LYONS AUDIO TAPES and BS VIDEO GONE? Discussion with R HORNSBY here

[travelgal]

I don't understand----why would they ask BS to resign or be expelled? What am I missing? moo

Seems like RH, et al, are attempting to bully Mr Shaeffer. It all appears to be very childish behavior from the big hoopla about AL & her videos, to trashing a wonderful reporter -KB- and revenge plays against BS. It is very disgusting!! A LITTLE GIRL WAS MURDERED and they totally lose sight of that fact!! I am angry :furious: :furious:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Please do not take what I am about to say out of context, but... I personally think Casey Anthony is guilty, I am just not sure of exactly what yet.

With that said, Mr. Kronk does not come to the table with clean hands. There are so many questionable things about him that I do not lose a second of sleep over him being vetted by the defense.

Let us not forget, we all originally thought Ms. Kerley's claim were recent fabrications because she had an ax to grind. And Kronk had previously denied he had anything to hide.

HOWEVER, the next day Kronk's lawyer issued a statement admitting that he was not only arrested for the charges (meaning probable cause was found for the arrest) but that a Grand Jury was convened. The very fact a grand jury was convened is a big deal and it does not mean they found he did not do it, it only means they did not believe that a conviction could be obtained "beyond a reasonable doubt."

And I know this - he had the arrest records expunged, and expungements usually occur because someone has something embarrassing in their past they do not want someone to find out about.

So Kronk is no angel, is he Caylee's killer - I don't think that AT ALL. I just have no problem with him being fully vetted.

p.s. A person I know from high school worked with Kronk in his "office" job before Kronk got the axe. The only thing Kronk cared about was reward money and his workers compensation claim for his back. And he apparently bragged about putting the stick he used up for sale on eBay and other loony ideas to make a buck.

So he cared about money...so what? Doesn't make him a killer. The same thing could be said for attorneys who advertise ubiquitously.

 

[JBean]

Everyone. The discussion can be heated and debate is welcome. But please lets not get into personal insults to one another. You don't have to like each other or agree, but please remember TOS. I am not going to heavily moderate this thread, but am just asking everyone to please post respectfully.
Thanks.

ETA: as always where this post lands on the thread is not necessarily related to any posts nearby

 

[cyberborg]

Okay, so if I am following the logic of Mr. Hornsby's post:

BS released the tapes to get ratings/readers (which is his job) and in doing so has set up the trial for a pro-defense bias because anyone with a bad opinion of Ms. Lyons will be dismissed from the jury pool. That about sums it up right?

It seems to be BS's story will have zero effect on jury selection because the ONLY people in the world who would have listened to those tapes are people like ourselves that are interested in this case, legal proceedings, and true crime, etc..... and that the vast majority of that pool already had an opinion about Ms. Lyons and what she is willing to do to win a case.

Anyone with that feeling that says they can not set it aside would be dismissed. But I would suggest that person would have been dismissed anyway.

Everyone seated on a jury in this case will have an opinion going in. There is no way to be a local and not be aware of the case. The entire jury will have been exposed to information and reports prior to trial. They will be asked to set that aside.

BBM

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[cyberborg]

I doubt Kathy Belich reveals her sources, even to Mr Sheaffer. Those recordings were 'out there' for public consumption; I viewed them and there was no warning that the material was not for distribution. Ms Lyons has just had a short sharp lesson in the power of the WWW- ie Never say anything in public that you do not want to see on You Tube.

Do we know, can we sleuth if any of this audio material was posted/available before the WFTV publication? That'd be interesting.

 

[JBean]

Just spoke to Mr. Hornsby. So, to make it official Mr. Hornsby is the real deal.

Very nice man. Glad decided to jump in and take the heat. He told me he has a pretty thick skin and can take it. LOL. Why does that not surprise me.

Please remember TOS.

Thanks everyone.

Tricia

For those that may have missed.

 

[kew17]

Second, I was on the FACDL board and resigned over a year ago in protest of an issue that is immaterial for this discussion (it would sidetrack this response). So I am no longer a member of that organization and thus have no corresponding obligations. However, unlike the seminar materials, there are no rules prohibiting one from releasing your own email.

Nope, I do not assume that level headed people are pro-defense in general; but we are talking a death penalty case. So any person who remains on the jury must be willing to impose death as a punishment. So, by definition they are more prone - to impose the death penalty - than a non death penalty qualified panel.

