Guilty until Proven Innocent

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Guilty until Proven Innocent

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Guilty until Proven Innocent

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/15/2008 5:54:57 PM

BlackPhx

Posts: 3432
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline

I know, I know it is supposed to be the other way around in this country, but frankly I just ain't seeing it. Not these days. Actually these days it seems you are guilty before you are even charged and the media is judge, jury and executioner with the police laying out their investigation to the public before the Defense can even file for Discovery on a charge that hasn't been filed.

OK..I know this seems a bit of a controversial statement but.. If anyone has been following what has been happening in Florida in the Caysee/Kaylee Anthony case you have seen a sad return to Lynch mob mentality, whipped into a frenzy by a police department that is releasing family interviews, prison phone calls and doing little to control protesters and looky loos. To date the woman has not been charged with anything more than child neglect, interferring with an investigation and forging a couple of checks. But from the frenzy the crowds are in she is tried and convicted of murder most foul. Can she get a fair trial? Probably not even in Switzerland. It is all over save for the tossing of the rope over the limb of a tree and the slap on the horses rump. Whether she did anything or not, she is already tried and sentenced, all that is left is the formality.

When did this happen? When did we begin to try cases in the news before they were even in court? Assassins of Presidents, Terrorists, and Charged Murderers have received better treatment in the Media than these people, this mother. Mrs Ramsey ( JonBenets mother) died of cancer before they were exonerated, but they were exonerated. It took nearly 10 years but they were cleared, after LOSING everything they had, business, homes, and her life under the scrutiny of the public eye and the Media. A Media that would not let it go even after the Prosecutors and Police said there was nothing. Another young mother killed herself as Media attention (and the loss of her child whether given away or dead) became 24/7 invading her life in ways even the police were constrained not to. In the past it would have been 24/7 a child was missing..the recent past, now, before any one has been charged, you have Nancy Grace calling for a Hanging, a bail that is so out of line with the charges that are leveled (child neglect). $500,000 is more than the normal bail set for a Charged or Convicted Murderer out on appeal in Florida. It is more than what was charged Lisa Nowack (25,500.00 total) for stalking and attempted murder in the Astronaut Love triangle. But what can a Judge do when the Media is calling for blood and whipping the public into a frenzy, before the person is every charged with a felony.

Gulty until proven Innocent by the Media. What have we come to? I am afraid to find out.

poenkitten

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/15/2008 6:01:04 PM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

I remember your posting a couple of similar thoughts on another thread a little while ago. Like tonight, I thought you were spot on - trial by media. A person can never be vindicated after this kind of circus, even if they're innocent.

_____________________________

(in reply to BlackPhx)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/15/2008 6:11:14 PM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

the court system is no fun.

I personally do not like the Nancy Grace show.

Trial by media has been with us for quite some time.

I do think cameras in the court room, was a jump in the mode.....

Anytime someone has charges on them, a real lawyer costs a ton of money. A public defender is IMO not sufficient.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/15/2008 6:15:08 PM

hizgeorgiapeach

Posts: 1672
Status: offline

The last time there was a post on this particular case (which, oddly enough, seemed to disappear before to many people saw it or responded to it) I pointed out that I refuse to speculate on whether the woman is guilty, innocent, or somewhere in between. We aren't her jury. We haven't been presented with Evidence, and frankly - we Won't be, unless we happen to be part of a Grand Jury eventually convened IF there's sufficient evidence against someone to even warrent one.

The people who speculate on things like this Nauseat and enfuriate me. The media - and those who follow all the media Crap about cases - should be Ashamed of themselves. They make a complete Mockery out of the Constitution and our Rights. They make a mockery, in the long run, out of being in the very country that - because of the rights they DENY Someone Else - allows them babble like a gaggle of geese while speculating and rumor mongering.

_____________________________

Rhi
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Essential Scentsations

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/15/2008 7:16:55 PM

marieToo

Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackPhx

I know, I know it is supposed to be the other way around in this country, but frankly I just ain't seeing it. Not these days. Actually these days it seems you are guilty before you are even charged and the media is judge, jury and executioner with the police laying out their investigation to the public before the Defense can even file for Discovery on a charge that hasn't been filed.

Police arrests aren't generally hidden from the public. Even in small misdemeanor offenses, you can open a local paper on any given day and see the names of those arrested for various crimes. We, as individuals, form our own opinions of our own volition; the police and media don't control what the public thinks. And a court isn't going to convict her based upon public poll.

