Sandra Cantu #4 4/27/09 -

[Nut44x4]

Slain girl's family opposes lifting of gag order
5.14.10
The lawyer for the family of a Northern California girl who was murdered and then stuffed in a suitcase is opposing a request to lift a gag order and unseal court records in the case.

Sandra Cantu's family wants the case sealed permanently due to the horrific and graphic nature surrounding her death, their lawyer, Stewart Tabak, said on Friday.

"How many of the gory, gruesome and repulsive details are really encompassed in this so-called, well-worn mantra of 'The public's right to know?'" said Tabak of Stockton, Calif. "Doesn't the public already know enough? This poor little child was brutally murdered."

The Associated Press, Bay Area News Group and the Record of Stockton, Calif., on Wednesday filed a court motion challenging San Joaquin County Judge Linda Lofthus' decision to keep the orders intact after Melissa Huckaby, a former Sunday school teacher, on Monday pleaded guilty to murdering the 8-year-old girl in March 2009 in Tracy, Calif.

The 20-page filing cites that high public interest, as well as Huckaby's guilty plea, removes the need for a gag order and that other court records may shed light on the plea agreement.

"Because much of this case has been shrouded in secrecy, with many of the underlying facts and information about the investigation leading up to the indictment unknown, legitimate questions are raised...," Duffy Carolan, a San Francisco-based attorney jointly representing the news organizations, said in the filing.

Tabak, who plans to file opposing papers early next week, disagrees.

"There comes a time when the fascination with the salacious details don't serve any constructive purpose only to make it more bitterly painful for the family," Tabak said.

A hearing is set for May 24 in Stockton.

Huckaby, 29, faces 25 years to life in prison without the possibility of parole when she is sentenced June 14.

A 10-day search after Sandra a playmate of Huckaby's daughter went missing in March 2009 ended when her body was found stuffed in a black suitcase pulled from an irrigation pond a few miles from a mobile home park where they lived.

Huckaby was arrested less than a week later after telling a reporter that the suitcase that contained Sandra's body was hers, but it had been stolen out of her driveway the day Sandra disappeared.

Also, prosecutors, who earlier this week asked for the orders to be lifted, now want the case to remain sealed.

San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Thomas Testa told the Record on Thursday that they favor keeping Huckaby's file sealed until her sentencing.

Any unsealing prior to that could cause problems if Huckaby decides to withdraw her guilty plea and pretrial preparations resume, Testa said.

"Things could blow up and then we would be back at the starting point," Testa said. "But by then if everything is revealed and unsealed, we truly would have poisoned the jury pool."

It's unknown whether Lofthus intends to lift the gag order upon Huckaby's sentencing or leave it permanently as Sandra's family wants.

Steven Clark, a Bay Area defense attorney and former prosecutor who attended several of Huckaby's pretrial hearings, said that he understands Lofthus' stance.

"She is showing an abundance of caution until the final sentencing occurs," Clark said. "It's a very sensitive case and I can see her not wanting to take a chance. The case is not final until (Huckaby) is sentenced."

http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Girl_In_Suitcase_498407C.shtml

[JessStar]

"How many of the gory, gruesome and repulsive details are really encompassed in this so-called, well-worn mantra of 'The public's right to know?'" said Tabak of Stockton, Calif. "Doesn't the public already know enough? This poor little child was brutally murdered."

Thank you, Mr. Tabak.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  If you are reading here, if you do not prevail, PLEASE seek a stay of any order lifting the gag order and appeal the ruling.  There is no appellate-level case law interpreting Marcey's Law in California.  This is the PERFECT case to make new law and to have the court set limitations on the public's "right to know" in cases like this.  Candidly, it has nothing to do with the "public's right to know."  Rather, the question is whether the Constitution places the public's right to have its curiosity fulfilled (because that's what it really is) over a victim's family's right to privacy and right to try to put the pieces of their lives back together after being the victims of a most horrifying crime.

