Bell vs. Woodward--justice?

Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing
government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.

And people wonder why the militia movement is gaining strength every day.

The au pair Louise Woodward will serve less time in jail than Jim Bell
will. While Bell languishes in a Washington state jail, awaiting (for
almost 7 months!!) his sentence, the convicted babykiller is now free.

I guess having a couple of fake SS tattoos, er, "numbers," and possibly
opening a vial of mercaptin where some people would smell it, is a more
serious crime than shaking a baby to death.

Only in Amerika.

Lock and load.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On lun 10 nov  1997 à 01:06:08PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> 
> Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing
> government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.

I just read the judge statement and found it rather good. It seems to me
that he explains quite well the motivations of his decisions and so
on. Now, wether he would have taken time to deeply think about the issue
if the whole thing was taking place in a small american town with a
babysitter from the neighborhood and no big media coverage, we don't
know. It seems that the only thing which can be argued is wether the
final sentence is appropriate or not. I guess the media will provide us
with statistics on "how long you have to stay in prison when you have
been convicted of manslaughter". I would expect a few years. She finally
spent a little bit more than one year. Ok. Still, from what we have seen
of the american justice system in the past few years, I feel like this
is an improvement, where common sense takes over money, racial issues,
politics, etc. Or am I fooled by the media ;-) ?

> The au pair Louise Woodward will serve less time in jail than Jim Bell
> will. While Bell languishes in a Washington state jail, awaiting (for
> almost 7 months!!) his sentence, the convicted babykiller is now free.

As I said, she served some time waiting for her trial, too. Don't you
think you are shooting the wrong target here ? I mean, I certainly agree
that what's happening to Jim Bell seems like a parody of justice (and
you have Mitnick, too, and other examples can be found), but why to make
a comparaison between the two (or, let me rephrase it, as you have
actually all the rights to make a comparaison, it terms of how long did
the procedure take, and so on), why would you say "as the judicial
system is not working with Jim Bell, it shouldn't be working with the
babysitter" ? or explain why you think it would be a fair sentence to
let her in jail for the rest of her life ? (well, ok, at least 15 years
before parole)

                        F.

-- 
Fabrice Planchon                                          (ph) 609/258-6495
Applied Math Program, 210 Fine Hall                      (fax) 609/258-1735

At 6:09 PM -0700 11/10/97, Fabrice Planchon wrote:
>On lun 10 nov  1997 à 01:06:08PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>>
>> Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing
>> government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.
>
>I just read the judge statement and found it rather good. It seems to me
>that he explains quite well the motivations of his decisions and so
>on. Now, wether he would have taken time to deeply think about the issue
>if the whole thing was taking place in a small american town with a
>babysitter from the neighborhood and no big media coverage, we don't
>know. It seems that the only thing which can be argued is wether the
>final sentence is appropriate or not. I guess the media will provide us
>with statistics on "how long you have to stay in prison when you have
>been convicted of manslaughter". I would expect a few years. She finally
>spent a little bit more than one year. Ok. Still, from what we have seen

279 days.



>of the american justice system in the past few years, I feel like this
>is an improvement, where common sense takes over money, racial issues,
>politics, etc. Or am I fooled by the media ;-) ?

You were fooled by the "pathos pendulum." The media started treating her as
poor little Louise Woodward, innocent au pair from Merrye Olde England,
being oppressed by the patriarchal colonials.

(Watch for the pendulum to now swing in the other direction.)

>As I said, she served some time waiting for her trial, too. Don't you

279 days. Yes, this is well known to those who followed it.

>think you are shooting the wrong target here ? I mean, I certainly agree

No, else I wouldn't have written what I wrote.

I said in two different posts that my main point was about Bell spending
more time in jail than a convicted baby killer.


--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing
> government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.

