Million Dollar Dream Team. Discuss the Players Here and UPDATE INFO

[joypath]

While the article in the Sentinel might have come up because Kathy Reichs name is on the defence list - this TV show started in 2005, long before this case. When the show first aired there were numerous articles about it and about the books that it is based on. So I don't think this article or the actors involved can be said to be fame and/or money seekers. In fact, the actress is saying that people will like to show because people like Kathy Reich's books. I seriously doubt those comments had anything to do with this case, in fact I would be very surprised if Emily Deschanel is even vaguely aware of this case.

:twocents:My theory: Kathy Reich's came on board because it was a CHILD VICTIM, given the possibility of what she may have been told by the defense gang :bangheadincluding ahem direct quotes from ICA :loser:via JB:croc and that she would be able to PERHAPS utilize some of the information garnered within her story lines blushing:AFTER significant fictionalizing, of course!:blushing. This is a lady who does do pro bono of the ENTIRE package: her expertise, time, & up-keep and has the ability to "get'er done" regarding scientific testing. The field of forensic anthropology is fortunate to have her :dance:because she's shed light on a major "unknown": criminals can be apprehended many moons after they assume no one cares or no one has a skill set to find them!
Emily Deschanel: working as an actress & producer, great spokesperson for the SHOW :angel:but not Dr. Reich's spokesperson regarding anthropology:innocent:.

 

[mitzi]

Just remember in the illustrious "words" of AL........

We found 100% of time whoever hired him got his opinion.
I would send guy $100 to consult each case and it would keep him off the stand. For pros.

With Pros witnesses….follow the money. Some psych will find a table fit for trial. See how often they are hired by state. Correlate their opinion with who hires them.

If we find inconsistencies in stories we think we will win. I was brilliant in exposing inconsistencies.

I will be ready for trial when I have to and not one minute before.

Links in the AL thread.

Red bold above mine.

Well, gee, we don't think too highly of ourself now do we.

 

[LambChop]

Just remember in the illustrious "words" of AL........

We found 100% of time whoever hired him got his opinion.
I would send guy $100 to consult each case and it would keep him off the stand. For pros.

With Pros witnesses….follow the money. Some psych will find a table fit for trial. See how often they are hired by state. Correlate their opinion with who hires them.

If we find inconsistencies in stories we think we will win. I was brilliant in exposing inconsistencies.
I will be ready for trial when I have to and not one minute before.

Links in the AL thread.

Maybe one of the reason's AL left was because she could not uncover an "inconsistencies" in the evidence against KC? jmo

 

[sleutherontheside]

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200705/profile2.asp

Dr. Jane Bock

Not long after the body was found, Bock's phone rang once again. Could she use scraps of plants from a suspect's car to determine his recent whereabouts? The police had combed the Toyota belonging to Mirabal's husband, Matthew, and collected fresh plant material from the carpet, pedals, windshield wipers, and wheel wells. Bock visited the crime scene in Left Hand Canyon, where she skirted the still-visible gore to collect samples of plants from the surrounding forest. Back at the university, she identified both sets of samples, looking for common species.

Matthew Mirabal said that on the night of the murder, Natalie left their house in Longmont to go shopping, while he and their baby daughter stayed home. The plant material on his car suggested otherwise: At least one of the species Bock identified was not found in Longmont, but only at higher elevations, such as the site where the body was discovered. It was only circumstantial evidence, but it showed that Matthew wasn't telling the whole truth; when combined with other findings and testimony, the information led to his conviction.

 

[zoey]

Interesting she implies she detects dishonesty and instead of being repulsed by this person, she jumps on the chance to perpetuate his dishonesty for her own gain. Why is she allowed to practice law? Unbelievable.

And this is why I hate defense lawyers and way they convey their messages! It is like a game --- raising the level of doubt---shameful and shouldn't be in practice! Then they always go around "searching for the truth"....PLEASE!!!!

 

[Patriciao]

They are in for notoriety. Forever after whether Casey is found guilty or not, the defense team will have their names in history, i.e. Johnny Cochran, Robert Kardashian, F. Lee Baily...without a famous case to be associated wtih these names would be barely recognizable to much of the public.

 

[kaRN]

Oh goody another fame/money seeker. I bet the SA are going to love this. Hiw utterly disgusting. I'm sure there won't be an episode of Bones resembling this case!

There's always next season. :furious:

 

[ZsaZsa]

I can't imagine any team less likely or deserving of being called the Dream Team- who came up with that? It has to be Media, not someone who knows anything about them...

 

[ziggy]

I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly & please forgive me if I'm not but a defense attorney's only obligation is to his or her client.

Anything an attorney's client says to him is privileged information & can not be used against him even if that attorney were to report it to LE or the court.Which would probably also get that attorney disbarred.

Wether or not an Attorney decides to continue defending a client even if they know he or she is guilty is a "Moral" issue not a legal one.

There was a recent well known case in California were a man was accused of kidnapping & murdering a little girl who lived next door to him.

He told his attorney that he would tell LE where he buried the body if LE would not seek the death penalty.

Before the attorney & LE finished discussing the plea deal the body was found & LE refused to continue the negotiations & went ahead with the death penalty .

During the trial the attorney still went ahead & vigorously defended his client & argued that he was not the man responsible for the little girls murder even though he knew otherwise.

After the trial the public learned that the man convicted had admitted his guilt to his attorney & there was a huge backlash against him because he knew his client was guilty but the bottom line was that he was only doing his job & he did nothing illegal.

Like I said, it's not a legal issue for an attorney it's a moral one.

The ethical issue (and the attorneys of WS can correct me if I'm wrong) here in the Westerfield case was that an attorney is still allowed to put on defense for his client, but if he has actual knowledge of his guilt, he is not supposed to put on a defense of SODDI. He can attack the credibility of witnesses, forensic evidence etc. to create reasonable doubt but cannot assert someone else committed the crime.

That is where I think the California Bar let us down by not holding Stephen Fledman accountable for this violation.