Issuu on Google+


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


vwhatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts


of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the

accuser to verify their accusation. Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


Google + and the Future of Avatar Identity BY Aeonix Aeon #SecondLife #GooglePlus | Your avatar is considered your legal identity?

you may consider retweeting to get the word out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_c hange In the United States: Several specific federal court rulings have set precedents regarding both court decreed name changes and common law name changes (changing your name "at will") for the United States. One may be employed, do business, and enter into other contracts, and sue and be sued under any name they choose at will (Lindon v. First National Bank 10 F. 894, Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1, In re McUlta 189 F. 250). Such a change carries exactly the same legal weight as a court-decreed name change as long as it is not done with fraudulent intent (In re McUlta 189 F. 250, Christianson v. King County 196 F. 791, United States v. McKay 2 F.2d 257).

Here's a bit of food for thought when it comes to the United States (and other countries) residents who choose to be known by their Avatar Name/Pseudonym, and something

Since persons who choose to use Google services, including Google+, under their Avatar Identities, which constitutes a Pseudonym and is thus protected and federally sanctioned within the United States as having the same legal weight as a court-decreed name change, any T.O.S. enacted by Google is an agreement with a legally standing Pseudonym and carries the same weight to legally be both acceptable and binding as the "true" name of the person involved. In removing Virtual Environment identities from the Google+ service


under "breach of TOS", Google as a company is likely breaking federal law in the United States. This also goes for Facebook, since any "legally binding" T.O.S. entered into agreement by an Avatar Identity holds the same weight legally as a Pseudonym and therefore that of using a real name as long as the intent to defraud does not exist.

precedence to violate it.

Since Avatar Identity is not entered into consideration as "fraudulent" intent by default, and Google falls under the jurisdiction of the United States (as does Facebook), it is perfectly legal (at least to US Citizens) to use an Avatar Identity and it is expected that such can be treated with equality such as a real name would be. As for other countries in the world, I suggest you take a look at your local common law name changes statutes to see if these rules also apply to you, though from cursory reading it appears that similar, if not identical, laws are in place.

However, each Avatar Identity has a solid legal case against Google and even Facebook, and can be considered wrongful and illegal termination of services under false pretense. The only reason things stay the same is because nobody bothers to challenge the "corporate inspired" norms... when really, they should.

This is why Multiplicity of Identity must be embraced. This goes for Avatar Identity, Pseudonym or Real Name, as long as they are not used with an intent to defraud. There is no question about whether or not an Avatar Identity constitutes the same legal standing as a true name under any pretext other than with intent to defraud, or under well defined circumstances by which a true name may be required. However, a business such as Google or Facebook does not constitute such precedence to ignore pseudonyms and is not immune to the law nor has any

Sincerely, Will Burns | Aeonix Aeon aka: The guy that may have just started a class action lawsuit

Since OpenSource Obscure (and other Avatar Identities) are/were used without the intent to defraud, but only make use as a legal pseudonym, violation of the T.O.S. is non-existent and cannot be legally enforced or mandated even by a private business such as Google or Facebook.

Actually, I think @Botgirlq said it best: “Wonder if the EFF might be interested?� I bet you they probably would *love* to help out.

PS: Now would be a good time to rethink your strategy, Google & Facebook http://blog.andromeda3d.com/


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


Ashton and Demi vs Child Prostitution (The Problem of Facts) By Scorpinosis Nightfire Recently the star couple Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore launched a campaign against underage child prostitution that came under fire by the Village Voice news publication for hyped up statistics. During in interview with CNN’s Pier’s Morgan, Ashton and Demi shared that “100,000 to “300,000” children were sold into sexual slavery a year. Relying on popular information that has been circulated in other very famous media outlets as well, Demi and Ashton’s seemed confident in putting those numbers out there as validation for their campaign. However after much fact checking, Village Voice announced that the numbers were massively exaggerated and that the facts show only a little over 8223 arrests for underage prostitution took place over the last 10 years. Simply put, a little over 800 a year not 100, or 300 thousand confirmed cases of child prostitution which is way under the sky is falling numbers presented by the star couple. The Village Voice went on to say that even with the numbers being a fraction of what Demi and Ashton were presenting that they agreed teen sex slavery is still a major problem needing accurate reporting and long term assistance that will help kids stay off the streets. Ashton however reached out to his 7 million followers on Twitter and took the village voice on for their critic of his interview and his public service TV campaign “Real Men Don’t Buy Girls”. He wrote, "Hey @villagevoice if you ever want 2 have a productive conversation

