Cameras in the courtroom

[poplife]

I'd like to continue this discussion on it's own thread as I don't think it was being discussed in an appropriate place.

What are your reasons for wanting or not wanting this case to be televised? Do we know which outlet if any would be airing it? Or perhaps just tidbits on the news? CTV has not picked it up yet?

JMO.

I think it should be televised. Not sure it's big enough for CTV though.

[csiwannabe]

I think that this case has gotten WAY more publicity then the Rachelle Waterman "Teen Blogger" trial so I'm sure that Taylor's case is not too small for Court TV. I hope they do let the cameras' in because I would like to be able to follow the trial.

It's gotten local publicity yes. Much like the Teen Blogger. We'll see what CTV does.

There is absolutely no reason why Ben Fawley wouldn't get a fair trial with cameras in the courtroom.

I, for one, would like to see cameras in the courtroom so that I could watch the trial. With the "gag" order in place, there has been so much speculation, so much rumor and so much innuendo from the press, the prosecution leaks, etc. that I would like to hear the uncensored truth.

The only way, in your perfect world, that you wouldn't hear the facts of the trial is if you precluded reporters from attending, and that ain't happening. So whatever is said during this trial, about anyone, will be in the papers anyway.

And god knows reporters are slanted in their coverage as well. I'd like to make my own decision about all of it. JMO.

[poplife]

I don't agree that tv journalists and sound bytes really have anything to do w/ cameras in the courtroom. What is done is done, as citizens we have a right to follow along w/ the trial. If there is to be mudslinging or what have you, just b/c no one is in the woods to hear the tree fall doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can't just ignore what you don't like and therefore it doesn't exist.

They won't be showing jurors, they won't be recording sensitive photo evidence.

[poplife]

Sounds like you're already convinced of what your verdict is. Good thing you aren't on the jury.

HJ, would you take the position for any other trial?

If so, then you are against cameras in the courtroom .. period. Correct?

I think most intelligent people can sort out the inflammatory and sensationlist rantings of a Nancy Grace or Greta Van Susteran or whomever. We've seen it a million times with coverage on major cases.

That's why I advocate for cameras in the courtroom. You see and hear, without editorialization, what is happening. And of course you are not going to see and hear the entire trial - you wouldn't even want to. Much can be quite boring.

But what is said there IS what the case will be determined on by the 12 jurors. NOT what a journalist reports. Cameras in the courtroom represent free speech, and I'm all about that.

And, this trial is not about Janet Pelasara. So her privacy is not an issue. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but that is a moot point. This is about TAYLOR, which is where the focus should be.

[Cino]

Originally posted by Amadeus
And, this trial is not about Janet Pelasara. So her privacy is not an issue. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but that is a moot point. This is about TAYLOR, which is where the focus should be.

And it's not as though no one else's privacy hasn't been poked at, either.

Jude, since you're looking for semi-obscure words, I point one of my favourites--"flauccinauccinihilipilification"--at you. That was one of our words of interest in Latin.

[protectkidz]

Cameras in the courtroom will ensure that the public does see the truth of the trial - instead of sensational 30-second sound bytes on news channels throughout the day.

Hey Jude!

I agree with all of your posts.

The OJ Simpson trial set the standard for many judges to rule against allowing cameras in their courtrooms, especially in high-profile cases.

Taylor's disappearance/murder has been highly publicized, and the trial will undoubtedly be covered to its finality. The media does, unfortunately, behave as you have described, oftentimes with reckless disregard for how their reporting, snippets and comments will forever impact, and cause pain, to the victim's family.

As in the OJ Simpson fiasco, televised trials are more like spectator sports, fashion shows, attorney grandstanding, unnecessary dramatic sidebars, than searches for the truth. They cause delays and often impede the process.

Although I religiously followed the tragic case of Laci Peterson, to the point of paying to read the daily trial transcripts, I was pleased, for Laci's family's sake, that the media's request, to allow cameras in the courtroom, was denied by Judge Alfred Delucchi.

I pray that Taylor's family is likewise spared the downside of allowing cameras in the courtroom. I will follow Taylor's case to the end, praying that justice will be properly served, and that Ben Fawley will be punished, to the fullest extent of the law for her senseless murder, and the pain he has caused all, who love Taylor, to suffer so needlessly.

