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

[ZsaZsa]

Yeah...kinda like RH's blog regarding Bill Shaeffer. Disappointing to say the least.

I think a suitable word would be petulant.

 

[Blaise]

Heh.

I know how Our Boy Richard feels about this case! Turns out Michelle Bart (remember her?) has a blogger radio show. Bizarrely, she has some first run guests (Mark Williams, Dr. Kobilinsky, Mark Eiglarsh). Go figure.

Kobilinsky (remember him? He's on the defense payroll, and Nancy used him as a pinanta for weeks) was going on that Dr. G. made a mistake when she ruled it a homicide.

Hornsby calls in and absolutely EATS. HIS. LUNCH. Koby, bless his stupid little heart, seems absolutely hurt.

Also Hornsby raises some serious questions about about Casey's initial hiring of Jose. Per Hornsby, Casey wasn't booked until midnight, and by 3:00 p.m. the next afternoon, Baez has filed Notice of Representation papers. Something about this is not enough time to make a decision about such an important decision.

Hornsby's participation is in the last 15 minutes. I got the very strong impression that Hornsby thinks she's guilty as sin. He sez Baez and Casey's egos are too big to take any plea that the state would offer, because the State's case is so strong that they won't be offering less than 30 years.

The entire show is a bit of a hoot, where Bart comes up with these bizarre theories and her very own guests shoot them down, and she seems chastened and comes up with another one, and her guests shoot her down again. Very entertaining 90 minutes.

Hornsby -- Put down the turkey and let me know if I've misquoted you.

Here's the URL for the show. It's titled "Voices for Justice: Casey Anthony" Part 2. Hornsby's call-in is in the last 15 minutes.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/its-a-mystery-to-me/db0657347c4f2489ae848c905a5ece78


Blaise

 

[3doglady]

Killers on the jury?

I used to be a nurse. Let's say I am working in the ER and a terrorist is brought in. I've seen this man on tv along with indisputable evidence that he has murdered thousands of people. I have to give him 2cc of iv medication to save his life. I can give him 1.5 ccs and he will die. There's no doubt in my mind that I would give him the full 2ccs because that is my moral and ethical duty. It is not my right as a nurse to impose judgment on this man. But, let's say I am on the jury and I have a choice of sentencing him to life or giving him the dp. I can promise you that I would be the first person to give him the dp, not only to prevent other innocent people from dying but to provide justice to the families of the victims he killed. Am I "level headed" because I saved his life or am I a killer (cowboy) because I gave him the dp?

This is the problem I have with AL. It is her job to give the best defense she morally and ethically can. It is not her job to impose judgment on innocent people or victims of rape. When she spoke of automatically claiming her clients innocence because the victim knew him and therefore the rape was consensual she was doing just that. Don't get me wrong, if I were charged with a crime, I would want a shark. But I would want an honest shark who doesn't use lies, guilt and intimidation to win a case at all cost.

 

[rhornsby]

And with all due respect, if his high school friend held any merit in this, a link can be provided..
You would think an attorney in his own right would not come into public and even post such a thing unless he could back it up..
JMHO

I am not offering it as fact - because my friend does not want anything to do with this circus. If either side wants to find him, it is as simple as interviewing Kronk's co-workers. From what I understand, Kronk was a gab at work.

Anyway, I know I am new in here; but how could I post a link to something told to me personally? Would a link to my office from Google Maps suffice?

 

[QB.]

Count Three - Agg. Manslaughter because it only requires an intentional omission (not calling police ASAP); counts 1 and 2 require an intentional physical act.

With that said, if Caylee died accidentally and Casey somehow testifies, or defense alludes to that; calling police would not have have changed how Caylee died. Thus although the omission was intentional, it did not contribute to the death before the fact. And she could walk on that as well.

What bothers me is the State filed the Notice to Seek the Death Penalty on April 14 - and I still haven't seen something that just jumps out at me and says PREMEDITATED DEATH.

BBM

Could it be that there was something in forensic reports from the lab at that time that hasn't been released in discovery yet?
Do you think prosecution is holding back or do you think we have seen pretty much everything they have in terms of evidence?

