RED ALERT: Aurora PD – Denver PD – Arapahoe County PD – Colorado State PD – Baton Rouge, Louisiana PD – FBI – CIA – DHS – ATF: PROBABLE CAUSE NOW EXISTS FOR THE APPREHENSION OF IDENTIFIED ACCOMPLICES IN DARK KNIGHT SHOOTING.
The Aurora shooting “Bonnie Kate Rescue” video, when properly enhanced (this video link is not enhanced, but I will have the segments up soon), reveals with one-hundred percent certainty, the existence of a domestic terrorist sleeper cell.
All police scanner audio referencing other shooters has been confirmed with certainty by video.
An immediate APB should be put out for the following accomplices in the Aurora Theater Massacre.
Chris Lakota, aka Brent Christopher Pankievich, aka Brent D. Pankievich, aka Brent C Lakota, aka Brent Christopher Lakota, aka Brent Christopher Thunderbird Lakota, aka Spawntanious (gangster rap pseudonym; see http://myspace.com/spawntanious/music )
Elizabeth Sumralll;
Jane Doe #1 (girl in blue and white plaid shirt holding Bonnie Kate in front of theater from start of Bonnie Kate video)
George (uploader of Aurora cellphone aftermath video discussed below) aka Geosync 2323 on YouTube, aka Larrabie (or Larraby) ;
John Doe #1 (man in all black lying on Sable side back corner lying next to gas mask).
John Doe #2 (thin man in gray hoodie featuring dark triangle emblem stamped on chest, wearing baseball cap, holding a soda cup with straw and cell phone in first few frames of Bonnie Kate video).
John Doe #3 (man in Green camouflage)
…and many more to be identified.
I pray for the souls of those responsible for this tragedy to be convicted by truth. I pray for the victims of this tragedy, their families, and the nation. I pray for all who have suffered by the depravity of mortal sin. I have love for even the worst sinner, for everyone of us has contributed to the cycle of sin in some way. I pray that the truth will cleanse us, enlighten us, strengthen us, and lead us to one family under Love.
The Freedom of Information Act (Foia) request made by CBS news revealed that James Holmes received grants in the amount of $26,600, including a $21,600 federal grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and a $5000 grant from the State of Colorado. The CBS Foia also revealed that the “grants were dispersed in monthly stipends of $2,216.67”, and that the grants lasted “from July 2011 through June”.
But the CBS report failed to mention two crucial pieces of information. The written report (and accompanying CBS video) failed to discover the important date upon which the June 2012 stipend was paid to James Holmes. CBS also failed to reveal that the directors of the Neuroscience Program at the University of Colorado were directly responsible for approving all monthly payments made to Holmes, including the final payment for June 2012.
In this exclusive report, Dark Knight Truth can now reveal that official University records prove James Holmes was paid the final stipend for the month of June, on July 2, 2012, and that this payment was directly authorized by the Neuroscience Program staff.
This revelation was confirmed by documents found on the University of Colorado’s Medical School web page, as well as the University’s payroll web page. Furthermore, it appears that the Neuroscience Program’s online PDF manual may have been edited to erase this sensitive fact from public view.
Immediately after the Dark Knight shooting on July 20, 2012, officials from the neuroscience department at the University of Colorado came under scrutiny for having removed web pages associated with the program, including curriculum materials, faculty information, and the program’s PDF manual.
Recently, the course materials have come back online, including the Neuroscience Program’s PDF handbook. The manual is currently available at the following page (backed up here):
When you land on that page, click the Handbook link. A pop up window will appear allowing you to save the PDF.
The cover page states that the manual was “Revised July 2012”. This raised an immediate red flag, so I sought the metadata and discovered the revision date was actually July 31, 2012. The document was created by Program Director, Angie Ribera. (When you open the manual, go to FILE, then click PROPERTIES. This will tell you the author of the document, as well as the date it was created.)
