Sidebar Discussion #10

[Intermezzo]

After reading for nearly a month about "The Book aka The Doorstop," I have to summarize my feelings for the it in real-life terms.

If I read a non-fiction work, it has to be accurate. When an author and co-author go by the seats of their pants, it's a non-starter for me. Fact-checkers are worth their weight in gold. Mr. Baez has all the documents, all the videos, and all the transcripts, even of items that didn't make it into court. Apparently, neither he nor his co-author (a professional writer) didn't bother with this little step and there were so many factual errors, one can't trust anything the author has to say. Memory fails, documents are forever.

The late, great writer Dominick Dunne wrote excellent true-crime articles for Vanity Fair. A friend of mine, who knew him, said he'd miss a day in court to meet with his fact-checkers before any article of his went to press. His articles could be trusted.

From fact we move to opinion, which is quite acceptable from the person writing a non-fiction work. I might not agree with the author's point of view, but, as long as it is balanced against the facts, I may learn something.

Have any of you who bit the bullet and read or are reading the book learned anything new about the case? Or, can you get past the discrepencies and waffling of opinion?

BTW, bring out the huge Thwart Cupcake again, I need some breakfast:

Last Sale: 6 hours

July Sales: 508
June Sales: 136
Current Rank: 2,278

Great Post and my sentiments exactly...

 

[Intermezzo]

FASCINATING interview with the Miami Herald. It's worth a read here's a sniplet about the current topic here:



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/30/2920667/casey-anthonys-attorney-comes.html#storylink=cpy

Does that include the $89,000 he was paid in 2008 using the ABC money?
Or is he conveniently leaving that salary out of the equation.

Not that I think he shouldn't have gotten paid but I do turn my nose up at someone who conveniently leave out information while trying to gain sympathy for themselves

 

[RR0004]

FASCINATING interview with the Miami Herald. It's worth a read here's a sniplet about the current topic here:



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/30/2920667/casey-anthonys-attorney-comes.html#storylink=cpy

Hey...that $4 an hour bit...wasn't that comment made here recently by a poster?

ETA: and that article proves, once again, how full of cr*pola he really is!! I wonder if this book signing will even happen.

 

[Intermezzo]

FASCINATING interview with the Miami Herald. It's worth a read here's a sniplet about the current topic here:

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/30/292 0667/casey-anthonys-attorney-comes.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/30/2920667/casey-anthonys-attorney-comes.html#storylink=cpy


Why did people get so obsessed with this case?

Because Casey was young pretty and white.

---------------------

Baez has got it WRONG that people were obsessed with this case because of looks...He is the one that is focused more on Looks and physical attributes. IMO

People became obsessed with the case because of OCA's actions, lack of action and lies regarding the death of her own child, or as OCA herself said...the greatest accomplishment in her life.

 

[Ricki]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/30/2920667/casey-anthonys-attorney-comes.html#storylink=cpy


Why did people get so obsessed with this case?

Because Casey was young pretty and white.

---------------------

Baez has got it WRONG that people were obsessed with this case because of looks...He is the one that is focused more on Looks and physical attributes. IMO

People became obsessed with the case because of OCA's actions, lack of action and lies regarding the death of her own child, or as OCA herself said...the greatest accomplishment in her life.

Uhmm No. It was because of a 2 year old baby girl was missing at the time for 31 days and her mother was the last one to see her.


Young and white?? The pretty...It was pretty obvious that mom was involved in the disappearance.

 

[rossva]

Thanks, I appreciate that thought. It would be my pleasure to chat with Mr. baez extensively, and if I were the only one their, I would get that opportunity.

By, the way, Ashton's still making light of the deathj of Caylee Anthony, as he did in court, when he laughed.


"Lamar announced that he had instituted on Tuesday a policy that people in the state attorney’s office couldn’t profit from inside information, a slam against Ashton’s book on the Casey Anthony trial.

“I guess they call that the Ashton rule?” Ashton asked. The line earned laughter from the audience at the University of Central Florida."

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en.../jeff-ashton-lawson-lamar-debate-who-won.html

I hope no one shows up!
Well, apart from Rossva...

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Both of you are right, IMHO! Add in an unbelievable attorney who turned the loss of said little angel into a mockery of justice.

 

[sayd]

I also did it and got the same # you did - 273 total Kindle.

Then I did the hardcover book and got 753 total for July. There are also 148 listed for June but I'm suspicious of that since the book didn't come out until the first week in July.

It is also available as a download on ITunes. Don't know if we can track that # or not.

And half of those were bought for The View audience by Barbara WaWa who probably put them in the trash.

 

[logicalgirl]

After reading for nearly a month about "The Book aka The Doorstop," I have to summarize my feelings for the it in real-life terms.

