Imperfect Justice-Prosecuting Casey Anthony by Jeff Ashton

[Anakerie]

Ahhh... Finally. Payday came and went, crisis with pet occurred and was sadly resolved. This morning I was finally able to sit down and get on the Amazon website.. My order for Mr. Ashton's book is now in and I'll be anxiously awaiting it's arrival in November.



P.S. I used the Websleuths link to get to Amazon..

 

[logicalgirl]

I see a comparison between the two. Marcia lost, and JA lost (in these very high profile cases). What were both lacking? I don't know the answer to that one. Geragos, whom I don't really like, won. What's up with that?

Bottom line, what was wrong with JA and his stellar career that would make him lose, then write a book hoping to make money off Caylee's death. If he were giving all the proceeds to a charity, that would be different. So, in other words....... I don't have the most respect for JA. He lost!

Geragos won what? I don't recall that at all.

Different strokes for different folks - it matters not to me if you don't respect JA. He is brilliant, and his peers believe so also. He is unparalleled in his ability to retain and present concise complicated scientific material.

Marcia Clark spent most of the time at the OJ trial worrying about her hair, the best camera angle and mouthing off at the end of the day about her case.

No comparison IMO, but then that's what this thread is about - opinions...

 

[Aedrys]

While I appreciate the thought about Marcia Clark and Jeff Ashton making money off of disaster jury decisions. I really find it pretty offensive to compare the two. While the jury did not vote "guilty" in the OJ trial, Marcia led a prosecution that was a disgrace from the word go - AND - she compared to Baez in media camera face time.

Jeff Ashton's work and delivery in the case against Casey Anthony trial was nothing short of brilliant, and his long legal career has been just stellar. I think he's earned his right to write a book if he chooses to.

Me too, logicalgirl. These are two completely different cases. I think it's shallow to group all lawyers who lose a case into one category. That is just not fair to do. Ashton didn't lose this trial, the jury did. The jury lost their minds for unfathomable reasons and came up with a bad decision. He can't control the outcome of the trial - that is up to the jury. I am not putting all blame for the verdict on Jeff Ashton. I thought he was absolutely brilliant, and Baez was absolutely deplorable. It doesn't make Jeff Ashton any less of a lawyer because of a terrible jury. God, at least OJ's jury was starstruck and the prosecution actually was bad. At least there were some solid reasons as to why that verdict came out to be what it was. I am still shaking my head in this case trying to figure out what the heck went wrong in that jury room because they watched a completely different trial than I did.

I am very interested in hearing what he has to say, and I've already pre-ordered his book. I think some people need to quit bashing him for doing this. There are answers we all want, and if people don't like his book, then just don't buy it. Sheesh.

And he did not have this book out fast - I wish people would quit saying that. He has worked on this book for the past year with a ghost writer. That is not fast. He didn't just whip this up in the last few months. No author ever published has come out with a book that fast. That's not how writing and publishing works.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Ashton didn't lose this trial, the jury did.

I absolutely disagree. Ashton lost the case. He lost! But I suppose it is much easier to blame the jury.

I think some people need to quit bashing him for doing this. There are answers we all want, and if people don't like his book, then just don't buy it. Sheesh.

I think people should be allowed to express whatever opinion they have of him whether it differs from the majority or not. <modsnip>

I find it stunning that all of this "surprising" new information is now going to be revealed by Casey's parents (Dr. Phil interview) and now in Ashton's book AFTER the trial.

My opinion is that he lost a case on the eve of his retirement and now wants to make sure his long career is not tainted by that high profile loss. In fact, I think he wants to profit from that loss, and is being as opportunistic as the rest of 'em, but hey, it's a free country. It's his right to tell his story, and it's my right to be publicly critical or at least skeptical.

I'll wait to see what the book reveals before I make any final assessments about his real intentions.

 

[MarthaM]

And he did not have this book out fast - I wish people would quit saying that. He has worked on this book for the past year with a ghost writer. That is not fast. He didn't just whip this up in the last few months. No author ever published has come out with a book that fast. That's not how writing and publishing works.

For me, that's as problematic as the timing of the book. I'm not impressed by any prosecutor or defense attorney who is working on a book about a case they're trying while the trial is still going on.

Hopefully, Ashton wasn't working on the book during the trial, but his co-writer was. I'd rather think that he didn't turn his attention to the book until after the trial, and maybe we'll find out eventually whether that was the case.

 

[jaleigh]

Garagos won? Which case? I recall him losing a BIG one. I'm sure you remember Scott Peterson. Garagos, the fine upstanding lawyer, didn't even bother to show up at the courthouse when the verdict was read. :dunno:

Man, that's a day in history I will never forget. The most followed trial of the year (at that time) and the lead defense attny didn't show up for sentencing.
IMOo Mark M isn't all that. lol

mo

 

[rotterdam]

Geragos won what? I don't recall that at all.

