"Jersey" and MW #2

[In da Middle]

Didn't I read somewhere that Dane was out on the porch talking to DB and neighbor and then later talking to DB's neighbor? Did I dream that or misread something? tia

Not Dane talking to them, but Shane. Totally different person.

 

[tehcloser]

JP cautioned at the start of the interview that the source was "iffy" and replete with multiple hearsay. That speaks against "slick lawyering and PR maneuvering." He is essentially saying, this information is not reliable, but I am telling you this on national television. Why? Probably because he hopes it might aid the investigation to find this missing child.
Lawyers are trained in evidence from the first year of law school. The evidentiary rules are the foundation of ascertaining truth in a court of law. Rumor and lay opinion are not allowed at trial. Trial lawyers spend tremendous amounts time building and analyzing evidentiary charts. A lawyer does not want egg on his/her face because an assertion lacked foundation.
There has to be an investigatory objective for releasing this information on national television. Perhaps the rumor will bait someone and lead to something more substantive, get an admission, an inconsistency. There is no prospective jury pool to persuade as there is no case against his clients. "Slick legal/PR maneuvering"... unnecessary. Keeping the case alive inthe public mind in the hope that the child might be returned alive... necessary.

Picerno is a good lawyer who has worked in KC for years as a criminal defense lawyer. From the accounts I have read, he has a very good reputation. For a criminal lawyer to have a good reputation, s/he has to have had credibility with cops and judges in the past, in the present and has to actively preserve it for the future.

Y'all have to get over this generalized lawyer bashing because you were traumatized by the Cindy Anthony case. The jury acquitted her. It's over. The only similarity in these cases is that a female child was missing. There are different lawyers and different police. On other sites, the lawyers are referred to by ethnically derogatory names, just as they were in the Anthony case. It's pretty ugly.

:floorlaugh:

 

[katshep]

:floorlaugh:

Especially offensive when these same people want legal opinions from lawyers on this board.

 

[Donjeta]

JMO but it was questionable ethics at best to give an interview alleging that someone confessed to a kidnapping knowing that it was based on very iffy sources or worse. If you want it investigated you report it to LE.

This is my opinion that is in no way intended as a slur at all the lawyers across the world everywhere. Just that this particular statement was not in good form, IMO. Lawyer or no lawyer, you need to check your sources before you say someone confessed to a kidnapping. I wonder how long Picerno will last in the team.

 

[Donjeta]

Especially offensive when these same people want legal opinions from lawyers on this board.

I don't see a connection. People can have a negative opinion of something JT or JP or some other lawyer said or did and be very appreciative of the valuable insights the lawyers on this board said.

It's like saying Conrad Murray screwed up and then complaining that it's offensive to all the doctors who post here, although some of them very possibly might agree.

 

[Sherbie]

JP cautioned at the start of the interview that the source was "iffy" and replete with multiple hearsay. That speaks against "slick lawyering and PR maneuvering." He is essentially saying, this information is not reliable, but I am telling you this on national television. Why? Probably because he hopes it might aid the investigation to find this missing child.
Lawyers are trained in evidence from the first year of law school. The evidentiary rules are the foundation of ascertaining truth in a court of law. Rumor and lay opinion are not allowed at trial. Trial lawyers spend tremendous amounts time building and analyzing evidentiary charts. A lawyer does not want egg on his/her face because an assertion lacked foundation.
There has to be an investigatory objective for releasing this information on national television. Perhaps the rumor will bait someone and lead to something more substantive, get an admission, an inconsistency. There is no prospective jury pool to persuade as there is no case against his clients. "Slick legal/PR maneuvering"... unnecessary. Keeping the case alive inthe public mind in the hope that the child might be returned alive... necessary.

Picerno is a good lawyer who has worked in KC for years as a criminal defense lawyer. From the accounts I have read, he has a very good reputation. For a criminal lawyer to have a good reputation, s/he has to have had credibility with cops and judges in the past, in the present and has to actively preserve it for the future.

