Imperfect Justice-Prosecuting Casey Anthony by Jeff Ashton

[LambChop]

MOO ... Respectfully, I must disagree. Baez used "underhanded, dirty tactics" pre-trial, during the trial, and post trial. I have absolutely NO respect for Baez -- and the rest of the DT. MOO ...

It's one thing to "defend" your client under the respected laws of the Constitution, etc. ... but... it's another thing to resort to the "low-down tactics" Baez used during trial, a "prime example" would be the Opening Statement, which for some "reason" obviously "impacted" the Jury's "thinking" (if you want to even call it "thinking").

MOO ...


BBM: MOO ... I believe Mr. Ashton will ALWAYS BE A GENTLEMAN ...

:waitasec: But I sure do hope he "rips" both JB and CM with respect to their LACK of "courtroom skills", LACK of "knowledge of the law", and the DIRTY UNDERHANDED TACTICS used by Jose and the DT which MISLED the Jury ...

MOO ...

I think the worst part is it was not true, JB knew it was not true and his PR person who was scanning the blogs admitted he knew it was not true. They went for the weakest link which was GA and did not until the last minute because obviously their story was full of holes and showed that after 3 years they had not bothered to truly investigate GA but instead focused on a non-existent person and RK. Lying is lying regardless who does it and it should be fully investigated. Enough is enough. jmo

 

[cyberborg]

Look at what Baez accomplished however against the juggernaut of the SA.

Only time will tell.

The only credit I give to JB is that he is a 'showman', he did not let any evidence and/or testimony get in his way --- his mission was to derail and distract the Jury from the SA's steady and methodical march to present their case. Look at me, look at me.

In that he was highly successful from his Opening Statement throughout the trial to his Closing Statement. Tada!

JB completely distracted the Jury providing 'facts' that were not in evidence and never supported by anything to ponder, continually throwing in surprises that were allowed because HHJBP was so concerned that FCA got a fair trial ... thinking FCA was history. Why not?

If you read the tea leaves of the talking heads, attorneys, Judges and, consultants they swung heavily towards the SA ... that the case was proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and ... even LKB got on board and backpeddled.

The Jury was so focused on JB's showmanship that they lost sight of the circumstantial evidence in play and it all just became noise. They wanted the show, the entertainment, the distraction from a boring tirade of damning evidence.

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We're so glad you could attend
Come inside! Come inside!
...
Come inside, the show's about to start
Guaranteed to blow your head apart​

I guess, yes, JB set an all-time new standard but if that is how capital crimes are going to be defended ... it is a sad testimony. History will decide if JB overcame Goliath, if he won at any cost without getting disbarred.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

..not that it makes a difference, but he was bragging to ashleigh of Good Morning America about getting his laundry done...

..here he is getting a huge chuckle out of telling her about it...

---JF11 : "juror # 12 ( the one who retired and fled the state ) "would do my laundry for me, she even folded my underwear---i didn't know that you could fold underwear".

Respectfully snipped for space and B&RBM :

This right here says it ALL ...

Seriously ... is Jury Foreman for REAL or being a smart $$$ ? If Jury Foreman did NOT even know that you could "fold underwear" ... then how in the world would he be able to understand all that evidence ? Either REAL or NOT ... the murder trial was NOT a joking matter.

Okay ... back to Mr. Ashton's book ... can't wait to hear what he REALLY HAS TO SAY about the Jury ...

MOO ...

 

[PeteyGirl]

I doubt Ashton will have much to say about the jury, at least in the way we have discussed them. It would be antithetical to his "gentlemanliness" and professionalism.

What I hope to hear is his "insider opinion" about how the system WORKS, and how it can go afoul, or food for thought on how to improve the system so that the guilty don't walk free and the innocent aren't imprisoned.

 

[MarthaM]

<modsnip>

I don't think it's peculiar or indicative of anything that one juror did another's laundry. The one who did the washing probably felt at loose ends while sequestered with the rest of the group, and that was one way she could both fit in and pass the time. Good for her, for finding a way to cope with that. And the foreman? He'd fit right in where I work. We had a discussion once about who folds underwear and pairs socks, and none of the guys did. I doubt the foreman seriously meant that he didn't know underwear could be folded; he was just showing that he never does that himself.

That's an issue? I don't think so. I think it's just one of those light moments that happen when a diverse group of people has to find a way to make it through being sequestered.

Somehow, I don't think Ashton will stoop so low as to address that kind of thing in his book. At least I hope he doesn't. I don't think the low road is becoming to him.

I think Jeff Ashton's book has already enjoyed part of Cyber Monday, tuesday, wedsnesday etc..:woohoo: As the release date nears, the publicity gears up, I'm sure the pre-sale orders will be skyrocketing. When the news of his book first came out, it wasn't intentional, but went to # 1. He didn't even have the cover out. I'm thinking they don't have to worry about people ordering it on a specific date, plenty of people will get this book in time for Christmas! :great:

The numbers will be interesting to see. We know that the book enjoyed a very brief debut in the top 100 on Amazon when it was first announced and that publicity will bring it back up. It's been anywhere from #260 to #347 when I've checked over the past couple of days, and that's pretty good considering it's not even coming out for almost 3 months.

