lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
So the defense should be able to hide evidence and lie about it and not suffer any sanction??
GUILTY CA - Lana Clarkson, 40, fatally shot, Alhambra, 3 Feb 2003
- Thread starter WasBlind
- Start date
lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
The judge is going to rule!! Don't back down!!!
lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
Sara is crying. She knows the judge is going to find against her and will compell her!! Wow!
JDB
Tybee you will never be forgotten
Sounds like he is going to find her in Comtempt unless she takes the stand.
Wrinkles
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,037
- Reaction score
- 7
BUZZZ!
This is not privileged information. Full stop!
This has nothing to do with testifying against Spector. This has everything to do with Caplan saying what she saw Lee do. Lee put her in this position.
Question, could Caplan sue Lee for his lying and putting her in this position?
W
This is not privileged information. Full stop!
This has nothing to do with testifying against Spector. This has everything to do with Caplan saying what she saw Lee do. Lee put her in this position.
Question, could Caplan sue Lee for his lying and putting her in this position?
W
lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
In order to do that, wouldn't she have to claim damages?
lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
They would appeal it higher, I believe. State Supreme Court.
lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
Loni is right. The def. thought Caplan was on the reservation and no need to object to her testifying. They must have been very confident she was going to toe the Lee line.
panthera
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 26,408
- Reaction score
- 76
thanks
I know this must sound dumb, but I really don't see what is her problem with testifying about seeing Dr. Lee pick up something that looked like the missing acrylic nail piece? Especially now with the Judge's ruling?lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
Wrinkles, I was so interested to read your take on this whole issue. I am fascinated to learn that your granddaughter was so clear in her assessment of Lee's testimony. I agree. I thought he was obviously lying and the tells were his evasiveness, his combativeness, his shiftiness and his guffawing. Nothing in his affect instilled credibility.
One thing that I will quibble with: you said something about maybe Judge Fidler is aware of her reputation. Maybe so. But that may not be what he was/is relying on. It was her utter lack of self-interest in her testimony, in fact, it was that her testimony went against her self-interest and in fact has landed her in the uncomfortable position she is in today. I think that is what sold her credibility as well as her demeanor on the stand which convinced the judge.
Lots of refugees here on this site largely as a result of my situation. I am glad to still have a place to express my opinions on this subject and I am grateful to WS for providing it.
Wrinkles
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,037
- Reaction score
- 7
Hiya Lisa,
>>In order to do that, wouldn't she have to claim damages?<<
Hmmm... She's having to hire attornies, she might go to jail (loss of income), loss of reputation? I dunno if it is feasible, it was just a thought...
BTW...she wasn't just crying in the court room, she was trembling big time...
But my question is, "where is reason." Surely she knows that this isn't privileged information, why make herself the slaughtered lamb to defend something that is indefensible?
W
>>In order to do that, wouldn't she have to claim damages?<<
Hmmm... She's having to hire attornies, she might go to jail (loss of income), loss of reputation? I dunno if it is feasible, it was just a thought...
BTW...she wasn't just crying in the court room, she was trembling big time...
But my question is, "where is reason." Surely she knows that this isn't privileged information, why make herself the slaughtered lamb to defend something that is indefensible?
W
panthera
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 26,408
- Reaction score
- 76
Even though this was my first home I feel like a refugee too since I feel invisible over there since yesterday ~ so I'm glad the trial is finally being discussed here!!!
Are they in break until after lunch now?
lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
I don't disagree, esp. considering that her testimony can be read to the jury anyway. But I think she is thinking of her career.
I think this has to be Door #5 that the defense has opened.
And no, they broke for the def. and pros. to try to hammer out a compromise, sun.
Wrinkles
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,037
- Reaction score
- 7
Hiya Lisa,
You wrote:
>>One thing that I will quibble with: you said something about maybe Judge Fidler is aware of her reputation.<<
Ugh, I had to go look at what I wrote:
>>AND he may know Caplan's ethics...<<
So that was "may know" and "ethics" as opposed to reputation, and I guess I see that a little differently (a person can have a reputation for being a winning attorney, but I'm not sure that means they have a strong ethical code?)
