Photographer convicted

[gb hill]

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

Dang it! I guess I should have known better, but I can't keep my mouth shut on this. I'm a southner too, and I don't blame any one here for the way they feel about the legal system here in the south! BLAME IDIOTS like MIKE NIFONG! DA in the Duke Lacross rape case. It's people like him that gives the south a bad name.

 

[PhotoMat]

"BLAME IDIOTS like TED NIFONG!"

Give Ted a break (whoever he is).

Actually, it's Mike Nifong -- and yes, he is an idiot whose self-serving political ambitions lead to overzealous irresponsibility and abuse of his position.

 

[Krosya]

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

Actually a superstar lawyer could do it free - just for the publicity.
Do lawyers work for free in Europe?
I'm not sure I understand what you asked to give you a better answer.

 

[gb hill]

"BLAME IDIOTS like TED NIFONG!"

Give Ted a break (whoever he is).

Actually, it's Mike Nifong -- and yes, he is an idiot whose self-serving political ambitions lead to overzealous irresponsibility and abuse of his position.

Ted Nifong is my Dr.😀 I fixed it Mike! well any way you knew who I meant.😉

 

[Didier]

Do lawyers work for free in Europe?

No, but, at least what concerns my country, much more rights for getting a competent assigned counsel(s) through all appelations. Getting right is everywhere in the world a question of money, but at some places it needs less, at some more.

PS: It was not my intention to insult the south in general and I apologize if some felt so. Critizising a law system does not men I put all people in the same pot.

D.

 

[BillBingham2]

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?

My guess is that Bob, like so many other photographers of his era fell on hard times. I know a lot of folks who 20 years ago were making a living who are not now. Times have changed and many of them did not. Keep in mind this is just a guess based upon a bit of observation

A small group of photographers know Bob at various levels (some of us here) and most of the world could care less. Bob is no OJ, not even close. There are times where the US has a two tier justice system. I've seen it from both sides and IMHO it sucks, but it's what we got. Do I want to change it, yeah, but I have no clue how and I'm not sure I trust any group to come up with a equitable solution.

Keep in mind, while some lawyers might take up the case, I doubt any of them live in Virginia. You would have to find a real windmill tilter to take up his cause. Dead young girl, drugs, Southern town, any lawyer who took up the case for free would see many of his or her clients finding new lawyers.

B2 (;->

 

[BigSteveG]

He was found guilty of horrible crimes. He should be in prison.

 

[kjoosten]

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.

Right. Article Three, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments set the basis for the right for trial by jury. However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial, in which case (bench trial) the judge is the finder of law AND fact. This seems to me a reversion to the continental system.

So in America, in fact, the defendant has the choice of the system he prefers. 😱 A rather extraordinary freedom in my mind.

The fact is, most cases never see either types of trial. Most are handled by plea bargain.

 

[John Robertson]

In Scotland we have trials with and without juries depending on the severity of the case.We also have three available verdicts.
1. Guilty self explanitory.
2. Not guilty case dismissed, you are free and cannot then be retried for the same offence.
3. Not proven you are free to go, but, if evidence is found at a later date which would have found you guilty or not guilty, the case can be brought back to court and retried. (generally there is not time limit on this) Modern DNA testing has resulted in a few of these cases.
the decision on this is by a guy called the Proculator Fiscal, who is appointed by the government from the senior judiciary.Scots law can at times be very different from English law, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

What I find odd is the length of time this case has taken, from start to finish, the only ones who benefit from this would seem to be the lawyers!! In any case I would suspect that Shells career is over for the forseeable future.

 

[Matthew Runkel]

In the U.S., a criminal defendant cannot be forced to submit to a trial without a jury. However, even if the defendant waives his right to a jury trial (for perceived strategic reasons), the state can still opt for a jury trial (for its own perceived strategic reasons). This happens occasionally. There is no right not to be tried before a jury.

 

[Fotch]

"Convicted - period"? Yes, without evidence, by an opiononated jury who, in reality, judged his supposedly immoral lifestyle rather than the non-proven giving of drugs. He would NOT have neen judged in most western countries and many US states, not because he has n't done it, but because the evidences are missing.

But maybe that's too complicate to understand for some back country kangaroo courts.

Didier

So your saying the Jury convicted him without having any facts? They don’t a clue, even after weeks of sitting through a trial where the defendant had a lawyer presenting his side? What bad luck, to get a stupid jury, and stupid defense lawyer.

However, you’re doing the same thing to the members of the Jury that you accuse them of doing, that is, you have no facts, not a clue, and only briefly read bits in the newspaper rather than the transcript.

Yet you declared them of being guilty of doing wrong. You must believe the jury had too much info. All they had to do is read the newspaper like you did.

Incredible logic.

 

[CameraQuest]

Bob Shell Newsletter August 8, 2007

Bob Shell Newsletter August 8, 2007

"I'm down to the wire again. My trial is set to begin on August 20, and I certainly hope it actually does this time. I'm exhausted from the constant ups and downs of the last four years. Yes, this travesty has been going on for more than four years now!

As we get closer to trial I've been surprised at the dirty tricks that I have found out about. Without any notice to us that they were going to do it, the Clerk of Court's office here sent letters to all of my out-of-state witnesses saying that the subpoena they received was not a binding subpoena. There are two problems with this. First it is wrong, and second the Clerk is prohibited from dispensing legal advice, which this is. If they felt compelled to send out a letter it should simply have advised people to consult their own attorney if they had any questions about the subpoena they received. The only thing the letter did was confuse everyone who got it. In their entire history the Clerk's office has never sent out such a letter before.

