AL AL - Brittney Wood, 19, Mobile, 31 May 2012 - # 3

[StacyMarie83]

In the case of children, I know it is difficult to hold back our anger and frustration toward those who it is alleged to have committed these act(s) but let me remind everyone that our Founding Fathers designed a system that allows for a person to be deemed innocent until it is proved that they are guilty. We can get so caught up in the details of this bizzare case and how it may relate to BW's disappearance but one truth remains, these are innocent men, until convicted, that have allegedly committed a crime. My hope is that, somehow, this may lead to BW being found and brought home, safely.

And that is the biggest flaw in our criminal justice system and one of the reasons the court system keeps changing. It has never stayed the same and for good reason. We took many of our laws from other systems, but yet our country treats victims as criminals by calling them "alleged victims" in ANY sex abuse case. Rape victims are deemed as the bad guy until a guilty verdict comes through (and past a guilty verdict as well) which is complete b.s. Children are treated as if they are "crying wolf" until a court deems the perp guilty. This isn't right and I (f*&k the law) will NEVER consider a sexual abuser innocent until proven guilty. They are guilty until proven innocent in my book ALWAYS! Victims First!

It is my biggest pet peeve of the judicial system. I understand we don't shoot a person for an allegation, but something's gotta give, b/c I can guarantee you that the family of the true victim doesn't give 2 cents about the law and it is tortuous to be called an "alleged victim." This "alleged molester" is a bunch of b.s.

 

[leighmarker]

http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq1.htm


fyi
A grand jury is a group of people that are selected and sworn in by a court, just like jurors that are chosen to serve on a trial jury (such as the jury in the O.J. Simpson criminal case or in the Louise Woodward ("au pair") murder case). In fact, the grand jurors are usually chosen from the same pool of people that provide trial jurors: A judge selects and swears in a grand jury, just like judges select and swear in trial juries. But grand juries differ from trial juries in several ways.

For one thing, grand juries may sit for longer. In the federal system, a grand jury can sit for up to 36 months, although it doesn't have to sit that long. The court that swears in a new grand jury can extend its term in 6-month increments, for a total of 36 months, but a federal grand jury may only sit for 18 months or so. State grand juries sit for varying terms: Depending on the state, a particular grand jury may sit for a month, six months, or even a year.

Unlike trial jurors, though, grand jurors don't convene every day. By the summer of 1998, for example, the D.C. grand jury that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was using to investigate the alleged relationship between President Clinton and former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was sitting two days a week. And even that is unusual; many federal grand juries sit only one day a week, and some may only sit twice a month. State practice varies, but a state grand jury might sit twice a month, or even only once a month. Sometimes, the grand jury doesn't convene unless a prosecutor asks it to, because the prosecutor has cases he or she wants the grand jury to hear.

Unlike trial juries, grand juries don't decide if someone is guilty of criminal charges that have been brought against them. Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if someone SHOULD be charged with a crime. In the O.J. Simpson case, the prosecutors were going to ask a grand jury to charge Simpson with murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but the defense attorneys persuaded the court that the grand jurors had heard too much about the case to be able to make an impartial decision. That is, the defense attorneys filed a motion saying the grand jurors were too prejudiced by what they had seen on television and read in the papers to be able to review the evidence against Mr. Simpson impartially, the way a trial juror should. The judge agreed with the defense attorneys, which is very unusual. Normally, defense attorneys fail when they try to claim that a grand jury is biased. Courts reject these claims on the theory that all the grand jury does is bring charges, so even if a grand jury is biased, the person they charge can still prove their innocence at trial. But a California judge bought the defense's argument in the case of O.J. Simpson (perhaps because of the extraordinary publicity surrounding Mr. Simpson) and, instead of trying to start over with a new grand jury, the prosecutors used another method to charge Simpson with the murders.

 

[MotherOcean]

I don't know when we will find anything out about these cases. The judge(s) do not have to release anything to the public. They could end up being completely closed to the public. However, if we find out that they go to the Grand Jury, then I will conclude that Brittney is in some type of protective custody. That is the only thing that makes sense to me about her case. Given the fact that LE isn't looking for Brittney (that we know of, so that's all I have to go on), that they very quickly dismissed (publically through the media) any "foul play" in her disappearance, that the local media isn't already covering these hearings, that LE believe there is an iceberg here in regards to the arrests of the uncles, and that Brittney's daughter is under the legal custody of her father... well, I believe she's being protected for some reason. She could be a witness to something or a victim. But, I really am beginning to think that is what is going on here.

