Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Didn't Dr. Spitz drop out??? Maybe out of embarrassment?
And don't forget CA saying something to the effect of, "just because people say things, doesn't make it true." jmo
I don't believe she works outside the state of California.Maybe Gloria Alred (spelling her name wrong I'm sure). Gloria manages to get herself involved in every case that is in the newspaper. I don't think I could stomach her voice.
I like Tim Miller's explanation of why Brad resigned. In his recent interview he said Mark figured out after five weeks he wanted NOTHING to do with this family. Brad, in a wheel chair, has tried to do the very best he could with them for a year and half, and now he has washed his hands of them, all they have done was lie from the beginning , he told the reporter ( paraphrased ).
Didn't Dr. Spitz drop out??? Maybe out of embarrassment?
And don't forget CA saying something to the effect of, "just because people say things, doesn't make it true." jmo
I'm not so sure BC has "washed his hands" of them though .... according to BC they are good people, and deserve good counsel and he will help them find a new attorney, and he would have stuck it out to the end if it was possible, and he will continue to advise them, and attend the Hearings....
:furious:
First off, Caylee's remains were skeletal, hence, no body!
Second, by the time he viewed Caylee's remains, Dr. G had already removed the duct tape to check for evidence. Dr. Spitz is working for the defense. He too has to report what he saw but he didn't get to see Caylee's remains the way Dr. G did...JMHO
He can't simply dismiss Dr. G's autopsy report. I believe she took photos every step of the way. I believe she took photos of Caylee's skull when the duct tape was on her. I also believe, this will be shown in the courtroom for all the jurors to see. That they will not be able to just push those images to the back of their minds. JMHO
Justice for Caylee
-------------------------------
What part of this dont they understand? Did they even read Dr.G's report? Or is it possible WS. is computer illiterate and so is B.I am also sure they took pictures before they even touched the remains. You are right,Dr.G. cut the hair releasing the tape.What a bunch of M-----.:banghead:
-------------------------------
What part of this dont they understand? Did they even read Dr.G's report? Or is it possible WS. is computer illiterate and so is B.I am also sure they took pictures before they even touched the remains. You are right,Dr.G. cut the hair releasing the tape.What a bunch of M-----.:banghead:
I think Dr. Green was the one who concluded that Caylee was "savagely abused". Is this the same person?
:furious:
First off, Caylee's remains were skeletal, hence, no body!
Second, by the time he viewed Caylee's remains, Dr. G had already removed the duct tape to check for evidence. Dr. Spitz is working for the defense. He too has to report what he saw but he didn't get to see Caylee's remains the way Dr. G did...JMHO
He can't simply dismiss Dr. G's autopsy report. I believe she took photos every step of the way. I believe she took photos of Caylee's skull when the duct tape was on her. I also believe, this will be shown in the courtroom for all the jurors to see. That they will not be able to just push those images to the back of their minds. JMHO
Justice for Caylee
And don't forget CA saying something to the effect of, "just because people say things, doesn't make it true." jmo
In re the attorneys. I have heard of (and appreciated) the term dueling attorneys before, but usually it refers to the battles between the defense attorney and the state's attorney or prosecutor. This is the first case I have seen where the term "dueling attorneys" refers to the defense and the attorneys for the defense witnesses! And more than once too.
Here is what I am seeing and questioning in BC's statement. He states that the defense filed a false filing without confirming the details. Ie someone else may have told the defense a false statement, and the defense then wrote a filing based on that statement without reviewing it with BC to make sure it was accurate. Now who could have given the defense false or inaccurate information???? LOL of course BC is not accusing his ex clients of course. But since someone may have given false or inaccurate info to the defense, and since the defense then acted on that info without verifying it, that makes BC a witness and gives him a convenient excuse for withdrawing from the case without either losing face or accusing his clients.
And it doesn't look good for the defense either in that they failed to verify the info they were given before they acted on it.