The Justice System and KC

[Leila]

there are so many smart legal people on these threads it can be very intimidating to post. i am usually afraid that i will not be able to express myself as well as others.

but let me try:

i understand the need for defense attorneys, and i respect the american justice system. and i have heard all of the arguments. and YES, if i was accused of a crime of course i would want someone to defend me.

but i wonder if defense attorneys ever feel in a small place in their heart/soul a little bit of guilt for winning? if they truly knew their client was guilty, but was able to "win" an acquital because of a legal technicality...is the "win" worth it?

Tracy...............I couldn't agree more with your post!

 

[JBean]

EXACTLY...if LE had not done their job per the "rules" and relevant evidence gets thrown out and causes a guilty person to "get away" with a crime. the fault lies with the LE.

however, just because a guilty person "gets away" with a crime, it does NOT make them any less guilty, does it? it just makes them a guilty unpunished person. that benefits from a LE mistake.

so, our justice system is basically an "exercise" that sometimes punishes the guilty people...???

But there are reasons that the evidence is inadmissble and I am glad that those reasons exist. As i say they are intended to protect the innocent and maintain the integrity of the conviction.
But if LE doesn't follow the rules and protocol for collecting evidence, how can we fault the defense attorneys for bringing it to light?
They too want to maintain that a conviction is just.

Don't misunderstand, I too am frustrated by legal technicalities that prevent conviction of those that are obviously guilty and I don't like it one bit. It can be a frustration and a travesty.
But it is the collectors of evdidence that make me nuts. They know the risk they run when they do not follow protocol.

Still and all, I 100% support the rules of evidence because they are ther for you and me also.

 

[cyberborg]

Thanks Tracy. This is one question I have about defense attorneys, and that's the subject of ethics.

All attorneys must work within the law. At what point is it no longer a matter of questionable ethics and instead becomes a crime?

Let me lay out a "what if" type of situation as it pertains to the Casey Anthony case...................

According to Dominic Casey, defense attorney JB, who knew DC was searching the woods off of Suburban for Caylee's remains, told DC that if he found Caylee not to call the police.

For the sake of this "what if" scenario.............what if DC had found Caylee's remains, reported this to JB, and JB failed to report finding Caylee's remains to police.

It would seem to me that this is no longer a matter of questionable ethics, but a crime to withhold evidence from the police. In this case, the remains of Caylee Anthony, would be considered major evidence.

I wasn't so concerned with the 'not' reporting if DC ever located Caylee's remains ..... more if they would resort to tampering by placing or removing evidence? DC/JB never got the opportunity to move or tamper with any remains but what was the true intent of telling DC not to call LE -- allegedly?

DC was not searching because the Defense wanted the remains found, since there was so much tying to the house --- so why the search and what was the intent?

Even to process the scene before LE would be tampering, right? They were treading on dangerous ground and were saved by Kronk --- unless the search was to feed better precision to Kronk?

This is where things step over the bounds.......

 

[s1rebecca]

I guess it depends what foot the shoe is on. If I or one of my loved ones was the vicitim of a crime hopefully the justice system would prevail. Unfortunately that's not always what happens. The more money you have the better defense you get.

 

[tracy87]

new question:

if it were up to you, would you agree to a MUCH lighter sentence for kc if she were to confess and give full disclosure (and express true remorse) of what exactly happened?
or would you rather her get the death penalty, but NEVER get the answers to what truly happened?

what is more important to you? punishing kc to the fullest no matter what OR

finding the exact truth, answering all questions and giving CA, GA and LA and all of Caylee's family peace, but kc gets a second chance at a life outside of prison?

 

[Wudge]

EXACTLY...if LE had not done their job per the "rules" and relevant evidence gets thrown out and causes a guilty person to "get away" with a crime. the fault lies with the LE.

however, just because a guilty person "gets away" with a crime, it does NOT make them any less guilty, does it? it just makes them a guilty unpunished person. that benefits from a LE mistake.

so, our justice system is basically an "exercise" that sometimes punishes the guilty people...???

Sometimes people who truly commit a felony level crime are not even brought to trial or, if they are brought to trial, are acquitted.

Sometimes people who have done nothing wrong are wrongfully convicted.

(As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back. ... from Rudyard Kipling's: Law of the Jungle.)

 

[Horace Finklestein]

(This ........ caused me to laugh until my stomach hurt.)

