Verdict Watch

[lib's mom]

It's only my opinion, but I think JLY's attorneys find him repellent. I think they've done a fine job for him and there's absolutely nothing I can point to, but I think they can't wait to be done with and away from him.

ETA: Get out of my head, Boodles

 

[otto]

It's only my opinion, but I think JLY's attorneys find him repellent. I think they've done a fine job for him and there's absolutely nothing I can point to, but I think they can't wait to be done with and away from him.

ETA: Get out of my head, Boodles

I don't share that opinion. Lawyers I know that have defended nasty people, for example, men that slaughter their family with an ax, don't actually meet and deal with the murderous man, but instead meet the regular looking everyday guy accused of murder. If they find the client repulsive, they'll pass that client along to a colleague rather than be repulsed every time they work for their client. I think Jason's lawyers would like to see him found not guilty, and if that happens I think his child custody lawyer will be quite happy to begin proceedings to have parental crights restored.

 

[borndem]

That is EXACTLY! what I thought when I heard JY said the 'twig,' or was it 'branch?' Anyway, trying to separate himself.

It would have been believeable, POSSIBLY, had he said he did use a rock and FORGOT or musta' forgot and that's what the night-guy found.

That one item, in and of itself, to ME, made all the difference on wheather to believe him or NOT. Sorry, made all his other EXCUSES seem just as lame.

JMHO
fran

I agree again, Fran. He way overdid it on that one. Bad move. A stick??? He seems to be a master of overkill, huh?

 

[borndem]

From Otto - <copied msg only>
Defense exhibit photos 102, 103: Thanks to Just the Fax for posting these images on Wednesday. I put them side by side, and adjusted the exposure on both. The video still was overexposed, so I reduced the exposure of that image and increased the exposure on the party still. When I looked at these a couple of days ago, I first thought that the collar was clearly different, but I also wondered if Jason had a shirt collar on the video still and a t-shirt collar on the party still - accounting for some difference. Even when they are both B&W, they seem to be different colors with the party shirt being darker.

Good work, Otto - I thought from JTF's pics yesterday that the stripe on the HI shirt is wider -- your pictures show it, too. They are just not the same. Thx.

 

[Just the Fax]

I don't share that opinion. Lawyers I know that have defended nasty people, for example, men that slaughter their family with an ax, don't actually meet and deal with the murderous man, but instead meet the regular looking everyday guy accused of murder. If they find the client repulsive, they'll pass that client along to a colleague rather than be repulsed every time they work for their client. I think Jason's lawyers would like to see him found not guilty, and if that happens I think his child custody lawyer will be quite happy to begin proceedings to have parental crights restored.

A civil court found him responsible for MY's death and awarded LF $12,200,000.
Because he was ruled 'the slayer' of CY's mom, I doubt he would be successful in regaining primary custody in the very remote chance he were to walk.

 

[otto]

A civil court found him responsible for MY's death and awarded LF $12,200,000.
Because he was ruled 'the slayer' of CY's mom, I doubt he would be successful in regaining primary custody in the very remote chance he were to walk.

If the criminal court found that he was not the slayer, wouldn't the other ruling have to be overturned? Was it the same Judge for the trial as the slayer ruling?

 

[Just the Fax]

If the criminal court found that he was not the slayer, wouldn't the other ruling have to be overturned? Was it the same Judge for the trial as the slayer ruling?

That civil judgement stands, regardless of what the criminal verdict may be.
Judge Osmond Smith presided in the civil case.
Judge Stephens signed the final judgement.

 

[borndem]

Hi all, I am stalking this thread and waiting with all of you. The Anthony trial has me sucked in today!

Wanted to say hello!

We miss you and your very fine remarks and observations, CAddict -- But the CA case is nearly impossible to ignore, and almost burlesque compared to this one -- and I don't think it will ever end. Baez is, IMO, a courtroom version of "Who's on First?" Bless him, he's comedy in a suit.

I've been over there poaching from 9:00 -- 9:30 in the am, on Saturdays, and have it on TV muted quite often. This is OT, but what the heck do you think the jury will do??? :seeya:

 

[otto]

That civil judgement stands, regardless of what the criminal verdict may be.
Judge Osmond Smith presided in the civil case.
Judge Stephens signed the final judgement.

Forgive me for my opinion here, but that seems kinda crazy. If he was found guilty during the civil proceedings because he remained silent, but had to remain silent to protect his rights in a criminal trial, then it seems to me that if he were found not guilty in a criminal court (not expecting this, but if ...), then any prior decisions of guilt based on silence (to protect his rights) should be completely thrown out. I simply can't see how he can be the slayer and not the slayer at the same time - sounds like a very confused justice system - especially if JS signed both orders. That's like JS declaring that Jason is simultaneously guilty and not guilty, which shouldn't be allowed. In fact, why is JS trying the case, since he has made a prior ruling based on the presumption of Jason's guilt in the murder.

Gritguy, do you know anything about the law as it applies to the above?

 

[Boodles]

otto, remember OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal trial, but guilty in the civil trial. Just like here, they are separate charges. Just the Fax is correct. The civil verdict stands regardless of the outcome of this criminal trial.

The thresholds for guilt are different. In a civil trial (IIRC "wrongful death"), the jury decides based on a preponderance of evidence, which is a lower standard than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" required in a criminal proceeding.

 

[otto]

otto, remember OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal trial, but guilty in the civil trial. Just like here, they are separate charges. Just the Fax is correct. The civil verdict stands regardless of the outcome of this criminal trial.

The thresholds for guilt are different. In a civil trial (IIRC "wrongful death"), the jury decides based on a preponderance of evidence, which is a lower standard than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" required in a criminal proceeding.

