Bob Shell

[John Koehrer]

I wonder if we could tell any difference.

Certainly not in the congress!

 

[patrickjames]

Roger and Sanders-

You may have been his friends and you may be lawyers, but nothing you say can change the fact that a jury convicted him of his crimes. Postulating that his trial was unfair with an undertone that he didn't do it is insulting to the memory of the dead girl. I am not sure why people keep this up. He was convicted. That is the only fact we have. Let his lawyers do his appeal.

Let's all move on.

Patrick

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Patick,

Just because someone is convicted does not make them guilty. The judicial system may find someone guilty when in fact they are not.

Rich

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct and judicial misconduct have a very long and healthy history in this country. While not always malicious (it is often simple incompetence), it is substantial enough that what I have read of the details surrounding this trial gives me reason to question this verdict. I will be interested to hear the results of any appeal, especially if a change of venue is granted.

 

[donbga]

Roger and Sanders-

You may have been his friends and you may be lawyers, but nothing you say can change the fact that a jury convicted him of his crimes. Postulating that his trial was unfair with an undertone that he didn't do it is insulting to the memory of the dead girl. I am not sure why people keep this up. He was convicted. That is the only fact we have. Let his lawyers do his appeal.

Let's all move on.

Patrick

Okay, Okay everyone. Here is an idea. We can start a new thread with a poll asking if Shell is Guilty or Not Guilty. Everyone can vote and then we are done.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger and Sanders-

You may have been his friends and you may be lawyers, but nothing you say can change the fact that a jury convicted him of his crimes. Postulating that his trial was unfair with an undertone that he didn't do it is insulting to the memory of the dead girl. I am not sure why people keep this up. He was convicted. That is the only fact we have. Let his lawyers do his appeal.

Let's all move on.

Patrick

Dear Patrick,

Sorry, no. What does "Let's all move on" actually mean in this context? Does it mean "Let's abandon a friend"? If so, I have to say I'd rather have Bob for a friend than you.

Sanders isn't a friend of Bob's, more of an acquaintance: a lawyer whose legal hackles were raised by the suspicion that admitted deficiencies in evidence rendered the verdict unsafe.

I am a friend of Bob's, and my legal suspicions are exactly the same as Sanders's. The jury's conviction is the only fact you have. I have 20 years of knowing the guy. As I have repeatedly said, I could be wrong. You seem unwilling to make the same concession, despite the fact that I know him, and you don't.

If his appeal fails, I will necessarily be more willing to admit that he may indeed have done some (though probably not all) of the things of which he has been convicted.

If you think that all appeals are 'insulting', then your grasp of both law and justice is exceedingly feeble. As both Sanders and I say, it is possible that he is guilty; but we both believe that an appeal may reveal that this is not so.

Roger

 

[dslater]

Hi Patick,

Just because someone is convicted does not make them guilty. The judicial system may find someone guilty when in fact they are not.

Rich

True - However, that's not the way the smart money bets

 

[naturephoto1]

Dear Patrick,

Snip

If his appeal fails, I will necessarily be more willing to admit that he may indeed have done some (though probably not all) of the things of which he has been convicted.

If you think that all appeals are 'insulting', then your grasp of both law and justice is exceedingly feeble. As both Sanders and I say, it is possible that he is guilty; but we both believe that an appeal may reveal that this is not so.

Roger

Hi Roger,

Bob Shell may lose his appeal and may be found guilty for a crime for which he did not commit. That I am sure you are aware. This is one of those things that we all as individuals have to be prepared for in certain circumstances when relying on the judicial system. Just because you are innocent does not mean that you will be found innocent.

Rich

 

[winger]

The fact that virtually no defendants ever requests that is a testament to the efficacy of the jury trial system. I can assure you that if it were otherwise, then defense lawyers would regularly advise their clients to demand bench trials. And that just about never happens.

I've testified about 100 times in criminal trials as an expert witness and several have been bench trials. It's a strategy. I don't think it works often, but they do try it (at least in Mass). If some details of a case are going to be lurid, the lack of a jury takes the emotional response out of the equation. A jury could make its decision based on its reaction to something like a sex tape and just say the evidence swayed them.
I don't know the facts of this case, just what I've read here, actually. But I get edgy when someone says evidence was mishandled. If one person forgets to write down what time a piece of evidence was submitted to the lab or if the evidence is returned to the submitting agency without a legible signature, that gets called "mishandling". It doesn't affect the results of any testing nor does it change the actual facts of the case. There have been items I spent hours testing that got excluded because someone didn't write them down on the bag in which they submitted them to the lab. When a news report says evidence was mishandled, that doesn't mean diddly to me without details. Actually, almost anything a news report says doesn't mean much to me because I've seen what they mess up on cases I knew the details of.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

Bob Shell may lose his appeal and may be found guilty for a crime for which he did not commit. That I am sure you are aware. This is one of those things that we all have to be prepared for in certain circumstances when relying on the judicial system. Just because you are innocent does not mean that you will be found innocent.

