I have a favor to ask of fellow members...........This comes from me....ordinary average poster.......please listen to, evaluate, and discuss the AL interviews like the professionals that we all are. I think that the interviews are quite interesting given the multitude of AL personalities we are seeing. She IMO is attempting to "play to her audience" and failing IMO to show any consistency in her demeanor or opinions. For example......Steve Malzberg is known to stir it up....he is brash and "in your face" it's his "thing". I think that Andrea went into the interview with her guard up and on alert. She morphed into someone "not to mess with". Her interview with Meredith Viera demonstrated an entirely different demeanor. She appears one way in court, yet resorts to "bullying" outside the courthouse. She portrays herself as the "advocate" for preserving life yet seems not to respect those who oppose her. Let's be sure to discuss the real contradictions in her actions and refrain from just "bashing". Bashing is for other forums.....we are far better AND brighter than that. Climbing off soapbox and hiding behind sofa. HeeHee
This is not directed to ANYONE.......I just anticipate it heating up.
Thank you, Sleuther-The example that you provided of her inconsistencies gives me some direction of thought, too.
I have philosophical differences with AL that could, for the most part, be better suited for a different forum here at WS (other than the Caylee forum), so I will try to be as specific as possible as to how her court presentation here contradicts her stated intentions:
-Ms. Lyon sums us female State Attorneys as....men in high heels; Masculine. As if in order to play in that club, you have to be like the boys. Yet she touts her own accomplishments as a successful woman, painting a picture of this magnificent glass ceiling that she has broken. Where's the love, sister?
-Ms. Lyon has referred to jurors as 'killers'-Yet, for KC's benefit, she seeks to strictly define a killer as one who had means and motive, and apparently evidence that ties them to the body (and will tell us KC had neither the means nor the motive and did not place the body). So just for fun, I guess I should ask-Do the jurors have the means to personally murder KC by their own individual hands? Do the jurors have a motive for sentencing someone they never met? Though someone completely different, the executioner, actually euthanizes inmates, can we tie the jurors to the bodies? No. Furthermore, jurors cannot possibly pre-meditate the act of murdering KC, because they don't actually take her life and probably don't know how to give the injection dosage.
AL does not make the assumption that the jurors serve in good faith, she makes the assumption that they are vicious, want to subvert justice for KC, and want to kill the lowly single mom-
She takes a confrontational posture with the jurors that goes beyond being KC's advocate-as if she has to rage against the People of Florida's machine.
-I believe she came to Florida to shake things up in the DP arena and she has grown used to arming herself for the fight. She will be more clever than the jurors, she will ask the judge to do things he cannot do (she already has), she will appeal on the basis of things that are not appealable. She will attempt to contort the system and ultimately, she'll throw the jurors under the bus.
But she needs those jurors, doesn't she? My opinion is that she needs KC to be sentenced to death more, if she is to attain her ultimate goal of abolition of the death penalty. She can use the conviction as a conduit to the higher courts, and get the reversal, the loophole, the precedent she is looking for. Imagine the fame she would have amoungst her colleagues if she found a way to usurp the death penatly laws at the Supreme Court level, setting precedent thereafter. She can't get there without the initial conviction-Maybe she came to town having figured KC would be found guilty, it would be another shot for her, one way or the other.
