Bob Shell

Roger Hicks · Jul 14, 2006

raucousimages said:
Drugs kill. Don't even associate with pepole who use, they will take you down with them. .

That would remove quite a few of my friends, including those who are successful doctors and lawyers in their 50s. A slight overstatement, I'd suggest.

Cheers,

Roger

c6h6o3 · Jul 14, 2006

TheFlyingCamera said:
I'm thinking like Donbga. Roanoke is, in the end, a small town in a very provincial part of Virginia, where the nuances of the situation will be lost on most jurors. "Bondage Photos" and "guilty" will go together very well in their minds, regardless of the facts of the situation. I'm curious in an academic sense as to how the police are alleging that he had sex with her after she was dead... that part sounds a bit like scaremongering. If his attorney is good, he'll be able to get Bob off of everything but negligence charges. That a woman almost a third his age died in his house/studio while under the influence of drugs, and that he did not rush her to the hospital just looks REALLY bad.

I used to work on the contract to develop the Consolidated DNA Indexing System for the FBI. I was trained by the FBI in DNA forensics. I know that the technology exists which can prove the prosecution's case if relevant evidence was gathered in a timely manner.

However, the analysis is expensive and gulps huge amounts of lab time. If the Commonwealth felt it were throwing good money after bad to pursue the more unsavory charges against Bob, I doubt it would do so. In other words, they probably have some good evidence. He could be in really serious trouble.

jd callow · Jul 14, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
That would remove quite a few of my friends, including those who are successful doctors and lawyers in their 50s. A slight overstatement, I'd suggest.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,
I'd suggest yours is an understatement. Drugs, like many things used in excess, are generally the symptom not the cause.

Donald Miller · Jul 14, 2006

jd callow said:
Roger,
I'd suggest yours is an understatement. Drugs, like many things used in excess, are generally the symptom not the cause.

I was always taught that you are known by the company you keep. I agree with you on this one John. About ready to head out?

Rolleiflexible · Jul 18, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Well, considering how much of his local police department is in trouble one way or another, they may not be able to bring any evidence. And from all I understand, Marion was dead before he realized that she was anything more than asleep. Yes, she had a drugs history but she had been off the stuff for a while. The drugs she took were taken from a (?) locked cupboard: they had been prescribed for Bob's mother, who had herself recently died. Bob was seriously in love with the poor girl: not wisely, perhaps, but who falls in love wisely?

Yes, I may be unduly influenced by having heard Bob's side of the story. But I've known the guy for 17 years and I can't see him as guilty of anything as charged. Even Bob's ex-wife Darlene, divorced over Marion, is supporting him. Would she do that if she thought he was guilty?

If I were a betting man I'd take the $10 bet, but earning a living as a freelance is gamble enough for me: I don't think I've even played a slot machine in 25 years.

Cheers,

Roger (FoB -- Friend of Bob)

I've quoted Roger's post because it is a fair summary of Bob's predicament and needs to be read. The newspaper accounts are the hysterical writings of local journalists in a town where nothing happens, who have nothing else to write about.

I have never met Bob Shell. But I have followed his case in the press, and have corresponded with him about it. And I am an attorney, admitted to practice in Virginia. My sense, FWIW, is that Bob was indicted for largely political reasons -- Virginia county prosecutors are elected officials and the prosecution of a photographer who shoots provocative content is a vote-winner in a conservative town like Radford. The police misconduct in the case shocks the conscience. There is a reason the case has languished without a trial for years now -- the prosecution can't put a credible case to the jury. Unlike Roger, I will take that bet, and give you odds on it.

Sanders McNew
New York City

c6h6o3 · Jul 18, 2006

Bob's most unfortunate predicament is one reason why I would never undertake photography that could be perceived as even half as provocative as his unless I had at least one other person present before, during and after the shoot. Corroborating testimony would surely help Bob out more than anything else.

Let's hope the Radford Deputy Dawgs are as incompetent as you suggest.

donbga · Jul 18, 2006

Sanders McNew said:
I've quoted Roger's post because it is a fair summary of Bob's predicament and needs to be read. The newspaper accounts are the hysterical writings of local journalists in a town where nothing happens, who have nothing else to write about.

I have never met Bob Shell. But I have followed his case in the press, and have corresponded with him about it. And I am an attorney, admitted to practice in Virginia. My sense, FWIW, is that Bob was indicted for largely political reasons -- Virginia county prosecutors are elected officials and the prosecution of a photographer who shoots provocative content is a vote-winner in a conservative town like Radford. The police misconduct in the case shocks the conscience. There is a reason the case has languished without a trial for years now -- the prosecution can't put a credible case to the jury. Unlike Roger, I will take that bet, and give you odds on it.