I'm still curious to see what photos are included.

 

[AngelWings444]

MarthaM - you quoted my post about Jeff Aston's book sales, in a post about juror mocking. My comment had nothing to do with the jurors, the foreman, or his underwear. Just wanted to clear that up. :floorlaugh:

 

[RANCH]

<modsnip>
I don't think it's peculiar or indicative of anything that one juror did another's laundry. The one who did the washing probably felt at loose ends while sequestered with the rest of the group, and that was one way she could both fit in and pass the time. Good for her, for finding a way to cope with that. And the foreman? He'd fit right in where I work. We had a discussion once about who folds underwear and pairs socks, and none of the guys did. I doubt the foreman seriously meant that he didn't know underwear could be folded; he was just showing that he never does that himself.

That's an issue? I don't think so. I think it's just one of those light moments that happen when a diverse group of people has to find a way to make it through being sequestered.

Somehow, I don't think Ashton will stoop so low as to address that kind of thing in his book. At least I hope he doesn't. I don't think the low road is becoming to him.



The numbers will be interesting to see. We know that the book enjoyed a very brief debut in the top 100 on Amazon when it was first announced and that publicity will bring it back up. It's been anywhere from #260 to #347 when I've checked over the past couple of days, and that's pretty good considering it's not even coming out for almost 3 months.

I'm still curious to see what photos are included.

As a guy I disagree about the laundry issue.I once had a visit to my apartment by a women that I knew but was not in a relationship. I went to the corner store and when I returned, I found that she had found my laundry I had just done. How did I know? She had folded it all up including my UNDERWEAR. I was more than a bit embarrassed.Just a guys point of view.Oh, I have always folded my underwear and paired my socks. I'm curious about what photos are used also.

 

[Solace]

<modsnip>
I don't think it's peculiar or indicative of anything that one juror did another's laundry. The one who did the washing probably felt at loose ends while sequestered with the rest of the group, and that was one way she could both fit in and pass the time. Good for her, for finding a way to cope with that. And the foreman? He'd fit right in where I work. We had a discussion once about who folds underwear and pairs socks, and none of the guys did. I doubt the foreman seriously meant that he didn't know underwear could be folded; he was just showing that he never does that himself.

That's an issue? I don't think so. I think it's just one of those light moments that happen when a diverse group of people has to find a way to make it through being sequestered.

Somehow, I don't think Ashton will stoop so low as to address that kind of thing in his book. At least I hope he doesn't. I don't think the low road is becoming to him.



The numbers will be interesting to see. We know that the book enjoyed a very brief debut in the top 100 on Amazon when it was first announced and that publicity will bring it back up. It's been anywhere from #260 to #347 when I've checked over the past couple of days, and that's pretty good considering it's not even coming out for almost 3 months.


I'm still curious to see what photos are included.

I agree with you Ashton will not address the laundry in his book.

It is indicative that the person who did his laundry looked up to him and wanted to please him. That is for sure. Of course I will not convince you of that, but when someone is willing to wash another's underwear who has no intimate relationship with that person at all or is not a prisoner in Saddam's army, it is indicative of wanting to be "liked". And the juror who let her do it, did not mind at all.

There are always a few who will take your opinion and run with it. But luckily, most people will translate that into what it is. Someone wanting to be liked and someone taking advantage of that insecurity.

 

[MarthaM]

I agree with you Ashton will not address the laundry in his book.

It is indicative that the person who did his laundry looked up to him and wanted to please him. That is for sure. Of course I will not convince you of that, but when someone is willing to wash another's underwear who has no intimate relationship with that person at all or is not a prisoner in Saddam's army, it is indicative of wanting to be "liked". And the juror who let her do it, did not mind at all.

There are always a few who will take your opinion and run with it. But luckily, most people will translate that into what it is. Someone wanting to be liked and someone taking advantage of that insecurity.

Do you have a link to what the juror who did the laundry has to say about it? I don't remember reading her explanation of it.

 

[Solace]

Do you have a link to what the juror who did the laundry has to say about it? I don't remember reading her explanation of it.

I am probably the last person who would have a link to one of the jurors. I'm sure you could googe laundry doin juror or something and you would get a response of some sort.

 

[Aedrys]

Respectfully snipped for space and B&RBM :

This right here says it ALL ...

Seriously ... is Jury Foreman for REAL or being a smart $$$ ? If Jury Foreman did NOT even know that you could "fold underwear" ... then how in the world would he be able to understand all that evidence ? Either REAL or NOT ... the murder trial was NOT a joking matter.

Okay ... back to Mr. Ashton's book ... can't wait to hear what he REALLY HAS TO SAY about the Jury ...

