 |
| "Lady Justice" |
Women's gender advocates would say the girls have every right. And I am not suggesting otherwise.
Getting into the cultural thing gets us knee-deep in thoughts about the new electronic media. Well it still seems "new" to me. I'll be age 68 in a few days. My birthday is the same day Donald Trump will hold his first big rally in South Carolina. I digress.
How did we all live in the "old days?" How was crime solved? There must have been ways to get people locked up.
Today I look at all the wizards with their arcane talk within the new media stuff, and I wonder: what kind of lives would they have had pre-digital? How could they have applied their genius?
The new tech has applied itself in such myriad ways. Like all fundamental change, it can creep along slowly. Thus it can be hard for us to notice sometimes.
I tend to notice and observe because it's simply an inherent trait I have. Such people would be called "intellectuals" and let me stress in the next breath the term is not about "how smart you are." It simply references a certain way of thinking. The definition: we think it's important to understand why people behave the way they do. We are thus fascinated by stimuli that make us adjust our behavior.
So I'm thinking about all these "true crime" analysts who get into weeds with electronic media minutiae. And yet with all these insights, it seems harder rather than easier to get a killer convicted. And why should that be? The purpose of all the new assets is to make our lives better, to solve problems.
So we're looking at "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." I reminded someone about the O.J. case recently. The rejoinder was that the case was not about guilt or innocence, rather it was "racial turnabout." Touche. I will not contest that one. I have never worn the moccasins of African-Americans.
The effect of all the new tech assets in true crime, in my view, is to push the bar much higher for trying to affirm someone's "guilt."
There are no witnesses who saw firsthand Mr. K. kill four college students in Idaho. Minus that, how are we supposed to be sure? I guess the most logical answer is that we cannot be totally sure, unfortunately. But society demands that we go after such wrongdoers as a deterrent.
These genius defense attorneys who can so easily become celebrities, write books etc. - they can harness the new tech tools as well as anyone. That's with a laser focus on finding a tiny sliver of doubt. Should we be surprised they can succeed so well, so often?
In previous times I'm sure a dedicated prosecutor seized on convincing circumstantial evidence and then implored the jury. And what of the defendant? This person might have to break down at some point and just say "I did it." Many defendants including those who've done terrible things can be motivated by simple conscience when all is said and done. Sometimes trial witnesses will do surprising things, suddenly, when "put under oath." It's a human trait.
So here we have this Bryan fellow who did the worst of the worst. I won't talk in terms of "allegations" because no one is editing my writing. So I'll say what I think. And what bothers me this morning as my mind drifts back onto the topic is this: Maybe our trial system with its pleas of "guilty" or "not guilty" is too sterile. Here's my point: a plea is just a plea. A maneuver. A position to assert without getting into the essence of "if you did it."
Instead of asking for guilty or not guilty, maybe the judge should look the accused in the eye and say "sir, you are accused of killing these four young people. Did you do it?"
Maybe the innate human impulse will build up in some people, our impulse to be forthcoming. God sees everything - "he knows every sparrow that falls."
This Bryan fellow was a doctoral candidate in college. That is more than I could achieve, vastly in fact. How does one explain his actions? He's an "incel?" A buzzword, yes, rather fun to bandy about. There's a cottage industry in the media connected to this case. So we're schooled on "incels," those poor male souls who have trouble getting women interested in them.
How germane is this, really? The guy took a "Rambo" knife and carved up four college kids as they were in bed, or at least two of them were for sure. The act ought to be seen as having nothing to do with sexual frustration.
Frustration? Life is full of it. We all just need to count our blessings.
To kill four college kids in the same house? Not using a gun? No wonder the story has transfixed the nation. The transfixing will not run its course any time soon. Our cotton pickin' legal system with its sterile obligations will run on and on. And lawyers will lecture us on how all this is necessary. Are they backed by reason, or by their affinity with this professional gravy train of theirs? Rhetorical question.
Months will roll by. The judge has asserted herself with another gag order. I'm sure the police and prosecutors have proceeded with the healthiest and most honest determination. Prepare to watch them get demeaned, again, by an aggressive defense lawyer or lawyers. O.J. had a team.
The defense people will have their egos to massage. They will enjoy the high profile. Much public money will be spent on accommodations for the accused, his defense advocacy and then the appeals once the death penalty is attempted.
Here's a case where I'd like to see vigilante justice. OK, harness the "new media" and call for this thing called a "flash mob," get thousands of people to surround the facility where Mr. K. is being held, demand that he be let out and turned over to the mob. And if no compliance, the mob would announce "we're coming in to get him and you'll have to shoot us."
A serious suggestion? A fantasy? Well, you'll just have to try and read my mind. My lawyer friends would be aghast. Here's a case where I will think for myself.
Addendum: I suppose I could be writing about something worse than the Idaho murders? I could write about the U of M men's basketball game versus Purdue. Rim shot!
Addendum No. 2: Here's a thought I posted under a YouTube "sleuther" post re. Idaho:
Has anyone asked how all five of the girls in house were so incredibly attractive? Was there screening or what? Dylan is dressed grubby and doesn't look that great in the most famous group photo, but if you look at others, she's ravishing, could be Hollywood actress. I'm happy for them for that, but coincidence? And it seemed they liked looking sexy. Which was their right. But did it bring unwanted attention?
Response to my comment: Some of the girls are (And were) on Only Fans. Bryan was on that site regularly as a paid sub. My point is they like (and liked) being seen. Several creators have made vids about this recently. Their bedrooms didn't have curtains or blinds.
Another response: Ravishing, tho? lol
Another response: I agree! Makeup and filters. That’s why (Kaylee) looks so different in the body cam footage. (Maddie) looks completely different, in a pic with her dad.
I think they’re just average girls, who make themselves to look a certain way.
But I try to just respect other peoples opinions.
Another response: Dylan has that super clear skin common in some LDS families. Clean living. But even she decided to get lip injections. They're all cute for Northwesterners, and some even seemed pretty cool. Xana vids show her to have good comedic skills despite that sadness which seemed to be part of her personality.
Another response: How were they so incredibly attractive? It's called make-up! If a woman is called gorgeous without makeup, yes, she really is so.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment