Jeff Ashton -Retired? Not if he has anything to say about it! ;) ***Updated***

New Posts

Pattymarie said:
I remember being very surprised when the Prosecution did not alter their previously fine case after JB presented his opening. As ludicrous as the opening was and full of lies...the jury did not know that. JB and his team effectively removed the shock and the horror of the 31 days and KC's lying which originally pointed to her consciousness of guilt. The 2 biggest pieces of circumstantial evidence the State had. Then they placed doubt by calling it a drowning. So even the smell in the trunk, the dogs and their hits, Cindy's phone call, etc was rendered impotent in the minds of the jurors.

In hindsight, all the astounding evil we here at WS, the detectives, the State (and yes, GA and CA) knew about was never made clear to the jury, after the defense circumvented the most important evidence. So, yes, that fell on the Prosecution team to re-direct their case after the outrageous opening and make them feel the horror we and 99% of humankind experienced at the callous way this beautiful little girl was erased and tossed like garbage.

One thing, though, that wasn't rendered useless was the duct tape. That blame clearly falls on the jury. Even with all the other stuff moot, the duct tape was enough to point to a monstrous act rather than an accidental drowning. There is nothing that explains such an atrocity and the jury ignored one of the most callous acts ever. The state did a fine job in portraying this.

However, we are all just armchair quarterbacks now. Blaming can't change anything. And the rest of the story remains untold. And Caylee is still dead.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of your post,Pattymarie.

The jury may not have known the opening statement was bogus at first ,but if they listened to the testimony they would know JB had no evidence entered that proves it. Nothing.

The jury didn't do any work in the jury room. Had they asked questions,looked at evidence,spent some time going over the weeks and weeks of evidence,the NG verdict would be a tad more acceptable.Even with several jurors voting guilty in the beginning, nothing was looked at. They simply talked amongst themselves.

I think everyone made mistakes in this trial,including the judge,but it was the jury who checked out without even trying.
They sure knew what was on tv ,when and where the best restaurants were.

I hope Jeff Ashton is successful at whatever he pursues. I like him.
 
oceanblueeyes said:
The reason the state did not get a conviction from this jury is because this jury chose to overburden the state. They wanted to know everything from beginning to end. Just like they do when watching a CSI show. I found them very shallow minded and not critical thinkers. I was worried about this jury from the beginning when either they said they knew little about this case or they did not read or watch the news.

The CE should have won this case hands down. All the jury had to do is use commonsense and logic and apply it to the overwhelming CE entered.

No child that 'accidentally drowned' winds up triple bagged and thrown away like trash with duct tape applied to their face. Nor does their parent have reeking decomp in their vehicle. Just doesn't happen and it didn't happen in this case either.

The jurors couldn't even pull from their own individual knowledge or life experiences and say to the other jurors 'oh I heard of a case where this had happened before' because there is no other case when the child died from an accident. This was a simple case of murder. The duct tape shows premeditation, imo.

That explains why CA lied her butt off. That explains why she went on with her life as if nothing had happen hoping to avoid detection for as long as she could. That explains why she told no one where Caylee's body was. Mothers who have lost their sweet innocent children due to an accident don't throw their little bodies away in a bug infested swamp to decompose until the COD can't be determined but a murderer certainly does.

Jeff Ashton has nothing to be ashamed of...he and Linda did their jobs but you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink even if they are dying of thirst and this is the kind of jury they pulled for this case. They didnt have a clue what CE means or how to apply it and that it is just as powerful as direct evidence and many times even more so.

No case has all the answers. Bodies are found skeletonized all the time where COD cant be determined. The overwelming evidence showed Caylee was a victim of homicide at the hands of her mother.

That is why most cases are CE cases and are won day in and day out all across this country. They demanded to know what, when, where, why and how... which were burdens the state wasn't required to prove. No prosecutor in this country could have gotten a conviction if they had this jury looking at the evidence presented. They were too busy listening to the BS and looking at the smoke and mirrors.

We only see these type of jurors once in a blue moon thank goodness.

Jeff Ashton will make a great SA!

I think the people of Orlando would love to see him in that postion.
Click to expand...

BBM

Best quote of the New Year!
 
oceanblueeyes said:
the reason the state did not get a conviction from this jury is because this jury chose to overburden the state. They wanted to know everything from beginning to end. Just like they do when watching a csi show. I found them very shallow minded and not critical thinkers. I was worried about this jury from the beginning when either they said they knew little about this case or they did not read or watch the news.

The ce should have won this case hands down. All the jury had to do is use commonsense and logic and apply it to the overwhelming ce entered.

No child that 'accidentally drowned' winds up triple bagged and thrown away like trash with duct tape applied to their face. Nor does their parent have reeking decomp in their vehicle. Just doesn't happen and it didn't happen in this case either.

The jurors couldn't even pull from their own individual knowledge or life experiences and say to the other jurors 'oh i heard of a case where this had happened before' because there is no other case when the child died from an accident. This was a simple case of murder. The duct tape shows premeditation, imo.