Regardless of what I have heard in the media about this case, I am absolutely certain that if I were on the jury, I would base my vote upon the facts presented at trial, and not on all the jibber jabber on the TV. And I would guess that most reasonable Americans would have the same ability to do so. Remember back to the OJ case, we saw the chase etc. It was all publicized, because we do that in America. We make it known to the public who has been arrested and for what. And as Americans we are brainwashed with the mantra "Innocent until proven Guilty" from about the second grade. So when we see an arrest take place, we already know that it doesn't mean the person is guilty, it only means they have been arrested on a particular charge.

quote:

To date the woman has not been charged with anything more than child neglect, interferring with an investigation and forging a couple of checks. But from the frenzy the crowds are in she is tried and convicted of murder most foul.

You say this as if she were arrested for jay-walking and smoking a joint. Child neglect is a very serious matter that can range from not feeding your child, to severely abusing them, and anything in between that endangers their lives. And interfering with a police investigation (esp one of murder) in an effort to thwart the pursuit of justice is another biggie (I think a felony).

quote:

Can she get a fair trial?

Of course she can.

quote:

Probably not even in Switzerland. It is all over save for the tossing of the rope over the limb of a tree and the slap on the horses rump.

I think most Americans can think for themselves Why would people automatically believe the police and the media when both entities are the least-trusted by the public in general? And in the instant case, I've actually seen plenty of interviews with those implicating her guilt as well as those defending her innocense. So you see a bit of all of it out there.

quote:

Whether she did anything or not, she is already tried and sentenced, all that is left is the formality.

Again, what you are saying essentially is that 12 non-biased American jurors can't possibly be found. Would you be open minded if called to this case? I know I would be. If you have the ability to keep an open and fair mind, what makes you assume that others aren't capable of the same?

quote:

When did this happen? When did we begin to try cases in the news before they were even in court?

It's been going on since the dawn of media itself. Would you rather see the police and media deciding what we should be exposed to based upon the assumption that we can't think for ourselves?

quote:

Gulty until proven Innocent by the Media. What have we come to? I am afraid to find out.

We've come to the same thing we've always been about; The public is privy to criminal arrests, and with the freedom of speech thrown on top of that the media can speculate about it all they want. That doesn't make anyone guilty, or tried, or roped and hanged, or convicted, or acquited until it goes before a jury. Nothing has changed from the good old days.

< Message edited by marieToo -- 9/15/2008 8:13:15 PM >

_____________________________

marie.

I give good agita.

(in reply to BlackPhx)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/15/2008 7:25:49 PM

BlackPhx

Posts: 3432
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline

Unfortunately in Florida at least you can't turn around without catching the latest. Turn on the News for weather and traffic..there it is, turn on the radio..there it is..and of course any show you watch will have at least 1 Breaking news a week on this case. But it is not just this case, we are seeing it with the Petersen case, with the Nowack case where over half of the charges had to be dropped, with the Youtube fight case and many others. Bounce back to the days of the OJ case and I think we begin to see the beginning of it realistically. The police bungled the evidence, he had the money for Top Lawyers and despite the Media's best efforts..he was acquitted. It seems like since then the effort to convict those they see as guilty has quadrupled and if it sells papers or gets people to turn in, well the hell with peoples rights to privacy, to grieve alone, to be proven guilty or innocent in a court of law AFTER they have been charged.

Police Interviews, heck depositions, psychiatric opinions etc, were not released in such INFAMOUS cases as Danny Rollins (Gainesville Ripper) or Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy until After the trials, after they were convicted. Now, the media has sound bites from your private phone calls in holding to your family almost before you hang up, they have interviews from the police investigation before you are charged and it's all sitting right out there before the Defense lawyer can do anything to contain things.

poenkitten

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/15/2008 7:53:26 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

Trial by media is nothing more than the modern version of mob justice – which, of course, is not justice at all but the fulfillment of that bizarre human need for a scapegoat.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to BlackPhx)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/15/2008 8:17:49 PM

BlackPhx

Posts: 3432
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline

Marietoo

I would love to agree with you..on many of your points, but this is Florida, the curve of the crotch of the bible belt. Yes there are many who might find her innocent, despite the media coverage, however, that is NOT going to do a bit of good at this point. No one in that family is going to get permanent police protection and we have already seen violence occur and it is escalating. What will the Prosecutors and Police say when someone is injured seriously or killed because a frenzied protester gets out of hand, or someone who thinks she is guilty takes justice into their own hands. The danger lies not in the reasonable man, individually most of us humans are pretty reasonable, but gathered together mob mentality takes over and stampedes happen.

