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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Or, I guess what you all are saying is that these lawyers, will pull out all the stops, etc., show no moral standards and actually go along with KA, even if they truly, truly know that she did kill KLee.
That's kinda what defense lawyers do, right? I'm trying to think back to all the Law & Order shows I have watched.

Spartanmom,

The defense doesn't have to "gag" themselves, and they will deal in speculation and innuendo openly in the media because our justice system permits it on their side. On the other hand, you will rarely hear anything from the State Attorney's office unless it is in court or if it's a broad release of case information under the Florida Sunshine Law. The defense's job, if you will, is to get their client off and cast so much reasonable doubt a jury can't possibly convict her.

The thing that is troublesome to me is how some folks haven't read the entire swath of documents, interviews and audios released already from the State Attorney's office and still insist she's got to be innocent. (Yes, I know innocent until proven guilty is the law in our country -- I understand the necessity for it, but sometimes I think we provide people like Casey too many breaks in the first place, but that model is place so someone isn't wrongly convicted on heresay. ) Those materials give you insight into how much lying Casey did the very first day to investigators (not to mention prior to her brother and parents) and the defense is going to have a difficult time explaining it no matter what they do. In essence, they are going to have to deal with their client's own words, very much like Mark Gregaros had to deal with Scott Peterson's.

I agree with Suzi -- this trial has all the earmarks to be uglier than Scott Peterson's by a long shot.
 
One of the lawyers on Fox pointed out that the jails are FULL of criminals who had good lawyers at trial. I think we can add another to the list.

I am missing something here? Ya think KC has a good lawyer?
 
Another question, I heard on tv this comment, "IF this case goes to trial". What does that mean? What would cause it not to go to trial, her admittance?

If she were to plead guilty and cop a plead deal where all the particulars are worked out prior to trial, the "trial" would be very short.
 
Spartanmom,

The defense doesn't have to "gag" themselves, and they will deal in speculation and innuendo openly in the media because our justice system permits it on their side. On the other hand, you will rarely hear anything from the State Attorney's office unless it is in court or if it's a broad release of case information under the Florida Sunshine Law. The defense's job, if you will, is to get their client off and cast so much reasonable doubt a jury can't possibly convict her.

The thing that is troublesome to me is how some folks haven't read the entire swath of documents, interviews and audios released already from the State Attorney's office and still insist she's got to be innocent. (Yes, I know innocent until proven guilty is the law in our country -- I understand the necessity for it, but sometimes I think we provide people like Casey too many breaks in the first place, but that model is place so someone isn't wrongly convicted on heresay. ) Those materials give you insight into how much lying Casey did the very first day to investigators (not to mention prior to her brother and parents) and the defense is going to have a difficult time explaining it no matter what they do. In essence, they are going to have to deal with their client's own words, very much like Mark Gregaros had to deal with Scott Peterson's.
I agree with Suzi -- this trial has all the earmarks to be uglier than Scott Peterson's by a long shot.



don't know if anyone caught this on LKL---MG was talking about the upcoming trial and suggested that the only way defense would have to counter act against the lies is just saying that she lies....(kinda like him saying that sp was a louse---can't remember his exact opening line)---

jmo
 
[/I]


don't know if anyone caught this on LKL---MG was talking about the upcoming trial and suggested that the only way defense would have to counter act against the lies is just saying that she lies....(kinda like him saying that sp was a louse---can't remember his exact opening line)---

jmo

Yep I heard him - and BTW, he had the opportunity to do this at his Scott Peterson trial and didn't. Reason? It's a no-win situation either way. If you tell a jury "my client's under stress and a liar", you've already lended them the perception your client lies and can't be believed. If you don't address it, the prosecution will. Instead, Mark took the tact in his opening statement that he would prove that someone else took Laci and would introduce evidence to that effect. He didn't do a damn thing.
 
Yep I heard him - and BTW, he had the opportunity to do this at his Scott Peterson trial and didn't. Reason? It's a no-win situation either way. If you tell a jury "my client's under stress and a liar", you've already lended them the perception your client lies and can't be believed. If you don't address it, the prosecution will. Instead, Mark took the tact in his opening statement that he would prove that someone else took Laci and would introduce evidence to that effect. He didn't do a damn thing.

iirc he did go down that path albeit briefly--but think he did say something--just to for a counter attack--more along the lines--okay he isn't great but he didn't kill---kinda like okay she lies but doesn't murder.....

kinda like jb saying we are looking for full disclousure--meaning we need a defense---(and reality saying full disclousure would come from a jail cell)

jmo
 
Yep I heard him - and BTW, he had the opportunity to do this at his Scott Peterson trial and didn't. Reason? It's a no-win situation either way. If you tell a jury "my client's under stress and a liar", you've already lended them the perception your client lies and can't be believed. If you don't address it, the prosecution will. Instead, Mark took the tact in his opening statement that he would prove that someone else took Laci and would introduce evidence to that effect. He didn't do a damn thing.

