Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

[mitzi]

I thought the FBI isn't part of that deal. They can hold onto test results, no? At least until they're finished, right? I know they've released some of their results to the State...but to me, it didn't seem to include everything we know they took to examine. IOW...somethings appeared to be missing from the reports.

Just got to your post...sorry RR...ya beat me to the punch!

 

[RR0004]

Just got to your post...sorry RR...ya beat me to the punch!

LMTA...robotdog posted about it before me! LOL

 

[JBean]

Just a thought and/or suggestion. The more posts rhornsby has to wade through probably less questions will be answered. I am equally as guilty so i will do my part as well.

 

[RR0004]

Just a thought and/or suggestion. The more posts rhornsby has to wade through probably less questions will be answered. I am equally as guilty so i will do my part as well.

Sorry, JB...should we just stick with questions...no responding to other posts?

 

[JBean]

Sorry, JB...should we just stick with questions...no responding to other posts?

I was just thinking we should keep it to a minimum.

 

[robotdog]

LMTA...robotdog posted about it before me! LOL

hello again RR ,,, yepper i was on it, from the get go.

its there i figure, the defense probably even knows what it is, and they are trying to figgggggggure away to deal with it..

 

[robotdog]

Second smartest thing any of us have said.

yes, it was very smart


nice to you have you here, rhornsby.

i know i appreciate it, even though we dont agree on everything, thats what
gets thing rolling for the better and to make interesting conversation

thank you again

 

[robotdog]

There was no smoking gun with SP yet I think the 'other' circumstantial evidence against KC is so much stronger. 31 days. ZFG story. No worries.

i agree, no worries whatsoever

well, if i was KC i would be worrying :twocents:

 

[robotdog]

so many questions, dont know where to start.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Based on the discovery released so far, who in your opinion is going to be the best witness for the defense? Prosecution?

OT- Tell your brother thanks for the zhu zhu pet. I found it last night at Toys R Us after a 3 hour wait in the cold. Don't doubt, I bought 5 extra to sell on ebay at quadruple the price, simply for my time:woohoo: My kids will be so happy to have a rodent to call their own.

 

[MysticOne]

First of all, I would like to thank Richard Hornsby for taking his time to answer some of our questions. And special thanks to Tricia for letting this thread stand.

However, after reading this very enlightening thread, I have to wonder if we have just been subjected (and enjoyed) a mini version of the defense's opening arguments. It didn't take long for an expert attorney to completely turn the opinion of the possible outcomes in the minds of some.

Now while I realize that this is not a fair test, as it has been one sided, and those who truly feel that the State has a good case against Casey have given up on this thread long ago. I still feel it was an interesting exercise. (Also, in this exercise, we have only dealt with the discovery that has been released to date and have basically ignored most of it.)

Look how fast some of us gave up on some very incriminating, yet highly circumstantial evidence, when an expert attorney gave his opinion that either it wouldn't be allowed in as evidence, or that it didn't carry the necessary weight.

Again, the evidence is not all in and this was not a fair measure of a trial, but I think it was interesting exercise nonetheless.

Maybe it is late and I have had too much leftover turkey, but it makes me wonder, wouldn't it be interesting if we could get an expert attorney from both sides and stage a mock trial based on just the evidence (or discovery) known to date?

 

[BeanE]

First of all, I would like to thank Richard Hornsby for taking his time to answer some of our questions. And special thanks to Tricia for letting this thread stand.

However, after reading this very enlightening thread, I have to wonder if we have just been subjected (and enjoyed) a mini version of the defense's opening arguments. It didn't take long for an expert attorney to completely turn the opinion of the possible outcomes in the minds of some.

Now while I realize that this is not a fair test, as it has been one sided, and those who truly feel that the State has a good case against Casey have given up on this thread long ago. I still feel it was an interesting exercise. (Also, in this exercise, we have only dealt with the discovery that has been released to date and have basically ignored most of it.)

Look how fast some of us gave up on some very incriminating, yet highly circumstantial evidence, when an expert attorney gave his opinion that either it wouldn't be allowed in as evidence, or that it didn't carry the necessary weight.

Again, the evidence is not all in and this was not a fair measure of a trial, but I think it was interesting exercise nonetheless.

Maybe it is late and I have had too much leftover turkey, but it makes me wonder, wouldn't it be interesting if we could get an expert attorney from both sides and stage a mock trial based on just the evidence (or discovery) known to date?

Ashton and Drane-Burdick are no wimps. I have faith in them. They are going to tear the throats out of the defense. For Caylee.

 

[JBean]

First of all, I would like to thank Richard Hornsby for taking his time to answer some of our questions. And special thanks to Tricia for letting this thread stand.

However, after reading this very enlightening thread, I have to wonder if we have just been subjected (and enjoyed) a mini version of the defense's opening arguments. It didn't take long for an expert attorney to completely turn the opinion of the possible outcomes in the minds of some.

Now while I realize that this is not a fair test, as it has been one sided, and those who truly feel that the State has a good case against Casey have given up on this thread long ago. I still feel it was an interesting exercise. (Also, in this exercise, we have only dealt with the discovery that has been released to date and have basically ignored most of it.)

Look how fast some of us gave up on some very incriminating, yet highly circumstantial evidence, when an expert attorney gave his opinion that either it wouldn't be allowed in as evidence, or that it didn't carry the necessary weight.

Again, the evidence is not all in and this was not a fair measure of a trial, but I think it was interesting exercise nonetheless.

Maybe it is late and I have had too much leftover turkey, but it makes me wonder, wouldn't it be interesting if we could get an expert attorney from both sides and stage a mock trial based on just the evidence (or discovery) known to date?

Like the rest of the forum, this thread is more about gathering and analyzing information rather than an exercise, imo. I mean 99% of the forum is about the case against KC.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Ashton and Drane-Burdick are no wimps. I have faith in them. They are going to tear the throats out of the defense. For Caylee.

I also think we need to have faith in the public that "may" sit on the jury. I honestly don't think, based on the evidence thus far, that a murder 1 conviction is coming down the tubes. However, I don't think there is a chance in hell that she is walking..no way, no how. Had she kept her mouth in the closed position, things would be way different IMO, but she didn't and that(along with the memory of her daughter) will haunt her for MANY years to come.

 

[MysticOne]

Like the rest of the forum, this thread is more about gathering and analyzing information rather than an exercise, imo. I mean 99% of the forum is about the case against KC.

JBean, I 100% agree with you, which is what makes this thread so interesting. It is an expression of opposing ideas and in a way a test of the waters to see if you can take a forum that is 99% against Casey and eek out another percentage or two to reasonable doubt.

ETA: While we at WS have enjoyed this thread in order to gain and analyze information... my best bet is that is was an exercise to Richard Hornsby.. to take a pro-prosecution forum, what better test of skills. I mean this as a compliment to RH, as I am amazed at his skills of persuasion and his passion for his trade.

 

[cyberborg]

Bottom-line: If this case is so lacking a needed 'smoking gun' then the Defense would not be working as hard to throw RK under the bus,, work so hard to shape up the basis for appeal after conviction or, file 25 motions to preclude the DP.

IMHO conviction is a foregone conclusion by the Defense, they are working on the sentencing and future appeals.

Like others I'd like to know what was presented at the Grand Jury that supported the indictment of Murder 1. We have not seen everything yet, nor how the SA weaves it together.

 

[babycat]

LOL but thank you for mentioning this. I am of the mind that I would like to see the whole case, including the defense, before making up my mind as to not only innocence or guilt for the current charges, but what can be proven in court. But it does seem at times that when the discussion turns to the prosecutorial problems or weaknesses in the states case the conversation is shot down pretty quickly.

I agree.

I already know what I think, I come here to learn from a point of view that I might not have considered before...even if it opposes my own thoughts/opinions about the case. ESPECIALLY if it is an educated/experienced opinion that opposes my own thoughts/opinions about the case.

But I can understand why many people are reacting that way. It's scary to think that Caylee is dead, and it's possible that no one will be punished (or perhaps not adequately punished) for her murder. It would be a hard pill to swallow. I think some people are just unwilling to entertain the idea that the state doesn't have a slam dunk case.

