Jason Jenkins at ActiveTrans is helping to coordinate community response. If there is any chance you can attend proceedings, please reach out to him:
Agreed, Kevin C.
Maybe your feelings would be tempered were you to consider that maybe people are concerned that the lack of discourse might allow this individual to get away with this heinous crime. Sufficient time has elapsed and with no public interest (yes, you read that right), what is the judge left to work with? Arguments made by the defense? Do you think the prosecutors will have the same conviction now several years after the incident?
With all due respect, the family needs to understand that this is bigger than their feelings. They can certainly choose to not read these blogs.
I would rather get the word out over and over again so that all - jurors, judge, counsel - understand that behavior like this untenable.
And you too can ignore these threads.
My head hurts even trying to understand how people think being quiet is effective in this case. Speak up. Let your voice be heard. Start hanging banners all over town with the case info and a reminder to all that we are not letting this fade away.
You are welcome to come to court and post about it. No one will stop you.
For many of us, the need to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table stops us from attending these. I resent the implication that only those cyclists sufficiently privileged to take a day off work for every court date deserve to know what's going on in a case which is of concern to everyone. This is a public proceeding of a public body. It is not the private property of any one group.
"Privileged"? Ok, you've crossed from self-absorbed and pedantic to truly nutty. The advocates don't owe you anything. You're not going to get your way by bitching in an internet forum, particularly using the accusatory tone and sense of entitlement.
The victims family asked that details not be shared. This isn't about you. Why would you even think to make it about you?
Nowhere have I suggested that the courtroom advocates owe me anything. I am responding to the attacks in this thread on those of us who are unable to show up at the hearings as much as we would like to do so. This is not an option that is equally available to everyone.
There is value in certain points being made public. For example, it is through this thread that I learned that Alvarez didn't bother to even send anyone for one court date. As her constituent I'm glad I found out how unseriously she takes this case so that I can cast an informed vote.
> For example, it is through this thread that I learned that Alvarez didn't bother to even send anyone for one court date.
There was a representative from the State's Attorney's office, but was not prepared to argue the motions.
Ah, thank you for the clarification.
I think there may be some confusion.
All that is happening here is: some people have signed up to participate as official courtroom advocates. This program is, I believe, run by the Chicago Police Department, and ATA is coordinating this particular effort. In this case, the victim's family has asked the courtroom advocates not to post about the hearings in forums like the Chainlink. Thus far, people who have attended as part of the courtroom advocates' program have (mostly?) complied.
Literally anyone else is free to attend any hearing and report on what happened. Anyone on this forum could coordinate a separate group that would send one person to each hearing on a rotating basis and report back to the forum. Thus far, no one has done so.
Those who are frustrated by the lack of updates on the Chainlink have several options:
1) Complain that ATA and the courtroom advocates are not reporting about the hearings on the Chainlink. (Thus far, this tactic has not yielded results.)
2) Advocate that media outlets increase their coverage of the hearings. (This tactic seems to have successfully resulted in the Reader publishing a follow-up story.)
3) Go to a hearing yourself and report on the proceedings. (As far as I know, no one has done this.)
4) Organize a rotating group of people to attend the hearings and report to the Chainlink. (I am fairly certain no one has done this.)
What is somewhat obnoxious is the insinuation that the case has been forgotten simply because the courtroom advocates have not been publicly posting about the hearings. The courtroom advocates receive regular updates from ATA, and at the last hearing I attended there were about a dozen people present in support of Bobby. I suspect that 12 people standing in court in support of Bobby send a stronger message to the court than do 12 pages of argument on the Chainlink.
> Twelve people showing up at a pretrial status hearing shows that the case is far from forgotten.
I'm not sure people not in attendance at these hearings were aware of this. Does the "respect the wishes of the Cann family" extend to not mentioning that people attended a hearing (and how many)?
Read the full article: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150623/old-town/businesses-bikers...
Cameron and Kevin C: if you hate this thread, why are you following it? I think this thread is dominated by comments from people who are critical of the discussion and don't want to see the hearings discussed..
This is a criminal case, not a civil case. The difference was discussed earlier in this thread, back on 9/22/13 on Page 5. This case isn't about Bobby Cann, it's about Ryne Sanhamel. Sanhamel is the one on trial. Sanhamel will be the one affected by the outcome of this case.
SixtyTwoPercent said it earlier: "This issue is bigger than the individual or his survivor family. It is about getting the maximum sentence for the crime." It's also about trying to make the streets safer for all of us.
Eli said "For many of us, the need to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table stops us from attending these. I resent the implication that only those cyclists sufficiently privileged to take a day off work for every court date deserve to know what's going on in a case which is of concern to everyone. This is a public proceeding of a public body. It is not the private property of any one group."
The Court Advocates is still a large group, tho the actual number attending these hearings has been shrinking. There is probably a private discussion among them, and reports from Jason Jenkins to the Court Advocates. I haven't gotten an e-mail from Jason for several months - not doubt because of concern that I might share the information publicly. This small, elite, private group isn't required to share the information. I disagree with their "Vow of Silence" but I respect their right to exercise this practice. I, too, appreciate what the Court Advocates are doing, which many of us that "need to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table" cannot do. The continuous suggestion that "anybody is free to show up in court" isn't contributing anything except to further fan the flames, and suggests a criticism of those who don't go to court.
There is still an active petition to Anita Alverez to encourage avoidance of a plea bargain. When you sign, a message that you signed will be sent to the States Attorneys office.
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/no-plea-bargain-for-ryne?source=c.... (Currently over 5600 signatures, several recent, within the last month or two.)
You can also go to VINE (Victim Information and Notification Everyday) at https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink/siteInfoAction.do?siteId=14003 and sign up for notification for court dates by e-mail or by phone.
Some, not all, of the transcripts are available. It takes about a month for the transcripts to be made available. I'm still waiting for notification of additional transcripts to come.
I just noticed: at the end of each hearing, the court date for the next hearing is established. Evidently the "gag order" extends so far that the Court Advocates aren't even allowed to share the date of the next court appearance of Sanhamel!