about how 2 end human trafficking as oppose to belittling my efforts lmk [let me know]." Referring to the classified advertising Web site backpage.com -- which is owned by Village Voice Media, the same company that publishes The Village Voice -- he added: "Hey @villagevoice you keep collecting the check from Selling Girls on Backpage and leave helping them to people who give a F*ck." Kutcher went on to say, "Hey @villagevoice I'm just getting started!!!!!!!! BTW I only PLAYED stupid on TV." The Voice's Twitter feed had this to say in reply to Ashton‘s tweets: "Wow, @plusk having a Twitter meltdown," it said. "Hey Ashton, which part of the story is inaccurate?" Then went on to say: "OK @plusk, we'll bite. Tell us the hard facts that you have collected. We'll factcheck them." When there was no response, the Voice tweeted, "Where's you fight now @plusk?" As part of their “Real Men Fact Check” response, Village Voice went on to show that the 100, 000 to 300,000 statistic was for children “at risk” of falling into child sex slavery not the number of kids being pulled into it a year. The implication seems to be that Kutcher and wife Moore not only didn’t fact check but maybe using the exaggerated numbers to create more legitimacy for their commercials using


some of their famous friends to promote their campaign. Not one to take being “punked” laying down, Kutcher contacted major corporate brands and said this on his Twitter feed: “Hey @AmericanAir, are you aware that you are advertising on a site that supports the Sale of Human Beings (slavery)?” Uh oh. Selling people is Really Bad (negative).

are frat boy comedy that fails to not only make sense but does nothing to meet the real needs of kids on the streets, may have triggered this latest backlash targeting Village Voice advertisers. It seems the public however is lining up on both sides of this debate with some saying “we don’t care about the stats, Ashton is making us aware, while the other side is saying that the facts are necessary to get the proper help to the real number of kids needing it.

American Airlines promptly responded: @aplusk We will address this IMMEDIATELY. Can you please DM us detail of the site, including a link?

In fact, Kutcher is going through several, if not all, of the Voice’s advertisers, alerting everyone from Disney to Columbia University that they are contributing to a “digital brothel.” It seems that what may have been the last blow for Kutcher was the critic of his commercials with stars like Justin Timberlake and Sean Penn. In the PSA spots the stars are shown doing goofy exaggerated things that real men do like make a grilled cheese sandwich with an iron. However after they are done with the comedic real men act, an off camera voice over says “but real men don’t buy girls”. Implying that these commercials

Let’s hope in the end that regardless of who wins this war of words in the court of public opinion between Ashton and Village Voice, that the children claimed to be at the heart of this debate won’t be forgotten when the dust settles and this is no longer at the top of the news must cover stories.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


vwhatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


U


n


i


t


e


SHAN and The Dream Team By Tristan Tiaret and Nadia Felwitch WELCOME to the very special world of SHAN® Second Life Collection! The very first thing that resonated with me when I viewed this collection…was a quiet confidence about these designs. Powerful yet simplistic. Colorful and bold with an air of sweetness and innocence. A blend of unique real world designs, the SHAN collection has bikinis and dresses for every occasion along with tunics, kaftans, pants and leggings, as well as male swimwear and underwear ( underwear coming soon in SL). Quoting from SHAN Second Life Press kit release: “The Dream Team is proud to present the first virtual version of the famous Real World Collection SHAN Bikinis & Beachwear by Chantal Lévesque. Already in Montreal, Paris, New York, Madrid, London, Moscow, Las Vegas..., the very couture and

unique SHAN collection is now on the always sunny SL beaches! Brought into our second life by the virtual designer Whistle Wheelwright, and The Dream Team, a group specialized in the virtual transformation of the real world high fashion, SHAN Second Life proposes very detailed and sophisticated virtual beach clothes, just like the Real Life brand.” I was able to meet up with Mika Palmyra - CEO of SHAN SL and Whistle Wheelwright – Chief Operator and Virtual designer for SHAN SL. Let’s get to know this Dream Team ;) TT: I’ll start off with Ladies first. Mika, how did you get started with SHAN and what is your relationship with the RL Designer Chantal Levesque? MP: I am a fan and a friend of Chantal since she founded SHAN (Real Life collection) 25 years ago. I see her as one of the best designers in the world. She has tremendous fashion flair, the mind of an innovative architect and the constant will to enhance the beauty of her customers, no matter their shape, weight, height or age. There is also Chantal’s special touch which reveals and brightens up the personality of


everybody wearing SHAN Beachwear. This is what brought Chantal Lévesque among the top designers of the Real Life deluxe swimwear & beachwear market, with 400 stores in 25 countries. So when Whistle Wheelwright said he would like to develop a virtual design project with high quality RL fashion brands, I had no research to do and no doubt. With Wheelwright virtual skills, the SHAN Beachwear Collection would sparkle as well on the beautiful and endless SL ocean shores! TT: Whistle, How were you sought out by SHAN initially to replicate the RL designs for SL? I know when we sat down earlier to discuss doing this interview you had mentioned you had over 15 years of Photoshop experience. Tell a little bit about your background. WW: A simple chat with Mika about the future of virtual fashion! Journalist and fashion editor for many years in RL, Mika was fascinated by the almost infinite possibilities of virtual fashion and as I was listening to her, my long multimedia experience was already suggesting me all kinds of techniques to explore those possibilities. It was just meant to be I guess.