That by definition means you will have a more conservative jury panel, so if you are left with a conservative panel - the more level headed people you have versus cowboys, the more pro-defense your jury gets.

Its like this, assume our trial is about politics. FOX is conservative, MSNBC is liberal, and CNN is moderate. By default no MSNBC jurors are even allowed on jury, so you are left with FOX and CNN jury pool. Defense would want more CNN than FOX, the State would like all FOX.

Thank you for returning again to further discuss this matter. I have a few questions, if you would be so kind.

First quote (respectfully snipped for space): You indicate that you obtained your information a few pages back, from your source at FACDL to confirm WS's actions regarding the how's and why's of obtaining these audio files. If you are no longer on the board of this association, didn't you use your "connections" to obtain this info on him? If you are no longer affiliated with this organization, why would you utilize your "pull" with the powers that be there and expose one of your own. How is what he did different that what you did. No disrespect intended, just trying to understand how we are where we are here.

Quote #2: With regard to jury selection, I agree with another poster that to the extent of the brief run of WFTV's story, the highest impact was made to those of us so intrigued with true crime. Since the trial will most likely be not be in Orlando (due to change of venue), I doubt this story will impact or even reach those potential jurors. (JMHO) But, the media tours the defense has been on, both locally and nationally, I feel will directly affect those potential jurors. What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks again for your responses!

 

[RR0004]

Please do not take what I am about to say out of context, but... I personally think Casey Anthony is guilty, I am just not sure of exactly what yet.

With that said, Mr. Kronk does not come to the table with clean hands. There are so many questionable things about him that I do not lose a second of sleep over him being vetted by the defense.

Let us not forget, we all originally thought Ms. Kerley's claim were recent fabrications because she had an ax to grind. And Kronk had previously denied he had anything to hide.

HOWEVER, the next day Kronk's lawyer issued a statement admitting that he was not only arrested for the charges (meaning probable cause was found for the arrest) but that a Grand Jury was convened. The very fact a grand jury was convened is a big deal and it does not mean they found he did not do it, it only means they did not believe that a conviction could be obtained "beyond a reasonable doubt."

And I know this - he had the arrest records expunged, and expungements usually occur because someone has something embarrassing in their past they do not want someone to find out about.

So Kronk is no angel, is he Caylee's killer - I don't think that AT ALL. I just have no problem with him being fully vetted.

p.s. A person I know from high school worked with Kronk in his "office" job before Kronk got the axe. The only thing Kronk cared about was reward money and his workers compensation claim for his back. And he apparently bragged about putting the stick he used up for sale on eBay and other loony ideas to make a buck.

Well what a surprise! He was only interested in the reward money...so it's ok to suspect him? We all knew about his past...and sorry to say...if his record was expunged it should have stayed that way. There was a reason why a judge would allow it.

Look at all the kooky things LP did...should he be "vetted"?

 

[msinformed]

Please do not take what I am about to say out of context, but... I personally think Casey Anthony is guilty, I am just not sure of exactly what yet.

With that said, Mr. Kronk does not come to the table with clean hands. There are so many questionable things about him that I do not lose a second of sleep over him being vetted by the defense.

Let us not forget, we all originally thought Ms. Kerley's claim were recent fabrications because she had an ax to grind. And Kronk had previously denied he had anything to hide.

HOWEVER, the next day Kronk's lawyer issued a statement admitting that he was not only arrested for the charges (meaning probable cause was found for the arrest) but that a Grand Jury was convened. The very fact a grand jury was convened is a big deal and it does not mean they found he did not do it, it only means they did not believe that a conviction could be obtained "beyond a reasonable doubt."

And I know this - he had the arrest records expunged, and expungements usually occur because someone has something embarrassing in their past they do not want someone to find out about.

So Kronk is no angel, is he Caylee's killer - I don't think that AT ALL. I just have no problem with him being fully vetted.

p.s. A person I know from high school worked with Kronk in his "office" job before Kronk got the axe. The only thing Kronk cared about was reward money and his workers compensation claim for his back. And he apparently bragged about putting the stick he used up for sale on eBay and other loony ideas to make a buck.

BBM

So, are we to take from this, you are NOT in favor of records being expunged? And, that expunged records are only utilized to "save face," embarrassment? As opposed to those citizens who have been sufficiently rehabilitated, refraining from criminal conduct, after having "an awakening" after a certain crime ........ and, wish to pursue careers that otherwise, they may have been barred from ..........?

