Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[robotdog]

I feel better now, Robotdog!

dont you worry one bit RR

i have followed many other cases where people have been convicted on less
and im sure people here have folled many more than i have and have seen it more than i have.

take a deep breath, dont worry go have some nice apple pie and sleep well

IMooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[robotdog]

Personally, I really don't think they have more.

Do I know that for a fact? No.

But I do know thus far, there is no smoking gun.

most cases dont have smoking guns...

 

[RR0004]

I'm sorry, but I still believe the State has a very strong case, albeit circumstantial (as far as we know), against KC. I just don't believe in my heart that a jury of 12 sane people would allow this woman to walk away from a murder charge when it is SO obvious she killed her daughter. Many a criminal has been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

RH may be pointing out the weaknesses in the State's case, but we hear from others that say the case against KC is STRONG. And I also remind myself that we still have not seen all the evidence.

It matters not to me if she gets the DP. It is what she deserves, but as long as she gets LWOP, that will be fine with me.

Thank you, Snaz. The other "position" has already been taken KWIM. The cynic in me says what good would it do to agree with those that were deemed "pro-prosecution".

 

[Snaz]

dont you worry one bit RR

i have followed many other cases where people have been convicted on less
and im sure people here have folled many more than i have and have seen it more than i have.

take a deep breath, dont worry go have some nice apple pie and sleep well

IMooooooooooooooooooooo

I agree..... just because some believe the State doesn't have even more evidence against KC and/or that she will not be convicted... well, that doesn't make it so.

All anyone can do right now is speculate.

 

[whats the punch line]

most cases dont have smoking guns...

Actually I think more do than don't. Criminals aren't that smart...That's why they get caught.

As guilty as I think she is, as dopey as I think Baez is, I think the only time served will be for check fraud. Hard evidence there.

And if I'm wrong, I'll do a happy dance.

 

[RR0004]

See? my concern. They have no smoking gun now.

I do not think she will get convicted in the orange county court.

Just curious as to what the "smoking gun" was in the SP case (just used as an example). I don't think they need a "smoking" gun...but they do have ample ammunition, IMO.

 

[jandkmom]

I don't have a problem with all of the scenarios being discussed because I am sure that the State Attorney's office and Lyons' students have already been discussing lots of scenarios. If anyone at WS thinks of a scenario that the defense might use to get KC off, I would rather the prosecution come up with answers before they are in front of a jury.

 

[citygirl]

OK, Here is the deal.

Mr. Hornsby was nice enough to step into Websleuths.com and take the heat.

Someone said to me the reason people are so mad on this thread is because Mr. Hornsby is pointing out the weaknesses in the Prosecution's case. I agree with that assessment.

I think Casey Anthony is guilty but you know what? I am leaning toward being a not guilty verdict at trial because of what Mr. Hornsby is pointing out. If I had to bet any money it would be that Casey Anthony will be found not guilty. Makes me mad just thinking about it but IMO that's what will happen.

As you can tell we have let a lot to TOS situations go by. We did this because we wanted Mr. Hornsby to feel comfortable and not have to worry. As you can see he speaks his mind.

SO, if you are getting mad you can leave the thread. You do not have to be here. Turn off the computer and let it go. BUT, if you want to be here please keep in mind that Mr. Hornsby is pointing out all the weaknesses in the case. That's all. It's not his fault.

Ok, carry on.

Tricia

I'm loving Mr. Hornsby's input ( seriously gives me the giggles to refer to him as such since I'm old enough to be his mother), but I think you are jumping the gun. I'm not at all convinced that Miss Anthony will walk. And I do believe that she is guilty. You need to step back and keep it simple. Long ago, before all this technology to muddy the waters, Miss Anthony would have been found guilty. Good jurors will use common sense.

I think the main obstacle in all of this is imposing the death penalty. It would be beneficial to read Mr. Hornsby's take on the death penalty. I share his beliefs.

 

[elementary]

OK, Here is the deal.

Mr. Hornsby was nice enough to step into Websleuths.com and take the heat.

Someone said to me the reason people are so mad on this thread is because Mr. Hornsby is pointing out the weaknesses in the Prosecution's case. I agree with that assessment.

I think Casey Anthony is guilty but you know what? I am leaning toward being a not guilty verdict at trial because of what Mr. Hornsby is pointing out. If I had to bet any money it would be that Casey Anthony will be found not guilty. Makes me mad just thinking about it but IMO that's what will happen.

As you can tell we have let a lot to TOS situations go by. We did this because we wanted Mr. Hornsby to feel comfortable and not have to worry. As you can see he speaks his mind.

