Defense wants prosecutor Jeff Ashton held in contempt

[RR0004]

She is free because the jury needed DNA/fingerprints proof on any of the evidence. And proof that George wasn't involved.

I just felt the anger building throughout the show. The verdict makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.

 

[rossva]

So why woulkd some one in Ashton's position even put something in a book that would bring up a contempt of court impropriety, and question his ethics? <modsnip>

So why argue an "unknown"? It's just as easy to assume something so memorable (inconsistent stories) could easily be drawn upon as a recollection as it is to think he needed to go back and read a deposition for the info. Heck, we all remember the 31 days...no one needs to rely on Casey's statement to recall that. I'm not the type to always assume the worst...so IMO...JA is stating the truth.

 

[krkrjx]

She is free because the jury needed DNA/fingerprints proof on any of the evidence. And proof that George wasn't involved.

Which, of course, the state was not required to prove. But IMO, in the jurors' minds it was the George Anthony trial.

 

[Pattymarie]

So why woulkd some one in Ashton's position even put something in a book that would bring up a contempt of court impropriety, and question his ethics? <modsnip>

I think he wants to "tempt" the truth to come out. Bring FCA out of "hiding" and get her to answer as to what happened to her baby. Good going, Jeff!

 

[RR0004]

So why woulkd some one in Ashton's position even put something in a book that would bring up a contempt of court impropriety, and question his ethics? <modsnip>

I can't speak for JA, but I would imagine he's smart enough to know what he could or couldn't do. I can appreciate him wanting to speak the truth.

 

[krimekat]

So why woulkd some one in Ashton's position even put something in a book that would bring up a contempt of court impropriety, and question his ethics? <modsnip>

IMHO Ashton has done nothing to bring his ethics into question. DT on the other hand . . . this motion is case-in-point!

the Court cleared Ashton in using his notes & recollections from the sealed documents; therefore, this motion has no merit & will be dismissed very soon.

:floorlaugh:

 

[beach]

CUT OUT THE PETTY BICKERING!


I have removed SEVERAL posts that cited and quoted an unknown Twitter name. DO NOT copy & paste tweets from unverified sources.

Come on, people! You guys know better than this.

 

[RR0004]

CUT OUT THE PETTY BICKERING!


I have removed SEVERAL posts that cited and quoted an unknown Twitter name. DO NOT copy & paste tweets from unverified sources.

Come on, people! You guys know better than this.

Beach...you had me worried...haven't seen you around. Hope your holiday was great!
oxoxoxox

PS- the tweeter was tweeting our posts here on WS...at least that's why I think it was introduced here.

 

[RR0004]

IMHO Ashton has done nothing to bring his ethics into question. DT on the other hand . . . this motion is case-in-point!

the Court cleared Ashton in using his notes & recollections from the sealed documents; therefore, this motion has no merit & will be dismissed very soon.

:floorlaugh:

He spoke so eloquently in the VP interview. He's a pretty humble guy, IMO.

 

[RR0004]

I think he wants to "tempt" the truth to come out. Bring FCA out of "hiding" and get her to answer as to what happened to her baby. Good going, Jeff!

On HLN today, JA said the biggest lie...Caylee died accidently.

 

[LambChop]

BBM. So, was Baez supposed to "incorrectly" address the jury?

I don't know. Maybe JB wasn't suppose to personalize his comments to the jury because it's not allowed and he was warned not to but continued to do it. I don't think attorney's on either side are suppose to address the jury in a personal manner. jmo

 

[beach]

Beach...you had me worried...haven't seen you around. Hope your holiday was great!
oxoxoxox

PS- the tweeter was tweeting our posts here on WS...at least that's why I think it was introduced here.

Hey RR! :hug:

Holiday was wonderful, thanks! As always, I need "just one more day off..." before RL kicks back in tomorrow morning.

Re: the bold - I saw that. Sadly, it is the nature of the internet posting on a public forum. It could easily be any guest reading. Not cool at all and if we ever discover it is a member doing it - BIG TIME TROUBLE for the member. Still, it is a good wake-up call to remind us we're not hanging out in the clubhouse amongst our most trusted friends. We get so comfortable we all tend to forget that at times.

 

[RR0004]

Hey RR! :hug:

Holiday was wonderful, thanks! As always, I need "just one more day off..." before RL kicks back in tomorrow morning.

Re: the bold - I saw that. Sadly, it is the nature of the internet posting on a public forum. It could easily be any guest reading. Not cool at all and if we ever discover it is a member doing it - BIG TIME TROUBLE for the member. Still, it is a good wake-up call to remind us we're not hanging out in the clubhouse amongst our most trusted friends. We get so comfortable we all tend to forget that at times.

Know it's not the right thread, but have you been wrapping any more gifts??!!

PS- I can't believe I made "twitter"...and you're right, that's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[beach]

Know it's not the right thread, but have you been wrapping any more gifts??!!

PS- I can't believe I made "twitter"...and you're right, that's not necessarily a good thing.

LOL!

No, but I will email the elves and see how things are progressing.

 

[momshrink]

"exudes a supercial charm, that I don't find all that charming"

Who does?

 

[momshrink]

"exudes a supercial charm, that I don't find all that charming"

Who does? ICA or JB

 

[rossva]

BBM Not quite correct. The Court said it was ok for him to use his notes and recollections, but it has not "cleared" him in reference to whether or not that is in fact what he did. That is what the motion is about.

IMHO Ashton has done nothing to bring his ethics into question. DT on the other hand . . . this motion is case-in-point!

the Court cleared Ashton in using his notes & recollections from the sealed documents; therefore, this motion has no merit & will be dismissed very soon.

:floorlaugh:

 

[atthelake]

While I see your point wonders about the taxpayers, I'm wondering if you accidentally hit the off button on your sense of humour? Cause I know you have one.

Look at it this way. So the Judge says to Mason - what's the problem here - why have you filed the motion? What is it you are objecting to? What book? What page? What quote?

What? Are you telling me you haven't read the book but you've "heard" he's quoted a sealed document? But you haven't seen it with your own eyes? Um...ah...isn't that heresay?

There's the door Mr. Mason......:floorlaugh:

caylee God is not finished yet!
ADDED,

WELL, i cetainly have failed doing my first post here with my new nook! Fat fingers and how do you folks do this virtual typing!

 

[atthelake]

JA on HLN NOW!

Gosh! Wish i had notice!,, guess i missed this on threads! :truce:still learning how to mistype on my new toy!

 

[LambChop]

BBM Not quite correct. The Court said it was ok for him to use his notes and recollections, but it has not "cleared" him in reference to whether or not that is in fact what he did. That is what the motion is about.

But if the reports were sealed how could he have used the reports??? He just did a small summary of what was in the reports, he did quote directly from the reports. jmo