As always, Taylor and her family remain in my thoughts and prayers.

[protectkidz]

In the ten+ years since the OJ trial, a lot has been learned and battled out re: courtroom cameras.

The trial of Joseph Smith (who was convicted of killing Carlie Brucia) would be a better example than the OJ trial for courtroom cameras. This trial was conducted in a dignified manner, the parents, witnesses as well as the victim were respected. And it was on Courttv.

I have great faith in the prosecutor and the judge in this case. I know they won't let Taylor down.

[protectkidz]

Originally posted by Hey Paula
Hey Jude!

I agree with all of your posts.

The OJ Simpson trial set the standard for many judges to rule against allowing cameras in their courtrooms, especially in high-profile cases.

Taylor's disappearance/murder has been highly publicized, and the trial will undoubtedly be covered to its finality. The media does, unfortunately, behave as you have described, oftentimes with reckless disregard for how their reporting, snippets and comments will forever impact, and cause pain, to the victim's family.

As in the OJ Simpson fiasco, televised trials are more like spectator sports, fashion shows, attorney grandstanding, unnecessary dramatic sidebars, than searches for the truth. They cause delays and often impede the process.

Although I religiously followed the tragic case of Laci Peterson, to the point of paying to read the daily trial transcripts, I was pleased, for Laci's family's sake, that the media's request, to allow cameras in the courtroom, was denied by Judge Alfred Delucchi.

I pray that Taylor's family is likewise spared the downside of allowing cameras in the courtroom. I will follow Taylor's case to the end, praying that justice will be properly served, and that Ben Fawley will be punished, to the fullest extent of the law for her senseless murder, and the pain he has caused all, who love Taylor, to suffer so needlessly.

As always, Taylor and her family remain in my thoughts and prayers.

You paid to read the trial transcripts? wow.

Originally posted by protectkidz


You paid to read the trial transcripts? wow.

Many of the Scott Peterson trial posters paid to read the transcripts.

[protectkidz]

Oh. If it had been on television, would you have watched it?

Originally posted by protectkidz
Oh. If it had been on television, would you have watched it?

Of course I would have!

However, when Judge Delucchi was deciding the matter of cameras in the courtroom, I put my desire to view the trial aside, and hoped for a decision which would be best for all who were directly affected by the murders of Laci and Conner.

[protectkidz]

Well, that would apply to all murder trials, Hey Paula. Since there are victims and parents for each. And in that case, there would be no need for Courttv.

So, if this trial (VA vs. Ben Fawley) ends up not being televised, will you be paying for those trial transcripts as well?

Originally posted by protectkidz
Well, that would apply to all murder trials, Hey Paula. Since there are victims and parents for each. And in that case, there would be no need for Courttv.

So, if this trial (VA vs. Ben Fawley) ends up not being televised, will you be paying for those trial transcripts as well?

IMO, there is a vast difference between televised high profile cases and others.

High profile cases have a long life. The dates the victims were murdered, along with those of the verdicts, can be played over and over again, for many years, causing the families to suffer and relive the trial over and over again.

I don't know if I'll pay for the transcripts in this trial. Because so many posters from this, and other MB's participated in contributing to the Peterson transcript fund, it was relatively affordable, which may not be true in this case.

[protectkidz]

You are probably correct when you say that there won't be a transcript fund amongst the posters here.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying re: high profile cases. Are you saying that this case is not a high profile case? Or are you saying it is? Don't understand your wording. Either way, what is the coorelation as to whether it should be televised or not? If it's high profile it shouldn't be? Like OJ's? Or Scott Peterson's?

I'm pretty sure that the date of Taylor's death, as well as the date of the verdict, will be in Janet's memory forever. Whether it's televised or not will not make a difference. But I'm positive that the blurbs every 1/2 hour on the news are going to be hurtful. Maybe instead of worrying about Courttv broadcasting the trial, t.v. stations should be called asking not to do the blurbie spots they like to do.

But, since we haven't actually heard a motion or heard from the judge whether it will be televised, it is a moot point. Especially since if it's not televised, those who wish will simply purchase the transcripts anyway. Although I have to say, as much as I have given my heart to so many that have suffered violent crimes, the idea of purchasing a trial transcript has not occured to me. I guess I'm just not that obsessed, just concerned.

