I Don't Know Any More Than This -- Radio News: DragonCon Head Arrested
mike weber
Atlanta station WGST, which they teased three times in the half-hour i
was listening and then "covered" in not much more detail than the
teases, Ed Kramer has been arrested; the radio "story" seemed to
indicate it was for child molesting.
I'll keep an eye/ear open and see if i can find out what's going on.
--
"It's not what you don't know that can hurt you -- it's the things that
you do know that AREN'T true..." ("The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"?)
================================================================
mike weber kras...@mindspring.com
half complete website of Xeno--http://weberworld.virtualave.net
P Nielsen Hayden
mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>According to a Very Short item on this morning's drive-time news on
>Atlanta station WGST, which they teased three times in the half-hour i
>was listening and then "covered" in not much more detail than the
>teases, Ed Kramer has been arrested; the radio "story" seemed to
>indicate it was for child molesting.
It was on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web site this morning. Now
it's the top story on the WXIA/Channel 11 web site:
http://www.wxia.com/local/local_top_story.asp?storyid=2710
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
P Nielsen Hayden
I posted substantially this same note to the smofs list a few minutes
ago, but I want to make the same points here.
Currently, at
<http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/today/local_news_
931c0ca241ada1590004.html>:
you can read the following squib from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
> GWINNETT COUNTY: FBI joins sex probe of Dragon*Con founder
> The FBI has joined the investigation of a Duluth man who had
> widespread access to children and is charged with sexually abusing a
> 13-year-old boy. Suspect Edward Eliot Kramer, 39, charged with
> aggravated child molestation, was denied bond Thursday. Photographs of
> the alleged victim are among hundreds found by police in Kramer's home
> showing the boys "in various states of dress and undress" but not
> fully nude, Gwinnett police investigator Curtis Clemons said. Kramer,
> founder of the popular Atlanta sci-fi convention Dragon*Con, has
> worked with troubled children in DeKalb County and for the Metro
> Regional Educational Service Agency. The agency provides educational
> resources to 11 metro Atlanta school districts and Kramer was the
> technology consultant in charge of its federal technology grant. FBI
> agents are reviewing about 250 videotapes of mostly foreign films
> police found in Kramer's home.
Yesterday, when the news of Ed Kramer's arrest started showing up in
Atlanta-area news media on the web, I was the first person to post a
URL to the smofs mailing list. Moreover, I'm not a big fan of Ed
Kramer. I don't like the kinds of cons he runs, I have more than one
friend who's worked with him on anthology projects and who's come to
regret doing so, and I've always been put off by his insinuating
manner when he wants to sell me anthologies. Frankly, he's always
struck me as a hustler, as someone constantly prowling for an angle.
So for that reason, I feel particularly compelled to remark that the
above story -- today's followup -- sets off a whole bunch of alarm
bells for me. There's a distinct lack of internal logic; connections
are repeatedly insinuated but never actually demonstrated. In the
third sentence, we slide directly from "the alleged victim"
(singular), to "the boys" (plural), without any explanation
whatsoever, so that suddenly it's implied that Ed Kramer molested some
unstated larger number of boys.
Moreover, it's hard to escape the thought that any number of us
probably have "hundreds" of photographs of people "in various states
of dress and undress" in our homes, some of whom might even be under
18, simply by virtue of having gone to a lot of costume-heavy SF cons
and taken a lot of pictures. Were _we_ to be (let's just postulate)
falsely charged with molesting one minor, who happened to be depicted
on one of those "hundreds" of photographs, the newspapers could write
exactly that sentence about us.
And, of course, note the final line of the story: "FBI agents are
reviewing about 250 videotapes of mostly foreign films police found in
Kramer's home." Goodness, videotapes of foreign films! Well, there's
a smoking gun for you.
(Teresa pointed out, after reading my earlier draft of this note, that
those "foreign" films could in fact be anime, some of which would
certainly excite prosecutors looking for evidence of pederasty. But
lots of people in our circles have tons of anime.)
Ed Kramer could be guilty as sin. All kinds of evidence may be in the
offing -- home-made videos, confessions, who knows what. But this
what this squib from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web page
actually demonstrates is that disparate facts about anyone's life can
be marshaled to suggest deviancy and guilt. Not that we've ever seen
local and Federal law-enforcement authorities in Atlanta do anything
like that, perish the thought.
mike weber
I can agree with that last sentence. But i kind of like Ed, anyway.
And i know people who are closer friends of his than i am ever likely
to be who apparently think he's a Pretty Good Guy.
>
>So for that reason, I feel particularly compelled to remark that the
>above story -- today's followup -- sets off a whole bunch of alarm
>bells for me. There's a distinct lack of internal logic; connections
>are repeatedly insinuated but never actually demonstrated. In the
>third sentence, we slide directly from "the alleged victim"
>(singular), to "the boys" (plural), without any explanation
>whatsoever, so that suddenly it's implied that Ed Kramer molested some
>unstated larger number of boys.
Agreed. However, i must point out that the kid he's accused of Dong
Things With is one of two sons of a female acquaintance of his, so,
possibly the "boys" referred to mean the one kid and his brother
>
>Moreover, it's hard to escape the thought that any number of us
>probably have "hundreds" of photographs of people "in various states
>of dress and undress" in our homes, some of whom might even be under
>18, simply by virtue of having gone to a lot of costume-heavy SF cons
>and taken a lot of pictures. Were _we_ to be (let's just postulate)
>falsely charged with molesting one minor, who happened to be depicted
>on one of those "hundreds" of photographs, the newspapers could write
>exactly that sentence about us.
Yup. Part of the reason i posted the little i had hears was because i
was thinking about the "free speech" and "child pornography" exchanges
we've been having; what we see here certainly calls several things
that have been batted forth in those discussions to my mind.
>
>And, of course, note the final line of the story: "FBI agents are
>reviewing about 250 videotapes of mostly foreign films police found in
>Kramer's home." Goodness, videotapes of foreign films! Well, there's
>a smoking gun for you.
>
>(Teresa pointed out, after reading my earlier draft of this note, that
>those "foreign" films could in fact be anime, some of which would
>certainly excite prosecutors looking for evidence of pederasty. But
>lots of people in our circles have tons of anime.)
Got that right. Sometimes i think about that and think about what
might happen to some of the people i know if for some reason cops came
to their home and saw some of that sort of stuff that they own.
>
>Ed Kramer could be guilty as sin. All kinds of evidence may be in the
>offing -- home-made videos, confessions, who knows what. But this
>what this squib from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web page
>actually demonstrates is that disparate facts about anyone's life can
>be marshaled to suggest deviancy and guilt. Not that we've ever seen
>local and Federal law-enforcement authorities in Atlanta do anything
>like that, perish the thought.
>
No, of course not.
Beyond Ed's own personal situation, of course, is the further thought
that this is likely to get the SF/media/comics culture in the Atlanta
area Very Closely Scrutinised by cops and/or media.
Given historical attitudes of Atlanta-area law-enforcement types and
prosecutors toward sexually-oriented materials, there are some things
i'd already be getting ready to pull off my shelves for a while if i
were a comic-shop or video-shop operator in this area.
David G. Bell
kras...@mindspring.com "mike weber" wrote:
> Given historical attitudes of Atlanta-area law-enforcement types and
> prosecutors toward sexually-oriented materials, there are some things
> i'd already be getting ready to pull off my shelves for a while if i
> were a comic-shop or video-shop operator in this area.
I have a friend in the Atlanta area, somebody I only know through the
distorting mirrors of a MUCK, who I think I may pass this on to.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Copyright 2000 David G. Bell
The right to insert advertising material in the above text is reserved
to the author. The author did not use any form of HTML in the above text.
Any text following this line was added without the author's permission.
Marilee J. Layman
>Yesterday, when the news of Ed Kramer's arrest started showing up in
>Atlanta-area news media on the web, I was the first person to post a
>URL to the smofs mailing list. Moreover, I'm not a big fan of Ed
>Kramer. I don't like the kinds of cons he runs, I have more than one
>friend who's worked with him on anthology projects and who's come to
>regret doing so, and I've always been put off by his insinuating
>manner when he wants to sell me anthologies. Frankly, he's always
>struck me as a hustler, as someone constantly prowling for an angle.
The first thing I thought when I saw Mike's note last night was that
R*l*nd C*stl* had said Ed had molested kids and that made this more
suspect.
--
Marilee J. Layman The Other*Worlds*Cafe
HOSTE...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group.
AOL Keyword: OWC http://www.webmoose.com/owc
mike weber
<mjla...@erols.com> typed
>On 15 Sep 2000 16:04:26 GMT, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>
>>Yesterday, when the news of Ed Kramer's arrest started showing up in
>>Atlanta-area news media on the web, I was the first person to post a
>>URL to the smofs mailing list. Moreover, I'm not a big fan of Ed
>>Kramer. I don't like the kinds of cons he runs, I have more than one
>>friend who's worked with him on anthology projects and who's come to
>>regret doing so, and I've always been put off by his insinuating
>>manner when he wants to sell me anthologies. Frankly, he's always
>>struck me as a hustler, as someone constantly prowling for an angle.
>
>The first thing I thought when I saw Mike's note last night was that
>R*l*nd C*stl* had said Ed had molested kids and that made this more
>suspect.
>
What makes it a little more nervous-making is that there was
apparently some similar problem back in '97 but the charges were,
apparently dropped.
--
He had long ago come to the conclusion that there were no
"things Man was Not Meant To Know". He was willing to believe
that there were things Man was Too Dumb To Figure Out
<mike weber> <kras...@mindspring.com>
Ambitious Incomplete web site: http://weberworld.virtualave.net
Ray Radlein
>
> I posted substantially this same note to the smofs list a few
> minutes ago, but I want to make the same points here.
Just out of curiousity, can I quote this message over to
alt.fandom.cons or alt.fandom.dragoncon (where it is, of course, the
very model of topicality)? I could, if you wish, elide the personal
observations you used to establish your objectivity, or not; but I
think your observations about what the article says and *doesn't* say
are very insightful.
Normally, I would probably have just asked in e-mail, but it occurred
to me that someone else reading here might also want to do this, and
if your answer is "no thanks," it'd probably be better if the
hypothetical lurker saw it, too.
- Ray R.
--
**********************************************************************
"LOS ANGELES: A city of millions; thousands more are born each day.
Some in maternity wards, some in creche incubators. The Artificial
ones don't have civil rights, but they still need the law. That's
why they turn to me. My name is Friday. I carry a badge."
-- Robert A. Heinlein's "Dragnet"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
**********************************************************************
Paul W. Cashman
[...]
>Yesterday, when the news of Ed Kramer's arrest started showing up in
>Atlanta-area news media on the web, I was the first person to post a
>URL to the smofs mailing list. Moreover, I'm not a big fan of Ed
>Kramer. I don't like the kinds of cons he runs, I have more than one
>friend who's worked with him on anthology projects and who's come to
>regret doing so, and I've always been put off by his insinuating
>manner when he wants to sell me anthologies. Frankly, he's always
>struck me as a hustler, as someone constantly prowling for an angle.
>
>So for that reason, I feel particularly compelled to remark that the
>above story -- today's followup -- sets off a whole bunch of alarm
>bells for me. There's a distinct lack of internal logic; connections
>are repeatedly insinuated but never actually demonstrated. In the
>third sentence, we slide directly from "the alleged victim"
>(singular), to "the boys" (plural), without any explanation
>whatsoever, so that suddenly it's implied that Ed Kramer molested some
>unstated larger number of boys.
It goes a bit deeper than that. The rather abrupt media blitz on
this "just happened" to occur the day of Ed's bail hearing (he'd been
arrested Aug. 25th or so). Since the news was "fresh," there were TV
cameras in the courtroom, and no elected judge would dare allow bond
to an accused sex offender under those circumstances. Nicely
orchestrated.
AFAIK, Ed hasn't even been indicted, yet he's been rotting in a jail
cell for over three weeks. Pretty frightening. I hope someone
remembered to get his medication; he's not in the healthiest shape.
Funny how the news articles don't mention that part.
Apparently, there is very little (if any) "hard" evidence in the
matter, and the clear bias in the news story (e.g., what evidence do
they have that Ed threw his "300-lb bulk against the door three
times"? Mary's word? Were there any witnesses? C'mon, people.....)
is designed to "draw out" other kids who might have been molested, to
try to shore up the prosecution's case. Care to guess where they're
trying to go with that? The mother, Ed's ex-girlfriend, is aware of
the R***** C****** incident, but she's probably unaware of the
details: that probable cause was found for RC's arrest on charges of
criminal defamation of character. Y'see, I was present at Clarke
County Court that day, so I -know-. Yeppers, it all stinks like
yesterday's fish.