The revision date being eleven days after the shooting was very suspicious. And the first thing that caught my attention was Section 2.0, which states:
2.0 Student Support.Students accepted in the Ph.D. program are provided full tuition, health insurance, and a stipend of $26,000 per year for living expenses (for the 2012-2013 academic year). Continued support is contingent upon satisfactory academic and research performance by the student. When a student enters a thesis lab, the thesis mentor assumes complete responsibility for the student’s stipend, tuition, fees, and associated research costs. Out of state tuition is paid only in the first year. All students must establish Colorado residency during and by the end of their first year in the program.
This makes clear that the stipend is only paid upon “satisfactory academic and research performance“. Since the CBS Foia report stated that Holmes received the full grant, it appears he must have been in good academic standing for the entire year.
This casts serious doubt upon the widely circulating media reports, mimicking the Aurora Prosecutor Pearson’s allegations that James Holmes suffered from poor research and examination performances. Had his performances been off, rather than suggesting he find another career, which is what the tabloid media is parroting, Program Director Ribera and staff could have simply pulled his grant according to the manual. They do, after all, have an obligation to spend the tax-payer funded grant wisely.
Another very important issue has been overlooked since the shooting, and this concerns the date upon which the stipend was paid to James Holmes each month. Had Holmes truly withdrawn from the program, he would not have been entitled to the future grant payments. So, if Holmes either failed to satisfactorily perform on his June 7 exam, and/or withdrew by an email on June 10, then he would not, according to the manual, be entitled to a stipend for June if payments were made at the end of the month.
If payments were made at the beginning of the month, before he allegedly messed up the exam, and then dropped out, that would be more in line with the official story. So the day of the month that the stipends were paid is a paramount issue.
Section 8.4 of the manual states:
8.4 Payroll Paperwork. Before you can receive your stipend, you must fill out the appropriate paperwork with the Neuroscience Program and the payroll liaison. Note: An original social security card is required before you can be entered in the University payroll system. If you do not have an original card, you must apply for one immediately after you arrive. Be sure to get a letter from the clerk in the social security office stating that you have applied for a new card. A copy of this letter must be given to the Payroll and Benefits office before you can be paid. When your new card arrives, bring your card to the payroll liaison in the department so a photocopy of your card can be kept in your file
This gave me a lead where to look for payment information; “the payroll liason”. (Also note that there’s no period (“.”) at the end of this section after the word “file”, and we shall come back to it later.)
At the “Admissions page” for the CSD program, a separate part of the University Medical School, I found an information page featuring virtually the exact same paragraph as Section 8.4 from the Neuroscience Program manual, except that this paragraph is followed by a second paragraph. The admissions page reads as follows:
8.4 Payroll Paperwork. Before you can receive your stipend, you must fill out the appropriate paperwork with the CSD Program and the CU-AMC Payroll Department. Note: An original social security card is required before you can be entered in the University payroll system. If you do not have an original card, you must apply for one immediately after you arrive. Be sure to get a letter from the clerk in the social security office stating that you have applied for a new card. A copy of this letter must be given to the Payroll and Benefits office before you can be paid. When your new card arrives, bring your card to the payroll liaison in the department so a photocopy of your card can be kept in your file.
Your stipend will be paid monthly on the last working day of the month (or as deemed by the State of Colorado). Appropriate taxes will be withheld from your pay, based on the withholding form you submit to payroll. If you want more details about what your net pay will be, contact payroll at (303) 7356500 (Boulder).
The only material difference in the first paragraph is the name of the program. “CSD Program and the CU-AMC Payroll Department” appears exactly where “Neuroscience Program and the payroll liason” appears in the Neuroscience Program manual. But it’s this second paragraph that raises a huge red flag. The CSD program’s Admission’s page indicates that stipends “will be paid monthly on the last working day of the month”. Also note that this policy is set not by the University, but rather the State of Colorado.
If the same policy was in play for the Neuroscience Program, then Holmes, having received the full $26,600 grant, would have been paid the June stipend on the last working day of the month, which was June 29, 2012. This would, of course, throw a huge monkey wrench in the official version of events, so I was determined to lock that down before going public with this report. Fortunately, I didn’t have to look much further into this to establish the payment date.
Direct confirmation was found on the “Payroll Basics” web page for the University of Colorado’s Human Resources Department, which contains the following information:
Since the University of Colorado has a consolidated payroll system and cannot single out one employee type, the June payday for all monthly employees will be the first working day of July. All other months will be paid on the last working day of the month.