Rich

Dear Rich,

I would not argue with you for the smallest fraction of second. But we both have to admit that he may actually be guilty, no matter how improbable or unpalatable either of us may find this.

My sole point, legally, is that to presume he is inevitably guilty is as foolish than to assume that we know better and that he is not guilty. You and I and others might say that the former assumption was even more foolish.

I have little faith in what has been presented as an elected judge; a prosecutor seeking election to judge on a popular vote; and a jury whose members were, as suggested elsewhere, insufficiently educated or busy to gain exemption. These representations may be unjust, in which case I apologize to the parties involved; but the fact that such things are some way from unknown in the Commonwealth of Virginia leads me to expect at least as much evidence of honesty and good faith from the legal system as from Bob Shell. Such evidence has not, I suggest, been forthcoming.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[c6h6o3]

Hi Roger,

Bob Shell may lose his appeal and may be found guilty for a crime for which he did not commit. That I am sure you are aware. This is one of those things that we all as individuals have to be prepared for in certain circumstances when relying on the judicial system. Just because you are innocent does not mean that you will be found innocent.

Rich

"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes."

-- The Honorable Learned Hand

 

[smieglitz]

JBrunner's point is well taken. I once served on a jury in a burglary case. The alleged perp was considered guilty as all hell according to all the jurors based on how he behaved in court, how he spoke, his lame alibi, etc. However, I was the only one who initially thought the prosecutor/police had not proven the guilt based on the evidence provided (and not provided). 11:1 guilty eventually became 12:0 for acquittal. There's a difference between being guilty and being proven guilty, and it goes both ways as the appeal may show.

Joe

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've testified about 100 times in criminal trials as an expert witness and several have been bench trials. It's a strategy. I don't think it works often, but they do try it (at least in Mass). If some details of a case are going to be lurid, the lack of a jury takes the emotional response out of the equation. A jury could make its decision based on its reaction to something like a sex tape and just say the evidence swayed them.
I don't know the facts of this case, just what I've read here, actually. But I get edgy when someone says evidence was mishandled. If one person forgets to write down what time a piece of evidence was submitted to the lab or if the evidence is returned to the submitting agency without a legible signature, that gets called "mishandling". It doesn't affect the results of any testing nor does it change the actual facts of the case. There have been items I spent hours testing that got excluded because someone didn't write them down on the bag in which they submitted them to the lab. When a news report says evidence was mishandled, that doesn't mean diddly to me without details. Actually, almost anything a news report says doesn't mean much to me because I've seen what they mess up on cases I knew the details of.

Dear Bethe,

I don't think anyone would argue with you. Certainly I wouldn't. But if (for example) camera clocks have been tampered with in order to put events out of sequence, I doubt you would argue that the evidence is reliable. It appears to have been conceded that this sort of thing did happen, and that material could have been edited out of computer memory.

We have here the undoubted unpleasantness of the facts -- a middle-aged man and a teenage girl, images that could easily be called pornographic -- but Bob was not on trial for being a fool, but for several other things. My suspicion -- and as I keep saying, I could well be wrong -- is that he was convicted of being a dirty old man, not of the crimes with which he was charged.

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes."

-- The Honorable Learned Hand

One of the greatest of all judges. Can you recall the citation? I'd like to use it myself in the future.

 

[dslater]

JBrunner's point is well taken. I once served on a jury in a burglary case. The alleged perp was considered guilty as all hell according to all the jurors based on how he behaved in court, how he spoke, his lame alibi, etc. However, I was the only one who initially thought the prosecutor/police had not proven the guilt based on the evidence provided (and not provided). 11:1 guilty eventually became 12:0 for acquittal. There's a difference between being guilty and being proven guilty, and it goes both ways as the appeal may show.

Joe

And therein lies what I consider one of the main weaknesses of our trial by jury system. So much seems to depend on the demeanor and appearance of the defendant and the victim/plaintiff.
George stated above "Yes, after 800 years or so, the present system "sucks". Please come up with a better one." Well to be honest, I can't come up with a better one, but I do think the current system could be greatly improved if we could have a little more anonymity in the proceedings. Demeanor and appearance shouldn't come into play in a trial - only the facts and evidence.

 

[gr82bart]

I don't know why, but this thread reminds me of the Mafia going to Sunday mass. As if they could fool the Big Guy.

Regards, Art.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As if they could fool the Big Guy.

