Defense wants prosecutor Jeff Ashton held in contempt

[RR0004]

Didn't find JB honorable.
Now showing pics of Caylee...oh, boy...does me in everytime.

 

[RR0004]

:waitasec:

After watching the show, it's still difficult to understand how anyone could find this person "not guilty".

 

[strawberry]

After watching the show, it's still difficult to understand how anyone could find this person "not guilty".

I wish it were rerun I only caught the last 10 min. :banghead:

 

[RR0004]

I wish it were rerun I only caught the last 10 min. :banghead:

Maybe they'll show it again...I missed a lot as well.

ETA: it's a 2-part interview.

 

[dr dona]

Left a post on Dr Drew thread-----
Dr Drew- sensatioinalistic lightweight
VP---Darn good job!!!! Good questions..No sensationalism---Let JA answer questions without shrieking nut jobs. I agree Jeff---Baez is smarmy!!!!!
YEEHAW:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

 

[Tulessa]

Loved it! Sorry, I am not a multi tasker. I couldn't watch & type. Kudos to those that did.

 

[strawberry]

Maybe they'll show it again...I missed a lot as well.

ETA: it's a 2-part interview.

Please tell me it's not tomorrow night! I'm gonna be in North Jersey!

O/T this husband on Wife Swap looks just like the senior Esq Morgan.

 

[twomanywords]

I only got to watch part of the interview but it was great!
Most interesting was the fact that attorneys are not supposed to greet the jury(Baez) or address them at all! I had no idea. Another law broken by the defense.

 

[strawberry]

Could that be backwards talk for Casey Anthony???

No it's a parody on Nancy Grace and they seem to be very un-prosecutor in general. And they were quoting RR004 and she just now quoted a post from Dr Dona. She's watching the thread right now.

 

[rossva]

BBM I strongly disagree with your comment that "we know" - how do we know what the source of Ashton's info was. Just because he say's so? I think not.

exactly, 2 issues in the Motion:

1) information used in sealed documents (which we KNOW Ashton did not have to use since he did have detailed noted & a recollection of what was in the sealed documents) &

2) profiting off the sales of the book

but, this book is about the prosecution of FKC, not the "murder of Caylee". Gotta find that old motion (if there is one) about profiting off this case

 

[rossva]

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

JA;"It isn't proper to correctly address the jury during a trial. We tried to have the judge stop him from doing so, but he wouldn't. "

 

[rossva]

Take youir pick:

1) She was, as the jury found, not guilty.

or

2) The SA didn't do their job.

Can someone please tell me again why Casey is free?

 

[Well Done 99]

JA;"It isn't proper to correctly address the jury during a trial. We tried to have the judge stop him from doing so, but he wouldn't. "

Thanks so much for bringing this transcript for those of us unable to watch katy. Your efforts are very much appreciated.
Could this have been 'directly' rather than 'correctly'

 

[krimekat]

BBM I strongly disagree with your comment that "we know" - how do we know what the source of Ashton's info was. Just because he say's so? I think not.

Well, not only Ashton, but the COURT said he could use his recollections of the sealed documents & the notes he made while reviewing the sealed documents.

Sorry I mis-posted & indicated that "we" all know what he used . . . it's common sense to me as I review documents all the time, make notes & recall what I've read, and then write/present information that I have gathered.

Again, sorry, but I thought it was very common to do this :crazy:

 

[RR0004]

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

According to JA, attorneys should not address the jury that way. I believe it goes to conduct (familiarity). The State objected, the judge allowed it.

 

[rossva]

I am not arguing whether or not the court said he could use his recollections of the sealed documents & the notes he made while reviewing the sealed documents, but rather is that exactly what he did. Only Ashton knows actually knows. It'll be hard to prove either way.

Well, not only Ashton, but the COURT said he could use his recollections of the sealed documents & the notes he made while reviewing the sealed documents.

Sorry I mis-posted & indicated that "we" all know what he used . . . it's common sense to me as I review documents all the time, make notes & recall what I've read, and then write/present information that I have gathered.

Again, sorry, but I thought it was very common to do this :crazy:

 

[RR0004]

Take youir pick:

1) She was, as the jury found, not guilty.

or

2) The SA didn't do their job.

After watching the show, it couldn't have been any clearer that the jury didn't do their job...IMO. Regardless, it's sad and scary to know that the accused breathes the same air as we do. Dontcha think?

 

[noor]

Take youir pick:

1) She was, as the jury found, not guilty.

or

2) The SA didn't do their job.

The jury did not find FCA innocent.
The SA did their job.
Those jurors did not do their job.

 

[RR0004]

I am not arguing whether or not the court said he could use his recollections of the sealed documents & the notes he made while reviewing the sealed documents, but rather is that exactly what he did. Only Ashton knows actually knows. It'll be hard to prove either way.

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]

According to JA, attorneys should not address the jury that way. I believe it goes to conduct (familiarity). The State objected, the judge allowed it.

Surprise, surprise.