That's like saying that the justice system believes he got away with murder. If he is found not guilty of wrongful death in a more strenuous (can't think of the right word) courtroom, then why does the lower threshhold court ruling; contradicting that higher threshhold ruling, stand?

 

[dgfred]

Hey otto,
Remember the same sort of thing happened to BC, but he did testify in the civil trial. It did kind of work against in the criminal trial because the prosecutor in the civil custody trial asked him questions not really relevant to the 'custody' part IIRC. Also some discrepancies in his answers were a problem too in the criminal trial. :innocent:

Not to mention OJ.

 

[otto]

Hey otto,
Remember the same sort of thing happened to BC, but he did testify in the civil trial. It did kind of work against in the criminal trial because the prosecutor in the civil custody trial asked him questions not really relevant to the 'custody' part IIRC. Also some discrepancies in his answers were a problem too in the criminal trial. :innocent:

Not to mention OJ.

I was in another world during OJ. Brad lost custody of his children because he had some suicide incident in his background, he was a mess and the victim's friends agreed that he was guilty. Jason was found wilfully responsible for his wife's death in a civil court - not intended to make such rulings. If he is found not wilfully responsible of his wife's death in a criminal court - which is designed to make such decisions, then it doesn't make sense that a civil court's ruling would trump. That same contradiction doesn't exist with Brad.

So, if Jason was found not guilty he could move to Florida (wherever OJ went), collect the insurance money and live happily ever after ... until he beats someone up in a hotel room?

 

[borndem]

I just put the local news on now, forgot to check at 5:00. Did anybody hear the local report on the trial? I was busy opening a bottle of wine. Don't think I can make it through the week-end.

Nah, glee - They just said they had completed their 1st full day of deliberation. We, as usual, know more about it than they are telling.

They did have one little human interest story. It was about a cute, smart little grandmother who enjoys wine while she watches court cases or to help her wait for verdicts. So comb your hair, glee, the photographers are already in your front yard!!!

 

[Dkny]

I believe that cy is my sole beneficiary and Lf is executor if I am not mistaken she handles everything with regard to my's estate she even handles my's 1/2 of the townhouse for cy. Imoo that includes the life insurance, ss etc. I think birch leaf went as a shortsale I know he also claimed her pe pension but LF might have worked that in somewhere else.

 

[otto]

I believe that cy is my sole beneficiary and Lf is executor if I am not mistaken she handles everything with regard to my's estate she even handles my's 1/2 of the townhouse for cy. Imoo

Thank you.

I'm assuming the insurance would go to Jason. Is the insurance forfeited, or was it collected on behalf of cy?

I suppose that's something that is better left unstated.

 

[borndem]

I'm not fran, but I'll respond anyway. I was thinking about this last night. I think the defense attorneys feel that they did their job in providing Jason with the best defense under the law. As I thought about it, they didn't go out of their way, IMO, to dramatically claim his innocence. Except for the very beginning of his direct testimony when they asked him the "did you kill her...know who did" rapid fire questions, they did not return to that line of questioning. That lead me to believe that Jason has never confessed his guilt to them (maybe I'm extremely naive) because that would have been knowingly condoning perjury. But I think they instinctively (via the evidence) "know" he did it, and they just used the law and evidence to try and raise reasonable doubts. That equates to "providing the best defense under the law" which is their job.

That's just a thought that I had yesterday. I don't think they like him - at all. I bet they think he's pretty despicable.

I suspect they really don't want him to "get off" but they did their job.

Thanks, Boodles - It's nice to hear someone else say what I feel about them, too.

Maybe I'm naive, too, but ITA with what you said. And yes, def attys do not ask their clients, "Did you do it?" and I'm sure this slimeball didn't admit any such thing to them, so they could ask The Question in the courtroom. I do think that their putting him on the stand was a "What have we got to lose" rally try.

And yes, they didn't get up on the table & shout, "This man is innocent and you should free him from his imprisonment -- today -- and let him live as he should, a free man." I didn't hear none o' dat in their closing. Seems to me, these guys anyway, not all def attys, would walk away from a guilty verdict still with pride and go on to the next case.

 

[otto]

Thanks, Boodles - It's nice to hear someone else say what I feel about them, too.

Maybe I'm naive, too, but ITA with what you said. And yes, def attys do not ask their clients, "Did you do it?" and I'm sure this slimeball didn't admit any such thing to them, so they could ask The Question in the courtroom. I do think that their putting him on the stand was a "What have we got to lose" rally try.

And yes, they didn't get up on the table & shout, "This man is innocent and you should free him from his imprisonment -- today -- and let him live as he should, a free man." I didn't hear none o' dat in their closing. Seems to me, these guys anyway, not all def attys, would walk away from a guilty verdict still with pride and go on to the next case.

I think so - they walk away and onto the next case. Same with prosecutors. It's like the book is closed, it's old news.

 

[Dkny]

Thank you.

I'm assuming the insurance would go to Jason. Is the insurance forfeited, or was it collected on behalf of cy?

I suppose that's something that is better left unstated.

Ins goes to cy, even if he walks on this he is pretty much done, if he gets a job he needs to pay the civil Judgment, I doubt cy would ever be uprooted again. I hope this jury sees through him. I think they will, he certainly insults other's intelligence with his lies. Jmo.

 

[borndem]

Thank you.

I'm assuming the insurance would go to Jason. Is the insurance forfeited, or was it collected on behalf of cy?

I suppose that's something that is better left unstated.

Nope, no insurance $$ for JY. In the same or attached ruling, JY was declared by the court ineligible to claim the insurance proceeds. That ruling was in concert with the w. death ruling, to which he didn't even appear, IIRC.

It's in the WRAL.com docs.