[4getUnot]

Timothy J. Lawless who has been held on the same charges as Melissa Huckaby under a $1,000,000 bail was scheduled to be in Sacramento County Court today at 1:30 pm.  The only details I have been able to find are
05/14/2010 1:30 PM Department 09 PROBHRGJS   I have been unable to find the outcome.  It appears he has been taken back into custody at the Sacrament County jail now under "No Bail" and State Prison Hold  and no future court date or pending charges are shown.  Is there a gag order in place in this case as well or is it just my lack of skill at finding the info?  Media has been totally silent about him.
Here are the links - (The case# is 09F02854 andthe x ref # is 4417503)
link to Sacramento County Court
https://services.saccourt.com/indexsearchnew/CaseNumberList.aspx?SearchValues= ,,,0,False,,4417503,

Link to Sacramento County jail -
http://www.sacsheriff.com/inmate_information/inmate_details.cfm?a=93EDD6B2FC03C8094B6609CBD6D693A15B8ECD

Guess I am just curious and still thinking he has some connection to Melissa Huckaby.  Whether or not there is a connection isn't relevant, what is relevant is if another pervert has been found guilty how is justice being served in his case. JMO

[Sister]

"How many of the gory, gruesome and repulsive details are really encompassed in this so-called, well-worn mantra of 'The public's right to know?'" said Tabak of Stockton, Calif. "Doesn't the public already know enough? This poor little child was brutally murdered."

Thank you, Mr. Tabak.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  If you are reading here, if you do not prevail, PLEASE seek a stay of any order lifting the gag order and appeal the ruling.  There is no appellate-level case law interpreting Marcey's Law in California.  This is the PERFECT case to make new law and to have the court set limitations on the public's "right to know" in cases like this.  Candidly, it has nothing to do with the "public's right to know."  Rather, the question is whether the Constitution places the public's right to have its curiosity fulfilled (because that's what it really is) over a victim's family's right to privacy and right to try to put the pieces of their lives back together after being the victims of a most horrifying crime.

JessStar, I agree.  I do not have the "right" to read the autopsy report of this precious child.  It's not my business.  What I already know is more than enough!
What does concern me is my personal belief she may not have acted alone or without the influence of others.  I am not sure how that can be addressed.  There are many of us who believe there is more to MH.  The only thing is if she did not act alone or without the influence of others, will there be another victim.

[sweetie_pi]

"How many of the gory, gruesome and repulsive details are really encompassed in this so-called, well-worn mantra of 'The public's right to know?'" said Tabak of Stockton, Calif. "Doesn't the public already know enough? This poor little child was brutally murdered."

Thank you, Mr. Tabak.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  If you are reading here, if you do not prevail, PLEASE seek a stay of any order lifting the gag order and appeal the ruling.  There is no appellate-level case law interpreting Marcey's Law in California.  This is the PERFECT case to make new law and to have the court set limitations on the public's "right to know" in cases like this.  Candidly, it has nothing to do with the "public's right to know."  Rather, the question is whether the Constitution places the public's right to have its curiosity fulfilled (because that's what it really is) over a victim's family's right to privacy and right to try to put the pieces of their lives back together after being the victims of a most horrifying crime.

JessStar, I agree.  I do not have the "right" to read the autopsy report of this precious child.  It's not my business.  What I already know is more than enough!
What does concern me is my personal belief she may not have acted alone or without the influence of others.  I am not sure how that can be addressed.  There are many of us who believe there is more to MH.  The only thing is if she did not act alone or without the influence of others, will there be another victim.

Very well said.

I am very curious as to what the agendas are of ppl who constantly link the "outing gory details" with "outing the others involved". As long as the legal system says you can't have one without the other, children in CA will continue to skip to their horrible deaths.

Is that what ppl want?

I don't, many here do not. So I'm clear where I stand. Like I said, the gory details have been written chapter and verse repeatedly long before MH et al.  This is why I HARP ON the CoS. They helped write it. Others improve on it, it's all the same torture. THAT'S NOT WHERE IT'S AT, where it's at is where the trail of those involved lead.

And what happened to the video.

Like you, I have very little patience for those who would be coy or pretentious about a child's murder.

[sweetie_pi]

Of course, method and pattern are key for law enforcement, but if they aren't doing their jobs and god knows in both Gardner's case and Huckaby's case they dropped the ball, for whatever reason, so this is where the public has a NEED TO KNOW MORE. What the line is is open for debate - so don't misquote me - but right now it ain't a right, it's a crying self-protective need to know more about these pedo sociopaths who live next door.