I worked in multimedia starting mid 90s mainly in web development, specialized in Flash animation. Then I moved on to post-production and worked on TV ads, music video and cinema for a Montreal studio. I have been using Photoshop since day 1 and all the way through my career amongst a multitude of software systems, compositing and finalizing. I think that gives me an edge in SL virtual fashion booming world, where quality depends a lot on textures and details. TT: Mika when looking at the SHAN website and also the SL SHAN store, I notice that the clothes names aren’t always the same, why? MP: The virtual world allows us to mix and match different designs of SHAN, to better suit the avatar’s life… and magical powers! For example: all the 3 SHAN SL Lola outfits have been created with the RL Lola one-piece swimsuit. Onepiece swimsuits not being popular in SL, we built the Lola Body Glove Dress, with adding to it the SHAN Stella skirt, cut in the sublime SHAN RL Lola print that splashes harmonious impressions on a becoming black foundation. Inside the SHAN SL Lola Body Glove bag, you will find the dress, the swimsuit and the RL picture of this ‘’Rocker-Chic’’ one-piece!


Same thing for the Lola Flex Gown, which mixes the Lola one-piece swimsuit with the gorgeous Ibiza flounced skirt, re-cut in Lola print. The customer that purchases the Lola Gown also gets the swimsuit that is the exact reproduction from RL. This virtual mix & match freedom allows us to get closer to SL customers requests but all outfits always come with at least one clothe that is an exact replica of RL.

perfectly, just like in RL. We are planning to open those special shows to the public, upon reservation.

TT: The other day you and Whistle were kind enough to give me a tour of Shan Island and Poseidon Mall stores. Please explain to our readers what all it is you do and offer there. MP: SHAN Island is the home of SHAN Second Life. Built and tailored to our needs by Whistle and Parisian Skytower, our dynamic General Director, SHAN Island is a tropical dream and the perfect nest for beachwear brainstorming and work. The head office and the store lay on a beautiful beach while our creation and fitting lab and the photo studio are in the sky. We also have a private fashion hall where the SHAN models practice and where we also feature NO LAG VIP show for 10 guess at the time. You have to see that! It’s amazing: a NO lag fashion show in SL where you can actually SEE the clothes

TT: Whistle what can you tell us about the new big flag store at Poseidon Mall? What other SHAN designs can we look forward to see from you in the near future?


WW: The Poseidon Mall store is our fifth selling points and it is spectacular because Bodhi Onedin, the developer of the mall, built us a large and beautiful fashion hall where we can do big events like our last SHAN Beachwear & FINESMITH Jewelry show, on St.

with our swimsuits and a fully wave script! We will also develop our Men’s Beachwear collection – we already launched a group of surfboard shorts - and continue to enlarge the Women’s collection. The RL SHAN collections also have masculine underwear as sunglasses and sun hats for men and women. There is no lack of ideas but there is never enough time, even with 2 lives! LOL!

TT: You can see what you wear in the real world: www.shan.ca And come get your SHAN SL on the beautiful beach on SHAN Island, in Bikini Bay! http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bikini% 20Bay/67/232/21 Contacts: Mika Palmyra, Whistle Wheelwright & Parisian Skytower, The Dream Team- SHAN Second Life Collection.

Valentine weekend. The mall also has a fabulous beach where there will be surfing soon so I am currently working on the SHAN SL Surfboards collection, which will feature SHAN textures matched


U


n


i


t


e


d


m


i


l


d


j


u


nk


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


vwhatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


Interview with Brocade Tiger – Lexi Vargas By Ivy Maverick

Ivy: Hi Lexi, thank you for taking the time to let me interview you! I see here you are an old timer coming to Second Life in Feb of 2006! How did you find out about Second Life and what was SL like for you when you got here. Lexi: Thanks, Ivy! I found out about Second Life through a magazine article about the „Brave New World‟ of cyberspace. It was not ten minutes after I read that article that I was at my computer downloading – and I just

