Bob Shell

[jeroldharter]

Maybe we have too many real and amateur lawyers on APUG. People seem to be second guessing the jury that his defense helped pick which rendered a clear guilty verdict and recommended a sentence as quoted from the paper:

"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. Getting off on appeal would be disgusting, especially for a legal/procedural technicality that a good defense would help engineer. From what I could tell, any jury (except on APUG, perhaps) would come to the same conclusion as this one.

 

[dslater]

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.

It is more serious that being a fool. involuntary manslaughter means you caused a death through either recklessness or criminal negligence - i.e. the wanton disregard of known dangers

 

[Roger Hicks]

Maybe we have too many real and amateur lawyers on APUG. From what I could tell, any jury (except on APUG, perhaps) would come to the same conclusion as this one.

Perhaps also, too many real and amateur psychiatrists, and far too many amateur jurors.

Read the lawyers' views.

1 He might or might not be innocent.

2 That's it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I would say that knowingly giving drugs illegally to an addict, if that is what he in fact did, could rise to the level of involuntary manslaughter, if it resulted in the death of said addict.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

That's fine, if he did so, and he would deserve the appropriate application of the law for that. I just question the sex-related charges. To me, they smack of a method to ensure a conviction on the murder charges by tarnishing the appearance of the accused until he "looks" guilty.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

No better jurist ever lived, nor any with a more apt name.

I think you pulled the wrong sentence out Judge Hand's
address, though, for the purposes of this discussion. I
would have quoted this one instead:

"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is
not too sure that it is right."

Those here who rush to judgment, leap to conclusions, and
castigate those of us who do not join them, ought commit
that passage to memory. The law is an iterative process.
It does not end at verdict. The process will work its way
and Bob Shell's fate will be determined. But not yet.

Sanders McNew

 

[r-brian]

Here's the article in the Roanoke Times concerning the outcome of the trial.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/130330

Now can we let the American justice system alone and let it do what it is supposed to.

 

[patrickjames]

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

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

 

[jd callow]

Dear All,
Please try and avoid getting personal with the other people in this thread. I'm not sure what good can come from discussing the topic, but you shouldn't need to insult other posters when making your point.

 

[copake_ham]

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

Joe,

Actually, you disprove JBrunner's point and elucidate the power of the jury system. Wherein one holdout can sway his peers to reconsider their determinations. Or, if need be, and if truly convinced of his "rightness", create a hung jury and a mistrial.

If you are being "honest" with us - you basically have demonstrated the very point of the play/movie: Twelve Angry Men

 

[copake_ham]

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

Rich,

Just one thing.

In the US, you are NEVER found innocent. You may be found guilty - but our system is based on the presumption of innocence.

Sadly, a fact all to many Americans do not understand and, when asked about it, think that presuming innocence is a dangerous, radical idea!

 

[copake_ham]

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.

Roger,

I've stood silent through your posts.

But I truly resent you characterizing me and those who are defending the jury system and the findings of this particular jury in this case as being "anti-Bob".

You have peppered this thread with trollish remarks and this is the most egregious. You've earlier on impugned the judge and prosecutors as well as the jury without any reasonable knowledge for doing so.

And all for what? So you can posture yourself as some kind of radical "free Bob Shell" hero to folks here?

Yes, it is absolutely true that we don't know, we cannot know and we will never know because we did not serve on the jury. And we did not hear the evidence. And we did not deliberate. Those of us who hold this considered position are not "anti-Bob".

Bob Shell is no saint. He was found with a corpse and drug-laced glass of wine. And he actually abused the corpse. A disgusting heinous act.

He has used fora such as this to try and whip of a frenzy of sympathy from people who have no nexus to the facts.

If he is such a good friend of yours, can you tell me this: Did you testify on his behalf as a character witness at the trial?

Did you even attend the trial?

 

[Tom Duffy]

I came late to this discussion, but I just read the Roanoke Times story:

"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."

All this while photographing teenagers in a bondage shoot. A real credit to his profession.

Anyone who thinks this scumbag is innocent should probably be out helping OJ track down the real killers.

 

[jeroldharter]

...Read the lawyers' views.

1 He might or might not be innocent.

...

I could not have phrased that better.

 

[rusty71]

I would imagine that such horrific charges are very difficult to prove, and that the prosecution would not waste the court's time or the people's money if they didn't have some pretty compelling evidence.