>>But that may not be what he was/is relying on. It was her utter lack of self-interest in her testimony, in fact, it was that her testimony went against her self-interest and in fact has landed her in the uncomfortable position she is in today. I think that is what sold her credibility as well as her demeanor on the stand which convinced the judge.<<
i.e. so he "may know" her ethics through her behavior?
I would like to see Caplan follow through. I wonder who got to her and made her think that she would have to defend all attornies in a way as to try to make them "above the law?" I would like to see Caplan state, "Judge, you are correct, it is my moral responsibility to go through with testifying."
W
You wrote:
>>One thing that I will quibble with: you said something about maybe Judge Fidler is aware of her reputation.<<
Ugh, I had to go look at what I wrote:
>>AND he may know Caplan's ethics...<<
So that was "may know" and "ethics" as opposed to reputation, and I guess I see that a little differently (a person can have a reputation for being a winning attorney, but I'm not sure that means they have a strong ethical code?)
>>But that may not be what he was/is relying on. It was her utter lack of self-interest in her testimony, in fact, it was that her testimony went against her self-interest and in fact has landed her in the uncomfortable position she is in today. I think that is what sold her credibility as well as her demeanor on the stand which convinced the judge.<<
i.e. so he "may know" her ethics through her behavior?
I would like to see Caplan follow through. I wonder who got to her and made her think that she would have to defend all attornies in a way as to try to make them "above the law?" I would like to see Caplan state, "Judge, you are correct, it is my moral responsibility to go through with testifying."
W
lisafremont
An open mind shouldn't mean an empty one!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 19
Okay I see I missed the ruling. According to what I read she is being held in contempt unless they can remedy some solution? Am I correct?
yes, nell.
Wrinkles
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,037
- Reaction score
- 7
Hiya Gang...
Ad, you wrote:
>>Generally we know we are doing the right thing when it is the hardest path we chose. Bravo for her.<<
Gads, isn't that the truth! No one likes that type of position, but we can be put into it at times. AND...it appears that Lee has put Caplan into it.
Lisa, you wrote:
>>Lots of refugees here on this site largely as a result of my situation. <<
Do I dare ask?
W <--- hoping that Caplan says, "I agree judge, I will not waste the courts time, delay this trial, or fight for something which is altogether frivolous. I will honor your ruling and testify."
PS. I think she is thinking of her career too Lisa... It dawned on me that she might have gone to court today thinking, "I will fight this to the table today with judge Fiddler, BUT if he sticks by his guns, I'm going with him. If that means I lose a career that I love, so be it." That could be a fairly frightening and emotional thought pattern. On the other hand, so could thoughts of going to jail. i.e. either of these thought patterns could get you crying AND trembling, as she appeared to be doing.
Ad, you wrote:
>>Generally we know we are doing the right thing when it is the hardest path we chose. Bravo for her.<<
Gads, isn't that the truth! No one likes that type of position, but we can be put into it at times. AND...it appears that Lee has put Caplan into it.
Lisa, you wrote:
>>Lots of refugees here on this site largely as a result of my situation. <<
Do I dare ask?
W <--- hoping that Caplan says, "I agree judge, I will not waste the courts time, delay this trial, or fight for something which is altogether frivolous. I will honor your ruling and testify."
PS. I think she is thinking of her career too Lisa... It dawned on me that she might have gone to court today thinking, "I will fight this to the table today with judge Fiddler, BUT if he sticks by his guns, I'm going with him. If that means I lose a career that I love, so be it." That could be a fairly frightening and emotional thought pattern. On the other hand, so could thoughts of going to jail. i.e. either of these thought patterns could get you crying AND trembling, as she appeared to be doing.