Have you ever run into one in real life? Then you know what I'm talking about.

The problem comes back to the media - which has not practiced journalism on these matters in decades, and it's not even sensationalism, they practice soft pedo porn.

So we as a society are screwed: the very outlet put in place to expose what is done in your neighbor's back yard is useless, and now,there could very well be another Sandra Cantu situation  brewing, and guess what, the media is useless and LE is over worked, and no one wants to deal with too connected-sticky-sticky.

Like I said, we the ppl have to work this out and it ain't working, not for me, this lack of transparency just isn't working for me and it sure didn't work for Chelsea King.

[mamacrazy30]

Of course, method and pattern are key for law enforcement, but if they aren't doing their jobs and god knows in both Gardner's case and Huckaby's case they dropped the ball, for whatever reason, so this is where the public has a NEED TO KNOW MORE. What the line is is open for debate - so don't misquote me - but right now it ain't a right, it's a crying self-protective need to know more about these pedo sociopaths who live next door.

Have you ever run into one in real life? Then you know what I'm talking about.

The problem comes back to the media - which has not practiced journalism on these matters in decades, and it's not even sensationalism, they practice soft pedo porn.

So we as a society are screwed: the very outlet put in place to expose what is done in your neighbor's back yard is useless, and now,there could very well be another Sandra Cantu situation  brewing, and guess what, the media is useless and LE is over worked, and no one wants to deal with too connected-sticky-sticky.

Like I said, we the ppl have to work this out and it ain't working, not for me, this lack of transparency just isn't working for me and it sure didn't work for Chelsea King.

i agree.

[JessStar]

"How many of the gory, gruesome and repulsive details are really encompassed in this so-called, well-worn mantra of 'The public's right to know?'" said Tabak of Stockton, Calif. "Doesn't the public already know enough? This poor little child was brutally murdered."

Thank you, Mr. Tabak.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  If you are reading here, if you do not prevail, PLEASE seek a stay of any order lifting the gag order and appeal the ruling.  There is no appellate-level case law interpreting Marcey's Law in California.  This is the PERFECT case to make new law and to have the court set limitations on the public's "right to know" in cases like this.  Candidly, it has nothing to do with the "public's right to know."  Rather, the question is whether the Constitution places the public's right to have its curiosity fulfilled (because that's what it really is) over a victim's family's right to privacy and right to try to put the pieces of their lives back together after being the victims of a most horrifying crime.

JessStar, I agree.  I do not have the "right" to read the autopsy report of this precious child.  It's not my business.  What I already know is more than enough!
What does concern me is my personal belief she may not have acted alone or without the influence of others.  I am not sure how that can be addressed.  There are many of us who believe there is more to MH.  The only thing is if she did not act alone or without the influence of others, will there be another victim.

Well, Sister, it certainly can be addressed in a way that does not allow the media to rape Sandra a second time.  In fact, the delicate balance is made in EVERY case EXCEPT those that the media, for some reason, chooses to grab hold of and sensationalize.  In the 100 to 150 cases a year that aren't sensationalized, the families of those children are spared from the media's gruesome hunger to detail every aspect of a child's brutal murder.  Yet the cases are solved 99% of the time and the perpetrators are brought to justice whether they are lone actors or part of a criminal enterprise.  Just think, would any of us outside of Tracy area even know about Sandra Cantu if the media didn't chose her case to nationalize?  I live thousands of miles away from her and I wept for her as if she was my own child!

What scares me in this case and others like it isn't that the media will report what the public has a right to know in order to protect our children.  It's the MEANS they will employ to tell, or should I say SELL, their STORY.  I have ZERO belief that the media will do it tastefully and ACCURATELY taking Sandra's family's feelings into consideration because "tasteful" doesn't sell.  Sensationalism sells.  Hyperbole sells.  The word "murdered" becomes "slaughtered."  "Beaten" becomes "bludgeoned."  "May haves" written in official reports are ignored and are reported as fact.  I remember when Sandra's story broke a reporter local to the Tracy area wrote an article about how he was able to go to work every day and tell this story without showing any emotion.  He wrote it because people asked him the question.  His response was that, as a "journalist," his job was to divorce his personal feelings and beliefs and tell the story in a way that will sell.  I ask rhetorically to everyone, is that what you would want if Sandra was your child? A sensational media story in which she's the main character? 