Sanders McNew
New York City

I'm certainly not informed as you claim to be and I'm not disputing any thing you have written here.

However, if Bob's statement or account of the events that was published in the Roanoke papers is true and presented in court then I think he has some responsibility for the death of his model (providing morphine to her.) I certainly have no axe to grind with Bob Shell but it does seem to me that he placed himself in a risky situation. His decisions and actions certainly landed him in a tough crack to wiggle out of.

Now as for the $10, I'll take the bet, not to prove I'm right nor to pronounce Bob guilty of any or all counts. It's just my gut feeling he will do jail time based on the information revealed to me through the press.

Procescutors can and do make biased decisions to take cases to trial for political reasons, take for example the Duke rape case. But since I'm not connected to the local political scene there, it's impossible for me to judge if the prosecutors motives are political or not.

Rolleiflexible · Jul 18, 2006

donbga said:
If Bob's statement or account of the events that was published in the Roanoke papers is true and presented in court then I think he has some responsibility for the death of his model (providing morphine to her.) ...

Now as for the $10, I'll take the bet, not to prove I'm right nor to pronounce Bob guilty of any or all counts. It's just my gut feeling he will do jail time based on the information revealed to me through the press.

Don, greetings.

Your remark is not true. Bob has never stated that he gave her morphine. Not even the Roanoke papers have claimed as much. In a June 5, 2006, report, the Roanoke Times states: "He (Shell) admitted he had the morphine. It was his mother's, who had died of cancer six weeks earlier. But Shell told police he never gave Franklin the orange liquid. She must have taken it herself, he said."

I dislike public fascination over criminal proceedings, and I avoid discussing criminal prosecutions as a rule. But I have a hard time watching an accused being tried by public opinion, on the basis of hearsay and faulty accounts of the facts.

Instead of $10, why don't we bet a print on the outcome? It has to be a jury verdict -- bets are off if Bob ends up copping a plea short of trial. I don't know what you photograph or how you print, but it seems a more fitting stake for the wager in this instance.

Sanders.

Chazzy · Jul 18, 2006

I just hope that he gets a good defense and is able to get this situation over with. And remind me not to do glamour photography in a small town where people may think that Playboy is serious pornography!

rfshootist · Jul 18, 2006

WarEaglemtn said:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/xp-67980

I watch this story going on and on since more than a year now and wonder when this trial now finally will start, it was cancelled scheduled new several times.
As long as the judge has not spoken Bob Shell must considered to be innocent, so I won't particpate in any speculations of what happened there.

In general tho I do not keep it as a good idea for a 56yo man to have a 19yo lover living with him in his house.
As a quite unintelligent idea i keep it for a 56yo man to have a 19yo junkie lover living with him in his house.
As a kind of selfdestroying idiocy I would keep the idea to let my 19yo junkie lover work for me as a model for hardcore sex photos and videos, and to keep the drugs for her in my house and also the photos and videos.
Thus Bob Shell digged a huge deep hole, into which he finally fell almost unavoidably. Suspicious circumsances where the prosecutor looks to.
No matter if he is guilty or the victim of some dirty politic business, I see very limited chances for him not to get arrested for quite a long time.

Bertram

Bill Mitchell · Jul 18, 2006

Guilty or Innocent has nothing to do with it. If he has a really good attorney he will pay a fine. If he has the kind of lawyer that most of can afford he will do some hard time.

Peter De Smidt · Jul 18, 2006

These are just some general ramblings on the topic at hand:

Sometimes we hear people say that the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But what this legitimately means is that someone is legally innocent until proven guilty... In particular, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't have opinions about someone's innocence or guilt until the trial is over; nor does it mean that we all have to agree with the jury's verdict. (Well, it can mean those things, but then the statement would be false, as they would violate freedom of thought and speech.) It doesn't follow that one should make unjustified assertions, but that's not the same issue.

Suppose for example that I know that someone committed a crime. Before the trial, someone ask me what I think of the situation. "He's guilty!" I reply. The proper response to this isn't "but he's innocent until proven guilty" but rather "how do you know?" A criminal is morally guilty of a crime the moment he commits it. It's only legal guilt that is determined by a trial. A corollary of this is that someone isn't proven innocent if they aren't convicted.

Personally, I hope that the police, district attorney and defense counsel are all competent, and that the jury is composed of reasonable people. That would maximize the chances of justice being done. (I don't know what justice would be in this case, since I don't know what he did. I hope that he's innocent.)

donbga · Jul 18, 2006

Sanders McNew said:
Don, greetings.