Notice that the word “all” is underlined. James Holmes was paid as a monthly employee, and therefore his final stipend payment for the month of June was July 2, 2012, the first working day of July. The CBS Foia report stated that the grant lasted from July 2011 through June. The first payment for July 2011 would have been the last working day of July 2011. And the stipend payment for May 2012 would have been the last working day of May. But the June stipend, as mandated by State law, and University policy, had to be paid on the first working day of July, which was July 2, 2012.
Since the CBS Foia report made clear that Holmes received the entire grant, concluding with the June 2012 payment of $2216.67, we know for a fact that Holmes received the payment on July 2, 2012. This strongly indicates that he did not perform poorly in either his research, or his exams, and that he had not withdrawn from the program.
Furthermore, it appears that Ribera may have edited the second paragraph out of Section 8.4 after the shooting. Could the missing period “.” be evidence of a sudden revision of Section 8.4 to cover up that Holmes was paid his stipend on July 2d, 2012? I do not see any reason why that paragraph should not have been part of the Neuroscience Program manual, since the first paragraph is virtually identical to the CSD Program page.
Today, I was exposed to a bombshell six minute Fox News video report by Griff Jenkin for Great Van Sustern, dated July 23, 2012. This video raises very troubling issues with the official Aurora shooting investigation. While a brief 45 second snippet of the Jackie Mitchell interview has been previously available on Youtube, the rest of Mithchell’s crucial testimony has been completely absent from the national dialogue.
Aditionally, the Fox News video also includes an interview with Myron Melnick, owner of the Zephyr Lounge, where Jackie Mitchell claims to have had a beer with James Holmes on the evening of Tuesday July 17, 2012. This interview with Zelnick also directly contradicts widely reported stories alleging that Zelnick stated Holmes was not in the Zephyr Lounge having a beer with Mitchell on July 17th. Instead, Zelnick states to Fox News that the only thing he is certain about is that Holmes was “not a regular”.
Jackie Mitchell is a very compelling witness. His account of meeting James Holmes on July 17, 2012 reeks of truth. Nobody seeing this interview in its entirety, who is looking for genuine truth, will have any doubt that Mr. Mitchell is spot on accurate. I predict that with the proper dissemination of this video, the official story will crack under the pressure of the victims, their families, and factions of local Aurora/Arapahoe/Denver law enforcement who know the truth.
This is the tipping point, right here. It’s up to all of us to make this right. Please focus your attention now, and have the courage to follow the brave conviction of Jackie Mitchell, whose story desperately needs the attention, respect, and most definitely the protection of the nation.
I don’t know how this video has remained hidden since July 23rd, 2012, but there is no discussion of the following groundbreaking statements made by Mitchell. I will provide a few important quotes, followed by analysis. But let me state the conclusion of this article first:
If Jackie Mitchell and his friends, who also claim to have met Holmes at the Zephyr that night, are correct, then the Adultfriendfinder.com site alleged to have been created by Holmes on July 5th, 2012 (as was confirmed by TMZ, the Seattle Times, and various other news outlets) is almost definitely bogus, since Mitchell claims, with one-hundred percent certainty, that Holmes did not have orange hair on July 17th. Mitchell states in this video that Holmes looked just like the first picture of him smirking with short brown hair that was broadcast to the nation in the early hours of July 20, 2012. In that case, the person pictured wit orange hair in the dating site pics may not be Holmes at all.
IMPORTANT NEW QUOTES FROM JACKIE MITCHELL
[The following are direct quotations from the interview, but not the full transcript.]
JACKIE MITCHELL (hereinafter, JM): Tuesday around 6, or 6:30 or so. We were all on the patio at a local bar, and the guy was just kind of at the table, you know. And we were just talkin’ sports to another table. And he was there, you know. He had input maybe on a couple of things, but nothin’ serious.
GRIFF JENKIN, FOX REPORTER (hereinafter, GJ): So you’re sitting at a table with some friends. And then he comes out and sits at the table next to you, but no-one else at that table?
