The state wants to kill AL's client. Really?

[Soju]

Yeah, the reason above all others, that I cannot tolerate AL is because of this issue exactly. She is fighting her cause in the wrong venue, and is well aware of that fact. It just suits her better to fight it out this way, for a variety of reasons previously mentioned, mostly involving publicity, it seems.

IMHO, AL in general, and this particular ploy in particular, is disrespectful to most of the people and establishments/entities involved not only in this case, not only in Florida, but to Americans and humans in general.

As the parent of a murdered child, this kind of ploy offends me in a deep, personal manner, which I will admit does affect my outlook on this case and life in general. At the sentencing for my son's killer (aka "bio dad")'s lawyer even had the sand to say that if I'd had an abortion, then, well... $^#-ing disgusting, IMHO, and AL "smells" exactly the same way that lawyer did. All my personal opinion, of course.

and FWIW, I could take or leave the death penalty but would be more comfortable leaving it if all states' "life sentences" were actually life sentences, which, from what I've heard, Florida's is

ETA: just making it clear that I am totally not arguing and am absolutely fine with everyone's opinion on the death penalty...

Oh Flourish, I was so sad to read that about your son! I had no idea! Of course this will affect how you look at things, and I truly value and appreciate your unique perspective, it's just too bad that you have to be in such a position. No parent should ever have to go through losing a child.

Much Love and Strength! :blowkiss:

 

[The World According]

Yeah, the reason above all others, that I cannot tolerate AL is because of this issue exactly. She is fighting her cause in the wrong venue, and is well aware of that fact. It just suits her better to fight it out this way, for a variety of reasons previously mentioned, mostly involving publicity, it seems.

IMHO, AL in general, and this particular ploy in particular, is disrespectful to most of the people and establishments/entities involved not only in this case, not only in Florida, but to Americans and humans in general.

As the parent of a murdered child, this kind of ploy offends me in a deep, personal manner, which I will admit does affect my outlook on this case and life in general. At the sentencing for my son's killer (aka "bio dad")'s lawyer even had the sand to say that if I'd had an abortion, then, well... $^#-ing disgusting, IMHO, and AL "smells" exactly the same way that lawyer did. All my personal opinion, of course.

and FWIW, I could take or leave the death penalty but would be more comfortable leaving it if all states' "life sentences" were actually life sentences, which, from what I've heard, Florida's is

ETA: just making it clear that I am totally not arguing and am absolutely fine with everyone's opinion on the death penalty...

I am humbled by your post. God bless you ....today and always friend.

 

[Rlaub44]

The reason I can agree with Spangle on this is that, as has been noted, AL is deliberately using language to make the SA seem more responsible for what happens to KC than KC is.

It is as if my child whines to me that, "You want me to be grounded forever." I would gently remind him that he made the choice to engage in whatever the behavior was, and so he gets the consequences of that decision.

Did I pick grounding as the consequence for his action? Yes. Do I want to ground him? No, I want the consequences to be appropriate for his poor choice.

IMO, the State didn't want to kill KC. They simply had to select the consequence that they believed was most appropriate for the crime KC committed, as is their job when representing the People of Florida, who have chosen to allow the DP for the most heinous murders. That is why I take issue with AL's semantics here.

 

[ThommyMac]

Interesting conversation, especially how it has remained on topic & a mature discussion revolving around such a 'hot-button' issue. IMO Lyons is attempting to employ the tried and true method of winning the argument by defining the argument. This is a tactic that, at least politically, has been very effective in other 'hot-button' issues. The potential Casey verdict is just another battle in her war against the DP. It almost seems like AL is trying to make all the hay she can now so she can cash in on the LWOP sentence that seems, to me, the most likely outcome. Because once that happens, the entire media circus will move its show to the next du jour "crime of the century". Another "W" for the self-proclaimed "Angel of Death Row"'s next book. That was said with no malice, she is just playing the cards of a very crappy hand as best as she knows how. As a side-note, 4 years in a penitentiary has convinced this reformed addict that LWOP is a 1,000x worse punishment than the gallows, let alone the state's euthanasia that is currently in vogue. I hope I have approached this where my view, pro or con, on the death penalty is not a factor. A final thought at the fringe of the topic is how the old Soviets called their death penalty "the supreme measure". How's THAT for defining the argument? :wink:

 

[The World According]

What Andrea is doing is nothing new. Politicians and advertisers do it all the time....use buzz words.