I do not denigrate neglect or discount it's seriousness, but it is not $500,000 in bail serious. Anytime the police don't like your answers, don't think you are telling them everything or what they want to hear they can charge you with interfering in an investigation or obstruction. This includes you protesting that you enjoy what your Master is doing to you and trying to get them not to take him away in handcuffs. Remember one of the rights you have is to not incriminate yourself..5th amendment. She has refused to incriminate herself, states she hasn't done anything and is innocent, has given them a name of someone she says is involved..BUT is not telling them what they want to know or hear, therefore, voila..she is interfering with the investigation and obstructing.

Yes you have seen people saying she didn't do it..the ratio right now I believe is somewhere around 10:1 with the 1 being innocent. they have had TV Judges, Shrinks, Lawyers and many others commenting on everything that is wrong with her and how she is hiding that she did it. The Jerry Springer mentality is out there and it isn't pretty.

So you asked if I could be impartial if called to sit on the jury, to be honest I don't know. BUT, probably not in the direction you would think, if I can. I know how good forensics is and what it can and can't do, I know that Prosecutors are not infallable and I don't automatically accept that what they are saying is gospel. But I am also very aware that the burden falls on the Prosecutor, not the Defense and that Juries rarely look favorably on those who refuse to testify on their own behalf, while Defense Attorneys are well aware that most people do not testify well on their own behalf and can be tripped up or appear unsympathetic. It is a tricky balancing act for them. Pray you have a good one.

But this is only a symptom of what seems to be going on in this country. Yes it is drummed into your head that you are innocent until proven guilty, but you would be surprised at how many people seeing you have been arrested won't hire you, won't date you, even if you are not convicted. Employment forms often ask if you have been arrested or charged with a crime, some will ask if you were convicted, but not all. Arrests even without a conviction are still public record and not expunged unless specifically so ordered. There are innocent people sitting on death row and in jail..the Innocence Project has proven that time and again. DNA and forensics have become so much a part of the public's awareness that they think it is infallible and juries pretty much demand it these days even if they don't understand it. It is a common complaint of Prosecutors now. In the case that touched my life..the person lived in my home along with my family. His DNA and fingerprints were on everything in the house, just like everyone else..and none of it could have proven that he was the one who did it or that any of the rest of us didn't. One reason he got away with it. Forensics t'aint everything.

Privy to public records of arrest is one thing. Kept under Media and Protestor seige is another. Yell something long enough a lot of people will begin to believe it.

poenkitten

(in reply to marieToo)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/15/2008 9:06:16 PM

marieToo

Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

What will the Prosecutors and Police say when someone is injured seriously or killed because a frenzied protester gets out of hand, or someone who thinks she is guilty takes justice into their own hands. The danger lies not in the reasonable man, individually most of us humans are pretty reasonable, but gathered together mob mentality takes over and stampedes happen.

I agree any of these possiblities can occur, but people are held responsible for their actions. You can't go around being a vigilante without being arrested for assault or murder or harrassment. So anyone who attempts to harm her is now breaking the law and is accountable for their actions. I guess in a case like this, these possibilities are more likely, but what's the answer? Either we publicize criminal arrests and their circumstances, or we do not.

What about a case where Joe Blow from BumbleFuck NJ is arrested for rape. They show his sketch and identify him by name on the night time news. Let's say he gets out on bail. He is now also at risk for vigilante attack, and his reputation in the community etc. As far as his innocense, I have no clue whether or not he is actually guilty, but since I live in BumbleFuck NJ with my teenaged daughter, I'd sure as hell want the heads-up that there's a guy named Job Blow who looks like the sketch they showed and it's possible that he's a rapist. I understand there is far more sensationalism in the Casey case, but it's the same basic principle. Either the public gets exposed to it or they do not. We can't pick and choose which suspects get sheltered and which ones do not.

quote:

I do not denigrate neglect or discount it's seriousness, but it is not $500,000 in bail serious. Anytime the police don't like your answers, don't think you are telling them everything or what they want to hear they can charge you with interfering in an investigation or obstruction. This includes you protesting that you enjoy what your Master is doing to you and trying to get them not to take him away in handcuffs. Remember one of the rights you have is to not incriminate yourself..5th amendment. She has refused to incriminate herself, states she hasn't done anything and is innocent, has given them a name of someone she says is involved..BUT is not telling them what they want to know or hear, therefore, voila..she is interfering with the investigation and obstructing.