Y'all have to get over this generalized lawyer bashing because you were traumatized by the Cindy Anthony case. The jury acquitted her. It's over. The only similarity in these cases is that a female child was missing. There are different lawyers and different police. On other sites, the lawyers are referred to by ethnically derogatory names, just as they were in the Anthony case. It's pretty ugly.

katshep, I enjoy your posts. I appreciate your points above and would agree with most. However, please don't include me in "generalized lawyer bashing," and note that I've never mentioned nor do I see any connection between this case and the Anthony case, nor between the lawyers involved in either case.

I have many times defended attorneys out of fairness to point out they're simply doing their jobs. That was my point, in fact, with that post - from the perspective of an attorney protecting his clients' legal interests or working as a media representative for them, there's nothing wrong with JP bringing that info forward.

I can't agree with you that there has to be "an investigatory objective for releasing this information on national TV." Possible, yes. But also possible it's simply in his clients' best interests to do so. Certainly, attorneys try to shine the best light possible on their clients in media appearances. I don't fault JP for that, and that was the point.

I have worked in this field and do understand what is ethical and what isn't as far as public comments by attorneys. Spin or posturing or maneuvering - common tactics - are not unethical. Releasing info you think points away from a client is not unethical. Not verifying the info before going national with it might be a bit irresponsible if the boy could have been tracked down, but it wasn't unethical. Lying IS unethical, but I didn't see where it could be said JP lied, and that's why I agreed with Karmaa's post.

I don't know if the parents have involvement, katshep. I've never said I thought they were guilty. I've never bashed JP/JT/CS (or compared this case/players to the Anthony case) and didn't intend to with that post, either. I'm sorry if it came across to you that way.

 

[natsound]

Didn't I read somewhere that Dane was out on the porch talking to DB and neighbor and then later talking to DB's neighbor? Did I dream that or misread something? tia

No, that was Shane.

 

[cityslick]

JMO but it was questionable ethics at best to give an interview alleging that someone confessed to a kidnapping knowing that it was based on very iffy sources or worse. If you want it investigated you report it to LE.

This is my opinion that is in no way intended as a slur at all the lawyers across the world everywhere. Just that this particular statement was not in good form, IMO. Lawyer or no lawyer, you need to check your sources before you say someone confessed to a kidnapping. I wonder how long Picerno will last in the team.

I thought it was ridiculous when it was first said. That said, do we know for sure if he did or did not report it to LE?

 

[annalia]

JMO but it was questionable ethics at best to give an interview alleging that someone confessed to a kidnapping knowing that it was based on very iffy sources or worse. If you want it investigated you report it to LE.

This is my opinion that is in no way intended as a slur at all the lawyers across the world everywhere. Just that this particular statement was not in good form, IMO. Lawyer or no lawyer, you need to check your sources before you say someone confessed to a kidnapping. I wonder how long Picerno will last in the team.

Extremely questionable and irresponsible.

I would think that any lawyer worth their salt would know that if they received info as serious as a baby being sold, and they really thought there was a chance of it being true, they wouldn't be in the media blabbing about it and possibly tipping off whoever had the baby, thus the very strong possibility of putting her in even more serious harms way.

That's why I believe "this particular defense team" already knew it was bogus. But it could be a tactic to try to influence future jurors, they can come back and say, well we don't know for sure if this teen got scared and backtracked, it's what reasonable doubt is all about.

If that makes me a horrible lawyer basher in some eyes, then so be it. I've never hidden the fact that I don't trust JT's motives and don't find him the least bit admirable. JP works for JT.

I haven't and I haven't seen "all" lawyers in general lumped together by posters in this case.

JMHO

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I think the last impression a defense attorney would want to give would be that of grasping at straws.

This "Jersey confessed" thing is a major blunder, imo.

