Replies

It does disturbs me that the media can manipulate public opinion to the degree that it does, but why do authorities allow them to do it?

Authorities don’t have a press or propaganda machine. They rely on the “press.” The authorities can give the best story possible, but they don’t have an audience and the press does. The first amendment allows the press to present only those bits the press feels are relevant.

I believe that there is enough of a talk radio social media presence out here, that the 'official' media can't silence the prosecution.

How hard would it be to list what this man did to these women, and demand justice?

We have an adversarial judicial system. Just listing the charges and demanding justice is disturbly similar to The Inqusisition, where the accused was charged but not allowed to defend themselves in an adversarial manner.

Look, I do not advocate the prosecuting attorney be able to make definitives about guilt, but they certainly should be able to lay the facts out for the public, saying this is what we think happened. "We hope to prove this in court."

I don't see this as the state denying anyone due process.

The founding fathers realized this created a high burden on the state but they wanted a high burden on the state and a lower burden on the accused. The Founders knew this would let some guilty people walk. But they preferred that over having the King’s 100% conviction rate.

When we have the president of the United States coming out and tainting a case, as we did in the Zimmerman trial, I think it makes it imperitive that the prosecution get their message out too. This is today's reality. I would not agree if the prosecution were to say, "We have this guy dead to rights. He's guilty as sin, and deserves to die." That's not the same as saying we think he did these things, and we hope to prove it in court.

Boy, if a verdict was ever a done deal, this would have to be one IMO.

A lawyer told me that there was no such thing as an open and shut case. He said that no matter how stacked the case was on one side or another that it was always a 50/50 gamble as to how it would turn out. He said the best thing to do was stay out of court. Having said that, I’d have thought the Zimmerman case was open and shut in Zimmerman’s favor. But at least 40% of the people disagreed with me. I conclude the lawyer was right. The DA made a good call here. He also saved probably a million dollars off his budget that he can now use to go after other criminals.

And I understand the reason why an attorney would say this. In this case, you have three women who can testify to what this man did to them.

They list what he did to them. They identify him. Who could spin that into something sympathetic to the defendent.

“I believe that there is enough of a talk radio social media presence out here, that the ‘official’ media can’t silence the prosecution.”

I believe the prosecution is legally restricted in what they can say. The idea is to try the accused in a court of law, not in the public which could easily lead to lynching. You might recall that Zimmerman’s prosecutor said that he was guilty even after he was acquitted. (I suspect that she’ll be censured for that, if not disbarred.)Also recall that the county prosecutor decided there was insufficient evidence to bring Zimmerman to trial. His prosecution was political. Would we voluntarily allow a political lynching by trying the case in the press and allow the prosecution to get-the-word out so that the accused can’t defend themselves? Instead of attorneys everybody would hire publicists.

The public should only be advised of what the court has found, not be an active participant. (Oh, think of all the idiot neighbors you’ve known who would yell “burn the witch!”)

Yes, the president has tainted every case he has mentioned. It is highly improper for any authority figure to ever comment on any case. When a general (or the president) publically comments on a military criminal case it so damages the prosecution that the case can be seriously damaged, despite the evidence. Any comment by authority can prejudice the jury pool and arguably affect the judgment. It should never happen.

Suppose you’re accused of some heinous crime. The government goes to the press and denounces you saying, “They know guilty, but can’t prove it.” The president says that the police acted stupidly and your alleged victim could have been his child. You don’t have the ability to fight the damage done to your position.