And of course, IMO.

Originally posted by poplife
I'd like to continue this discussion on it's own thread as I don't think it was being discussed in an appropriate place.

What are your reasons for wanting or not wanting this case to be televised? Do we know which outlet if any would be airing it? Or perhaps just tidbits on the news? CTV has not picked it up yet?

I wish they would put camera's in the jury room, not make them public, but have them there to make sure everyone was going by the rules...it will never happen though imo

[nibblet]

Perhaps Marilyn would like to see a few other things that have been sent to a crime victim's mother.

[poplife]

You mean, like Huffblog and Reihlworld?

[protectkidz]

Originally posted by nibblet
Perhaps Marilyn would like to see a few other things that have been sent to a crime victim's mother.

Yes, there have been many PMs generated - to and from all. I bet it would be a huge eye-opener to many to see what has been said behind the scenes.

[protectkidz]

Originally posted by poplife
You mean, like Huffblog and Reihlworld?

exactly.

[nibblet]

Originally posted by Rowan



And yes. I have the emails. And yes, I have OTHER emails. I don't think you want to go here. Believe me.

.

Looks like you are threatening me.

[poplife]

Originally posted by nibblet


Looks like you are threatening me.

No you are.

No you are.

I know you are but what am I?

[Taxgirl2006]

Originally posted by poplife



No you are.

No you are.

I know you are but what am I?

:lol: :lol:

Originally posted by protectkidz
Well, that would apply to all murder trials, Hey Paula. Since there are victims and parents for each. And in that case, there would be no need for Courttv.

So, if this trial (VA vs. Ben Fawley) ends up not being televised, will you be paying for those trial transcripts as well?

Cameras are not allowed in federal court and neither should they be allowed in state court.

IMO

Originally posted by Rowan


First off, you missed the three pages of posts that were deleted prior to this post. Let me just advise you of that. Therefore, you are not up to speed on exactly what the conversation entailed.

I am "concerned" about Mike Cino because I know him - which you do not. And because I have an inherent sense of fairness. This board apparently does not when it comes to Mike Cino. So it disturbs me.

If you would like to know why Peace was banned, I suggest you speak with either Hotwater or Marilyn Bardsley. They have been kind enough to talk with others about their reasons.

The only people that seem to make this forum about Mike Cino are those who choose to denigrate him. You don't see those who support him creating threads in his honor, do you? Rather, you see them respond to the many vitrolic attacks on him.

And I never said Janet Pelasara bashed Cino publicly. I asked her to take the lead in stopping it on here. I thought that I made that clear. Apparently not.

Have a nice evening.

As I said, this forum is not about Mike Cino and/or those who wish to defend him, its about Taylor Behl.

Doesn't Janet have enough problems without you asking her to stop people, like myself e.g., from questioning why Cino didn't tell Fawley that his friend Taylor Behl is off-limits? And furthermore, why should she defend him?

You jumped all over me when I inquired about "your friend", and I merely asked a question. Apparently, the mere mention of the name Cino is viewed, by you, as bashing.

Before you arrived on the Taylor Behl board, i.e., as soon as it opened, we questioned ALL the players in this case. Why is Cino off-limits? Because YOU say so? I think you should stay off this board if you are so sensitive about "your friend", as you are too personally involved.

BTW, I've been told that this is not the first board you've posted on which has produced similar problems. Not being a steady poster of OC, I wasn't aware of this until I inquired.

I, for one, will not be stifled by you or any other poster. If I have questions about anyone involved in this case, I will address them.

Keep in mind that it was Taylor Behl, who was murdered by Ben Fawley, a friend of your friend, Mike Cino, who introduced them. Needless to say, his name might come up during trial. So if you find that too sensitive for your sensibilities, perhaps you should find another case to discuss.

Oh, and Rowan, it's a typo!