MOO.

 

[Inthedetails04]

And that is the biggest flaw in our criminal justice system and one of the reasons the court system keeps changing. It has never stayed the same and for good reason. We took many of our laws from other systems, but yet our country treats victims as criminals by calling them "alleged victims" in ANY sex abuse case. Rape victims are deemed as the bad guy until a guilty verdict comes through (and past a guilty verdict as well) which is complete b.s. Children are treated as if they are "crying wolf" until a court deems the perp guilty. This isn't right and I (f*&k the law) will NEVER consider a sexual abuser innocent until proven guilty. They are guilty until proven innocent in my book ALWAYS! Victims First!

It is my biggest pet peeve of the judicial system. I understand we don't shoot a person for an allegation, but something's gotta give, b/c I can guarantee you that the family of the true victim doesn't give 2 cents about the law and it is tortuous to be called an "alleged victim." This "alleged molester" is a bunch of b.s.

The problem is that if we deem a person guilty in one case then we must in all cases and if we do this then the very foundation of our system is compromised and we might as well throw the Constitution away. I never said that we are to treat victims as anything other than victims.

Have we learned nothing from the Duke Lacrosse case? The public found these young men guilty before they ever went to trial but because everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty the truth came out and they were found innocent of the crimes they had allegedly committed.

I am not saying that we treat the victim as a liar and you are certainly entitled to your belief, another Constitutional right that goes away once we undermine the judicial laws, but I choose to treat the victim as a victim, who deserves support & respect, and the perp(s) as allegedly committing this crime until a jury of their peers or a judge deems otherwise based on the evidence provided as designed by our Founding Fathers.

I can support the victim and withhold my judgement, until convicted, against these men at the same time. All I am saying by doing such is that I am not in the position of judge or jury for these men and I am not privy to all the evidence for or against. If I was then, perhaps, I would have a different view of them. The victim is still the victim and I support them 100% and always will.

 

[Inthedetails04]

Please keep this family in mind this weekend as another fundraiser is being done to raise reward money. If you are local or in-town then think about joining us in Irvington for the fundraiser. The bucket drive will take place at Mobile Speedway, off Highway 90, tomorrow evening. Flyers will be put up and handed out too.

Twenty color flyers were passed out to local business' on Theodore-Dawes Rd in Mobile near Tillman's Corner. Ran accross one flyer that, according to the owner of the business, was one of the first given out after BW disappeared. It was a b&w flyer so they were given a color flyer with updated info and numbers.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8140989&postcount=984

 

[JustyThoughts]

I don't know when we will find anything out about these cases. The judge(s) do not have to release anything to the public. They could end up being completely closed to the public. However, if we find out that they go to the Grand Jury, then I will conclude that Brittney is in some type of protective custody. That is the only thing that makes sense to me about her case. Given the fact that LE isn't looking for Brittney (that we know of, so that's all I have to go on), that they very quickly dismissed (publically through the media) any "foul play" in her disappearance, that the local media isn't already covering these hearings, that LE believe there is an iceberg here in regards to the arrests of the uncles, and that Brittney's daughter is under the legal custody of her father... well, I believe she's being protected for some reason. She could be a witness to something or a victim. But, I really am beginning to think that is what is going on here.

MOO.

BBM, while you very well may be right on this belief - I just do not think that LE would leave things dangling to the point where there is belief that she may be deceased for so many. MOO Hopefully time will bring truth.

 

[Gemmas]

I am so sad Brittney's still missing - keep checking in with hope. Still no news from court yesterday?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

The problem is that if we deem a person guilty in one case then we must in all cases and if we do this then the very foundation of our system is compromised and we might as well throw the Constitution away. I never said that we are to treat victims as anything other than victims.

Have we learned nothing from the Duke Lacrosse case? The public found these young men guilty before they ever went to trial but because everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty the truth came out and they were found innocent of the crimes they had allegedly committed.

I am not saying that we treat the victim as a liar and you are certainly entitled to your belief, another Constitutional right that goes away once we undermine the judicial laws, but I choose to treat the victim as a victim, who deserves support & respect, and the perp(s) as allegedly committing this crime until a jury of their peers or a judge deems otherwise based on the evidence provided as designed by our Founding Fathers.