A used car is marketed as pre owned,
Hand me downs are sold as gently used,
one politician will call it killing our children, the other will call it a woman's right to decide what she does with her body,
one person's client appreciation trip is another person's bribe
the mafia sells it as protection.. law enforcement calls it extortion

the jury knows.. the lawyers use buzz words

If I made a list of the one hundred most offensive things the defense has done in this case, this would be 99. Any lawyer defending a client whose life is on the line would use this language, imo.
Listening to her lectures, I find her to be the epitome of strange; awkward; clumsy; ungainly; uncultured; crude; boorish... you name it. So, I am in no way saying I like, trust or respect her. I am only saying...don't worry .... it is expected she would say the state is trying to kill her client. imo

If you haven't listened to them, visit the thread that Sleutherionthe side posted, just don't have any young children in the room when you do.

(O/T: The little buddy in my signature picture is a decorated war hero. His home owner's association saw his huge flag pole with the American flag on it to be an eye sore in the community and insisted he take it down from his front yard.. He, the other veterans and mothers and fathers in that community who have kids serving in Iraq and Afghanistan saw it as the most wonderful, beautiful display of patriotism they ever had there. The HOA can write him all the letters with buzz words of community standards, etc. they want...but the old boy..and the flag are still standing!!!) Words do not alter someone's core beliefs. If the juror is comfortable with the death penalty , the word kill wont change that , imo. If that word is wholly offensive to their moral compass, they likely will not be on this death -qualified jury.

 

[Spangle]

Guys, please do not get into a death penalty debate. please please.

How does that jive with....

Fault ,blame, and accepting responsibility for a crime is whole new issue, imo.


The jury will also decide life or death in the penalty phase and the judge will confirm the death penalty if it is chosen by the jury. (well at least here in CA)

I totally disagree. The Jury only decides the classification of the crime matches which punishment. It's all pretty much spelled out.

It's not like the Jury has a choice of saying "Guilty, but we are going to just let her pay $5 and let her go home." Not if the crime is murder. For such a crime, that isn't an option.

These 'options' are set forth to try and prevent bias. White guy going free, while a Black guy gets hung. That kind of serious bias. Or the kind where the rich kid gets away with everything, and the poor kid gets locked up for life.

Which is rather like the '3 strikes law.' It forces the LE/SA to treat all convicted equally. Everyone who gets 3 strikes, no matter who's their daddy, is suppose to get the slammer. And Daddy can't do a dang thing about it. Who is Daddy going to blame??

Same situation here. The Jury isn't to blame for the Criminal doing an activity that is DP Eligible. And they are not to be blamed for saying "Yep, that's DP Eligible."

BTW, I don't consider this a DP debate. This is a debate about blaming others for your own actions.

If you want the DP laws changes, I'm behind you on that. But i will not be behind anyone who is trying to blame jurys for doing their jobs.

 

[Spangle]

Interesting conversation, especially how it has remained on topic & a mature discussion revolving around such a 'hot-button' issue. IMO Lyons is attempting to employ the tried and true method of winning the argument by defining the argument. This is a tactic that, at least politically, has been very effective in other 'hot-button' issues. The potential Casey verdict is just another battle in her war against the DP. It almost seems like AL is trying to make all the hay she can now so she can cash in on the LWOP sentence that seems, to me, the most likely outcome. Because once that happens, the entire media circus will move its show to the next du jour "crime of the century". Another "W" for the self-proclaimed "Angel of Death Row"'s next book. That was said with no malice, she is just playing the cards of a very crappy hand as best as she knows how. As a side-note, 4 years in a penitentiary has convinced this reformed addict that LWOP is a 1,000x worse punishment than the gallows, let alone the state's euthanasia that is currently in vogue. I hope I have approached this where my view, pro or con, on the death penalty is not a factor. A final thought at the fringe of the topic is how the old Soviets called their death penalty "the supreme measure". How's THAT for defining the argument? :wink:

Bingo!
It's rare for FL to execute a female anyway. However, so much hay has been made, that those that are following it might expect it. And THAT makes it more a possibility.