I realize that many people in fandom have various reasons to dislike
Ed, and there's no doubt that in some cases they have just cause for
it. :)
--But I also know of many people -- kids and adults -- whose lives
have been directly improved with Ed's help, ranging from helping
troubled teens with drug rehab, to introducing aspiring writers and
artists to professionals -- some, like me, have been published
thereafter -- to helping bands get noticed in the music industry, etc.
If a call goes out for character witnesses on Ed's behalf, they'd have
to marshal us at the stadium and bus us to the courtroom in shifts. I
exaggerate, but at least a hundred people locally would answer that
call. Ed tends to leave a well-marked trail. :)
>Moreover, it's hard to escape the thought that any number of us
>probably have "hundreds" of photographs of people "in various states
>of dress and undress" in our homes, some of whom might even be under
>18, simply by virtue of having gone to a lot of costume-heavy SF cons
>and taken a lot of pictures. Were _we_ to be (let's just postulate)
>falsely charged with molesting one minor, who happened to be depicted
>on one of those "hundreds" of photographs, the newspapers could write
>exactly that sentence about us.
Yea, my first thought was "Oh, they must have found pictures of the
hall costume contest."
>(Teresa pointed out, after reading my earlier draft of this note, that
>those "foreign" films could in fact be anime, some of which would
>certainly excite prosecutors looking for evidence of pederasty. But
>lots of people in our circles have tons of anime.)
>
>Ed Kramer could be guilty as sin. All kinds of evidence may be in the
>offing -- home-made videos, confessions, who knows what. But this
>what this squib from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web page
>actually demonstrates is that disparate facts about anyone's life can
>be marshaled to suggest deviancy and guilt. Not that we've ever seen
>local and Federal law-enforcement authorities in Atlanta do anything
>like that, perish the thought.
Nor did these Pulitzer candidates report the arrest when it happened
(or even within two weeks of it), despite the docket being a matter of
public record on the sheriff's department's website.....
Perrianne Lurie
<r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:
>P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>>
>> I posted substantially this same note to the smofs list a few
>> minutes ago, but I want to make the same points here.
>
>Just out of curiousity, can I quote this message over to
>alt.fandom.cons or alt.fandom.dragoncon (where it is, of course, the
>very model of topicality)? I could, if you wish, elide the personal
>observations you used to establish your objectivity, or not; but I
>think your observations about what the article says and *doesn't* say
>are very insightful.
>
>Normally, I would probably have just asked in e-mail, but it occurred
>to me that someone else reading here might also want to do this, and
>if your answer is "no thanks," it'd probably be better if the
>hypothetical lurker saw it, too.
This was posted on alt.fandom.cons:
>Atlanta Journal Constitution:
>http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/friday/
>gwinnett_931c89d5f233b0da1012.html
>TEXT:
>The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
>September 15, 2000, Friday, Home Edition
>Gwinnett Extra; Pg. 1JJ
>Boy, 13, accuses man of sodomy;
>Bond denied: Suspect who worked closely with children held on molestation
>charges.
>by Beth Warren, Staff
> The man's access to children is undisputed.
> Suspect Edward Eliot Kramer, 39, worked with troubled children in
>DeKalb County, founded a sci-fi convention that annually attracts adults
>and children, and he has worked in several metro Atlanta schools.
> Parents trusted him with their children, allowing sleepovers,
>amusement park and camping excursions and trips out of town.
> Now one mother is convinced she made the mistake of a lifetime,
>allowing Kramer to spend too much time alone with one of her three boys.
> Kramer is charged with aggravated child molestation after the woman's
>13- year-old son said he was sodomized while spending the night at
>Kramer's Duluth home.
> Kramer has declined an interview. One of his two Atlanta attorneys,
>James Altman, said, "Everybody's presumed innocent until proven guilty."
> The FBI has joined Gwinnett County police's investigation. FBI agents
>will review about 250 videotapes, some of which were foreign films,
>police found inside Kramer's home.
> As many as a dozen featured mostly unclothed or nude young boys, with
>the theme often focused on boys discovering their sexuality either with
>other young boys or older men, police said.
> Investigators are also trying to identify hundreds of photographs of
>boys " in various states of dress and undress" but not fully nude,
>Gwinnett County police investigator Curtis Clemons testified Thursday at
>a bond hearing.
> Among those photographed: the woman's 13-year-old son and 15-year-old
>son, the investigator said.
> Kramer "has self-employment occupation which constantly puts him in
>contact with young children and possible other victims," Gwinnett County
>police investigator C.L. Clemons wrote in asking that bond be denied,
>court documents show.
> Magistrate Court Judge Patricia Holman denied bond, ordering that
>Kramer remain jailed until Thursday's hearing before Superior Court Judge
>Debra Turner.
> Defense attorneys argued that Kramer's interest in children is
>legitimate. He had been working on a film depicting the adventures of a
>group of boys --- similar to "Lord of the Flies" but set in space.
> They brought in six witnesses to assure the judge that Kramer was
>honest, responsible and not a threat to anyone --- especially children.
> One man said he has known Kramer since he was age 12 and that there
>was never any inappropriate contact.
> Instead, he said Kramer cared for children, listening to troubles and
>steering some to drug rehab.
> Kramer's mother assured the court that her son would honor conditions
>of bond and would appear in court when needed.
> His employer, Milton Levy, said Kramer has been a dedicated employee
>for 11 years, working for the Metro Regional Educational Service Agency,
>which provides educational resources to 11 metro Atlanta school
>districts.
> Kramer is a technology consultant in charge of a federal grant that
>serves schools in the metro Atlanta area.
> He has worked in the schools, but lately has been working solely in an
>office, Levy said.
> Turner denied the defense's request for bond. She said there was
>reason to believe he could be a threat to the community and might try to
>intimidate witnesses.
> The 13-year-old first confided in his 12-year-old brother, but the
>younger child didn't believe him, the mother said. About a week later,
>the Department of Family and Children Services received an anonymous
>complaint and asked police to investigate. Detectives then went to the
>child's school and the mother's job, she said.
> The boy initially denied any abuse took place, but became upset and
>ran from the interview room at his school, the investigator said. The
>child later confided in his mother and Clemons, he said.
> Kramer told the boy he was special and that he loved him more than his
>two brothers, Clemons testified.
> Before his arrest on Aug. 25, Kramer had agreed to come to police
>headquarters in Lawrenceville for questioning. First, he headed to the
>boy's home, knocking on the door and then thrusting his 300-pound frame
>against the door three times, as if trying to force the door open, police
>said.
> The frantic mother called police, but Kramer was gone before officers
>arrived, Clemons said. He was en route to the Police Department, telling
>investigators he was running late due to traffic congestion, Clemons
>testified.
> The boy has been plagued with nightmares, and has had problems with
>anger, his mother said. He lashed out at his teachers Wednesday and was
>sent home, she said.
> The woman told Clemons that she met Kramer through a telephone dating
>service and that he quickly grew close to her three boys. The two dated
>for two years but were never intimate, which prompted the woman to
>question Kramer, the investigator said. Kramer became angry and wouldn't
>discuss the matter, he said.
> Kramer had asked for a public defender, but earns too much money to be
>declared indigent -- averaging about $ 1,350 in take-home pay every two
>weeks, court records show. He is the founder of Dragon*Con, an annual
>convention geared toward Star Wars, Star Trek and pop culture enthusiasts
>and featuring comic books and horror flicks.
> Adam West, star of the TV series "Batman," was among an estimated
>40,000 attendees at last year's convention in downtown Atlanta.
> The case remains under investigating and additional charges involving
>more victims are possible, prosecutor Nancy DuPree said.
> GRAPHIC: Photo
> Charles Brant, listening to court proceedings Thursday, is one of two
>attorneys defending suspect
> Edward Eliot Kramer. / BITA HONARVAR / Staff
> Photo
> Judge Debra Turner denied bond, saying there was reason to believe the
>suspect could be a threat to
> the community and might try and intimidate witnesses. / BITA HONARVAR
>/ Staff
> Photo
> Edward Eliot Kramer, charged with aggravated child molestation, has
>worked for a company that
> provides educational resources to several metro area school districts.
>/ BITA HONARVAR / Staff
>In article <5Qgw5.135$fa2....@eagle.america.net>,
> Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>> Rick Wallace <ri...@nospam.panpipes.net> wrote:
>> >Are the stories about Ed Kramer true? It was reported in Atlanta media today
>> >that Ed Kramer, founder of Dragon*Con was charged with several counts of child
>> >molestation.
>>
>> http://www.11alive.com/local/local_top_story.asp?storyid=2710
>>
>> Rob
Perrianne Lurie
bucc...@pipeline.com
John Kensmark
[...]
I know nothing about this case except what's been in this thread,
and I never heard of Ed Kramer before either, but I have to admit
that this is some mighty troubling media coverage. This is a
difficult sort of thing to cover without offending people, but that
doesn't excuse the presumption of guilt that's rampant in the
reporting I've seen.
>> The boy initially denied any abuse took place, but became
>> upset and ran from the interview room at his school, the
>> investigator said. The child later confided in his mother and
>> Clemons, he said.
I just want to point out that confessions of this type--reluctant
ones that include denial and secondhand reporting, especially when
children are involved--are notoriously questionable. Especially
when sexual abuse is involved. Doesn't anyone remember the McMartin
trial?
>> Kramer told the boy he was special and that he loved him more
>> than his two brothers, Clemons testified.
Of course, this is secondhand, and, in and of itself, not
incriminating.
>> Before his arrest on Aug. 25, Kramer had agreed to come to
>> police headquarters in Lawrenceville for questioning. First, he
>> headed to the boy's home, knocking on the door and then
>> thrusting his 300-pound frame against the door three times, as
>> if trying to force the door open, police said.
Of course, the police obviously didn't witness this; again, it's
secondhand. The police may even have made this clear, but the story
certainly doesn't.
>> The boy has been plagued with nightmares, and has had
>> problems with anger, his mother said. He lashed out at his
>> teachers Wednesday and was sent home, she said.
No presumption of anything is justified here.
>> Kramer had asked for a public defender, but earns too much
>> money to be declared indigent -- averaging about $ 1,350 in
>> take-home pay every two weeks, court records show.
And, of course, anyone can afford a good lawyer while living in an
urban area on roughly $35k a year.
I'm certainly interested in what happens next.
--
John Kensmark kensmark#hotmail.com
Services for man who refused to hate Thursday in Atlanta
-- headline, Detroit "Michigan Chronicle", 11/17/84
Joel Rosenberg
It's a horrible thing, certainly, regardless of his guilt or
innocence, just horrible differently, depending.
DavidBilek
>
>>>
>>> Kramer had asked for a public defender, but earns too much
>>> money to be declared indigent -- averaging about $ 1,350 in
>>> take-home pay every two weeks, court records show.
>
>And, of course, anyone can afford a good lawyer while living in an
>urban area on roughly $35k a year.
>
I agree whole-heartedly with all of your points, but an evil compulsive
demon on my shoulder is forcing me to point out that $1350 in take
home pay every two weeks means he's probably making something
over $50k a year, not $35k. Take home pay is after taxes.
Not that you're going to hire the Dream Team on $50k a year either,
of course.
>I'm certainly interested in what happens next.
As am I.
-David
CopperScale Dragon
repeated here, having seen what is being posted.
****************************************************************************
I to have known Ed for many years, worked for him in the Dragon Con
office, and spent many hours in his company. He has cared for my
child when I had to have surgery, and been there for me on numerous
occasions when I needed someone to talk to. Ed is a kind and caring
person.
As for these charges, the court system will have to sort it all out.
I can only hope that justice is served in this case. Having been
involved with the court system for many years, I can only trust the
system to work.
Ed Kramer is my friend, and I will do what I can for him. I think
that one thing that needs to be said is that the evidence being
presented in the paper may not be a damming as it sounds. Ed has
received many tapes throughout the years form film makers for
evaluation and consideration to be shown at Dragon Con. I have seen
many of these films, and so have others. Also, he has an extensive
collection of Anime, which is the foreign film collection mentioned in
the news. He has GWAR tapes and several other performance tapes from
the various bands that have played at the con, or wanted to play, and
sent demo tapes. Have any of you seen some of the Goth bands perform
live? Need I say more?
Also, the photographs, Ed is a photographer. He has taken head shots
for several people locally and has also photographed many professional
musicians and such during his college days. He was a photographer for
Rolling Stone Magazine. The "partially clad boys" were audition and
promotional shots for the movie he is producing. I have seen many of
these shots. The boys are dressed in a "native" gear, loin cloths and
rags. Several of the kids around here wanted to have a part in this
movie, so there were audition shots of them as well. My son was to do
one, but decided he did not want to for other reasons.
So, please, when you consider this, consider fact, not conjecture.