knew it was going to be my kinda thing. Second life was very different back then. Then it is much more wild and lawless. Flexi had not happened yet. Sculpting was years away. Private Sims were more the exception then the standard… you could find an amazing artistic build right beside a cardboard box house. Gambling casinos and penis bomb griefers were the rule of the land… it was crazy, chaotic and utterly unlike anything I had ever seen before. The article hadn‟t made mention of anything like griefers but it was a much more vivid experience than story had led me to expect. I loved it, I am still here. This is only place that seems to make artists into “rock stars” because the artists make the world. For an artist… what‟s not to love in that? Ivy: How do you think things have changed for better and worst since 2006? Lexi: There is a lot from the old times that I miss. The


things that were implemented to make us all “safer” and “not offended” like the banning of the gambling and the Adult island events have taken some of the Wild West feel away from Second Life and I sort of miss that. It is a tamer experience these days and much harder for an artist/designer to come in and make a name for themselves. There was a time when you could search the events list and only find events… and not page after page of advertisements. It was much simpler to get around, find things new and interesting and be social. And, shock horror – there was no BOSL! However, entire Sims as amazing and beautiful as the ones we have now were much more rare. Ivy: What were your main interests when you got to Second Life? Lexi: I got into modeling within the first 4-5 months of joining Second Life. There were very few male models and most of the

ones that were out there were big linebacker bodied beasts with muscle sliders set at 100 and heads like little pins on those massive shoulders. So i made a realistic shaped form and waded into the modeling world. It is gratifying now to see that the shape I had then is much more the norm now. Ivy: When did you start designing clothes and are clothes the first thing you started designing? Lexi: It was modeling that led me into clothing design. If you think good men‟s clothing is rare now… back in 06-07 it was a wasteland out there for guys. I wanted things and looks I could not find and so tried to make them for myself. The first thing I ever made was red paw print PJs for a slumber party contest. I won it wearing them and sold 6 sets of the PJs that night. They are still for sale in my store, too! Ivy: You have a different style than most. How do


you describe your design style? Lexi: I‟m laughing because I have no idea! It‟s eclectic to be sure. I just know I am opposed to the typical. You can buy a suit or jeans and a tee shirt in nearly any men‟s store in Second Life but the stuff you find at Brocade Tiger you will not likely see anywhere else. Ivy: What designers in SL do you admire and why? Lexi: I admire those designers like Morrigan Denmore of Black Canary that manage to carry off a personal mystique and fascination as well as producing damn fine clothes. The one that got me hooked on design was Azriel Demain of Falln. I recall being at his store way back… and it was HUGE even then. All the photos were of him in these amazing designs and I stood there in awe thinking, “I want this, I want to be just like this”. Raven Pennyfeather of Rfyre is the one I have to give the most credit for inspiring me however. She coached me

through Photoshop and explained things about design that I would never have figured out alone… and generally she was always telling me I was going to be great, boosting my confidence. She was my best mentor and a wonderful friend.

Ivy: What is your all-time best seller? Lexi: My best seller for the first couple of years was a pair of raggedy Daisy Duke shorts and a polka dot bandana top, then I stopped designing for women. Lately it‟s been the Dark Luster Leather suit for men. Ivy: What projects are you currently working on?


Lexi: At the moment I‟m heavily into the Kult/Claim the Fame contest, a grueling 15 week competition in which the contestants have to make complete men‟s and women‟s outfits each week according to what the judges set. I‟ve been doing that for the past 5 weeks, attempting to pit my designs against the other designers. So far I‟ve made it into the final 10 contestants and this week we have a cyberpunk theme so at this very moment I‟m making a cyborg couple. I have done so many styles in and out of the contest… gothic, roaring 20s, steam punk, leathers, suits, tuxes and high style couture. Really, even when I‟m not in a contest I never know what I will be making next. Some texture, fabric or colour gets a hold of my muses and off I go. Ivy: What can we expect in the future with Brocade Tiger and Lexi Vargas? Lexi: Much more clothing for men and a return to

designing for women … a leaning towards a steam punk theme… collaboration with a jeweler designer. Ivy: Can you give us any MENstuff hunt gift hintswhat you might be giving this hunt June 3rd? Lexi: Something along the lines of a good pair of summer shorts, not those that make you look like a schoolboy or are too “over fashioned” to make them a favorite. And a fun piece of jeweler to go with them. Ivy: Lexi, thank you for your time and best in all you do! Brocade Tiger TP here. http://slurl.com/secondlif e/mirr/126/32/54/