[sweetie_pi]

Of course, method and pattern are key for law enforcement, but if they aren't doing their jobs and god knows in both Gardner's case and Huckaby's case they dropped the ball, for whatever reason, so this is where the public has a NEED TO KNOW MORE. What the line is is open for debate - so don't misquote me - but right now it ain't a right, it's a crying self-protective need to know more about these pedo sociopaths who live next door.

Have you ever run into one in real life? Then you know what I'm talking about.

The problem comes back to the media - which has not practiced journalism on these matters in decades, and it's not even sensationalism, they practice soft pedo porn.

So we as a society are screwed: the very outlet put in place to expose what is done in your neighbor's back yard is useless, and now,there could very well be another Sandra Cantu situation  brewing, and guess what, the media is useless and LE is over worked, and no one wants to deal with too connected-sticky-sticky.

Like I said, we the ppl have to work this out and it ain't working, not for me, this lack of transparency just isn't working for me and it sure didn't work for Chelsea King.

i agree.

Three things I absolutely do know but before I state them, you may need to know this about me. There was once a gruesome terrorist attack and many people were horribly killed. Some were sure their loved one had escaped, and it must be mistaken ID, and because they did not live in the city where the attacks took place, they could not visit the ME's office to look at pictures. They asked me to intervene and would I take a look for them. In the end I advised them not to come to see for themselves, better to remember him the way he or she as the case may be, was, and try to heal. I gave them details they needed to know, without giving them details, and I told them it was my opnion they not think about looking at the detailed pictures for at least 1 year but if they wanted to in the future they would still be there.

So I am not a sleazy voyeur that gets off on details, like so many Hollywood producers and media executives who say they are only doing it because the ppl want it, and who are actually closet and open pedophiles themselves, most all of them - MOO.

However, those who wish to stop these crimes should stop to think, just think about a few things, and really try to figure out a REAL solution, that is, for this EPIDEMIC to at least slow down.

1. A GOOD JOURNALIST can write details without exposing details. It is HIGH TIME SOMEONE SAID it, other than endless cry-crying over the poor children, there is a way you can talk about the how to EXPOSE THE WHY and the WHO through the pattern of these things.  Because when THAT DIRTY SECRET is out, then the tide will turn, until then, it ain't gonna stop. By knowing certain details of SC you/LE know INSTANTLY WHAT AND WHO IT CONNECTS TO. Do I trust LE to make the connections, and do something about it. Until the ppl know, and put pressure the answer to that is a DEFINITE NO.

2. THE DIRTY SECRET - I am disgusted with the endless jibber jabber about these horrific crimes by experts who will not get into what's going on, in the highest of high profile cases.  - THERE IS BIT BIG POLITICAL JUICE NOT TO OUT THE DETAILS TOO, beucase in knowing hte details you know what else is involved with pedo porn networks and "specialty items and events".

3. Doesn't ANYONE see who benefits when critical dot$ cannot be connected in these crimes?

Really now. It's been outed before on radio shows that have FAST been put off the air for "going there".  I suspect some here (perhaps lurkers only) only do know about those.

[N2WISHN]

I can understand why Sandra’s family would like to put an end to the coverage of this horrible murder. In turn, I really don’t need all the gory details except as they relate to the facts of this crime.  I hope that after the plea is finalized that more information is made available and proves this was the act of a demented woman acting alone. As it stands now, too many questions remain and I have doubts that the threat for another murder of this kind has been removed. Are there cults that torture and sacrifice humans? Most definitely. Was Sandra one of those? I doubt we will ever know.

[JessStar]

Good Afternoon! Some good news to report for a change!  Those who have been following my posts over the course of the last year or so know that I've been practicing law for going on 17 years now (wow does time fly!) and am a staunch advocate for children.  I consider myself a mover and a shaker and firmly believe in the need for "action not words."  It does no good to have the information if you aren't going to do anything with it, right?  Enough said about that.  Now for the what prompted me to post today.