 

[Karmaa]

my bolding

I didn't see that either, maybe it can be pointed out where people were saying that ALL defense lawyers are straight up liars. :waitasec:

And THIS illustrates how rumors get started.

I certainly never said that anyone said that "ALL defense lawyers are straight up liars". Nope. Never said by me.

What I SAID was that some people "seem to believe that it's OK to call ALL defense lawyers straight-up liars".

See the difference there? It's a BIG difference.

Some people SEEM to believe that it's OK to call all lawyers liars vs. some people SAY all lawyers are liars.

So, just like rumors are formed - one person says something which is then misinterpreted by another, and again misinterpreted by a third person, and by whomever it gets passed to down the line. It's especially interesting since that was the topic that brought it here... was the story of the teen a LIE, or a misunderstanding.

 

[Karmaa]

katshep, I enjoy your posts. I appreciate your points above and would agree with most. However, please don't include me in "generalized lawyer bashing," and note that I've never mentioned nor do I see any connection between this case and the Anthony case, nor between the lawyers involved in either case.

I have many times defended attorneys out of fairness to point out they're simply doing their jobs. That was my point, in fact, with that post - from the perspective of an attorney protecting his clients' legal interests or working as a media representative for them, there's nothing wrong with JP bringing that info forward.

I can't agree with you that there has to be "an investigatory objective for releasing this information on national TV." Possible, yes. But also possible it's simply in his clients' best interests to do so. Certainly, attorneys try to shine the best light possible on their clients in media appearances. I don't fault JP for that, and that was the point.

I have worked in this field and do understand what is ethical and what isn't as far as public comments by attorneys. Spin or posturing or maneuvering - common tactics - are not unethical. Releasing info you think points away from a client is not unethical. Not verifying the info before going national with it might be a bit irresponsible if the boy could have been tracked down, but it wasn't unethical. Lying IS unethical, but I didn't see where it could be said JP lied, and that's why I agreed with Karmaa's post.

I don't know if the parents have involvement, katshep. I've never said I thought they were guilty. I've never bashed JP/JT/CS (or compared this case/players to the Anthony case) and didn't intend to with that post, either. I'm sorry if it came across to you that way.

Everyone bashes lawyers sometimes. And rightfully so. (see my siggy? lol). I am pretty sure no one would put you in the category of a lawyer-hater. But there ARE some on these boards who seem to insist that anything that comes from a lawyer is untrustworthy. They are not shy about saying it either. As in saying things like "I don't believe _______ because it came from the defense team".

If you go back to the original comment that was by me, I was responding to a poster who said that the story was a LIE. (the exact quote was: "Plus, the teenager never said it to anyone on the defense team, so why did they even put it out there when they knew that, even worse than spin, it was a LIE?") I just didn't think that it was fair to accuse the lawyer of being a LIAR (that's a really strong word, IMO) when there were all kinds of logical reasons he might have said that besides being a liar.

Anyway, unless I am missing something, I don't think that anyone was insinuating that you personally are a lawyer-basher. At you don't seem to be one by the comments in this thread.

 

[hambirg]

Didn't Dane all but admit he had MW's phone that night? So I wonder what the link is between DB/Dane or Jersey/Dane. Perhaps there is no link, Dane wasn't meant to have the phone that night. Or perhaps there is another party that no one knows about that had the phones that night.

I tend to think that he isn't connected. He wasn't supposed to have the phone. I'm not married to that idea though. I think if there does end up being a connection to Dane, it will be with somebody all ready involved. . .PN, SB, JB. . .et al.

 

[hambirg]

Everyone bashes lawyers sometimes. And rightfully so. (see my siggy? lol). I am pretty sure no one would put you in the category of a lawyer-hater. But there ARE some on these boards who seem to insist that anything that comes from a lawyer is untrustworthy. They are not shy about saying it either. As in saying things like "I don't believe _______ because it came from the defense team".

