• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

US Justice - a strange strange beast.


Iphonista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
4,200
Most of ye will be aware of the case of an Irish nanny in Boston who is facing charges over the death of a baby in her care a few weeks ago.

I'm not concerned in this thread with the specifics of the case. Many of these have yet to emerge. What I am concerned with is the manner in which this case - and other high profile cases - get handled by the respective legal teams.

People here will be familiar with the concept of evidence being sub judice; i.e. being kept under wraps, not being discussed in public forums until such time as it is appropriate, usually during the actual court case. And the Irish media is usually happy to go along with this.

In the USA, the defendant has hardly been arraigned before the judge and both sides are rushing down the steps of the courthouse to hold up the other side's dirty linen for the world to see.

What is the point of this unseemly and undignified spectacle? It might influence public opinion but the public won't be the ones deciding guilt or innocence: that'll be left to the jury.

Of course, there is also the court case itself. There may be cameras in the courtroom and that gives the media extra scope for keeping the circus going. The jury is analysed, statements and testimonies get parsed by TV journalists as to their effectiveness rather than their veracity, lawyers play to the gallery knowing that this is their chance to hit the big time.

Is it just me or is one thing forgotten in all this drama? That little thing called justice?
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,201
Showbusiness trumps justice in the US.

In Ireland, the needs of vested interests trump the needs of showbusiness.
 

sking81

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
1,372
Its America. Everythings entertainment, including justice. Its only a matter of time before she's accused of being part of an Illumanati plot to murder innocent children.
 

Iphonista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
4,200
Its America. Everythings entertainment, including justice. Its only a matter of time before she's accused of being part of an Illumanati plot to murder innocent children.
Oh yes, I forgot that tactic. You keep upping the ante and throwing wilder and wilder accusations at the other side to keep them wrong footed.

Custody cases.....shudder.
 

chriskavo

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
2,674
Totally agree with the OP, it's so so wrong.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,201
I find it fascinating that Showbusiness in this country is certain that she did not do it.

In a way, this is even worse. The case has not even started, and the Irish media are whipping up a frenzy of the falsely acussed victim. What do they know that the prosecution does not know ?

This is just green jersey nonsense. The Irish media don't do objectivity.
 

sking81

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
1,372
I find it fascinating that Showbusiness in this country is certain that she did not do it.

In a way, this is even worse. The case has not even started, and the Irish media are whipping up a frenzy of the falsely acussed victim. What do they know that the prosecution does not know ?

This is just green jersey nonsense. The Irish media don't do objectivity.
This case will end up as the equivilant of the Irish OJ Simpson case by the time its done. Frankly I dont know if she did it or not, and dont care to speculate. One way or another a child is dead, the point of the case should be to establish whether or not the woman in question carried out or had a hand in that-the role of the Irish media will be irrelevant in the way this plays out. The US media however...
 

pippakin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
9,665
Most of ye will be aware of the case of an Irish nanny in Boston who is facing charges over the death of a baby in her care a few weeks ago.

I'm not concerned in this thread with the specifics of the case. Many of these have yet to emerge. What I am concerned with is the manner in which this case - and other high profile cases - get handled by the respective legal teams.

People here will be familiar with the concept of evidence being sub judice; i.e. being kept under wraps, not being discussed in public forums until such time as it is appropriate, usually during the actual court case. And the Irish media is usually happy to go along with this.

In the USA, the defendant has hardly been arraigned before the judge and both sides are rushing down the steps of the courthouse to hold up the other side's dirty linen for the world to see.

What is the point of this unseemly and undignified spectacle? It might influence public opinion but the public won't be the ones deciding guilt or innocence: that'll be left to the jury.

Of course, there is also the court case itself. There may be cameras in the courtroom and that gives the media extra scope for keeping the circus going. The jury is analysed, statements and testimonies get parsed by TV journalists as to their effectiveness rather than their veracity, lawyers play to the gallery knowing that this is their chance to hit the big time.

Is it just me or is one thing forgotten in all this drama? That little thing called justice?
The full facts are not yet known but its sounding like shaken baby syndrome. I think other older injuries have also been reported. A British nanny was accused of much the same thing I thought then that the evidence didn't support a guilty verdict but I also thought a little thing like lack of evidence would not get in the way of an American hate fest.

Extraordinary country not so much for getting verdicts wrong from time to time, all countries do that, but America seems to turn a trial into showbiz and the spectacle is unsettling. I hope the accused is getting help from our embassy and has enough money to pay for an expensive trial. Its showbiz and money every time.
 

