The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

[otto]

I see nothing wrong with discussing specific things from the trial. I'm not making it personal.

I see no reason why we can't discuss the full scope of the trial. In the case of Amanda Knox, it's open season on the prosecutor, the judge and the jury.

 

[otto]

I was amazed that the interrogation was more like an interview.

JP was cutting it up towards the end of the interview, assuring police that he would discreetly hand investigators an envelope with the name and phone number of his suspect. He was like part of the team.

 

[otto]

LOL, I have yet to hear a defense lawyer, upon receiving a guilty verdict, to say 'well hell, the jury got it right!' It's always 'my client is innocent', 'he was framed'. And the ever famous, 'we are searching for the real killer!'

But isn't it more fun to convict the innocent?

 

[otto]

No idea what you mean by "promo"?
The only promotion for Boz and Amy could be Cummings job.

I heard it after the verdict. I kept the stream open, and one of the things I heard, but couldn't put a face to, was "congrats on the promo."

It would be Boz

 

[gracielee]

Ya know what??..I am done, finished fanitooo with this case now..Brad was held accountable and will await appellate renderings to this case..The local blogs, and protests right now serve only to enfuriate or attempt to discount what 12 unbiased people have decided as "Truth" in THIS CASE..So I will slip out the side door and say ADO..

You all have at it..No One (IMO) other than Brad created this heinousness..So will no longer defend their "Verdict"....It is what it is.....and it is now in the "Judical Hands" to deal with placement, and assessments of legalities of that verdict....

Salut Sleuthers..It has been a pleasure..catch ya all later in another case down the road:woohoo:..

BTW..I am NO Prosecution Protector..Believe me, I have seen some very questionable cases in the past (i.e. Cynthia Sommers) ..and thankfully they have been overturned..But that is yet another thread topic.. Have a great night folks:seeya:

So true, Cynthia Sommers was a railroad. I'm with you. IMO the jury got it right. Nothing further to argue about. Anxiously awaiting the Jason Young case. Hope he's shaking in his boots tonight.

 

[otto]

Jason Young was always gainfully employed during his marriage.
In fact, he made more money than Michelle.

I understood that Young had periods of unemployment, including shortly before Michelle was murdered. His career history was like that of JW, short stints here and there. Jason had the added offense of coming on to, and being derogatory towards, women where he worked.

He may have made more money (I was not under that impression), but his career was unstable, unlike Michelle. Brad had a stable career like Michelle, not an unstable career like Jason Young.

 

[gracielee]

You are so right, but have we ever heard one that says he can prove it?

Yup, Mark Gerragos said 'he was going to show us the REAL KILLER!

 

[otto]

Yup, Mark Gerragos said 'he was going to show us the REAL KILLER!

Good thing Kurtz didn't say anything that silly!

 

[ncsu95]

So true, Cynthia Sommers was a railroad. I'm with you. IMO the jury got it right. Nothing further to argue about. Anxiously awaiting the Jason Young case. Hope he's shaking in his boots tonight.

Honestly, I'm not arguing the verdict. I'm wanting to discuss the actions of the prosecutors.

 

[gracielee]

That whooshed right over my head, probably because I'm not Catholic. What do you mean?

I meant that defense lawyers, much like used car salesmen, aren't known for their forthrightness IMO. MOO MOO MOO

 

[otto]

The verdict is water under the bridge.

I agree that it is more interesting to analyze the trial related actions and decisions.

 

[otto]

I meant that defense lawyers, much like used car salesmen, aren't known for their forthrightness IMO. MOO MOO MOO

Sure, the objective of a defense lawyer is to get their client off ... they're only as good as their last "win". The same applies to a prosecutor if he or she is elected. Prosecutors are only as good as their last win. Indeed, prosecutors who rely on winning a case to forward their careers cannot be trusted. That is, they cannot be relied upon to be forthright, as they have alterior motives.

 

[djal]

To the one who truly murdered NC, Justice will be served. Your time will come.

