The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

[gracielee]

I loved her "Pure T Filth".

Her reaction to that male hustler was just classic! I mean, that was worth the cost. :floorlaugh: That woman was just hysterical IMO. Every time she got up, you could just feel how *nasty* she thought the whole mess was.

:woohoo:

 

[cody100]

Originally Posted by cody100
Yes, and what is your point? You think Kurtz was lying about the planted files on BC's computer?






Tonight, at dinner, my twin grandsons, 5yrs old, were telling me about the story their daddy has been reading to them the last couple nights, Pinnocco. They were so cute & funny, I was discussing 'lying' with them. Brought up an earlier conversation we'd been having, and as to 'whether or not they'd told me the truth'..... where upon they both jumped up from the table and ran to the powder room to look at their noses in the mirror....:floorlaugh: My daughter and I just cracked up at their reaction, needing to check and see if their noses had grown. :great: Before long they will lost this pure childhood innocence, how sad that day will be, and how many real belly laughs I'll miss.

That is a great story.:floorlaugh: You will always remember their pure childhood innocence. Wouldn't it be great if all noses grew when we were lying.

 

[cody100]

Her reaction to that male hustler was just classic! I mean, that was worth the cost. :floorlaugh: That woman was just hysterical IMO. Every time she got up, you could just feel how *nasty* she thought the whole mess was.

:woohoo:

And with her southern drawl at its finest, she could make Pure T FIlth last for a long time. :floorlaugh:

 

[cody100]

Then we must have watched different trials, because I recall Kurtz fumbling with his questions, attempting to word them in such a way as to elicit a proper answer from his witnesses.

We can agree to disagree. It is alright with me. It was just my opinion. Yes, his witnesses needed some help from time to time. But then on the prosecution side there were some fumblings, such as the blasted ducks and HC, and the BZ method of questioning some witnesses where he twisted some facts.

 

[otto]

About as much substantiation as Kurtz has that dear, smart Bradley was framed. Whatever....the inmate is on his way to prison. Another wife killer bites the dust! :woohoo:

On to the Casey Anthony trial....I suspect her defense team will have as much luck as <modsnip>. :seeya:

Sure. "The inmate is on his way to prison. ... On to the Casy Anthony trial." Water under the bridge.

There are some questions, but by all means, on to the next.

There are questions about trial decisions, particularly in light of the fact that the judge is oblivious about technology.

 

[gracielee]

"HARD CORE *advertiser censored*!"

"This isn't just one man and one woman, this is everwhicha way!"

"ANAL SEX!"

Love me some Freda quotes.

Yup, she was something else. The real southern school marm type, faced with HARD CORE *advertiser censored*. The other night at dinner, ( we live right next-door, so we eat dinner with our daughters family or they eat with us, more often than not ), so anyway, the other night at dinner, I started saying to my daughter..... 'the other night daddy and I were watching Hard Core PAWN on TV......' Well, you should have seen the jaws drop, SIL & daughter, that was a conversation stopper if ever there was one. :floorlaugh: Daughter said 'MOM, and shifted her eyes to the kids'. So I had to stop and enunciate what I'd said P A W N. One of those reality shows on TV. That's what your remark reminded me of HARD CORE PAWN. :great: Of course, not the same as what poor Freda was referring to. I wonder what ever happened to the hustler guy? IIRC, he was military, wasn't he? Bet that was a real career breaker. Much like JW. :waitasec:

 

[ncsu95]

Her reaction to that male hustler was just classic! I mean, that was worth the cost. :floorlaugh: That woman was just hysterical IMO. Every time she got up, you could just feel how *nasty* she thought the whole mess was.

:woohoo:

Who could forget Brad in Raleigh.