Trust me. It's not an everyday occurrence that someone hires a defense attorney with the hope they will get their new client to 'fess up'.

(God bless you. I hope things work out for the best, whatever that might be.)

Yeah god forbid anyone does the right thing.

 

[cyberborg]

new question:

if it were up to you, would you agree to a MUCH lighter sentence for kc if she were to confess and give full disclosure (and express true remorse) of what exactly happened?
or would you rather her get the death penalty, but NEVER get the answers to what truly happened?

what is more important to you? punishing kc to the fullest no matter what OR

finding the exact truth, answering all questions and giving CA, GA and LA and all of Caylee's family peace, but kc gets a second chance at a life outside of prison?

For me personally, KC never ever told the truth to CA --- she just got to a point where CA accepted the story as more believable and moved on.

So, if KC accepted a plea deal that required full disclosure you'd only ever get KC's version of events --- not the graphic truth.

As Judge S eloquently stated, "the truth and Miss Anthony are strangers".

I doubt KC will ever accept a plea deal because she will not want to admit anything, it isn't her style -- she'd take the truth to the grave -- literally!!

 

[tracy87]

For me personally, KC never ever told the truth to CA --- she just got to a point where CA accepted the story as more believable and moved on.

So, if KC accepted a plea deal that required full disclosure you'd only ever get KC's version of events.

As Judge S eloquently stated, "the truth and Miss Anthony are strangers".

I doubt KC will ever accept a plea deal because she will not want to admit anything, it isn't her style -- she'd take the truth to the grave -- literally!!

oh i agree, kc will NEVER tell the truth.

this was just a hypothetical question.

i just wondered how people felt about it? what was more important? appropriate punishment or finding the truth? if i HAD to sacrifice one for the other....

i would choose the truth. i would choose to know the complete truth and punish kc less than she deserves over NOT knowing the complete truth and punishing kc exactly how much she deserves.

what would you choose?

 

[cyberborg]

oh i agree, kc will NEVER tell the truth.

this was just a hypothetical question.

i just wondered how people felt about it? what was more important? appropriate punishment or finding the truth? if i HAD to sacrifice one for the other....

i would choose the truth. i would choose to know the complete truth and punish kc less than she deserves over NOT knowing the complete truth and punishing kc exactly how much she deserves.

what would you choose?

I would want the TRUTH, the Defense and the A's glibly talk about their quest for the truth but that's the truth that fits the story/ending they want and not the real truth.

Telling the TRUTH is the first step in any rehabilitation and so many times the family of the victim suffers because even when the perp is jailed for Life or faces the DP --- there is no closure for the victims family.

I value the TRUTH but it is like searching for the Holy Grail --- even when you find it .... is it really the truth or a version of?

 

[Pondering Mind]

I guess it depends what foot the shoe is on. If I or one of my loved ones was the vicitim of a crime hopefully the justice system would prevail. Unfortunately that's not always what happens. The more money you have the better defense you get.

Not directed @ you s1rebecca, just bouncing off of your post if you don't mind.:crazy:

But, just a hypothetical question..if JBean will allow and anyone cares to answer, lol.

What if you were the defense attorney that got a murderer off (even though they were guilty and you knew it) and said murderer's next victim was your daughter (or loved one) would you still feel the same way about the justice system then? ESPECIALLY if another defense atty. was able to do the same?

 

[JBean]

oh i agree, kc will NEVER tell the truth.

this was just a hypothetical question.

i just wondered how people felt about it? what was more important? appropriate punishment or finding the truth? if i HAD to sacrifice one for the other....

i would choose the truth. i would choose to know the complete truth and punish kc less than she deserves over NOT knowing the complete truth and punishing kc exactly how much she deserves.

what would you choose?

But actually the fact that she would not be truthful is a key element to your hypothetical.
Here is a case where in exchange for telling what happened to Donna Jou, (a 19 yo that most believe was murdered by an RSO), the accused got 5 years to tell what happened and he talked face to face with the parents.
Many of us think he is just full of it, so he got to kill someone and got a plea deal for 5 years and for telling his story the way he wanted it to go down.
This guy cleaned his car, removed the license plates, left town and he was the last one seen with her. There is plenty of good circumstantial evidence, but no body and no way to tie him to the crime. It means there probably would not have been a conviction.
In this case, by hearing the details of her death,I think the parents hoped it would provide some information that would help them find their daughter and to know what really happened to her.
But I don't think the final result helped them at all. jmho of course

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3716294&postcount=225"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CA-Missing-19 yo Donna Jou 06/23/07 RSM, *merged threads*[/ame]



Click here for link to good article

 

[Pondering Mind]

Our legal system lacks any group that wears white hats. There not the province of all judges or all prosecutors or all defense attorneys or all jurors or all lab techinicians or all detectives or all medical examiners or all law enforcement personnel, etc..

