Bob Shell

[c6h6o3]

Couldn't get the bloody link to open, so I Googled it. May 21st 1944. A good reason to be proud of beng an American, I'd say. Thanks.

Not a link...an attachment. .pdf

 

[c6h6o3]

I think you pulled the wrong sentence out Judge Hand's
address,

There is no wrong sentence in that speech. My favorite words from it:

"the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded"

What poetry.

 

[Roger Hicks]

While it is honorable that you stand by a friend, being condescending towards me is a little much. I am just pointing out the obvious, and trying to keep this thread in perspective. After all dead people can't speak for themselves. As far as friendship goes Roger, none of my friends do sexually deviant things to dead girls while videotaping it. That is something you may want to think about before you start slamming me.

Patrick

Dear Patrick,

I apologize. But equally, you may want to consider whether he was in fact doing sexually deviant things to a dead girl while videotaping it. These charges were dropped before the trial, on the grounds that she could not have been both alive and dead. Sticking to the facts is also a matter of keeping things in perspective.

Roger

 

[patrickjames]

Dear Patrick,

I apologize. But equally, you may want to consider whether he was in fact doing sexually deviant things to a dead girl while videotaping it. These charges were dropped before the trial, on the grounds that she could not have been both alive and dead. Sticking to the facts is also a matter of keeping things in perspective.

Roger

Roger, I wholly accept your apology. I understand your passion in the affair and your commitment to your friend is admirable, but the fact that he was convicted is a fact. A jury who has more knowledge than you or I has spoken. I would like to think that if I was in your shoes I would visit my friend in jail, perhaps support his appeal if I felt that strongly about it, but ultimately accept the situation that he has been found guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. A milestone has been passed that very rarely gets undone.

I would like you to know that while I have no compassion for Bob Shell since he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as you are his friend I know what bothers you, and that has been on my mind tonight. Perhaps I was a little brusque in my response, but I think about people who cannot defend themselves, and I believe it is my, and everyone's, duty to do it for them. Regardless of what happens to Bob Shell, the young girl Marion is dead. Nothing will change that. When I said earlier today that we should move on I meant that there is nothing left to do. Leave it to the courts to decide what will happen. At this point he is a convicted felon. He may be your friend, but you can't argue this point. His innocence is no longer an issue. I feel more sympathy for you than I do for him.

I don't think any less of you because of this, and in hindsight I understand what you have been feeling. I can't take it personal.

As you say, Cheers.

Patrick

 

[Roger Hicks]

His innocence is no longer an issue.

Dear Patrick,

Thank you for your thoughtful and gracious letter. I hope you will not take it amiss if I dispute the sentence quoted above. If I didn't think that his innocence might be an issue, I would not support an appeal.

I have known Bob long enough to be reasonably confident that he is fully capable of persuading himself (never mind anyone else) that he did not do something he did, or that he did something he did not. This is why I have repeatedly said that I could be wrong in believing his protestations of innocence.

It was the prosecutor who insisted on a jury trial: Bob wanted a trial in front of a judge alone. As others have argued on this forum, small-town juries do not always convict (or acquit) on the facts. I think it far from impossible that this is what happened here.

I fully take your point that this is now a matter for the courts to decide, and that grandstanding is of little or no use. But equally, I cannot but take his side against those who argue that there is no doubt about his guilt. I do not assert with absolute confidence that he is innocent; but I think that the possibility of his innocence is sufficient that an appeal is more than justified.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Mark Layne]

If there is one thing a trial lawyer hates to see make it on to a jury it is a person who can think

 

[naturephoto1]

If there is one thing a trial lawyer hates to see make it on to a jury it is a person who can think

Unfortunately that appears so. I was dismissed from being a potential juror, I presume because of my education as a Geologist and as an "Environmentalist"- one attorney (as I recall the prosecutor) for the trial indicated a challenge for the "Environmentalist" (and they were unaware of my having Graduate degrees in Geology and Biology).

Rich

 

[TheRev]

I am glad you did not censor or delete this topic. I have not posted before though I visit the site occasionally.
------------------------

"The jury recommended Shell serve eight years for involuntary manslaughter, seven for attempted forcible sodomy, four each for two counts of attempted animate object sexual penetration, five years for one count of distributing morphine and six months on another, three years for possessing morphine and one year for distributing diazepam."

He was not convicted for being a "dirty old man." Sounds like he was convicted for using prescription drugs unlawfully to sedate an unwitting teenage drug addict who he was "in love with" so that he could satisfy his sexual fetishes on her even while dead. The facts of the case, as available in the press, certainly don't suggest that he is guilty of anything less."
-----------------------------

After reading a half dozen accounts of this trial I find that I probably would have voted 'Guilty' as well. The timeline, his own expert witness showing how it could have been off, the paramedics finding the girl cold, blue and dead less than ten minutes after the emergency call, his friends seeing him dope her drink, his 'last minute' remembering he used something other than the morphine for the doping... and four hours of porn tapes along with him videotaping him having sex with a corpse?

What have I missed? He may not have been convicted of being 'a dirty old man' but that sure is what he is.

Right or wrong, the jury made a decision and he is probably going to die in prison unless the appeal reverses things or the judge severely reduces the sentence.

Either way, the girl is still dead and Shells story/excuses stink. It reminds me of the old line by the guy caught in bed with another woman by his wife: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes"? Shell sure looks dirty and nothing presented(as represented in a dozen news accounts of the trial/verdict) shows otherwise.

Sticking up for a friend is understandable and admirable. Even after he is convicted and even after the conviction (may be) shown to be correct. He is a friend and that doesn't change. You can't control what friends do nor can you really know. Jeffry Dahmer and many infamous/dirty criminals have had good friends who never did believe they were guilty of what they were convicted of. The Jury believed he was guilty and many juries have a nasty habit of actually looking at the evidence presented rather than just at the show put on by the lawyers so justice is probably done even if the parties on both sides were pretty much incompetent.

 

[JBrunner]

There seem to be two categories in this thread:

Posts that speculate on Shell and his trial, and personal perceptions of guilt (mainly) or innocence of the man, activities, etc. based on the nature of his work, or gleaned from media, anecdote, and hearsay.

Posts discussing the faults, flaws and strengths the US legal system, that in almost every instance admit uncertainty about Shell.

Who would you want on your Jury?
Who most often wind up on a Jury?

"facts of the case, as available in the press" is as good an oxymoron as you can find anywhere.

 

[DKT]

well, without reading about it in the press, what other sources would there be at this point? maybe someone can enlighten us with the other side of the story? I'm curious from reading the news accounts of the trial, that not that many photographers came to the stand apparently. they name a few people who took classes from shell, and they list a rep from canon as an expert on their digital files, and there seem to be some models. I find it curious that nobody from the pro community came forth really. The one news account of the "NC photographer" who was a drummer in the Alman Bros band? Is that the best they could do?

I'm not pro-Bob or anti-Bob, it's just from a professional photography point of view, the circumstances of the case are just dumbfounding to put one's self in, even if nobody died. really sad all around.

 

[bill schwab]

If there is one thing a trial lawyer hates to see make it on to a jury it is a person who can think

Completely contrary to my experience of going through jury selection. In both cases I have gone through (both civil cases) it was those who seemed the most ignorant that were sent home. In both cases I was impressed by the caliber of people chosen as fellow jurors. All took their civic duty very seriously.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

There seem to be two categories in this thread:

Posts that speculate on Shell and his trial, and personal perceptions of guilt (mainly) or innocence of the man, activities, etc. based on the nature of his work, or gleaned from media, anecdote, and hearsay.

Posts discussing the faults, flaws and strengths the US legal system, that in almost every instance admit uncertainty about Shell.

Who would you want on your Jury?
Who most often wind up on a Jury?

"facts of the case, as available in the press" is as good an oxymoron as you can find anywhere.

Lesson that should be learned -

Keep your head on straight with your feet squarely planted on the ground and stay away from all situations and individuals (including the IRS) that could put you anywhere near the legal system. Anyone that has the intellectual capacity to be a photographer knows the law and where the line is that should NEVER be crossed. Think you are Superman and can absorb a series of stupid attacks without adverse consequences and you are in reality putting your very existance at serious risk. When we see the art of personal self-destruction perfected to an art form in front of our very eyes we simply shake our heads in disbelief. However we must remind ourselves that in a free country everyone has the ability to rise like an eagle to the highest mountains or wallow like a worm in the mud. It is called personal choice.

