Bob Shell

[c6h6o3]

This entire thread should be removed because it has no positive value for APUG.

At the very least it should be moved to the Soap Box.

 

[DBP]

to clarify my reason for posting - I'm not disputing that at the very best, kindest, gentlest summation of Bob Shell's situation, you could say that he made multiple errors in judgement (sheltering a young woman known to have multiple addiction issues instead of assisting her to get medical help, not keeping tighter control of his own supply of legally obtained controlled substances, recording his own sexual activity with said young woman, and so on) which all tragically converged to result in the death of Marion. At best he was a fool and a screw-up. At worst, he is a depraved and indifferent homicidal sociopath. Since I did not sit on that jury, and all I can work from is second-hand information reported by news media, I refrain from passing my own judgement.

My point in posing my question was, lots of people have been feeling free to pour opprobium upon him, based only on the same secondhand information. Included in the opprobium has been commentary on his mediocrity as a photographer. Historically, artists of great talent have been exculpated to one degree or another for their misdeeds. Would people be more willing to withhold judgement upon him, or to support him as Roger Hicks is doing, were he a greater talent? Thus my previous example of Caravaggio - he was known to be continuously in trouble with the law, including having charges of murder leveled against him. I would not characterize Renaissance Italy as being more lawless than today. The Condotierre della Notte (literally the Night Police, the 16th century equivalent of the Vice Squad) were highly organized, and kept records as detailed and careful as those of any modern police force. I'd argue that in some ways, they were more professional than many modern police forces. Caravaggio kept the protection of multiple powerful patrons throughout his life, even when they knew about his involvement in the murder. Obviously, they felt his talent outweighed his sins.

To cite a more modern example, Robert Mapplethorpe. People still hold his artwork in extremely high esteem, and yet he continued to have sex with multiple partners when he knew he was infected with HIV and dying. Today, in some states, this is a prosecuteable crime. But I don't see folks running around slamming Mapplethorpe's morality to any greater degree for this than they already do for his choices of subject matter. He's still characterized as "that great artist who also happened to be a debauched pervert", as opposed to "a debauched pervert who happened to be a photographer".

So at what point do we make that distinction? At what point does artistic talent perform an absolution of sin?

The most classic example of this that I can recall would be Ezra Pound, who almost certainly would have served jail time had he been of lesser renown. And then of course there are certain scientists contemporaneous with Mr. Pound.

 

[jd callow]

We haven't decided what to do with it. We started off by putting all the Shell threads into one so as not to have multiple threads running at once and to keep what was sure to be a contentious subject isolated. We assumed that a healthy portion of the membership would want to post and we thought it legitimate as Mr Shell has been a fairly large figure in photography over the years. Once this dies we will probably close, but not delete the thread and let it sink back to the bottom of the pile. If and when his appeal comes up we may unlock it and repeat as before.

If no one posts for a couple days or it gets contentious we'll close it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

And as a reminder, anyone who isn't interested can remove the thread from their experience by clicking on "Thread Tools" at the top of the screen and selecting "Ignore Thread."

 

[c6h6o3]

The most classic example of this that I can recall would be Ezra Pound, who almost certainly would have served jail time had he been of lesser renown. And then of course there are certain scientists contemporaneous with Mr. Pound.

You don't call 12 years in St. Elizabeth's (after having been judged criminally insane by a federal grand jury) jail time?

 

[copake_ham]

We haven't decided what to do with it. We started off by putting all the Shell threads into one so as not to have multiple threads running at once and to keep what was sure to be a contentious subject isolated. ....

Aha! So, you created an overall shell thread to contain the Shell threads. Sounds a bit like a shell game to me!

 

[Terence]

George, if that joke can't get this thread closed I don't know what will . . .

 

[jovo]

George, if that joke can't get this thread closed I don't know what will . . .

Nah....there's already so much shell shock that he'd have had to offer a real verbal shellacking to even make an impression.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Absolutely shellacious humor guys... talk about shell-outs.

 

[jovo]

It's 'cause we're shellfish.

 

[copake_ham]

It's 'cause we're shellfish.

Now wait a minute, as I often tell my wife, don't go tearing down my shellfish team!

 

[naturephoto1]

Alright, what's the shellf life of this thread?

Rich

 

[WarEaglemtn]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/137360

The Judge took the recommendation of the jury and gave him 32 years and six months. He better hope the appeal is fast and successful. If not he won't be getting out of prison alive as he is so old going in and the place will grind him down.

 

[Curt]

What's the six months for?

 

[copake_ham]

So what?

The guy was a killer/perv and because he also took film pictures I'm supposed to feel sad?