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


vwhatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE LATE GREAT CLARENCE CLEMONS By Scorpinosis Nightfire Few musicians defied genre boundaries like Clarence Clemons. Known also as “the Big Man” Clarence was an icon in everything from R&B with greats like Aretha Franklin to hard rock with fellow legends Twisted Sister. Even in his late 60’s Clarence was still doing his thing with the likes of Lady GaGa in her video and song Edge of Glory. However it was not always big lights, cameras and action. Born in what’s now Chesapeake Virginia on January 11th, 1942, Clarence was raised in the church and was given an alto saxophone for Christmas when he was nine by his father Clarence Clemons Sr. Switching later to baritone. Living up to nick name “the Big Man” Clarence showed potential in football and was a linemen that went to college on a football scholarship as well as a music one. He went on to receive an offer to try out for the Cleveland Browns but was in a car accident the day

before that ended any future as a player in the NFL. As early as 18 Clarence was doing studio sessions with guys in a group called Tyrone Ashley’s Funky Music Machine who would all go on to play in George Clinton’s Parliament Funkadelics. After that he joined a James Brown cover band and moved to New Jersey where he worked at a home for troubled youth named Jamesburg Training School for Boys from 1962 to 1970. However what would really change his life as he knew it would be when Clarence met the Boss, Bruce Springsteen. The meeting between Bruce and Clarence has become the stuff of legend for fans of Bruce Springsteen and his famous E-Street Band. Clarence recounts the story this way: One night we were playing in Asbury Park. I'd heard The Bruce Springsteen Band was nearby at a club called The Student Prince and on a break between sets I walked over there. On-stage, Bruce used to tell different versions of this story but I'm a Baptist, remember, so this is the truth.


A rainy, windy night it was, and when I opened the door the whole thing flew off its hinges and blew away down the street. The band were onstage, but staring at me framed in the doorway. And maybe that did make Bruce a little nervous because I just said, "I want to play with your band," and he said, "Sure, you do anything you want." The first song we did was an early version of "Spirit in the Night". Bruce and I looked at each other and didn't say anything, we just knew. We knew we were the missing links in each other's lives. He was what I'd been searching for. In one way he was just a scrawny little kid. But he was a visionary. He wanted to follow his dream. So from then on I was part of history. From here on out Clarence would go on to become music royalty and even expand his career into acting with movie and television projects to his credit. Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, New York, New York, and the Simpsons were just a few of the Big Man’s contributions to the big and small screen that furthered

what was already a very successful career in entertainment. However as with all good things the show did finally come to end for Clarence on June 18th 2011 from complications of a stroke he suffered on June 12th of this year. Gone but never to be forgotten we Clarence’s will live on in his amazing hypnotic sax calling in the air to all of us “Born To Run” that are just “Dancing in the Dark”. Goodnight Clarence but not goodbye.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


U


n


i


t


e


d


m


i


l


d


junk


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


Voice in Second Life By Orange Planer Two of the most popular questions people ask are “How do I speak?” and “My voice is not working; how can I fix it?” It is not rocket science. Here is how it works. (While these instructions are for the Viewer 2 Sound & Media preferences, for Viewer 1.23, Phoenix 1.5, and other lookalikes, simply use Preferences – Voice Chat tab). First, we need to know what the pieces of the puzzle are: 1. Headset with microphone 2. Audio connections on your computer (USB or jacks) 3. The computer’s audio control panel 4. Second Life viewer 5. The firewall on your computer 6. The Vivox voice service Normally things are working well, so all you need to do is enable voice in the Second Life viewer. The default is not enabled. To enable voice in Second Life for Viewer 2 and look-alikes: Me menu – Preferences – Sound & Media tab, then check the “Voice Chat” box. Assuming everything else is working correctly, that is all you need to do. Your system will use the microphone and speakers selected as defaults in the Sound control panel, a white dot will appear over your head, and the Speak button will be enabled. Click the

Speak button to talk. Remember that it will not disable itself, so until you click it again your microphone is on, or “hot.” That is important should family members or friends walk by and say things you do not want others to hear. OK, what if you do that and you still cannot speak in Second Life? We need to check the pieces of the puzzle.

1. We start with your computer’s Sound control panel. In Windows go to Start – Control Panel – Sound. Click the Recording tab. For the Macintosh, you can find the System Preferences in the Dock. The Sound control panel is listed under the Hardware category. Doubleclick the Sound icon. For Windows the control panel is under the Hardware and Sound category.


Mac

Windows

2. For Windows, click the Hardware and Sound heading to find the Sound control panel. Next, click the “Manage audio devices” link. Both results are in the table below.

Mac

Windows

Is your microphone listed? If it is not listed, it is not being detected. 1. Try your headset on a different computer. If neither computer recognizes it, your headset needs to be replaced. 2. If you do not have another computer, try taking the headset connector out and putting it back in. Still not recognized?  If the headset is a USB device, plug it into a different USB port.  If the headset is an audio jack style headset and you have not got another computer to try it on, either try it on a friend’s computer or try a different headset. 3. Does the microphone have a checkbox on it? If not, right-click on it and select “Set as Default Device.” Now speak.