Different strokes for different folks - it matters not to me if you don't respect JA. He is brilliant, and his peers believe so also. He is unparalleled in his ability to retain and present concise complicated scientific material.

Marcia Clark spent most of the time at the OJ trial worrying about her hair, the best camera angle and mouthing off at the end of the day about her case.

No comparison IMO, but then that's what this thread is about - opinions...

I agree. Let us not forget that Jeff Ashton is also a trail blazer. Using DNA evidence successfully for the first time in the case against rapist Tommy Lee Andrews. No comparison with Marcia Clark.
He should write about that historic case too. That said, DNA evidence probably would not have made any difference with the Pinellas 12, after all it is not 100% certain, more like 99%.:banghead:
Plus the sniffing machine was also a first IIRC for trail blazer Jeff.

 

[RR0004]

I absolutely disagree. Ashton lost the case. He lost! But I suppose it is much easier to blame the jury.



I think people should be allowed to express whatever opinion they have of him whether it differs from the majority or not. <modnsip>

I find it stunning that all of this "surprising" new information is now going to be revealed by Casey's parents (Dr. Phil interview) and now in Ashton's book AFTER the trial.

My opinion is that he lost a case on the eve of his retirement and now wants to make sure his long career is not tainted by that high profile loss. In fact, I think he wants to profit from that loss, and is being as opportunistic as the rest of 'em, but hey, it's a free country. It's his right to tell his story, and it's my right to be publicly critical or at least skeptical.

I'll wait to see what the book reveals before I make any final assessments about his real intentions.

Just an FYI...as far as I can recall, "bashing" anyone here is against TOS.
But, I've been known to be wrong before.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I absolutely disagree. Ashton lost the case. He lost! But I suppose it is much easier to blame the jury.

"Easier" because it is obvious who bungled this verdict

I think people should be allowed to express whatever opinion they have of him whether it differs from the majority or not. <modsnip>

I find it stunning that all of this "surprising" new information is now going to be revealed by Casey's parents (Dr. Phil interview) and now in Ashton's book AFTER the trial.

I am skeptical that I will read anything "new" in this book, after having followed this case here over the last 3 years. The only "new" thing I expect will be insight into Jeff Ashton's personal experience, which I hope he shares. As for the Anthony's, I don't trust nothin' to be "new", just embellished and confabulated.

My opinion is that he lost a case on the eve of his retirement and now wants to make sure his long career is not tainted by that high profile loss. In fact, I think he wants to profit from that loss, and is being as opportunistic as the rest of 'em, but hey, it's a free country. It's his right to tell his story, and it's my right to be publicly critical or at least skeptical.

I'll wait to see what the book reveals before I make any final assessments about his real intentions.

The role Jeff Ashton played in this trial puts him in a very different category from the "rest of 'em". I personally don't see his career as being tainted by this loss, the case he and his compadres presented was sound enough to convince a majority of at least manslaughter.

I can do a very good job as a nurse with a complex patient, and have the patient's family see me as falling short for whatever reason. I KNOW I did everything in my power, used every critical thinking and proactive thing I could possibly do as a nurse. My judgment of my performance is only partially dependent upon other people's judgment. This is how you get when you've been doing what you do for twenty years (in my case) and many more years (in Ashton's case).

So, I won't assume Ashton's motivation to write his book is based upon his insecurities. It isn't consistent with his previous behavior, anyway.

 

[Magdalyn]

Does the publisher have to pay to use whatever picture of Casey they decide on?

Generally, they'd have to pay whoever had the rights on the photo they used--which would probably be the AP or whoever (newspaper photographer) took the courtroom shots of Casey.

But this isn't my domain--I know more about the fiction world. :loser:

 

[believe09]

While I appreciate the thought about Marcia Clark and Jeff Ashton making money off of disaster jury decisions. I really find it pretty offensive to compare the two. While the jury did not vote "guilty" in the OJ trial, Marcia led a prosecution that was a disgrace from the word go - AND - she compared to Baez in media camera face time.

Jeff Ashton's work and delivery in the case against Casey Anthony trial was nothing short of brilliant, and his long legal career has been just stellar. I think he's earned his right to write a book if he chooses to.

I admire Jeff Ashton as an attorney, but in my opinion this case was the prosecutions to lose.

Marcia Clark had an incredible track record, IIRC, until OJ landed on her desk.

As for the comparisons being shallow-granted I did not sit down and compare each attorney in each case blow by blow.

It is simply how I feel.

 

[Lera213]

I wish I could afford it but I literally do not have a $1.00 to spare.

 

[rotterdam]

"Easier" because it is obvious who bungled this verdict



I am skeptical that I will read anything "new" in this book, after having followed this case here over the last 3 years. The only "new" thing I expect will be insight into Jeff Ashton's personal experience, which I hope he shares. As for the Anthony's, I don't trust nothin' to be "new", just embellished and confabulated.



The role Jeff Ashton played in this trial puts him in a very different category from the "rest of 'em". I personally don't see his career as being tainted by this loss, the case he and his compadres presented was sound enough to convince a majority of at least manslaughter.

