It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Hold the John Mark Karr Trial On The Internet!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Even in England, which used to have a very good law regarding pre-trial publicity - none - is now rapidly deteriorating into a cheap knock-off of the US of A.

John Mark Karr, a 41 years old father of 3, who had moved to Bangkok, and had just obtained a job teaching in an elementary school, has admitted to facts not heretofore made public, says an unidentified American law enforcement officer.

Defense lawyers have long known of this old prosecutor’s trick calculated to inflame the public and to cut off at the knees any possibility of finding a fair and impartial jury. The accused is being tried in public. With the blessings of the prosecutor.

So let’s go all the way. If I had the money (and expertise) I’d set up a website for Karr v. JohBent Ramsey. We’d post all the rumors, gossip, guesstimates and so called experts, the talking heads. Anyone who has anything to say about anything would be welcome. After due course, we’d have a vote and if he was found guilty, we’d have a lottery to see who gets to squirt the lethal injections. To recoup my costs, I'd charge $1 for a guilty vote, and $5 for an innocent vote.

We would ignore 1,000 years of English common law and jurisprudence heritage. We’d ignore the right to counsel. We’d ignore the right of a presumption of innocence which merely means the burden of proof is on the state or persecutor and is not a burden on the accused to prove his innocence.

We’d ignore the right to confront your accusers. We’d ignore the right to remain silent and not to take the stand in your own behalf. We’d ignore the right to have a trial by your peers in an uncontaminated environment so as to assure a fair and impartial jury which would decide the case on the evidence presented in court and not on hearsay outside the courtroom.

Gosh, can we do all that? Well, can or not, we are doing it. All day, every day. We now have tv specials on this case. It is beyond me how or why this media frenzy is necessary when we claim it is justice we want and not plain ordinary revenge and vengeance.

We are a funny people. It is little wonder to me the Iraqis are not so enamored with our superior belief of what democracy amounts to. A side show!


[edit on 8/18/2006 by donwhite]




posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Bread and circuses!

Using high technology of course, wouldn't the Romans be proud.

But if you want to make real money, just have everyone agree to be debited based on the outcome of the online voting, then @ $10.00 per offset pair, you could split the cost of each pair of votes between yays and nays, the majority side paying the lower portion of course. As for the executioner, they should enter a lottery @ $10,000 per entry, then you could recoup some of the costs of televising the execution.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Good post, but I kinda disagree with the facts of what's going on in this particular case. I don't exactly see the people gathering outside with torches and pitchforks, instead there's a significant doubt being broadcasted of this guy's guilt. False confession seems to be what people are talking about far more than "kill him NOW!"



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   


posted by 2stepsfromtop

Bread and circuses! Wouldn't the Romans be proud . . have everyone debited [for] online voting, Charging $10 per offset pair, you split the cost between ayes and nays, the majority side paying the lower portion of course. As for the executioner, a lottery with $10,000 entry fee, then you could recoup the costs of televising the execution. [Edited by Don W]


Don’t you think FOX TV would carry it free of charge?



posted by djohnsto77

Good post, but I disagree with the facts of what's going on in this particular case. I don't see the people gathering outside with torches and pitchforks, instead there's a significant doubt being broadcasted of this guy's guilt. False confession seems to be what people are talking about far more than "kill him NOW!" [Edited by Don W]


Well, you’re right, Dijon, but when I first posted, it was still all accusatory. Since then it looks as if we have a real eight ball on our hands.

The hoopla and media frenzy however, is still very much antithetical to the concept of a fair trial by an impartial jury.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join