Team JonBenet

[Karole28]

Is this the runaway bride's fiance?

Yes ma'am. The whole ordeal was mortifying for both families but nobody we know ever thought he had anything to do with her disappearence.

 

[Wudge]

Is this the runaway bride's fiance?

Yes, her fiance.

 

[Karole28]

In America, a presumption of innocence exists and our standard for guilt is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

And in America the 'presumption of innocence' is a legal term and has nothing at all to do with opining on the guilt or innocence by a free nation.

OJ was found innocent (legally) I believe he killed his wife.
Blake was found innocent (legally) I believe he killed his wife.

If you're against discussing an opinion without benefit of a trial, why are you on a discussion board?

 

[Wudge]

Yes ma'am. The whole ordeal was mortifying for both families but nobody we know ever thought he had anything to do with her disappearence.

The afternoon before Jennifer Wilbanks came clean, Nancy Grace said: Jennifer did not runaway. (snicker)

Clearly, the people you reference were not, similarly, delusional.

 

[twinkiesmom]

<< I don't think it was a parent because I simply don't think the Ramseys were violent towards their children.>>

Anyone can lose their temper given sufficient provocation...a perfect storm of circumstances.

<<All I have read indicates that they were quite the opposite - lenient even. That is something I can identify with. I am pretty laid back and no matter what my children did, I never found myself in a position where I would have harmed them and I cannot imagine being there. >>

If this was a parental homicide, it wasn't discipline gone bad. It doesn't matter whether their parenting style was authoritarian or permissive.

<<Most parents who harm their children have other stuff going on - alchohol, drugs, money problems. >>

Most of the population isn't affluent. But affluent people can still kill their kids. And the particular stressors in this family were the death of a child (Beth) and terminal cancer.

<<I think the Ramseys had too many friends, a close knit family, high profile social life for them to get strung up about a tantrum or a wet bed. >>

When is a rage-based killing ever have a flashpoint based in logic?

An incest family looks like everyone else just like a pedophile can not be picked out of a crowd based on cloven hooves and a pointy tail.

What do you really know about the inner workings of a family unless you're part of it? Some people do a better job of keeping up appearances than others. Money helps in that regard.

Neutrality is I don't know who did it and anyone is still possible. You don't believe the Ramsey's did it because you identify with them and it makes you uncomfortable to think someone like yourself could be capable of such a thing.

 

[Karole28]

The afternoon before Jennifer Wilbanks came clean, Nancy Grace said: Jennifer did not runaway. (snicker)

Clearly, the people you reference were not, similarly, delusional.

Well, clearly Nancy Grace was wrong. Nancy Grace is no John Hale and Mason is no Giles Corey. She's allowed an opinion (however wrong) and if her accused is so inclined, they can sue in a court of law. This is how these things work. Having an opinion isn't restricted to post trial conversation.

 

[Wudge]

And in America the 'presumption of innocence' is a legal term and has nothing at all to do with opining on the guilt or innocence by a free nation.

OJ was found innocent (legally) I believe he killed his wife.
Blake was found innocent (legally) I believe he killed his wife.

If you're against discussing an opinion without benefit of a trial, why are you on a discussion board?

You are absolutely correct, it has become a national pastime to opine on high-profile cases. And more often than not, some poor soul or souls, like the Ramseys, who deserve to be graced with the presumption of innocence, fall victim to our crimetainment industry villifying them ad infinitum, while poisoning potential jury pools along the way.

I started discussing and assessing case evidence just before my ninth birthday. My initial case was the Dr. Sam Sheppard case and trial.

I have long thought that we should prevent the media from covering cases/trials until after a verdict is rendered. If I could, I would make that change. Further, I would establish a professional juror association, and let defendants select from that pool or from a public pool.

 

[Jayelles]

And in America the 'presumption of innocence' is a legal term and has nothing at all to do with opining on the guilt or innocence by a free nation.

OJ was found innocent (legally) I believe he killed his wife.
Blake was found innocent (legally) I believe he killed his wife.

If you're against discussing an opinion without benefit of a trial, why are you on a discussion board?

Unlike in the UK where we are prohibited from speculating about someone's guilt in the media. As soon as a person is charged for a crime, the media are not allowed to report about the case until after the trial.

This Law is called sub-judice

 

[Karole28]

I have long thought that we should prevent the media from covering cases/trials until after a verdict is rendered. If I could, I would make that change. Further, I would establish a professional juror association, and let defendants select from that pool or from a public pool.

Then I sincerely hope you have no influence whatsoever to see this dream realized.

There are few other people in this world who have aspirations to control the media and the minds of the people who have access to it. One of those people was named Hitler, Stalin was another.

There are men and women who have died for your right to speak right here and right now. And, I cannot tell you how angry I am right now at the thought that you could even pretend to believe in such a thing. The US Constitution was not conceived as a fluke.

We have due process in this country, that is true. But, it cuts both ways, if you feel you are being unduly maligned or defamed, you can seek your own retribution via the courts.

 

[luvbeaches]

A large majority of those "I don't understand why they acted that way" threads are ones in which the person being commented on turns out to be GUILTY.

