Lilith
08-22-2008, 08:31 AM
Help me understand why the judge at the trial of the man who raped, tortured and murdered Dylan Groene allowed courtroom bystanders to remian in the courtroom while they showed a video of a 7 year old being raped, tortured and hung til he passed out despite the father of the child requesting they be asked to leave and only the jurors, defendant, atty general peeps, and a news reporter to remain. Is there precedent that required him to allow the people to remain in the room????? The father reportedly asked poeple to leave, shot the finger and then when it was over came back in and asked them if they enjoyed themselves. The father is the only family that remains as the defendant killed the children's mother, her fiance and their older sibling when he stole the 2 small children and took them to the woods.
I am hot pissed upset by this. I do not feel the courtroom bystanders should have been allowed to view this man's child being _______________ ( I can not even come up with a word to describe what was done to him while his 8 year old sister had to watch). I just am trying to understand why they were. The defendant argued that the jury should not view the tape because then they become his victims and he would not longer be judged by a jury of his peers but by his own victims.
I am hot pissed upset by this. I do not feel the courtroom bystanders should have been allowed to view this man's child being _______________ ( I can not even come up with a word to describe what was done to him while his 8 year old sister had to watch). I just am trying to understand why they were. The defendant argued that the jury should not view the tape because then they become his victims and he would not longer be judged by a jury of his peers but by his own victims.