Your remark is not true. Bob has never stated that he gave her morphine. Not even the Roanoke papers have claimed as much. In a June 5, 2006, report, the Roanoke Times states: "He (Shell) admitted he had the morphine. It was his mother's, who had died of cancer six weeks earlier. But Shell told police he never gave Franklin the orange liquid. She must have taken it herself, he said."

I dislike public fascination over criminal proceedings, and I avoid discussing criminal prosecutions as a rule. But I have a hard time watching an accused being tried by public opinion, on the basis of hearsay and faulty accounts of the facts.

Instead of $10, why don't we bet a print on the outcome? It has to be a jury verdict -- bets are off if Bob ends up copping a plea short of trial. I don't know what you photograph or how you print, but it seems a more fitting stake for the wager in this instance.

Sanders.

I'd rather wager the 10 spot since I'm sure my work would not compare to yours.

I don't know why the public shouldn't be fascinated with criminal trial proceedings, after all they pay the bill. Sensational cases like this one make the news anywhere - if it bleeds it leads.

I guess we will know the out come in a few months, but it does sound like you and Roger have already made a conclusion based on your personal relationship with Bob rather than waiting to hear all of the evidence.

Rolleiflexible · Jul 19, 2006

donbga said:
I guess we will know the out come in a few months, but it does sound like you and Roger have already made a conclusion based on your personal relationship with Bob rather than waiting to hear all of the evidence.

Don, greetings.

I've already said more in this thread than I had intended. I speak up one last time because it is unfair of you to suggest that I have a personal relationship with Bob. As I said at the outset, I've never met the man. I have exchanged emails with him and read the news reports, such as they are. I do not (as Roger does) base my views on my estimation of the man, because I do not know him. Rather, I base them on the conceded misconduct of the police in the matter, and the many circumstances that conflict with the prosecution's theory of the crime.

And part of it, too, is my reaction against the completely irresponsible journalism that is tarring the man in advance of trial. If you go read the Roanoke Times article referenced at the start of this thread and its companion piece, you will be astounded by the lurid claptrap they are serving up as news. They have the temerity to offer "reconstructions" of the circumstances of the supposed crime that include accounts of events and conversations that supposedly occurred between Bob and the model when they were alone, that the paper cannot know, yet reports as if it were fact. The paper claims that it bases these "reconstructions" on the hearsay accounts of people like the model's ex-boyfriend -- hardly reliable sources, certainly not disinterested ones, and impossible to verify.

I agree, the evidence might yet surprise me. And if it does, I will not tilt at it, and will gladly pay up the bet.

Sanders.

StephenS · Jul 19, 2006

Whatever the truth is, this looks HORRIBLE.

I hadn't heard about this until I saw the thread a few days ago. Haven't looked at a Shutterbug in a few years but certainly remember the name and the photos this dude had in the mag - mostly chicks in short shorts or lingerie stuff.

Shooting nudes is one thing. Or even what I'd call erotica. But it seems like his work was a bit beyond what I'd consider kosher. I mean this was low-grade fetish porn.

No matter his guilt or innocence, he probably had a side to him much darker than he presented on the surface.

It looks really bad. I hope he's not guilty in anyway, but the circumstances are ugly.

donbga · Jul 19, 2006

Sanders McNew said:
Don, greetings.

I have exchanged emails with him and read the news reports, such as they are.

Sanders.

I would say that exchanging e-mail is somewhat of a personal relationship, but it wasn't my intent to sully what you wrote.

I've been searching the web tonight trying to gain more info about the incident and there is little that I can find that hasn't originated from the Ronoke Times. I suppose it is best to wait for the trial rather than depend on sketchy information.

blansky · Jul 19, 2006

Trials prove nothing. It is just a provocative dance between lawyers performed before a jury made up of people who generally aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

The esteemed Marcia Clark of the OJ trial had supposedly never lost a case. Of course her track record was mostly against the dregs of society who, with inferior representation were usually pleaded out or found guilty.

However, when she ran into a wall of high priced, savvy legal "players" she was soon outed for the incompetent that she was. Of course it didn't help her cause to have found a jury of misfits who had the uncanny ability to block out the facts and run with the smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show that dream team conjured up. It was like a infommercial for Dewey Cheatya and Howe.

People argued this trial was an aberration. In fact it was a classic illustration and expose of what the law and legal profession is all about. Incompetent police investigation, working its way up the system to policital hacks and wannabees, pitted against slick lawyers whose only way of keeping score is by finding and sacrificing the lives and livelihoods of an endless supply of victims, who through bad judgement or fate found themselves caught up in the machinery.