 

[gracielee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tink56
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...

bbm

I am stunned to learn that! Unreal! He absolutely got caught up in the vitriol. His closing argument was for the benefit of the bloggers! ![/quote]

Yes, I'm curious NCSU, doesn't this bother you at all? Kurtz, admitting he spent hours upon hours reading blogs and basing his arguments on what social media was saying? I find that to be far more offensive IMO. Yes, we do chat and discuss and debate, but one hopes the defense has better material to base their arguments on, no? I mean, they get to see the real evidence, we only hear about what gets entered in evidence. MOO

 

[Tink56]

I understand the first years in solo practice can be tough (attorneys in family), but this is a very well established firm since later 1990's with staff of around 20. Go check them out. THey cover a lot of areas of law, most would be very profitable and more so than this. I have no idea whether his rate was cut. I had heard he was doing this pro bono, but I have no proof of that. It is a fair question though. But, I really don't think Kurtz is doing this for the money, if he is even getting paid. IMOO

I've never stated he was doing the case for money. I did, however, feel that it was not pro bono. Initially BC paid for his services. I don't know how much BC's family paid before BC was given indigent status. (BTW, I do think the Kurtz, et. al., provided BC with ways to shelter money before his indigent status was declared by the court.)


I believe that HK "believed" his client was being candid with him. I worked for a summer during college for a defense attorney, who would "wink" at me each day when he went to court stating, "He needed to do what was right for his client."

Kurtz mentioned that we have an imperfect system. That is true. This concerns me as cases/trials become more dependent on specialized areas--entomology, DNA, technology...you name it. Now we have experts in each of these areas that offer their services often to either the defense primarily or the prosecution primarily. Is that the "truth" of these specialties? I don't think so...

I've pondered ways to improve the trial system. I thought about specialty judges, juries, lawyers, etc. There are certainly flaws with these concepts, however.

eace: As soon as I've arrived at the perfect answer, I let 'ya know....

 

[cody100]

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... bbm

I am stunned to learn that! Unreal! He absolutely got caught up in the vitriol. His closing argument was for the benefit of the bloggers! !

Yes, I'm curious NCSU, doesn't this bother you at all? Kurtz, admitting he spent hours upon hours reading blogs and basing his arguments on what social media was saying? I find that to be far more offensive IMO. Yes, we do chat and discuss and debate, but one hopes the defense has better material to base their arguments on, no? I mean, they get to see the real evidence, we only hear about what gets entered in evidence. MOO

He only read 20 to 25 of all of those. LOL

 

[gracielee]

That's not what he said. He said that he was aware that there were that many quotes, and he was aware of how many were favorable, but that he, himself, had only personally read 20 or 25 of them.

He never said he read 20,000 to 25,000 postings.

I didn't hear his interview, only the clip that was on the evening news. Did he really admit to reading postings? That golo place was a real cesspool IMO. I wonder if that's what he based his judgement on? Did he say? I guess I'll have to go find his interview. Not having a computer for a couple days really cut into our news viewing. Hubby and I were saying that today before the new modem arrived. We read all our news online, don't get a paper anymore, so it was rough on us, not having a computer that worked. :banghead:

 

[otto]

Yes, I'm curious NCSU, doesn't this bother you at all? Kurtz, admitting he spent hours upon hours reading blogs and basing his arguments on what social media was saying? I find that to be far more offensive IMO. Yes, we do chat and discuss and debate, but one hopes the defense has better material to base their arguments on, no? I mean, they get to see the real evidence, we only hear about what gets entered in evidence. MOO

Kurtz said that he read 20 of the 22000 online comments/posts that he heard about. That is not hours upon hours of blogs and social media influencing the case. In fact, that suggests that the case was not based on social or news media.

If you missed it ... http://www.wral.com/news/local/noteworthy/video/9563382/#/vid9563382

 

[cody100]

I've never stated he was doing the case for money. I did, however, feel that it was not pro bono. Initially BC paid for his services. I don't know how much BC's family paid before BC was given indigent status. (BTW, I do think the Kurtz, et. al., provided BC with ways to shelter money before his indigent status was declared by the court.)


I believe that HK "believed" his client was being candid with him. I worked for a summer during college for a defense attorney, who would "wink" at me each day when he went to court stating, "He needed to do what was right for his client."

Kurtz mentioned that we have an imperfect system. That is true. This concerns me as cases/trials become more dependent on specialized areas--entomology, DNA, technology...you name it. Now we have experts in each of these areas that offer their services often to either the defense primarily or the prosecution primarily. Is that the "truth" of these specialties? I don't think so...