  

If you do not see the volume meter moving at all, right-click on the device and select Properties. Go to the Levels tab. Set the microphone 100 and the microphone boost to +20 dB. Test again. If you still do not see the volume meter moving, check to make sure the microphone does not have a mute button on it (some do). Make sure it is un-muted. If you see the volume meter move, it is working. If it only moves a tiny bit, adjust the boost. If the meter is still only moving a tiny bit, or none at all, then at this point you can pretty much assume your headset is broken. Replace it.

OK, at this point we should have a working microphone. Run Second Life, log in, go to Preferences, Sound & Media tab, and make sure voice chat is enabled. (Do not exit Preferences yet!) 4. The next step is to verify that the Second Life Viewer is using the microphone we want it to be using. In the Preferences window for Sound & Media is a button called “Input/Output devices.” It looks like this: . (In previous viewers it’s called “Device Settings.”) Click that to view and set your input (microphone) and output (speakers) devices. Under Input, click the dropdown and choose your microphone. Click OK to exit Preferences. 5. At this point the Second Life viewer (whichever one you are using) will call a program called SLVoice.exe. That program interacts with the Vivox voice service that Linden Lab uses to provide voice in Second Life. Once SLVoice.exe is working correctly you should see a white dot over your avatar’s head indicating that your voice service is active and the Speak button will be available. You have done all this and no white dot. Check that SLVoice.exe is running. On any version of Windows press Ctrl-AltDel and choose Task Manager. Look on the Processes tab and make sure SLVoice.exe is listed.

For the Macintosh, to get to the Terminal, go to the Applications folder, then open the Utilities folder, click on Terminal, then when the Terminal window opens, type “ps –eaf | grep slvoice” and then Enter. If you see a line that says only “slvoice” and not “grep” with it, then it is running. (Or, if the list is not too


long, you can just type “top” and press Enter.) OK, yes SLVoice.exe is running. That means we need to check the Windows Firewall (or whatever firewall you’re using) to make sure there is an exception that allows SLvoice.exe to communicate through it. These instructions cover the Windows Firewall.  Go to Start – Control Panel – System Security – Windows Firewall  Click on the link at the top left for “Allow a program or feature through Windows Firewall”  Click the “Allow another program…” button, browse to “c:\program files\SecondLifeViewer2” or “c:\Program Files (x86)\SecondLifeViewer2,” select the SLVoice.exe program, and follow the prompts to OK it. For other viewers, choose the folder with the name of the viewer.  Check to see if the white dot appears over your head. You may need to turn voice off and turn it back on in the Second Life viewer (whatever your viewer is). You look at the Task Manager and there are TWO “SLVoice.exe”’s. What happened? Which is the right one? Neither is right. What happened was the viewer crashed and you re-ran it, but SLVoice.exe from the first run did not exit the way it was supposed to. To fix this:  For the Macintosh, reboot. For Windows, reboot or follow the faster solution listed here. Select the first SLVoice.exe and then click the End Process button  Select the second SLVoice.exe and then click the End Process button  Continue until there are no more SLVoice.exe processes  Turn off voice in the Second Life viewer you are using in Preferences and click OK  Turn voice back on and click OK – this re-runs the SLVoice.exe program and reconnects you to the chat service. Do you see a dot over your head now? You look at the Task Manager and see NO SLVoice.exe processes.  Open Preferences again, go to Sound & Media (or whatever your viewer uses), and enable voice chat, then click OK. If it was already enabled, disable it, click OK, go back into Preferences, enable it again.  Check if there is a dot over your head; give it a minute or so. I hope these instructions prove useful. Questions and comments can be directed at Orange Planer in-world.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


vwhatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


United Style Card Fashion Show Experience By Rex Requiem

The note card called **UNITED** THE ULTIMATE STYLING CARD caught my attention immediately. Prissy Price's vision included values and idealism familiar to me. She envisioned designers, models, performers and coordinators working together as volunteers to put on a fashion show for charity. As a new model, wasn't sure i had much to offer yet I returned the application form and was accepted. Teammates were prearranged and a few basic guidelines and deadlines were given to us and we started. How does one start a process like this? I'm a model with my role clearly defined by coordinators at each job. Quickly we all discovered each of us would be challenged to move out of our comfort zones. We named our team, Retro Glam and moved forward. Have you ever flown a plane and had the engine to stall? We had some stalls, some glides and some good ole fashion lemon squeezing. Lemon squeeze? How do we behave when the pressure is on? Some people stayed on for the experience others dropped away and we gained additional support along the way. In our unique SL world we have a large drop down menu of choices of words and behaviors to pick from. Participation in United has surely opened my eyes! I also experienced healthy dependency among members of our team and coordinators. Appreciation rose for the work designers do;