JM: No. Nobody was at that table just him?
GJ: How did your conversation strike up? Have you seen him there before, or meet him before that?
JM: I never met him before that, but I saw him maybe three of four times.
GJ: At that bar?
JM: Yes. First time we had a conversation was probably Tuesday. I’m pretty sure it was Tuesday. Ah, We was talkin’ about football.
GJ: …Did he identify himself?
JM: … We shook hands, ’cause I shook hands with everyone at the table. But I’m not sure if he mentioned James Holmes, or Jon or whatever. I don’t remember that… He said the Broncos might make the playoffs, or they should make the playoffs… He didn’t seem like he was a bad guy.
GJ: … Did he have orange hair.
JM: No. It was brown. It wasn’t orange, not that day it wasn’t.
GJ: … After the shooting happened…When did you realize this was the guy that we had drinks with on Tuesday?
JM: I walked in the house Friday from a bad day at work… put on the TV, and I was like, wow, I know this guy. So I called my brother, and I was like, man I know this dude. I had a beer with this guy… The guy I saw in the bar was James Holmes.
GJ: … The other people you were with, your friends, did you call them too, and say, ‘hey guys, do you remember that guy’?
JM: A couple of us talked about it.
GJ: Do any of those guys, your friends who were at the table, disagree that maybe it wasn’t that person?
JM: (Emphatically) No. No. Everybody was on the same page. Everybody saw the same thing… I don’t want to put these people in the mix of this, but they saw the same thing… I know what I saw. And, to this point right now, lookin’ at that picture on the TV again, I’ll say it again, he was there.
GJ: You’re a hundred percent sure?
JM: (Emphatically) A hundred percent.
The interview then switches to Myron Melnick, owner of the Zephy Lounge.
MYRON MELNICK (hereinafter MM): I’ve talked to my staff, and nobody in my staff is familiar with him. I’m here approximately six to seven hours a day. I see, when I’m downstairs in my office, I have my security cameras in front of me. And I watch the door. It’s our job to watch the door, to monitor who comes in and out of here. And we’re not familiar with this person as a regular customer.
GJ: Now, Mr. Mitchell said that he had seen him in here two or three times in the past… certain on Tuesday night… And he told us he didn’t recall red or orange hair. Is it possible that he could have come in for a period of time, James Holmes, and had a beer out here, and you didn’t see it? Like how certain are you that he was or wasn’t here?
MM: If I had to testify in court, I’m not a hundred percent certain that he was here, or not here. But I know he’s not a regular.
James Holmes was not singled out for a criminal background check at the University of Colorado other than the initial background check required of all students who apply to the University.
A CBS/AP report published yesterday, Aug. 24, 2012, recklessly failed to mention that all applicants to the University were subjected to the same type of background check as James Holmes.
CBS/AP was informed by University of Colorado Denver spokeswoman, Jacque Montgomery, that Holmes was subject to a background check prior to the shooting. But Montgomery did not tell CBS/AP that Holmes was subject to more than one. Here is the relevant text from the unfairly manipulated report:
“University of Colorado Denver spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery later disputed that James Holmes was banned from campus but confirmed that a criminal background check was done on him before the July 20 attack.
She said a court gag order prevented her from discussing who requested the check, who performed it, and who saw the results.
It’s the first explicit confirmation from the university that concerns had been raised about Holmes at the school before the shooting.”
The Dark Knight Truth blog does not rely upon unnamed sources, but if the information we receive is confirmed by the main stream media, then we will release such information based upon such published independent verification. Today, we can report that Holmes was subject to a single standard background check upon applying to the University, and that this criminal check is required of all applicants to the University of Colorado.
The independent verification of this information was published by the Denver Post on July 23, 2012 (“updated on July 24, 2012), in a report by Anthony Cotton, titled, “CU Officials Defend Academic, Personal Support Available To Holmes”, wherein Cotton reported as follows:
“School officials said a background check is required for any student applying to the school. Elliman said he felt that the university had done all it could.”