I think AL thought this would be an easy win, because of the likely hood that she would get LWOP anyway. IF she has been following FL's DP and execution stats. But, if KC isn't found guilty so AL can 'win' the LWOP conviction.. then AL doesn't get to count it.. AL is stuck with nothing.

However, if KC is found guilty and get's the DP, the AL can really get to work. In all her glory. Trying to prove how wrong the DP is. That is the point of much of her motions. It's for later, way later.

So KC has 1 glory hound and 1 media hound for lawyers. Could this be why she hasn't plead?

As noted, the father was proven to have abused his child several times, until dead at 4 months. HE was able to plead out with 15 yrs.

It doesn't seem that Caylee was continually abused. Just this one event. What happened to that baby was many times, not just 1 event.

 

[JBean]

How does that jive with....


I totally disagree. The Jury only decides the classification of the crime matches which punishment. It's all pretty much spelled out.

It's not like the Jury has a choice of saying "Guilty, but we are going to just let her pay $5 and let her go home." Not if the crime is murder. For such a crime, that isn't an option.

These 'options' are set forth to try and prevent bias. White guy going free, while a Black guy gets hung. That kind of serious bias. Or the kind where the rich kid gets away with everything, and the poor kid gets locked up for life.

Which is rather like the '3 strikes law.' It forces the LE/SA to treat all convicted equally. Everyone who gets 3 strikes, no matter who's their daddy, is suppose to get the slammer. And Daddy can't do a dang thing about it. Who is Daddy going to blame??

Same situation here. The Jury isn't to blame for the Criminal doing an activity that is DP Eligible. And they are not to be blamed for saying "Yep, that's DP Eligible."

BTW, I don't consider this a DP debate. This is a debate about blaming others for your own actions.

If you want the DP laws changes, I'm behind you on that. But i will not be behind anyone who is trying to blame jurys for doing their jobs.

I am sorry Spangle, I think we are talking about completely different topics.

But so you understand there were new posts starting the debate about the DP, so I was asking not to open that can of worms. It was a request because the convesation, up until that post had not gone down the road of a dp debate and it was a lively discussion without it. if you are saying that I myself was having a DP debate then I think you have misunderstood my posts, especially the one you quoted.

I have made no reference to changing DP laws?? I was supporting FL's decision to use it and stand behind it when they do.

here in CA the jury recommends life or death in the penalty phase of a capital trial if the DA has offered it as an option and the judge upholds or not. if it doesn't work that way in FL, I will take your word for it. but that has nothing to do with blame? It is just information as to how it works in response to the jury not having a voice in the murder penalty. But again, it is just a statement of info with not intent to cast blame or responsibility on the jury at all and not intended to be read any way other than that.

I guess I am totally confused on the topic at this point because you have made reference to it being
1. does the state really want give her the DP?
2.Why didn't she take a plea
3. Now you say "This is a debate about blaming others for your own actions. "

I have only been discussing # 1 and i think that is the disconnect.
So let's clarify the topic for starters and then maybe we can connect better.
thanks spangle.

 

[impatientredhead]

Then if the state is putting it on the table , but they don;t have to, thenwouldn't it be safe to assume it is desired by the state and that they do indeed want to kill her?
I am not sure what the issue is. The state does want to execute KC and they are asking a jury to do so if found guilty. If we try to reword it to make us more comfortable, then we are doing exactly what AL is doing but from another perspective. KWIM?

You could say more comfortable wording, you could say more accurate, less prejudicial.

The state feels that the crime Casey Anthony has committed is deserving of the death penalty doesn't really have the same ring to it as the state wants to kill my client.

And worse yet puts the responsibility on the state and not on Casey.

 

[JBean]

You could say more comfortable wording, you could say more accurate, less prejudicial.

The state feels that the crime Casey Anthony has committed is deserving of the death penalty doesn't really have the same ring to it as the state wants to kill my client.

And worse yet puts the responsibility on the state and not on Casey.

I agree with less prejudicial and that makes good sense to me.