I can support the victim and withhold my judgement, until convicted, against these men at the same time. All I am saying by doing such is that I am not in the position of judge or jury for these men and I am not privy to all the evidence for or against. If I was then, perhaps, I would have a different view of them. The victim is still the victim and I support them 100% and always will.

If you ever read comments on other websites on a story about a woman who was raped, most comments automatically assume that she's lying, or that it was consensual, and then she decided to cry "rape" afterwards. We don't have a problem in this country with rapists getting publicly vilified; It's usually the victim who is made out to be the villain. Many people, I wonder even say most of this country, will believe the rapist's word over the victim's, and many people think that rape is just "rough sex". This is all part of rape culture.

(On the other hand, if someone is about to go on trial for murder, the majority of people will believe he or she is guilty. With rape, it': "The victim is lying! Or...Well if she's not, what did she do to deserve it?")

 

[Inthedetails04]

LE is not hiding BW. I would almost be willing to stake my life on that. The family would love to know that she was. If BW is in hiding then it is of her own accord (I don't believe that she is). My hope is that BW is alive and I will continue to hope in that until evidence proves otherwise. I know that, with each passing day, hope sinks deeper and deeper into the dark realization that she may not be found alive but for the sake of this family and those still clinging to hope and searching countless hours, let's bind our hope with theirs and let's encourage and edify. Let's keep the flame lit until she is brought home or until the truth is known and justice is done.

Reminded of this latnight as I was lying in bed:
We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power... the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. - Patrick Henry
Be Vigilant, Be Active, Be Brave!!

 

[Inthedetails04]

If you ever read comments on other websites on a story about a woman who was raped, most comments automatically assume that she's lying, or that it was consensual, and then she decided to cry "rape" afterwards. We don't have a problem in this country with rapists getting publicly vilified; It's usually the victim who is made out to be the villain. Many people, I wonder even say most of this country, will believe the rapist's word over the victim's, and many people think that rape is just "rough sex". This is all part of rape culture.

(On the other hand, if someone is about to go on trial for murder, the majority of people will believe he or she is guilty. With rape, it': "The victim is lying! Or...Well if she's not, what did she do to deserve it?")

I have noticed some of those comments before and have even called some out for making such comments. There is no reason to automatically assume the victim is lying any more than there is just cause to assume the guilt of the accused. Too many people have a warped sense of freedom today. They believe that they can say anything they wish without regard for the ones they are speaking about (especially online). Truly their words are protected under the Constitution. The Constitution does not rule whether something is said in good taste or is disrespectful. It is the job of the individual to prosecute his own tongue. The problem is that there is no moral compass by which to prosecute. With that removed, the line between defendant and plaintiff, accused and accuser, is muddled and judgement, whether directed at the accused or the victim, is passed way before evidence can decide one way or the other.

 

[KeyboardCat]

Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship."

Fifth amendment: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Sixth amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

What this means very basically, is two things; that you can't jump from arrest to penalty phase, gotta have that trial or due process, and you don't have to prove yourself innocent. The government has to prove you guilty.

The problem is that if we deem a person guilty in one case then we must in all cases and if we do this then the very foundation of our system is compromised and we might as well throw the Constitution away. I never said that we are to treat victims as anything other than victims.

Neither of these two uncles have entered the penalty phase yet. Their due process has not been overlooked. When and if they come to trial, the court needs to be impartial.
Neither of these rights have at least yet, been violated. The constitution is in no danger here.

In the case of children, I know it is difficult to hold back our anger and frustration toward those who it is alleged to have committed these act(s) but let me remind everyone that our Founding Fathers designed a system that allows for a person to be deemed innocent until it is proved that they are guilty. We can get so caught up in the details of this bizzare case and how it may relate to BW's disappearance but one truth remains, these are innocent men, until convicted, that have allegedly committed a crime. My hope is that, somehow, this may lead to BW being found and brought home, safely.

Again, these uncles' rights have not been violated. Free press dictates the flow of public information. Where was the presumption of innocene violated? In the press that printed the story, or the people who make assumptions? Neither.

I'm sure the concern would be the stigma that may be attached to these two men could follow them the rest of their lives in the court of public opinion. While such a thing certainly deserving if guilty, its absolutely a tragedy if they are not. And its the price paid for being able to live in a free thinking and free press society. Only those falsely accused will ever pay that price.

