Photographer convicted

[raid]

D E E P .......... B R E A T H


I already feel better!
Thanks, Joe.

 

[Al Patterson]

I do think that if he were tried in some other state the penalty would be less than 30 plus years. There are states in this country where if you get in your car after a few too many drinks and kill someone you would serve less than 5 years in jail. Now I wasn't in the courtroom, and only know what I've read on the net, but 30 plus years is probably a lot more than he deserves.

No way he should walk with no jail time and just probabtion though. It isn't like he force fed her the drugs against her will or killed her because he was tired of her. Didn't she have personal resposibilty for what kind of garbage she was introducing into her system? She was an adult, supposedly.

 

[kjoosten]

We still have jury courts, but happening less and less. The legislative body (eg. both national parliament chambres) is discussing the abandon in the context of a mayor criminal law modernization. So far there wasn't a significant opposition against the abandon, as an involved friend of mine said, a professort of law at the University of Fribourg and consulting expert in the parliament's commission. But such things may take many years until they finally change, here. Because when the whole new law packet is ready, any political party may want a referendum about it. But fact is, we haven't seen a jury court since years.

D.

I certainly won't claim to speak for anyone but myself, but I expect the idea of "trial by government" makes the blood of the average American run cold indeed. I don't understand why anyone would think that elected officials (or worse yet "appointed" officials) would make a more fair ajudication than ordinary citizens. The opportunities for bribary and corruption are certainly far higher.

 

[Krosya]

Every trial requires someone to make "findings of fact" such as about which testimony to believe. Whether these findings are made by a jury or by a judge, our system gives them great respect because the finders of fact (judge or jury) are the ones who sat through the whole trial, were in a position to assess the demeanor, credibility and truthfulness of witnesses, etc. Appeals courts, including even the Supreme Court, are not permitted to change the findings of fact made at trial (though they may order a new trial under various circumstances). This limitation is placed on appeals courts even though they have access to complete trial transcripts. I don't think anyone should read a brief press account and then substitute his judgment for that of twelve people who sat through the entire trial, saw all the evidence and heard all the testimony and, just as important, were shielded from irrelevant and prejudicial information about the case.

Criminal defendants in the United States have a constitutional right to trial by jury. They may waive this right, but few of them do, and this includes defendants represented by highly competent defense counsel. Interesting, if jury trials are like Russian roulette.

THANK YOU !!!!
Now that is a good answer and should clear all the emotions out. Like or don't like Bob Shell - this is how things work!

 

[x-ray]

No I wasn't, but I happen to know some details, from Bob, about things that happened at the first arrest, in his studio, and during the time before the process, which let me believe neither the police, nor the bureau of investigation, nor the judges, nor the jury did an unbiased job.

Didier

Didier:

How many men facing murder charges wouldn't tell you they're innocent? My bet is 99.9% say they didn't do it. Darn near every man in prison is inncocent, shure they are.

 

[Matthew Runkel]

I do not know the truth. Only Bob knows it. The problem is, the jury does not know it, too, but made a judgment without any evidence. This is my concern. If there would be real evidences, the articels would certainly have mentioned it.

It's a big problem indeed if we can only rely on the truth as known by criminal defendants (and it would be a problem in Switzerland as well as in the "backwoods" of the American South). But I don't understand at all the basis you have for stating that this was "a judgment without any evidence" and that there was not "real evidence". As far as I can tell, you are basing your views on a short newspaper article and communications with the defendant.

 

[Krosya]

No I wasn't, but I happen to know some details, from Bob, about things that happened at the first arrest, in his studio, and during the time before the process, which let me believe neither the police, nor the bureau of investigation, nor the judges, nor the jury did an unbiased job.



Didier

And do you think Bob was not biased when he talked to you about this? Wow!

 

[Krosya]

I do think that if he were tried in some other state the penalty would be less than 30 plus years. There are states in this country where if you get in your car after a few too many drinks and kill someone you would serve less than 5 years in jail. Now I wasn't in the courtroom, and only know what I've read on the net, but 30 plus years is probably a lot more than he deserves.

No way he should walk with no jail time and just probabtion though. It isn't like he force fed her the drugs against her will or killed her because he was tired of her. Didn't she have personal resposibilty for what kind of garbage she was introducing into her system? She was an adult, supposedly.

Yeah, I wonder what if it took place in....Texas. ?

 

[cjm]

Sad story.

I simply don't see enough information in the article to form an opinion worth arguing about.

