're waiting, which is a great idea.  The judge did mention that they do have access to their phones and other electronic devices, so both sides were fine with them getting access to a fax machine.

Now they're talking about other small items including jury instructions for the sentencing phase of the trial.  Both sides have several things they want to talk about with regards to those instructions.  The judge did mention that the point is moot if there isn't a guilty verdict.  I think the lawyers are just thinking ahead, but it is funny that the defense has so many things they want to talk about regarding sentencing!

11:25am:

They're back!  The jury has asked if there is some sort of way to look up specific pieces of evidence to make things easier.  The judge actually mentioned this before.  There is no index or guide of the evidence.  He explained that the reason they don't do a guide is because it would have to contain a description of each item and there would probably be arguments over what the description says.  The judge wrote a response that simply says one does not exist, and both sides agreed on that response.

You'd think they could create an index with each item number and description, but the description could be created by a third party to only describe the item in general terms - i.e. CD-ROM of videos from Dr. Reid, Shotgun Shell, Gas Mask, etc.  But not go any further.  But I guess they can't or won't do that.

1:54pm:

Another two questions.

(1) Instruction #22, the jury believes this item is more informative and not instructive and want to confirm what the instruction was, if there was one.
(2) The jury asked if the reports and notes from the four main doctors were submitted into evidence.

The judge's response to question 1 is to confirm it is more information than instructive, and that it's the theory of the defendant's side of the case.  The judge's response to question 2 says that all evidence has been provided to them except for live ammunition - but I missed if he actually stated yes or no to their inquiry about the specific reports and notes.

Both sides are reviewing the questions and proposed answers.  Both sides agreed with the judge's response to the 2nd question.  The defence didn't like the wording of the answer for the first question, but the judge is leaving it as is.

And ... they're done.

3pm: I'm done updating for the day.  Obviously there's no verdict yet.

Sexism and Technicians

I suspect that most technicians who go into customer's homes to install or repair stuff aren't taught anything about customer service. Either this is because no one thought it important, or companies felt that by this point the customer had to put up with whoever showed up so their attitude didn't matter. What many fail to realize is that the tech who is dealing face-to-face with the customer IS the company as far as the customer is concerned.

Over the years I've had techs in my house for any number of reasons - installing security systems, maintaining security systems, installing furnaces and air conditioners, maintaining furnaces and air conditioners, duct cleaning, painting, inspections, repairing major appliances, and more. I would estimate that in my personal experience maybe 90-95% of these techs were male and 25-30% of these techs were obviously sexist. 

I've (thankfully) experienced some wonderful techs who were not only polite and respectful, but friendly and helpful. But even one tech with a negative attitude and a disrespectful, sexist demeanour makes me forget all the nice techs I've met. 

I am a woman who lives alone. I have been doing this for almost 10 years. I've owned four properties in this time and have done the vast majority of maintenance and upkeep myself.  I've also done a good amount of installation and decorating myself.  I'm perfectly capable of installing a light fixture or faucet. I know how to fix many minor household problems. I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty. But for some reason this minority of male techs automatically assume that because I'm a woman I'm incapable of understanding anything technical. 

This past weekend is a perfect example. Last week my air conditioning got worse and worse. It's only been running about two weeks, but after about a week it stopped being able to keep the temperature it was set to. I tried resetting things on the thermostat and checked the filter and that sort of stuff but nothing helped. I decided I'd need someone to come take a look, but thankfully it's not only under warranty but it has a protection plan via Direct Energy. So I called them. It took me three days to get through!  During that time, since the a/c wasn't working, I decided to just turn it off because it felt like a waste of electricity for it to be on but not actually doing anything. I didn't do this until day 5 or 6 though. 

When I finally got through to Direct Energy they were able to set up a weekend appointment because it was a heat wave and apparently there were a lot of people with a/c problems. So I adjusted my schedule to be home on Saturday afternoon to meet the technician. 

When he arrived I explained what I had been experiencing and one of the first things he said to me was that I shouldn't have turned it off. When I pointed out that it wasn't working and I wasn't paying to run something that was broken he argued again that I should have left it on - yet had no good reason. 

Then he asked me about my vents. I have 2 in the basement, which are closed; 3 on the main floor and 2 were open; and 5 on the second floor, all open. He then informed me that that was my problem. That I should leave all my vents open at all times and that by keeping some closed I was damaging the system. When I pointed out that I'd used the same setup for the past two years without a problem his answer was that it must have built up and now caused a problem. (I don't think this guy understood the concept of logic.)

He also didn't like the filter I was using. He said it was designed for furnaces in the winter and could cause problems in the summer when the a/c was on. Again I told him I'd been using the same filter for over a year and yet the problem was recent. Again he seemed to imply that my misuse of the system had built up and caused the problems. 