Iphonista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
4,200
I find it fascinating that Showbusiness in this country is certain that she did not do it.

In a way, this is even worse. The case has not even started, and the Irish media are whipping up a frenzy of the falsely acussed victim. What do they know that the prosecution does not know ?

This is just green jersey nonsense. The Irish media don't do objectivity.
That's not my impression. I think they've been quite evenhanded - the articles I've seen anyway.
 

Iphonista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
4,200
I hope the accused is getting help from our embassy and has enough money to pay for an expensive trial. Its showbiz and money every time.
A nanny and an illegal up against a family that can afford in house baby sitters? What are her chances?
 

pippakin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
9,665
A nanny and an illegal up against a family that can afford in house baby sitters? What are her chances?
The girl in the Brit case was found guilty, those nasty Brits no idea how to look after a child its a miracle there's seventy million of em living...but I think the judge intervened and sentenced her to time served.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,059
It's wrong but as Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony, and the Woodword nanny case show, the American jury is more than capable of going against the grain of media or sometimes public opinion. There's a contrarian streak in American society which extends to this area.
 

pippakin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
9,665
It's wrong but as Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony, and the Woodword nanny case show, the American jury is more than capable of going against the grain of media or sometimes public opinion. There's a contrarian streak in American society which extends to this area.
Evidence certainly doesn't seem to play much of a part in jury decision in the big trials. OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, etc. and worst of all the Rodney King case. Rodney King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
In the USA, the defendant has hardly been arraigned before the judge and both sides are rushing down the steps of the courthouse to hold up the other side's dirty linen for the world to see.

What is the point of this unseemly and undignified spectacle? It might influence public opinion but the public won't be the ones deciding guilt or innocence: that'll be left to the jury.
I don't know anything about this specific case, but in the US most prosecutors (equivalent of the DPP here) are elected, as are many judges. They make these shows to get some publicity for themselves so they can keep their jobs. Defense lawyers are businessmen and so publicity helps their firms too.

Nothing like a dead baby case to get some media attention and, ultimately, votes.

Its an insane system.
 

Iphonista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
4,200
I don't know anything about this specific case, but in the US most prosecutors (equivalent of the DPP here) are elected, as are many judges. They make these shows to get some publicity for themselves so they can keep their jobs. Defense lawyers are businessmen and so publicity helps their firms too.

Nothing like a dead baby case to get some media attention and, ultimately, votes.

Its an insane system.
....which is why you get stuff like this happening.

Would-be foreign imitators might, however, consider Caperton v Massey, a case that the Supreme Court will hear on March 3rd. In 2004 Don Blankenship, the chief executive of Massey Energy, spent $3m to help elect Brent Benjamin to West Virginia's Supreme Court. In 2007 Mr Benjamin voted to overturn a $50m judgment against Massey.
Judicial independence: Only in America | The Economist

Madness. Sheer madness.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,495
Most of ye will be aware of the case of an Irish nanny in Boston who is facing charges over the death of a baby in her care a few weeks ago.

I'm not concerned in this thread with the specifics of the case. Many of these have yet to emerge. What I am concerned with is the manner in which this case - and other high profile cases - get handled by the respective legal teams.

People here will be familiar with the concept of evidence being sub judice; i.e. being kept under wraps, not being discussed in public forums until such time as it is appropriate, usually during the actual court case. And the Irish media is usually happy to go along with this.

In the USA, the defendant has hardly been arraigned before the judge and both sides are rushing down the steps of the courthouse to hold up the other side's dirty linen for the world to see.

What is the point of this unseemly and undignified spectacle? It might influence public opinion but the public won't be the ones deciding guilt or innocence: that'll be left to the jury.

Of course, there is also the court case itself. There may be cameras in the courtroom and that gives the media extra scope for keeping the circus going. The jury is analysed, statements and testimonies get parsed by TV journalists as to their effectiveness rather than their veracity, lawyers play to the gallery knowing that this is their chance to hit the big time.

Is it just me or is one thing forgotten in all this drama? That little thing called justice?
I was in the US a few years ago when an English woman was accused of much the same offence.

Same then too - it was all played out in the lurid glare of the media. The jury found her guilty, even though (IMHO) there was sufficient grounds for reasonable doubt. Luckily in the Massachusetts courts the judge had the right to over-rule the jury, and he did just that. He basically said they had let their emotions run away with them, and let her go. Of course, there was a public outcry, but she got out of the country fast.