It appears JB is going down the same path. You can spin imaginary people in public. But the judge isn't going to allow them in a courtroom. I love it.
 
JB the Bully

I finally figured out who JB reminds me of. Remember in the days of "Spanky, Alfalfa" and the gang, where there was the heavyset bully kid who always knocked them around ? Or the kid that makes the other kid stick their tongue to a frozen street post ?

THAT's who he reminds me of ! Trying to bully his way into the crime scene yesterday. What a joke. Who the heck does he think he is anyway. Showboating, All showboating...

Someone else said it perfectly, (forgot who) he's a weeble.
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.:)
 
Could Judge Strickland request this case since he started it.?
Maybe now that he see's this scheme team he will want to stay to make sure justice is served..IMO

I wish Judge Strickland could hear the entire case as well, I don't think he has that option though. Maybe one of the legal eagles here could help.
 
LOS ANGELES — The judge in the Phil Spector murder trial said Wednesday that he had concluded Dr. Henry Lee, a defense expert and one of the country's most famous forensic scientists, hid or destroyed a piece of evidence from the scene of an actress's shooting.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/052307_ctv.html

lol I wonder if the state can use this against the defense? Any lawyer out there know?
 
LOS ANGELES — The judge in the Phil Spector murder trial said Wednesday that he had concluded Dr. Henry Lee, a defense expert and one of the country's most famous forensic scientists, hid or destroyed a piece of evidence from the scene of an actress's shooting.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/052307_ctv.html

Mr.Lee is kinda strange. Has anyone noticed the smug grin he suddenly puts on whenever he sees the cameras? He's the only one on the d team that does that. Baez was probably born smirking.
 
LOS ANGELES — The judge in the Phil Spector murder trial said Wednesday that he had concluded Dr. Henry Lee, a defense expert and one of the country's most famous forensic scientists, hid or destroyed a piece of evidence from the scene of an actress's shooting.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/052307_ctv.html

And these people want the judge to let HIM around a crime scene? Florida LE is not crazy like California ones even letting him around a crime scene.

If nothing else, that alone should tell anyone WHY these people need to keep away.
 
And these people want the judge to let HIM around a crime scene? Florida LE is not crazy like California ones even letting him around a crime scene.

If nothing else, that alone should tell anyone WHY these people need to keep away.

Tee hee hee. The evidence just vanishes. Poof!
 
Oh, Good Grief!!! Whether we like it or not, Casey is entitled to a defense. ALL criminals have that right.

She is certainly entitled to the best darn defense she can afford. And for one attorney to do it pro bono is admirable, but one would have to have fallen off the turnip truck to even imagine that this team is volunteering their time and skills for anything other than the publicity they will generate. And the more outrageous they can be to generate that publicity, the more they take the focus off Caylee and the horrible way she must have died.
 
What happened to Kobi? Is he still on retainer?

I just had this thought- I wonder if Kobi was co-opted, a pre-emptive strike. NG's show is huge. What better way to begin the spin than to put the forensics pundit on retainer and suddenly the opposite comes out of his mouth?

Same with the hiring of the Baden character. Hubby is also a media giant, an expert in forensics- conflict of interest, much?

What better way to control the media/scientific spin than by controlling the big and influential expert mouths.

ETA: scientific
 
IMO, they are all in it for the publicity, which in itself is worth a lot of money to them.

I should also point out that if JB was any good, he wouldn't be announcing the names of the experts he is using. A clever defence lawyer waits until they receive the expert's reports first, as it may turn out that the expert's opinion does not assist their case, and accordingly he/she would not want to call that expert as a witness, and in that case, he could only prejudice and disadvantage his client by going public with it before he gets the reports. Either he's certain he will get reports consistent with his defence from them (which is a concern all by itself), or he's being silly. Where I come from, most of what is in those reports/opinions would be covered by attorney client privilege if he decided not to call those witnesses.

My brother said that was showing his lack of experience..........what IF they find the prosecution is right? Then when he does not call them, most likely the prosecution can and will. It is not privileged only because he is paying them. There are many times they can be used by the prosecution. The only thing which comes under privilege are the written reports given to him, their testimony is not.

Just goes to prove he is the smirking idiot I believe him to be.
 