Therefore, the CBS/AP conclusion, that Montgomery’s statement was “the first explicit confirmation from the university that concerns had been raised about Holmes at the school before the shooting” is clearly false. Montgomery stated that Holmes was subject to “a” background check, and the Denver Post has confirmed that all applicants to the University are subject to “a” background check.
Further confirmation that the background check done on Holmes was part of his application to the university, and not because he was ever singled out as a threat, comes directly from Montgomery’s statement that Holmes was not banned from the campus because anyone felt he was a threat. She denied that allegation.
That Montgomery felt empowered to ignore the gag order in releasing information about the standard background check indicates that this information was not generated as part of the investigation, but was a matter of public record. The other information she withheld due to the gag order, such as the results of the check, are not readily available to the general public. Whereas, the standard University policy, of requiring all applicants to submit to a background check, is, in fact, common knowledge, and therefore not subject to the gag order.
CBS/AP is guilty of placing this investigation in danger by contaminating the jury pool with such reckless reporting. This is a dangerous pattern surrounding the case. This blog will be forensically dissecting all media reports, witness statements, and related evidence in the days ahead.
Furthermore, do not assume that attorneys for Holmes will not offer a complete defense on the merits. Recently, the defense team made a motion to prevent the destruction of ballistic evidence. No such motion would have been necessary if the defense was not investigating a full defense to the charges.
Many in Aurora are suspicious of the investigation and reporting. While this blog does not claim to know whether James Holmes is guilty, we are very comfortable in stating our opinion that he could not have accomplished this tragic shooting on his own, and that criminals appear to be at large. The victims, their families and the truth deserve better than what CBS/AP and the rest of the main stream media have given.
DARK KNIGHT ORACLE
(Please support this blog by linking to it. We do not accept donations.)
A few days ago, this blog exposed important missing footage from the July 23, 2012 interview of Corbin Dates on Hardball. Below, this follow-up report exposes missing footage from NBC’s shamelessly deceptive Dateline report by Chris Morrison; selective editing by CNN of Dates’ statement upon seeing James Holmes for the first time in court; as well as the full 11 minute Hardball clip.
Corbin Dates is a major witness in the Aurora shooting case. His statements to multiple main stream media sources, just hours after the shooting, had the effect of changing the official story. Before Dates was interviewed by the media, it was widely reported that the shooter gained entrance to Theater 9 by kicking the fire door down. But that story was debunked when it was determined that the fire door could not be kicked in, since it only opened from the inside.
A few hours after the shooting, Corbin Dates was interviewed on multiple news media outlets giving specific testimony that a man sitting in the first row took a cell phone call during previews at the fire door, which he propped open with his foot, where Dates says it appeared the man was beckoning to an accomplice.
Later that afternoon, Police Chief Oates refused to state how the shooter gained entrance, but an unnamed federal law enforcement official’s comments to the AP added that James Holmes bought a ticket to the 12:05 showing, and entered with the rest of the crowd.
I’ll believe that when they come up with the video footage of him entering the theater and buying a ticket. They may have such footage, and if they do, there is no reason not to show it. I can’t imagine that the theater has no video surveillance. Can you?
The unnamed federal official also told the AP:
“Holmes is believed to have propped open an exit door in the theater as the movie was playing, donned protective ballistic gear, re-entered about a half-hour into the film and opened fire.“
So the unnamed federal official has backed up the accuracy of Dates’ statement, while also embellishing things into that statement that Dates never said. But why does a federal official feel comfortable in stating this important conclusion to the assembled world media, while at the same time refuse to be named? What’s that all about?
If the man Dates witnessed open the fire door prior to the shooting was not James Holmes, then the official story, that Holmes acted alone, would be seriously damaged. And that’s exactly the state of the case right now. It’s severely damaged, because It has become very clear that the man Dates saw take that call was not Holmes. This inconvenient fact has the effect of humiliating the official version of events. Perhaps that is why, only one day after the shooting, NBC’s Keith Morrison saw fit to deceptively falsify the statements made by Dates.