The flavour can be gleaned from the fact that the parents had conceived another child in the meantime, but kept the fact from the media because it cast doubt on their public image as grieving (and vengeful) parents.
 

Grey Area

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
4,855
Check this out.

Tennessee Supreme Court Considers Whether Minor Is An Accomplice In Her Own Statutory Rape

"Believe it or not, under Tennessee common law, it is possible for a minor sex crime victim to also be an accomplice in the crime. The issue turns on whether that victim voluntarily consented to the sexual activity. If your head is swimming after that last sentence, you are not alone. The very idea of statutory rape is that some kinds of sexual encounters are legally impossible to consent to per se—such as the one between a forty-two-year-old man and a fourteen-year-old girl. Yet in Tennessee a string of cases suggest the pernicious idea that minors are culpable in their victimization is not at all a thing of the past."

Lunancy.
 

Hitch 22

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5,220
Most of ye will be aware of the case of an Irish nanny in Boston who is facing charges over the death of a baby in her care a few weeks ago.

I'm not concerned in this thread with the specifics of the case. Many of these have yet to emerge. What I am concerned with is the manner in which this case - and other high profile cases - get handled by the respective legal teams.

People here will be familiar with the concept of evidence being sub judice; i.e. being kept under wraps, not being discussed in public forums until such time as it is appropriate, usually during the actual court case. And the Irish media is usually happy to go along with this.

In the USA, the defendant has hardly been arraigned before the judge and both sides are rushing down the steps of the courthouse to hold up the other side's dirty linen for the world to see.

What is the point of this unseemly and undignified spectacle? It might influence public opinion but the public won't be the ones deciding guilt or innocence: that'll be left to the jury.

Of course, there is also the court case itself. There may be cameras in the courtroom and that gives the media extra scope for keeping the circus going. The jury is analysed, statements and testimonies get parsed by TV journalists as to their effectiveness rather than their veracity, lawyers play to the gallery knowing that this is their chance to hit the big time.

Is it just me or is one thing forgotten in all this drama? That little thing called justice?
It's politics.

A successful prosecution by a public prosecutor can lead to election to higher political office.

So far from what I have read this nanny may well be completely innocent.

In an interview with the 'Boston Herald', Ms Thompson said that her client had been left devastated by the case.

It has also emerged that the nanny was caring for another seven-month-old baby boy on January 14, the day of the alleged incident.

The baby was dropped off at the Sabir apartment as part of a nanny-sharing arrangement.

The child was collected in the afternoon, before Rehma was rushed to hospital.

"I have gone through the police report line by line, over and over and over again.

"I can't sleep, thinking about this. Things just don't add up," Ms Thompson said.

"(But) I believe Aisling Brady never harmed that child," she added.

A spokeswoman for the Middlesex District Attorney's office in Massachusetts told the Irish Independent that she could not comment on an "open case".

Ms McCarthy Brady is due to appear in court again on February 22 for a status hearing – or earlier if the charges are upgraded to murder.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/case-against-irish-nanny-doesnt-add-up-lawyer-3368170.html
 
Last edited:

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
33,340
Most of ye will be aware of the case of an Irish nanny in Boston who is facing charges over the death of a baby in her care a few weeks ago.

I'm not concerned in this thread with the specifics of the case. Many of these have yet to emerge. What I am concerned with is the manner in which this case - and other high profile cases - get handled by the respective legal teams.

People here will be familiar with the concept of evidence being sub judice; i.e. being kept under wraps, not being discussed in public forums until such time as it is appropriate, usually during the actual court case. And the Irish media is usually happy to go along with this.

In the USA, the defendant has hardly been arraigned before the judge and both sides are rushing down the steps of the courthouse to hold up the other side's dirty linen for the world to see.

What is the point of this unseemly and undignified spectacle? It might influence public opinion but the public won't be the ones deciding guilt or innocence: that'll be left to the jury.

Of course, there is also the court case itself. There may be cameras in the courtroom and that gives the media extra scope for keeping the circus going. The jury is analysed, statements and testimonies get parsed by TV journalists as to their effectiveness rather than their veracity, lawyers play to the gallery knowing that this is their chance to hit the big time.

Is it just me or is one thing forgotten in all this drama? That little thing called justice?

An American contributor to the MC show reckons legal teams seek to turn trials like this into circus's is that it makes it hard to find jurors
 
Top