[singlesix]

"And because I have an inherent sense of fairness. This board apparently does not when it comes to Mike Cino. So it disturbs me. "

The entire board is unfair to your friend? Entire is a pretty broad generalization don't you think. You insult everyone here and yet you claim to possess an inherent a sense of fairness. I think you need to retract or modify at least one of your claims.

singlesix

[MATTHEWsevenone]

OK - thought of this for quite a while. Tried to really dig in and examine where my head was. Here goes:

If cameras are internal and used to video the trial (from various angles of the courtroom and courthouse for that matter) and become part and parcel of the record and available within a reasonable timeframe through freedom of information requests, I have zero problem with them.

If however the cameras belong to someone in the entertainment industry - and for me, the news media of late has now blurred the lines between OBJECTIVE REPORTING and SENSATIONALIZED REPORTING so they fall into this category, I cannot find a reason for such cameras. For then there are questions of perpective and editing that go to exactly what rendering will be produced- the objectivity is lost!

So for me the FIRST real question is one of purpose. What is the purpose of the cameras?

The other thing that bugs me is the WHO? Who benefits?

The entire trial phase of a criminal case is the time for the defendent to hold the limelight. Everything revolves around that person! The victim is the focus during the investigation but can quickly be cast to the shadows during the trial phase and for me to allow cameras and broadcast during the trial phase always turns my stomach. I personally don't believe the defendent, who is charged with serious criminal conduct, should be allowed a soapbox, a lecturn, and A SPOTLIGHT that ripples across the country and world!

For some criminals their very criminal conduct hinges on their cravings for the spotlight- they want some sort of notoriety. For me, cameras in the courthouse just feeds such a soul. I do not support it.

It also saddens and yes at times really disgusts me that some Americans have lost sight of the bigger issues in play. IMO.

Specifically, time and again I hear the argument that we have a RIGHT to see a trial! A great many seem to have convinced themselves that their own desire to vicarously share the experience through a TV lens (A WANT), their payment of tax dollars, all wrapped together with a common American notion fairness requires openness creates a RIGHT OF WAY for the General Public to be up close and personal during the trial phase. I don't agree with this logic. While I see the value of openness- for me, OPENNESS does not REQUIRE cameras operated by people whose motives and goals are not rooted in JUSTICE. IMO, of course.

I too can see some of the merits (tiny courthouse located in rural coastal community, much interest from people unable to relocate to participate)BUT...

Once the cameras are there the seriousness of the events morph or warp the participants into seudo-celebrities. The general public always seem to lose the true focus! And the event becomes more akin to a game show or a soap opera than a real live horror being scrutinized within our legal system. The victim and the brutality of the crime(s) become mutated or compartmentized or worse! And the methodology the Defense tries to use to justify the defendant's abhorrent conduct/life choices somehow get twisted or perverted into something packaged as normal, acceptable, or excusable. Those watching who are not carefully aware of the role of the Defense to use theatrics and buzz words and persuasion INSTEAD OF COLD HARD FACTS are adversely altered by viewing the show! Those watching who do not understand the pyschological and sociological tricks are fooled. And sadly our Society or a fraction of it remain foolish because they assimilate into their own lives a falsehood or perversion used in a courthouse arena that may help them feel better about a poor life choice they or a loved one made and do not even understand what has happened!

And in the end - has the cameras served a good purpose? Had the goal of bringing a clear, objective rendering been achieved?

I really prefer Court TV airing this trial AFTER the Trial phase is over. I do believe of all of the media outlets, CourtTV is to the courthouse what CSPAN is to Capital Hill and they will try to be objective.

For me this is where I find myself when asked about cameras in the tiny courthouse in Mathews County VA -

"But to everything there is purpose..."

I vote NO.

Before anyone asks, I do plan to follow this case - NO TV in our home so I will not be watching it plus I am miles and miles from VA. But I have been earnestly concerned about Taylor's disappearance since Sept. 9, when I first heard of it. And I do so want JUSTICE. There are questions about particulars: the car, the license plates, the computers, the cellphones, even the Peperidge Farm cookies, etc and I want to know the answers. There are areas of the timeline I hope will be answered. For me, I have already been actively involved - from the first moment my interest was to FIND TAYLOR AND HAVE A HAPPY ENDING

Now I want to see how the horrible crime is handled! For me, I don't need cameras in the courthouse to follow this case! And for me , the focus will always be TAYLOR. And I understand many on this forum are just like me - I think many of us want to be there for TAYLOR. So while some might consider me a hypocrite for voting no cameras while planning to follow the case, we will just have to disagree.