I've worked at a District Attorney's office for over a year and it has really put some perspective on just how much the public in general does not know about particular cases and the legal system in general.

Unless I was in the courtroom listening and watching Shell testify, I couldn't pass judgment on his credibility, one way or the other. The jury may or may not have been right in discrediting his testimony. We just don't know.

 

[Didier]

Somehow you doubts a system, laws of the land and people that did there job to have their case.

Yes I allow myself to doubt of the law system in Virginia, without having been at the court. I'm here in Europe (where I, by the way,very often defend your country against the here popular antiamerican reflexes). I like your country and the american way of life, you must know.

My opinion about the US american law is that it has been created in a time when it first had to achieve acceptance, and thus was very draconic. Times have changed meanwhile, but not the system.

That's all I wanted to say.

Didier

 

[Finder]

WHAT?! French kissing is illegal now?!

It is called "Freedom" kissing now.

 

[gb hill]

Every trial requires someone to make "findings of fact" such as about which testimony to believe. Whether these findings are made by a jury or by a judge, our system gives them great respect because the finders of fact (judge or jury) are the ones who sat through the whole trial, were in a position to assess the demeanor, credibility and truthfulness of witnesses, etc. Appeals courts, including even the Supreme Court, are not permitted to change the findings of fact made at trial (though they may order a new trial under various circumstances). This limitation is placed on appeals courts even though they have access to complete trial transcripts. I don't think anyone should read a brief press account and then substitute his judgment for that of twelve people who sat through the entire trial, saw all the evidence and heard all the testimony and, just as important, were shielded from irrelevant and prejudicial information about the case.

Criminal defendants in the United States have a constitutional right to trial by jury. They may waive this right, but few of them do, and this includes defendants represented by highly competent defense counsel. Interesting, if jury trials are like Russian roulette.

Problem is the system don't always work like that. A paper in Greensboro a few months ago broke a story of corruption of Durham N.C. where investigators hid back evidence of a young black teen acused of robbing a woman's home at gunpoint. Countless witnesses put the accused at a different location at the time of robbery and even the woman herself said the robber was hooded, but she just knows it was him! Long story short. He is still in prison and by the way the woman robbed worked at the Durham police dept. and the $5000.00 stolen was part of a illegial poker house she ran. She still has her job btw.

 

[ruben]

Dear Friends, just two relevant remmarks.

Criminal law is based upon facts. That poor magazine review of the case is a small sand grain. The fact that he was convicted is not an automatic proof he is guilty, nor the contrary. Unless any one can provide a detailed factual account of what happened. All the talk about the place where he was judged are just air assumptions.

The other highly important remmark for all to take into account, REGARDLESS OF BOB'S CASE, is that sexual perversion is not a characteristic stamped on one's head. On the contrary, it is hidden by the agressor in the most deceiving way. Take care.

Is Bob guilty or not ? I have not read the full protocols, nor have i been present at the trial to hear and sense both Bob and the judge, and other issues. Therefore I do not know. For sure I will not start speculating on either direction.

If anyone here do have hard facts to present, please. But otherewise we are just chating bla bla over a fatal disgrace, both for the vyctim and the convicted.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[gb hill]

I think now i'll take Joe's advice and take a deep breath. I could go on and on but it would be sinceless. I worked in a prison ministry for several years and I found people who needed to be there, and a few that did not. The most I met did need to be there. It's a sad situation for the girl, her family, and every one involved. So i'll leave it at that, and i'm off to read about photography.

 

[John Camp]

The US trial process is much better than anything portrayed in the media. It is quite subtle, quite complete, and people don't usually get convicted without evidence, except in one circumstance -- when it's "eyewitness evidence," which is often quite bad. That's almost always how the guys who are unjustly convicted are convicted -- the victim incorrectly identifies them, often because of their race and the circumstances in which they are arrested (near the victim's house, etc.) But I have seen a lot of criminal trials, and have never disagreed with a jury's "guilty" verdict, although I have occasionally disagreed with a "not guilty' verdict. To condemn Shell's jury on the basis of partial media reports, which focused, as they always do, on the eye-for-an-eye aspect of it (comments from relatives, etc.) is laughable. As an ex-newpaperman, I can say that my faith in news reporting is far less than my faith in juries. And I would much prefer to have juries than to have some kind of three-judge system, where all the judges come from the society's elite classes.