Exactly. I'm with Steve Thomas on this...Pasty is good for it. And I do believe that Bruke knows exactly what happened that night (or heard a lot), and one of these days, he's going to spill the beans.

 

[luvbeaches]

Then I sincerely hope you have no influence whatsoever to see this dream realized.

There are few other people in this world who have aspirations to control the media and the minds of the people who have access to it. One of those people was named Hitler, Stalin was another.

There are men and women who have died for your right to speak right here and right now. And, I cannot tell you how angry I am right now at the thought that you could even pretend to believe in such a thing. The US Constitution was not conceived as a fluke.

We have due process in this country, that is true. But, it cuts both ways, if you feel you are being unduly maligned or defamed, you can seek your own retribution via the courts.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Very well said.

I can't believe that anyone would want to see the wrong person convicted of a crime. But there are posters that no matter what the evidence is they alway seem to be able to explain away everything. You have to wonder how they would feel if it were their loved one who had been murdered. Maybe they'd sing a different song? And it's very difficult to take any of these posters seriously. Nothing seems amiss to them.

And they will come up with these far-fetched ideas on how to fix the system.

 

[Jayelles]

Then I sincerely hope you have no influence whatsoever to see this dream realized.

There are few other people in this world who have aspirations to control the media and the minds of the people who have access to it. One of those people was named Hitler, Stalin was another.

There are men and women who have died for your right to speak right here and right now. And, I cannot tell you how angry I am right now at the thought that you could even pretend to believe in such a thing. The US Constitution was not conceived as a fluke.

We have due process in this country, that is true. But, it cuts both ways, if you feel you are being unduly maligned or defamed, you can seek your own retribution via the courts.

The reason that the media are prevented from discussing caes till after the trial here is to ensure that any trial is fair and that the jury are not unduly influenced by the media.

If a person is found guilty, the media are then at liberty to print everything they have found out.

There are heavy penalties for flouting sub judice laws here. It rarely happens. Crime is reported - unnamed person "helping police with enquiries" then an arrest is made, person is named (that is all) - news blackout until trial.

I think freedom of speech should not give anyone the right to hurt others.

 

[wenchie]

You missed the point, entirely.

The cases I cited are NOT examples of "guilty" people. In America, a presumption of innocence exists and our standard for guilt is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

Unless an affirmative defense is put forth at a trial, people are not required to prove their innocence. However, from your case notations, you obviously think that people should or are required to exonerate themselves.

It is of little wonderment that we would disagree on the JonBenet case or on any of the cases I cited. As you said, we are from different worlds, indeed.

I didn't miss the point at all.

You said that "people" judge "people" by their attitudes, statements, demeanor, and actions after a crime.

I said that in the majority of cases, those "people" are correct, and that the hinky-acting person is USUALLY (not ALWAYS) guilty.

People ARE required to exonerate themselves at trial: in SPITE of the "presumption of innocence", we ALSO have many laws that prevent arrest and trial WITHOUT SOME EVIDENCE INDICATING GUILT.

As for the public's opinion - we are in no way obliged to give the person the "presumption of innocence" since we have NO power to arrest or try them.

What country do you live in? I live in America.

 

[Wudge]

Then I sincerely hope you have no influence whatsoever to see this dream realized.

There are few other people in this world who have aspirations to control the media and the minds of the people who have access to it. One of those people was named Hitler, Stalin was another.

There are men and women who have died for your right to speak right here and right now. And, I cannot tell you how angry I am right now at the thought that you could even pretend to believe in such a thing. The US Constitution was not conceived as a fluke.

We have due process in this country, that is true. But, it cuts both ways, if you feel you are being unduly maligned or defamed, you can seek your own retribution via the courts.

Do not pretend to know or understand our Constitution, few people do. And you would not want to try and take me on there.

As for due process, our crimetainment media is anything but objective, and it certainly does not enhance due process. Other than entertainment value, nothing would be lost by restricting the media's right to cover a case/trial until after a verdict was rendered. In my mind, a defendant's Constitutional right to an impartial jury trumps the public's wish to be entertained.

Our media simply gives the public what it wants, someone to scorn, demonize or much worse. Court TV -- our all guilty, all the time, channel -- knows that "guilty" sells, "not guilty" causes ratings to go down. Fox, CNN, etc., all know this to be true, too.

A poisoned jury pool is the reason Dr. Sheppard was granted a second trial. In high-profile cases, the web simply provides for a broader and faster poisoning to occur, and our crimetainment denizens push along this curve as well. On balance, the web does not facilitate justice in high-profile cases such as this one; silence would be a much better facilitator.

 

[Karole28]

I think freedom of speech should not give anyone the right to hurt others.

I'm sorry Jayelles, I admire your intelligence and your thoughtful posts but we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm a Libertarian who believes that you have every right to say what's on your mind whether or not it hurts anyone else. You also have the right to be sued for slander and to have your nose broken by someone who may disagree with your obnoxious point of view. And, due to the possibility of these two different (and many other) outcomes, most people have the ability to censure themselves without having legislation tell them how to behave.
For those who don't have that ability, they'll get it eventually. (may depend on the size of their wallet or their tolerance for pain)

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

People ARE required to exonerate themselves at trial:

SNIP

We agreed that we are from different worlds.