Apparently so, I must say in this particular case I see a cause for an 
aquittal based on reasonable doubt, but I`m not a juror so I didn`t see 
all the evidence so my opinion is not really valid. The general principle 
concerning sentencing length still holds. I don`t know the spin in the US 
media on the Woodward story, I understand it was sympathetic to the 
defendant, the UK press has basically done what is usual whenever a high 
profile case is tried in a foreign court (eg. Deborah Parry and Lucille 
McLaughlin, the 2 nurses tried in saudi arabia for the murder of Yvonne 
Guildford, the UK media spin was that the saudi court was a crude inhuman 
system whereby public beheadings were handed out at the drop of a hat), 
and most UK papers were ranting about the "inhumanity" of giving a 19 
year old a life sentence for murder, hell, if she did it, kill the bitch.

> The au pair Louise Woodward will serve less time in jail than Jim Bell
> will. While Bell languishes in a Washington state jail, awaiting (for
> almost 7 months!!) his sentence, the convicted babykiller is now free.

Ah yes, but don`t forget Tim that in Amerika (The land of the free, 
remember?) the life of a child is of less value than the security of the 
state.

It makes a mockery of the judicial system that a judge can overturn a 
verdict like Zobel has done in the Woodward case, sure, allow her to 
appeal, but giving an appointed official the power to decide a verdict 
makes me sick, and a sentence of 279 days for manslaughter is a joke.


        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

On 11 Nov 97, Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> was found to have 
commented thusly:

> 
> > Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing
> > government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.
> 
> Apparently so, I must say in this particular case I see a cause for an 
> aquittal based on reasonable doubt, but I`m not a juror so I didn`t see 
> all the evidence so my opinion is not really valid. The general principle 

The question is why she shook the baby at all.  If you have a sick 
baby, you call the emergency medical services, period!   And especially 
if the child is not your own.

This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for 
child care activities.  I am a firm believer that baby care for 3 year 
olds and less should be licensed.  The requirements for the license 
would be minimal.  It just merely shows that you understand that babies 
less than 1 year of age often cry--some hardly at all, others damn near 
all the time--and that 97% of the time there is a reason that can be 
found and the solution implemented, and the other 3% of the time the 
reason is beyond our understanding, but things will just seem to take 
care of themselves.  The licensing procedure might also be a way of 
checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and 
small children.

I frankly think the 19 year-old is guilty of negligent homicide (that 
is, causing the death of the baby because of ignorance of proper baby 
care).  I could go on and on about my idea of proper 
parenting (and baby care), but I don't think the people on this list 
would like the drift.

> It makes a mockery of the judicial system that a judge can overturn a 
> verdict like Zobel has done in the Woodward case, sure, allow her to 
> appeal, but giving an appointed official the power to decide a verdict 
> makes me sick, and a sentence of 279 days for manslaughter is a joke.

Having lived on the outside of America now for some time, I know that 
those who are not Americans have a hard time figuring out our justice 
system.  But although each state has its own set of penal codes, they 
are pretty much uniform in their agreement about trial procedure 
regarding disposition of felonies.  I think there is a reasonable 
argument that the prosecution should be interested in justice or in 
being a representative of The People of the State of ...:  does the 
prosecutor really believe that the accused committed the crime, or is 
there a district attorney election coming up and this murder rap has to 
go down soon?

What about the judge?  His first purpose is to make sure the law is 
followed, especially with respect to trial procedure.  But with the law 
is JUSTICE!  It has always been my belief that the ultimate goal of 
these sacred occasions is justice.  In California--from where I come 
and a state which often leads in setting standards of 
jurisprudence--the judge has the absolute right to overturn a 
guilty verdict or modify it in some way rather than let it go to an 
appellate court and make those guys mad.

The judge in this case never overturned the verdict (an action 
appealable in any case) but said she was guilty of the crime of shaking 
the baby to death, but not intentionally.  Since the 19 year old 
doesn't deny shaking or "rough handling" the baby, there is no 
reasonable doubt.  In my state, she is guilty of voluntary 
manslaughter.  I also would have sentenced her to receive instruction 
on how to be a better parent and how to "chill out" whenever a baby 
cries.  gawdhelpusall, but one day this woman may be a mother!

