Sunday, March 10, 2013

The James Holmes Accomplice Conspiracy Theory



Aurora Police Never Addressed Accomplice Evidence, Maintains That Holmes Acted Alone

On February 7th, The Denver Post reported that some victims in the Aurora theater shooting have been harassed by conspiracy theorists since the tragedy in Colorado on July 20th, 2012:
"Prosecutors in the Aurora theater-shooting case have re-iterated their request that victims' names be redacted from court documents, saying that victims and their families continue to suffer harassment from conspiracy theorists...

In the filing...prosecutors say victims 'have expressed concerns for their privacy, and personal safety.' Some victims are key witnesses in the case, the filing states."
In the wake of recent skepticism surrounding the events of Sandy Hook, many will roll their eyes at the thought of another conspiracy theory, given that the evidence against James Holmes, the lone suspect, has seemed overwhelming from the start.

But when taking the time to examine the case further, as we'll do here, the truth isn't so clear-cut. That's because the official story—that Holmes acted alone in killing 12 and wounding 58 others—is contradicted by the following questions:
  • How do investigators account for two gas masks found at the scene that they say didn't belong to Holmes?
  • How could Holmes have acted alone when multiple witnesses in Theater 9 said they saw or perceived multiple accomplices, and reported at least two descriptions of said accomplices to police?
  • How could Holmes have acted alone when multiple witnesses in adjacent Theater 8 reported the detonation of a gas canister that was coordinated with the attack in Theater 9?


  1. This is not new information, you know.

    It was all available after the "attack," and there's lots more along the line of it being impossible for one person without preparation to have done that damage.

    Also, you do know that his father was CIA/NSA employed just like the Sandy child's?

    Conspiracy theories.

    Good thing there's nothing to them, eh?

  2. Mikeb, you have a tendency to take the most extreme or fringe elements and imply--though you rarely state it explicitly--that they are the norm. These believers are not large in number.

    Now basic skepticism is one element of critical thinking--skepticism with regard to everything, not just things one disagrees with. Dog Gone, for example, would have a lot more credibility if she could understand and apply that truth. Events like Aurora often come with wild stories in the beginning. That's why an investigation is necessary. It is the case that investigators sometimes lie or are in error, so skepticism is important, even after the official results are made available. That being said, once the evidence is in, we can make a reasonable assessment of its reliability, whatever the incident under review happens to be. That includes a recognition that eyewitnesses can mistake what actually occurred.