If you go back to the original comment that was by me, I was responding to a poster who said that the story was a LIE. (the exact quote was: "Plus, the teenager never said it to anyone on the defense team, so why did they even put it out there when they knew that, even worse than spin, it was a LIE?") I just didn't think that it was fair to accuse the lawyer of being a LIAR (that's a really strong word, IMO) when there were all kinds of logical reasons he might have said that besides being a liar.

Anyway, unless I am missing something, I don't think that anyone was insinuating that you personally are a lawyer-basher. At you don't seem to be one by the comments in this thread.

The problem with the whole this being a lie by JP is that of course it wasn't an outright lie. But we all know that it is not a defense lawyer's job to determine truth. So did JP know it wasn't the truth? Most likely. Defense attorenys are an officer of the court there to present their clients' case and let the judge and jury determine what the truth is. It is well known SOP of defense attorneys to not ask their clients what happened or what the truth is. THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW! That can be an ethical dilemma for them. What they do ask their clients is what they think the case against them is. . .what does the prosecution know. Even if they think their client is lying to them. . .it is not their job to determine truth. . .only to force the prosecution to prove their case.

What is offensive here is that JP went on national media and portrayed it as if the defense team here is investigating the case. . . trying to get to the truth. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Jim Spellman tweeted that NOT ONE person he has interviewed involving this case has talked to Bill Stanton, but every one of them HAS spoken to LE. JT, JP and BS are not out there tracking down leads!!! They are trying to build a case. Period.

I have said yesterday that if JP isn't fired by the parents today, it will be a HUGE red flag that will knock me off the fence and keep me off. Why? Because if the truth is that your baby is out there somewhere, your defense attorney doesn't go on national TV and say they have a lead that can possibly lead to her abductors. Whether the attorney believes the lead is valid or not makes no difference. If there is even the smallest chance that that lead could be true, you take it to LE, not the media. Otherwise he has just put your child at risk, possibly grave danger. It's irresponsible bordering on negligent! :furious:

ETA-And if the parents don't fire him then it will be obvious what their choice was.. . .building a case or protecting Lisa.

MOO

 

[Donjeta]

It was apparently not hard at all to track down this teenager who allegedly said whatever. The reporter had a quote from him within a day. The legal team could easily have done the same and debunked their story before going to the press with it. They didn't. They say they have investigators in their team. But they didn't investigate. IMO it shows they're not in the business of ferreting out the truth, they're in the business of spinning. They were probably aware that the story was very likely bogus but were very careful not to call this teenager for comments because they couldn't have spun it in the same way if they had. MOO.

 

[Donjeta]

I thought it was ridiculous when it was first said. That said, do we know for sure if he did or did not report it to LE?

I've no idea but if he did and if LE took it in any way seriously IMO they dropped the ball if they didn't advise him to keep a low profile about it. If there's a chance that Lisa could be alive his clients wouldn't want the perps spooked into doing something to her.

 

[mck16]

Not Dane talking to them, but Shane. Totally different person.

Thanks for correcting. Huge difference. jmo

 

[suzilight]

What makes you think her clothes were removed? Source?

I do not have any links, but the baby that was seen by witnesses being carried by a man was wearing only a diaper. All three witnesses stated this fact.

 

[In da Middle]

I've no idea but if he did and if LE took it in any way seriously IMO they dropped the ball if they didn't advise him to keep a low profile about it. If there's a chance that Lisa could be alive his clients wouldn't want the perps spooked into doing something to her.

A teen keeping a low profile about something big???:floorlaugh:
They very well could have told them to keep quiet, but teens being teens.......

 

[annalia]

A teen keeping a low profile about something big???:floorlaugh:
They very well could have told them to keep quiet, but teens being teens.......

Wasn't Donjeta referring to Picerno? :waitasec:

Originally Posted by Donjeta
I've no idea but if he did and if LE took it in any way seriously IMO they dropped the ball if they didn't advise him to keep a low profile about it. If there's a chance that Lisa could be alive his clients wouldn't want the perps spooked into doing something to her.