 

[rhornsby]

BBM

Could it be that there was something in forensic reports from the lab at that time that hasn't been released in discovery yet?
Do you think prosecution is holding back or do you think we have seen pretty much everything they have in terms of evidence?

They don't have much more.

 

[2goldfish]

I am not offering it as fact - because my friend does not want anything to do with this circus. If either side wants to find him, it is as simple as interviewing Kronk's co-workers. From what I understand, Kronk was a gab at work.

Anyway, I know I am new in here; but how could I post a link to something told to me personally? Would a link to my office from Google Maps suffice?

bbm :biglaugh:

 

[QB.]

Do you think the judge will allow the defense's motion for prior bad acts of RK?

 

[3doglady]

Count Three - Agg. Manslaughter because it only requires an intentional omission (not calling police ASAP); counts 1 and 2 require an intentional physical act.

With that said, if Caylee died accidentally and Casey somehow testifies, or defense alludes to that; calling police would not have have changed how Caylee died. Thus although the omission was intentional, it did not contribute to the death before the fact. And she could walk on that as well.

What bothers me is the State filed the Notice to Seek the Death Penalty on April 14 - and I still haven't seen something that just jumps out at me and says PREMEDITATED DEATH.

What is your theory on the duct tape? The ME stated that it was applied (paraphrasing) before or immediately after death. What about the coffin flies versus the lack of blow flies? This is the evidence that makes me lean toward premeditation.

 

[suki]

If I was to believe everything I read was unbias on rhorby's blog, I'm sure he would have swamp land to sell me too. Whether the info was right or wrong, airing it on a blog was not the most professinal thing I've seen coming from FL.

 

[Tiki]

I have jumped ahead several pages, so forgive me if this has been posted already.

Andrea Lyons is an Associate Professor of Law at DePaul University in Chicago. Link: http://www.depaul.edu/academics/our_faculty/lyon.asp

DePaul University is a private Catholic university with corresponding core values and mission statement as seen here: http://www.depaul.edu/about/mission/index.asp

Therefore, how can her campus board condone such vile commentary? It appears to fly in the face of Catholic core values - what about the Ten Commandments? I would have some extremely serious issues if I were a parent writing checks to this university.

It's called "academic freedom".

snipped

"In the United States, academic freedom is generally taken as the notion of academic freedom defined by the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure," jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges (AAC). These principles state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject." [8] The AAUP works with colleges and universities, including private and religious institutions, to implement these principles as the basis for contractual relationships with faculty. Colleges and universities found to violate these principles are placed on a list of censured institutions."

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Academic_freedom

More about other professional activities at the link.

As a retired college instructor, I can tell you that it is interpreted in various ways depending on the institution.


.

 

[Tracey276]

Here is how jury selection works. The jurors first fill out questionnaires that the lawyers get to review, then the judge asks preliminary questions, the state asks their questions, and then the defense asks questions.

A major topic is going to be who heard pretrial publicity. So while Potential Juror 1 may not have heard the tapes, Potential Juror 2 may have and will then say "well I heard she said this about jurors, and I think she is a witch." Suddenly PJ1, who had no position agrees with PJ2 and asserts his agreement when asked if anyone else agrees with PJ2.

Now both jurors would be stricken for cause, as they would have exhibited a bias against the defense team.

Now once this will likely become a heated topic, and suddenly PJ5, PJ7, PJ14, etc all express the same bias - and they all too are excluded.

Now the State is left with PJ3, PJ4, PJ6, PJ9, PJ9, etc who all said they understood the context of what was said and why it was said and they stay in the jury pool because they have not expressed a bias against the defense, nor by saying they understand the context of the statements are the expressing a sympathy for the defense that the State could use to strike them for cause.

So basically, once this questioning is done. All of the shoot now, sort 'em out later people are off the jury and you are left with more level headed people.

Now, once the jury is seated with a pro-defense jury, the statements will never be discussed again.

Also, the entire audio of her speech would not be played for any reason, even during jury selection. Rather, the only exposure during jury selection would be what people remember hearing.