I think my point is that the State is not excluding the death penalty as a conseqence for the alleged murder of her daughter, so it could be accurately re stated that the state would like to put Casey Anthony to death for the murder of Caylee Anthony. Moreover, I am saying if the state does want to include the DP by way of not excluding it, then they should just embrace it because it is legal and a legitimate option.

Also, to clarify because I think i am not being clear somewhere, I am not doing any blame placing at all nor am I or have I referenced that or commented on it in any of my posts except to say it is a separate and different issue.
If i were to place blame or fault, it would be squarely on the back of the criminal if they are guilty. So, if any of my posts have been misinterpreted to say that I am blaming a jury or a prosecutor please let me clear that up right now!

 

[Tulessa]

God Bless you flourish. Looks like you and I were brought to this board in the same fashion.

I want justice for this baby.

 

[denjet]

I can't help but wonder what influence prevented her from taking a plea early on in the case.

Was it because:
She was convinced by others that she could beat the charges?
She was banking on a body never being found and thus assumed it would lessen the chances that she would face LWOP.
She was confident in her ability to cover her tracks, and assumed that she would be found innocent.
She knew she was innocent.

....

snipped to address

I vote for She was banking on a body never being found and thus assumed it would lessen the chances that she would face LWOP.

I say this not only because of her reaction the day the remains were found, but because it's seems after she was indicted, she told SOMEONE Caylee was dead and where the body was ... TES was coming back to search the beginning of November which made her and the defense nervous ... the fact that this happened within one short month of her being indicted means to me that this was her only worry about being found guilty of capital murder ...

 

[denjet]

....

The statement by AL that "the State wants to kill my client" strikes me as odd in a subtle way. AL steers clear of mentioning Caylee by name instead, referring to her as the "kid" or "deceased". According to her own lectures....everything is about humanizing your client and dehumanizing the victim.....

That said.......WHY in the world would AL say in court that "the state wants to kill my client", instead of "the state wants to kill Casey Anthony"?????

Is that indicitave of her true feelings that KC is guilty, or because Casey sounds much like Caylee, or some other reason? I am big on word selection and semantics. We use words for a reason. What is her reason???????

Thoughts????

snipped to address

I agree with others who say the name "Casey Anthony" has a very bad association to Caylee's murder ... but "client" sounds so distant and seems to contradict Lyon's own advise of humanizing her clients ... It does make me wonder why she doesn't say "Ms Anthony" or "this young woman" or something like that ... I noticed she avoids speaking of her in terms of being a mother, or a young mom all together ... except for the "she didn't kill her kid" blunder ...

 

[magnolia]

The reason I can agree with Spangle on this is that, as has been noted, AL is deliberately using language to make the SA seem more responsible for what happens to KC than KC is.

It is as if my child whines to me that, "You want me to be grounded forever." I would gently remind him that he made the choice to engage in whatever the behavior was, and so he gets the consequences of that decision.

Did I pick grounding as the consequence for his action? Yes. Do I want to ground him? No, I want the consequences to be appropriate for his poor choice.

IMO, the State didn't want to kill KC. They simply had to select the consequence that they believed was most appropriate for the crime KC committed, as is their job when representing the People of Florida, who have chosen to allow the DP for the most heinous murders. That is why I take issue with AL's semantics here.

I take issue with AL's use of the word kill as well. Although kill and execute are synonyms, execute is the appropriate word. Kill and murder are also synonyms,but, often the word murder is not appropriate.

execute:to inflict capital punishment on; put to death according to law.

The SA does not have the power to kill her client. They, do, however, have the power to inflict a charge that may result in capital punishment.
~Big difference~ IMO

 

[LambChop]

i can't help but wonder what influence prevented her from taking a plea early on in the case.

was it because:
She was convinced by others that she could beat the charges?
She was banking on a body never being found and thus assumed it would lessen the chances that she would face lwop.
She was confident in her ability to cover her tracks, and assumed that she would be found innocent.
She knew she was innocent.

The statement by al that "the state wants to kill my client" strikes me as odd in a subtle way. Al steers clear of mentioning caylee by name instead, referring to her as the "kid" or "deceased". According to her own lectures....everything is about humanizing your client and dehumanizing the victim.....

