2011.06.18 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-Two)

[logicalgirl]

Does anyone have a link to the trial transcripts? If so, could you pm me, please? Thanks.

No-o-o-o......mock jurors cannot read trial transcripts.....do you want to cause a mistrial?:slap: :laugh:

 

[Tuffy]

Thank you Xin...just feeling a little worried this morning about Casey getting off to easy...I needed your words.

Just keep in mind, Pita, the jury is no longer just part of the public. They are seeing all the evidence, even some evidence that's being kept from the public. They will have a different perspective than the rest of us.

 

[logicalgirl]

Jinx Rapunzel - we were posting the same thought at the same time. But you beat my post by two minutes so I owe you a coke!

 

[Pita]

This is an excellent article...

Here's why Casey Anthony does not deserve death penalty

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...asey-anthony-061911-20110618,0,1598783.column

 

[Tuffy]

I spent an hour or two last night searching the various "big news" sites on the net to see what they had to say about Dr. Spitz's jaw dropping performance on the stand yesterday and his fall from grace during Ashton's cross.

And what do I find? Some pablum type reporting on CNN, Fox, etc about how Spitz told the court that Dr. G's autopsy was "shoddy". Period. Nothing at all about the cross and the dismantling of Dr. Spitz professional reputation. Nothing at all.

Then because I was so annoyed, I forced myself to watch HLN last night to see if the reporting got any more factual. Actually it was worse.

Then as I got ready to shoot off some angry emails to CNN and Fox, I had a look at who wrote those articles. Associated Press - wth does that mean? And at the bottom of each article, the name of three authors - from In Sessions. I'm shocked! Does HLN have some kind of financial arrangement with Baez for post trial exclusives? I can think of no other reason for such disgraceful and deliberately leading false news reporting.

I don't understand this at all! Why does this get more ratings, than what actually happened? I thought it was brilliant, surly I'm not unique. There was almost a 1000 people here on Webslueths that were riveted by what actually happened. Why spin an excellent story of truth and justice, in to IMO sleaze, and slop?

 

[KathrynL]

I swear I have no idea what trial the media is watching. They all have headlines that reflect how well the defense is doing. Not sure why they are doing this. The only thing I can think of is then when she is pronounced guilty, it will be a bombshell!!!! IIRC the news media was mostly against OJ and he was pronounced NOT GUILTY by the jury. Are they being overly cautious???

I wonder what trial some of them are watching as well. This morning I heard a blurb about Spitzer blowing a "huge hole" into the prosecution theory yesterday. As if. I think they write their copy for sensationalism, not necessarily to report all of the facts. I have seen this dynamic before, talking heads going on and on about how the defense is winning the case. In all of those situations the prosecution won convictions. I'm thinking Westerfield, and both Scott & Michael Peterson. I believe my own lyin eyes over the professional yakkers. imo

 

[Tuffy]

This is an excellent article...

Here's why Casey Anthony does not deserve death penalty

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...asey-anthony-061911-20110618,0,1598783.column

Casey doesn't deserve the death penalty because other child killers are still alive? :waitasec:

 

[crucibelle]

I don't know...never tried to make it...have you???

Sorry, she doesn't impress me as being that smart...a sociopath, Yes....but smarts...NO.

Supposedly, it is not that hard to make, but she would have to have the time to make it and be assured her parents would not come home. I can't see her making it anywhere else. I also know that she is lazy. She would have to buy the products, make it and store it. It only stores for about a week from what I understand, so did she make it more than once, many times??? Where did she store it, in her bedroom, the shed???

I've never tried to make it myself, but I have observed it being made. It is an incredibly tedious, methodical, and lengthy process. I do not, for one second, envision ICA going through it. She's too darn lazy.

 

[Serjen]

I think JA brought up both the OJ case and Phil Spector case to show the jury that Dr S works with the defense for people who are guilty. I wonder if he thought Dr. S worked on the Menendez brothers case or if there is a story behind that (was he supposed to be on that case? I can't find anything about it) Because all the people JA mentioned are people that would make the jury think twice...IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't understand this at all! Why does this get more ratings, than what actually happened? I thought it was brilliant, surly I'm not unique. There was almost a 1000 people here on Webslueths that were riveted by what actually happened. Why spin an excellent story of truth and justice, in to IMO sleaze, and slop?

I agree - I was mesmerized by Dr. Spitz testimony and particularly JA's cross yesterday morning, and cannot understand why no one is reporting the real facts. I find it absolutely shocking. As a Canadian, I resent the blackout we have on testimony during a trial - which is released after the verdict. What is the point of "free press" when it's clearly not "free" at all.

Perhaps it's me - I translate "free press" as meaning "freedom of the press" meaning the ability to report the truth. It seems like it means the ability to report complete slanted rubbish. And I mean not trash, but rubbish, because it is rotten and stinks!:rocker:

 

[logicalgirl]

I've never tried to make it myself, but I have observed it being made. It is an incredibly tedious, methodical, and lengthy process. I do not, for one second, envision ICA going through it. She's too darn lazy.

You can buy every other illicit drug on the streets that has been "homemade" - why not chloroform?