The press is the press. Their job is to sell papers. They will
sensationalized as much as possible, and let's face it, a convention
like DC is great fodder. How many of us could pass on this
inspection. Do you have movies with kids in costumes that may be
considered "undressed"? Ever seen the old movie "Caveman" with Ringo
Starr and Barbara Bach? This is the kind of costume the boys in Ed's
proposed movie wore. Just not as furry. I know that many of you will
read this and think, "Not me, I do not have things like this in my
home!" But look around, and consider what you might have from a
different perspective. Kids in bathing suits in a film, cute pix of
your children in the tub or as tiny bare babies that many of us do
would all be feed for this frenzy of sharks. If you have anything
whatsoever that has a picture or likeness of a young person that is
not dressed like a member of the clergy on a week-day, and you were to
be investigated, (heaven forbid) they could make just as much of it.
The truth is, if most of us were in Ed's place, ther would not be as
much of a fuss, and every little thing would not be drug through the
press as we are not "newsworthy". We did not create a hugely
successful event. Ed did. His innocence or guilt will be determined
by the court, and is not for us to decide. As for the rest, consider
the source.
Jane
Former director, dealers room and Kid*Con
Mother, Grandmother, and Wife
and friend of Ed Kramer
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:22:51 -0400, mk <> wrote:
>As a person who has known Ed Kramer for 10 years and who has studied
>the information thus far presented to us concerning this case, I feel
>that it is baseless and ludicrous. Ed is a man who would extend his
>aid to anyone in need without thought for himself or for appearances.
>I also speak for a dear friend of mine, and a 15-year friend of Ed's,
>Richard Dinsmore. I feel that he would certainly vouch for Ed's
>impeccable character, kindhearted nature, and habit of going above and
>beyond to help others. I resent this assumption of his guilt and
>assasnation of his character, and would like to speak out for those
>who support him, respect him, and care about him. He has done a great
>job for Dragon Con, and we should not turn our backs on him in this,
>his time of need.
>
>Kerry Bateman,
>Eternal Member, Dragon Con
mike weber
<kensmark@see_end_of_post.com> typed
>>> Kramer had asked for a public defender, but earns too much
>>> money to be declared indigent -- averaging about $ 1,350 in
>>> take-home pay every two weeks, court records show.
>
>And, of course, anyone can afford a good lawyer while living in an
>urban area on roughly $35k a year.
>
I believe that Ed has at least an interest in a profitable chain of
local comic shops, and DragonCon, which draws in the tens of thousands
every year, is *not* a non-profit convention; it may well be that he
has assets beyond just his salary that were considered but not
reported by our beloved local fishwrapper.
Keith F. Lynch
> Kramer had asked for a public defender, but earns too much money to
> be declared indigent -- averaging about $ 1,350 in take-home pay
> every two weeks, court records show.
As someone who was falsely convicted of a serious crime after being
given extremely bad advice by a court-appointed attorney, I'm pleased
that he was turned down. He may go heavily into debt hiring a
competent attorney, but that's incomparably better than spending
decades in prison for a crime he didn't commit. (Assuming he's
innocent, of course.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Paul W. Cashman
weber) wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:07:33 -0500, John Kensmark
><kensmark@see_end_of_post.com> typed
>
>
>>>> Kramer had asked for a public defender, but earns too much
>>>> money to be declared indigent -- averaging about $ 1,350 in
>>>> take-home pay every two weeks, court records show.
>>
>>And, of course, anyone can afford a good lawyer while living in an
>>urban area on roughly $35k a year.
>>
>I believe that Ed has at least an interest in a profitable chain of
>local comic shops, and DragonCon, which draws in the tens of thousands
>every year, is *not* a non-profit convention; it may well be that he
>has assets beyond just his salary that were considered but not
>reported by our beloved local fishwrapper.
Well, no income from Dragon*Con (there are no pay-outs except to our
office staffer), maybe a bit from Titan Games and Comics (not all the
stores have proven profitable; at least one was closed), but some
income from his various editing and anthology projects. Not usually
all THAT much, but every once in a while......like, when you get an
anthology story in from Stephen King.....it can be decent money.
Bernard Peek
<kras...@mindspring.com> writes
>>>> money to be declared indigent -- averaging about $ 1,350 in
>>>> take-home pay every two weeks, court records show.
>>
>>And, of course, anyone can afford a good lawyer while living in an
>>urban area on roughly $35k a year.
>>
>local comic shops, and DragonCon, which draws in the tens of thousands
>every year, is *not* a non-profit convention; it may well be that he
>has assets beyond just his salary that were considered but not
>reported by our beloved local fishwrapper.
Although DragoncCon isn't run by a not-for-profit corporation Ed has
said, repeatedly, that he doesn't draw any profits from it. The fact
that it's not a 501c corporation doesn't mean that anyone makes a profit
from it.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0400:
>The Atlanta Journal and Constitution printed:
>
>> Kramer had asked for a public defender, but earns too much money to
>> be declared indigent -- averaging about $ 1,350 in take-home pay
>> every two weeks, court records show.
>
>As someone who was falsely convicted of a serious crime after being
>given extremely bad advice by a court-appointed attorney, I'm pleased
>that he was turned down. He may go heavily into debt hiring a
>competent attorney, but that's incomparably better than spending
>decades in prison for a crime he didn't commit. (Assuming he's
>innocent, of course.)
There are competent public defenders, though what percentage varies
from place to place. There are also, of course, incompetent defense
lawyers who are not public defenders. I have no idea what resources
Kramer has, financially, or how much time a competent lawyer will
spend on defending a client who may not be able to pay the bills for
a very long time.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
cha...@wil.net
I wonder what everyone's favorite Roland Castle has to say about
this..If he hasn't weighed in yet it's inevitable that he will....
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mitch Wagner
<slrn8s4i4...@panix3.panix.com>:
>Ed Kramer could be guilty as sin. All kinds of evidence may be in the
>offing -- home-made videos, confessions, who knows what. But this
>what this squib from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web page
>actually demonstrates is that disparate facts about anyone's life can
>be marshaled to suggest deviancy and guilt. Not that we've ever seen
>local and Federal law-enforcement authorities in Atlanta do anything
>like that, perish the thought.
... like in the Richard Jewell case, for instance.
--
Mitch Wagner
cha...@wil.net
Wagner) wrote:
> >Ed Kramer could be guilty as sin. All kinds of evidence may be in the
> >offing -- home-made videos, confessions, who knows what. But this
> >what this squib from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web page
> >actually demonstrates is that disparate facts about anyone's life can
> >be marshaled to suggest deviancy and guilt. Not that we've ever seen
> >local and Federal law-enforcement authorities in Atlanta do anything
> >like that, perish the thought.
>
> ... like in the Richard Jewell case, for instance.
I do take issue with the inflammatory manner that the article presents the
data, and especially with the manipulative placement of the quote from the
plaintiff's mother. However, few yet seem to want to face the damage that
this event could have on fandom, especially in an election year, and
especially with someone so well known and connected in the
fandom/entertainment arena. The whole thing at this point is very
circumstantial as no physical evidence has been presented as of the
moment, but I agree with the above that the reporter apparently doesn't
recognize the presumption of innocence in our judicial system, or isn't
being allowed to by her superiors (allowing for the reality that the AJC's
desire is to sell newspapers and generate hits on its' web site for its'
advertisers).
cha...@wil.net
> I don't see how fans, who are already held in low esteem by American
> society, are likely to have their reputations damanged any more by this
> arrest.
So we're expected to just sit back and take our medicine as usual, eh?
> Oh, I think I know what you're trying to say here: that elected officials
> will say that the accused's behavior is caused by his fannishness, and that
> child molestation is a part of fandom. I just don't see it as likely to
> happen.
>
Well, *we* know that that's not true, but when has the truth ever stopped
the right wing from engaging in acrimonious demogogary while lining their
pockets with donations from the poor souls who have been conditioned to
believe them?
>
> Seems to me that the AJC article was pretty good for a first day of
> reporting. Let's see how they do on following the case before we condemm
> them as just being out to sell papers.
The article overall wasn't *that* bad, but I stand by what I said.
CopperScale Dragon
>
>Well, *we* know that that's not true, but when has the truth ever stopped
>the right wing from engaging in acrimonious demogogary while lining their
>pockets with donations from the poor souls who have been conditioned to
>believe them?
Who in the world ever told you that the press was right wing?
No one in the AJC staff would ever be accused of that, for sure!
Jane
Mitch Wagner
>In article <8FB29E61Bas...@127.0.0.1>, mit...@sff.net (Mitch
>Wagner) wrote:
>
>> >Ed Kramer could be guilty as sin. All kinds of evidence may be in the
>> >offing -- home-made videos, confessions, who knows what. But this
>> >what this squib from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web page
>> >actually demonstrates is that disparate facts about anyone's life can
>> >be marshaled to suggest deviancy and guilt. Not that we've ever seen
>> >local and Federal law-enforcement authorities in Atlanta do anything
>> >like that, perish the thought.
>>
>> ... like in the Richard Jewell case, for instance.
>
>I do take issue with the inflammatory manner that the article presents the
>data, and especially with the manipulative placement of the quote from the
>plaintiff's mother. However, few yet seem to want to face the damage that
>this event could have on fandom, especially in an election year, and
>especially with someone so well known and connected in the
>fandom/entertainment arena.
I don't see how fans, who are already held in low esteem by American
society, are likely to have their reputations damanged any more by this
arrest.
Oh, I think I know what you're trying to say here: that elected officials
will say that the accused's behavior is caused by his fannishness, and that
child molestation is a part of fandom. I just don't see it as likely to
happen.
>The whole thing at this point is very
>circumstantial as no physical evidence has been presented as of the
>moment, but I agree with the above that the reporter apparently doesn't
>recognize the presumption of innocence in our judicial system, or isn't
>being allowed to by her superiors (allowing for the reality that the AJC's
>desire is to sell newspapers and generate hits on its' web site for its'
>advertisers).
Seems to me that the AJC article was pretty good for a first day of
reporting. Let's see how they do on following the case before we condemm
them as just being out to sell papers.
--
Mitch Wagner
Hal O'Brien
>
> It goes a bit deeper than that. The rather abrupt media blitz on
> this "just happened" to occur the day of Ed's bail hearing (he'd been
> arrested Aug. 25th or so). Since the news was "fresh," there were TV
> cameras in the courtroom, and no elected judge would dare allow bond
> to an accused sex offender under those circumstances. Nicely
> orchestrated.
>
> AFAIK, Ed hasn't even been indicted, yet he's been rotting in a jail
> cell for over three weeks. Pretty frightening. I hope someone
> remembered to get his medication; he's not in the healthiest shape.
> Funny how the news articles don't mention that part.
Hm.
Why is it the phrases "Wen Ho Lee" and "New York Times" are both
suddenly springing to mind? (See Slate for the story on how the Times
appears to have gone for Mr. Lee out of a clear blue sky)
-- Hal
(The URL for said story is a choker:
http://slate.msn.com/Code/chatterbox/chatterbox.asp?Show=9/14/2000
&idMessage=6064
...but it has many links to coverage of the story over time.)
Mitch Wagner
>
>> I don't see how fans, who are already held in low esteem by American
>> society, are likely to have their reputations damanged any more by
>> this arrest.
>
>So we're expected to just sit back and take our medicine as usual, eh?
WHAT medicine, charawn? Perhaps I failed to read the article carefully, but
I don't recall any imputation that the accused's behavior was typical of
fandom.
>> Seems to me that the AJC article was pretty good for a first day of
>> reporting. Let's see how they do on following the case before we
>> condemm them as just being out to sell papers.
>
>The article overall wasn't *that* bad, but I stand by what I said.
Fine. The article overall wasn't that bad but the Atlanta Journal-
Constitution sucks anyway, just because you say it does.
--
Mitch Wagner
mike weber
>Seems to me that the AJC article was pretty good for a first day of
>reporting. Let's see how they do on following the case before we condemm
>them as just being out to sell papers.
>
For the first day of reporting, yeah.
But he was originally arrested on 25 August, accto other reports.
And the mention on WGST's morning drive-time last week that i
mentioned when i posted the first message in this thread is the first
i heard of it... And apparently, that day was the first that *anyone*
reported it to any extent.
mike weber
>Fine. The article overall wasn't that bad but the Atlanta Journal-
>Constitution sucks anyway, just because you say it does.
>
charawn isn't the only one who says the AJC sucks.
I've been known to say it myself. And the AJC usually agrees with me,
politically.
It's just such a pathetic shadow of the *real* newspaper it used to
be, under McGill and even under Murphy...
Ray Radlein
>
> Who in the world ever told you that the press was right wing?
>
> No one in the AJC staff would ever be accused of that, for sure!
Not the AC, perhaps, but certainly the AJ. :-)
Vicki Rosenzweig
>
[Mitch Wagner, not credited by Charawn, wrote:]
>> I don't see how fans, who are already held in low esteem by American
>> society, are likely to have their reputations damanged any more by this
>> arrest.
>
>So we're expected to just sit back and take our medicine as usual, eh?
If something will have no effect on your reputation, which is what
Mitch is saying, there's no point in worrying about its effect.
In any case, what do you suggest we do? Disavow any connection with
Ed Kramer, just in case? Organize a defense fund? Write to the AJC
and point out that this is not typical of fandom--and thereby create
a connection that people might not have thought of?
>
>> Oh, I think I know what you're trying to say here: that elected officials
>> will say that the accused's behavior is caused by his fannishness, and that
>> child molestation is a part of fandom. I just don't see it as likely to
>> happen.
>>
>
>Well, *we* know that that's not true, but when has the truth ever stopped
>the right wing from engaging in acrimonious demogogary while lining their
>pockets with donations from the poor souls who have been conditioned to
>believe them?
In other words, you have no evidence that this is likely, but your
bogeyman is right-wingers waving bogeymen.
mike weber
typed
>Quoth cha...@wil.net on 17 Sep 2000 20:49:49 -0500:
>>Well, *we* know that that's not true, but when has the truth ever stopped
>>the right wing from engaging in acrimonious demogogary while lining their
>>pockets with donations from the poor souls who have been conditioned to
>>believe them?
>
>In other words, you have no evidence that this is likely, but your
>bogeyman is right-wingers waving bogeymen.
And i'd hardly call the AJC (if that is what the original post was
referring to) as "right wing".
--
"He had long ago come to the conclusion that there
were no 'things Man was Not Meant To Know'. He was willing
to believe that there were things Man was Too Dumb To
Figure Out." - Mike Kurland
Demian Phillips
>(Teresa pointed out, after reading my earlier draft of this note, that
>those "foreign" films could in fact be anime, some of which would
>certainly excite prosecutors looking for evidence of pederasty. But
>lots of people in our circles have tons of anime.)
Well one can always take the domestic anime publishers stance that
they are all collage students over the age of consent.
--
+---------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|^_^ |Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty |
|Demian Phillips |five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I |
|PGP KEY ID 0x5BC4FCB4|finally won out over it. - Elwood P. Dowd |
Demian Phillips
>In article <8FB29E61Bas...@127.0.0.1>, mit...@sff.net (Mitch
>Wagner) wrote:
>
>> >Ed Kramer could be guilty as sin. All kinds of evidence may be in the
>> >offing -- home-made videos, confessions, who knows what. But this
>> >what this squib from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web page
>> >actually demonstrates is that disparate facts about anyone's life can
>> >be marshaled to suggest deviancy and guilt. Not that we've ever seen
>> >local and Federal law-enforcement authorities in Atlanta do anything
>> >like that, perish the thought.
>>
>> ... like in the Richard Jewell case, for instance.
>
>I do take issue with the inflammatory manner that the article presents the
>data, and especially with the manipulative placement of the quote from the
>plaintiff's mother. However, few yet seem to want to face the damage that
>this event could have on fandom, especially in an election year, and
>especially with someone so well known and connected in the
>fandom/entertainment arena. The whole thing at this point is very
>circumstantial as no physical evidence has been presented as of the
>moment, but I agree with the above that the reporter apparently doesn't
>recognize the presumption of innocence in our judicial system, or isn't
>being allowed to by her superiors (allowing for the reality that the AJC's
>desire is to sell newspapers and generate hits on its' web site for its'
>advertisers).
>
I'd say once this case is done with he should keep the competent
lawyer and own himself a hunk of the newspapers (or any other print
media that overdoes it) ass for (is it libel or slander) and other
issues.
Even maybe give the nice little reporters a taste of it go after them
too. But i'm a cynical vindictive bastard when it comes to the media.
Demian Phillips
>Oh, I think I know what you're trying to say here: that elected officials
>will say that the accused's behavior is caused by his fannishness, and that
>child molestation is a part of fandom. I just don't see it as likely to
>happen.
They can also go after those violent child porn cartoons.
Harry Payne
<dem...@cmhcsys.com> writes
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>
>>(Teresa pointed out, after reading my earlier draft of this note, that
>>those "foreign" films could in fact be anime, some of which would
>>certainly excite prosecutors looking for evidence of pederasty. But
>>lots of people in our circles have tons of anime.)
>
>Well one can always take the domestic anime publishers stance that
>they are all collage students over the age of consent.
>
BTW, how can a drawing (collage or otherwise) be over the age of
consent, irrespective of what it portrays? Can someone be locked up for
deviant acts with an Urotsickandodgy cell (vintage 1987, age therefore
13), but not for the same act with one of M*(k3y M0u$3 from Fantasia
(vintage 1939, age 61)?
--
Harry
Mitch Wagner
<ok0fss827shk8cke0...@4ax.com>:
He's going to find it almost impossible to make his case. He was charged
with child molesting, the newspaper reported that fact and provided
additional perspective and evidence.
Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
I am not assuming innocence or guilt. I am reserving judgment, while noting
that when it comes to accusations of child molestation, the instances of
law-enforcement abuse are particularly egregious.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
>mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
>
>>Oh, I think I know what you're trying to say here: that elected
>>officials will say that the accused's behavior is caused by his
>>fannishness, and that child molestation is a part of fandom. I just
>>don't see it as likely to happen.
>
>They can also go after those violent child porn cartoons.
What violent child porn cartoons?
--
Mitch Wagner
John Richards
>
> Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>
I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume innocence.
Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
--
JFW Richards South Hants Science Fiction Group
Portsmouth, Hants 2nd and 4th Tuesdays
England. UK. The Magpie, Fratton Road, Portsmouth
Dave Locke
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>>
>> Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>>
>
> I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume
> innocence.
True.
> Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
There's a word, "ephectic", which long ago dropped out of common
use. Ephectic is the attitude of suspending judgement. Some things
just aren't known; yet, or forever, we don't know. But we don't
know *now*. A not-good commentary on modern society that this word
has dropped out of the language.
--
Dave | dave...@fan.net | "I can live with doubt and uncertainty
and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not
knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
-- Richard Feynman
Nancy Lebovitz
Dave Locke <dave...@fan.net> wrote:
>
>There's a word, "ephectic", which long ago dropped out of common
>use. Ephectic is the attitude of suspending judgement. Some things
>just aren't known; yet, or forever, we don't know. But we don't
>know *now*. A not-good commentary on modern society that this word
>has dropped out of the language.
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Johan Anglemark
wrote:
>Dave Locke <dave...@fan.net> wrote:
>>
>>There's a word, "ephectic", which long ago dropped out of common
>>use. Ephectic is the attitude of suspending judgement. Some things
>>just aren't known; yet, or forever, we don't know. But we don't
>>know *now*. A not-good commentary on modern society that this word
>>has dropped out of the language.
>>
>Was it ever in common use? I think this is the first time I've seen it.
Yes, the online Merriam-Webster which I have perceived as a good
dictionary, doesn't list it. On the other hand I get 26 hits searching
the web with Intelliseek, so it's certainly not something David made
up...
What is "long ago" in this context?
-j
--
johan.a...@bahnhof.se --- www.bahnhof.se/~anglemar/
***** Upsala Science fiction-sällskap:
***** http://sfweb.dang.se/
Demian Phillips
hehehe.
I'm making reference to a recent trend that Hentai Anime publishers
have been following. They state that "the people depicted in the show
are all college students and over the age of consent" when they are
clearly high school students.
Grrr. I cast evil looks at the spell-check. Now if I can work grammar
into this thing I'm set.
Demian Phillips
>dem...@cmhcsys.com (Demian Phillips) wrote in
>>I'd say once this case is done with he should keep the competent
>>lawyer and own himself a hunk of the newspapers (or any other print
>>media that overdoes it) ass for (is it libel or slander) and other
>>issues.
>
>He's going to find it almost impossible to make his case. He was charged
>with child molesting, the newspaper reported that fact and provided
>additional perspective and evidence.
>
>Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
I don't assume him to be innocent, end of story. I do assume him to be
innocent until proven guilty. I have seen a number of reported
incidents that all proved false (years later) after the person/people
have had thier lives ruined and believe people in that situation
deserve some kind of (compensation isn't the right word) um.
something.
Kevin J. Maroney
>I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume innocence.
That's not as generally true as most Americans believe. Jurors in a
criminal trial are required to presume that the defendent is innocent
unless the evidence proves otherwise to a specific degree ("beyond a
reasonable doubt"), but other portions of the criminal justice system
are not required to hold that standard; the bail process, for
instance, presumes guilt.
As citizens who are not empanelled to a trial for Mr. Kramer, we are
under no legal compulsion to presume anything about his guilt. I
prefer not to decide.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Demian Phillips
A synonym I see used for "Anime" (Japanese Animation).
It would be especially bad if he had a taste for hentai titles since
many of them feature "under age" characters by our (in the US)
standards.
Gary Farber
John Richards <jo...@panorama.panorama.com> wrote:
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
> >
> > Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
> >
>
> innocence.
> Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
I could be mistaken in this, but it's my understanding that Mitch Wagner
is not, in fact, the US legal system. Mitch, are you holding out on us,
and you in fact, administer, or are part of, the criminal justice system
of the State of Georgia?
I do agree that it is wise and prudent and fair, in a case like this,
and in most cases, to assume innocence until given at least a lot of
convincing evidence to think otherwise, if not a judicial verdict,
preferably by a jury. But there's no constraint in the US legal system,
federal or state, preventing private citizens from concluding what they
will, and saying what they wish, just as one may then hypothesize, and
state one's conclusions, as to the wisdom of such statements.
--
Gary Farber New York
gfa...@panix.com 2000
garyf...@juno.com
gfa...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gary Farber
kmar...@ungames.com wrote:
> John Richards <jo...@panorama.panorama.com> wrote:
> >I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume
> >innocence.
> >Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
>
> criminal trial are required to presume that the defendent is innocent
> unless the evidence proves otherwise to a specific degree ("beyond a
> reasonable doubt"), but other portions of the criminal justice system
> are not required to hold that standard; the bail process, for
> instance, presumes guilt.
This does not seem an accurate description to me. Prosecutors are
required to demonstrate a threat of flight, or of danger to society or
individuals, before bail can be required by a judge. Similarly, if
someone facing indictment or trial can demonstrate that that there is no
such threat, the judge is mandated to release them without bail. There
are strict guidelines as to how much bail may be required, proportional
to the threat and risk. Naturally, the system is oftimes abused, and
it's not unfair to say that judges have biases, and that many will bend
towards prosecutors, but I think your above statement is, at best, an
over-statement.
> As citizens who are not empanelled to a trial for Mr. Kramer, we are
> under no legal compulsion to presume anything about his guilt. I
> prefer not to decide.
Same same. But I'll presume innocence until given some more substantial
reason than I have so far to presume otherwise. Mind, I'm not fan or
friend of Ed Kramer's, but I can't see human decency allowing me to take
any other course.
Mary Kay Kare
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
> >
> > Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
> >
>
> I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume innocence.
> Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
>
The legal system demands it inside the system. Individual Americans not
involved may think whatever they damn well please.
MKK
--
Stamp out tin toys!
Vicki Rosenzweig
>John Richards cast forth electrons:
>
>> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>>>
>>> Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>>>
>>
>> I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume
>> innocence.
>
>True.
>
>> Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
>
>There's a word, "ephectic", which long ago dropped out of common
>use. Ephectic is the attitude of suspending judgement. Some things
>just aren't known; yet, or forever, we don't know. But we don't
>know *now*. A not-good commentary on modern society that this word
>has dropped out of the language.
Free hint: if you google on this one at work, you might want to
turn to "safe surf" filter on. I don't know what some of those
sites think it means, but it's not the meaning you're using.
Vicki Rosenzweig
GMT:
>mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
>
>>dem...@cmhcsys.com (Demian Phillips) wrote in
>
>>>I'd say once this case is done with he should keep the competent
>>>lawyer and own himself a hunk of the newspapers (or any other print
>>>media that overdoes it) ass for (is it libel or slander) and other
>>>issues.
>>
>>He's going to find it almost impossible to make his case. He was charged
>>with child molesting, the newspaper reported that fact and provided
>>additional perspective and evidence.
>>
>>Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>
>I don't assume him to be innocent, end of story. I do assume him to be
>innocent until proven guilty. I have seen a number of reported
>incidents that all proved false (years later) after the person/people
>have had thier lives ruined and believe people in that situation
>deserve some kind of (compensation isn't the right word) um.
>something.
You're assuming he will be acquitted. There are (broadly) four
possible outcomes:
A: He goes to trial and is acquitted.
B: The prosecutors drop the charges.
C: He goes to trial and is convicted.
D: He pleads guilty, either to the charges described above or to
something with a lesser penalty.
[There's nothing special about this case or charge, in this regard:
those are the possible outcomes on any felony charge.]
In case C or D, any attempt to sue for libel or slander would be
laughed out of court.
In A or B, a lot depends on the details. Most newspaper are pretty
careful about how they report arrests and indictments; damaging the
report may be, legally actionable it probably is not.
Note: I have no information, have never met Mr. Kramer, have no
opinion on his guilt, and Am Not A Lawyer.
[1] Okay, and possibility E: the accused dies before the case
can come to trial. But dead people cannot sue for libel, so we
can ignore that one.
Dave Locke
> Quoth Dave Locke:
>
>> There's a word, "ephectic", which long ago dropped out of common
>> use. Ephectic is the attitude of suspending judgement. Some things
>> just aren't known; yet, or forever, we don't know. But we don't
>> know *now*. A not-good commentary on modern society that this word
>> has dropped out of the language.
>
> Free hint: if you google on this one at work, you might want to
> turn to "safe surf" filter on. I don't know what some of those
> sites think it means, but it's not the meaning you're using.
It's one of those things I became acquainted with from various
treeware sources long, long, long before I got online, so I've never
tried to look it up online. And from your comment here, I gather
doing so wouldn't yield much of value or even be a good idea...
Even more of a comment on modrun society than I thought.
Over in another newsgroup we discovered that OneLook Dictionary
(600+ dictionaries in their database) didn't contain satisfactory
pre-Christian definitions for "love"; that is, the various Greek
meanings weren't fully covered. Doing a Google on it turned up a
cornucopia of more noise than signal, but finally *did* yield a
short-list of reasonably satisfactory coverage.
--
Dave | dave...@fan.net | "It's not a question of whether an
activity is hard; it's a question of whether it merits inclusion in
the Olympics. Doing fancy maneuvers with a surfboard and a
parachute strapped to you whilst falling from great heights
masturbating furiously is undoubtedly hard but I don't think
that medals should be awarded for the practice." - Jim Hill, 9/20/00
Allan Beatty
>
> On 20 Sep 2000 12:25:33 GMT, na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz)
> wrote:
>
> >Dave Locke <dave...@fan.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>use. Ephectic is the attitude of suspending judgement. Some things
> >>just aren't known; yet, or forever, we don't know. But we don't
> >>know *now*. A not-good commentary on modern society that this word
> >>has dropped out of the language.
> >>
>
> Yes, the online Merriam-Webster which I have perceived as a good
> dictionary, doesn't list it. On the other hand I get 26 hits searching
> the web with Intelliseek, so it's certainly not something David made
> up...
>
> What is "long ago" in this context?
The OED has citations from the 17th century. They make it appear
to be used only as an anglicization of a term in ancient Greek
philosophy.
--
Allan Beatty
Too much to click on? http://listen.to/whitenoise
Ed Dravecky III
<snip>
> Seems to me that the AJC article was pretty good for a first
> day of reporting. Let's see how they do on following the case
> before we condemm them as just being out to sell papers.
Pretty good? We had higher journalistic standards for our *fake*
articles at _The Technique_ back when I was at Georgia Tech.
This was bad reporting, slanted and biased and almost undoubtedly
single-sourced. (This is Almost Always Bad.)
I learned to expect no better from the Atlanta Gerbil-Confusion.
(Or "Urinal-Constipation" if you must.)
--
Ed Dravecky III (ed3 at panix.com)
Webmaster of http://www.deathsheep.com/
Mitch Wagner
<j60hssg8q92e3pu22...@4ax.com>:
>John Richards cast forth electrons:
>
>> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>>>
>>> Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>>>
>>
>> I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume
>> innocence.
>
>True.
Actually, not true. As I said in my other post, the court is required to
presume innocence; the rest of us are free to draw our own conclusions.
And even the court's presumption of innocence only holds true in criminal
trials.
>
>> Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
>
>There's a word, "ephectic", which long ago dropped out of common
>use. Ephectic is the attitude of suspending judgement. Some things
>just aren't known; yet, or forever, we don't know. But we don't
>know *now*. A not-good commentary on modern society that this word
>has dropped out of the language.
Good point.
I am ephetic with regards to the case in question here.
I do note that so far the evidence we've seen against the accused amounts
simply to the word of a minor child supported by his mother. One of the
questions I'd be asking if I was a reporter is whether the mother has any
reason to have a grudge against the accused, and whether she has any
history of making false accusations.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
<39C87F...@panorama.panorama.com>:
>Mitch Wagner wrote:
>>
>> Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>>
>
>I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume innocence.
>Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
The U.S. legal system demands that the court presumes innocence--and at
that, only during criminal trials, not civil trials. Those of us who are
not judge, jury, lawyers or other officers of the court, are free to draw
our own conclusions.
--
Mitch Wagner
Ed Dravecky III
> Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> typed:
> > In other words, you have no evidence that this is likely, but
> > your bogeyman is right-wingers waving bogeymen.
>
> And i'd hardly call the AJC (if that is what the original post
> was referring to) as "right wing".
And I'd hardly call the AJC a "reputable newspaper" but that
comes from having read it/them for several years.
Dave Locke
> Dave Locke wrote:
>> John Richards cast forth electrons:
>>>
>>> I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume
>>> innocence.
>>
>> True.
>
> Actually, not true. As I said in my other post, the court is
> required to presume innocence; the rest of us are free to draw
> our own conclusions.
The legal system does demand it, and I took John literally that it's
required within the legal system. If anyone outside of it wants to
pre-judge, that's obviously theirs to do, but I hadn't read him as
speaking that broadly with his "you". If he was, I read him wrong.
> I am ephectic with regards to the case in question here.
Same here.
> I do note that so far the evidence we've seen against the accused amounts
> simply to the word of a minor child supported by his mother. One of the
> questions I'd be asking if I was a reporter is whether the mother has any
> reason to have a grudge against the accused, and whether she has any
> history of making false accusations.
I don't think the word "simply" fits well in that second line up
there. And it wasn't "a" minor child ("The 13-year-old first
confided in his 12-year-old brother, but the younger child didn't
believe him").
I found the reporting of the 5th particularly interesting, though I
note that many in here seemed to waive it away as of no merit and I
found that overreaching.
He "had agreed to come to police headquarters in Lawrenceville for
questioning", and went to their home first where he was "knocking on
the door and then thrusting his 300-pound frame against the door
three times". Afterward he told police "he was running late due to
traffic congestion"... That last move sure doesn't resonate with
brightness or mitigating damages. It resonates with desperation.
Even more interesting, Kramer and the boy's mother had "dated for
two years but were never intimate, which prompted the woman to
question Kramer, the investigator said". But "he quickly grew close
to her three boys". D'uh.
And what they found in his home, which was about a dozen videotapes
which "featured mostly unclothed or nude young boys, with the theme
often focused on boys discovering their sexuality either with other
young boys or older men, police said. Investigators are also trying
to identify hundreds of photographs of boys "in various states of
dress and undress" but not fully nude".
Certainly none of that is going to hang him, but it shouldn't be
waived away, either. It all legitimately adds to a concern that the
case be fully investigated and the truth be outed. If he's
innocent, I wish him the best of luck. If he's found guilty, he'll
be sentenced.
In the meantime, ephectic is a good attitude to take.
--
Dave | dave...@fan.net | "The truth is out there. Anyone know its
URL?" -- Vardebob
Mitch Wagner
>A synonym I see used for "Anime" (Japanese Animation).
>It would be especially bad if he had a taste for hentai titles since
>many of them feature "under age" characters by our (in the US)
>standards.
Ah. Then you get into the question of whether child porn can exist when no
children were involved in its creation.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
>In article <39C87F...@panorama.panorama.com>,
> John Richards <jo...@panorama.panorama.com> wrote:
>> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>> >
>> > Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>> >
>>
>> I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume
>> innocence.
>> Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
>
>I could be mistaken in this, but it's my understanding that Mitch Wagner
>is not, in fact, the US legal system. Mitch, are you holding out on us,
>and you in fact, administer, or are part of, the criminal justice system
>of the State of Georgia?
Awwww, I was savin' it for a surprise. Shucks.
>
>I do agree that it is wise and prudent and fair, in a case like this,
>and in most cases, to assume innocence until given at least a lot of
>convincing evidence to think otherwise, if not a judicial verdict,
>preferably by a jury. But there's no constraint in the US legal system,
>federal or state, preventing private citizens from concluding what they
>will, and saying what they wish, just as one may then hypothesize, and
>state one's conclusions, as to the wisdom of such statements.
Moreover, I have a right to ACT on my belief. If I have an employee who is
accused of a crime, I have a right to conclude that the employee committed
that crime and fire that employee.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
>mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
>
>>dem...@cmhcsys.com (Demian Phillips) wrote in
>
>>>I'd say once this case is done with he should keep the competent
>>>lawyer and own himself a hunk of the newspapers (or any other print
>>>media that overdoes it) ass for (is it libel or slander) and other
>>>issues.
>>
>>He's going to find it almost impossible to make his case. He was charged
>>with child molesting, the newspaper reported that fact and provided
>>additional perspective and evidence.
>>
>>Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>
>I don't assume him to be innocent, end of story. I do assume him to be
>innocent until proven guilty. I have seen a number of reported
>incidents that all proved false (years later) after the person/people
>have had thier lives ruined and believe people in that situation
>deserve some kind of (compensation isn't the right word) um.
>something.
But usually people accused of crimes ARE guilty.
Note: I am not saying that the accused here is guilty. I am aware that in
sex crimes in particular it is easy for law enforcement to bring false
charges and destroy a person's reputation. I am simply arguing against ANY
presumption in this case based on newspaper and radio reports. (If you know
the accused and are friends with him then that's another matter entirely--
in that case, you would be making a judgment based on actual evidence.)
--
Mitch Wagner
Bernard Peek
<mit...@sff.net> writes
>
>Moreover, I have a right to ACT on my belief. If I have an employee who is
>accused of a crime, I have a right to conclude that the employee committed
>that crime and fire that employee.
>
Over here in the UK you wouldn't have that right. I'd guess that a law
that allowed it would be struck down as contrary to the human rights
convention, but I'm not sure.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
Alison Hopkins
Bernard Peek wrote in message ...
>In article <8FB5E7FF8as...@127.0.0.1>, Mitch Wagner
><mit...@sff.net> writes
>
>
>>
>>Moreover, I have a right to ACT on my belief. If I have an employee who is
>>accused of a crime, I have a right to conclude that the employee committed
>>that crime and fire that employee.
>>
>
>Over here in the UK you wouldn't have that right. I'd guess that a law
>that allowed it would be struck down as contrary to the human rights
>convention, but I'm not sure.
>
I can't cite them exactly, but I've read at least two cases where someone
successfully sued for unfair dismissal on those grounds. You can suspend the
person, iirc, for the duration, but not fire, which seems reasonable to me.
Ali
Elisabeth Carey
news:ot3jsskm1qgolcq24...@4ax.com...
> Mitch Wagner cast forth electrons:
>
> > Dave Locke wrote:
> >> John Richards cast forth electrons:
> >>>
> >>> innocence.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, not true. As I said in my other post, the court is
> > required to presume innocence; the rest of us are free to draw
> > our own conclusions.
>
> The legal system does demand it, and I took John literally that it's
> required within the legal system. If anyone outside of it wants to
> pre-judge, that's obviously theirs to do, but I hadn't read him as
> speaking that broadly with his "you". If he was, I read him wrong.
>
> > I am ephectic with regards to the case in question here.
>
> Same here.
>
> > I do note that so far the evidence we've seen against the accused
amounts
> > simply to the word of a minor child supported by his mother. One of the
> > questions I'd be asking if I was a reporter is whether the mother has
any
> > reason to have a grudge against the accused, and whether she has any
> > history of making false accusations.
>
> I don't think the word "simply" fits well in that second line up
> there. And it wasn't "a" minor child ("The 13-year-old first
> confided in his 12-year-old brother, but the younger child didn't
> believe him").
The twelve-year-old brother who was told by his thirteen-year-old brother
doesn't constitute a separate witness to the facts. _A_ minor child,
supported by his mother and another minor child.
I don't think anyone's arguing that the case shouldn't be fully
investigated; merely that what has been presented to the public so far is
not strong reason to conclude that he's guilty, and that the reporting on
this does seem to be presuming guilt.
<snip>
--
Lis Carey
Copyright 2000 by Elisabeth Carey. Any hyperlinks present in the text of
this message were added without my permission.
Kip Williams
> But usually people accused of crimes ARE guilty.
Hmm. Might be more accurate to say that they are found guilty.
Ed Meese slipped here!
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Dave Locke
> Dave Locke wrote:
>> Mitch Wagner cast forth electrons:
>>
>>> I do note that so far the evidence we've seen against the
>>> accused amounts simply to the word of a minor child supported
>>> by his mother.
>>
>> I don't think the word "simply" fits well in that second line up
>> there. And it wasn't "a" minor child ("The 13-year-old first
>> confided in his 12-year-old brother, but the younger child didn't
>> believe him").
>
> The twelve-year-old brother who was told by his thirteen-year-old
> brother doesn't constitute a separate witness to the facts. _A_ minor
> child, supported by his mother and another minor child.
Not a *witness*, but testimonial *evidence* that the problem was
known even before the mother knew of it. That counts, if true (or
at least believed).
> I don't think anyone's arguing that the case shouldn't be fully
> investigated merely that what has been presented to the public
> so far is not strong reason to conclude that he's guilty
That's correct. In fact, I pointed it out a couple of times myself
in the parts you snipped.
> ... and that the reporting on this does seem to be presuming guilt.
I didn't find the reporting to presume guilt. I think that's an
overreaction which would be in place no matter where the reporting
appeared or how it was written up, simply by the very nature of it.
The reporting presented what was being accumulated about X person
being charged with Y crime, as all such reporting does. Only in the
"where there's smoke there's fire" small minds of some readers would
there be a presumption of guilt. Only in the minds of readers who
worry about how any such reportage effects small minds is the
problem somehow magically shifted from the limitations of the small
minds to the backs of the media.
--
Dave | dave...@fan.net | Caveat Lector
"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand."
-- Cat's Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut
Demian Phillips
>dem...@cmhcsys.com (Demian Phillips) wrote in
><0sqhss4hc4kr86dbc...@4ax.com>:
>
>>mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
>>
>>>dem...@cmhcsys.com (Demian Phillips) wrote in
>>
>>>>I'd say once this case is done with he should keep the competent
>>>>lawyer and own himself a hunk of the newspapers (or any other print
>>>>media that overdoes it) ass for (is it libel or slander) and other
>>>>issues.
>>>
>>>He's going to find it almost impossible to make his case. He was charged
>>>with child molesting, the newspaper reported that fact and provided
>>>additional perspective and evidence.
>>>
>>>Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>>
>>I don't assume him to be innocent, end of story. I do assume him to be
>>innocent until proven guilty. I have seen a number of reported
>>incidents that all proved false (years later) after the person/people
>>have had thier lives ruined and believe people in that situation
>>deserve some kind of (compensation isn't the right word) um.
>>something.
>
>But usually people accused of crimes ARE guilty.
>
>Note: I am not saying that the accused here is guilty. I am aware that in
>sex crimes in particular it is easy for law enforcement to bring false
>charges and destroy a person's reputation. I am simply arguing against ANY
>presumption in this case based on newspaper and radio reports. (If you know
>the accused and are friends with him then that's another matter entirely--
>in that case, you would be making a judgment based on actual evidence.)
Please re read the first two line of my post.
Demian Phillips
>dem...@cmhcsys.com (Demian Phillips) wrote in
><g4rhssop7jcbja011...@4ax.com>:
>
>>mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
>>
>>>dem...@cmhcsys.com (Demian Phillips) wrote in
>>><2v0fss45q3sen3sig...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Oh, I think I know what you're trying to say here: that elected
>>>>>officials will say that the accused's behavior is caused by his
>>>>>fannishness, and that child molestation is a part of fandom. I just
>>>>>don't see it as likely to happen.
>>>>
>>>>They can also go after those violent child porn cartoons.
>>>
>>>What violent child porn cartoons?
>>
>>A synonym I see used for "Anime" (Japanese Animation).
>>It would be especially bad if he had a taste for hentai titles since
>>many of them feature "under age" characters by our (in the US)
>>standards.
>
>Ah. Then you get into the question of whether child porn can exist when no
>children were involved in its creation.
Media Blasters(I think) seems to think it is. Go deja in
rec.arts.anime.misc about KITE.
Demian Phillips
>jo...@panorama.panorama.com (John Richards) wrote in
><39C87F...@panorama.panorama.com>:
>
>>Mitch Wagner wrote:
>>>
>>> Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>>>
>>
>>I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume innocence.
>>Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
>
>The U.S. legal system demands that the court presumes innocence--and at
>that, only during criminal trials, not civil trials. Those of us who are
>not judge, jury, lawyers or other officers of the court, are free to draw
>our own conclusions.
And that's fine. It seems to my you have some issue with the person
and are trying to shove your opinion down our throats as if our
opinion is wrong because it isn't your opinion.
Kevin J. Maroney
>Prosecutors are
>required to demonstrate a threat of flight, or of danger to society or
>individuals, before bail can be required by a judge. Similarly, if
>someone facing indictment or trial can demonstrate that that there is no
>such threat, the judge is mandated to release them without bail. There
>are strict guidelines as to how much bail may be required, proportional
>to the threat and risk.
I believe you are incorrect; I believe that in the US, the requirement
of bail is the legal default, and the accused must show exceptional
grounds to be released without it. But IANAL.
David G. Bell
<bqtjssk3k05l1lb7h...@4ax.com>
dave...@fan.net "Dave Locke" wrote:
I'm surprised that Brad Templeton hasn't said anything about the
unreliability of memory.
I don't know how long it will take for this to come to trial, but I have
the impression that major crimes take much longer to reach court than
they once did. What does the combination of delay and media coverage do
to the reliability of witness testimony? There's details which have
been reported which might reinforce false memories.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Copyright 2000 David G. Bell
The right to insert advertising material in the above text is reserved
to the author. The author did not use any form of HTML in the above text.
Any text following this line was added without the author's permission.
Joel Rosenberg
John> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>> Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>>
John> I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume
John> innocence.
Well, no. The presumption of innocence is a legal fiction, binding on
a judge and jury and, to a certain extent, a prosecutor. It's not
binding on people who aren't parties to the case.
Nobody I know, for example, really doubted that John Hinckley shot
Reagan, even before (or after) he was judged not guilty.
That said, a certain decency requires at least suspension of some
judgement until one has enough of the facts to make one. In this
case, all I know is that such-and-such was reported in the papers.
Gary Farber
kmar...@ungames.com wrote:
> Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com> wrote:
> >Prosecutors are
> >required to demonstrate a threat of flight, or of danger to society
> >or
> >individuals, before bail can be required by a judge. Similarly, if
> >someone facing indictment or trial can demonstrate that that there is
> >no
> >such threat, the judge is mandated to release them without bail.
> >There
> >are strict guidelines as to how much bail may be required,
> >proportional to the threat and risk.
>
> I believe you are incorrect; I believe that in the US, the requirement
> of bail is the legal default, and the accused must show exceptional
> grounds to be released without it. But IANAL.
I refer you to the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of
the Bill of Rights: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "
For more detail, see
<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment08/01.html#1>:
". . . a distinctive trend in the United States which had its origin in
a provision of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641, 15
guaranteeing bail to every accused person except those charged with a
capital crime or contempt in open court. Copied in several state
constitutions, 16 this guarantee was contained in the Northwest
Ordinance in 1787, 17 along with a guarantee of moderate fines and
against cruel and unusual punishments, and was inserted in the Judiciary
Act of 1789, 18 enacted contemporaneously with the passage through
Congress of the Bill of Rights. It appears, therefore, that Congress was
aware in 1789 that certain language conveyed a right to bail and that
certain other language merely protected against one means by which a
pre-existing right to bail could be abridged."
"Bail is ''excessive'' in violation of the Eighth Amendment when it is
set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to ensure
the asserted governmental interest. 25 If the only asserted interest is
to guarantee that the accused will stand trial and submit to sentence if
found guilty, then ''bail must be set by a court at a sum designed to
ensure that goal, and no more.'' 26 To challenge bail as excessive, one
must move for a reduction, and if that motion is denied appeal to the
Court of Appeals, and if unsuccessful then to the Supreme Court Justice
sitting for that circuit. 27 The Amendment is apparently inapplicable to
postconviction release pending appeal but the practice has apparently
been to grant such releases. 28"
State law carves out many exceptions now, unfortunately. NY just passed
one mandating no bail for, tada, sexual offenses against children.
Since 1984, Congress has authorized preventive detention in certain
cases, shockingly, but unsurprisingly, enough, and the Supreme Court in
Salerno vs. U.S. has upheld it. But this is not unrestrained, it says
that "the only arguable substantive limitation of the Bail Clause is
that the government's proposed conditions of release or detention not be
'excessive' in light of the perceived evil."
Kevin J. Maroney
>I refer you to the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of
>the Bill of Rights: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
>fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "
This very long post actually demonstrates nothing whatsoever about the
matter at hand. All it demonstrates is that bail cannot be set
arbitrarily high, unless of course the judge agrees to it.
If the person were not presumed to be guilty during the bail
proceeding, he would not be faced with the choice of imprisonment or
ransom; he would be set free, to return later to the trial which would
of course exonerate him.
Keith Thompson
[...]
> I'm surprised that Brad Templeton hasn't said anything about the
> unreliability of memory.
He did. Don't you remember reading the article? 8-)}
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.
mike weber
>mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> typed:
>> > In other words, you have no evidence that this is likely, but
>> > your bogeyman is right-wingers waving bogeymen.
>>
>> And i'd hardly call the AJC (if that is what the original post
>> was referring to) as "right wing".
>
>And I'd hardly call the AJC a "reputable newspaper" but that
>comes from having read it/them for several years.
>
I wasn't commenting on its respectableness -- i was commenting on its
politics.
--
"He had long ago come to the conclusion that there
were no 'things Man was Not Meant To Know'. He was willing
to believe that there were things Man was Too Dumb To
Figure Out." - Mike Kurland
<mike weber> <kras...@mindspring.com>
Ambitious Incomplete web site: http://weberworld.virtualave.net
mike weber
>mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> typed:
>> > In other words, you have no evidence that this is likely, but
>> > your bogeyman is right-wingers waving bogeymen.
>>
>> And i'd hardly call the AJC (if that is what the original post
>> was referring to) as "right wing".
>
>And I'd hardly call the AJC a "reputable newspaper" but that
>comes from having read it/them for several years.
>
In another post i mourned the AJC of Ralph McGill's -- or even Reg
Murphy's -- day, in comparison to today's fishwrapper.
mike weber
>Mitch Wagner <mit...@sff.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> Seems to me that the AJC article was pretty good for a first
>> day of reporting. Let's see how they do on following the case
>> before we condemm them as just being out to sell papers.
>
>Pretty good? We had higher journalistic standards for our *fake*
>articles at _The Technique_ back when I was at Georgia Tech.
>This was bad reporting, slanted and biased and almost undoubtedly
>single-sourced. (This is Almost Always Bad.)
>
>I learned to expect no better from the Atlanta Gerbil-Confusion.
>(Or "Urinal-Constipation" if you must.)
>
In fact, i remember one "Techlique" that was the "Yellow Streak
Edition" of the "Atlanta Urinal/Constipation"...
Ed Dravecky III
> In fact, i remember one "Techlique" that was the "Yellow Streak
> Edition" of the "Atlanta Urinal/Constipation"...
Working into the wee hours fueled by bartered pizza and quiet
desperation, we would come up with headlines for real stories
to amuse ourselves (like "Ted Turner to Talk to Tech Tuesday")
that would fine their way into print. From time to time, we
would slip in an outrageously false story with huge disclaimers
at the end for the terminally clueless.
My favorite was one I wrote about Vanna White[1] being named
the new head of the mathematics department. Vanna's alleged
policy innovations included awarding consonant grades per the
usual method but you had to buy a vowel grade[2] for $250.
Ah, the good old days.
[1] She's the letter-turner on the US version of "Wheel of
Fortune" and, in 1986, the person least likely to become
head of the mathematics department at Georgia Tech.
[2] As per the practive on the wildly-popular game show that
made her a star.
Mitch Wagner
>Mitch Wagner <mit...@sff.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> Seems to me that the AJC article was pretty good for a first
>> day of reporting. Let's see how they do on following the case
>> before we condemm them as just being out to sell papers.
>
>Pretty good? We had higher journalistic standards for our *fake*
>articles at _The Technique_ back when I was at Georgia Tech.
>This was bad reporting, slanted and biased and almost undoubtedly
>single-sourced. (This is Almost Always Bad.)
Ed, I've already forgotten much of the article in question, and I couldn't
find it online anymore last time I checked, but I seem to recall it was NOT
single-sourced. The reporter went to an effort to quote some supporters of
the accused, as I recall, saying that they simply didn't believe that he
did it and that they trusted him with their children. It's possible that
was in a different article, but I don't think so, I think I just read the
one.
It's typical in early reporting of crime cases to rely mostly or even
sometimes exclusively on police reports. Later on, a good reporter will get
more sources and information.
You say the article is biased? How could it NOT have been biased, bearing
in mind that, you know, it was an article about how the guy was arrested
for child molesting?
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
<ot3jsskm1qgolcq24...@4ax.com>:
>Mitch Wagner cast forth electrons:
>
>> Dave Locke wrote:
>>> John Richards cast forth electrons:
>>>>
>>>> I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume
>>>> innocence.
>>>
>>> True.
>>
>> Actually, not true. As I said in my other post, the court is
>> required to presume innocence; the rest of us are free to draw
>> our own conclusions.