As for Shell himself, I used to read his reports in photo magazines, and was never much impressed; he always seemed like a hack. I wasn't much impressed by his photography, either, which was mostly "find a girl with big tits and a short skirt and lean her against a post." Further, I made the mistake a couple of times of buying his camera-specific books, and finding that they were essentially re-written instruction manuals and spec lists from the camera company; in this aspect of his career, the guy was making money by scamming unwary consumers.

I would hate to see him convicted if he is innocent; but I don't think he is.

JC

 

[Krosya]

Yes I allow myself to doubt of the law system in Virginia, without having been at the court. I'm here in Europe (where I, by the way,very often defend your country against the here popular antiamerican reflexes). I like your country and the american way of life, you must know.

My opinion about the US american law is that it has been created in a time when it first had to achieve acceptance, and thus was very draconic. Times have changed meanwhile, but not the system.

That's all I wanted to say.

Didier

I, actually do have a first hand experience with legal system in Europe. I will not name the country to cause any issues here, but let me tell you this - it's much easier to bribe a judge than to bribe a jury. I was personally involved in a case there (in Europe) where this is what happened. Had it been a trial by jury, things would have been waaaay different.

Anyway, to summarize this whole thing - you know what they say: "there is no smoke without a fire". Was it a fair trial - I do not know, but he was found guilty by, what I believe , is the best legal system in the world. Not perfect, however.
Plus one thing that I wonder about - since Bob Shell is such a popular guy, famous in a photo and other comminities - why didn't he get a superstar lawyer that would make things straight and put police to shame, since they hadn't found enough evidence? After all it's a talked about case. Many lawyers would want to be in a spot light. Why noone stepped up to do so?
Was it bacause maybe, just maybe Bob was (is) guilty and obviously so, once you know all the real evidence and not go by what he said himself?
Just another way to look at this.

 

[x-ray]

One thing that I find interesting and disturbing is the perspective some have on the south. As a native southerner I find it insulting.

 

[Krosya]

One thing that I find interesting and disturbing is the perspective some have on the south. As a native southerner I find it insulting.

I second that! Thats what got me fired up more so than actual case discussion itself.

 

[ruben]

The US trial process is much better than anything portrayed in the media. It is quite subtle, quite complete, and people don't usually get convicted without evidence, except in one circumstance -- when it's "eyewitness evidence," which is often quite bad. That's almost always how the guys who are unjustly convicted are convicted -- the victim incorrectly identifies them, often because of their race and the circumstances in which they are arrested (near the victim's house, etc.) But I have seen a lot of criminal trials, and have never disagreed with a jury's "guilty" verdict, although I have occasionally disagreed with a "not guilty' verdict. To condemn Shell's jury on the basis of partial media reports, which focused, as they always do, on the eye-for-an-eye aspect of it (comments from relatives, etc.) is laughable. As an ex-newpaperman, I can say that my faith in news reporting is far less than my faith in juries. And I would much prefer to have juries than to have some kind of three-judge system, where all the judges come from the society's elite classes.

As for Shell himself, I used to read his reports in photo magazines, and was never much impressed; he always seemed like a hack. I wasn't much impressed by his photography, either, which was mostly "find a girl with big tits and a short skirt and lean her against a post." Further, I made the mistake a couple of times of buying his camera-specific books, and finding that they were essentially re-written instruction manuals and spec lists from the camera company; in this aspect of his career, the guy was making money by scamming unwary consumers.

I would hate to see him convicted if he is innocent; but I don't think he is.

JC

Great example of my previous post. Why Bob is guilty ?

a) "The US trial process is much better than anything portrayed in the media..."

b) "I used to read his reports in photo magazines, and was never much impressed..."

c) "I wasn't much impressed by his photography, either, which was mostly "find a girl with big tits and a short skirt and lean her against a post"

And we have a veredict too:
"I would hate to see him convicted if he is innocent; but I don't think he is."


Great, just great. Now let's reverse the arguments and see if we can make Bob innocent, and the full riducule of the speculative thinking will show up:

a) The US trial process is too enhanced by the media

b) Bob's writing in photo-magazines was very prolific

c) His landscape photography was really impressive.

Veredict:
I think he is innocent, therefore I would hate to see him convicted.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Didier]

...but he was found guilty by, what I believe , is the best legal system in the world. ... Plus one thing that I wonder about - why didn't he get a superstar lawyer that would make things straight...

Here you seem to contradict yourself. The system is the best in the world - but it needs money to get right? Please explain.

I won't deny there are a lot of issues on european courts, shure. But definitely less death penalties for inncocents since we abandoned this kind of punishment.

D.

Edit: I tend to shut up now and to internalize Rubens wise words