Friday, May 3, 2013

The Aurora Shooter had an accomplice, and the police refused to investigate it!

February, 2013.

One conspiracy theory blogger thinks that James Holmes, the mass murderer responsible for the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, didn't act alone.

First, the author evokes the other Aurora conspiracy theory about the gunman actually being part of a government plot to push forward a gun control agenda:
While the grander conspiracy theory behind the Aurora shooting entails a staged Manchurian Candidate-like attack with a government endgame of gun control, this post will focus on more direct evidence that contravenes the official lone-wolf narrative, in an attempt to support the probability that Holmes did not act alone.
Like so many conspiracy theorists, the author basically pieces together a hodgepodge of heresay to build the case of an accomplice.  In our modern age of information, we have the ability to see violent events happening almost as soon as the shots are fired, with tweets and live news coverage, 911 calls, and police radio, the chaos of the moment is captured and disseminated, with all the confusion that accompanies it, with no filter whatsoever.  

In a dark theater, during an action movie, with shots fired and tear gas cannisters, naturally some witnesses are going to get disoriented about where the shots are coming from, and memories become clouded by the confusion.  The author basically says as much, but then dismisses it entirely:
Studies have shown that witnesses to a crime aren’t always reliable because of distortions in human perception caused by various biases and stressors. It's the "fog of war"—what one person thinks they saw is not always what was actually there. Moreover, even the most compelling eyewitness testimony can’t always prove that something did or didn’t happen. 
But in the absence of more objective, undeniable evidence, it sure can paint a convincing picture.
and then suggests that, maybe, other witnesses actually saw another shooter, but then simply were never interviewed by police or spoke out.  Uh huh.

And when the police arrive, there is confusion on their part, too, as they try to identify suspects, sometimes reporting to each other over the scanner about potential suspects who turn out not to be involved.

The author of the blog in question (whose only other post is one defending another conspiracy theorist who suggested that the Sandy Hook shooting never actually happened!) basically uses all those chaotic and potentially misleading confusions to build his case that some other figure, who remains shadowy and never really described by witnesses, was involved alongside Holmes.

Just another wacko pro-gun conspiracy theory!