Isn't this a pretty simplistic view to think this would actually occur this way.

They ask juror #1 a question, he answers. Then they ask juror #2, he answers, etc., on down the line So, then as this continues, they go back to juror #1 and all of a sudden he just says out loud, he agrees with juror #2 and he's disqualified? Come on. Really?? I mean, you even stated yourself, Mr. H, that you it would not be appropriate to comment on AL's seminar because you hadn't heard it. Do you not believe there are juror's in FL who may actually be intelligent enough to say the same? That doesn't give much credit to our jurors, does it? I just don't see it happening.

I could be wrong though. Just my opinion.

 

[Tracey276]

They don't have much more.

I am asking this with all respect. Do you know this or is this an opinion answer? I'm just asking because I am truly a believer the SA does, in fact, have more we have not seen yet.

And Mr. H, I do want to say, I appreciate your coming here and discussing this with us. I appreciate your passion for your profession, most definitely!

 

[BeanE]

I am, however, somewhat disappointed. He is cheating on us and posting in the insession boards. In fact, he posted there first. I thought we were his only ones. <sniff>

Blaise

:floorlaugh:

 

[BeanE]

I am not offering it as fact - because my friend does not want anything to do with this circus. If either side wants to find him, it is as simple as interviewing Kronk's co-workers. From what I understand, Kronk was a gab at work.

Anyway, I know I am new in here; but how could I post a link to something told to me personally? Would a link to my office from Google Maps suffice?

What we're looking for is a link to the ebay listing. If the listing was removed, a screenshot of it before it was removed will suffice. You would also need to provide documentation of how you confirmed that the poster of said item was indeed Kronk.

I'm speculating that Kronk - or someone else - at some point cracked a joke about selling the stick on ebay, but did not actually list it.

Most of us have cracked a joke or two about auctioning, e.g., a grilled cheese sandwich with the face of Jesus on ebay.

Soooo... you gonna linky dinky do?

 

[rhornsby]

Heh.

I know how Our Boy Richard feels about this case! Turns out Michelle Bart (remember her?) has a blogger radio show. Bizarrely, she has some first run guests (Mark Williams, Dr. Kobilinsky, Mark Eiglarsh). Go figure.

Kobilinsky (remember him? He's on the defense payroll, and Nancy used him as a pinanta for weeks) was going on that Dr. G. made a mistake when she ruled it a homicide.

Hornsby calls in and absolutely EATS. HIS. LUNCH. Koby, bless his stupid little heart, seems absolutely hurt.

Also Hornsby raises some serious questions about about Casey's initial hiring of Jose. Per Hornsby, Casey wasn't booked until midnight, and by 3:00 p.m. the next afternoon, Baez has filed Notice of Representation papers. Something about this is not enough time to make a decision about such an important decision.

Hornsby's participation is in the last 15 minutes. I got the very strong impression that Hornsby thinks she's guilty as sin. He sez Baez and Casey's egos are too big to take any plea that the state would offer, because the State's case is so strong that they won't be offering less than 30 years.

The entire show is a bit of a hoot, where Bart comes up with these bizarre theories and her very own guests shoot them down, and she seems chastened and comes up with another one, and her guests shoot her down again. Very entertaining 90 minutes.

Hornsby -- Put down the turkey and let me know if I've misquoted you.

Here's the URL for the show. It's titled "Voices for Justice: Casey Anthony" Part 2. Hornsby's call-in is in the last 15 minutes.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/its-a-mystery-to-me/db0657347c4f2489ae848c905a5ece78


Blaise

Nope - pretty spot on.

I will post the stamped copies of Casey's booking report and Jose's Notice of Appearance tonight. You will see that in less 14 hours (in between booking, IA appearances, and movement at jeail) Casey made the life or death decision of Jose Baez has her attorney..... Unless she had called him before this all blew up. Um, that is called guilty conscious in my book.

As a sidenote, a reporter friend said that Jose Baez was actually contacted by Grund the day of her arrest because Baez had represented Grund before on a small misdemeanor or something. If that is the case, might not be such a big deal. But still, I have never gotten into such a big case the same day I was contacted.