Do you remember a few months back when Leonard Padilla mentioned a book/movie deal being offered to the A's? I bet that is where the money is coming from. But to tell you the truth, I have 3 daughters and there is no way I would support a daughter who killed my granddaughter. All you have to do is watch the video/audio from the prison conversations to see that the parents were acting like the child and KC was acting like the parents. Could be this has been going on KC's entire life. Get into trouble and out via mommy & daddy. Terrible injustice to Caylee if they do indeed pursue full support for KC. Watching them on Larry King I almost chucked my cookies. Enough is enough already. I would withdraw my support and let her get an appointed lawyer like other people have to do who do not have money. Now it is a travesty being played out in public! Shame on you!
 
LOS ANGELES — The judge in the Phil Spector murder trial said Wednesday that he had concluded Dr. Henry Lee, a defense expert and one of the country's most famous forensic scientists, hid or destroyed a piece of evidence from the scene of an actress's shooting.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/052307_ctv.html

In this case he was giving the defense a problem, but...Still apparently caught in a lie. This at the bottom of the article:

Mr. Litman also referred to a case in Connecticut in the 1970's in which Dr. Spitz mentioned knowing ''personally'' two pathologists from England. Dr. Spitz testified at Mr. Chambers's trial that he had never met the two doctors.

''Did you lie under oath?'' Mr. Litman pressed ''I never lie,'' Dr. Spitz said. ''May I explain?'' ''No, you may not,'' Mr. Litman said.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2A35750C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
 
Hi Everyone! I don't post much but I've been here a long time. Here's my thoughts on why the medical experts should have been allowed to observe the autopsy. Not interfere but strictly to observe. Why not? Then later they wouldn't be spouting obstruction of justice or tainting the evidence, like a couple did tonight on GR. I think Dr. G is just as respected and professional in her field and maybe would have welcome the defense experts to observe her. I know it was because the state said the child had not been positively identified. But I'm 100% sure they know it is her.

But as far as JB saying the experts should be allowed at the crime scene with the FBI and LE,to watch, that's bull. Why would they want the potential of the defense experts interferring with their work, i.e. Henry Lee. We already know what his credibility is. I don't think I've ever heard of a defense team standing by a crime scene, while the FBI and LE investigate.

And my opinion about this Shame Team assembled. Every one of them are there as fame who**s. There's obviously not a dime to pay them up front, so they're just there to be a part of the biggest trial to come along in years, so that they may profit when it concludes. They could care less if Casey is guilty. Once again it's only about profitting from the death of a innocent child and it's disgusting. Does anyone have any morals left in this world!

There are a few reasons "why not?"

- While we may be 99% convinced that it is Caylee, until the full forensics come back it cannot be stated as a legal fact. They cannot and will not let a third party into the autopsy of a child without absolute confirmation that that person has a right to be there. There are serious concerns about violations of privacy of the victim and there family. If that body were to turn out not to be Caylee, and Dr. Lee was in there it becomes a huge issue. Yes these people may be frquest consultants and teachers in forensic pathology. And they may be allowed to observe frequently. But that is when they are wearing a diferent hat. As soon as they signed on as an advocate for the defense, that courtesy can no longer easily be extended.

- The State is legitimately concerned about protecting the victim, the child, in this affair. One of their major points was they did not feel it would be appropriate for graphic descriptions of the childs remains and autopsy to be plastered on every news show within hours of the autopsy. The defense experts ARE paid TV experts. It's what they do. It's why they are involved in the first place.

- At least one of the key defense experts has an isssue with altering or removing evidence from a crime scene. There is no way that LE will let Dr. Lee anywhere near a scene or a body until they are 100% they have everything they need from it. It is very telling that they would let TM in to look at the location, and get his opinion, but not HL. And that is a professional courtesy thing and is wholly in the domain of LE.

- This is also a major slight to the Anthony family and their antics. When dealing with a sane grieving family, LE may have allowed an outside expert if they were convinced that the body was the missing childs. But just look at the stream of comments, lies, mistruths and absolute insanity coming out of the family. LE has provided CA with proof after proof of what happened to Caylee. She has publicly attacked them each and every time, denied, lied and used there words against them. They have no obligation to do the defences work for them, so in this case they are choosing to hedge to the letter of the law. They don't get access until it is proven to be Caylee beyond any scientific doubt. How you treat people does effect how they treat you.

- and finally remember, the family and defense has publicly released photo's of a child obviously not their's taken at a mall using cell phone cameras. Something they certainly had no right to do,a nd something that opened up another child to potential danger from the craziness that they continue to feed. LE has no expectations that any information from that autopsy would be treated with respect, privacy or in an ethical manner at this point.

All of this means that LE is fed up, and the family and defense will not get access until the law says they must. They will not get materials except those the law requires them to get.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
305
Total visitors
521

Forum statistics

Threads
608,535
Messages
18,240,721
Members
234,391
Latest member
frina
Back
Top