Personally, I think Casey is guilty as sin. I think she murdered Caylee. But, I question the stability of some of the evidence in the case.

Something Mr. Hornsby said earlier really struck a chord with me- about "us" being here and poring over this case for over a year, and being here of our own free will- yet the jury having this case for possibly a few weeks, and being away from their families, etc.

That really made me think...

 

[nobull]

That is basically called Felony Murder. So since it is Aggravated Child Abuse to torture, disfigure, or injure a child; it can be enhanced to First Degree Murder because it is assumed that the possibility of death was foreseeable when the underlying felony was committed.

So, it seems that it would certainly be aggravated child abuse if a child had duct tape placed over their mouth pre-mortem since the intent was at bare minimum to torture said child. Most people would know that putting duct tape on a 2 year old's mouth would have a high probability for respiratory distress since anyone that has ever taken CPR knows that respiratory distress is the leading cause of death in children.

 

[babycat]

First of all, I would like to thank Richard Hornsby for taking his time to answer some of our questions. And special thanks to Tricia for letting this thread stand.

However, after reading this very enlightening thread, I have to wonder if we have just been subjected (and enjoyed) a mini version of the defense's opening arguments. It didn't take long for an expert attorney to completely turn the opinion of the possible outcomes in the minds of some.

Now while I realize that this is not a fair test, as it has been one sided, and those who truly feel that the State has a good case against Casey have given up on this thread long ago. I still feel it was an interesting exercise. (Also, in this exercise, we have only dealt with the discovery that has been released to date and have basically ignored most of it.)

Look how fast some of us gave up on some very incriminating, yet highly circumstantial evidence, when an expert attorney gave his opinion that either it wouldn't be allowed in as evidence, or that it didn't carry the necessary weight.

Again, the evidence is not all in and this was not a fair measure of a trial, but I think it was interesting exercise nonetheless.

Maybe it is late and I have had too much leftover turkey, but it makes me wonder, wouldn't it be interesting if we could get an expert attorney from both sides and stage a mock trial based on just the evidence (or discovery) known to date?

I understand what you are saying, but why shouldn't we be listening to this? This is the same sort of thing that a juror will hear at trial. (Not directed to you, it was really just a rhetorical question...I understand the nature of your post.)



As far as people giving up on incriminating information because a defense attorney shot it down, I can say that many, many times I have thought in this case (hell, even POSTED in this case) "This is it! The smoking gun!" Only to call my mother on the phone (another dear websleuths member ) and find us both shooting holes in our own theories. My mom is certainly no defense attorney- we're just two normal (well, maybe not normal) people who realize that even though we want the case to be airtight, there will be holes in the case when it goes to trial, and people on the jury might be swayed by the defense.

Some of us had these doubts before any defense attorney posted here, but they aren't always popular theories or welcome opinions, so we just keep quiet.

Do I think Casey is guilty of murdering Caylee? Yes! Do I want to see her serve LWOP? Yes! Am I convinced that she will be convicted of first degree murder, or get the death penalty, or serve lwop, etc, based on the case the state has now, before we know that will be allowed as evidence? No.

 

[JBean]

JBean, I 100% agree with you, which is what makes this thread so interesting. It is an expression of opposing ideas and in a way a test of the waters to see if you can take a forum that is 99% against Casey and eek out another percentage or two to reasonable doubt.

ETA: While we at WS have enjoyed this thread in order to gain and analyze information... my best bet is that is was an exercise to Richard Hornsby.. to take a pro-prosecution forum, what better test of skills. I mean this as a compliment to RH, as I am amazed at his skills of persuasion and his passion for his trade.

I guess I don't think of this as a pro-prosecution forum but rather a pro-justice forum. Sometimes that justice comes in the form of solid prosecution and sometimes in the form of a good defense.
I don't find rhornby's comments as any kind of defense of KC's innocence or guilt but rather just a defense perspective on the case. So I still don't understand the exercise and testing the waters references.
It is all about discussion to me and if the goal was to persuade us of something I am not sure what that would be exactly. I find it mostly just informative.