Team JonBenet

[BBB167893]

Wudge, I don't think anyone here is trying to suggest that the media is blameless.

"it makes you uncomfortable to think someone like yourself could be capable of such a thing."

Sure does me! It took me a long time to face that harsh reality. There, but for the grace of the gods, go I.

 

[Karole28]

Now, this is likely to stun you, but the Sheppard case and trial is considered to be a landmark case.

The only thing stunning about this is your refusal to understand that I don't give a damn about the Shepard case.

Having said that, and admitted to knowing nothing about it (which is why I don't post in a Shepard forum) I'm assuming you disagreed with the verdict and now want to trash the Bill of Rights to vent?

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.

LOL get over yourself already. I know dictators and you sir, are no dictator.
Are you doing a bad impression of Frazier?

Again, people have a right to a jury of their peers. You are suggesting that it'd be better to deny defendants a fair trial in lieu of your professional jury? Riiiiight. That'll fly. You're against biasing a jury via the media but you're suggesting a handpicked (most likely white, highly educated male right?) sit in judgement on a public housing dweller who got caught unknowingly purchasing a stolen stereo?

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 wanting assessing and grading trial evidence.

Again, get out of your mother's basement, get your own place and start living in the real world.

Slavery is dead. Get over it. Women can vote. Get over it. Free speech (for the most part) is alive and well and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. Except for live in your "if I were King" world.

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.

I will sleep better tonight, safe in the knowlege that you're as incapable of enacting any change as I'd previously guessed. <whew>

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, I don't think anyone here is trying to suggest that the media is blameless.

"it makes you uncomfortable to think someone like yourself could be capable of such a thing."

Sure does me! It took me a long time to face that harsh reality. There, but for the grace of the gods, go I.

The Constitutional trade off is simply one of a defendant's right to a fair trial, which obviously includes an impartial jury, versus the free press argument.

 

[Wudge]

The only thing stunning about this is your refusal to understand that I don't give a damn about the Shepard case.

Having said that, and admitted to knowing nothing about it (which is why I don't post in a Shepard forum) I'm assuming you disagreed with the verdict and now want to trash the Bill of Rights to vent?



LOL get over yourself already. I know dictators and you sir, are no dictator.
Are you doing a bad impression of Frazier?

Again, people have a right to a jury of their peers. You are suggesting that it'd be better to deny defendants a fair trial in lieu of your professional jury? Riiiiight. That'll fly. You're against biasing a jury via the media but you're suggesting a handpicked (most likely white, highly educated male right?) sit in judgement on a public housing dweller who got caught unknowingly purchasing a stolen stereo?




Again, get out of your mother's basement, get your own place and start living in the real world.

Slavery is dead. Get over it. Women can vote. Get over it. Free speech (for the most part) is alive and well and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. Except for live in your "if I were King" world.



I will sleep better tonight, safe in the knowlege that you're as incapable of enacting any change as I'd previously guessed. <whew>

To say the least, your post rambles.

Nevertheless, I will note that, currently, "free speech" has limits as does a "free press" (thus, mythology) .

 

[Karole28]

Nevertheless, I will note that, currently, "free speech" has limits as does a "free press" (thus, mythology) .

You are stating that you're influenced by what you're exposed to and are incapable of impartiality and unable to to weigh a case on it's merits.
I'm stating that not everyone has this problem and can parse information that's necessary and even leave out information they're instructed to ignore.

And the limitations on free speech are limited by libel and defamation laws. Again, you are free to speak and write what you will. You are also free to be sued and have a judge/jury determine your intent and therefore your guilt or innocence.

 

[Wudge]

You are stating that you're influenced by what you're exposed to and are incapable of impartiality and unable to to weigh a case on it's merits.
I'm stating that not everyone has this problem and can parse information that's necessary and even leave out information they're instructed to ignore.

And the limitations on free speech are limited by libel and defamation laws. Again, you are free to speak and write what you will. You are also free to be sued and have a judge/jury determine your intent and therefore your guilt or innocence.

Again, this is sure to stun you, but yelling "fire" (or similar) in a crowded theatre, will be looked upon as a criminal (not civil) act.

I shall take this no further.

 

[Karole28]

Again, this is sure to stun you, but yelling "fire" (or similar) in a crowded theatre, will be looked upon as a criminal (not civil) act.

I shall take this no further.

I note your concession. However, if there really is a fire, it's moot, eh?

Since the Brandenburg test has been pretty much unchallenged since 1969, I don't think you're apt to get anywhere with this.

 

[Toltec]

To say the least, your post rambles.