Even if found not guilty (not to be confused with innocent) these unfortunates are usually financially ruined, with credibility and name destroyed, are then discarded as the "players" move on to fresh meat.

S/M/bondage photographs are not any more or less erotic than any other fantasy erotica that floats around the planet. Millions of people are turned on by role play fantasy in the same way that Harlequin Romance novels are turning out "bodice ripper" pseudo rape fantasies by the dozen every month.

Mr Shell's bad taste in women and tacky photography is a testament to his lack of class and craft but one would hope that this group of people without the brains to get out of jury duty will have the wisdom to see through the bullshit and ascertain if he killed this self made victim or if her choices in life did it for her.

Michael

JBrunner · Jul 19, 2006

Well spoken, Blansky.

StephenS · Jul 19, 2006

Not the way I'd like to go out. No matter the truth, being found with a drugged-out dead chick you were using for bondage photos and happened to be banging (no need to factor in the age thing) is simply a nightmare. The whole scene was a melt-down. I mean, it's a freakin' horror movie.

c6h6o3 · Jul 19, 2006

blansky said:
People argued this trial was an aberration. In fact it was a classic illustration and expose of what the law and legal profession is all about. Incompetent police investigation, working its way up the system to policital hacks and wannabees, pitted against slick lawyers whose only way of keeping score is by finding and sacrificing the lives and livelihoods of an endless supply of victims, who through bad judgement or fate found themselves caught up in the machinery.

Even if found not guilty (not to be confused with innocent) these unfortunates are usually financially ruined, with credibility and name destroyed, are then discarded as the "players" move on to fresh meat.

O.J. Simpson was a victim?

BobShell · Jul 19, 2006

Friends told me about this thread here. Unfortunately, I cannot make public comments on the details of the case, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

I will repeat what I have said in public many times. I have done nothing wrong, and I hope that the justice system will establish that in due time. No one who knows me has believed any of the ridiculous charges against me, charges that are self-contradictory. I am anxious to get this over with and get on with my life.

Best wishes to all,

Bob Shell

BobShell · Jul 19, 2006

I am not able to comment on details of my case for obvious reasons. I would appreciate it if people would honor my wish not to speculate about my case until after it reaches resolution and I am able to openly tell my side of the story. I have done nothing wrong, and I must trust to the justice system to establish that in due time.

Bob Shell

rfshootist · Jul 19, 2006

Peter De Smidt said:
Sometimes we hear people say that the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But what this legitimately means is that someone is legally innocent until proven guilty...

Yes, that is the stoneold "in dubio pro reo" , which says until the guilt is proven it all must be handled benevolently.

What we can discuss here in public is solely the question if someone is legally guilty or not.
Opinions about his guilt are speculation, and speculations are not suited fora public discussion. There is nothing to discuss.

bertram

sanderx1 · Jul 23, 2006

blansky said:
Mr Shell's bad taste in women and tacky photography is a testament to his lack of class and craft but one would hope that this group of people without the brains to get out of jury duty will have the wisdom to see through the bullshit and ascertain if he killed this self made victim or if her choices in life did it for her.

Michael

Felony homicide - the thing that he is accused of - probably does cover what he did. Or in other words, the girl accidentaly died while he was doing something else illegal. Like say "Attempted sexual penetration with an animate object" or "Sexual penetration with an animate object". (WTF are such things doing in the criminal codex?)

It does not sound likely that the prosecution would call most of the things claimed without at least some expert witness destimony for it and several of these are not really that hard to prove. That is completely besides the point whetever these should be crimes in a sane country. I think "he did stupid things, somebody died and he is getting nailed for it" pretty much covers it.

Really, there is UTTERLY no reason for anybody who ties up another person who is under the influence of drugs not to go to jail if the result is injury. No reason at all.

StephenS · Jul 23, 2006

sanderx1 said:
Really, there is UTTERLY no reason for anybody who ties up another person who is under the influence of drugs not to go to jail if the result is injury. No reason at all.

Exactly. People should take care of people . If someone has a serious drug problem, that you know about, you should either try to get them help or at least get out of a situation putting them in further harm. Playing fetish games with a mixed-up young person is not what I'd want my friends doing.

Bob Shell

Roger Hicks

c6h6o3

jd callow

Moderator

Donald Miller

Rolleiflexible

c6h6o3

donbga

Rolleiflexible

Chazzy

rfshootist

Bill Mitchell

Peter De Smidt

donbga

Rolleiflexible

StephenS

donbga

blansky

JBrunner

Moderator

StephenS

c6h6o3

BobShell

BobShell

rfshootist

sanderx1

StephenS

Bob Shell

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency