Posted on 04/06/2009 9:43:37 PM PDT by thecodont
(04-06) 21:03 PDT Tracy -- Police in Tracy announced tonight that they found the remains of a child who went missing 10 days ago inside a black suitcase that was discovered earlier today floating in an irrigation pond.
Sandra Cantu vanished March 27 after telling her mother she was going to a friend's home to play.
The suitcase was found by farm workers at about 10 a.m. as they were draining the pond at a dairy farm on Bacchetti Road in Tracy. The location is about two miles from Cantu's home.
Witnesses told investigators the suitcase was not there when they drained the same pond about two weeks ago.
Cantu disappeared from the Orchard Estates Mobile Home Park 10 days prior. The last official sighting of her was on a surveillance video taped that afternoon, showing her skipping outside her home.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
That’s not the reason that our founding fathers indicated... :-)
You’re confusing the results that sometimes happens with the “reasons” why the founding fathers set up our system the way they did...
In fact, I believe that those founding fathers thought that it was *preferred* that some of the guilty possibly go free, rather than even *one* innocent person be convicted...
They realized that if you made it difficult for the “state” to convict people that this would mean that some guilty people would go free. But, if you made it so that you could *always* convict the guilty ones — that this would mean some of the innocent would be caught up in the process. They decided it was preferable that some guilty ones go free...
Ooops. Is my cynicism showing?
I’m sure the founding fathers knew very well that some guilty ones would “get away with it”...
They weren’t dumb...
They would be sad today. . .seeing how just how many go free and too often because the 'spirit' of the law has been replaced with the semantics of the 'meaning of is'. And while you have the 'right to a fair trial'; this should not preclude one's responsibility to make it an honest trial.
Thanks for saying it for all of us.
You'd be amazed how persuasive one can be with the very simplest of tools — an E-tool, pair of pliers or steel toed boots.
Very sad. Too bad the guys who found it pulled it over to the side, their prints may have covered the perps prints... my guess is on her sleeze neighbor.
Yeah... Like Teddy Kennedy, the now liberal "Lion of the Senate!"
How about you and a flamethrowe instead? No need for the body disposal.
I've got an idea for you badge wearers out there: set-up stings that'll catch this class of criminal. Maybe even set-up in, I don't know, Tracy! for Christ's sake! 'Cause if you don't, we will and you're not going to like what happens next.
In fairness to those expressing anger at the process, I do think it’s unlikely that the Framers intended for the BoR to be interpreted as liberally as it is today. I’m not so sure that the Warren Court’s vision of a fair trial is what the Framers had in mind.
Yes, a good point. They did intend for people to be able to defend themselves... for sure...
I’m pretty sure the perp has reserved his special place in hell.
I didn’t notice anyone expressing anger at the process, but rather anger at the perpetrator. The problem there — is — that “people” (in general) don’t really know who the perpetrator is, even when someone is accused or reported to be “allegedly” (as they put it), the perpetrator. You really *still don’t know* for sure.
And that’s what the “process” is for, in order to *prove* that someone is guilty (i.e, is “really” the perpetrator). I don’t think people should mix in the feeling for *absolutely demanding* someone be punished — with the “assumption” that a particularly-named person (for any kind of crime) is *really* the guilty party. You may think you know, but you really don’t know.
It’s also been shown that *most people* think the person who has been “accused” is really the guilty person — because they wouldn’t have been accused if they weren’t guilty in the first place. I know that goes against the “principle” of the matter in our system of government (i.e., innocent until proven guilty) — but — it’s actually the case that, in spite of that principle, most people think the accused people *are* the “guilty people”...
If a person is sitting in that courtroom, with an attorney, on the defense side, most of the public will assume that person is guilty in some way (in general and for the most part; not necessarily in every single court case, though...).
So, it’s *all the more important* — in light of that — to make absolutely sure that someone gets their trial and all the benefits of our system that was set up, to insure that anyone who is innocent is protected.
It is a terrible, terrible ending. I am glad they found her body, though. At least her poor parents know her suffering is at an end, they can bury her, and hopefully they can get some evidence (DNA, time of death, cause of death, etc.?)
God have mercy on us all.
That’s a really long post for a point that’s pretty obvious. Don’t waste time lecturing those who don’t need it.
As for this issue, I think anger at the process leads to comments about no trials being needed. If it didn’t take 20 years to execute someone, you’d see far fewer of these comments.
It has been settled in the past with vigilantes and will be settled in the future with vigilantes. From the beginning of time those that govern do not protect, and the governed are forced to protect themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.