>
>The legal system does demand it, and I took John literally that it's
>required within the legal system. If anyone outside of it wants to
>pre-judge, that's obviously theirs to do, but I hadn't read him as
>speaking that broadly with his "you". If he was, I read him wrong.
That "you" is a tricky word. It could be interpreted as you did - to mean
our court system here in the United States (I assume here that John
Richards is not an American).
I read the sentence literally, that the legal system demanded that I,
personally, Mitch Wagner, and by extension all citizens of the
United States, are required by law to presume the accused to be innocent
>
>> I am ephectic with regards to the case in question here.
>
>Same here.
>
>> I do note that so far the evidence we've seen against the accused
>> amounts simply to the word of a minor child supported by his mother.
>> One of the questions I'd be asking if I was a reporter is whether the
>> mother has any reason to have a grudge against the accused, and
>> whether she has any history of making false accusations.
>
>I don't think the word "simply" fits well in that second line up
>there. And it wasn't "a" minor child ("The 13-year-old first
>confided in his 12-year-old brother, but the younger child didn't
>believe him").
>
I've already forgotten much of the article, and I can't find it online
anymore, but if the accused is only charged with molesting one kid, then
we're still down to the word of a minor child, even if the kid did go to
his little brother.
>I found the reporting of the 5th particularly interesting, though I
>note that many in here seemed to waive it away as of no merit and I
>found that overreaching.
>
>He "had agreed to come to police headquarters in Lawrenceville for
>questioning", and went to their home first where he was "knocking on
>the door and then thrusting his 300-pound frame against the door
>three times". Afterward he told police "he was running late due to
>traffic congestion"... That last move sure doesn't resonate with
>brightness or mitigating damages. It resonates with desperation.
>
My question there is what's the newspaper's source of that information. The
police? If I recall correctly, the article interviewed the mother, was SHE
the source of the information?
And even if his behavior does "resonate with desperation"--and I agree it
does--so what? I'd be pretty fucking desparate too if the police came to my
door to arrest me for child molesting.
>Even more interesting, Kramer and the boy's mother had "dated for
>two years but were never intimate, which prompted the woman to
>question Kramer, the investigator said". But "he quickly grew close
>to her three boys". D'uh.
>
It's not that uncommon, when adults have dated a long time, for one partner
to grow attached to the other partner's kids.
"Never intimate" can mean never had sex, or it can mean that they never
discussed emotional issues.
>And what they found in his home, which was about a dozen videotapes
>which "featured mostly unclothed or nude young boys, with the theme
>often focused on boys discovering their sexuality either with other
>young boys or older men, police said. Investigators are also trying
>to identify hundreds of photographs of boys "in various states of
>dress and undress" but not fully nude".
>
Patrick has already responded to this--it could be kiddie porn and it could
be perfectly legal stuff.
>Certainly none of that is going to hang him, but it shouldn't be
>waived away, either. It all legitimately adds to a concern that the
>case be fully investigated and the truth be outed. If he's
>innocent, I wish him the best of luck. If he's found guilty, he'll
>be sentenced.
>
>In the meantime, ephectic is a good attitude to take.
>
Exactly so.
This could all be as it appears to be - in which case it's a tragedy for
all concerned.
But it also looks like the kind of case that a vengeful ex-girlfriend and
an overambitiouis and unscrupulous detective might cook up.
So an ephetic attitude is good--but maybe with a little bit more effort
than usual to bear in mind that the accused hasn't been found guilty of
anything.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
>mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
>
>>dem...@cmhcsys.com (Demian Phillips) wrote in
>><0sqhss4hc4kr86dbc...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
>>>
>>>>dem...@cmhcsys.com (Demian Phillips) wrote in
>>>
>>>>>I'd say once this case is done with he should keep the competent
>>>>>lawyer and own himself a hunk of the newspapers (or any other print
>>>>>media that overdoes it) ass for (is it libel or slander) and other
>>>>>issues.
>>>>
>>>>He's going to find it almost impossible to make his case. He was
>>>>charged with child molesting, the newspaper reported that fact and
>>>>provided additional perspective and evidence.
>>>>
>>>>Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>>>
>>>I don't assume him to be innocent, end of story. I do assume him to be
>>>innocent until proven guilty. I have seen a number of reported
>>>incidents that all proved false (years later) after the person/people
>>>have had thier lives ruined and believe people in that situation
>>>deserve some kind of (compensation isn't the right word) um.
>>>something.
>>
>>But usually people accused of crimes ARE guilty.
>>
>>Note: I am not saying that the accused here is guilty. I am aware that
>>in sex crimes in particular it is easy for law enforcement to bring
>>false charges and destroy a person's reputation. I am simply arguing
>>against ANY presumption in this case based on newspaper and radio
>>reports. (If you know the accused and are friends with him then that's
>>another matter entirely-- in that case, you would be making a judgment
>>based on actual evidence.)
>
>Please re read the first two line of my post.
I did. What's your point?
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
>Mitch Wagner wrote:
>
>> But usually people accused of crimes ARE guilty.
>
>Hmm. Might be more accurate to say that they are found guilty.
Nope, I've spent hours sitting in courtrooms watching the day-to-day
minutiae of crimes. Most of the people arrested of a crime actually did the
crime.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
>mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
>
>>jo...@panorama.panorama.com (John Richards) wrote in
>><39C87F...@panorama.panorama.com>:
>>
>>>Mitch Wagner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I thought that the US legal system demanded that you presume
>>>innocence. Witholding judgement is just not good enough.
>>
>>The U.S. legal system demands that the court presumes innocence--and at
>>that, only during criminal trials, not civil trials. Those of us who
>>are not judge, jury, lawyers or other officers of the court, are free
>>to draw our own conclusions.
>
>And that's fine. It seems to my you have some issue with the person
>and are trying to shove your opinion down our throats as if our
>opinion is wrong because it isn't your opinion.
Maybe it seems that way to you, but it's not that way at all.
I'm simply arguing here that it's wrong to presume innocence OR guilt in
this matter. That's a good principle in the case of most criminal
accusations, but it's ESPECIALLY true in high-profile cases of child
molestation.
I have no issue with the accused. I've never heard of him before reading
this thread.
--
Mitch Wagner
mike weber
No -- most of the people who come to trial after being arrested,
assuming your sample was accurate and representative and that the
verdicts were correct, are guilty.
Please note that at least two of the three assumptions in that
statement of the situation are pretty big "if"s.
Please note also that very few cases come to trial after arrest unless
the prosecutor has a pretty good idea that a conviction is at least
possible; the rest are either dismissed or plea-bargained.
Your claimed observations as stated above are about as much proof that
most people arrested are guilty as the assertion that 90% of heroin
users began their drug usage with marijuana is proof of possible
dangers of marijuana.
Kip Williams
Still, it looks like a lot who make it to Death Row shouldn't. Nice
to know the system works so well on all those lesser crimes.
Gary Farber
mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) wrote:
[. . .]
> I'm simply arguing here that it's wrong to presume innocence OR guilt
> in
> this matter.
Why is it wrong of me to presume innocence until given sufficiently good
reason not to? Who do I hurt? Where is the "wrong"?
> That's a good principle in the case of most criminal
> accusations, but it's ESPECIALLY true in high-profile cases of child
> molestation.
Why "ESPECIALLY"?
> I have no issue with the accused. I've never heard of him before
> reading
> this thread.
[. . . .]
Dave Locke
> Dave Locke wrote:
>> He "had agreed to come to police headquarters in Lawrenceville for
>> questioning", and went to their home first where he was "knocking on
>> the door and then thrusting his 300-pound frame against the door
>> three times". Afterward he told police "he was running late due to
>> traffic congestion"...
>
> My question there is what's the newspaper's source of that information.
> The police? If I recall correctly, the article interviewed the mother,
> was SHE the source of the information?
The police reported his excuse for being late. She reported his
attempt at entry to her home, immediately, by phone, to the police.
However, when she phoned the police about his throwing his weight
against her door, when he was supposed to be enroute to the police
for questioning and told them when he was overdue that "he was
running late due to traffic congestion", if he hadn't been there at
all she wouldn't have likely been in any position to falsely make
such a call because she wouldn't likely have known where he was and
almost certainly wouldn't want to gamble that he was somewhere
without witnesses. And it would be a huge coincidence that he was
late getting to the police for another reason, which she also
wouldn't have known.
>> Even more interesting, Kramer and the boy's mother had "dated for
>> two years but were never intimate, which prompted the woman to
>> question Kramer, the investigator said". But "he quickly grew close
>> to her three boys". D'uh.
>
> It's not that uncommon, when adults have dated a long time, for one
> partner to grow attached to the other partner's kids.
In isolation, that's true. In combination with the other datapoint
(no intimacy with the mother after two years), there's a different
perspective on it.
> "Never intimate" can mean never had sex, or it can mean that they
> never discussed emotional issues.
I don't buy the latter as a potential meaning. It goes beyond even
an Olympic stretch.
>> And what they found in his home, which was about a dozen videotapes
>> which "featured mostly unclothed or nude young boys, with the theme
>> often focused on boys discovering their sexuality either with other
>> young boys or older men, police said. Investigators are also trying
>> to identify hundreds of photographs of boys "in various states of
>> dress and undress" but not fully nude".
>
> Patrick has already responded to this--it could be kiddie porn and
> it could be perfectly legal stuff.
For it to be "perfectly legal stuff" is something I view as an
Olympic stretch... Possible but not overly probable.
>> Certainly none of that is going to hang him, but it shouldn't be
>> waived away, either. It all legitimately adds to a concern that the
>> case be fully investigated and the truth be outed. If he's
>> innocent, I wish him the best of luck. If he's found guilty, he'll
>> be sentenced.
>>
>> In the meantime, ephectic is a good attitude to take.
>
> Exactly so.
>
> This could all be as it appears to be - in which case it's a tragedy for
> all concerned.
>
> But it also looks like the kind of case that a vengeful ex-girlfriend
> and an overambitiouis and unscrupulous detective might cook up.
Possible, certainly, but I dunno where "detective" suddenly enters
this story. Or do you mean police detective? Sounds like the
police are only fact digging.
> So an ephetic attitude is good--but maybe with a little bit more effort
> than usual to bear in mind that the accused hasn't been found guilty of
> anything.
"Ephectic" is the attitude of suspending judgement, which in cases
such as this automatically presumes that being accused isn't the
same as being guilty.
--
Dave | dave...@fan.net | "My son burps into the microphone and
emails it to his friend across town. What amazing things does
*your* kid do with *his* computer?" -- Randy Glasbergen
Joel Rosenberg
Dave> Mitch Wagner cast forth electrons:
>> Dave Locke wrote:
>>> He "had agreed to come to police headquarters in Lawrenceville
>>> for questioning", and went to their home first where he was
>>> "knocking on the door and then thrusting his 300-pound frame
>>> against the door three times". Afterward he told police "he
>>> was running late due to traffic congestion"...
>> information. The police? If I recall correctly, the article
>> interviewed the mother, was SHE the source of the information?
Dave> The police reported his excuse for being late. She reported
Dave> his attempt at entry to her home, immediately, by phone, to
Dave> the police. However, when she phoned the police about his
Dave> throwing his weight against her door, when he was supposed
Dave> to be enroute to the police for questioning and told them
Dave> when he was overdue that "he was running late due to traffic
Dave> congestion", if he hadn't been there at all she wouldn't
Dave> have likely been in any position to falsely make such a call
Dave> because she wouldn't likely have known where he was and
Dave> almost certainly wouldn't want to gamble that he was
Dave> somewhere without witnesses. And it would be a huge
Dave> coincidence that he was late getting to the police for
Dave> another reason, which she also wouldn't have known.
True. But that particular misbehavior isn't inconsistent with
him being falsely accused, and reacting foolishly, albeit
understandably. It also isn't inconsistent with him being
guilty.
All it shows me is that being accused of molesting a child makes
people -- guilty or innocent -- mad.
>>> Even more interesting, Kramer and the boy's mother had "dated
>>> for two years but were never intimate, which prompted the
>>> woman to question Kramer, the investigator said". But "he
>>> quickly grew close to her three boys". D'uh.
>> It's not that uncommon, when adults have dated a long time,
>> for one partner to grow attached to the other partner's kids.
Dave> In isolation, that's true. In combination with the other
Dave> datapoint (no intimacy with the mother after two years),
Dave> there's a different perspective on it.
I can think of good and bad reasons why that could be so.
>> "Never intimate" can mean never had sex, or it can mean that
>> they never discussed emotional issues.
Dave> I don't buy the latter as a potential meaning. It goes
Dave> beyond even an Olympic stretch.
>>> And what they found in his home, which was about a dozen
>>> videotapes which "featured mostly unclothed or nude young
>>> boys, with the theme often focused on boys discovering their
>>> sexuality either with other young boys or older men, police
>>> said. Investigators are also trying to identify hundreds of
>>> photographs of boys "in various states of dress and undress"
>>> but not fully nude".
>> Patrick has already responded to this--it could be kiddie porn
>> and it could be perfectly legal stuff.
Dave> For it to be "perfectly legal stuff" is something I view as
Dave> an Olympic stretch... Possible but not overly probable.
I think it's reasonable to withhold judgment, particularly since
the photographs, apparently, don't show any "fully nude" boys. I
find it a little difficult to believe in a child molester with
PG-rated kiddie porn.
>>> Certainly none of that is going to hang him, but it shouldn't
>>> be waived away, either. It all legitimately adds to a concern
>>> that the case be fully investigated and the truth be outed.
>>> If he's innocent, I wish him the best of luck. If he's found
>>> guilty, he'll be sentenced.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, ephectic is a good attitude to take.
>> Exactly so.
>>
>> This could all be as it appears to be - in which case it's a
>> tragedy for all concerned.
>>
>> But it also looks like the kind of case that a vengeful
>> ex-girlfriend and an overambitiouis and unscrupulous detective
>> might cook up.
Dave> Possible, certainly, but I dunno where "detective" suddenly
Dave> enters this story. Or do you mean police detective? Sounds
Dave> like the police are only fact digging.
I don't think it's fair to characterize police investigations,
generally, as "only fact digging."
That said, statistically, the vast majority of people indicted
for crimes are guilty -- but it doesn't hurt to be a bit cautious
about accusations.
Dave Locke
> Dave Locke wrote:
>> For it to be "perfectly legal stuff" is something I view as an
>> Olympic stretch... Possible but not overly probable.
>
> I think it's reasonable to withhold judgment
I think I made it beyond clear that overall this was being done, and
that toying around with the individual datapoints was an exercise in
estimating probabilities and possibilities based on the raw and
untested information at hand. I don't think it's necessary to
restate this every line or two during the exercise.
>> Sounds like the police are only fact digging.
>
> I don't think it's fair to characterize police investigations,
> generally, as "only fact digging."
Oh, I definitely do. What would you characterize them as?
--
Dave | dave...@fan.net | "From the tracks on his arms, the large
caliber wound, the proximity to a heroin market -- I'd say it was a
heated dispute about the symbolism of red and blue in eighteenth
century French romantic poetry."
-- Det. Munch, "Homicide: Life on the Street" "Control"
Joel Rosenberg
Dave> Joel Rosenberg cast forth electrons:
>> Dave Locke wrote:
>>> For it to be "perfectly legal stuff" is something I view as an
>>> Olympic stretch... Possible but not overly probable.
>> I think it's reasonable to withhold judgment
Dave> I think I made it beyond clear that overall this was being
Dave> done, and that toying around with the individual datapoints
Dave> was an exercise in estimating probabilities and
Dave> possibilities based on the raw and untested information at
Dave> hand. I don't think it's necessary to restate this every
Dave> line or two during the exercise.
I do; YM, obviously, V.
>>> Sounds like the police are only fact digging.
>> I don't think it's fair to characterize police investigations,
>> generally, as "only fact digging."
Dave> Oh, I definitely do. What would you characterize them as?
Generally: an attempt to get evidence proving that a suspected person
committed a crime.
Mitch Wagner
<39cae62c...@news.mindspring.com>:
>On 22 Sep 2000 03:51:42 GMT, mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) typed
>
>>ki...@home.com (Kip Williams) wrote in <39C9F76E...@home.com>:
>>
>>>Mitch Wagner wrote:
>>>
>>>> But usually people accused of crimes ARE guilty.
>>>
>>>Hmm. Might be more accurate to say that they are found guilty.
>>
>>Nope, I've spent hours sitting in courtrooms watching the day-to-day
>>minutiae of crimes. Most of the people arrested of a crime actually did
>>the crime.
>
>No -- most of the people who come to trial after being arrested,
>assuming your sample was accurate and representative and that the
>verdicts were correct, are guilty.
Good point.
>
>Please note that at least two of the three assumptions in that
>statement of the situation are pretty big "if"s.
>
>Please note also that very few cases come to trial after arrest unless
>the prosecutor has a pretty good idea that a conviction is at least
>possible; the rest are either dismissed or plea-bargained.
>
>Your claimed observations as stated above are about as much proof that
>most people arrested are guilty as the assertion that 90% of heroin
>users began their drug usage with marijuana is proof of possible
>dangers of marijuana.
In my observation, which I grant you is not a statistical universe, merely
anecdotal, most of the people who come to trial after being arrested are
people who confessed to the crime. I'm willing to take that as being as
close to conclusive evidence of having done the crime as we're likely to
achieve in this imperfect universe.
--
Mitch Wagner
Paul W. Cashman
wrote:
>
> Dave> Mitch Wagner cast forth electrons:
> >> Dave Locke wrote:
> >>> And what they found in his home, which was about a dozen
> >>> videotapes which "featured mostly unclothed or nude young
> >>> boys, with the theme often focused on boys discovering their
> >>> sexuality either with other young boys or older men, police
> >>> said. Investigators are also trying to identify hundreds of
> >>> photographs of boys "in various states of dress and undress"
> >>> but not fully nude".
> >> Patrick has already responded to this--it could be kiddie porn
> >> and it could be perfectly legal stuff.
>
> Dave> For it to be "perfectly legal stuff" is something I view as
> Dave> an Olympic stretch... Possible but not overly probable.
>
>I think it's reasonable to withhold judgment, particularly since
>the photographs, apparently, don't show any "fully nude" boys. I
>find it a little difficult to believe in a child molester with
>PG-rated kiddie porn.
Jane Spaulding has already addressed the nature of these photographs
in a separate post to a.f.c and a.f.d*c. They are "tryout" photos for
Ed's new movie; the kids are dressed in "caveman" outfits, etc. She'd
seen the pics since her son Nick was going to try out also. Harmless
stuff. The way the newspaper described them ("various states of dress
and undress, though none completely nude") is as artful a bit of
sophistry as I've seen from a local paper in a while.
>That said, statistically, the vast majority of people indicted
>for crimes are guilty -- but it doesn't hurt to be a bit cautious
>about accusations.
I'm not certain Ed has been arraigned in this matter, let alone
indicted; I'm checking on it now.
Dave Locke
> Dave Locke writes:
>> Joel Rosenberg cast forth electrons:
>>> Dave Locke wrote:
>>>> For it to be "perfectly legal stuff" is something I view as an
>>>> Olympic stretch... Possible but not overly probable.
>>>
>>> I think it's reasonable to withhold judgment
>>
>> I think I made it beyond clear that overall this was being
>> done, and that toying around with the individual datapoints
>> was an exercise in estimating probabilities and
>> possibilities based on the raw and untested information at
>> hand. I don't think it's necessary to restate this every
>> line or two during the exercise.
>
> I do; YM, obviously, V.
Surely there must be a miscommunication here. You seem to be
telling me that unless an overall positional statement is repeated
every X number of lines that you don't have the attention span to
bear it in mind.
>>>> Sounds like the police are only fact digging.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's fair to characterize police investigations,
>>> generally, as "only fact digging."
>>
>> Oh, I definitely do. What would you characterize them as?
>
> Generally: an attempt to get evidence proving that a suspected person
> committed a crime.
Generally, police detectives work to put together a case of
sufficient quality to be accepted by the D.A.'s office. Where an
initial suspect already exists, that involves fact digging to gather
evidence indicating (not necessarily "evidence proving") the initial
suspect is the likely culprit or someone else likely is or the
charges are likely bogus. Despite the fact that it happens, they
don't generally try to shanghai the first likely suspect to come
down the pike. Only where the fact digging results in one suspect
do they then focus their efforts on whether or not they can put
together enough of a case against that suspect.
--
Dave | dave...@fan.net | "It was one of those rare cases where
those in need of a clue are blessed with someone who's genuinely
clueless." -- Detective John Munch to two arguing male
detectives, on "Homicide: Life on the Street" "Pit Bull Sessions"
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 22 Sep 2000 03:51:42 GMT, mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) typed
>
> >Nope, I've spent hours sitting in courtrooms watching the day-to-day
> >minutiae of crimes. Most of the people arrested of a crime actually did the
> >crime.
>
> No -- most of the people who come to trial after being arrested,
> assuming your sample was accurate and representative and that the
> verdicts were correct, are guilty.
>
> Please note that at least two of the three assumptions in that
> statement of the situation are pretty big "if"s.
He doesn't say they were found guilty; he said they actually did the
crime. He could be applying his own judgement to what he saw, rather
than using the official verdict. I'd find that entirely reasonable.
> Please note also that very few cases come to trial after arrest unless
> the prosecutor has a pretty good idea that a conviction is at least
> possible; the rest are either dismissed or plea-bargained.
But few cases go to trial if the accused is clear that he's going to
be convicted, either.
> Your claimed observations as stated above are about as much proof that
> most people arrested are guilty as the assertion that 90% of heroin
> users began their drug usage with marijuana is proof of possible
> dangers of marijuana.
I'll bet they started with nicotine or alcohol, anyway.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd...@dd-b.net
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Demian Phillips
You came at me with "Why are you so quick to assume he is innocent?"
after my post about when the case is over going after people that have
caused damage. I replied "I don't assume him to be innocent, end of
story. I do assume him to be innocent until proven guilty." Apparently
it's fine for some people to have opinion but mine is bothering you.
In another post you say :
>The U.S. legal system demands that the court presumes innocence--and at
>that, only during criminal trials, not civil trials. Those of us who are
>not judge, jury, lawyers or other officers of the court, are free to draw
>our own conclusions.
So tell me why whatever conclusion I may or may not have drawn (do you
know what my conclusion is? Can you read minds or tea leaves?) seems
to be bothering you enough you feel the need to question it.
Maybe this is my thin skinned week or something.
My posts have had little or nothing to do with the accused or my
feelings of his status in this. I was taking this opportunity to state
how I think people who are harmed by (as society views) accusations of
extreme crimes and when in some cases they are found to be false those
people should have some kind of restitution since they usually unable
to get rid of whatever stigma was attached to them unless they take
extreme measures.
--
+---------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|^_^ |Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty |
|Demian Phillips |five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I |
|PGP KEY ID 0x5BC4FCB4|finally won out over it. - Elwood P. Dowd |
Marilee J. Layman
>Patrick has already responded to this--it could be kiddie porn and it could
>be perfectly legal stuff.
According to this report, URL first posted in alt.fandom.cons, it's
the former:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/news_brief.html
I don't know anything about this site, though.
--
Marilee J. Layman The Other*Worlds*Cafe
HOSTE...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group.
AOL Keyword: OWC http://www.webmoose.com/owc
mike weber
>In my observation, which I grant you is not a statistical universe, merely
>anecdotal, most of the people who come to trial after being arrested are
>people who confessed to the crime.
Based on what i read and what i hear from lawyer acquaintances (at
least one a Public Defender), most people who actually, legally
confess don't come to trial unless they recant the confession; they
plea-bargain, and about all of the court time they see is when the
judge accepts and formalises the bargain..
mike weber
typed
>kras...@mindspring.com (mike weber) writes:
>> Please note also that very few cases come to trial after arrest unless
>> the prosecutor has a pretty good idea that a conviction is at least
>> possible; the rest are either dismissed or plea-bargained.
>
>But few cases go to trial if the accused is clear that he's going to
>be convicted, either.
Based on remarks by some lawyers i know, including a Public Defender,
the response to that one is "Hope springs eternal..."
>
>> Your claimed observations as stated above are about as much proof that
>> most people arrested are guilty as the assertion that 90% of heroin
>> users began their drug usage with marijuana is proof of possible
>> dangers of marijuana.
>
>I'll bet they started with nicotine or alcohol, anyway.
Nah -- oxygen. The most addictive and deadly substance known to man.
One breath causes lifelong addiction, and withdrawal is 100% fatal.
John Boston
>
> In my observation, which I grant you is not a statistical universe, merely
> anecdotal, most of the people who come to trial after being arrested are
> people who confessed to the crime. I'm willing to take that as being as
> close to conclusive evidence of having done the crime as we're likely to
> achieve in this imperfect universe.
Don't. People confess to all sorts of things when the police get them
alone and interrogate them. Sometimes this is because of high-pressure
interrogation tactics and sometimes it is because the people in question
have serious head problems. Indeed, sometimes it doesn't even happen
in police custody; it is not at all uncommon for people to give themselves
up for high-profile crimes that they had nothing to do with.
A classic example of false confession happened a couple of months
ago in New York. A shabby-looking character hit a woman over the
head with a rock or a brick and then bolted. This was a cause celebre
because it was the second such incident in a fairly short time in New
York. A suitable suspect later was arrested and confessed.
Still later, a store videotape with a timer demonstrated that at the
time of the crime, he was in the record department of an HMV
store a considerable distance from the crime scene. Why did he
confess? I don't think anybody has figured that out yet. In any
case, be leery of confessions; they often don't prove what you
think they do.
John Boston