- in CPD interview, JP said that his ex (KP) had called NC about the alienation of affection suit she had against HM. NC had goods on HM that would help in this lawsuit (HM affair with BC)

- NC calls JP to ask about these calls and the lawsuit (JP said this in CPD interview). NC also has goods on JP (Halloween night)

- flurry of calls between NC & JP in the next month (that were lied about in CPD interview). NC meets JP at coffee house (brings the young daughter in question)

- JP and HM are now dating

- NC is doing some type of bargaining with JP and HM. She won't spill their beans (about NC and JP -- and HM and BC) for some $$$ (hence the money she was purportedly going to be receiving soon)

- JP agrees to meet NC Sat. am for a run. Of course, NC doesn't tell anyone about this "rendevous"

- On the run, HM is hiding somewhere, comes out from behind a bush and trips NC (thus the trama on her left knee) and she strangles her from behind as NC is laying face down (reinforcing MH's theory of a woman attacker)

- JP and HM have each other for alibis Fri. night and Sat.

Why oh why would HM go out looking for NC on Sat. night in the dark, since they obviously weren't good friends anymore (after the BC/HM thing)

Did ANYONE see that CPD testimony of JP? And the crazy comments about mysterious MICHAEL? Was that just me or an obvious effort to divert the police to somebody who didn't exist?

 

[cody100]

I see no reason why we can't discuss the full scope of the trial. In the case of Amanda Knox, it's open season on the prosecutor, the judge and the jury.

I agree completely with being able to discuss the full scope of this trial.

 

[gracielee]

Honestly, I'm not arguing the verdict. I'm wanting to discuss the actions of the prosecutors.

Well maybe somebody else will want to discuss it, because I saw nothing any different than any other trial I've observed. If you want to see some wild prosecution, then watch the Michael Peterson trial. Frieda Black, was that her name? was so dramatic, and so out-spoken. Now that trial, that prosecution, would certainly keep you awake. No snoozing in that court room. Kurtz was clearly out of his league. Not a good idea, IMO, to take on a premediated murder case for your first dip into the big time. MOO

 

[cody100]

Yup, Mark Gerragos said 'he was going to show us the REAL KILLER!

No, I meant have we ever heard a defense attorney say he had evidence of tampering and could prove his client was framed? Legitimate question I think.

 

[cody100]

Well maybe somebody else will want to discuss it, because I saw nothing any different than any other trial I've observed. If you want to see some wild prosecution, then watch the Michael Peterson trial. Frieda Black, was that her name? was so dramatic, and so out-spoken. Now that trial, that prosecution, would certainly keep you awake. No snoozing in that court room. Kurtz was clearly out of his league. Not a good idea, IMO, to take on a premediated murder case for your first dip into the big time. MOO

I think Kurtz did just fine personally and BC's defense representation was as good as I have ever seen. The only thing that might have been better would be a defense attorney that JG liked, if there is one.

 

[Tink56]

I tend to believe that the Def. Team (Kurtz et al~~) felt emboldeed by all the nasty blogging on GOLO and some of the questions even here on W/S) However, for some reason, he underestimated the common sensical reasonings of 12 people who sat in judgement...So IF he continues on the mindbend..Yessss indeedy..He feels supported in his claim of biases, ineptness and corruptions...Sadly, he underestimated the collective minds of 12 people who saw thru the "Smoke and Mirrors"..

Casting aspersions and blame is one thing, but you simply have to prove to those listening to the evidence (Jury) you are being honest and able to prove your accusations....Unfortunately they could NOT do that to the satisfaction of 12 minds...Bloggers and posters are NOT sitting on that panel..so be very aware just where you place your marbles...:rocker:

Appellate hearings will decide just how this judgement gets handled...Let the higher court decide from here Mr.Kurtz:seeya:

Kurtz was definitely emboldened by the bloggers...He stated in his "set up" interview...in front of his law books (Must have been his dad's), with make up and lighting...that he read 20,000 of 25,000 blogs and 75% were positive. Maybe he should have been looking for the right computer witness rather than reading blogs...My reaction to all of this is so negative, I can't even begin to comment.

Who was the defense's jury/trial consultant? Which jurors did Kurtz and company recognize as favorable to the defense DURING the trial? There are a gazillion things I could say about the new meaning of "handling media relations" during a trial for a defense team? UGH...:maddening: :banghead:

 

[cody100]

:floorlaugh:

He had a steady meal ticket for 2 1/2 yrs.

Do you know what he made for those 2 1/2 years?

 

[Amster]

Yes, and what is your point? You think Kurtz was lying about the planted files on BC's computer?

yes...:liar:....definitely