Who? George Bush?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The main charge that Shell was convicted of was involuntary manslaughter. Is that not, in a sense, being convicted of "being a fool," or perhaps doing something foolish that unintentionally brings about someone's death? While the sentencing recommendation of 32 years seems excessive for involuntary manslaughter, and I would expect the judge to reduce it, if Shell is ultimately sentenced for the crime, I would be unsurprised if it turned out that Shell were indeed guilty of unintentionally contributing to his model's death.

 

[roteague]

One of the greatest of all judges. Can you recall the citation? I'd like to use it myself in the future.

That is why I'm sticking to photography, the rest is out of my league.

 

[roteague]

We have here the undoubted unpleasantness of the facts -- a middle-aged man and a teenage girl

People do a lot of foolish things when they get lonely. I hate to say it, but most of the people here are either married or have a signficient other; very few are single and alone. In my experience, I'm single, very few married people have any real understanding of what a single person goes through. I'm not excusing Bob; just saying let's not judge his relationship with this woman.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The main charge that Shell was convicted of was involuntary manslaughter. Is that not, in a sense, being convicted of "being a fool," or perhaps doing something foolish that unintentionally brings about someone's death? While the sentencing recommendation of 32 years seems excessive for involuntary manslaughter, and I would expect the judge to reduce it, if Shell is ultimately sentenced for the crime, I would be unsurprised if it turned out that Shell were indeed guilty of unintentionally contributing to his model's death.

Sort of. The legal test for manslaughter is normally 'knowingly or recklessly', which is rather more rigorous than 'stupidly or carelessly' -- and I'm not sure that even 'stupidly or carelessly' could be made to stick in these circumstances. 'Unintentionally' is another notch down again from 'stupidly are carelessly'.

As others (mostly anti-Bob) have pointed out, we don't know, because we weren't on the jury. By the same token, we can't be sure he was guilty, because we weren't on the jury.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

JBrunner's point is well taken. I once served on a jury in a burglary case. The alleged perp was considered guilty as all hell according to all the jurors based on how he behaved in court, how he spoke, his lame alibi, etc. However, I was the only one who initially thought the prosecutor/police had not proven the guilt based on the evidence provided (and not provided). 11:1 guilty eventually became 12:0 for acquittal. There's a difference between being guilty and being proven guilty, and it goes both ways as the appeal may show.

Joe

Hey! I saw that film! Twelve Angry Men
with Henry Fonda. Looks awfully good in
black and white.

Sanders

 

[Roger Hicks]

People do a lot of foolish things when they get lonely. I hate to say it, but most of the people here are either married or have a signficient other; very few are single and alone. In my experience, I'm single, very few married people have any real understanding of what a single person goes through. I'm not excusing Bob; just saying let's not judge his relationship with this woman.

Dear Robert,

Unless they've been single, as most of us have been. But I have met Darlene (Bob's wife -- I believe, now ex-wife) a few times, and she doesn't think he's guilty either (we have corresponded since the verdict). She has every reason to hate him, and she doesn't. It's not mindless 'stand by your man' stuff: it's 30 years' friendship and knowledge of the man. I do not think she would argue about his foolishness.

He was daft about Marion. The operative word is 'daft'. You meet a pretty young girl who's had a shitty life since she entered her teens. Maybe fatherly and sexual feelings are not entirely incompatible in such a situation. Most of us like to think we could handle that appropriately. Bob clearly couldn't. But like you, I will not condemn him utterly for that failing. Bloody fool, yes; killer, I have my doubts.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[roteague]

Dear Robert,

Unless they've been single, as most of us have been. But I have met Darlene (Bob's wife -- I believe, now ex-wife) a few times, and she doesn't think he's guilty either (we have corresponded since the verdict). She has every reason to hate him, and she doesn't. It's not mindless 'stand by your man' stuff: it's 30 years' friendship and knowledge of the man. I do not think she would argue about his foolishness.

He was daft about Marion. The operative word is 'daft'. You meet a pretty young girl who's had a shitty life since she entered her teens. Maybe fatherly and sexual feelings are not entirely incompatible in such a situation. Most of us like to think we could handle that appropriately. Bob clearly couldn't. But like you, I will not condemn him utterly for that failing. Bloody fool, yes; killer, I have my doubts.

Cheers,

Roger

I'm sure that is true Roger. I don't know anything about Bob, nor have I been following this case. I'm sorry for both Bob and for Marion; both have lost their lives.

 

[c6h6o3]

One of the greatest of all judges. Can you recall the citation? I'd like to use it myself in the future.

I get all misty eyed whenever I read this. Sure wish I could have been there. What a great American.

Every sentence is a memorable quote.