nssherlock
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 361
- Reaction score
- 29
think Sims is doing that one......kay::dunno:
ullhair::beersign:
Oh Noooooooooooooooo...........not again............:maddening:
think Sims is doing that one......kay::dunno:
ullhair::beersign:
Hi ynotdivein. Found this site that you can download the article (free):
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/content/courtroom-demeanor-theater-courtroom-0
Courtroom Demeanor: The Theater of the Courtroom (61 pages)http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/sites/default/files/Levenson_final.pdf
Because "quite frankly," Fogery is on to Baez (who wants to discredit and belittle the dogs and especially the handler) and is not answering his questions with the answers that Baez wants. ( Mostly because Baez's questions are so disorganized and nonsense)The dog handler was someone who helped train this dog, and the dog is trained to specific areas and items, according to what the dog is asked to look for. Either Baez just does not get this or is trying to make the whole cadaver dog & handler training and relationship look like junk science.
BBM~~ and I am no lawyer..It appears that the witness could not respond to JB's liking because JB was jumping all over the place, using terms inappropriate for his question, not to mention confusing dates with his questions...Is it just me?? or does JB do that with all witnesses?? Or does he just do that with witnesses when he has no clue on what he is doing??..I dont know..But there's alot of subjects this lawyer is oblivious..and tries to cover it up with scarcasm and rudeness..:loser:
From previous cases I have watched, it is the ones who do not answer, who give attitude, who go off topic, who refuse to answer questions...Hummm Does Cindy and George fit that description?????
I missed most of LDB, can anyone give me a quick synopsis?
I'm a long-time lurker and have hardly ever posted, but it is so time for my first official rant!
I understand it's the defense's job to, well, defend their client...but I really do not understand how they can sleep at night after spending entire work-days coming up with every outlandish crazy scenario they can think of to explain away the facts. Maybe someone cut their skin in the back yard at some point in history and the dogs were alerting to that? Maybe there was urine or a lost baby tooth somehow deposited there? Well ok, maybe. But we're talking about rigorously-trained animals certified to be reliable at finding scents that come only from human decomposition...and we're talking about them alerting near a back yard playhouse were a precious, beautiful little girl once laughed and played. None of us really know whether a deceased body was ever in the back yard, and since the dogs can't testify, we don't know exactly what they detected. But unlike many of the human players in this sad, sad case, the dogs have no propensity or ability to lie. I can't help but feel like it's hugely disrespectful, especially the victim herself, to suggest the alerts happened because of some inane trivial thing that had nothing to do with a death. JMO and rant over...thank you for being here Websleuths.
There will certainly be justice for Caylee.
Oh Noooooooooooooooo...........not again............:maddening:
Welcome SapphireSky, I'm a newbie too and I am so glad I found this site
Oh ok - ty...who is J Lyons?
moo
trying to increase his bust! funny!:crazy:
I wish I didn't feel this way but deep down I feel the defense is going to pull some crazy stunt, anything they can do to keep this trial from starting in May....I don't trust them one bit........
Cindy and George could also do something to stop the trial from moving forward as planned....
This time I don't wanna be right!
Great Idea, I'm gonna send mine with a Outback gift Certificate, they can all go out and have a nice meal and relax. They will need it. I know we are not allowed to ask for stuff here on WS, but if it is OK with the mod's maybe we can all set something up for after the trial from all of us at WB. Thoughts?...
I'm a long-time lurker and have hardly ever posted, but it is so time for my first official rant!
I understand it's the defense's job to, well, defend their client...but I really do not understand how they can sleep at night after spending entire work-days coming up with every outlandish crazy scenario they can think of to explain away the facts. Maybe someone cut their skin in the back yard at some point in history and the dogs were alerting to that? Maybe there was urine or a lost baby tooth somehow deposited there? Well ok, maybe. But we're talking about rigorously-trained animals certified to be reliable at finding scents that come only from human decomposition...and we're talking about them alerting near a back yard playhouse were a precious, beautiful little girl once laughed and played. None of us really know whether a deceased body was ever in the back yard, and since the dogs can't testify, we don't know exactly what they detected. But unlike many of the human players in this sad, sad case, the dogs have no propensity or ability to lie. I can't help but feel like it's hugely disrespectful, especially the victim herself, to suggest the alerts happened because of some inane trivial thing that had nothing to do with a death. JMO and rant over...thank you for being here Websleuths.
There will certainly be justice for Caylee.
welcome Sapphire Sky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:seeya:
I don't know the specific law in FL, but in my state there are VERY STRICT ethics rules about public employees accepting gifts. You may want to check on that before you spend the money.