If I read a non-fiction work, it has to be accurate. When an author and co-author go by the seats of their pants, it's a non-starter for me. Fact-checkers are worth their weight in gold. Mr. Baez has all the documents, all the videos, and all the transcripts, even of items that didn't make it into court. Apparently, neither he nor his co-author (a professional writer) didn't bother with this little step and there were so many factual errors, one can't trust anything the author has to say. Memory fails, documents are forever.

The late, great writer Dominick Dunne wrote excellent true-crime articles for Vanity Fair. A friend of mine, who knew him, said he'd miss a day in court to meet with his fact-checkers before any article of his went to press. His articles could be trusted.

From fact we move to opinion, which is quite acceptable from the person writing a non-fiction work. I might not agree with the author's point of view, but, as long as it is balanced against the facts, I may learn something.

Have any of you who bit the bullet and read or are reading the book learned anything new about the case? Or, can you get past the discrepencies and waffling of opinion?

BTW, bring out the huge Thwart Cupcake again, I need some breakfast:

Last Sale: 6 hours

July Sales: 508
June Sales: 136
Current Rank: 2,278

A well thought out post CarolinaMoon - but here's a question for you that I have been considering since the first week this book was released.

I was very interested to read all the comments and criticisms of the posters who were actually reading the book and critiquing it for all of it's mistakes. There were obvious and blatant lies or "mistruths" to many of the facts while granted,Baez is expected to have his own opinions.

But let's look back to his behavior during the hearings and the trial. JB was always late with his information and it often took motions to get him to produce such things as his witness list. Even then it was a copy of the prosecution's list. The motions Baez produced were moronic, full of grammatical errors and often not up to the standard most lawyers would produce. He seemed to spend more time moving his mouth in front of the cameras than he did wading through the thousands of documents.

So here's my question. What makes us think he actually read any of these documents. Why aren't we thinking one of his assistants or his legal staff read the document and gave him a quick summary as each came out?

We know he's lazy, we know he's inaccurate, why do we think he actually read and digested any of these documents?:waitasec:

 

[logicalgirl]

Uhmm No. It was because of a 2 year old baby girl was missing at the time for 31 days and her mother was the last one to see her.


Young and white?? The pretty...It was pretty obvious that mom was involved in the disappearance.

I heard this interview when he said it and thought - "Are you farking nuts"??

For me - what caught my attention was the 31 days...and the Grandmother who reported the child missing - I'm not certain I'd even seen a picture of Caylee at that point. Because I was so stunned that a mother, any mother, would have a child missing for more than five minutes and not be screaming her head off for help.

That and of course the famous perp walk - a mother who looked so excited in a nasty way to be the center of media attention - and this was the person who did not tell anyone her child was gone? I thought to myself - what kind of a monster does this? Black, white, yellow, red, young, old, had nothing to do with why I was watching and reading....

No Mr. Baez, young, white, female and in your opinion, pretty is why YOU took the case, not why we were watching.:maddening:

 

[logicalgirl]

Current Amazon Rank - 2334

You can run Baez, but you can't hide from the public - there is truth in numbers and stats!!

 

[LambChop]

Thanks, I appreciate that thought. It would be my pleasure to chat with Mr. baez extensively, and if I were the only one their, I would get that opportunity.

By, the way, Ashton's still making light of the deathj of Caylee Anthony, as he did in court, when he laughed.


"Lamar announced that he had instituted on Tuesday a policy that people in the state attorney’s office couldn’t profit from inside information, a slam against Ashton’s book on the Casey Anthony trial.

“I guess they call that the Ashton rule?” Ashton asked. The line earned laughter from the audience at the University of Central Florida."

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en.../jeff-ashton-lawson-lamar-debate-who-won.html

So I guess it's okay for the attorney of the defendant to make money off of the death of a child. That makes sense.

 

[grammieto5]

Did you count the end papers, title page, copyright page and index, if it is not numbered? Something is not right :anguish:. JB said it is a very thick book, in every interview, I would want my money back :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: If I had actually bought it :tsktsk:

Maybe for JB it is a thick book. Maybe he's used to only reading books like the Jane, Dick and Spot books I just had a thought, are there any truths in JB's book? Maybe just one????

 

[Jayarre]

Maybe for JB it is a thick book. Maybe he's used to only reading books like the Jane, Dick and Spot books I just had a thought, are there any truths in JB's book? Maybe just one????

His feelings about Websleuths.:floorlaugh:

 

[logicalgirl]

So I guess it's okay for the attorney of the defendant to make money off of the death of a child. That makes sense.

And in addition - that was a stupid statement from Lamar since Jeff Ashton was not a member of the state attorney's office when he wrote his book - he had retired and was a private citizen...:waitasec:

 

[grammieto5]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/30/2920667/casey-anthonys-attorney-comes.html#storylink=cpy


Why did people get so obsessed with this case?

Because Casey was young pretty and white.