On July 21, 2012, only one day after the shooting, NBC aired a video report on Dateline, by Chris Morrison, that involves blatantly deceptive editing techniques designed to trick the viewer into believing Dates testified:
1) that the man who opened the emergency fire door had a fake red beard
2) that the same man who opened the fire door returned later as the shooter
In the interviews available to the public, Dates never states that the man had a “fake red beard”. He clearly told Chris Matthews on July 23, 2012, that the man who opened the door had a goatee, and that he would testify to that fact in court. Dates said nothing about a “fake red beard” in that interview, and Morrison’s report also contains no statement by Dates concerning a fake red beard. The statement is made by Morrison, who, as far as we can tell, was not in the theater that night. Morrison simply edits the video to make it appear as if Dates said the man had a fake red beard.
People are dead. Children are dead. Yet, Chris Morrison, in his creepy voice, in plain site of the whole world, has lied to the victims, their families and the American people. No wonder the full clip has been missing from the national dialogue for an entire month.
Furthermore, Morrison again puts words into Dates’ mouth, when Morrison states that the same man who took the call returned as the shooter. Dates never said that. In fact, Dates stated the exact opposite to Chris Matthews on the July 23, 2012, edition of Hardball, as well as implying the same to CNN when he first saw James Holmes appear in court.
The link to the Dateline videoalso contains the official transcript of the report. The relevant deception begins 21 seconds in, stating:
Chris Morrison: It is a right of the american summer now, the midnight show of the newest hottest block buster in town, so there was a little buzz in the air, a rush for good seats, a happy anticipation and the very big crowd. By the time Corbin Dates arrived, only the two front rows were open. He and a friend picked row two and as the lights went down, he noticed a man in front of him with a fake looking red beard , noticed him because —
Corbin Dates:He got a phone call , this person actually decided to go to the back door, the back emergency exit door, opened it and used his foot to prop it open.
Chris Morrison: Then 20 minutes or so into the movie, there was a shooting scene and the man was back.
[The abbreviated Youtube clip is here. As far as I am aware, the full Dateline clip has not been exposed by other blogs or on Youtube, prior to this report.]
Notice how Morrison inserts “because”, and then goes to a clip of Dates. He goes from his own voiceover, and threads that into an actual statement from Dates. This editing makes it appear as if Dates noticed that the man had a fake red beard “because” the man took a phone call and went to the emergency exit. But there is no statement by Dates that the man had a fake red beard in this video clip.
Furthermore, Morrison then cuts into the Dates clip again, with his own voiceover, placing words into Dates’ mouth that make it appear as if Dates stated that the man who took the call “was back” 20 minutes later. We know with absolute certainty that Dates, in fact, said the opposite, that he could not identify the man who took the call as James Holmes. Dates made this clear to Chris Matthews on the July 23, 2012 edition of Hardball, as well as to CNN when he watched Holmes appear in court for the first time. Let’s examine those two videos now.
On August 20th, this blog revealed that the 1:15 Youtube cell phone video clip of Dates being interviewed by Matthews on July 23, 2012 was actually part of an 11 minute clip. This blog released an extended (2:42) clip, wherein Dates told Matthews that nobody in the theater that night would ever “put two and two together” that James Holmes was the shooter. Dates told Matthews, that from what he saw, he believed there were two people involved. Here is a link to the full 11 minute Hardball clip.
Furthermore, on the day Holmes first appeared in Court, CNN was seated with Dates as they watched Holmes enter the courtroom live. The video clip of that interview is here. Upon being asked to react upon seeing Holmes for the first time, Dates stated:
“When you finally take off the mask and see who this person really is, it’s like a shock…I did not expect that at all. It’s shocking, because the person who was covered in black — the picture that would come to my mind is somebody who was, I would say, somebody who was very buff, somebody who probably works out, somebody who has a history of knowing weapons inside out.”
If Dates had identified the man who opened the emergency exit to take the phone call prior to the shooting as James Holmes, there would be no reason for Dates to have been “shocked” upon seeing Holmes for the first time. The CNN interview combined with the Hardball interview make it very clear that the man Dates saw open the door was not James Holmes. And this means that the official story is based on a clearly false premise.