I don't know the facts behind the arrest with regards to obstructing justice, and I wouldn't really take any media reports as hard facts, so I have no idea whether that arrest is legitimate, therefore, I can't agree or disagree with this.

quote:

So you asked if I could be impartial if called to sit on the jury, to be honest I don't know. BUT, probably not in the direction you would think, if I can. I know how good forensics is and what it can and can't do, I know that Prosecutors are not infallable and I don't automatically accept that what they are saying is gospel. But I am also very aware that the burden falls on the Prosecutor, not the Defense and that Juries rarely look favorably on those who refuse to testify on their own behalf, while Defense Attorneys are well aware that most people do not testify well on their own behalf and can be tripped up or appear unsympathetic. It is a tricky balancing act for them. Pray you have a good one.

Agreed. But these potential realities exist in any trial.

quote:

But this is only a symptom of what seems to be going on in this country. Yes it is drummed into your head that you are innocent until proven guilty, but you would be surprised at how many people seeing you have been arrested won't hire you, won't date you, even if you are not convicted. Employment forms often ask if you have been arrested or charged with a crime, some will ask if you were convicted, but not all. Arrests even without a conviction are still public record and not expunged unless specifically so ordered. There are innocent people sitting on death row and in jail..the Innocence Project has proven that time and again. DNA and forensics have become so much a part of the public's awareness that they think it is infallible and juries pretty much demand it these days even if they don't understand it. It is a common complaint of Prosecutors now. In the case that touched my life..the person lived in my home along with my family. His DNA and fingerprints were on everything in the house, just like everyone else..and none of it could have proven that he was the one who did it or that any of the rest of us didn't. One reason he got away with it. Forensics t'aint everything.

I agree with every word of this, but again, this is the case for anyone going to trial. Yes, innocent people are behind bars, and guilty people roam the streets. The system is far from perfect. And there is a lot of incompetence and corruption throughout. If I were going to trial myself and the case had been highly publicized, I would actually be more concerned with the competence of my attorney and the judge, than whether the jury had been barraged with misinformation on the news.

quote:

Privy to public records of arrest is one thing. Kept under Media and Protestor seige is another. Yell something long enough a lot of people will begin to believe it.

I don't deny that it must suck for the family etc. I certainly wouldn't want to be in those shoes. But what's the answer? Put a shelter over some defendants and not others? How do we decide who gets privacy and who doesn't?

_____________________________

marie.

I give good agita.

(in reply to BlackPhx)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: Guilty until Proven Innocent - 9/16/2008 5:01:34 AM

BlackPhx

Posts: 3432
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline

Actually that rapist gets more privacy as they are allowed to cover their head when being moved or arrested. A suspects picture may be shown but again it is of a suspect, someone wanted for a crime has already been charged. Joe Blow is not likely to get hourly updates on the Media Websites, reports of every person he talks to, every phone call is unlikely to be released to the Media nor are his interviews with the police subject to that. Sadly enough outside of 2 professional organizations searching for the missing UM, I have not seen much in the way of please help us find her by the Media for the past month and a half or calls for volunteers to do so. In the case of 3 missing adults in the past 4 years...the coverage of please help us find, look for etc..was constant.

As for anyone harming her or her family, so far nothing has happened to those who have. The woman who attacked the grandmother is under investigation by DCF for the injury to the son whose arm was slammed in the door during her altercation with the grandmother. But there is no charge against her for the attempted assault. The harassment by protesters has been constant and has included verbal and physical and has included trespass to steal no trespassing signs off the lawn, pounding on the doors, trash and signs tossed etc. The police do nothing. Currently they and their neighbors who have had to put up with this are trying to get an injunction against the protesters requiring them to hold their protest 2 blocks away at a vacant lot, so that the families in the area including the Anthony's can sleep, eat and live without the constant harassment.

Even the Media is now calling it a Circus...but then again they started it.

poenkitten

(in reply to marieToo)

Profile

Post #: 10