Have you ever, in representing a client, petitioned the Court to have a record expunged?

O/T ........ I noticed it took you fifteen minutes to draft & post this reply - were you using your "phone-a-friend" lifeline?

 

[cyberborg]

Seems like RH, et al, are attempting to bully Mr Shaeffer. It all appears to be very childish behavior from the big hoopla about AL & her videos, to trashing a wonderful reporter -KB- and revenge plays against BS. It is very disgusting!! A LITTLE GIRL WAS MURDERED and they totally lose sight of that fact!! I am angry :furious: :furious:

To me the better approach is by 'example' rather than by 'fight' --- why not offer the same standard and class of legal advice as Shaeffer does but corrected to what your legal opinion is. Intelligently debate Shaeffer in your forum and media .... as professionals.

Bashing is counterproductive and destructive ..... this case needs more constructive educated and well-informed expertise ..... not more circus.

Be professional and don't use bashing to get on the front page and promote your blog! IMHO.

 

[Macushla]

What a fascinating thread! Mr. Hornsby, I would like to ask you a question: As a defense attorney, do you believe in the 'anything that might work to get my client off' stye of defense? Do you think there is a line that defense attorneys should not cross over in a 'spirited and vigorous defense'? Lying, manipulating evidence, etc. is an obvious no no to both sides, so I am not talking about that. I would truly like to know where you stand on how vigorously you would defend your client and where you would draw the line.

 

[rhornsby]

Respectfully snipped by me.

WTH? You comment on AL's seminar content yet do not want to spend some time to listen to it? To me, before spending an hour or two on this WS forum commenting on it and the controversy maybe you should do some homework and research, spend 30 minutes or so and listen to the tape first?

Why? Why do I have to listen to give my legal opinion on them? Because you want me to morally agree with you that they are offensive or something?

Listen, anyone who cares, I will happily provide my legal perspective about the issues in the case. I provided my perspective about the legal ramifications and it was spot on. If you don't believe me, fine. When the trial is over please let me know if I was right or wrong.

Now, if you want me to talk morality - we need to talk on the phone, I have seen everything. I have cried for victims of cases I was assigned to handle, and I have cried with families of clients who were wrongfully accused of horrible crimes. I have seen the state play games with peoples life. I have watched people be sentenced to death.

I mean really, if the case against Casey is so cut and dry. Why are you even concerned about the content of the audio?

So I don't need to do my homework to talk law with you; and I did not ask to get into a moral debate on here because I would offend a lot of people and I like answering legal questions.

But if you want to talk morality, please just tell me a time you would like to call and I will give you my direct line.

 

[rhornsby]

Mr. Hornsby, with all due respect, you STILL did not answer my second question. I ask AGAIN... why didn't you just do what you felt needed to do...... and then just be quiet about it? Why did you feel it so necessary to inform the public of this and your part in it? Once reported, it seems to me, it would have been handled and dealt with.... without you tooting your own horn.

Frankly, regardless of how the tapes were obtained by Ms. Belich, I am glad she published them. Ms. Lyon should know in this day and age, you shouldn't SAY or DO anything you don't want to end up on the internet..... or maybe Ms. Lyon is one of those "technology challenged" persons Mr. Baez spoke of to Judge Strickland.

I have a TON of respect for Mr. Sheaffer for not blasting you the way you have blasted him..... I have always believed if I ever needed the services of an attorney, I would want Mr. Sheaffer. My opinion has not changed. I once had a lot of respect for you.... until you started this personal attack against Mr. Sheaffer.

There is a way to do things... and a way NOT to do things.... I believe you chose the way NOT to do things.

JMO.

I did it because I felt like it. Plus, if you read all of my posts you will see that on the same day the seminar pience ran, WJS sent a letter to the sentinel saying he did not need to respond to me because he was such a professional.

???? WTF! ON THE SAME DAY HE SAYS WHAT A PRO HE IS AND HE WILL NOT STOOP TO MY LEVEL, HE SELLS OUT AN ENTIRE ORGANIZATION.

I'm sorry, I was trying to move away from WJS bashing, but if you keep asking I will tell you the truth. He got what he deserved and If I didn't expose him, no one else would have. Sorry, don't feel bad at all.

Now if you have questions about non WJS issues, please let me know.

 

[RR0004]

BBM

So, are we to take from this, you are NOT in favor of records being expunged? And, that expunged records are only utilized to "save face," embarrassment? As opposed to those citizens who have been sufficiently rehabilitated, refraining from criminal conduct, after having "an awakening" after a certain crime ........ and, wish to pursue careers that otherwise, they may have been barred from ..........?

