Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Pam Smart has been indicted, but not convicted.  Legally, she has
    not been proven guilty and must be presumed innocent.

    I think it's shocking that the press is not respecting her right
    to a fair trial (and in effect convicting her nightly on the news), 
    especially since the evidence seems so sketchy against her.

    I thought the same about the Charles Stuart case, although since
    there was the factor of mitigating the effect the case had race 
    relations in the city I could tolerate the press' reporting of the
    case.  And since Charles Stuart killed himself after being accused
    he sure "looks" guilty.  But if he's not, there's someone else who
    is who's still roaming the streets...

    However, this has no such saving graces.  Even if Pam Smart is acquitted,
    it will almost certainly have ruined her career as a schoolteacher in
    the state of NH, and will require her to move and get certification 
    elsewhere just so she can resume a normal life and work in the field
    for which she's been trained.

    People love sensational stories.  Enough to presume an innocent person
    guilty and wreck their lives over rumors.  It makes it difficult to 
    find impartial juries, and difficult to serve the justice to which all 
    of us are entitled.  I think it's tragic.

	Sharon

    I say she is guilty. Plain and simple.  My opinion only.
    
    RE: last,
    
    The media is a joke.  They do this sort of teleconvictions� all of the
    time.  Look at teachers (usually male) that have been accused for
    molestation, then aquitted.  Look at the men that have been accused of
    rape and later proven not guilty.  Their lives have been shattered due
    to this wonderful thing we call the news....
    
    
    � They needed a new word.....

    That should be "found `not guilty'", not "proven not guilty".
    
    							Ann B.

    re .2, just because some innocent men have been accused of rape doesn't
    mean that this particular women murdered her husband!  *You* say she is
    guilty?  Were you there?  I'm glad the courts go on something besides
    *your* opinion.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .3  That was not an error Ann.  Can you honestly say that a man in
    such a position isnt already convicted before trial? [speaking of rape
    and molestation cases, that is]
    
    RE: .4  I DID say that is was my opinion, did I not?  Isnt that how
    many spoucel situations are looked upon?  I mean, through the media,
    people fix upon spacific aspects of a situation, and make conclusions
    based upon their opinions?  Thats all I did.  Gee, 'taint I allowed?
    
                                   

    Al,
    
    I wasn't making an error, either.  Surely you have noticed, in
    this very conference, cases of men who have actually raped women,
    but who have been found not guilty by juries?  On grounds too
    specious to mention?  Haven't you noticed how often it is the
    woman who is convicted -- before the trial, during the trial, and
    again after the trial?
    
    						Ann B.

    Yes I have indeed noticed such glitches in our system.
    
    I was merely pointing out that it does happen BOTH ways.
    
    Now if you want to get into numbers... Ill save you the trouble, YES it
    probably happens more times than not, that the victim is put on trial.
    
    Notice I said VICTIM?
    
    Because, I was saying pretty much what you are saying now.  If a male
    is accused of molestation, he is convicted by the media before he even
    goes to trial.  thus, PROVEN not guilty, instead of the INNOCENT UNTIL
    PROVEN GUILTY crap......  thats all.....

    If a man is even SUSPECTED of rape or molestation the media will hang
    him before the trial.  If the media doesn't do it the people who have
    heard of the suspicions WILL do it. There was a case about a year ago
    about a couple that didn't get along.  The woman accused the man of
    molestation... the press hung him... he lost his job etc.  Later, a
    jury found him innocent and the woman admitted that she had 'said that'
    to get him.
    
    

    Not from what I have read.  An example: in some New Hampshire town
    there is a police chief who has been accused by a teenage girl of
    rape.  The whole town is saying, this wonderful man, he would never
    do such a thing.  The worst anyone is saying about him in that town
    is that he was foolish to "make a mistake" and "get involved" (!)
    with the girl.  Just imagine how she feels.
    	Linda

    .9   That is the opposite extreme.  On one hand we have men being
    'convicted' without a trial, and on the other we have people burying
    their head in the sand.  The 'answer' I think is in the middle.  I
    would like to see suspects of any crime convicted by juries rather
    than by mobs.

    One of the problems for Pam Smart is that the police have her on tape
    telling a friend to lie to the police... Its not looking too good for
    her...
    
    REK

Morning news reported she was indicted on conspiricy and accessory to
murder.  Globe rumored that she may also be indicted on "murder for hire"
charges.

Martin.

    
    
    Can someone please fill me in?  What ARE you talking about?!
    
    		Holly
    		(from afar)

Holly:

  We're talking about some hot, scandalous news from the New Hampshire
  Seacost area.  (IMHO, it's hot and scandalous primarily because the
  media saw the opportunity to make it so and run with it for a while.)

  Basically, a guy was murdered a while back.  It was a shocking,
  senseless murder as the only motive seemed to be the robbing of
  the couple's apartment, and nothing much was actually taken.  We
  were treated to a few nights of the "poor despondent widow of
  senseless violence" sort of story.

  Later, three youths were indicted for the crime.  These youths
  were students at the school where the widow ran the media center.

  Now, with new evidence and statements coming forth, it is alleged
  that, in fact, the guy was murdered by the youths in the service
  of the wife.  It is further alleged that she was the lover of one
  of the youths and wanted to get out of the marriage with hubby, but
  didn't want to divorce him as she felt he would get most of their
  property.

  It's an especially hot story as it plays rather well as a nearly
  exact counterpart (counterpoint?) to the "Charles Stuart murders
  wife and blames it on a black youth" story that was so popular here
  last year, except that this new story excludes the element of racist
  fervor.

                                   Atlant

    Thanks
    
    		Holly