I've pondered ways to improve the trial system. I thought about specialty judges, juries, lawyers, etc. There are certainly flaws with these concepts, however.

eace: As soon as I've arrived at the perfect answer, I let 'ya know....

I think this case would have benefited with a specialty judge who was proficient in computers. As to the compensation, I heard Trenkle was being paid and Kurtz was offering his services free-------now I can't recall where I heard that and I can't speak for the truth of the matter. Please let us know when you have a perfect answer for our trial system. I hope your daughter does well in the legal field.

 

[cody100]

Night everyone. I need to get some sleep. I have enjoyed talking to everyone tonight. Hope to see you again soon. You are a great group.

 

[Tink56]

Yes, I'm curious NCSU, doesn't this bother you at all? Kurtz, admitting he spent hours upon hours reading blogs and basing his arguments on what social media was saying? I find that to be far more offensive IMO. Yes, we do chat and discuss and debate, but one hopes the defense has better material to base their arguments on, no? I mean, they get to see the real evidence, we only hear about what gets entered in evidence. MOO
He only read 20 to 25 of all of those. LOL

That was my mistake, not Gracie's...FYI...I owned it! Sorry about the confusion.

BUT, I'm willing to bet he read more than 20 or 25...and his assistants, etc. read many more. They were full of themselves, IMO.

Unfortunately, given the right environment and timing, almost any issue can become viral. And, there are elements in any trial that incite for the defense, IMO. Having had difficulty with the Duke LX case and the recent investigation into the labs, put LE on the defensive whether they deserved it or not. Look at the Scott Peterson case for an example of a rabid "Scott" fan base who to this day are advocating for him whenever possible.

Another issue that wasn't addressed, IMO, is the difficulty of missing persons' cases that turn to murder. LE needs to immediately treat them as criminal cases, when, in fact, missing persons' cases do not necessarily reach that classification. Obviously, LE handles one differently than the other. In fact, many jurisdictions assign different personnel to missing persons vs. homicide.

 

[Salem]

Nash also houses Rae Curruth.
Because Cooper is not considered violent, it is very likely he will end up in a medium security, close custody prison like Nash.

Why wouldn't he be considered violent? He killed someone. I consider him violent!

Salem

 

[otto]

That was my mistake, not Gracie's...FYI...I owned it! Sorry about the confusion.

BUT, I'm willing to bet he read more than 20 or 25...and his assistants, etc. read many more. They were full of themselves, IMO.

Unfortunately, given the right environment and timing, almost any issue can become viral. And, there are elements in any trial that incite for the defense, IMO. Having had difficulty with the Duke LX case and the recent investigation into the labs, put LE on the defensive whether they deserved it or not. Look at the Scott Peterson case for an example of a rabid "Scott" fan base who to this day are advocating for him whenever possible.

Another issue that wasn't addressed, IMO, is the difficulty of missing persons' cases that turn to murder. LE needs to immediately treat them as criminal cases, when, in fact, missing persons' cases do not necessarily reach that classification. Obviously, LE handles one differently than the other. In fact, many jurisdictions assign different personnel to missing persons vs. homicide.

Do you think that people questioning the judicial veracity of this trial are like a "rabid Scott fan base"?

 

[Tink56]

Do you think that people questioning the judicial veracity of this trial are like a "rabid Scott fan base"?

Some of them..."All the police are bad..." "Just like the Duke LX team...." IMO, that line of thought indicates an agenda that doesn't look at the facts of the case...MOO...

I think HK, in the taped interview, presented stronger statements than the evidence would support, IMO.

 

[otto]

Why wouldn't he be considered violent? He killed someone. I consider him violent!

Salem

If he did this, then yes, he is an extremely violent man. There was some evidence missing from tiral. How Nancy was found was far from how a loving husband would leave his wife - even after accidental murder.

 

[otto]

Some of them..."All the police are bad..." "Just like the Duke LX team...." IMO, that line of thought indicates an agenda that doesn't look at the facts of the case...MOO...

I think HK, in the taped interview, presented stronger statements than the evidence would support, IMO.

I don't know where you are reading "all the police are bad" and "just like the Duke Lacrosse Team". That has not been a part of this discussion board that I am aware of, and I read regularly. It was also not mentioned in relation to this trial ... that I know of.