Could Pamela Smart actually be innocent??

[ASchwa]

I'm not sure why the venom here.

The opening post and a prior poster, Magpie, I believe, wrote about the media's influence on public opinion.
I mentioned that a movie loosely based on this case also cast guilt on the wife, as another example of the influence of media/popular culture.

You made no distinction that Smart was already convicted and serving her sentence in jail, when the movie came out.

that definitely implicated her role in the murder.

It didn't cast guilt on Pamela Smart, it used the case as a base, but went into character development of the lead. You implied that because of the movie that influenced Court of Public opinion that Smart was convicted. That is where the exasperation comes from. I agree that the media can have a slant that would make anyone guilty or innocent, but I am also sure that the Jury that convicted Smart saw evidence that I didn't see. They certainly hadn't seen the movies that were influenced by the case. Also, I don't think the movie has influence on the appeal that Smart has been applying for even though she blames both movies for the denial of her appeal. I saw parts of the documentary.

 

[ASchwa]

I don't think it's venom more like complete disbelief because your post seems to make a big leap. Personally I can't imagine any normal, rational adult watching a movie like To Die For and believing it accurately portrays the real case. I don't even remember the movie being advertised as "based on Pam Smart". Yeah people knew it was but it wasn't like it was advertised as a true story or anything like that.

Thank you!

 

[low-key]

In my book all sexy women are innocent, even if proved guilty

 

[mummabear]

There is a case over here of Scott Watson, he was convicted of the 1998 killings of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope whose bodies have never been found.

There is a large movement to get his conviction overturned, all witnesses except one (who had his own unrelated charges dropped in exchange for his testimony and has since died) have recanted and stated they were strong armed by the police/prosecutors into changing their stories to fit the narritive the police were pushing.
There is no physical evidence at all and basically he was railroaded.

He has been in jail for 17 years, he would have been given patrol last year except that to be eligible for parole convicts need to complete a program, but to enter the program they first have to admit their guilt which he is unwilling to do.

 

[Forevermarypoppins]

Most everyone who saw MAKING A MURDERER thinks Steven Avery is innocent. His nephew's conviction was just overturned. But around here (WI) a lot of us still believe he is guilty. Did the media play into that? Absolutely. When you see it over and over and it's local news and you see it repeatedly it does influence your thinking. SA has a lawyer from Chicago now making a court filing on his behalf. I feel so sorry for the victim's family.

 

[Forevermarypoppins]

Lawrencia BAMBI Bembenik was-Both Sexy and Innocent

I READ HER STORY LONG BEFORE HER PRISON RELEASE AND TRULY BELIEVED SHE WAS INNOCENT, EVEN CHEERED HER ON WHEN SHE MADE A PRISON BREAK TO CANADA.

 

[King Schultz]

Most everyone who saw MAKING A MURDERER thinks Steven Avery is innocent. His nephew's conviction was just overturned. But around here (WI) a lot of us still believe he is guilty. Did the media play into that? Absolutely. When you see it over and over and it's local news and you see it repeatedly it does influence your thinking. SA has a lawyer from Chicago now making a court filing on his behalf. I feel so sorry for the victim's family.

I don't think he's innocent or guilty, but I'm convinced he and his nephew did not get fair trials.

I had the same take on the West Memphis Three and thank God they were finally let out of prison.

 

[King Schultz]

I'm not sure why the venom here.

The opening post and a prior poster, Magpie, I believe, wrote about the media's influence on public opinion.
I mentioned that a movie loosely based on this case also cast guilt on the wife, as another example of the influence of media/popular culture.

For what it's worth, I got what you were saying Deb.


WillyJ

 

[Alicenwonderment]

The killer was or will be shortly on probation. Pam Smart is spending life in a prison in NY I think. This case happened in a nearby town. We had a friend that worked at that high school. She said they were glued to the trial and watched the verdict at school. There is a common misconception that Pam Smart was a teacher. I believe she worked with troubled youth and did media. I have no opinions on the case because I was pretty young when it happened.

 

[ASchwa]

For those of you who think that the media convicted Pamela Smart, I was just reminded about another case in California that had media coverage and movies and books that were released. Leslie Van Houten, a follower of Charles Manson was convicted in the 1970s of two murders. During her original trial, her first attorney disappeared. Even so, she was convicted and sentenced to death, it was commuted to life after the death penalty was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In 1977, she was granted a retrial, and also had a second retrial. After the second one she was found guilty and sentenced again to life imprisonment. There was a movie that was released in 1976, and a book before that called Helter Skelter. There was also a book called The Family that was definitely out in 1977. I recall seeing it that year translated into Hebrew. Even in the book, Helter Skelter, Bugliosi wrote that he had very little hard evidence against Van Houten and mostly the word of a couple of people. Even with all those out there, Van Houten was again convicted on witness testimony and the evidence that was had, not because of a movie that had been shown on tv that was based on the investigation. The movie identifies her by name and makes a solid case that Van Houten murdered those people.

