Woman removed after outburst during James Holmes' court appearance

Woman removed after outburst during James Holmes' court appearance

news.yahoo.com

There was some drama during Thursday's mostly procedural hearing. A woman seated in the second-to-last row of the courtroom stood up and said she had evidence of judicial misconduct on behalf of the public defender.

"I tried to deliver information vital to the defense of James Holmes to the public defender," the woman--in a red dress with a shaved head--said, her voice shaking.

[Related: How the media should cover mass shootings, and why it can't]

The woman, who was held by two deputies, said the defense team told her they were not willing to speak to Holmes about that information

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.google.com

I think this is very interesting and it isn't really being mentioned much in the MSM as far as I can see.

What could this information related to "judicial misconduct on behalf of the public defender" be? She mentions it will "do the victims' families justice to have this information". What information could benefit both the defense and the victims' families? Information on another shooter, perhaps? I could see the prosecutor not bringing up charges on another suspect due to evidence that wasn't necessarily outstanding. They already have 'ol Jimmy's neck in the noose, why not just let it be a huge win for the prosecutors?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Sounds like some nutcase off the streets.

Hall most likely a member of ATS...

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Even super models shave their heads at times. A woman having a shaved head does not make her crazy. However, the media know that it is not the norm so they mention it to discredit her right away. We should wait for more info before we start questioning someone's sanity.

That is interesting. Is there any more information about this woman available? Searched, but haven't come across anything. I think we should try to find out more about her before assuming anything she had to say is relevant. For all we know there could be a perfectly good reason the public defender snubbed her information. Her conduct in court was unprofessional to say the least, doesn't bode well for her image and makes it harder for people to take her seriously, although I can already imagine a few members accepting her word purely on the basis it supports their conspiracy theories regarding the shooting.

A relevant discussion is going on about this here : www.abovetopsecret.com... - you might find it interesting. I will add a link to that thread pointing here for those interested.

But as this is a separate issue from the OP in that thread, this discussion should stand on it's own in my opinion.

It seems to me that if this woman had any important information for the case, the media would have already been all over her. And yet... mostly silence for the moment ... at least from the "main stream" folks.

I have some possible info on this woman. Maxmars said that you guys might find this info interesting. I posted the info over on my thread, which is here.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the info I presented....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

O.K., I think I tracked Allison Michelle Ernst down.
Could this be her?.....
As far as I can tell, she's a Lawyer!

From her page: ’ Ms. Ernst graduated from Michigan State University College of Law, and received an Equal Justice Works Fellowship for the Low Income Taxpayer Clinic at Michigan State University. She married her husband, a Chief Warrant Officer on Active Duty with the U.S. Army, and moved with him to Colorado. She was hired with the Colorado Public Defenders Office, spending 6 years defending indigent clients. Ms. Ernst has handled thousands of criminal cases, vigorously defending her clients from all manner of charges, ranging from disorderly conduct to homicides and sex assaults ‘

Here is her website.... Becker & Ernst LLC
What's up with that?

Becker & Ernst LLC

Hope you guys find that interesting as I did.

Has it been confirmed the woman is Ernst? I haven't found anything confirming, just speculation. Has anybody called her office?

I find it very strange that this bald woman wearing a red dress that yelled out in court is being reported on. It's almost like they are trying to make stuff up to fuel our theories. And why a RED dress? I'd like to see a picture of this woman and find out what she really knows.

This article includes the most detail I can find so far:
www.denverpost.com...

If I shaved my head,
it would be to make a point about something I believe in supporting, as I have been known to do; living as a “SHAR-P” for a season.
Skin Head Against Racial Prejudism. It’s easy to misconstrue.

Bald head wearing a red dress is someone hoping to get noticed. Someone with conviction in their heart…
and the words she uttered weren't senseless ramblings.

What's interesting in my opinion is what she chose to say. I would think that usually people shares the information in such situations and not "trowing away the opportunity" by just saying she where not allowed to share it.
Sounds really like a lawyer kind of move.

reply to post by mikemck1976


Nice find. Shocking if it turns out to be her. You'd think someone who graduated from Law school and spent 6 years in criminal defense would know better than to behave that way in a courtroom. Have yet to see a picture of her with a bald head though and according to the biography on that website, she attended college and university in Michigan before moving to Colorado, whereas the Sheriff claimed the woman in the courtroom was from Tucson, Arizona. This bit in the article was also revealing:

A TV reporter who spoke to her before the hearing began said the woman talked about a conspiracy dating to 1956 and a blazing light that surrounded Holmes when he allegedly opened the back door of the theater on July 20.

The striking appearance, unruly behaviour and peculiar claims rooted in conspiracy theories doesn't make for a very credible source...

But waiting to see what new information will come to light.

Oh man, sounds like my kind of woman!!

I wonder what she had to say? Is there anything else to this story outside of the article?

reply to post by badfish420


She sounds like another sacrifice thrown to the dogs. Made tp do something out of character and make everything look more ridiculous.

This is going to be some trial.Im not convinced he'll make it though(suicide,poison).Good luck with the insanity defense btw.

reply to post by badfish420

Until evidence is examined by the prosecution and the defense it can not be submitted into court as evidence. We have this rule for a reason.

If she was ignored by the defense team and her information presumably is genuine and germane to a just trial then how else is she supposed to make it known to the judge...

If that is true I really feel bad for her and I feel bad that Holmes has a public defense team who don't care about him for whatever reason - be that not being paid enough money or possibly by 'suggestion' from 'forces' who don't want the truth to get out..

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by badfish420

 

Until evidence is examined by the prosecution and the defense it can not be submitted into court as evidence. We have this rule for a reason.

No doubt it is an important rule..

But you miss the point where the defense refused to acknowledge the evidence in the trial, evidence that supposedly would strengthen Holmes' defense.

Therefore, whatever rules are in place to make adjudication a just process are moot if certain parties are knowingly avoiding justice being served.

I live here in Colorado and can tell you that the local television media has not mentioned this woman on any channel. I seriously did some hardcore Tivo action to check all of them. I think part of the reason, in conjunction with the harsh gag orders, is the fear of a wickedly dangerous circus trial emerging.

That said, what I can offer is that The Denver Post link that someone put up earlier truly is the most information I've been able to find to this point. There is a local alternative paper that may have something next week and if they do, I'll post a link. Also, and this is the most interesting part, I jumped on an earlier version of that story online last night in my Denver Post feed and there was a little more than has since been removed. It said that the woman had information for the defense which dated back to 1956. And that she was desperate to talk to the defenders. All that was removed. I didn't think to grab a screen shot because I naturally assumed it would be in this mornings paper.

And for the record, I've been more a lurker but this actually got me to come out of the woodwork.

So if she had evidence of value to the defense, and the defense was not interested, why not make that evidence public? Why go in and disrupt the court where you know it won't be admitted. It's a high profile case, and they can't just sweep everything under the rug, so it makes no sense to me.
More likely she is a lawyer and out of touch with reality.

M

reply to post by morefiber


If she is a lawyer it is actually more likely that she knows more about the world of law than you do...

And hence, her reasons for doing what she did can't rightfully be critiqued by us..

There are many reasons she could have for not propagating the information through the media.