I live in America, and, until now, I truly did not realize how poor your understanding is of our system of jurisprudence.

Believe as you wish. I shall ring your bell no further.

 

[Brefie]

Do not pretend to know or understand our Constitution, few people do. And you would not want to try and take me on there.

Why? Are you one of the few?

 

[Karole28]

Do not pretend to know or understand our Constitution, few people do. And you would not want to try and take me on there..

Bwahahaha! Bring it. You have no idea who you're talking to.

As for due process, our crimetainment media is anything but objective, and certainly does not enhance due process. Other than entertainment value, nothing would be lost by restricting the media's right to cover a case/trial until after a verdict was rendered. In my mind, a defendant's Constitutional right to an impartial jury trumps the public wish to be entertained.

Crimetainment (media) has not one thing to do with due process. And, shouldn't. Restricting media is covered by a little thing called the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. dear God, you cannot begin to understand what you're suggesting.

Our media simply gives the public what it wants, someone to scorn, demonize or much worse. Court TV -- our all guilty, all the time, channel -- knows that "guilty" sells, "not guilty" causes ratings to go down. Fox, CNN, etc., all know this to be true, too.

How hypocritical of you to be taking part (and adding to) the very thing you're denigrating. People like YOU, dear friend are partaking of what is offered to you by these outlets. People like YOU (and myself) are benefiting from every crumb which has been leaked to you by these same outlets. What brings YOU here, gentle reader?

A poisoned jury pool is the reason Dr. Sheppard was granted a second trial. In high-profile cases, the web simply provides for a broader and faster poisoning to occur, and our crimetainment denizens push along this curve as well. On balance, the web does not facilitate justice in high-profile cases such as this one; silence would be a much better facilitator.

I don't give a damn about Dr. Sheppard, have not a whit of interest in him or his case. However, this is why we allow for a change of venue and a right for both sides in a case (defense and prosecutorial) to have the ability to pick jurists. If Sam Shepard's attorney was inept, he could've asked for a retrial based on this alone.

I've been an impartial jurist many times for many different trials and just because you don't have the intelligence to parse out what is truth and what is not, from your suckling at the press's teat, doesn't mean the rest of us are as stupid.

You're suggesting a limitation on FREE PRESS, closed trials and handpicked jurors. Amazing.

 

[Wudge]

Bwahahaha! Bring it. You have no idea who you're talking to.



Crimetainment (media) has not one thing to do with due process. And, shouldn't. Restricting media is covered by a little thing called the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. dear God, you cannot begin to understand what you're suggesting.



How hypocritical of you to be taking part (and adding to) the very thing you're denigrating. People like YOU, dear friend are partaking of what is offered to you by these outlets. People like YOU (and myself) are benefiting from every crumb which has been leaked to you by these same outlets. What brings YOU here, gentle reader?



I don't give a damn about Dr. Sheppard, have not a whit of interest in him or his case. However, this is why we allow for a change of venue and a right for both sides in a case (defense and prosecutorial) to have the ability to pick jurists. If Sam Shepard's attorney was inept, he could've asked for a retrial based on this alone.

I've been an impartial jurist many times for many different trials and just because you don't have the intelligence to parse out what is truth and what is not, from your suckling at the press's teat, doesn't mean the rest of us are as stupid.

You're suggesting a limitation on FREE PRESS, closed trials and handpicked jurors. Amazing.

You got one thing right; as I described previously, I certainly would limit the media (press, et al).

Now, this is likely to stun you, but the Sheppard case and trial is considered to be a landmark case. Moreover, your saying that:"Crimetainment (media) has not one thing to do with due process", is like saying that the immense and constant biased coverage of the Sheppard case by Cleveland's newspapers did not influence the Supreme Court's decision that that venue had been poisoned. (get a grip)

As for William Corrigan, Sheppard's attorney in his first trial, he presented exonerating evidence to the jury. But it was ignored.

Whether the jury's wrongfully decided verdict was from sheer ignorance or from their holding to a preconceived position of guilt, they had been given exonerating evidence. They simply blew the verdict.

Further still, as for public jurors, as you have been, before any such potential juror could enter the voir dire pricess, I would require them to pass an applied logic test with a score of 80% or better. This is particularly important, because most evidence is usually circumstantial. Hence, a juror's ability to determine if an inferential conclusion is valid and/or true, etc., is highly important.

However, when given an applied logic test wherein each question offers five multiple choice answers, the public scores in the range of 30%. If I were a defendant, -- or, I suspect even you -- a person with a logic score of 30% is hardly someone I would want to be assessing and grading trial evidence.

The bottom line is that, if I could, I would make changes to our jurisprudence process; i.e., limit the media and also offer the defendant a professional juror option. Consider it a given.

 

[Brefie]

Consider it a given.

Consider it a fantasy.