Frustration!

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

What has you frustrated with trial so far?


  • Total voters
    504
First, if she's found guilty she cannot make any money off of her crime. Second, it seems the talking heads are split because they are pandering to a specific audience.

Here's my biggest worry. That the DT's tactics are going to resonate with a juror or two and a mistrial will ensue. I'm really worried about the woman who said she can't judge only God can judge. Hopefully God sends her the right message. Also, there may be a juror who just thinks JB makes sense. Remember what George Carlin said; Think about how dumb the average American is and then realize half of them are dumber than that.

Regardless of it's outcome, I believe that this trial will change the law in the United States. The completely obvious and horrible travesties of "justice" here have already and will continue to enrage an engaged public in a manner that will need to be addressed.

How is it that we find ourselves, allowing a "Defence" on the first day of trial accusing whoever they see fit (without the obligation of due diligence in providing evidence or the requirement to make a case of any sort for their accusations) while at the same time entertaining their (the Defence's) right to ask for a mistrial due to the Prosecution's submission of a tape to support their assertation (backed by lots of circumstantial evidence) that the victim was killed in the manner that the evidence substantiates.

Something is terribly wrong with this whole picture.

moo
 
He brings out the easel in an attempt to portray the Defence as the underdog...They don't have the big, mean technology and money to do much more than to buy paper and pens that don't work...Pathetic little tactic that may have worked 10-15 years ago but it makes him look deficient at best in 2011.

moo

ETA - I am by no means a "techie" but today, he even tried to belittle photoshop as being an inaccurate software. Baahahaaha. He does know that there are computer knowledgeable people on the jury, doesn't he?

And don't forget he has to have help transporting the easel!

My biggest frustration lies with KC & her inability to show her little baby girl (even after death) or her parents any love or respect! She's in a pretend land just like she was when she was telling all those lies...I really think she believed some of them! I don't think the tears are for her child, they're for her & that's sad!
 
Oh, DollyPardonMe, I loathe the easel. Every time it appears I die a little inside. There must be a special place in the underworld reserved for anyone who abuses otherwise potentially useful materials in such a manner.

JB's problem is that he thinks he's endearing himself to the jury via his attempts at "simplification." What he's really doing, of course, is insulting their intelligence. As a college professor, I can tell you, he is terrible at using visual aids and should cease and desist posthaste! Please! I am not entirely certain I can endure too much more easel time, and I know very well that the DT's case will feature a lot of it -- we haven't seen anything yet.... :gasp:


I would never, ever, ever put up an easel in front of well educated group of people, in a court room, if I didn't have the most rudimentary grasp of spelling English, then clown my way through it as though it's a big joke, he didn't even have the grace to look the least bit humiliated.
 
all the flaming commercials on HLN interruptions ect.. and i dont understand how anyone with a conscience can defend her .. argh
 
I voted OTHER because there wasn't an option for just Jose or Cheny. To me, it's not just the sarcastic remarks from the Defense that frustrates me it's Jose and Cheny Mason in general. The few times I've heard Mason speak to witnesses he comes across as extremely rude and arrogant and sounds about as smart as Jose. That's my take on it anyway.
 
This is why I think that JB using the easel. First look over at the table at the evidence that the state has. It's a lot, agree?! Now look over at JB's table. All they have is ICA. The easel is to give the appearance that they have something. It's called smoke and mirrors. The problem for JB is that he'd not a good magician. But he makes a pretty good clown. "Smiles as I think, Pee-Wee Herman.
 
I'm frustrated foremost by Baez's lack of basic courtroom skills.

In my opinion, Baez tends to pull questions out of the air when questioning state witnesses, and I don't see how the questions further the discussion. Baez's poor use of English at times is also confusing. I don't have the transcripts so I can't give you a direct quote, but to me a typical Baez exchange goes like this:

witness A: yes, I collected that sample on July 20th, 2008.

Baez: So, you're telling us that in by that first order, July 20th. Rice crispies, hockey puck?

witness A: umm. can you repeat the question?

You forget to add ' ISN'T THAT RIGHT?' Baez adds that at the end of each of his meaningless questions...
 
This is why I think that JB using the easel. First look over at the table at the evidence that the state has. It's a lot, agree?! Now look over at JB's table. All they have is ICA. The easel is to give the appearance that they have something. It's called smoke and mirrors. The problem for JB is that he'd not a good magician. But he makes a pretty good clown. "Smiles as I think, Pee-Wee Herman.

I'd rather have Pee-Wee-Herman defend me than the Hardly boys.
 
OK, one more addition to MY list of frustrations!! What's with the "Easel" All this expert testimony, books, papers, pictures, CD's, etc. and JB brings out his "Easel" and colored markers and scribbles NONSENSE!!

This is why I think that JB using the easel. First look over at the table at the evidence that the state has. It's a lot, agree?! Now look over at JB's table. All they have is ICA. The easel is to give the appearance that they have something. It's called smoke and mirrors. The problem for JB is that he'd not a good magician. But he makes a pretty good clown. "Smiles as I think, Pee-Wee Herman.

The use of visual aids is classic "Attorney 101". All people, no matter how stupid, remember information better if it's first described, then presented a second time in a visual form. The reason why teachers spend so much time writing on the chalkboard is that it's proven that students will remember things better if it's explained, then written down, and then explained again. So far, so good---one would think that Jose is on the right track considering that these are well-known memory-training techniques. Of course, if you remember your own schooling, you might recall how much you giggled and started acting up when the teacher accidentally misspelled something on the board, like that day in 3rd grade when Missus Rainey left the "R" out of the word "shirt"...

The problem, of course, is that Jose Baez is incompetent in nearly everything he does.