Then, last week, the prosecutor contacted one of my witnesses by e- mail saying:

> I would like to talk to you about what Bob did to
> Marion and why.
>
> I would hate for you to come to VA and find out
> things about Bob that you weren’t aware of and them
> being a complete shock to you.


This is a blatant attempt at witness tampering and witness intimidation. I never thought that even this prosecutor would stoop so low. Additionally, he misrepresented the charges against me both in this e-mail and in a subsequent telephone conversation with this witness. There is much more, but I can't go into it in a public e- mail like this.

We have a hearing this Friday afternoon on some motions we filed, and we intend to bring up these dirty tricks at that hearing. I have no fears of losing this case if the fight is fair, but it is hard to fight against someone who has no interest in the truth and is only interested in getting a conviction.

Anyway, I hate to have to ask the same thing every time I send out one of these updates, because so many of you have been so generous already, but I am strapped for cash and have witness transportation costs to deal with somehow. I may be able to get the court to reimburse me for these expenses, but not for some time after the trial. I have to come up with the money now. Any donation, no matter how small, will help.

PayPal donations can be sent to bob@bobshell.com, or checks mailed to me at P.O. Box 808, Radford, VA 24143.

For those of you who may not have it, my new office telephone number is 540-808-2026 .

Thanks in advance for all of your help and support. Without such great friends I would never have had the strength to survive four years of hell.

Love and best wishes to all,

Bob"

 

[Chavo]

I find it disgusting that Bob's pleading for money and support are even posted on this site let alone by the owner of the forum.
Lets face it the guy deserved what he got he played with fire and got burnt he treated women like objects to satisfy his own sexual urges!
My god some of you are either living lives in cottonwool or too prudish to understand what was going on here.... let him rot in a cell.
He is not even worth the pixels and bytes wasted on him here.

 

[mfunnell]

I find it disgusting that Bob's pleading for money and support are even posted on this site let alone by the owner of the forum.

Hmmm - I took that post as informing us, not as an endorsement.

...Mike

 

[Didier]

Yet you declared them of being guilty of doing wrong. You must believe the jury had too much info. All they had to do is read the newspaper like you did.

I have a bit more knowledge of the case since I've not only read this one article, but followed the case since more than 3 years. The case was finally judged without being proven. The judgement is based on vague indications and statements of witnesses who were friends of the dead woman, and not present at the location when the woman died. Witnesses who wanted to state pro defendant were strongly intimidated, and obviously not taken for serious by the jury.

Again, I dont know if Bob has done it or not. But the process was a farce.

D.

 

[lubitel]

My god some of you are either living lives in cottonwool or too prudish to understand what was going on here.... let him rot in a cell.
He is not even worth the pixels and bytes wasted on him here.

I dont think you can possibly know more about what was going on this case than any of us. And your comment on rotting in a cell is extremely disturbing.

 

[ruben]

Dear Bartender, or anyone else,

It could be a great contribution to the thread if you or anyone could display any of Bob's newsletter explaining his full version of the events.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[fgianni]

I always considered trial by jury very risky for justice, juries tend to be emotional, and to follow gut feelings, and when you are dealing with the death of a 19 yr old is difficult to suppress your emotions, I'd rather be judged by professionals with a lot of experience, but maybe that's just me.

I don't have all the details, so I can't say if his trial was fair or not, but even if he is guilty, given that he was not convicted of murder, 30+ years seem a bit eccessive.

Of course the death of a 19 year old girl is the saddest part of the story.

 

[jrong]

Hmmm - I took that post as informing us, not as an endorsement.

...Mike

I cannot see it as anything other than an endorsement, given the contents of the post, asking for donations, protesting his innocence, critising the prosecution and police 'dirty tricks' and so on.

It's funny how people are automatically critical of the jury when no one really knows all the facts that led them to their decision. Is it because no one really wants to believe that a "fellow photographer" could possibly be guilty of such perversions?

Jin

 

[oftheherd]

I have refrained from commenting on this thread so far. I live in the Northern part of the Commonwealth (State) of Virginia. That trial has not been big news here. I do not have any knowledge of the facts presented to the jury. Most people in Mr. Shell's position would tend to tell everyone they were innocent whether it were true or not. Human nature. I don't know him so I don't know if he would be different or not.

I have however, always read and heard that juries (at least in the USA), tend to go into court with two things in mind: the prosecution must believe it has enough facts to get a conviction, so the defendant is probably guilty, and the police and prosecution are out to get people so you have to be skeptical of their testimony and actions.

If the facts presented in Mr. Shell's newsletter are true he can get another trial. Those kinds of shenanigans will not stand up to appeal. It may take time and will take expense, but even prosecutors and the courts can only go so far without being taken to task. I expect he could recoup much of his money if he could prove misconduct on the part of the government, at least if it amounts to criminal conduct. I suspect that will happen in North Carolina.

What I would wonder though, is if he is seeing facts filtered through his own wishes for how things should be interpreted. We are all prone to see things in our own best light.

The bottom line is that I don't know that facts. I doubt anyone here does either, other than as presented by Mr. Shell. While loyalty is a laudable thing, it has to be tempered by common sense and verifiable fact. The latter is not an easy thing to do. Our emotions tend to get in the way even if we have access to facts.

As an aside, I would suggest that criticism of our legal system be tempered with the knowledge that it works for us and we are reasonably comfortable with it. Most of us would be scared to death to think that we could only face a panel of 3 or less judges. It is a matter of custom and culture and law. It is different for each society. How you would feel if I began attacting your system in comparison with mine, is a good bet for how I feel when you begin attacting my system in comparison with yours. We are from different countries and cultures. It is no surprise that our systems are different, and we each like our own better.

Enough said.