Their rights have not been violated (unless someone would suggest that entire jury pools are tainted, but then two words: Casey Anthony.) People aren't just gossiping for entertainment here. The only reason the charges against these two uncles were ever mentioned was because of their relation to a suicide and a subsequently missing girl. The mind doesn't have to stretch very far to imagine a connection there. Press can report whatever, I can read whatever, and I can conclude whatever I wish. I can share my conclusion publically, all without violating any moral, ethical or legal standards.

 

[Inthedetails04]

Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship."

Respectfully snipped...

My comments were in direct response to a previous post in which the poster called the very thing that you quoted "a flaw in a our judicial system." I merely wanted the point out the consequences of changing that law and its domino affect. As far as what someone says here or on any website or forum, the administrators of said website can determine what crosses the line or not. My point was that, prior to the evidence being presented, saying a person is guilty because they have been accused of a crime is just as faulty as one accusing a victim of a crime as a being a liar. We are free to say either. I was speaking to the affect changing the law would have on all freedoms we currently enjoy. Very good read and all that you have said is true and agreed with.

 

[Inthedetails04]

The only reason the charges against these two uncles were ever mentioned was because of their relation to a suicide and a subsequently missing girl. The mind doesn't have to stretch very far to imagine a connection there.

Snipped Quote...

I agree and that is why I said that I hoped that these trials will bring out the truth or lead to BW coming home. My personal opinion is that they are connected and I too have been frustrated by LE's immediate dismissal that they are connected in any way.

 

[Analyze This]

Snipped Quote...

I agree and that is why I said that I hoped that these trials will bring out the truth or lead to BW coming home. My personal opinion is that they are connected and I too have been frustrated by LE's immediate dismissal that they are connected in any way.

I am still on the fence about BW's disappearance being directly connected to the sex abuse cases. My feeling is that if there was a connection, law enforcement would be more aggressively investigating her disappearance. The harsh reality is that convicting and sentencing DK and RSW for the alleged sex crimes isn't going to carry a very heavy jail sentence. If law enforcement could tie either one of them to BW's disappearance with homicide charges, they would be all over that because it would carry a much heavier penalty and keep a sex offender off the street. Based on what the family has communicated in regard to law enforcement's lack of urgency about BW's disappearance, I just can't make the connection fit. Just my opinion.

As always, I hope that today is the day that Brittney comes home.

 

[LivingJuicy]

Thinking of Brittney this morning. Getting ready to head out for the day and feeling horrible that little things like breakfast and errands are things I want her to be doing too! Hope we hear something soon!

 

[Patiod]

The problem is that if we deem a person guilty in one case then we must in all cases and if we do this then the very foundation of our system is compromised and we might as well throw the Constitution away. I never said that we are to treat victims as anything other than victims.

Have we learned nothing from the Duke Lacrosse case? The public found these young men guilty before they ever went to trial but because everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty the truth came out and they were found innocent of the crimes they had allegedly committed.

I am not saying that we treat the victim as a liar and you are certainly entitled to your belief, another Constitutional right that goes away once we undermine the judicial laws, but I choose to treat the victim as a victim, who deserves support & respect, and the perp(s) as allegedly committing this crime until a jury of their peers or a judge deems otherwise based on the evidence provided as designed by our Founding Fathers.

I would also refer the original poster who doesn't think alleged child molesters should be treated as "innocent until proven guilty" to the McMann Preschool debacle.

 

[ChattyWoman]

Interesting post on CW's FB. Something about needing $1200 to go '"get her son".
Wonder what's up with that?

 

[Jules71]

Interesting post on CW's FB. Something about needing $1200 to go '"get her son".
Wonder what's up with that?

I don't know but to have a missing daughter that you are having bucket drives and trying to raise money to help find her - and then to be asking friends on FB for $1200 to get her son might make people hesitant to donate money to find Brittney.

 

[KateB]

Perhaps check Baldwin County Jail current inmates.
:what:

 

[Jules71]

You are right Kate! I think... at least same last name:

13A-6-62 CASE0001 (BALDWIN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE) RAPE SECOND DEGREE S F $10000.00
13A-13-3 CASE0002 (BALDWIN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE) INCEST F $5000.00
13A-6-64 CASE0003 (BALDWIN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE) SODOMY SECOND DEGREE S F $10000.00

http://bcsonline.co.baldwin.al.us/smartweb/jail.aspx

ETA: Yep! DW - which matches CW's son on FB