enhanced by hanging out with them and hearing them talk about the designing process... i tried to build a shirt to see what they went through! Lord. Writing dialog for the hostess to read during the show sounded easy. There is a pressure to hopefully express with words accuracy, convey respect for the designers work, capture the model's presentation and wrap that in a package of the overall tone of the event. Calling a show with DVC for the models walk is simple right? Give it a shot... great empathy builder. In SL one second your model is there and the next ... poof! Gone. Musicians express creatively while managing all the details of the sim with permissions and many other details... all revealed to me during participation in this UNITED event. This was truly a collaborative effort. Team mates took turns coordinating specific aspects of the job. In the home stretch, we found pairing up with our walking partners for the final styling and pose placement worked well. How'd it go? Our team was tight, meticulously styled, organized, rehearsed and ready. I felt very proud to be walking with each person who chose to participate on Retro Glam. Would i do this again? I'm in SL for the process and to learn, so yes. Curious about the outcome? I hope you are! If you missed the show this year, I understand it will go on next year... it's for a good cause, Relay for Life. http://united-instyle.com/About_Us.php


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


The Bloody Love Fairy Tales 2 by Tiny Wildrose There once lived a wood cutter in the middle of a forest. Thomas was his name. He was a poor man who had two children. His first wife had died when the children were not even a year old and he had remarried, to a woman named Eli. The second wife was always hassling the husband telling him that the children were such a burden and there were too many mouths to feed for their poor lifestyle. "We need to get rid of them!" she would always say. "They are two mouths too many!" One night, she finally convinced Thomas to led the children into the forest and leave them there, telling him that they would surely find someone who would love them. Now Max, the older brother, was a smart kid. He overheard the plan being unleashed and let his younger sister, Zane, know what was going on. She was a paranoid little thing and began to cry instantly at the news of this. Max comforted her, hugging her tightly, he told her "Don't worry, I have a plan." That night when Thomas and Eli had fallen asleep, the brother had snuck out into the back and filled his pockets with white pebbles. The next day, Thomas took his children out with him into the woods, zigging and zagging all around and taking a different path than normal. While they walked, Max dropped a trail made out of the pebbles along the forest floor. After walking for almost two hours the wood cutter told the children to sit down and that he was

going to find something for them to eat. He walked off into the distance, only to never return. Night had fallen and Zane had started to cry again, shivering intensely and looking all around. Max comforted her by pointing to the closest pebbles. "Look, Zane, at how the stones shine in the light of the full moon. They will lead us back home." Sure enough, about two hours later, the two children were back at home. Eli was furious at the sight of the children and sent them to bed with nothing but water and two small pieces of bread. That night, she yelled at Thomas and told him to take them out again tomorrow, further and deeper into the woods. Max had heard all of this and did not eat his bread but instead saved it. In the morning, Thomas had woken the children up early, before the sun even came out and led them out. This time, Thomas led them even deeper and made sure to make the path they took even more winding. Max, being the clever child he was, broke his bread along the path for Zane and himself to follow back again today. However, the older sibling forgot about the many birds lived in the forest and how hungry they were. When the father left this time, nightfall came again and he still had not returned. Again, Zane started to freak out, only this time when Max went to comfort her, he could not simply say 'We'll just follow the crumbs', since they were no longer there. The siblings were hungry, tired, and scared. Taking his younger sister's hand in his hand, Max began walking with her, determined to find somewhere. They walked until the sun started to rise before they finally found a house. Getting closer, they found that it was made completely out of sweets. The


two children were so hungry they began to break off pieces of the house and eat at it. Suddenly, a voice came from inside the house. "Who is that nibbling at my home?" it called out. The children froze in fear before the voice said "Hmm... must be mice." Footsteps were heard inside moving around before they stopped and a rocking chair started to squeak. Trying to be quiet, the children began to break off the house again and again the voice called out "Who is that nibbling at my home?" This time the footsteps led to the door and it swung open. Out stepped an old witch with stunningly bright red hair. Her eyes instantly fell on the children and her face lit up. "Oh! Why it is two little children! You two look starved, come in, come in! You must eat, you must rest! Oh just look at you two!" For being such an old looking witch, the woman had great enthusiasm and energy. She quickly ushered Max and Zane into the candy house and sat them down at the table. She fed them, made them take a bath, and gave them beds to sleep in for the night. That night, while the children slept, she built a cage around Max and locked him in it. Morning came quickly, and the witch made Zane become her slave. Over the next several weeks, the witch fed Max and fed and fed him, trying her hardest to fatten up the child. Having poor eyesight, each day she would check how fat Max had become by squeezing his finger. Zane, being paranoid like she was, had found a chicken bone to give to Max to hold up instead of his finger. Each day, when the witch would feel the finger, she would exclaim "Still far too small! You are still just bone!" before stuffing him with more food. Finally, the witch was hungry and