He doesn't understand how a computer works, so he can't use that in his arguments. That's why the State uses the projector and publishes digital documents to the jury, while Jose has to stand across the room from the jury and hold up a poster that's an enlarged copy of a photo that the State already published.

It gets even worse than that, though. In his opening statement, Baez attempted to use a standard dry-erase whiteboard (which are used in junior colleges everywhere in place of chalkboards these days, and have replaced the far-more expensive paper easel in Corporate America almost completely) and he failed miserably at it. Dry erase white boards use a cleaning fluid (usually isopropyl alcohol and fragrance) in order to prevent buildup on the board that can obscure the text. However, anyone who's ever used one before knows that you use the cleaner infrequently, not every time you erase something. For a short period of time after cleaning a white-board with the cleaning fluid, you have to wait for it to dry before you can continue writing on it, or the ink won't stick to the board. Jose hosed the board down with cleaning fluid after each erasure. He went through several pens and even said that one of the pens was out of ink before he finally gave up. The pen was not out of ink---shocker of the century, the dry-erase board was WET. This, of course, was the last time we saw the dry-erase board and supplies, which likely cost the state well over $100. They're only cheap when it keeps you from going through several of those $60 paper easels. Maybe one of the other attorneys will use it...OH, WAIT, NONE OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS IS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE ANYBODY except for Cheney Mason, and he's an old guy who probably doesn't "get" how dry-erase boards work either. Sorry Florida Taxpayers :sigh:

It's so incredibly unprofessional to not even try out things like the dry-erase board before opening statements. One of the rules in "Attorney 101" is to MAKE SURE YOUR VISUAL AIDS WORK. Check your slide projector, make sure the slides aren't upside down or from your vacation to Hawaii last year, make sure you have ALL of the photos you need instead of just the first one lying on top of a random stack of papers and fast food menus, and MAKE SURE YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THE COMPUTERS AND THE WHITE BOARD BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTS.
 
Jezzzz, so I have to pick just one???

How about all of the above??? The least of which is mistakes by the state...I think they have done a great job so far.


Motions
Media Coverage
Sidebars
Sarcastic comments by defense
Smirks
Mistakes by State
Initial opening statement by defense
Other
 
I'm not sure if this actually qualifies for something about the trial that frustrates me, but when I watch the testimony, I am sooo frustrated that -in retrospect- ICA spun her lies and let so many resources, time and dollars go to waste when she knew exactly where her child was. She let all those people donate their time and money when she knew all along her child was dead.

Regardless of what the DT is saying about drowning or whatever, KC KNEW Caylee was gone and allowed hundreds of people to search for her as if she was alive. So much time and money was spent b/c people cared!! She should have to pay all that back, including the reward money and all financial donations.

But, I hope she'll be found guilty-- which means she won't be able to. If she gets off and goes free, she should have to. And maybe all that money should go to a scholarship for Caylee Marie's memory. To me, that is frustrating to listen to all the people who gave so much when ICA could've owned up to what happened.
 
Personally, the worse the defense looks and acts, the better for the state, so none of their bumbling bothers me, unless they end up causing a mistrial by sheer incompetence, saying something forbidden or by Casey acting up.
 
Baez: Sir, IS it not true that you ate 2 slices of birthday cake at Timmy's party?
Witness: There wasn't any cake at the party.
Baez: But it IS a fact sir that you never reported any problems eating cake at the party, IS it not?
Witness: No, I didn't have a problem, there wasn't any cake.
Baez: So the answer to my question sir is YES, you had no problems eating 2 slices of Timmy's cake.
Witness: Yes
Baez: No further questions Judge (as he swaggers off from his big "gotcha" moment)

Hope that explains it!
:banghead::banghead:
 
HLN with the constant commercials. Then when there's a sidebar and it stops and court resumes, the host yappy yaps for another minute while court is on. Or, they'll break for a commercial RIGHT when court comes back in session after break/sidebar.
Constant constant commercials.
 
You forget to add ' ISN'T THAT RIGHT?' Baez adds that at the end of each of his meaningless questions...

Only they aren't questions, they're statements. One of the witnesses last week said, "Where's the question?"
 
HLN with the constant commercials. Then when there's a sidebar and it stops and court resumes, the host yappy yaps for another minute while court is on. Or, they'll break for a commercial RIGHT when court comes back in session after break/sidebar.
Constant constant commercials.

Yes, I agree. Some of the most important moments of the trial had to be replayed later because there was a commercial during the testimony, yet we watched the entirety of many sidebars.
 
HLN with the constant commercials. Then when there's a sidebar and it stops and court resumes, the host yappy yaps for another minute while court is on. Or, they'll break for a commercial RIGHT when court comes back in session after break/sidebar.
Constant constant commercials.

Watch online. Much less frustrating.
 
Baez: Sir, IS it not true that you ate 2 slices of birthday cake at Timmy's party?
Witness: There wasn't any cake at the party.
Baez: But it IS a fact sir that you never reported any problems eating cake at the party, IS it not?
Witness: No, I didn't have a problem, there wasn't any cake.
Baez: So the answer to my question sir is YES, you had no problems eating 2 slices of Timmy's cake.
Witness: Yes
Baez: No further questions Judge (as he swaggers off from his big "gotcha" moment)

Hope that explains it!
:banghead::banghead:


That was very funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 
Well the snark from the DT has me frustrated, the questions during cross are:banghead::banghead: ( your not a chemist, the sketch pad etc etc) Sometimes i feel better when i think other members on the DT are just as FRUSHTRATED.. I mean who would ever relish the job of being ICA's nanny (wonder if she calls DS Zanny?)

Day_16_-_Casey_and_defense_t615.jpg
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
2,614
Total visitors
2,767

Forum statistics

Threads
603,343
Messages
18,155,160
Members
231,708
Latest member
centinel
Back
Top