LYONS AUDIO TAPES and BS VIDEO GONE? Discussion with R HORNSBY here

[Jersey*Girl]

I have to wonder.....if one pays for attendance at a seminar. How can they be required to not discuss anything about a seminar. I can see if their attendance is sponsored or is part of another program, but if you pay for it...do you not have the right to discuss your opionions of that event?

This is why I was asking if it was also publicly funded, even somewhat. The rules could change, if so.

...meaning, if she's a teacher, how is this ethical...how can it even be legal (the things she's stating in the seminar). If she's a teacher, still, or even contracted to speak at the university, then that in itself is partially funded. Ok, follow me for a sec... If a preschool teacher, elementary school teacher or principal - or any other educator - had compromising pictures on their MySpace page showing bottled beer in their hands or them partying over a summer break, they could be fired...matter of fact, have been fired in previous months over this. If a student athlete gets drunk (underage) at a party & is taken to the police station but let go with a warning when his parents pick him up and he tells his athletic director in hs the next day b/c he's honest - this boy was pulled off the football team and LOST his scholarship! This just happened in my town - I know his parents. The kid wasn't even arrested, just detained, and it could have ruined his future over a minor indiscretion. Our local BOE held an emergency meeting & voted that it tainted the reputation of this young man, as well as the HS. Luckily somebody else pulled him in & he's now going to go to college in NC, instead of VA. Ok, well if these people have to pay a penalty for doing something that may seem unethical, why wouldn't this professional attorney be held to the same reprimand? Especially if she's still employed somewhat by a college or university? Hmmm...I wonder if such a university receives some sort of federal or state funding...I should think it would! As citizens, it's something we should all be looking into!

 

[momtective]

If you would be so kind, one more question, and then I'm off to bed. Given what you know about this case so far, if you were defending Ms Anthony, do you think you may have recommended your client consider a plea deal?

And, seeing how Baez has functioned up until now, do you believe he might have ever considered a deal but was/would be overruled by his client, or do you think he may be convincing Casey that they have everything well in hand and are eager for trial?

OK, that's two questions ... thanks again for your candor.

I also want to thank Mr. Hornsby for his taking the time to respond to our questions and also for being a member of the very best crime sleuthing website there is...WS.

Rulaub44, I appreciate these two questions and wonder if Baez ever even considered a plea...if KC ever considered a plea and how other defense Attny's would have handled this case differently.

I also want someone, anyone actually, to tell me how defense attorney's live with themselves when they know in their heart of hearts that their client has committed such a heinous crime as murdering a child and dumping her body like trash on the side of the road. When all of the evidence points to the clients guilt but a good defense attorney manages to manipulate and discredit the evidence all in the name of what? Justice? Someone tell me please, where is the satisfaction in that? Where is the Justice?

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I am now getting a clearer picture of AL motives. Per her articles, that I have cited in this thread, her motivation is not to state guilt or innocence, but rather save a life. One of her methods (again outlined in articles) is to introduce alternative theories. She doesn't state proving SODDI, just introducing other theories. I expect that she will use Kronk, not in an attempt to prove he did it, nor to prove KC didn't, but rather in an effort to introduce him and prior acts during her "introduction to alternative theories 101 lesson" she plans to present to the jury. Remember.....her sole job here is not to defend guilt or innocence AND she has said as much. She has been retained to prevent the DP. Nothing more...nothing less. If however, she is precluded from using info on Kronk discussed in the recent memo, during that "introduction to alternative theories" lesson, she needs to know that ahead of time and plan for alternate "bus accident" victim(s) or theory supporters.

Exactly. This is also the same reasoning I found behind why LKB takes on the cases that she does...also M baden & H Lee. They don't believe in the DP unless every single piece of evidence proves 100% that the perp in question is the killer. If there's even a .05% chance the evidence could have been compromised, then they'll fight tooth & nail to prove not guilty. Not Guilty does not mean Innocent - In M Baden's very own words on his HBO Autopsy show referring to OJ's case.