 

[rhornsby]

What we're looking for is a link to the ebay listing. If the listing was removed, a screenshot of it before it was removed will suffice. You would also need to provide documentation of how you confirmed that the poster of said item was indeed Kronk.

I'm speculating that Kronk - or someone else - at some point cracked a joke about selling the stick on ebay, but did not actually list it.

Most of us have cracked a joke or two about auctioning, e.g., a grilled cheese sandwich with the face of Jesus on ebay.

Soooo... you gonna linky dinky do?

It is my understanding he wanted to put it up, but did not because of how it would be perceived.

 

[citygirl]

Nope - pretty spot on.

I will post the stamped copies of Casey's booking report and Jose's Notice of Appearance tonight. You will see that in less 14 hours (in between booking, IA appearances, and movement at jeail) Casey made the life or death decision of Jose Baez has her attorney..... Unless she had called him before this all blew up. Um, that is called guilty conscious in my book.

As a sidenote, a reporter friend said that Jose Baez was actually contacted by Grund the day of her arrest because Baez had represented Grund before on a small misdemeanor or something. If that is the case, might not be such a big deal. But still, I have never gotten into such a big case the same day I was contacted.

KC has always said she hired Baez based on a few cell mate's recommendations. How juvenile is that? And I've never had the feeling that her parent's were too delighted about it. I've always had sympathy for JB thinking he's way out of his league and not too bright. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts about him. You said he was a fraud, didn't you? What exactly did you mean?

 

[coco puff]

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.

.

snipped by me.

The thing is, if she is guilty of anything less than the horrible crime that she is accused of, she'd be singing like a bird. But yet she sits quietly and lets her legal team and various other stakeholders defend her actions.

That said, if I were a criminal, I would be rejoicing over all of the wonderful ways I can get off scott free for a crime I committed. If I were a person who became involved in a crime by aiding LE in anyway, I would be afraid and regretful that I may be portrayed any other way than someone trying to help, and if I were a victim, I would be unbelievably angry because not only will my perp probably get off, thanks to all of these wonderful defense tactics, but I'm sure to be portrayed unfavorably in court. But since I'm not any of these things (yet) I'm just incredibly sad.

Turkey done and I'm going to try to enjoy all of my blessings. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[doogiesgirl]

Heh.

I know how Our Boy Richard feels about this case! Turns out Michelle Bart (remember her?) has a blogger radio show. Bizarrely, she has some first run guests (Mark Williams, Dr. Kobilinsky, Mark Eiglarsh). Go figure.

Kobilinsky (remember him? He's on the defense payroll, and Nancy used him as a pinanta for weeks) was going on that Dr. G. made a mistake when she ruled it a homicide.

Hornsby calls in and absolutely EATS. HIS. LUNCH. Koby, bless his stupid little heart, seems absolutely hurt.

Also Hornsby raises some serious questions about about Casey's initial hiring of Jose. Per Hornsby, Casey wasn't booked until midnight, and by 3:00 p.m. the next afternoon, Baez has filed Notice of Representation papers. Something about this is not enough time to make a decision about such an important decision.

Hornsby's participation is in the last 15 minutes. I got the very strong impression that Hornsby thinks she's guilty as sin. He sez Baez and Casey's egos are too big to take any plea that the state would offer, because the State's case is so strong that they won't be offering less than 30 years.

The entire show is a bit of a hoot, where Bart comes up with these bizarre theories and her very own guests shoot them down, and she seems chastened and comes up with another one, and her guests shoot her down again. Very entertaining 90 minutes.

Hornsby -- Put down the turkey and let me know if I've misquoted you.

Here's the URL for the show. It's titled "Voices for Justice: Casey Anthony" Part 2. Hornsby's call-in is in the last 15 minutes.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/its-a-mystery-to-me/db0657347c4f2489ae848c905a5ece78


Blaise

Just listened....I actually liked what I heard from RH. One question, how does one find out if KC contacted JB before she was charged? We both know they both will lie about it, so what other way is there to find out? moo