---------------------

Baez has got it WRONG that people were obsessed with this case because of looks...He is the one that is focused more on Looks and physical attributes. IMO

People became obsessed with the case because of OCA's actions, lack of action and lies regarding the death of her own child, or as OCA herself said...the greatest accomplishment in her life.

People were obsessed with this case because of Caylee. It's all about Caylee, always has been always will be.

 

[Intermezzo]

Thanks, I appreciate that thought. It would be my pleasure to chat with Mr. baez extensively, and if I were the only one their, I would get that opportunity.

By, the way, Ashton's still making light of the deathj of Caylee Anthony, as he did in court, when he laughed.


"Lamar announced that he had instituted on Tuesday a policy that people in the state attorney’s office couldn’t profit from inside information, a slam against Ashton’s book on the Casey Anthony trial.

“I guess they call that the Ashton rule?” Ashton asked. The line earned laughter from the audience at the University of Central Florida."

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en.../jeff-ashton-lawson-lamar-debate-who-won.html

Interesting

Not directed specifically to you Rossva
But I have questions....Seriously.


I don't have an issue with the Policy for current employees but I have questions with it if it extends beyond that.

Does that new Policy extend to former employees, any and all persons who are NO longer employed by the State Attorney's Office? Banning that person from such things as writing a book, talking to others...ie in interviews, seminars, guest speaker in their private lives? If any of those involve a payment?
Is that Constitutionally legal?

Will this Policy have any effect on Florida's Sunshine Law and Open Government Laws? The 1992 Amendment to the Florida Constitution expanded openness to the Judiciary Branch of Gov't

Lamar can institute a Policy within his Office for current employees but does he has Legal authority to prevent a former employee, someone not working for the Government from earning a living, in any form that former employee chooses?

 

[LambChop]

And in addition - that was a stupid statement from Lamar since Jeff Ashton was not a member of the state attorney's office when he wrote his book - he had retired and was a private citizen...:waitasec:

I think Mr. Lamar was hoping people would miss that little detail. Plus the book was based on facts that were already public information. No big "state secrets" were revealed. lol

 

[CarolinaMoon]

A well thought out post CarolinaMoon - but here's a question for you that I have been considering since the first week this book was released.

I was very interested to read all the comments and criticisms of the posters who were actually reading the book and critiquing it for all of it's mistakes. There were obvious and blatant lies or "mistruths" to many of the facts while granted,Baez is expected to have his own opinions.

But let's look back to his behavior during the hearings and the trial. JB was always late with his information and it often took motions to get him to produce such things as his witness list. Even then it was a copy of the prosecution's list. The motions Baez produced were moronic, full of grammatical errors and often not up to the standard most lawyers would produce. He seemed to spend more time moving his mouth in front of the cameras than he did wading through the thousands of documents.

So here's my question. What makes us think he actually read any of these documents. Why aren't we thinking one of his assistants or his legal staff read the document and gave him a quick summary as each came out?

We know he's lazy, we know he's inaccurate, why do we think he actually read and digested any of these documents?:waitasec:

Quite frankly, I've always believed he was less than diligent in keeping up with the paperwork in the trial and relied on others to summarize for him. I believe some of his senior law students enrolled in his "class" at St. Thomas University School of Law did much of the work in that area. He was teaching them trial preparation, after all.

At the time, I discussed this very issue with a bunch of friends who also followed the case. At that time, I wondered how much in order his paperwork really was. I ONLY had printed out all the motions and some of the interviews, enough to fill 2 1/2 file boxes. It was a struggle to keep them in order and updated. I imagined his office filled with boxes with paperwork dumped into them and unsorted. One day, one of the workers in his office couldn't find a motion (IMHO) and googled it. It linked to the blog I was writing during the discovery phase. They entered in at my article and exited to the document itself.

Earlier, I linked to the fact-checking thread about Tony L's testimony where Baez was grilling him without the jury present on accusations Casey had made. Baez actually had to leave the courtroom to find the deposition Tony gave. When he got back with the depo, he grlled Tony on what he had said there. As it turned out, there wasn't enough there to impeach him and Judge Perry ruled he couldn't testify in front of the jury.

Sloppy, sloppy work from the defense, especially Baez' motions.

IMHO, a good attorney starts the case with a cogent defense and refines it as discovery continues. In his case, Baez spent years trying to find someone to pin the crime on. His JAC money for research was wasted on TES workers, interviews with Mr. Kronk's wives, etc. He jumped onto his defense way late into trial preparation and it more resembled a spaghetti defense which saw the jury eating a lot of Italian food from the wall where it stuck.

I found this link early on in the trial. It's a good read on how to prepare a defense in an organized fashion. Do you think Baez ever read it?

http://www.mcle.org/includes/pdf/1960301B00_S.pdf

 

[logicalgirl]

I think Mr. Lamar was hoping people would miss that little detail. Plus the book was based on facts that were already public information. No big "state secrets" were revealed. lol

Yeah right, he and Baez have a lot in common when it comes to detail "slippage"...