I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just 
to get a fix on cultural differences.

Mitch Halloran
Research Biochemist/C programmer/Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy
Duzen Laboratories Group
Ankara   TURKEY
mitch@duzen.com.tr

> This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for 
> child care activities. 

Obviously, but this isn`t the point in question.

> I am a firm believer that baby care for 3 year 
> olds and less should be licensed.  The requirements for the license 
> would be minimal.  It just merely shows that you understand that babies 
> less than 1 year of age often cry--some hardly at all, others damn near 
> all the time--and that 97% of the time there is a reason that can be 
> found and the solution implemented, and the other 3% of the time the 
> reason is beyond our understanding, but things will just seem to take 
> care of themselves.  

Wrong, there is no justification for licensing whatsoever, I suggest 
parents taking on carers for their children agree a responsibility
distribution for the welfare of the child, and have the good sense not to 
employ inept unqualified childcare staff. The parents are much to blame 
in the death of the child, particularly in this case because they were 
both qualified doctors and did not notice the child was unwell.
I can see a motivation for wanting better regulation, but it is attacking 
the situation in the wrong way, more laws never help. A voluntary 
organisation for childcare workers, admission to which depended on 
fulfilling the requirements you outline above for your licence idea, 
would be useful, concerned parents could simple ensure their chosen 
applicant was a member of the organisation before hiring them. Mandatory 
licensing is wrong.

> The licensing procedure might also be a way of 
> checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and 
> small children.

No, this is of no value, I don`t have the right temperament to deal with 
children, I am too easily made angry by them, this does not indicate I 
would harm a child, I simply have the sense to recognise I am not suited 
to caring for children.
I do not see anyway how such a character judgement might be made, and by who?

> What about the judge?  His first purpose is to make sure the law is 
> followed, especially with respect to trial procedure.  But with the law 
> is JUSTICE!  It has always been my belief that the ultimate goal of 
> these sacred occasions is justice. 

And justice cannot be served when an appointed official can overturn or 
reduce a conviction, only an appeal should do this. Sure, if the jurors had 
ignored proper procedure it is the duty of the judge to declare a 
mistrial, that is entirely different from reducing a charge and basically 
letting a convicted felon go free.

> I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just 
> to get a fix on cultural differences.

The opinion is generally very simplistic, most people think she 
didn`t do anything, and ask most people if she shook the child and they 
will say she didn`t, even though Woodward herself doesn`t deny doing so.
Most people don`t have any defined opinion on the judicial aspect of the 
case as regards the actions of the judge, other than to be pleased he 
freed her. The UK media spin has been very favourable to the Woodwards.
I also think there is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that 
the defendant was convicted by the jury because of her traditional 
British "stiff upper lip" reserve, wheras the Eappen family knew just how 
to play the court with the usual American "Victim impact statement" 
designed to be emotive and persuasive to the judge in gaining a high 
sentence, of course in this case it had little effect. 
I don`t know if you have seen a well publicised British trial (cameras 
aren`t allowed into court rooms here so many never get to be high profile), 
but although the system is much the same as regards proper procedure, the 
atmosphere is entirely different. Something like the Eappen victim 
statement would make a UK jury sick, and probably encourage an aquittal.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

On 13 Nov 97, Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> was found to have 
commented thusly:

> 
> > This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for 
> > child care activities. 
> 
> Obviously, but this isn`t the point in question.
>

I'd say it was entirely the question (or perhaps you can tell me the 
specific question you are addressing).  She was in court because there 
are certain people in this world whether it is appropriate to be 
physical in any manner--even when attempting to be (medically) 
helpful--with an infant, small child, perhaps even a minor.