Nevertheless, I will note that, currently, "free speech" has limits as does a "free press" (thus, mythology) .

This is the United States of shut the hell up!

I have a right to arm bears!

 

[Karole28]

This is the United States of shut the hell up!

I have a right to arm bears!

LOL! I'm stealing this.

 

[Paradox]

The evidence is muddy - it neither incriminates nor clears anyone absolutely.

That is wrong. It incriminates Patsy and Patsy alone. The BPD wanted an arrest. The DA didn't. The BPD had the goods, the DA threw them away.

Incidentally, I also think Tom Bennett is neutral.

You don't know Bennet. He is NOT NEUTRAL!

The Ramseys have their friends and their supporters - and I'm glad they do because in the eyes of the Law, they are innocent people.

You are not quoting the Law (as you capitalize it) correctly. A suspect is PRESUMED innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. They aren't just innocent as you say.

Jeez, take a breath!

 

[Wudge]

This is the United States of shut the hell up!

I have a right to arm bears!

Fine by me. I'm not a liberal. ...lol

 

[dottierainbow]

You are not quoting the Law (as you capitalize it) correctly. A suspect is PRESUMED innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. They aren't just innocent as you say.

Jeez, take a breath![/QUOTE]

Did I miss something? When were the Ramsey's convicted of the murder of Jon Bonet?
Amy

 

[Brefie]

No, Dottie.....unfortunately.

 

[Goody]

Interestingly enough many, many cases where parents do kill their children, they do not have violent histories. Susan Smith didn't. Andrea Yates didn't. Nor did those who were proven to be psychotic recently in Texas, specifically Delaney. Deborah Green didn't. I don't believe Diane Downs did either. So the posts about the Ramseys not having a violent history with their children being offered as proof of innocence is quicksand logic. Obviously lack of a violent history means nothing in domestic violence cases.

Not saying they are guilty. Just that the lack of violent history proves nothing.

 

[capps]

True, just lack of violent history means nothing.

In the Ramsey case,they were not indicted because:

1 - no motive
2 - no prior negative history
3 - no hard evidence

 

[Goody]

True, just lack of violent history means nothing.

In the Ramsey case,they were not indicted because:

1 - no motive
2 - no prior negative history
3 - no hard evidence

No, they weren't indicted because the crime scene was never secured and what evidence was there was compromised. I am not saying they should have been indicted, only that the circumstantial evidence that might have worked against them was tainted by poor police response in the early hours.

The state doesn't have to prove motive, only that an individual committed the crime.

I don't know what you mean by negative history. I've never heard of anyone gettting convicted on that. That sounds more like an emotional response than a legal one.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

True, just lack of violent history means nothing.

In the Ramsey case,they were not indicted because:

1 - no motive
2 - no prior negative history
3 - no hard evidence

Usually, a guilty criminal had a motive at the time of the crime. Most often, a murderer has a prior negative history. A guilty suspect will frequenly have hard evidence linking them to the crime.

So these are good reasons why the R's weren't indicted. Seems the DA and the GJ did the right thing by not getting caught up in a mob/scandal mentality.

 

[Brefie]

Pretty sad considering that there is no hard evidence of an intruder. Not no hard evidence against a particular individual, no hard (or soft, for that matter) evidence that anyone else was in the home that night that was not invited.
The foreign DNA argument is WAAAAAAAY weaker than the signs that Patsy wrote the note.

Like Goody said, no one has to prove motive, and the no prior history thing is getting old and it's not even that trustworthy....Scott Peterson, anyone?

 

[narlacat]

True, just lack of violent history means nothing.

In the Ramsey case,they were not indicted because:

1 - no motive
2 - no prior negative history
3 - no hard evidence

I really don't think those three reasons are why the Ramsey's weren't indicted.

 

[Goody]

Usually, a guilty criminal had a motive at the time of the crime. Most often, a murderer has a prior negative history. A guilty suspect will frequenly have hard evidence linking them to the crime.

So these are good reasons why the R's weren't indicted. Seems the DA and the GJ did the right thing by not getting caught up in a mob/scandal mentality.

Murderers always have a motive, even if they are just reacting to some unexplainable impulse, but we don't always get to know what it was. Guilty defendants may or may not have hard evidence linking them to the murder. Most are convicted on circumstantial evidence though. As for the negative history, what does that even mean? That of they were drinkers or drug addicts they might be more prone to garroting their daughter? Sorry but I still contend that this case was lost by the Boulder PD's lack of crime scene control and JR's efficient situational control early on.