SO, if you are getting mad you can leave the thread. You do not have to be here. Turn off the computer and let it go. BUT, if you want to be here please keep in mind that Mr. Hornsby is pointing out all the weaknesses in the case. That's all. It's not his fault.

Ok, carry on.

Tricia

With all due respect, I would like to point out that this is simply one viewpoint and one analysis. You have not heard the other side, the other arguments. The man comes on here pushing his viewpoint and opinion, but that doesn't make it the truth or even valid. Unless I can ponder a rebuttal to his arguments, I am not going to be swayed by one seeming authoritative point of view.

In the court room there will be the other side, the prosecution's side. Not just the obvious side of the defence. IMO.

 

[robotdog]

With all due respect, I would like to point out that this is simply one viewpoint and one analysis. You have not heard the other side, the other arguments. The man comes on here pushing his viewpoint and opinion, but that doesn't make it the truth or even valid. Unless I can ponder a rebuttal to his arguments, I am not going to be swayed by one seeming authoritative point of view.

In the court room there will be the other side, the prosecution's side. Not just the obvious side of the defence. IMO.

hello,
exactly how i feel, thank you for posting it !

but that is only one side of the story. i like to hear both sides... and then and only then do pronounce the guilty GUILTY,,, eheheh eeeee

j/k but really lets hear someone else singing the other side before making premature speculative endorsements :angel:

:croc:

 

[rhornsby]

It IS true that we do not know of a certainty how exactly Caylee met her ultimate demise, however, we do not that it involved duct tape. The ME has clearly stated in her report that the duct tape was placed pre-decomp and by any scientific standard, that is pre-death. This same duct tape, which we DO know was placed on Caylee prior to her death, was also found on a gas can which had been in Casey's trunk and was collected from her parents and her home. This same duct tape, a very rare duct tape, discontinued years ago, was also seen on video of Caylee is missing posters, immediately following Casey Anthonys arrest. It is an easy process really to arrive at "beyond a reasonable doubt" with this information. And I do apologize, but any mother, or parent for that matter, who fails to report their child missing for 31 days is already guilty of aggravated child abuse before anything else ever occurred. When ones child is missing, every moment counts, and a parent who fails to report that IS grossly negligent, all else withstanding.

Do we know it (her death) involved duct tape?

Or do we really just know it was put there?

Make no mistake, Dr. G is an incredible ME and honest as the day is long. However, she has never said that the duct tape caused the death - because medically she has been unable to determine the cause of death. Nor has she ever said who killed Caylee.

What a lot of people don't understand about a medical examiner is that they do not approach their role from only a medical science standpoint, rather they approach their role from a social sciences standpoint. The combination of the two fields is forensic science.

So when she makes a statement that the manner of death was homicide, she is simply saying that based on not just her autopsy (which involves medical science), but the law enforcement reports and collateral circumstances surrounding the person's death (which involve social science), that it is safe to say X-individual died as a result of another person's hands. Which is homicide.

And not to oversimplify, it does not take a ME to figure out that Caylee died at the hands of another by putting three simple facts together.

1. Casey said Caylee had been kidnapped
2. Caylee was found dead
3. She was found concealed in a laundry bag in the woods (and yes, duct tape was around the head.)

These three facts rule out the possibility of a natural death and strongly point to another person being involved in the death - thus a homicide.

However, her finding does not preclude an accidental death, it only says the surrounding facts support a homicidal death.

Now a homicide is a forensic determination and murder is a legal determination. So Dr. G. is not going to be allowed to testify that I think a murder occurred. She will only be allowed to testify to her medical findings and then the state will present its other evidence and ask the jury to find that a murder occurred.

For those web sleuths out there who want a simple to read yet thorough book on forensics, I recommend you buy Forensics, a guide for writers, by D.P. Lyle, M.D.

 

[whats the punch line]

Just curious as to what the "smoking gun" was in the SP case (just used as an example). I don't think they need a "smoking" gun...but they do have ample ammunition, IMO.

IMO, Amber Fay

 

[kew17]

all of this guessing is simply premature,

we have not heard all the evidence, for any of us to say what they think the outcome of the trial is a bit much at this time....

i say, dont worry grasshoppers

more evidence to come


but if someone were to ask me... i would say she will be found ABSOLUTLEY
GUILTY

I agree. Let's not forget, the Murder 1 charges came about as a result of what happened in front of the Grand Jury in October 2008. We haven't been privy to that information and probably never will...I said probably.