I just know why I oppose entertainment cameras and why I still plan to follow the case.

[Cino]

Oooookaaayyy . . .

Rowan, I think you're wasting your energy here. Sure, there are a LOT of things wrong with this board, but it's hardly the worst of things. I think there's only so hard you can press on an issue before your pressing becomes counterproductive. I see issues in very much of what is being said here by others as well, but it's not worth my time to address.

That being said . . . shall we discuss "Cameras in the Courtroom?"

Matthew is making the most sense to me so far on this thread. The "celebrity factor," if you will, is a large issue. We want people focusing more on the trial. Perhaps the best way would be to make the entirety of the video (and I'm sure there will be people watching the hours and hours) availible after the close of the trial. Stills are iffy. Perhaps that could be done nicely (forgive my memory, I can't think of the better word here). Mayhaps a court-appointed photographer or two (without flash) could be hired, and everything taken could be run through the judge before leaving the courtroom or publication.

[singlesix]

"If I have offended YOU or you were not in that majority, to YOU I apologize."

Your apology to me is accepted. Thank you.

"Why pick a fight?"

I wasn't the one throwing sweeping insults around. Neither am I one to let a public insult go unchallenged. People who use so-called fighting words should expect to receive a little feedback, whether on line or in person. This isn't junior high, or even college, where everybody calls each other funny names and giggles about it.

If the judge wants cameras I say go for it. Doesn't mean I'll watch though. I think it would be funny if hungry-for-attention-Skulz didn't even have anybody show up to watch the trial, much less watch his sorry self on tv.

singlesix

[MATTHEWsevenone]

Originally posted by singlesix

... If the judge wants cameras I say go for it. Doesn't mean I'll watch though. I think it would be funny if hungry-for-attention-Skulz didn't even have anybody show up to watch the trial, much less watch his sorry self on tv.

singlesix

Now this portion of your post singlesix (hope you don't mind I edited to highlight it) is a post with the fervor I have missed!!

Thank you. You have been around this case for a LONG LONG TIME and I have NO DOUBT that you, like me, will not be focussed on BEN FAWLEY and or allow a Defense attorney to try to twist Skulz's repugnant socially destructive life choices to justify or explain away the DEATH OF TAYLOR!!!

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!!!

[protectkidz]

Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone



Now this portion of your post singlesix (hope you don't mind I edited to highlight it) is a post with the fervor I have missed!!

Thank you. You have been around this case for a LONG LONG TIME and I have NO DOUBT that you, like me, will not be focussed on BEN FAWLEY and or allow a Defense attorney to try to twist Skulz's repugnant socially destructive life choices to justify or explain away the DEATH OF TAYLOR!!!

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!!!

Mat 7:1 — Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Originally posted by protectkidz


Mat 7:1 — Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Are you suggesting that we not judge Ben Fawley?

[protectkidz]

actually, I was commenting on the above's user name - and the quote with his highly judgemental words.

And no, I don't feel comfortable judging anyone right now until the trial is over, and the facts are laid out.

[singlesix]

Fact: He said he did it...eventually...sooner or later...after telling a bunch of lies and leaving everybody hanging for a long, long time.

We know what he is, we just don't know how the law will deal with him.

singlesix

[protectkidz]

That's true that he said he did it. I will be glad when the complete truth of what happens comes out in court.

[Cino]

Originally posted by protectkidz
actually, I was commenting on the above's user name - and the quote with his highly judgemental words.

And no, I don't feel comfortable judging anyone right now until the trial is over, and the facts are laid out.

DINGDINGDINGDING we have a winner! Here's one who doesn't feel right making judgements about people and they don't know and know rather little about. Consider how absurd it would be if I began to judge some of y'all.

I'm not saying that it's uncalled for to contemplate what you think about anything that has happened. What irks me is when the sentiment is something not much more complicated than "et cetera, et cetera . . . Ben is guilty, so he's evil. Given that, buzz buzz buzz." I think it rather pointless to judge in such absolutes, especially when we know extremely well that we are misinformed and waiting on more information that is being temporarily hidden.



Good evening.