Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Snoopy]

Gregory,

Just curious - have you interviewed either of the victims?

Well, the judge has rejected the plea agraeement and allowed TS to withdraw his guilty plea.

So, in the eyes of the law, at this point in time TS is not guilty.  Yes, he could go to trial and he could be found guilty.  If that happens, at that time he will in the eyes of the law, be guilty.  However, I do not beleive that it is a "slam dunk" that he will be found guilty.  It is true that he may be found guilty.  But, it is also true that he may be found "not guilty."  It just might be a "crap shoot."   [NOTE: I Reference the game of dice.]

However, there is another option.  That option just might mean that TS does not go to trial.  They could negotiate another plea deal in the hopes that the new judge would accept it.  That would likely result in some prison time.  But, the hope would be that the prison time would be less than what he might recive in a jury trial.

I frankly do not believe that the Commonwealth attorney (Katherine Stott) wants to take it to trial.  I also believe that Shelton's attornies believe that they have a chance at a not guilty verdict.

NOTE: My comments do not indicate that I do not beleive those who have accused TS.  When TS initially pled guilty, I felt that was the truth, as much as the criminal process  would uncover the truth.  My comments simply reflect how I see it from the standpoint of obtaining a criminal conviction.  Criminal courts are concerned with criminal process according to the statute.  Often they are not involved with truth.  I think that TS has a chance of being found Not Guilty in a criminal trial.  But, also a chance of a conviction.

So, here we have it:

Go to trial and be found guilty.
Go to trial and be found not guilty.
Negotiate another plea deal.

[Alex L. Walker]

Well, the judge has rejected the plea agraeement and allowed TS to withdraw his guilty plea.

So, in the eyes of the law, at this point in time TS is not guilty.  Yes, he could go to trial and he could be found guilty.  If that happens, at that time he will in the eyes of the law, be guilty.  However, I do not beleive that it is a "slam dunk" that he will be found guilty.  It is true that he may be found guilty.  But, it is also true that he may be found "not guilty."  It just might be a "crap shoot."   [NOTE: I Reference the game of dice.]

However, there is another option.  That option just might mean that TS does not go to trial.  They could negotiate another plea deal in the hopes that the new judge would accept it.  That would likely result in some prison time.  But, the hope would be that the prison time would be less than what he might recive in a jury trial.

I frankly do not believe that the Commonwealth attorney (Katherine Stott) wants to take it to trial.  I also believe that Shelton's attornies believe that they have a chance at a not guilty verdict.

NOTE: My comments do not indicate that I do not beleive those who have accused TS.  When TS initially pled guilty, I felt that was the truth, as much as the criminal process  would uncover the truth.  My comments simply reflect how I see it from the standpoint of obtaining a criminal conviction.  Criminal courts are concerned with criminal process according to the statute.  Often they are not involved with truth.  I think that TS has a chance of being found Not Guilty in a criminal trial.  But, also a chance of a conviction.

So, here we have it:

Go to trial and be found guilty.
Go to trial and be found not guilty.
Negotiate another plea deal.

Gregory what is all this smut?

[Alex L. Walker]

I stand by what I told Tom Jackman today:

My statement is below as was covered in his article in the Washington Post:

One of the victims said after the hearing that he was "fine" with Bellows rejecting the plea deal. "Would I rather not have to do it? Absolutely," he said. "But if that's what I have to do, that's what I have to do. We'll continue the fight."

[Alex L. Walker]

Actually, it means we are back to square one. I understand the trial will begin in January.

In closing, I'd just like to say that I know Glenn Dryden snoops around on this forum, so I'd just like to say something publicly. Mr. Dryden, I hope all the hell you have stirred up for myself and numerous other people makes you feel as if you've finally accomplished something in your miserable excuse for a life. I also hope everyone remembers how you tucked tail and hid behind a closed door like a coward when a reporter asked you why you neglected your responsibility to contact law enforcement. You stirred this up, now you're going to reap the consequences of not minding your own business. I, personally, am going to see to that.

 

[Gregory]

Snoopy and Alex:

No, I have not interviewed either (or any ) of the victims.  I do not beleive that I need to interview them in order to believe them.  Without interviewing them, I believe that TS told the truth when he pled guilty as part of a plea deal that the judge has now rejected.  Did I have to wait for tS to pled guilty befor I believed them?  No.  But, his plea of guilty establishes his guilt, in my mind in the moral sense.