All that is left to do at this stage is to learn from the situation and move on.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Shell sure looks dirty and nothing presented(as represented in a dozen news accounts of the trial/verdict) shows otherwise.
... The Jury believed he was guilty and many juries have a nasty habit of actually looking at the evidence presented rather than just at the show put on by the lawyers....

Not even his dearest friends would argue with the first sentence. But your choice, in the second, of the phrase 'many juries' shows your tacit acceptance of the other side of the argument. Many do. Some don't. That latter assertion is all I've seen from his most ardent defenders.

 

[Roger Hicks]

well, without reading about it in the press, what other sources would there be at this point? . . . I'm curious from reading the news accounts of the trial, that not that many photographers came to the stand apparently.

For the former, as I've said, personal communication.

For the latter, hell, I couldn't have given relevant evidence. I've known the guy 20 years; I never met Marion; I wasn't there when she died. What could I (or anyone else) say? "Oh, yeah, duh, he's a nice guy and he wouldn't do this sort of thing." That's REALLY persuasive evidence, isn't it?

Sure, I can say that I don't believe he did it -- and I don't believe he did. But I'm not certain, unlike some people with even less information than I have who take the other side.

I'll echo a plea made elsewhere. This is a matter for the courts. Let's leave it at that. But I'll say this to anyone who blackguards Bob: I'll do my best to counter your attacks, because I don't think he's guilty. If you shut up, I'll shut up. But as long as you attack him using only the current evidence from newspaper reports, I'll defend him.

As another friend said, "Friendship is a duty, not just a convenience."

 

[George]

Glad I found this thread and that it was not stopped or deleted. I asked myself from time to time what happened to Bob Shell in his trial, even if the last time I tried to google something new about it was perhaps a year ago.
I had just a brief literal encounter with Mr. Shell when he accepted my article submitted to the Shutterbug. It's because of this that I felt personally touched when the news about him came out. In that moment (and I was no longer living in the US) I somehow felt uneasy. Not that it would matter but his comments and his defense seemed to me to be on the same level as his Shutterbug photography - substandard, tasteless. His web site tooting his "love" to Marian was then a crown of the same level. What do I feel today (not that it would matter more)? He's got himself to blame and the world will not miss the fact of one "bondage photographer" less.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...his comments and his defense seemed to me to be on the same level as his Shutterbug photography - substandard, tasteless. His web site tooting his "love" to Marian was then a crown of the same level. What do I feel today (not that it would matter more)? He's got himself to blame and the world will not miss the fact of one "bondage photographer" less.

You don't like his nude photography? Fine. I certainly prefer his black-and-whites of small towns. You found his protestations of love for Marion tasteless? Well, how wise is any of us, in love? Remember, the 'in love' bit happened well before all this. He's got himself to blame? Sure: his friends and even he will admit that.

None of this is the same as saying he is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted, and your 'the world will not miss...' rather illustrates the point that several have made: moral shortcomings (which are undisputed) are not an automatic indicator of guilt of the crimes with which he was charged.

 

[Ole]

I started wondering what would have been the likely outcome if the jury had been selected from the S&M community - and decided that he would have been found guilty regardless of evidence. Those people take security and safety precautions more seriously than just about anyone else, and any small oversight would have been inexcusable. ...

 

[George]

You don't like his nude photography? Fine. I certainly prefer his black-and-whites of small towns. You found his protestations of love for Marion tasteless? Well, how wise is any of us, in love? Remember, the 'in love' bit happened well before all this. He's got himself to blame? Sure: his friends and even he will admit that.

None of this is the same as saying he is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted, and your 'the world will not miss...' rather illustrates the point that several have made: moral shortcomings (which are undisputed) are not an automatic indicator of guilt of the crimes with which he was charged.

Frankly, I don't know his nude photography - I meant his Shutterbug model pics posing in such amateurish ways that one needed to laugh with pity... As for the "love" before the bondage part - well, you can imagine (if you're so inclined) that it was of a better taste than his "echinacea" tinted wine recepies...
As for the guilt - I don't need to indicate anything. Others have expressed their opinion and it measures 32 years...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I started wondering what would have been the likely outcome if the jury had been selected from the S&M community - and decided that he would have been found guilty regardless of evidence. Those people take security and safety precautions more seriously than just about anyone else, and any small oversight would have been inexcusable. ...