I can do a very good job as a nurse with a complex patient, and have the patient's family see me as falling short for whatever reason. I KNOW I did everything in my power, used every critical thinking and proactive thing I could possibly do as a nurse. My judgment of my performance is only partially dependent upon other people's judgment. This is how you get when you've been doing what you do for twenty years (in my case) and many more years (in Ashton's case).

So, I won't assume Ashton's motivation to write his book is based upon his insecurities. It isn't consistent with his previous behavior, anyway.

I also expect a lot of Mr. Ashton's book. I suspect it could be rather scholarly and with a lot of emphasis on the scientific evidence. Not in the manner of a tabloid and/or sensationalism reporting. Every prosecutor has lost cases and won cases. Par for the course, they learn from each lost case.
Personally I think the DP on the table was the main reason for losing this case. Jurors get antsy with DP and become much more critical of perfectly good circumstantial evidence. They just do not like to be instrumental in somebody's death.
I still think that DP was a strategy by Jeff's team to solicit a plea deal from the DT.
Would have saved the State a lot of bucks if plea deal. But this DT team was only interested in publicity and its subsequent $$$, not necessarily the best interest of their client.
I hope Jeff will be honest in his book, and wonder if there was any unsuccessful plea dealing behind closed doors.
No clue if certain aspects of the case will be sealed forever and he can not disclose everything.
There still are so many unanswered questions in this trial. Hope he also addresses why certain circumstantial evidence was not introduced during the trial. And no, I do not think at all that this book is because of his personal insecurities.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Just wanted to share my opinion.

A murder trial is not "won" or "lost".....the defendant is prosecuted for a crime they are believed to have committed and their rights under the law are defended.

One person does not lose a case. One person does not win a case.

The trial is a culmination of investigation of a crime and evidence gathered.

 

[Harmony 2]

Expressing opinions about case players and public figures, as related to the topic of the thread, is acceptable. This may include expressing displeasure or discussion about information we don&#8217;t agree with. Bashing in the form of name calling, derogatory or disparaging remarks are not constructive and therefore discouraged.

This post lands randomly.

 

[Tink]

My guess is that any new information will not be new to most Websleuthers, but will be new to the general public, who only saw what was presented at trial (or what was talked about on TV shows during the trial). Rules of evidence kept out a lot of information - such as the details about the money that was stolen. I also think some things were left out in an attempt to simplify things.

I'd love it if he'd really lay out all the info - using material from cell phone records, interviews, etc. - of what Casey and her family were doing from the day before Caylee died through the 31 days. I think it would be very revealing.
Plus transcripts of the jailhouse conversations between Casey and her family.

My guess is, though, that the focus will simply be on the trial.

Tink

 

[Thinker Belle]

Just wanted to share my opinion.

A murder trial is not "won" or "lost".....the defendant is prosecuted for a crime they are believed to have committed and their rights under the law are defended.

One person does not lose a case. One person does not win a case.

The trial is a culmination of investigation of a crime and evidence gathered.

Can I just say THANK YOU? It seriously bothers me that people keep using the terms "won" and "lost" as if a situation in which an innocent 2 year old ended up dead can be considered a game. This is not/was never a game! IMO, few things are as serious in nature.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I absolutely disagree. Ashton lost the case. He lost! But I suppose it is much easier to blame the jury.



I think people should be allowed to express whatever opinion they have of him whether it differs from the majority or not. <modsnip>

I find it stunning that all of this "surprising" new information is now going to be revealed by Casey's parents (Dr. Phil interview) and now in Ashton's book AFTER the trial.

My opinion is that he lost a case on the eve of his retirement and now wants to make sure his long career is not tainted by that high profile loss. In fact, I think he wants to profit from that loss, and is being as opportunistic as the rest of 'em, but hey, it's a free country. It's his right to tell his story, and it's my right to be publicly critical or at least skeptical.

I'll wait to see what the book reveals before I make any final assessments about his real intentions.

The trial was not a contest or game, but rather a quest for justice for the murder of a child.

With respect, there was, indeed, a loser in this trial. Her name was Caylee.

 

[Salem]

Hi Guys - please remember that we don't discusss pm'ing one another in the threads. Also, if you would like to talk about trading the book around and/or other book related stuff, you may do so right here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=66"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

This is the member's only book discussion thread.

Let us know if you have any questions

Salem

 

[LambChop]

The only one who lost in this trial was Caylee. All the SA's did the best job they could to present the evidence and whatever happened with the jury happened. Ms. A made it through with barely a scratch. Caylee, however, will be remembered as dying while on her mother's watch regardless of the different opinions of how she died. She is gone. Her DT appeared to be very proud of what they had done.....my guess would be after about a week or so reality set in.

It was never a game for SA, never. It is their job and victums depend on SA to help then get closure and justice for the victum. Give credit to the defense if they did a good job but respect the fact that the State did their job, as they do for every case that comes through their office. jmo