> > I am a firm believer that baby care for 3 year 
> > olds and less should be licensed.  The requirements for the license 
> > would be minimal.  It just merely shows that you understand that babies 
> > less than 1 year of age often cry--some hardly at all, others damn near 
> > all the time--and that 97% of the time there is a reason that can be 
> > found and the solution implemented, and the other 3% of the time the 
> > reason is beyond our understanding, but things will just seem to take 
> > care of themselves.  
> 
> Wrong, there is no justification for licensing whatsoever, I suggest 
> parents taking on carers for their children agree a responsibility
> distribution for the welfare of the child, and have the good sense not to 
> employ inept unqualified childcare staff. The parents are much to blame 
> in the death of the child, particularly in this case because they were 
> both qualified doctors and did not notice the child was unwell.
> I can see a motivation for wanting better regulation, but it is attacking 
> the situation in the wrong way, more laws never help. A voluntary 
> organisation for childcare workers, admission to which depended on 
> fulfilling the requirements you outline above for your licence idea, 
> would be useful, concerned parents could simple ensure their chosen 
> applicant was a member of the organisation before hiring them. Mandatory 
> licensing is wrong.

Don't get me wrong...I am no socialist who is saying that govt is there 
to do everything for us.  You didn't read in any of my messages that I 
took away the ultimate responsibility from the parents, who are the 
last word in securing the best interests of their children.  I 
currently live in a society which might be an anarchist's dream in 
certain respects:  there is virtually no licensing whatsoever of the 
things you take for granted:  child care, operating a motor vehicle.  
(Actually there is a licensing system for drivers, but a law is only a 
law if it is enforced, and since enforcement is virtually nil or at the 
least haphazard).  I will support a mandatory licensing scheme for 
child care as long as the govt involves itself with licensing other 
less important matters that themselves supposedly require licensing:  
such as the practice of medicine or the practice of law or the practice 
of plumbing.  Licensing--in my eyes, is but a simple barrier to leap 
yet tough enough to show that you are serious about getting into this 
business.  I care less that barbers & surgeons & physicians & various 
other bloodletters, as well as the guy who knows that shit runs 
downhill and Friday is payday (the common electrician's joke about 
plumbers) are licensed than that someone (or some nongovt 
organization) has taken the first step for me and is willing to endorse 
the smiling face at my door who is to be entrusted with my spawn.  
Throw out ALL licensing schemes and then I'll consider de-regulation of 
barriers to child killers and molesters.

> 
> > The licensing procedure might also be a way of 
> > checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and 
> > small children.
> 
> No, this is of no value, I don`t have the right temperament to deal with 
> children, I am too easily made angry by them, this does not indicate I 
> would harm a child, I simply have the sense to recognise I am not suited 
> to caring for children.
> I do not see anyway how such a character judgement might be made, and by who?

I was overreaching when I said that the licensing procedure would 
involve a psychoanalysis or something like that.  The licensing 
procedure would only involve a simple test wherein you are asked 
questions about baby care and how you might respond to certain 
situations.  It might not even flunk the test-taker who said "If I see 
an incessantly screaming baby, I am most like to throw it through the 
wall."  The licensing procedure would be a way of informing or 
reminding someone about to undertake this task just what their 
liabilities are if something goes wrong and they were ignorant of the 
things they should have done.  In this case, the "check" on temperment 
is an inquiry into "how much do you really understand about what you 
are going to do?"

The licensing of medicine and law and plumbing is 
really nothing but an acknowledgement that you know how to conform to 
standard practice and are aware of the heresies of tradition and 
convention.  You might undertake to do something radical and 
unacceptable to your colleagues or the standards set by your 
professional society, but you are warned that you assume the blame if 
something goes wrong.

> 
> > What about the judge?  His first purpose is to make sure the law is 
> > followed, especially with respect to trial procedure.  But with the law 
> > is JUSTICE!  It has always been my belief that the ultimate goal of 
> > these sacred occasions is justice. 
> 
> And justice cannot be served when an appointed official can overturn or 
> reduce a conviction, only an appeal should do this. Sure, if the jurors had 
> ignored proper procedure it is the duty of the judge to declare a 
> mistrial, that is entirely different from reducing a charge and basically 
> letting a convicted felon go free.
> 

Are you saying wisdom and justice can only be had when we put the 
decision to a larger number of people, presuming an appellate court is 
not itself the purview of a SINGLE appellate court justice?  Some 
anarchist on this list must have mentioned the principle of AMERICAN 
justice:  it is better to let nine guilty men go free than let one 
innocent man go to prison.  For better or worse, that is the American 
way.  You will note that an American judge (Roy Bean excepted) can 
overturn a guilty verdict, but not an acquittal.  It is rarely done 
anyway, since CNN's cameras are not in every courtroom and few foreign 
nationals get led in chains to American docks.