Oh sure. And what about the Duke LaCrosse players? Yeah, the authorities are never self serving nor make mistakes. This thread has little to do with photography. Only two people really know what happened that day, and only one of them can tell the story. I'm not a juror so can't make any informed decision. But assuming Shell is guilty by default is completely unjustified.

 

[roteague]

This thread truly shows the far ranging impact the judicial system can have. Two people have lost their lives, in one way or the other, but other people are reeling. I'm sure that Roger, and others who know Bob Shell personally, are struggling with their emotions over someone they know being convicted of such a crime.

 

[Sparky]

I guess the interesting question for me - after reading Robert's post, above - is how they would feel about their friend if Shell actually admitted to all of it... every sordid detail (or if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt).

just for the record - I have no feelings about this case since I know so little about it (just what others know) - but I'll freely admit that I simply don't like the guy for other reasons.

 

[jeroldharter]

...But assuming Shell is guilty by default is completely unjustified.

I really don't understand this. By default?

After years of judicial wrangling, a jury convicted him. Any reasonable person reading about the case or his own testimony would smell a rat. Is nobody guilty anymore until the Supreme Court makes a ruling? But maybe they are corrupt, too.

I suppose you could make the case that she was a drug addict and he did not really supply her with his Mom's morphine. I suppose he just confiscated it from his deceased mother's house and put it in his toolbox to save for a rainy day never expecting that his opiate addicted girlfriend would find it. And, since she "was always cold to the touch" that he could be forgiven for having sex with her corpse not realizing that she was dead. I suppose that the organic memory lapses that prevented him from remembering the dropper of echinacea suddenly improved when objected that the prosecution was misrepresenting his earlier testimony and refused to answer questions on the witness stand. His story begs disbelief and the jury who listened to it made its decision.

 

[copake_ham]

The triers of the facts (i.e. the jury) were presented with the facts, testimony and evidence of the case. And having duly deliberated upon it all have reached a reasoned determination of guilt.

Absent manifest error, their verdict will stand.

And all the grandstanding protestations here about the horrible American system will be just another minor internet kerfuffle to be forgotten.

The Commonwealth of Virginia will stand; the United States of America will stand - and Bob Shell will serve his time.

 

[Travis Nunn]

Hey George, just a quick question. Is kerfuffle a legal term? ;-)

 

[dslater]

The triers of the facts (i.e. the jury) were presented with the facts, testimony and evidence of the case. And having duly deliberated upon it all have reached a reasoned determination of guilt.

Absent manifest error, their verdict will stand.

And all the grandstanding protestations here about the horrible American system will be just another minor internet kerfuffle to be forgotten.

The Commonwealth of Virginia will stand; the United States of America will stand - and Bob Shell will serve his time.

Well said George.
I spite of what others have related here I do not believe the jury system is a farce or broken - is it perfect - absolutely not, but it is still the best thing going. I don't buy the idea that people sitting on juries are incompetent or don't care. I believe that the vast majority of people who sit on a jury take it very seriously and do their best to understand the facts presented as well as the legal instructions given by the judge.

 

[copake_ham]

Hey George, just a quick question. Is kerfuffle a legal term? ;-)

Absotively! :rolleyes:

 

[dslater]

man this thread has legs!! - you can't even get a post out before someone else beats you to it

 

[copake_ham]

Well said George.
I spite of what others have related here I do not believe the jury system is a farce or broken - is it perfect - absolutely not, but it is still the best thing going. I don't buy the idea that people sitting on juries are incompetent or don't care. I believe that the vast majority of people who sit on a jury take it very seriously and do their best to understand the facts presented as well as the legal instructions given by the judge.

Yes.

If you believe in democracy and the dignity of each individual, then you have to believe in the jury system.

It is our defense against tyranny.

I truly believe that even the most inane and dumb bimbo undergoes a transformation when he or she walks through the doors of a courthouse to answer the call of jury service. It bespeaks to an ancient time when a society would gather together to determine whether a member of that society has violated a norm and standard that they hold essential to their way of life.

No other element of our democracy places us in such a direct position wherein we are called upon to determine the fate of one of our peers. Whatever abuses or distortions may occur at times in its practice pale against the everyday reality that serving on a jury is the manifestation of our equality.

If anyone thinks that if they were Bob Shell they would have been better served by solely having the evidence heard before a judge based solely on the presentation of the prosecutors and defense lawyers - then they would have forfeited one of their most fundamental rights.