That explains why ca lied her butt off. That explains why she went on with her life as if nothing had happen hoping to avoid detection for as long as she could. That explains why she told no one where caylee's body was. Mothers who have lost their sweet innocent children due to an accident don't throw their little bodies away in a bug infested swamp to decompose until the cod can't be determined but a murderer certainly does.

jeff ashton has nothing to be ashamed of...he and linda did their jobs but you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink even if they are dying of thirst and this is the kind of jury they pulled for this case. They didnt have a clue what ce means or how to apply it and that it is just as powerful as direct evidence and many times even more so.

No case has all the answers. Bodies are found skeletonized all the time where cod cant be determined. The overwelming evidence showed caylee was a victim of homicide at the hands of her mother.

That is why most cases are ce cases and are won day in and day out all across this country. They demanded to know what, when, where, why and how... Which were burdens the state wasn't required to prove. No prosecutor in this country could have gotten a conviction if they had this jury looking at the evidence presented. They were too busy listening to the bs and looking at the smoke and mirrors.

We only see these type of jurors once in a blue moon thank goodness.

Jeff ashton will make a great sa!

I think the people of orlando would love to see him in that postion.
Click to expand...

post of the day!
 
Great points everyone, but let's steer this thread back on topic now.

Jeff Ashton - Retired? Not if he has anything to say about it!
 
I think the hardest part for JA was the fact that this jury didn't think enough of the death of this child to pay attention to the news. They only caught bits and pieces and just were not interested enough to give it a second thought. How sad?? jmo
 
beach said:
Great points everyone, but let's steer this thread back on topic now.

Jeff Ashton - Retired? Not if he has anything to say about it!
Click to expand...

Haha....Beach...I DID post his FB announcement that he was running!
Have a great Eve...
 
Pattymarie said:
I remember being very surprised when the Prosecution did not alter their previously fine case after JB presented his opening. As ludicrous as the opening was and full of lies...the jury did not know that. JB and his team effectively removed the shock and the horror of the 31 days and KC's lying which originally pointed to her consciousness of guilt. The 2 biggest pieces of circumstantial evidence the State had. Then they placed doubt by calling it a drowning. So even the smell in the trunk, the dogs and their hits, Cindy's phone call, etc was rendered impotent in the minds of the jurors.

In hindsight, all the astounding evil we here at WS, the detectives, the State (and yes, GA and CA) knew about was never made clear to the jury, after the defense circumvented the most important evidence. So, yes, that fell on the Prosecution team to re-direct their case after the outrageous opening and make them feel the horror we and 99% of humankind experienced at the callous way this beautiful little girl was erased and tossed like garbage.

One thing, though, that wasn't rendered useless was the duct tape. That blame clearly falls on the jury. Even with all the other stuff moot, the duct tape was enough to point to a monstrous act rather than an accidental drowning. There is nothing that explains such an atrocity and the jury ignored one of the most callous acts ever. The state did a fine job in portraying this.

However, we are all just armchair quarterbacks now. Blaming can't change anything. And the rest of the story remains untold. And Caylee is still dead.
Click to expand...

Bolding by me....

I've heard many say that the prosecution should have redirected their case after the defense started the trial w/their preposterous and outlandish opening statement. My question is, what do people think the state could have done differently that they feel would have more directly attacked or opposed JB's opening statement? It appears that the state knew that the defense would have some farfetched opening statement based on the information that casey told they mental health professionals. So even knowing how ridiculous the defense team's opening statement was possibly going to be, the state still chose to present the case in the fashion that they were planning to all along. Could they have done anything different that would have really made a difference?
 
Dells said:
Bolding by me....

I've heard many say that the prosecution should have redirected their case after the defense started the trial w/their preposterous and outlandish opening statement. My question is, what do people think the state could have done differently that they feel would have more directly attacked or opposed JB's opening statement? It appears that the state knew that the defense would have some farfetched opening statement based on the information that casey told they mental health professionals. So even knowing how ridiculous the defense team's opening statement was possibly going to be, the state still chose to present the case in the fashion that they were planning to all along. Could they have done anything different that would have really made a difference?
Click to expand...
...and if I remember correctly...JA said they couldn't say the defense didn't prove their OS...or something to that effect. He talked about it on the radio show.
 
,
beach said:
No. Feel free to ask on the Verified Atty. thread but I am 99.95% sure the answer is no.

The State Attorney's obligation is to represent the "People" of their district in regards to criminal matters. Each State Bar Association has their own governing criteria. Most have members who serve as officers, on committees, etc... They usually consist of attorneys and some outside laypersons. The state attorneys are just that - lawyers, they're just not in the private practice sector - but likewise, they're members of the FL Bar Association.


Here is the link to the Florida Bar Grievance Committees page.

As you can see there are quite a few (even in each district) and the members serve specific term lengths.


Here is the Florida Bar Homepage.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons I asked was because when I was at the book signing I said something like "I hope the Bar deals with JB"...and he said, don't worry...WE will.
I kinda wondered who "we" was. Perhaps he meant attorneys, in general.
 