impatient. She made Zane set up the oven. "To check if the fire is hot enough, all you have to do it lean over the door. There is a thermometer in there that will tell you if the fire is hot enough to cook with," she explained to the young child. Zane went into the kitchen only to come back and say that she was confused by what she was looking for. Sighing, the witch got up and went into the kitchen and leaned over the oven door. "It's just this little thing, right in he-" but she was cut off as Zane shoved the witch into the oven as hard as she could, closing the door and locking it. The witch screamed and screamed and she continued to scream out until she was nothing more than ash. Zane went into the other room and unlocked the cage, freeing her brother. Together they went throughout the house with baskets that they found and filled them with food. While they were stuffing their baskets with food and clothing, they found a stash of treasure which they also stuffed into their baskets. When their baskets were full and their stomachs were full once again, they left the house, setting it ablaze to make sure the witch was truly dead and gone. A couple of days passed before the children arrived in a part of the forest they were familiar with and went running back home. When they got home, Thomas was so relieved to see them. "Children!" he exclaimed as he hugged them both tightly, so proud to see them. "Father!" they exclaimed back, just as happy to see him. After a joyful reunion, Thomas explained to them that Eli had died suddenly, leaving just the three of them. "We brought back food and jewels!" Max cheered showing their father the baskets. The father was so happy and the three of them lived happily ever after.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (Does Innocent Till Proven Guilty Work) By Scorpinosis Nightfire The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony for the alleged murder of her daughter Calee (in 2008) has many reeling nationally and internationally over the not guilty verdict. In what appeared to be an open and shut case, most Americans were pretty resigned to the fact that Casey would be found guilty for killing her little girl due to what looked like considerable evidence. However as the defense for Casey Anthony offered alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence presented, the age old reasonable doubt standard made the open and shut case not so shut. In the aftermath of the trial, people are divided on if the jury did the right thing by following the standard of “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is this standard of presumed innocence that is the reason that the prosecution lost their case against Casey Anthony and that in the eyes of many, a stone cold baby killer was set free. Why do we have this incredibly high standard to meet when determining the guilt of our peers? Where does this fundamental principle of law come from that so divides us during these big cases? Let’s look back to where it began to understand this guideline presented to those jurors in the Anthony case. The very popular phrase “innocent till proven guilty” was coined by English

lawyer William Garrow (1760-1840). Garrows position was that accusers must be extensively tested in court. When jurors were presented with charges against a defendant, they had to conclude that no other possible explanation would suffice other than guilty as charged. However if we go back a bit further we find Garrows was not the originator of this high standard prosecutors must meet to win cases. The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal standard created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine. Lemoine was born in 1250 and was a canon lawyer that served under Pope Bonafice VIII and was awarded degrees in law and theology by the University of Paris. As one Wikipedia commentator states it: Lemoine seemed to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means: 1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof. 2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof


whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. 3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial. Meeting this high standard became known for prosecutors as “finding the golden thread” implying the difficulty of the task to prove guilt. With all this protection for the accused (that found its way into the legal practices of most democracies around the world) the question most asked is why? Why so much burden on the accuser and not the accused? The answer seems to lie in the prevailing thought accepted in legal systems quoted below that comes from British common law: “The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof”. In other words the ability to disprove an accusation is almost impossible if you are the accused because anyone can make up anything to make the accusation harmful. We have evidence of this in the Salem witch trials were people were in some cases tortured and burned alive for just being accused of witchcraft with no burden on the accuser to verify their accusation.

Interestingly enough in the United States Constitution the language of innocent till proven guilty does not appear explicitly. However the powerful influence of this legal principle is expressed in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Also noteworthy is the fact that most people that take issue with this legal standard that I have surveyed for this article, do so until they are the accused. Finally it appears that in light of the Casey Anthony jurors being instructed that guilt could only be concluded if they had no reasonable doubts, were correct finding Casey not guilty. Yet we must remember an acquittal is not a seal of innocence, it is just a failure to prove guilt. The jurors in this landmark case are on record as stating that this was not about thinking if Casey was probably guilty, it was about them following the rule of law they were given to follow. Under the high standard of innocent till proven guilty the Casey Anthony jurors could not have reached another verdict honestly it seems. So was justice served, according the letter of the law that appears to be the case. Was justice blind or impartial and fair as the term blind justice implies, again that appears to be the case. However was justice served, now question we are finding is often determined by the highest court and the all seeing all knowing Judge and in the end justice is always served.


July/August 2011 Nu Vibez