Lyons takes being Anti-DP to the next level. She doesn't believe in it at all. Since every year better technology is created & utilized, people on Death Row gain new trials & are exonerated. What about the years on Death Row that they lost? Would a million bucks make up for being on Death Row for 12 years? What about if they were actually innocent, but are dead b/c of the DP being carried out, only to have better technology pop up and exonerate them after they paid the ultimate price with their life? This is why Lyons fights tooth & nail for this cause she so justly believes in.

I believe, no matter what, she shouldn't be teaching the methods she was teaching in that lecture/seminar. I personally believe it should be illegal. If it's illegal to guide somebody in how to kill somebody & they carry out that killing, then surely it should be illegal to manipulate the system in throwing an innocent person under the bus. For this, I personally believe Lyons should pay a price & be reprimanded legally. I mean, afterall, even GreenPeace have to account for their actions...kwim?

 

[Jersey*Girl]

momtective, just wanted to say I heart you.

 

[manatee]

BBM
MS Lyons did not inject herself into this case in order to obtain justice for the murder of Caylee Anthony..
A Victims Advocate she is not :twocents:

I agree she is also fair game to whomever wishes to investigate her as well..especially since she also plays and most likely instigates that vicious game.

I pray that she is never the victim of a sexual attack...for her own words may come back to bite her.

(bolded by me!)
BINGO! She 'injected" herself in this case to use it as a platform for abolishment of the death penalty. That's her agenda. it's simple! She could also care less if kC rots in jail...she is just looking to shed "light" on the horrors of the death penalty and that she believes that if you are for the death penalty you are a murderer as well...plain as day that this is what her crusade is. As far as release of the tapes...I'm sure that is just a copyright violation. We are making more of this than what it is IMHO!

 

[Jersey*Girl]

The Death is Different seminar is privately funded, no tax dollars go to it at all.

Thank you, Mr. Hornsby.

Quick question, do you agree with Lyon's diatribe? Do you practice this same ethic? Nothing I've found about you (so far) has suggested that you do. I'm just asking. :angel:

 

[celticthyme]

momtective, just wanted to say I heart you.

ME TOO!

Caylee in death, now has advocates!

Trying to vilify victim's and those who support them, rather than the murderer and those making money off of this child is horrific.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I think it would be interesting to know how many defense attorneys have been victims of violent crime or had a loved one in that predictament. I would also wonder if it changed the way they do their job and how many even changed careers as a result.

I know defense attorneys do have a job to defend their client, but it seems to me that they could do that without degrading victims of crime. I know there are good defense attorneys with morals, and I will not let Ms. Lyons comments jade me on the whole group.

It seems, to me, that we have seen some very bad examples of legal "professionals" in this case. I may be naive, but I do expect more from these "officers of the court"...I guess the larger the case, the more the vultures are drawn to it.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

My honest answer is absolutely not, actually just the opposite. No one likes what we do, but if we didn't exist, the entire country would be locked up.

This case is a train wreck because of Baez's initial handling, I think any other lawyer would have worked this case from a different angle.

Casey Anthony's behavior alone would make this case difficult to win, the "Kronks" of the case are just interesting sideshows from a legal perspective.

You can put all the lipstick you want on this pig, its still a pig...

Re my bold. Could you please tell me if her actions (drinking & drugging, sleeping around, not reporting her daughter missing, etc) could be used against her in the sentencing phase...or just in the penalty phase? Also, if the State's evidence isn't 100%, wouldn't it be cheaper to take Death off the table and go for LWOP? Coming from a lawyer's perspective, why is the Prosecution keeping the DP on the table? Are they trying to "sweat it out" or are they really serious? Not to be taken out of context, please. I just don't understand why they're going for the DP. In my brain, I want them to - but only if the evidence is 100%...so far, I just don't see that. Also, could all this sideshow help to garner Casey an appeal? Are you helping to create that effect by releasing the info that you do? I'm not being snarky, I literally don't know. I'm only using you as an example, as well as BS providing the info from the FACDL...let alone mentioning Baez's lack of legal knowledge & proper ethics.

 

[momtective]

respectfully snipped and bbm.

