ami
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,175
- Reaction score
- 28,111
I voted No, because a Yes vote would imply that JB and CM et al are competent attorneys who would be willing to fall on their swords for ICA - to allow themselves to be "falsely" seen as inept, allow their reputations to be that of attorneys who are so ineffective they allowed a DP case to go off the rails... I mean can you see competent attorneys sacrifice that much to let a monster who killed her child to have a second chance at getting off?
No, I think like others that they have very little to work with and with KC as "the boss" of this corporation they have no option of taking a logical or even marginally credible stance.
I think at this late stage the only effective counsel would be to emotionally distract the jury from the facts of the case. Is JB trying to do that? Sure. He's trying to find another guilty party, he's trying to get the jury to dislike and disbelieve that other guilty party (GA), he's trying to paint his client as the victim. I don't think there's any other strategy at this point.
However. JB's *method* of doing these things is ineffective. The jury sees that he is not prepared. They see the HHJP admonishing him. They see him forgetting facts and dates as if he doesn't really care about the trial. They see his client sit like a soulless pit in contrast to everyone else's emotional grief, while her attorney bumbles and fumbles and forgets.
What would work as a defense?
Well, we've all seen a completely unlikeable - actually detestable - and unsympathetic person BECOME a sympathetic person (CA) simply by a change in strategy. Okay, perhaps the change is one from lying to telling the truth, but the fact is the day before CA got on the stand most of us would have liked to have seen her convicted of something as well --- while after she left the stand, after only a few hours, even WE found sympathy and empathy for her and started the process of trying to understand why she did those insane things. She had us trying to feel her pain and sympathize with it. She had us understanding that she was a victim too.
If the defense could have even 1/10th of that change in people's perceptions of ICA?
So the new ICA story is that the death of her child was accidental, that she was abused and therefore handled the aftermath terribly, that she admits to lying and fabricating and did these things for reasons she's not emotionally capable of even really understanding herself. We all know that's BS, but let's say for a moment you really wanted to sell that story to the jury as the truth.
Seeing what we saw of the change in perception of CA within hours - from insane lying crazy enabling pitbull mercenary to grieving broken grandmother of a much beloved baby girl - would it be possible for the defense to effect even a fraction of that change in perception of ICA?
I don't know from the sidelines what ICA could do to help get this fiction swallowed by the jury. I suppose it would entail skillful questioning of other witnesses to do her speaking for her. I do not think JB is capable of developing a line of questioning to do so. I also think it would entail ICA "acting" like a sympathetic character. I don't know how one could accomplish that within the confines of the rules of the courtroom.
No, I think like others that they have very little to work with and with KC as "the boss" of this corporation they have no option of taking a logical or even marginally credible stance.
I think at this late stage the only effective counsel would be to emotionally distract the jury from the facts of the case. Is JB trying to do that? Sure. He's trying to find another guilty party, he's trying to get the jury to dislike and disbelieve that other guilty party (GA), he's trying to paint his client as the victim. I don't think there's any other strategy at this point.
However. JB's *method* of doing these things is ineffective. The jury sees that he is not prepared. They see the HHJP admonishing him. They see him forgetting facts and dates as if he doesn't really care about the trial. They see his client sit like a soulless pit in contrast to everyone else's emotional grief, while her attorney bumbles and fumbles and forgets.
What would work as a defense?
Well, we've all seen a completely unlikeable - actually detestable - and unsympathetic person BECOME a sympathetic person (CA) simply by a change in strategy. Okay, perhaps the change is one from lying to telling the truth, but the fact is the day before CA got on the stand most of us would have liked to have seen her convicted of something as well --- while after she left the stand, after only a few hours, even WE found sympathy and empathy for her and started the process of trying to understand why she did those insane things. She had us trying to feel her pain and sympathize with it. She had us understanding that she was a victim too.
If the defense could have even 1/10th of that change in people's perceptions of ICA?
So the new ICA story is that the death of her child was accidental, that she was abused and therefore handled the aftermath terribly, that she admits to lying and fabricating and did these things for reasons she's not emotionally capable of even really understanding herself. We all know that's BS, but let's say for a moment you really wanted to sell that story to the jury as the truth.
Seeing what we saw of the change in perception of CA within hours - from insane lying crazy enabling pitbull mercenary to grieving broken grandmother of a much beloved baby girl - would it be possible for the defense to effect even a fraction of that change in perception of ICA?
I don't know from the sidelines what ICA could do to help get this fiction swallowed by the jury. I suppose it would entail skillful questioning of other witnesses to do her speaking for her. I do not think JB is capable of developing a line of questioning to do so. I also think it would entail ICA "acting" like a sympathetic character. I don't know how one could accomplish that within the confines of the rules of the courtroom.