Do I think justice was done?  How the hell should I know!?  I was not 
in the courtroom, although I do admit to having made a judgement 
(guilty of involuntary manslaughter;  I correct an earlier statement 
where I said 'voluntary manslaughter').  The burden of this entire 
matter is now on the judge's shoulders, and if there is a God, may this 
God show as much mercy to the judge as he showed to Woodward.  (The 
parents can go to hell.)

> > I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just 
> > to get a fix on cultural differences.
> 
> The opinion is generally very simplistic, most people think she 
> didn`t do anything, and ask most people if she shook the child and they 
> will say she didn`t, even though Woodward herself doesn`t deny doing so.

The answer to the poll question probably is meant to reflect:  "did she 
shake the child TO DEATH?" and the masses are probably replying in this 
light.

> Most people don`t have any defined opinion on the judicial aspect of the 
> case as regards the actions of the judge, other than to be pleased he 
> freed her. The UK media spin has been very favourable to the Woodwards.
> I also think there is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that 
> the defendant was convicted by the jury because of her traditional 
> British "stiff upper lip" reserve, wheras the Eappen family knew just how 
> to play the court with the usual American "Victim impact statement" 
> designed to be emotive and persuasive to the judge in gaining a high 
> sentence, of course in this case it had little effect. 

Despite what foreign nationals might believe, 99.9% of American judges 
(i.e., those not in the United States Supreme Court and in the federal 
court system) make it their duty to insulate themselves from public 
pressure on these matters.  Most of them truly don't give a damn what 
the American public thinks about them or that they may be reversed on 
appeal, assuming the judge truly believes in what he/she is doing.  I 
think the judge in the Woodward case saw through all the public 
relations campaigning and press offensive.  He knows how 
media-intensive the open American criminal and civil justice has 
become, especially if he has been on the bench 10 or more years, and he 
knows that the baby is dead and cannot be resurrected and he wants to 
see Woodward understand what happened and realize if she had any 
responsibility and also important, whether she is remoresful if she is 
to shoulder some of the blame.

I suspect he looked for all these things, and figured that Woodward has 
been sufficiently punished, truly guilty or not.  As for Americans 
not quite impressed with the "stiff upper lip":  I know quite a few 
Englishmen here who think that the reserved one is me.  I think "the 
stiff upper lip" is something the British tourism industry likes to 
promote, and that Prince Charles is told to maintain despite it going 
against his nature.

> I don`t know if you have seen a well publicised British trial (cameras 
> aren`t allowed into court rooms here so many never get to be high profile), 
> but although the system is much the same as regards proper procedure, the 
> atmosphere is entirely different. Something like the Eappen victim 
> statement would make a UK jury sick, and probably encourage an aquittal.
> 

I wasn't privy to the media blitz in the states (I can't even get CNN 
International here!) during the trial, but I rather suspect this crap 
also sickens quite a few Americans.  Not every black person in America 
wanted to set OJ free just because he was 'a bruh thuh goin' agin' the 
system.'  And not every white guy wanted to hang the double murderer 
either.  I know in the end however, that a British jury would set their 
minds on the case of an American defendant, not voting innocent just 
'cause the parents want to preen before the national press (and make 
book deals), and not voting guilty just cause American culture, if it 
exists, turns their stomach.


Mitch Halloran
Research Biochemist/C programmer/Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy
Duzen Laboratories Group
Ankara   TURKEY
mitch@duzen.com.tr