Lyons takes being Anti-DP to the next level. She doesn't believe in it at all. Since every year better technology is created & utilized, people on Death Row gain new trials & are exonerated. What about the years on Death Row that they lost? Would a million bucks make up for being on Death Row for 12 years? What about if they were actually innocent, but are dead b/c of the DP being carried out, only to have better technology pop up and exonerate them after they paid the ultimate price with their life? This is why Lyons fights tooth & nail for this cause she so justly believes in.

While I agree wholeheartedly with this train of thought, I also believe there are times when the evidence is 99.9%-100% that the client did indeed commit the crime. I don't agree with defense attny's who twist and manipulate the law and look for loopholes and technicalities to exonerate and free those who are truly guilty of committing heinous crimes.
A dog, is a dog, is a dog...you can't make it a cat, or a pig, or a horse. You can dress it like a cat or a pig or a horse and you may even be able to convince some ignorant people that it is indeed a cat or a pig or a horse. But in your heart of hearts you know the truth, it's a danm dog!

 

[Rlaub44]

I think it would be interesting to know how many defense attorneys have been victims of violent crime or had a loved one in that predictament. I would also wonder if it changed the way they do their job and how many even changed careers as a result.

I know defense attorneys do have a job to defend their client, but it seems to me that they could do that without degrading victims of crime. I know there are good defense attorneys with morals, and I will not let Ms. Lyons comments jade me on the whole group.

It seems, to me, that we have seen some very bad examples of legal "professionals" in this case. I may be naive, but I do expect more from these "officers of the court"...I guess the larger the case, the more the vultures are drawn to it.

Bold by me:

I agree wholeheartedly. I was just thinking this morning that the phrase "vigorous defense" shouldn't have to equate to "reckless defense" or "injurious defense".

When you are knowingly harming a person that you know to be innocent, in an attempt to create doubt for your client, that to me should be unethical. I know that defense attorneys would never admit publically that they are doing that, but I don't know how a human can become so blinded by the pursuit of "the win" that they can excuse the collateral damage they are directly causing.

JMO

 

[Jersey*Girl]

While I agree wholeheartedly with this train of thought, I also believe there are times when the evidence is 99.9%-100% that the client did indeed commit the crime. I don't agree with defense attny's who twist and manipulate the law and look for loopholes and technicalities to exonerate and free those who are truly guilty of committing heinous crimes.
A dog, is a dog, is a dog...you can't make it a cat, or a pig, or a horse. You can dress it like a cat or a pig or a horse and you may even be able to convince some ignorant people that it is indeed a cat or a pig or a horse. But in your heart of hearts you know the truth, it's a danm dog!

Yep...I completely agree with you, mom, completely!

 

[mydailyopinions]

(bolded by me!)
BINGO! She 'injected" herself in this case to use it as a platform for abolishment of the death penalty. That's her agenda. it's simple! She could also care less if kC rots in jail...she is just looking to shed "light" on the horrors of the death penalty and that she believes that if you are for the death penalty you are a murderer as well...plain as day that this is what her crusade is. As far as release of the tapes...I'm sure that is just a copyright violation. We are making more of this than what it is IMHO!

I agree, and also feel that she doesn't care that a 2 year old child rotted on the side of the road for months. Never mind the poor child, just don't impose the death penalty on the monster who killed this baby.

Oh, and by the way (just in case she reads here), Mrs. Lyons, I guess I am a murderer, I believe in the death penalty..(in some cases, including this one)

 

[wenwe4]

Again, I think this is the very reason why AL believes she is an excellent dp defense atty, the very fact that many of us here at WS could never lie or throw an innocent person under the bus, AL says she can - and I for one believe her (on this aspect). The very forum and website we are on speaks volumes about our own motivation for justice in the world. I don't think AL is of the same mindset about "morality" because she has defined her own "morality" about the dp.

 

[MD MOMMY]

(bolded by me!)
BINGO! She 'injected" herself in this case to use it as a platform for abolishment of the death penalty. That's her agenda. it's simple! She could also care less if kC rots in jail...she is just looking to shed "light" on the horrors of the death penalty and that she believes that if you are for the death penalty you are a murderer as well...plain as day that this is what her crusade is. As far as release of the tapes...I'm sure that is just a copyright violation. We are making more of this than what it is IMHO!

I'm not convinced she injected herself here. We have Baez posting questions on a list serve to tons of defense attorneys. He was/is obviously way over his head. I'm sure AL was HAPPY to oblige but I see her more of being sought out. Baez may have even heard her ridiclous performance at the conference and thought to himself "here is someone who is as ruthelss and cunning as I am"..it seemed like a good fit, so he rolled with it. IMO AL may have just ruined her career.

 

[MD MOMMY]

I also want to thank Mr. Hornsby for his taking the time to respond to our questions and also for being a member of the very best crime sleuthing website there is...WS.

Rulaub44, I appreciate these two questions and wonder if Baez ever even considered a plea...if KC ever considered a plea and how other defense Attny's would have handled this case differently.

I also want someone, anyone actually, to tell me how defense attorney's live with themselves when they know in their heart of hearts that their client has committed such a heinous crime as murdering a child and dumping her body like trash on the side of the road. When all of the evidence points to the clients guilt but a good defense attorney manages to manipulate and discredit the evidence all in the name of what? Justice? Someone tell me please, where is the satisfaction in that? Where is the Justice?

I worked for a great defense firm in DC. I only lasted a year. As a paralegal I couldn't even believe some of the stuff I witnessed. It takes a "special kind" to be a defense attorney IMO. Certain morals just fly out of the window in this profession. I even felt "dirty" doing research on most of the cases we defended. Bottem line is that is their job, as sick as it may be, their job is to find loopholes, discredit, point fingers...you name it. It's IMO a very sleezy job, not one that many people can do and do well. As RH said "it's all about the fight", it's about WINNING..not how you got there, or not what the person did but WINNING. I can actually understand a bit b/c I was there. I have found a way to pretty much ignore half of the stuff coming from the defense, it's a matter of going through the motions(no pun intended.)

 

[RR0004]

Oh no, make no mistake I just dislike Kathi Belich as a reporter (I sit in bed and tell my fiance, that fricking Kathi Embelish is at it again).

My real problem was with Mr. Sheafer, Ms. Embelish would report on Casey Anthony stories and Mr. Sheaffer would make up law to support her stories.

And so people would say things to me like, well that is not what Bill said. And so once I actually reviewed some of his major pieces, I realized he was basically making the law up.

I guess a comparison would be the Wall Street Journal reporter who just made up imaginary headlines. That was what BS was doing with his legal commentary - what's that Ms. Embelish, you need me to say what so you can sound aggressive and informed.

I mean if you guys just want me to tell you what you want to hear, say so. I will just put an asterick by any response so you know it is BS (no pun intended).

No asteriks necessary, but links would be great!

 

[RR0004]

I'm not convinced she injected herself here. We have Baez posting questions on a list serve to tons of defense attorneys. He was/is obviously way over his head. I'm sure AL was HAPPY to oblige but I see her more of being sought out. Baez may have even heard her ridiclous performance at the conference and thought to himself "here is someone who is as ruthelss and cunning as I am"..it seemed like a good fit, so he rolled with it. IMO AL may have just ruined her career.

Ya know, we never did her about JS's complaint to the Bar, did we?

 

[RR0004]

Thanks to Angel for posting this in the updates thread.

*More at link!

Casey Anthony: WFTV's Bill Sheaffer answers latest criticism from TV analyst
posted by halboedeker on Nov 24, 2009 11:02:58 PM
<snipped>
Sheaffer issued a statement to me tonight: "As your readers have seen over the past several days, one way to obfuscate the truth and shift focus from damning facts it to create a straw man upon whom to lodge false allegations. It is an unfortunate, but sometimes effective, way of creating a diversion orchestrated to cause confusion and to divert attention from the core issues.

It looks as if Hornsby has a fight, all right. What do you make of that?

Article:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...y+%28TV+Guy%29

Yup...he's 100% correct! And he said it in a dignified way...wasn't telling anyone to "drop dead" so to speak.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Ya know, we never did her about JS's complaint to the Bar, did we?

Nope it seems to have gone POOF in the night:waitasec: I was actually very much looking forward to hearing about it too!