He then inspected the condenser and decided it needed to be cleaned. He worked on this for maybe 20 minutes. Then he came inside and opened the one closed vent on the main floor. Kept the basement vents closed and then put the "bad" filter back in, saying it was better than nothing. 

Then he turned the system on and measured the pressures and claimed everything appeared to be working. He then decided to lecture me on the fact that Lennox is very strict on their warranty coverage and that I have to get the a/c maintained annually for the warranty to be valid. And when I say "lectured" I mean told me this like I was in kindergarten. I already knew this. I've been away for most of the month of June. I didn't have time before and it was on my to do list for the summer. But this didn't seem to satisfy him. He brought it up twice more while he was here. 

In the end he claimed the whole problem was my fault, yet to "fix" it he changed nothing I had done or didn't do. He also seemed to think I was too stupid to understand it needed regular maintanence, so much so that he brought it up multiple times. And even though he may have had one or more good points, he insisted upon telling me each of these things with a condescending and disrespectful tone. 

He was at my house for 2 hours.  Thankfully the a/c now appears to be fixed, and the house is back to cool temperatures, but he managed to severely heat up my temper!

Colorado Move Theater Trial - Day 49 - Closing Arguments

Gee, I hope I don't get interrupted at work to do something away from my computer so that I miss any of this ...

There was brief video earlier where the parties and the judge discussed some last minute stuff, then the judge took a break so the lawyers could review each other's "demonstrative" exhibits.  These appear to be exhibits that the lawyers will use in their closing arguments, but may not necessarily be exactly as the evidence was when it was used in court.  For example, there might have been a 2 hour long video, but they've decided to use only 2 minutes of it.

Now they're back ... and the jury has been brought in.

165 charges or counts in this case.  However, one # was skipped, so the numbers end at 166.  There are 165 verdict forms, the judge has picked 5 sample forms randomly, one of each type, to review with the jury (so he doesn't have to review all 165).  The charges are:

Two charges per deceased victim (x 12) - 1st degree murder after deliberation and 1st degree murder with extreme indifference.  Total 24 charges.

Two charges per injured victim (x 70) - attempted 1st degree murder after deliberation and attempted 1st degree murder with extreme indifference.  Total 140 charges.

One charge for possession or control of an explosive or incendiary device (due to the explosives found in Holmes' apartment). Total 1 charge.

Grand total charges = 24 + 140 + 1 = 165

Now the judge is reviewing the jury instructions, of which there are 30.  The judge is reading this verbatim.  First he's reviewing the 'admonishments' which are similar to the ones he's been giving the jury throughout the trial.

Basically, he's telling them:

• they cannot read, watch or listen to any news associated with the case, or other similar cases
• they cannot talk to anyone, including their family members, about the case, or other similar cases
• they cannot post comments about the case, or other similar cases, anywhere
• they cannot do any independent investigation about the case (i.e. visit the locations and look around or ask questions)
• they cannot do any research about similar cases on their own time
• they aren't allowed to have a cell phone or other electronic device inside the jury room during deliberations
• they can only discuss the case when all 12 jurors are present and are in the jury room
• they're allowed to refer to their notes, but they do not need to put any weight towards one person's notes over another, but rather they should rely on their own memory

The instructions are (in summary):

1. [missed]
2. The charges are not evidence.  They do not prove that he committed the crimes.  [He listed the charges.]  The defendant has pleaded not guilty by means of insanity, which includes a plea of not guilty.
3. Everyone charged of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  They have to presume the defendant's innocence until they have reviewed ALL the evidence.
4. The number of witnesses testifying for or against a fact does not in and of itself prove anything.
5. You are the sole judges of the credibility of each witness, and the weight to be given to their testimony.  You can believe all, part or none of the testimony of each witness.
6. You are not bound by the testimony of expert witnesses.  You may believe all, part or none of their testimony.
7. A fact may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.  Under the law both are allowed.  Direct evidence means a first person observation of the actual event.  Circumstantial evidence is indirect observation of an event.
8. There is some evidence that can only be considered for the limited purpose for which it was presented, and they were informed at the time what that was.
9. Every defendant has a constitutional right not to testify.  You cannot use this choice as evidence against them.
10. A separate offence is charged against the defendant on each count.  The defendant can be found guilty, not guilty, not guilty due to insanity for any one or all of the charges.
11. The defendant is charged with murder in the first degree after deliberation for each of the 12 counts [listed the murdered victims].  
12. [missed]

**********

Damn, after the instructions were read the jury was sent on a morning break.  For some of that break the lawyers argued about some items and then the rest of the court got to go on a break.  But I missed it when they came back (damn work!).