If Dates’ statement was good enough for the officials to believe that a man did open the fire door prior to the shooting, such statement having actually changed the official narrative away from the impossible allegation that Holmes kicked the door down, then there is no reason why the rest of Dates’ statements, which clearly indicate that the man who took the cell phone call by the fire door was not Holmes, should be ignored, edited and even falsified. What is going on here?
Furthermore, when CNN reported this interview, it originally contained Dates’ statement to the effect that he was shocked to see Holmes and not somebody more buff. That remnant can still be viewed at a report from the Daily Mail, which quotes the CNN report as follows:
“Corbin Dates, who was sitting in the second row of the Century 16 cinema and survived the gun attack, said he was stunned to see the suspected killer without his mask.
‘It’s a shock,’ he told CNN. ‘I did not expect taht at all. (sic) The person who was covered in black – I thought it was someone who works out, who has a history of knowing weapons.
He continued: ‘He has no right coming to court and looking like he has a sad face. That’s not something that’s goig (sic) to be believable. Who are you trying to fool with that face?’
The original CNN report of July 24, 2012, by CNN was “updated” on July 27, 2012, and does not contain the statement by Dates indicating he was shocked upon seeing Holmes. The rest of Dates’ statement regarding Holmes’ sad face is in the “updated” report.
Again, since Dates stated that nobody who was there that night would put two and two together, and that he was “shocked” to see Holmes’ face, the man who Dates did see in the theater prior to the shooting was clearly not James Holmes. Dates wouldn’t have forgotten the red headed Holmes, who does not have a goatee. Let’s stop pretending that the man Dates saw prior to the shooting was James Holmes.
NBC’s Dateline staff and reporter Chris Morrison have lied to the American people, the victims and their families. Morrison cleverly added his own voice in place of Dates’ to make it appear that Dates said things, noticed things, that he truly never did see. This is beyond unethical. It’s intentionally deceptive, and it may be protecting the real shooter(s) (or an accomplice if Holmes is guilty) from being brought to justice.
The sheer audacity of NBC and their bretheren in the media pay no respect whatsoever to the tragedy and suffering involved with this case. How dare you? These victims, their families and this nation deserve the absolute tightest, most transparent, and comprehensive investigation of the facts in this case. The trend this case is serving is a trend of disrespect and failure. This blog has chronicled numerous instances of cavalier and/or outright false reporting. Many main stream media report have been “updated” deceptively without keeping the original report in place. When facts reported become obviously not true, they are simply erased. How is that ethical? How is that professional? How does that serve the victims? It seems like a bunch of blind parrots are in charge of reporting this case.
CNN’s “update” that conveniently ignores Dates’ statement regarding being shocked upon seeing Holmes’ face is egregious. The evidence is being manipulated so as not to detract from the official story. When we consider that the testimony by Dates was used by officials to substantiate that a man did, in fact, go to the fire door to prop it open before the film started, there is no logical reason to falsify the rest of this crucial witness testimony other than to deceive.
The rush to judgment in this case is not healthy for our system of justice. It’s not healthy for America. And it’s not fair to the victims or their families who deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In the days ahead, this blog will doggedly pursue that truth.
The Dark Knight Truth Blog does not know if James Holmes is innocent or guilty. But we do know that the media have conducted themselves in a blatantly unethical manner in reporting this case. This blog intends to win the respect of the public by reporting with fierce accuracy. You won’t see facts reported here erased from view. Everything you read here can be independently verified. This blog will never use “unnamed sources”. We are determined to bring facts to light and to shine light upon deception. This case is too important for anything less than absolute truth.
The next report issued here will present important new information that will cast the entire official narrative in doubt.
This blog will release two important reports in the days ahead. The first reveals a crucial media video that has completely avoided the national dialogue surrounding the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado. The second report is a piece of investigative journalism that, if reported by the main stream media, would be classified as a bombshell revelation.
The purpose and content of this blog will avoid all conspiracy theories. We are not defending James Holmes, not are we convinced of his guilt. In this country, a man is, by law, presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Every citizen is entitled to this presumption under law, regardless of the depravity of crimes alleged. Without the presumption, our system of justice will fail.