That said.......why in the world would al say in court that "the state wants to kill my client", instead of "the state wants to kill casey anthony"?????

Is that indicitave of her true feelings that kc is guilty, or because casey sounds much like caylee, or some other reason? I am big on word selection and semantics. We use words for a reason. What is her reason???????

Thoughts????

duct tape

 

[denjet]

Great questions!! I believe Casey didn't take a plea for all the reasons you listed above with the exception of the last one.

I think AL's ego got in the way when she referred to Casey as "my client" rather than using Casey's name. She seems to be uber aware and proud of her sterling record in wins/losses. It's very likely that she considers Casey primarily as another statistic in her ratings, in spite of the compassion and benevolence she tries to portray in court. She must have slept through that part of her own lecture. :sleep: Do you think she might be in danger of losing her halo as the "Angel of Death Row" in this case? :innocent:

I've gotten that feeling too, listening to AL's lectures, interviews and seeing her in action ... that it's more about her "cause" than her "client" ... I totally agree that this is just one more fight for her and her cause .... I don't see compassion for KC so much at all ... and yes, where's that halo ??

 

[RR0004]

snipped to address

I vote for She was banking on a body never being found and thus assumed it would lessen the chances that she would face LWOP.

I say this not only because of her reaction the day the remains were found, but because it's seems after she was indicted, she told SOMEONE Caylee was dead and where the body was ... TES was coming back to search the beginning of November which made her and the defense nervous ... the fact that this happened within one short month of her being indicted means to me that this was her only worry about being found guilty of capital murder ...

...and I believe it was a worry of CA's also. I'm having a hard time reconciling her behavior when TES came in to search the beginning of November and DC's "directed" search (supposedly sanctioned by Cindy herself) shortly thereafter.

 

[Reagan]

I'm glad that sleutherontheside and others found and actually sat through AL's lectures to help us all better understand their strategy.

Does the state want to kill casey anthony? Yes..(despite what Ashton said) and I don't think the jury will have any problems hearing the defense phrase it that way. If that's all the defense has is "phrases and terminology" and deflecting from what their client did...they better find a different strategy.

Ashton's short speech on why the DP exists in this case is just a preview of how they will present this case to a jury... based on facts (3 pieces of duct tape) but also full of emotion.
Once the state does it's closing arguments, that's it. Slam dunk. The defense doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The state does want to kill their client. So do I. So do many others... even some of those who were anti-DP have changed their minds.

P.S Jbean, do they really list that on the death certificate after someone is executed? Homicide? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[kaRN]

Yeah, the reason above all others, that I cannot tolerate AL is because of this issue exactly. She is fighting her cause in the wrong venue, and is well aware of that fact. It just suits her better to fight it out this way, for a variety of reasons previously mentioned, mostly involving publicity, it seems.

IMHO, AL in general, and this particular ploy in particular, is disrespectful to most of the people and establishments/entities involved not only in this case, not only in Florida, but to Americans and humans in general.

As the parent of a murdered child, this kind of ploy offends me in a deep, personal manner, which I will admit does affect my outlook on this case and life in general. At the sentencing for my son's killer (aka "bio dad")'s lawyer even had the sand to say that if I'd had an abortion, then, well... $^#-ing disgusting, IMHO, and AL "smells" exactly the same way that lawyer did. All my personal opinion, of course.

and FWIW, I could take or leave the death penalty but would be more comfortable leaving it if all states' "life sentences" were actually life sentences, which, from what I've heard, Florida's is

ETA: just making it clear that I am totally not arguing and am absolutely fine with everyone's opinion on the death penalty...

Thanks for sharing that flourish. I can't even imagine the pain you've suffered. I'm glad you gave yourself such a wonderful nic and I hope you do like your nic says!!!

 

[biggirl]

Dearest Flourish,
I cannot even imagine having to endure losing a child and then having to sit in a courtroom and hear a defense attorney dismiss the murder in that manner. What strength it must have taken to keep from pummeling him/her.

IMHO the victims of crime are all too often forgotten. You appearing at the sentencing had to be hard. Was your child's murderer given "life"?

I do not have any problem with the State of Florida or any State "killing" a person that would take their childs life. I say kill away.