I guess they had more to talk about either just the lawyers or with the jury as it's now 2:22pm and the prosecution is still doing their closing statement.  Brachler has a max of 2 hours, but he was going to stop around 1.5 hours.  Then King has a max of 2 hours.  Then Brachler can use the remainder of his 2 hours to finish up after King is done.

I suspect they'll stick around today until both sides are done, but they won't start deliberations until tomorrow.  I wonder if they'll be any court video while the jury is in deliberations.  I imagine the lawyers have some items to discuss with the judge that need to be done - for example, I know today they brought up again their concern about their witnesses for the sentencing hearing not being available until August.  

Interestingly, they've brought that up several times now.  Originally when they brought it up the judge said they'd worry about it when the time came, but they brought it up again.  It makes me think that the defense believes Holmes will be found guilty and a sentencing portion of the trial will be required.  And based on the fact that they mentioned some of their witnesses would be available this week, I can't help but wonder if they think the jury will be quick in their deliberations.  Those thinkings are a stretch.  They might just be getting themselves prepared for all eventualities.  But if it were me I would hold off until it was absolutely necessary.

Brachler ended his closing statement with the story of Ashley Moscher (sp) who was pregnant and had a 6 year old daughter with her in the theater.  Her daughter was killed and she lost her baby, and she can't have anymore children.  Then they played the 911 call where you can hear the shots in the background over and over and over and over.

[break]

I left work before they came back from break. I eventually went on Livestream around 6pm and found they were still going. The judge was just wrapping up telling the jury who would be deliberating and who would be an alternate. Then he let them go. 

The judge asked that the lawyers be available to come to court within 15 minutes of the jury had a question. But he told the jury he'd need 3 hours when they reach a verdict. 

Now that live court has finished, I've gone back to watch the defence's closing statement. King just isn't as good a speaker as Brachler. He has too many weird pauses and breaks in his speech. He talks like he's making it up as he goes, even though you know that's not true. 

He's trying to convince the jury that Brachler thinks Holmes isn't mentally ill - which isn't true. Brachler never said Holmes isn't sick, he thinks he wasn't in a state as to be considered legally insane. King is also trying to convince the jury that the prosecution cares more about form than substance when it comes to the psychiatric experts - this also isn't true. Brachler pointed out many mistakes and oversights in the substance of the expert's testimony. 

King admitted that he wishes now that he had Dr Gur videotape her sessions with Holmes. Well duh! Of course you can say that now!  He claims he didn't think it was that important at the time. Bullshit!  He's a smart lawyer - he knew full well what videotaping those sessions would mean, and how it might be used later. It's easy to say that now to the jury to make you look like you have nothing to hide. 

Another one of King's arguments is that Brachler doesn't think the mental breakdown Holmes had in November 2012 are relevant. King says they are relevant because it shows the disease he has and how bad it is. Gee, I hope the jury sees through that - because it's so not true. How someone behaved in November isn't proof of how they were in July of that year. What if the court case had happened in September of 2012?  The November breakdown wouldn't have yet happen, but that makes no difference because that's not the timeframe of the criminal activities. If Holmes had a breakdown tomorrow it would also make no difference. 

Interestingly King keeps arguing that these types of diseases get better and worse, etc., and then progressively worse and worse. This is true. But it means that there is a point at which the disease becomes bad enough that a person could be legally insane. The thing is, in my opinion, this didn't happen to Holmes until long after July 2012 - and possibly hasn't actually ever happened. I'm not entirely sure that Holmes has ever reached a point where he's legally insane. I believe he's sick, very sick. I think he has had delusions and has possibly heard voices in his head. But based on everything I heard, I just don't believe Holmes was ever in a state where he didn't know that what he was doing was wrong. I agree with Brachler that he did too many things to try to hide his actions from the police and public to make it seem like he didn't know what he was doing was wrong.   Not only did he plan extensively, but his plans included steps to avoid detection. If he thought that what he was doing was okay, would he need to hide his actions?

I believe he thought his "mission" was right. I believe he thought that what he was doing would help him. But I also think he knew that the authorities would think his "mission" was bad, and he knew that in order to get away with it he'd have to hide his actions so as not to get in trouble. 

King is arguing that in Colorado to be legally insane you have to not understand society's moral objections. That basically you think that, while illegal, society wouldn't think that what you were doing was morally wrong. King admits that Holmes knew what he was doing was legally wrong and that he was trying to hide what he was doing. But King is arguing that Holmes didn't think that society would think what he was doing was morally wrong. I have a problem with that ... some laws, like murder, are created based on the moral standards of society. I find it hard to believe that you could know murder was legally wrong but still believe that society would be okay with you doing it. I believe that he thinks the victims should be grateful to him, but I don't believe that means he thinks they do actually feel grateful to him. 

I have to admit, King's closing got better and better. I think he actually did a good job in the end. I don't agree with a lot of what he said, but he was still good. 

Now we wait ...