Furthermore, the victims, and their families, deserve an absolutely air tight investigation and accurate media reporting thereto. So far, the official declarations of law enforcement officials regarding the official story, that James Holmes acted alone, appear removed from the totality of evidence. The official story may be true, but we cannot endorse this conclusion at this time. There are too many unreported facts to counter the official story.
The purpose of this blog is to twofold: 1) reveal facts that have not been reported elsewhere; 2) to provide comprehensive analysis of facts already in evidence.
The media reporting has been negligent at best, and even intentionally deceptive at times. Numerous reports published by main stream media outlets have been proved wrong, and/or “updated” by removing prior inaccuracies without keeping a record of changes thereto. Such revisionary technique offends the code of conduct regarding journalism. An update should keep the original report, and add new material to it. An update should never remove previously reported material without keeping a record of such material available to the public. This blog will chronicle multiple instances of news reports that have been substantially changed from their original form.
The author of this blog is a retired legal professional. My identity and sources are irrelevant, since I will only report facts that are entirely verifiable in their own right. There will be absolutely no conjecture issued from this blog.
By now, one month from the tragic Dark Knight shooting in Aurora, Colorado, most everyone familiar with the investigation is aware of the interview clip on Youtube between Corbin Dates and Chris Matthews (from the July 23, 2012 edition of Hardball) that is only 1:15 long. However, until now, the national dialogue has completely missed the first part of this interview, wherein Corbin Dates responds with absolute certainty that the man he saw inside Theater 9, who took a cell phone call while propping open the fire exit door with his foot, was NOT James Holmes.
In the 1:15 clip, Corbin Dates states that the man who opened the fire exit door, previous to the shooting, had a “goatee”. Obviously, James Holmes does not have a goatee. And many followers of this case have been frustrated that the “1:15” clip on Youtube does not feature Matthews asking Dates straight on whether or not the man with the goatee was, in fact, James Holmes. The abbreviated clip does not contain an on point Q & A between Dates and Matthews as to whether Dates could specifically ID the man who opened the door as James Holmes.
However, it can now be revealed that the 1:15 clip was actually taken from a longer 11 minute clip. The full clip, for reasons I do not know, has been completely absent from the national discussion. I have made a video combining this important new evidence, as reported by Dates to Matthews, with the original 1:15 clip. This video has a run time of 2:42. See it here:
This is the transcript of the new material:
MATTHEWS: Let`s go right now to Corbin Dates, who is a witness who was in I think the second row of that theater. Corbin, thank you for joining us tonight. What did you feel when you saw the picture of that guy in court today, Corbin, James Holmes.
CORBIN DATES, SHOOTING WITNESS: I`d say as soon as I was watching the trial on CNN today, I felt completely numb. I felt no emotion whatsoever when I was looking at the face of the gunman.MATTHEWS: Did he look dangerous to you? Did he remind you of what you saw in the theater?DATES: Honestly, looking at his face right now, no, he looked like an average person that you would see probably at a mall or anywhere common. You would not put two and two together if you saw that person and if you were there that night. You would never know.
MATTHEWS: OK, compare him to what you saw, the gentleman you saw, the two gentlemen, whatever you saw — compare him to what you saw in the theater the night that everything went horribly.
DATES: The night in the theater, as soon as the door swung open and the person dressed all in black walked into the theater, this person had a stroll like he knew what was going on, like he knew what was supposed to happen, like it was supposed to be a walk in the park and that he was going to have a good time. That`s what it looked like.
MATTHEWS: Do you — is there any way you can connect the two? Could you identify him as that guy, the one who killed the 12 people and injured or wounded so many others, dozens of others?
DATES: I couldn`t have identified him because the person — the gunman was dressed all in black. You could not see anything. The only thing that was available to see was only his eyes.
The official story is that the man who opened the fire exit prior to the shooting was, in fact, James Holmes, who law enforcement officials are saying bought a ticket to the 12:05 showing in Theater 9. But Corbin Dates affirmed with absolute certainty that he could not identify Holmes as the man who took the cell phone call by the fire exit, stating: “You would not put two and two together if you saw that person and if you were there that night. You would never know.”
I will have a follow up on this video before publishing crucial new information revealed in an exclusive investigative report.
darkknighttruth 