 

[KathrynL]

I spent an hour or two last night searching the various "big news" sites on the net to see what they had to say about Dr. Spitz's jaw dropping performance on the stand yesterday and his fall from grace during Ashton's cross.

And what do I find? Some pablum type reporting on CNN, Fox, etc about how Spitz told the court that Dr. G's autopsy was "shoddy". Period. Nothing at all about the cross and the dismantling of Dr. Spitz professional reputation. Nothing at all.

Then because I was so annoyed, I forced myself to watch HLN last night to see if the reporting got any more factual. Actually it was worse.

Then as I got ready to shoot off some angry emails to CNN and Fox, I had a look at who wrote those articles. Associated Press - wth does that mean? And at the bottom of each article, the name of three authors - from In Sessions. I'm shocked! Does HLN have some kind of financial arrangement with Baez for post trial exclusives? I can think of no other reason for such disgraceful and deliberately leading false news reporting.

PS: The rubbish Dateline is putting out isn't worth mentioning.

I know, ITA. Thanks for the warning about Dateline, I won't waste my time. I was wondering (regarding the reporting on yesterdays testimony) if it's more like the renowned witness is some kind of media favorite and they don't want him mad at them. They sure are stretching the truth when it comes to his performance yesterday.

moo

 

[snowshuze]

Re: The "news shows".....If they hang these witnesses for hire out to dry, they shoot themselves in the foot for getting them to appear on their shows. It's all about the sensationalism/slanting of the the truth for profit. All the better if they are participants, imagined or real.

MOO and stuff.

 

[logicalgirl]

I kind of liked his speaking. He seemed very knowledgeable in his field. Not sure what his agenda is but he seemed pissed at times when JA questioned his knowledge/experience. I think he is an expert in his field and found it a somewhat fascinating to listen to him in general :truce:

BBM
Just for a moment, I can agree with your general statement, but would like to substitute several words that I have bolded.
The first "seemed" to me reads "was obviously" and the second "is" clearly should be "was".
The medical field has made tremendous leaps and bounds in surgical, pharmaceutical and forensic techniques in the last twenty five years. Years ago I worked for a brilliant open heart surgeon who at the time was 38 years old. He used to joke that research and techniques in medicine were developing so rapidly he's probably be sitting somewhere working as a tailor somewhere in ten years, because his "cutting and stitching" would probably be outdated by then.
I don't think it is possible to be an expert 40 years ago, get stuck in your own pride and prejudice, and be the same expert you were - today. Had he been more humble and less obviously outraged at being challenged, I may have given his opinions some weight. Not possible under the circumstances.

We saw the same thing with Dr. Huntington. So fixed in his own persona he also got a huge professional and public smackdown. There is a reason for the saying - "pride goeth before a fall". Dr. Huntington is young and he would be wise to learn that lesson while there is still time to rehabilitate his reputation.

 

[Pita]

Casey doesn't deserve the death penalty because other child killers are still alive? :waitasec:

I don't agree with it Tuff, I want her as dead as Caylee is.

A few of the cases he mentioned made my blood boil.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I trust this jury to come to intelligent conclusions, so I'm not troubled by what might or might not be said in the media.

 

[logicalgirl]

I know, ITA. Thanks for the warning about Dateline, I won't waste my time. I was wondering (regarding the reporting on yesterdays testimony) if it's more like the renowned witness is some kind of media favorite and they don't want him mad at them. They sure are stretching the truth when it comes to his performance yesterday.

moo

It may be a kind of respect for what he had contributed to the forensics profession in the past - I know watching Dr. Spitz yesterday - I felt a sense of shame on his behalf, besides pity, at watching him self destruct.

Even Bill S. didn't exercise his "full strength" criticism on his day of the trial wrap-up. I think it's a kind of backwards respect for the past.

The only one who said close to what he thought was of course R.Hornsby. You can see his comments on wesh.

 

[ohiogirl]

I wonder what trial some of them are watching as well. This morning I heard a blurb about Spitzer blowing a "huge hole" into the prosecution theory yesterday. As if. I think they write their copy for sensationalism, not necessarily to report all of the facts. I have seen this dynamic before, talking heads going on and on about how the defense is winning the case. In all of those situations the prosecution won convictions. I'm thinking Westerfield, and both Scott & Michael Peterson. I believe my own lyin eyes over the professional yakkers. imo

Or the headline about, is Caylee's father really her uncle. Of course in the article it tells the truth, but what is up with the headline. makes me sick.

 

[DIXIECAT]

:banghead: ok thanks, :waitasec: now I'm embarassed...but glad others knew..

That's okay... I didn't know either, but I always wondered why folks would put a time marker in a reference about a video. :crazy:

 

[logicalgirl]

I trust this jury to come to intelligent conclusions, so I'm not troubled by what might or might not be said in the media.

Oh I trust the jury also - this was more of a bigger concern - I've been more and more aware of how slanted the news is depending on who owns the news sites, what their political agenda is, etc., but now I am seeing how untrue these news agencies I am pondering why I watch them at all.

I can make a commitment to never watch HLN again, Dr. Drew. JVM or Joy Behare, and will give Nancy Grace a few more tries because she's done not too badly lately despite her ridiculous bombshells.

But the rest of them? It saddens me to lose the huge amount of trust or respect in how they report the news.