Now that would be an interesting voir dire.

 

[George]

I started wondering what would have been the likely outcome if the jury had been selected from the S&M community - and decided that he would have been found guilty regardless of evidence. Those people take security and safety precautions more seriously than just about anyone else, and any small oversight would have been inexcusable. ...

ehm, how do you know their security standards?? I wonder..

 

[Dan Fromm]

Mike K., the ironic thing about all this is that years ago when Bob was editor of Shutterbug he published an article on working with models in which he made the point, and forcefully, that the wise and cautious photographer would always have a chaperone present -- IIRC, he reported having his wife with him when he worked with models -- on a model shoot and would not become emotionally involved with his models. Not bad advice, a pity he didn't follow it.

 

[jeroldharter]

...None of this is the same as saying he is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted, and your 'the world will not miss...' rather illustrates the point that several have made: moral shortcomings (which are undisputed) are not an automatic indicator of guilt of the crimes with which he was charged.

I understand your point that a person cannot always believe what he reads. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that you will never accept his guilt regardless of the legal outcome. Is that so? If so, there is no point discussing it. If not, what level of conviction satisfies? Appellate court? State Supreme Court? Federal Supreme Court?

The implication that his prurient sexual practices impugns him is false. However the level of denial and cognitive distortion required to believe that one is in love with his 19 year old drug addicted bondage subject effectively nullifies his credibility as his own witness. That combined with his own weak testimony and the evidence of the prosecution resulted in a guilty verdict. Hardly sounds like he is being framed or that he is innocent because he was not read Miranda rights (one of his claims). I am also curious: if he is wrongly convicted, then what could be a plausible alternative for the events that happened?

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Mike K., the ironic thing about all this is that years ago when Bob was editor of Shutterbug he published an article on working with models in which he made the point, and forcefully, that the wise and cautious photographer would always have a chaperone present -- IIRC, he reported having his wife with him when he worked with models -- on a model shoot and would not become emotionally involved with his models. Not bad advice, a pity he didn't follow it.

Ha! That is a good one.

Normally it is politicians that seem genetically predisposed to not being capable of following their own advice.

I cannot help but remember the words of Forrest Gump - "Stupid is as Stupid Does".

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Mike K., the ironic thing about all this is that years ago when Bob was editor of Shutterbug he published an article on working with models in which he made the point, and forcefully, that the wise and cautious photographer would always have a chaperone present -- IIRC, he reported having his wife with him when he worked with models -- on a model shoot and would not become emotionally involved with his models. Not bad advice, a pity he didn't follow it.

Peter and Alice Gowland are a great example of a couple that has worked as a team in such situations for years.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I understand your point that a person cannot always believe what he reads. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that you will never accept his guilt regardless of the legal outcome. Is that so? ?

No, it is not so. If his appeal fails, I shall be forced to reconsider my position, though I may never be able to accept his guilt as a certainty. Even if Bob himself told me he was guilty, I'd still wonder, as noted in a previous post about his capacity for self-persuasion. But as I have said many times, I could be wrong. So can we all, including juries and judges. That's why the appeals system exists.

My repeated insistence that I could be wrong -- a phrase seemingly impossible for some people to say, though I hasten to add that I do not include you in this group -- also implies that I cannot consider his innocence a certainty, either; as indeed I do not.

Right now, given the way the trial was conducted, the history of the evidence, and the fact that juries have been known to convict (or acquit) in the teeth of the evidence, I find it quite easy to believe that he may well be innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted.

The thing is, I don't KNOW either way. Nor does anyone else on this forum, and the vicious condemnation, or casual abuse, that has come from people who don't know the man and have read only sensationalist newspaper reports, is hard to excuse. No-one has called Bob a saint, or denied that he has done things that most people would regard as very unpleasant indeed. Nor has anyone lauded him as the greatest photographer of all time. But as I have repeatedly said, this is not the same as being guilty of the crimes of which he has been convicted.