Bake a cake and put a file in it if you feel sorry for him.

Geez, I hope this is the last Bob Shell thread we have to see. But I fear we'll have to deal with the Appellate process next!

 

[Sparky]

I'd have to concur with george on that one...! The only loss to the photographic community I can see here are his talents for misplaced self-promotion... he shouldn't have been playing with the fire that he did. You pays your money- you takes your chances I guess...

 

[jd callow]

Have fun guys don't strain your necks.

 

[BWGirl]

So what?

The guy was a killer/perv and because he also took film pictures I'm supposed to feel sad?

Bake a cake and put a file in it if you feel sorry for him.

Geez, I hope this is the last Bob Shell thread we have to see. But I fear we'll have to deal with the Appellate process next!

I'm with George... too bad it was 132 years & 6 months.

 

[JBrunner]

Hypothetically- If Shell were to now have his conviction overturned on appeal by our faultless legal system, would he then again be innocent as the driven snow, and owed apologies, or would he still be a "killer/perv"? Just curious.

 

[copake_ham]

Hypothetically- If Shell were to now have his conviction overturned on appeal by our faultless legal system, would he then again be innocent as the driven snow, and owed apologies, or would he still be a "killer/perv"? Just curious.

The best he can hope for on an appeal is that he get a new trial!

He would not "go free" with a successful appeal. The Appellate process begins with the fact that the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defense. In other words, you no longer have the presumption of innocence at the appellate level.

Every convicted defendant screams "I'll appeal". Few actually can find grounds to do so (appeals are NOT automatic); and even fewer prevail to the point of getting a new trial.

 

[johnnywalker]

So an appeal court in the US cannot overturn a lower court decision? Simply send it back for a new trial? Just curious.

 

[jd callow]

I believe an Appeal can roll back the clock as far back as the offending activity (the activity that is being appealed) which can scrap an entire trial or just some portion of it.

 

[copake_ham]

When you appeal a criminal conviction you need to show "gross or manifest error" in the conduct of the trial. Simple "Procedural error" will not obtain you a new trial.

Once convicted, the presumption is that the trial of the fact was fairly conducted and the judgment correct - therefore the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defense to show manifest error.

The system is NOT designed to provide for endless appeals and it does not presume that everyone is simply conspiring to put some poor innocent accused in jail. The man received a jury trial by his peers and was convicted and has now been sentenced.

The "presumption" at this point is that the guy received a fair trial. Why would you doubt otherwise? Nonetheless, if he (i.e. his lawyers) can convince the appeals court that he did not receive a fair trial then they should succeed at the Appellate level in obtaining a new, presumably, fair trail.

But the Appellate court does not determine innocence or guilt - it can only remand for a re-trial if they find manifest error of some sort. Now, often, a defendant "wins" on appeal because a prosecutor will then determine that they cannot prevail on a re-trial and will drop (or reduce) charges to avoid the "error" cited by the Appellate court.

BTW, I don't think it's all that different in Canada.

 

[johnnywalker]

Could be the same for all I know. Wouldn't be surprised, as both systems had the same origin.

 

[MattKing]

In Canada....

Sometimes the appeal turns on a narrow but critical issue. For example, where the subject of the appeal is the admissibility of a statement, and where that statement is both a confession, and the only evidence that could reasonably result in a conviction.

If the statement is thrown out, and the remaining evidence could not support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, the Appeal Court may substitute an acquittal.

It is a similar situation if the Appeal Court finds that the trial court was wrong in law about a fundamental component of the test for what constitutes criminal conduct. If the evidence at trial would not support a finding of criminal conduct, the Appeal Court will substitute an acquittal. An example of this might be something like someone who is charged with theft because they switched price tags on an item in a store, and then only paid the lower, incorrect price. That conduct would support a conviction for fraud, but not for theft, so if the charge is wrong, an acquittal must follow.

Both of these sorts of situations are relatively rare - more cases get sent back for retrial.

In case it isn't clear, if the Crown doesn't get it right in the first place, and the evidence at trial that remains after the Appellate Court finishes their work isn't enough to support a conviction, the Crown doesn't get a second crack at it.

As to the onus on Appeal, it is up to the appellant to satisfy the Appellate Court that the decision which is the subject of the Appeal was in error, and that the error was such that it did or could have affected the result. Despite that, it is still true that the test as to whether it was an error, and whether it matters, is one that must be considered in light of the principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.

To say it another way, the Appellate Court looks at the decisions made in the Court below, and determines whether they were consistent with the law, including whether they properly reflect the principal that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Appellate Courts show a lot of deference to trial courts' findings respecting facts and the evidence, but only if the evidence was fairly led and properly received.

Matt