Recall that about six or so months ago, I reported on a legal challenge to the constitutionality of a very important provision in the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act that allows the courts to civilly commit dangerous sex offenders beyond their criminal sentences.  The Act provides that, upon a finding that the perpetrator is "sexually dangerous," the person can be civilly committed until such time as they are no longer "sexually dangerous."

In a clear victory for our children, I am VERY HAPPY to report that, in a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld the provision as a "necessary and proper" exercise of federal power.  The High Court recognized that there are sound reasons for the law adding that "The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose."

[Sister]

Good Afternoon! Some good news to report for a change!  Those who have been following my posts over the course of the last year or so know that I've been practicing law for going on 17 years now (wow does time fly!) and am a staunch advocate for children.  I consider myself a mover and a shaker and firmly believe in the need for "action not words."  It does no good to have the information if you aren't going to do anything with it, right?  Enough said about that.  Now for the what prompted me to post today.

Recall that about six or so months ago, I reported on a legal challenge to the constitutionality of a very important provision in the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act that allows the courts to civilly commit dangerous sex offenders beyond their criminal sentences.  The Act provides that, upon a finding that the perpetrator is "sexually dangerous," the person can be civilly committed until such time as they are no longer "sexually dangerous."

In a clear victory for our children, I am VERY HAPPY to report that, in a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld the provision as a "necessary and proper" exercise of federal power.  The High Court recognized that there are sound reasons for the law adding that "The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose."

JessStar, yes I read it and rejoiced and then posted in here under news of the day.  I am thrilled and see this as a step in helping stop at least some of the predators of our children.  Rejoice!!!!!
 

[Nut44x4]

Slain girl's family requests case remain sealed
By TERRY COLLINS, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, May 20, 2010

(05-20) 15:40 PDT San Francisco, CA (AP) --

The family of a Northern California girl who was killed by a former Sunday school teacher has filed a protective order to prevent details of her murder from being publicly released.

Lawyers for Sandra Cantu's family said in documents filed this week in San Joaquin County Superior Court that three news organizations' formal request to release details about the 8-year-old's death last year subjects the family to "an unwarranted media spectacle."

"Disclosure of this material is not only morally reprehensible, but unconstitutional," attorneys Stewart Tabak and G. Archer Bakerink wrote. "(Their request) fail to present any legitimate explanation or justification as to why is it that the graphic, salacious and repulsive details surrounding this young victim's tragic killing are necessary for public consumption."

Even Sandra's reticent mother, Maria Chavez, said in a declaration filed Thursday that she is "tortured" by her daughter's death. She said any investigative information released "will cause devastating trauma to my (other) children and me."

Citing high public interest, The Associated Press, Bay Area News Group and the Record of Stockton, Calif., filed a court motion last week challenging a judge's decision to keep a yearlong gag order and sealed court records intact, despite Melissa Huckaby pleading guilty to murdering Sandra in March 2009 in Tracy, Calif.

"Because much of this case has been shrouded in secrecy ... the fairness of the deal to Huckaby, the people of the State of California, and the family of Sandra Cantu deserves greater scrutiny," Duffy Carolan, a San Francisco-based attorney jointly representing the news organizations, said in the filing.

The news organizations' filing also said that many underlying facts and information about the incident, ranging from the police investigation to Huckaby's plea, remain largely unknown.

But Tabak argued that Sandra's family has a right to privacy, citing a 2008 state constitutional amendment dubbed Marsy's Law, which gives victims and their families more input into criminal cases.

Chavez said in her declaration that her family has no desire to know the specifics surrounding Sandra's kidnapping and murder.

"Every member of my family carries constant regrets and a sense of guilt over things we could have done differently," Chavez said. "Not one of us needs additional reminders of the horrible crimes Sandra suffered."

San Joaquin County Judge Linda Lofthus is set to hear the parties' arguments on May 24 in Stockton.

A former Sunday school teacher, Huckaby, 29, faces 25 years to life in prison without the possibility of parole when she is sentenced June 14.

Legal experts have said the judge could be waiting to lift the orders until after sentencing.

The incident drew national attention after a 10-day search for Sandra — a playmate of Huckaby's daughter — ended when her body was found stuffed in a black suitcase pulled from an irrigation pond a few miles from a mobile home park where they lived.