Have you ever, in representing a client, petitioned the Court to have a record expunged?

O/T ........ I noticed it took you fifteen minutes to draft & post this reply - were you using your "phone-a-friend" lifeline?

There is nothing wrong with having a record expunged. And if I'm not msitaken, not all convictions are eligible. RK's obviously was. Extremely serious crimes...with prison sentences having been served...require a pardon (hope I'm getting this right).

 

[RR0004]

To me the better approach is by 'example' rather than by 'fight' --- why not offer the same standard and class of legal advice as Shaeffer does but corrected to what your legal opinion is. Intelligently debate Shaeffer in your forum and media .... as professionals.

Bashing is counterproductive and destructive ..... this case needs more constructive educated and well-informed expertise ..... not more circus.

Be professional and don't use bashing to get on the front page and promote your blog! IMHO.

Oh, thank you so much for saying that. All day I was thinking about mud wrestling, but couldn't picture BS doing that.

 

[rhornsby]

Heck, Mr. Hornsby...if you're gonna go after anyone...it should be Geraldo. I don't think you'd get any flack about that.

Nope, the next person I want to blog about being clueless is "Judge" Karen Mills-Francis. She blew me away by her lack of legal knowledge. But considering the flack I got about WJS, I bit my tongue....

 

[cyberborg]

Why? Why do I have to listen to give my legal opinion on them? Because you want me to morally agree with you that they are offensive or something?

Listen, anyone who cares, I will happily provide my legal perspective about the issues in the case. I provided my perspective about the legal ramifications and it was spot on. If you don't believe me, fine. When the trial is over please let me know if I was right or wrong.

Now, if you want me to talk morality - we need to talk on the phone, I have seen everything. I have cried for victims of cases I was assigned to handle, and I have cried with families of clients who were wrongfully accused of horrible crimes. I have seen the state play games with peoples life. I have watched people be sentenced to death.

I mean really, if the case against Casey is so cut and dry. Why are you even concerned about the content of the audio?

So I don't need to do my homework to talk law with you; and I did not ask to get into a moral debate on here because I would offend a lot of people and I like answering legal questions.

But if you want to talk morality, please just tell me a time you would like to call and I will give you my direct line.

Thanks, understood. I guess my point was more about the playbook, the strategy being presented and your take on it? Where do you/others typically draw the line versus the AL playbook?

 

[RR0004]

I did it because I felt like it. Plus, if you read all of my posts you will see that on the same day the seminar pience ran, WJS sent a letter to the sentinel saying he did not need to respond to me because he was such a professional.

???? WTF! ON THE SAME DAY HE SAYS WHAT A PRO HE IS AND HE WILL NOT STOOP TO MY LEVEL, HE SELLS OUT AN ENTIRE ORGANIZATION.

I'm sorry, I was trying to move away from WJS bashing, but if you keep asking I will tell you the truth. He got what he deserved and If I didn't expose him, no one else would have. Sorry, don't feel bad at all.

Now if you have questions about non WJS issues, please let me know.

...ah...look at the title of the thread.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Okay I have a legal question. During jury selection could they ask a very broad question like "have you listened to or been to any seminar where AL has been a guest speaker"..from there could you sequester those people and go into detail so the entire jury pool isn't tainted?

ETA...still waiting on those Zhu Zhu pets

 

[RR0004]

Why? Why do I have to listen to give my legal opinion on them? Because you want me to morally agree with you that they are offensive or something?

Listen, anyone who cares, I will happily provide my legal perspective about the issues in the case. I provided my perspective about the legal ramifications and it was spot on. If you don't believe me, fine. When the trial is over please let me know if I was right or wrong.

Now, if you want me to talk morality - we need to talk on the phone, I have seen everything. I have cried for victims of cases I was assigned to handle, and I have cried with families of clients who were wrongfully accused of horrible crimes. I have seen the state play games with peoples life. I have watched people be sentenced to death.

I mean really, if the case against Casey is so cut and dry. Why are you even concerned about the content of the audio?

So I don't need to do my homework to talk law with you; and I did not ask to get into a moral debate on here because I would offend a lot of people and I like answering legal questions.

But if you want to talk morality, please just tell me a time you would like to call and I will give you my direct line.

...cause it's the title of the thread?

Geesh...am I not being clear?