My point is  that his guilt is now in the legal sense.  The judge has rejected the plea deal.  As a result, TS has withdrawn his guilty plea and until he either accepts another plea deal or is convicted by a criminal tril in the legal sense he is "Not Guilty, and it is not a Slam Dunk to think that a jury trial will convict him.  Perhaps it will?  Perhaps it will not?  TS takes a risk in going to trial as he my get a longer prison sentence than he would have gotten from the judge.   But, the Commonwealth Attorney also takes a risk in that TS may be found Not Guilty.

In my opinion, it is a fact of life that criminal trials are not focused on the determination of truth.  Sometimes they find truth and sometimes they do not.  There focus is on the statute and how guilt is defined in the law.

Is the above smut?  I do nout understand how my saying that I believe TS told the truth when he pled guilty but may (?) not be convicted in a cariminal trial is smut.  But, so be it for my lack of understanding.  If TS is declated Not Guilty, it will not be the fault of those who have accused him, in my opinion.

[ex3abnemployee]

I understand what you're saying, Gregory. 

[Alex L. Walker]

Gregory, thank you for clarifying I also understand what you are saying.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I also understand what Gregory is saying.

[mrst53]

If it goes to trial, can the state attorney bring up past victims like Duane and others from this site, to show that this is a re-occuring pattern of TS and that he never tried to get help and still placed himself where he was in contact with children?

[ex3abnemployee]

Not sure, but I'm definitely willing to help if needed.

[Gregory]

MRST, I do not have the comptetnce to glive your a final answer to your question.  Therefore, take what I say with a grain of salt.    But, I will make a sugestion.

The criminal proceedings consist of two parts.

The first part is a trail curing which a conviction is obtained or the there is a Not Guilty decision.  I  do not think that any evidence other than that related to the specific charges would be allowed.  The defense would fight against it and if allowed, I beleive that such would provide grounds for an appelate court orerturning a guilty verdict.

The second phase of the criminal proceedings is the determination of the sentence to be given in the case of a guilty verdict.  During this phase, there is more freedom to go beyond the specific charges.  This phase often allows a deeper look at the life of the convicted person.  Of course the defense will seek to limit such.   The judge woudl then rule.  IOW, in my opinion, if such were to be alowed, it would only be during the sentencing phase of the criminal proceedings and the only in the event of a guilty verdict.

[mrst53]

Thanks Gregory. I was just wondering.  It would seem like past "sins" would be allowed,but then I watch  alot of TV and that's fiction 

[ex3abnemployee]

MRST, I do not have the comptetnce to glive your a final answer to your question.  Therefore, take what I say with a grain of salt.    But, I will make a sugestion.

The criminal proceedings consist of two parts.

The first part is a trail curing which a conviction is obtained or the there is a Not Guilty decision.  I  do not think that any evidence other than that related to the specific charges would be allowed.  The defense would fight against it and if allowed, I beleive that such would provide grounds for an appelate court orerturning a guilty verdict.

The second phase of the criminal proceedings is the determination of the sentence to be given in the case of a guilty verdict.  During this phase, there is more freedom to go beyond the specific charges.  This phase often allows a deeper look at the life of the convicted person.  Of course the defense will seek to limit such.   The judge woudl then rule.  IOW, in my opinion, if such were to be alowed, it would only be during the sentencing phase of the criminal proceedings and the only in the event of a guilty verdict.

I also have a very limited knowledge of criminal proceedings, but that sounds logical to me.

[ex3abnemployee]

Thanks Gregory. I was just wondering.  It would seem like past "sins" would be allowed,but then I watch  alot of TV and that's fiction 

mrst, I think the difference is that there have been no convictions before now. If he were already a convicted sex offender, that might have changed things. I'm just guessing. 

[Alex L. Walker]

Gregory's assesment is correct, as far as I have been told. IF there was convictions in Illinois then that would be allowed into court, but since there isn't then the chances are it will not be.

After a lengthy phone coversation earlier I was informed that the status hearing is set for 10:00 a.m. At that time another possible plea deal may be presented to the defense. I am not at liberty to discuss the specifics. If they reject the "new deal" then the original charges will stick and we will go to trial.