Huckaby was arrested less than a week later after telling a reporter that the suitcase that contained Sandra's body was hers, but that it had been stolen out of her driveway the day Sandra disappeared.

Before her surprise confession last week, Huckaby's death penalty trial was scheduled to begin in October.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/05/20/state/n150447D09.DTL

[Tracygirl]

I think everyone pretty much knows what could have happened that day with Sandra, I don't think we all need to know every detail. Those that feel they do, well they just need to use their imagination and move on. Out of respect for SANDRA, the details need to remain out of the news. Not sure if the judge can seal them, but the news can sure not report them.

[mamacrazy30]

i agree!  never mind the fact that she drugged 2 other people and had a hidden child.  nevermind the constitution.  nevermind any of that.

to just assume the people who want info about this want the gory details, well, that says something about youselves.  how about wanting to know if she acted alone, and had only acted once?
well, i guess its not as important as the gag order being served.

you are right! we need none of this info.   and if it happens again? 
well. shucks...who da thunk?

[Sister]

i agree!  never mind the fact that she drugged 2 other people and had a hidden child.  nevermind the constitution.  nevermind any of that.

to just assume the people who want info about this want the gory details, well, that says something about youselves.  how about wanting to know if she acted alone, and had only acted once?
well, i guess its not as important as the gag order being served.

you are right! we need none of this info.   and if it happens again? 
well. shucks...who da thunk?

Mamma, I hear what you are saying.  I think, for whatever that's worth, the details of Sandra's death can be sealed . . . any details about this POS should not be.  I still am not convinced she acted without others' influence and her history of drugging the 7-year old child and the man . . . I truly believe there is more to MH than meets the eye.
I also would hate for the Cantu family to have to relive through irresponsible journalism the details of this beautiful child's murder over and over.
Where is the balance?  How to draw the line between the two is very perplexing.

[MuffyBee]

i agree!  never mind the fact that she drugged 2 other people and had a hidden child.  nevermind the constitution.  nevermind any of that.

to just assume the people who want info about this want the gory details, well, that says something about youselves.  how about wanting to know if she acted alone, and had only acted once?
well, i guess its not as important as the gag order being served.

you are right! we need none of this info.   and if it happens again? 
well. shucks...who da thunk?

Mamma, I hear what you are saying.  I think, for whatever that's worth, the details of Sandra's death can be sealed . . . any details about this POS should not be.  I still am not convinced she acted without others' influence and her history of drugging the 7-year old child and the man . . . I truly believe there is more to MH than meets the eye.
I also would hate for the Cantu family to have to relive through irresponsible journalism the details of this beautiful child's murder over and over.
Where is the balance?  How to draw the line between the two is very perplexing.

I was reading and updating threads today, and I came across an article while researching Carol Daniels case.  Although it has to do with an attempt to change a law in Oklahoma, it has some interesting points to ponder concerning whether to keep secret certain things about an autopsy:

http://enidnews.com/state/x334296883/State-bill-to-keep-autopsy-details-secret-derailed
State bill to keep autopsy details secret derailed

[JessStar]

I read this article and, frankly, do not find any of the arguments against this bill to be particularly persuasive.  When the media can't come up with anything more than "the public has a right to know" or "the police might get away with murder," one has to take a step back and ask, "Is that the best you can come up with?"  Come on, the issue is important enough to warrant a thoughtful response, not a knee-jerk, worn out, "I heard that one before" approach.  I suspect that there's more behind the scenes that is killing this bill than fear of a couple worn-out media juggernauts threatening opposition.

Yes, there must be a balancing act.  No one is asking for a black and white rule that suggests that autopsy reports should never be made public, nor is anyone asking for a law that says an agency that is not subject to checks and balances, such as the police force, gets to make the call if and when a report is publicized.  On the contrary, why not allow the court to make that call on a case by case basis?  Courts do it all the time.  In fact, there is no such thing as black and white in the law--courts make decisions that balance interests all the time.  If they didn't, courts could be replaced with artificial intelligence where the state can input its case into a computer, the defense can input its case into a computer, and then the computer can decide who wins.