I was reading about the Documentary of Pamela Smart, and she is not happy that Nicole Kidman didn't talk to her before making the movie. Smart isn't unhappy with the movie, just that the actress didn't talk with her about the character.

 

[Kaytie]

It didn't cast guilt on Pamela Smart, it used the case as a base, but went into character development of the lead. You implied that because of the movie that influenced Court of Public opinion that Smart was convicted

I disagree that poster implied anything. You inferred it. I didn't. I just read the post as written - oh there was a movie about it that...

 

[Kellykins1218]

Could she actually be innocent? Nope, not a chance.

 

[Kellykins1218]

A movie that came out in 1995 helped convict Pamela Smart in 1991? That is what you are implying.

How the heck did you come up with THAT? That wasn't implied AT ALL in that post.

 

[sunshinehighway]

How the heck did you come up with THAT? That wasn't implied AT ALL in that post.

I read it the same way.
I thought that was the point of the last sentence about the movie implying her guilt. I mean what's the point of that, in a thread about media influence on a trial, unless it's to say the movie had some type of influence.
Besides I think the poster came back and actually said she was talking about the influence that movie had on public opinion so it's really not a huge stretch.

 

[ASchwa]

I disagree that poster implied anything. You inferred it. I didn't. I just read the post as written - oh there was a movie about it that...

The poster used the word implicated. I didn't infer anything. The poster also said it influenced the court of Public Opinion. I disagree. The case was already done, a verdict and the public went to the next sensation. There was a movie called A Murder in New Hampshire, The Pamela Wojas Smart Story that came out in 1991. Starred Helen Hunt. Flat out said that Pamela Smart is guilty, came out after the verdict. If the person used this movie, then I would agree with the poster. I did mention this movie before.

 

[Kaytie]

You made no distinction that Smart was already convicted and serving her sentence in jail, when the movie came out.

You implied that because of the movie that influenced Court of Public opinion that Smart was convicted.

The poster used the word implicated.

Implicated: showed to be involved in a crime. A fictionalized account of an actual event released four years after the trial in question ended cant reasonably be considers to be in any way responsible for or influencing th outcome of said trial. Public opinion is completely separate and has zero effect on the results of said trial - four or 25 years later.

 

[Praying Colonel]

Oops. Wrong thread!

 

[of the seas]

I think she is guilty. But I also believe the media is very influential.

But seeing this reminded me of the case against Darlie Routier from Texas.
I always thought she was guilty of killing her kids. But then I watched something about her case and I started having doubts. Like the jury never saw all the defensive marks on her arms. And her husband was heard trying to plan fake insurance claims. And that unknown bloody fingerprint. Plus how would that bloody sock get outside like that. It has me wondering.

 

[chicagoshannon]

For those of you who think that the media convicted Pamela Smart, I was just reminded about another case in California that had media coverage and movies and books that were released. Leslie Van Houten, a follower of Charles Manson was convicted in the 1970s of two murders. During her original trial, her first attorney disappeared. Even so, she was convicted and sentenced to death, it was commuted to life after the death penalty was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In 1977, she was granted a retrial, and also had a second retrial. After the second one she was found guilty and sentenced again to life imprisonment. There was a movie that was released in 1976, and a book before that called Helter Skelter. There was also a book called The Family that was definitely out in 1977. I recall seeing it that year translated into Hebrew. Even in the book, Helter Skelter, Bugliosi wrote that he had very little hard evidence against Van Houten and mostly the word of a couple of people. Even with all those out there, Van Houten was again convicted on witness testimony and the evidence that was had, not because of a movie that had been shown on tv that was based on the investigation. The movie identifies her by name and makes a solid case that Van Houten murdered those people.

I was reading about the Documentary of Pamela Smart, and she is not happy that Nicole Kidman didn't talk to her before making the movie. Smart isn't unhappy with the movie, just that the actress didn't talk with her about the character.

The Supreme Court has never ruled the death penalty unconstitutional.

 

[King Schultz]

The Supreme Court has never ruled the death penalty unconstitutional.

You're wrong; The death penalty was declared unconstitutional between 1972 and 1976 based on the Furman v. Georgia case, but the 1976 Gregg v. Georgia case once again permitted the death penalty under certain circumstances.