The best anyone who wears a white hat can do is to try and protect themselves from others who might cast a black shadow over them.

bbm~
Is it Wudge? If this is true then that makes me very sad.

 

[impatientredhead]

There are only 3 or 4 verified attorneys on the caylee forum (rhhornsby ,azlawyer and impatientredhead off the top of my head) and plenty of us non lawyer types and we think you are doing just fine! So do not ever be afarid to post what you are thinking. We are learning together, even the attorneys are picking up a thing or two.

Regarding getting someone off on a technicality..whose fault would you consider that to be?

<----- not an attorney, just very prone to debate and oddly fascinated with verifying statutes and claims made by others <smile>

 

[cyberborg]

I think that an interesting aspect in the Justice system and KC topic is the conflict presented by both the Perp and Victim being in the same family.

We see KC's parents conflicted but still supporting KC and wanting her to be proven Not Guilty at the expense of Justice for Caylee.

If this was SODDI the A's would have thrown their whole energy against the Perp and healed in that way. In this case they cannot since the Perp is their very own beloved princess.

As a human race we tend to fondly miss the dear departed ..... as in this case the A's have moved on from Caylee, who is deceased and chosen to throw their support fully behind KC ..... still living.

What a conundrum .... where is the support and justice for Caylee?

 

[JBean]

I think that an interesting aspect in the Justice system and KC topic is the conflict presented by both the Perp and Victim being in the same family.

We see KC's parents conflicted but still supporting KC and wanting her to be proven Not Guilty at the expense of Justice for Caylee.

If this was SODDI the A's would have thrown their whole energy against the Perp and healed in that way. In this case they cannot since the Perp is their very own beloved princess.

As a human race we tend to fondly miss the dear departed ..... as in this case the A's have moved on from Caylee, who is deceased and chosen to throw their support fully behind KC ..... still living.

What a conundrum .... where is the support and justice for Caylee?

totally agree with the bolded section. This is indeed the element that turns this case upside down. I would like to see what other grandparental reactions are documented in cases such as this.
Does anyone have any cases to suggest for reference?

 

[JBean]

<----- not an attorney, just very prone to debate and oddly fascinated with verifying statutes and claims made by others <smile>

Oh I thought you were for some reason. I stand corrected and good to know. very interesting indeedy.
I must have you confused with someone.

 

[cyberborg]

But actually the fact that she would not be truthful is a key element to your hypothetical.
Here is a case where in exchange for telling what happened to Donna Jou, (a 19 yo that most believe was murdered by an RSO), the accused got 5 years to tell what happened and he talked face to face with the parents.
Many of us think he is just full of it, so he got to kill someone and got a plea deal for 5 years and for telling his story the way he wanted it to go down.
This guy cleaned his car, removed the license plates, left town and he was the last one seen with her. There is plenty of good circumstantial evidence, but no body and no way to tie him to the crime. It means there probably would not have been a conviction.
In this case, by hearing the details of her death,I think the parents hoped it would provide some information that would help them find their daughter and to know what really happened to her.
But I don't think the final result helped them at all. jmho of course

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CA-Missing-19 yo Donna Jou 06/23/07 RSM, *merged threads*

Perfect!! Classic example. ITA!

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

BBM

 

[JBean]

Perfect!! Classic example. ITA!

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

BBM

PLease read this article

 

[elementary]

new question:

if it were up to you, would you agree to a MUCH lighter sentence for kc if she were to confess and give full disclosure (and express true remorse) of what exactly happened?
or would you rather her get the death penalty, but NEVER get the answers to what truly happened?

what is more important to you? punishing kc to the fullest no matter what OR

finding the exact truth, answering all questions and giving CA, GA and LA and all of Caylee's family peace, but kc gets a second chance at a life outside of prison?

Good question!

I am not sure that knowing what exactly happened would be a godsend. It may cause more nightmares. Knowing what happened doesn't necessarily bring closure either.

Closure for me would be to see justice done for Caylee- the perp found guilty and punished to the fullest.