All "rights" we have as United States citizens are subject to restrictions when there's a compelling interest to restrict them.  For example, while we all enjoy freedom of speech, no one can argue that we don't have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.  And while we all have the right to assemble, we don't have the right to assemble in a manner that poses a danger to the public--for example, a riot.  And while we all have the right to think, believe, and act out our thoughts and beliefs anyway we want, we lose those rights when we act on our thoughts in a way that harms others.  For example, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of race.

Similarly, we all have the right to privacy.  Even the victim of a crime, and his or her family, has a right to privacy.  So who gets to decide whose rights are superior?  Does the amorphous "public has the right to know" trump the victim's right of privacy and the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"  Think of it this way-- Does the victim, who, by the way, never asked to become a victim, lose the right to privacy and the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" just because he or she had the unfortunate, fortuitous experience of becoming a victim of a crime?  Don't forget that the victim didn't choose to become a victim.  But someone, other than the victim, is now getting to choose whether the victim is entitled to try to put his or her life back together in peace rather than having the details of a most painful event memorialized forever just because of some amorphous concept that the public has the right to know everything.

I understand the arguments on the other side.  Sister, I understand your argument that the details surrounding Melissa Huckaby should not be sealed.  Without saying I agree or disagree because, to be honest, I haven't really thought that part through, I'd like to know why you think even that information should be made public.  And when I say "made public," I mean it should appear on the front page of the morning news, not some more controlled disclosure that would allow professionals, for example, to study her. 

I suspect that for 99/100 people, the answer is sheer curiosity because they don't intend to do anything with the information once they have it.  But I find this to be a remarkably interesting debate, especially if the rule of the debate is that proponents of disclosure are not entitled to say "because the public has a right to know."  You have to come up with something better than that.

[N2WISHN]

i agree!  never mind the fact that she drugged 2 other people and had a hidden child.  nevermind the constitution.  nevermind any of that.

to just assume the people who want info about this want the gory details, well, that says something about youselves.  how about wanting to know if she acted alone, and had only acted once?
well, i guess its not as important as the gag order being served.

you are right! we need none of this info.   and if it happens again? 
well. shucks...who da thunk?

If an investigation is ongoing there may or may not be a reason to suppress details and cause of death in a homicide. However, once a plea deal is finalized and an investigation is closed there is no longer a valid reason to deny release of the facts. I want transparency pertaining to the investigations as it relates to the murders we follow on this forum. The details are usually horrifying and heinous and the amount of suffering incalculable (interesting that crimes involving religious sacrifice, sexual torture and mutilation receive the least exposure as was the case behind the bill that was defeated). From what I know of what happened to little Ethan I dare say that at least young Sandra did not suffer for many days before being taken out of this world. His demise, IMO, was more severe in terms of length of torture and the fact that it involved his internal organs versus his sexual organs doesn’t mitigate what was done to him and one can only hope that as more information comes out that real justice will be served. As for Sandra, real justice was not served and now our right to know may be suppressed. The fact that our justice system already took the sexual element out of the equation and dropped those charges is reason enough to want to know more. There are checks and balances in this country which are being eroded because we have put blind faith in people in high places and that power needs to be monitored or our right to question it won’t be around much longer. As long as there is the possibility that MH is part of something much bigger and not just a perverted lone nut none of us should be satisfied with what little information we’ve heard thus far and that has nothing to do with the blood and gore factor. If I wanted blood and gore I’d be in Afghanistan or Iraq viewing it first hand.

[Nut44x4]

Judge won't release details of Calif girl's murder
Monday, May 24, 2010; 2:12 PM

STOCKTON, Calif. -- A judge has denied media requests to release details of the murder of an 8-year-old Northern California girl whose body was found in a suitcase.

San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Linda Lofthus on Monday said she wanted to preserve the integrity of the case.

Sunday school teacher Melissa Huckaby has pleaded guilty to murdering Sandra Cantu, her daughter's playmate, last year. A gag order prevents court records from being unsealed.

Several news organizations, including The Associated Press, argued the plea eliminates the need for the gag order and that court records may help the public understand the plea agreement.

Cantu's family opposes the media request, which Lofthus says will be revisited after Huckaby is sentenced June 14.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052402689.html