MOO ...

I have to say, it doesn't sound like she did his laundry once without being asked. She would do my laundry sounds like more than once to me. I think she was trying to gain favor with him for some reason. I'm married, and I don't even do my husband's laundry - he insists on doing it himself. This jury is sounding more hinky by the day.

I do hope Jeff Ashton does talk about the jury, obviously not about laundry, but maybe about why he thinks they didn't come the decision they should have. Actually, he'll probably be way more diplomatic about it than I am, LOL.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

<modsnip>

I don't think it's peculiar or indicative of anything that one juror did another's laundry. The one who did the washing probably felt at loose ends while sequestered with the rest of the group, and that was one way she could both fit in and pass the time.

snip for relevance

I find it odd that this Juror needed to "fit in" at all, but was also dictated by doing another Juror's laundry, - but if that's true, it speaks volumes for her sense of self-worth which is indicative of her not being of sound-mind and/or confidence to be a Juror in the first place.

Each Juror on a Jury panel is supposed to have independent thinking. They are not there to please one another nor cater to the whims of their counterparts in order to "fit in" or be accepted among the group.

What a truly sad, sad state of affairs.

I doubt that Jeff will include this in his book if he even knows about it, but perhaps 'someone else' will.

 

[Solace]

I have to say, it doesn't sound like she did his laundry once without being asked. She would do my laundry sounds like more than once to me. I think she was trying to gain favor with him for some reason. I'm married, and I don't even do my husband's laundry - he insists on doing it himself. This jury is sounding more hinky by the day.

I do hope Jeff Ashton does talk about the jury, obviously not about laundry, but maybe about why he thinks they didn't come the decision they should have. Actually, he'll probably be way more diplomatic about it than I am, LOL.

One has to be about as shallow as it gets to actually verbalize this on national TV. But it gives me some Solace to know that he is as shallow as I thought he was. He has mega ego issues and definitely had issues with Ashton, especially Ashton's NOT saying good morning to him and the other jurors. And by George, he was going to show Ashton and he did a good job of it. He convinced the others to follow and apparently it did not take much convincing - what was it - a day and a half or not even. Rigggggggggggggt.

 

[Solace]

snip for relevance

I find it odd that this Juror needed to "fit in" at all, but was also dictated by doing another Juror's laundry, - but if that's true, it speaks volumes for her sense of self-worth which is indicative of her not being of sound-mind and/or confidence to be a Juror in the first place.

Each Juror on a Jury panel is supposed to have independent thinking. They are not there to please one another nor cater to the whims of their counterparts in order to "fit in" or be accepted among the group.

What a truly sad, sad state of affairs.

I doubt that Jeff will include this in his book if he even knows about it, but perhaps 'someone else' will.

Absolutely. Well said.

 

[LambChop]

One has to be about as shallow as it gets to actually verbalize this on national TV. But it gives me some Solace to know that he is as shallow as I thought he was. He has mega ego issues and definitely had issues with Ashton, especially Ashton's NOT saying good morning to him and the other jurors. And by George, he was going to show Ashton and he did a good job of it. He convinced the others to follow and apparently it did not take much convincing - what was it - a day and a half or not even. Rigggggggggggggt.

OMG.....he sounds like KC, remember the meltdown KC had when her mother did not look at her. jmo

 

[Solace]

OMG.....he sounds like KC, remember the meltdown KC had when her mother did not look at her. jmo

Yep and what was bizarre about that besides every thing else was you would think KC would have just kept her head down (we all know she is lying about it) but instead she gets infuriated that Cindy will not go along with the lie and hugs George. It really was amazing to watch. She will reoffend. Anyone with a mindset like that, will reoffend.

 

[beach]

ding ding ding ding -- ding ding ding... <insert the jeopardy theme song>


Yes Alex, I'll take Imperfect Justice-Prosecuting Casey Anthony by Jeff Ashton for $500.

Yes, that is the topic. The book. Talk about Jeff Ashton and the book. Please.

 

[Solace]

I digress.

But it was a good topic for a bit. On the morrow.

 

[MissJames]

OMG.....he sounds like KC, remember the meltdown KC had when her mother did not look at her. jmo

The fact that they bought into JB's "friends" act is quite disturbing ,IMO. Couldn't they see that he was doing it to sway their vote?

I do hope JA discusses the courtroom demeanor between the jurors and all the lawyers. Just recalling the smarmy way JB talked to the female potential jurors,and even some of the men :sick: " May I call you juror # 19324? "
makes my skin crawl. I really never expected them to like him.

I hope the book reveals if or when the SA's knew the jurors were falling for the DT.

I don't like to wish away time, but I can't wait until this book comes out . I bought the hardcover,but I think I may have to buy it for my Kindle ,also ,so I get to read it right away.:woohoo:

 

[Lera213]

I posted on his FB page, he answered but I don't think he read what I posted the right way. I'm a little confused too