RR0004 said:
...and if I remember correctly...JA said they couldn't say the defense didn't prove their OS...or something to that effect. He talked about it on the radio show.
Click to expand...

In one of the interviews that JA did recently, I think it might have been the Vinnie Politan one on HLN, JA said that the state would not have been able to stand up in front of the jury and tell them that the defense team did not prove their opening statement. He said LDB sort of tried to get around that by reminding the jury what she told them in her opening statement and then saying something along the lines that she kept her word and that she had meant what she said.

I also think that JA thought the jury would sort of be able to sort through everything that was thrown at them during the trial and use their common sense as to what was believeable and what was not. I've seen a few talking heads even say that juries usually hold it against defense teams when they say things in their opening statments that they do not prove during the trial.

There is a small part of me that wishes that the jury would now talk about their verdict 6 months after the fact. I think many of them are keeping up w/the case, and I just have to wonder if some of them are starting to realize just how bamboozled they were by casey's defense team? I just don't know if I could stomach it now though, because this jury should have been able to see through all the shenanigans and all the smoke and mirrors by the defense team. It's just so frustrating on so many levels!
 
Dells said:
In one of the interviews that JA did recently, I think it might have been the Vinnie Politan one on HLN, JA said that the state would not have been able to stand up in front of the jury and tell them that the defense team did not prove their opening statement. He said LDB sort of tried to get around that by reminding the jury what she told them in her opening statement and then saying something along the lines that she kept her word and that she had meant what she said.

I also think that JA thought the jury would sort of be able to sort through everything that was thrown at them during the trial and use their common sense as to what was believeable and what was not. I've seen a few talking heads even say that juries usually hold it against defense teams when they say things in their opening statments that they do not prove during the trial.

There is a small part of me that wishes that the jury would now talk about their verdict 6 months after the fact. I think many of them are keeping up w/the case, and I just have to wonder if some of them are starting to realize just how bamboozled they were by casey's defense team? I just don't know if I could stomach it now though, because this jury should have been able to see through all the shenanigans and all the smoke and mirrors by the defense team. It's just so frustrating on so many levels!
Click to expand...
Yup...that was it!!! Thanks, Dells!!!
 
Dells said:
In one of the interviews that JA did recently, I think it might have been the Vinnie Politan one on HLN, JA said that the state would not have been able to stand up in front of the jury and tell them that the defense team did not prove their opening statement. He said LDB sort of tried to get around that by reminding the jury what she told them in her opening statement and then saying something along the lines that she kept her word and that she had meant what she said.

I also think that JA thought the jury would sort of be able to sort through everything that was thrown at them during the trial and use their common sense as to what was believeable and what was not. I've seen a few talking heads even say that juries usually hold it against defense teams when they say things in their opening statments that they do not prove during the trial.

There is a small part of me that wishes that the jury would now talk about their verdict 6 months after the fact. I think many of them are keeping up w/the case, and I just have to wonder if some of them are starting to realize just how bamboozled they were by casey's defense team? I just don't know if I could stomach it now though, because this jury should have been able to see through all the shenanigans and all the smoke and mirrors by the defense team. It's just so frustrating on so many levels!
Click to expand...

BBM- IMHO...they still don't get it.
 
I read the news on his fb last night, I'm so pleased for him and I do hope he wins. he's a powerful & brilliant attorney who's spent his life fighting the good fight, there's no way he's finished yet.
 
Jeff Ashton factoid: He is originally from Pinellas County, where Anthony's jurors were selected.
 
rossva said:
Jeff Ashton factoid: He is originally from Pinellas County, where Anthony's jurors were selected.
Click to expand...

Good to know there's at least one upstanding, intelligent person from there.
 
rossva said:
Jeff Ashton factoid: He is originally from Pinellas County, where Anthony's jurors were selected.
Click to expand...

I have spent two hours googling him and can find nothing about his younger years. This tells me you know him personally. I did find this though and thought my friends here might enjoy it. :)


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAzFWFS_PI"]The Best of FL State Prosecutor Jeff Ashton - YouTube[/ame]
The Best of FL State Prosecutor Jeff Ashton
 
Jeff Ashton to run for (Lawson Lamar's)State Attorney job.

ORLANDO -- A retired prosecutor from the Casey Anthony murder trial has announced that he is running for the state attorney's office in central Florida.

http://www.news-press.com/article/2...al-runs-office-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home
In a video posted Sunday on the Orlando Sentinel's website Jeff Ashton said he would challenge his former boss, Lawson Lamar, to be the Orange-Osceola State Attorney.


Lamar has served as state attorney since 1989.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Niner
Trials & Sentencings set to begin in November, 2021
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Niner
Niner

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 821 (members: 179, guests: 642)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
642
Total visitors
821
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
625,677
Messages
18,508,172
Members
240,834
Latest member
WiCkEdWaHiNe808
Back
Top