Which leads me to my questions for Mr. Hornsby:

a) Will the information from that Grand Jury ever come to light? Even at trial?
b) What are your thoughts on Baez's claim that they have "proof" their client is innocent and we'll have to wait and see at trial - it will then all makes sense to us? I realize MM made a boo-boo by saying in open court that they had proof the body was not there until after KC was jailed and the court ordered said proof to be made available by some date in Feb.
c) Do you think what they will provide in Feb is the same "proof" Baez has been referring to in stmts made prior to MM's?
d) What do you believe that proof may be?

I know, I know.....with all the questions. BUT, Inquiring minds want to know!

OT: Has anyone seen the latest NE? Far right on the screen in a headline : "Eyewitness saw Caylee die" I'm not a fan or subscribe to most of their stories, but though it was noteworthy to mention if anyone wanted to read the story themselves.

 

[rhornsby]

Ahead of time, I'm gonna admit this is a bad, bad question.

RH, What do you think of this? Or more specifically, an attorney with this background?

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc95855.pdf

I wasted a really good glass of Rabbit Ridge Sangiovese while reading it.

I think that is immaterial to whether the State will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey intentionally killed Caylee.

 

[citygirl]

Do we know it (her death) involved duct tape?

Or do we really just know it was put there?

Make no mistake, Dr. G is an incredible ME and honest as the day is long. However, she has never said that the duct tape caused the death - because medically she has been unable to determine the cause of death. Nor has she ever said who killed Caylee.

What a lot of people don't understand about a medical examiner is that they do not approach their role from only a medical science standpoint, rather they approach their role from a social sciences standpoint. The combination of the two fields is forensic science.

So when she makes a statement that the manner of death was homicide, she is simply saying that based on not just her autopsy (which involves medical science), but the law enforcement reports and collateral circumstances surrounding the person's death (which involve social science), that it is safe to say X-individual died as a result of another person's hands. Which is homicide.

And not to oversimplify, it does not take a ME to figure out that Caylee died at the hands of another by putting three simple facts together.

1. Casey said Caylee had been kidnapped
2. Caylee was found dead
3. She was found concealed in a laundry bag in the woods (and yes, duct tape was around the head.)

These three facts rule out the possibility of a natural death and strongly point to another person being involved in the death - thus a homicide.

However, her finding does not preclude an accidental death, it only says the surrounding facts support a homicidal death.

Now a homicide is a forensic determination and murder is a legal determination. So Dr. G. is not going to be allowed to testify that I think a murder occurred. She will only be allowed to testify to her medical findings and then the state will present its other evidence and ask the jury to find that a murder occurred.

For those web sleuths out there who want a simple to read yet thorough book on forensics, I recommend you buy Forensics, a guide for writers, by D.P. Lyle, M.D.

I get it. But whatever. It's common sense. Why place 3 strips of tape over the mouth of a child who died accidentally? It makes NO sense.

 

[rhornsby]

What about her pre-arrest conduct? (The text to her friend trying to cover up the smell, renting movies with the boyfriend, clubbing, lollipops, 31 days, 31 days, etc)

Do you think the jury will consider those circumstances?

Yes. It goes to both consciousness of guilt and to a lesser extent premeditation.

 

[rhornsby]

I get it. But whatever. It's common sense. Why place 3 strips of tape over the mouth of a child who died accidentally? It makes NO sense.

In my line of work I don't assume anything, there are a lot of things in this world that do not make sense to me.

 

[rhornsby]

all of this guessing is simply premature,

we have not heard all the evidence, for any of us to say what they think the outcome of the trial is a bit much at this time....

i say, dont worry grasshoppers

more evidence to come


but if someone were to ask me... i would say she will be found ABSOLUTLEY
GUILTY

Smartest thing any of us have said yet.

 

[rhornsby]

With all due respect, I would like to point out that this is simply one viewpoint and one analysis. You have not heard the other side, the other arguments. The man comes on here pushing his viewpoint and opinion, but that doesn't make it the truth or even valid. Unless I can ponder a rebuttal to his arguments, I am not going to be swayed by one seeming authoritative point of view.

In the court room there will be the other side, the prosecution's side. Not just the obvious side of the defence. IMO.

Second smartest thing any of us have said.

 

[whats the punch line]

I think that is immaterial to whether the State will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey intentionally killed Caylee.

Ahh, Sir, not what I asked. I asked what you thought of an attorney with this background.

I asked for your observations, not what the state can prove, or whether it is material to the case.

Quite honestly, I think this has no bearing on Caylee. sadly to some, I'm not looking at the micros's of this. I'm interested in the macro's as well.

I guess what I'm asking is does the case require a more skillful attorney.

And sneakily what you think of Baez at el.