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

[MD MOMMY]

If you don't mind me asking, would you ever appear on NG as a regular contributor?

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing so hard right now. I could honestly see these two getting into fiesty debates daily!

 

[Soju]

With that said, Mr. Kronk does not come to the table with clean hands. There are so many questionable things about him that I do not lose a second of sleep over him being vetted by the defense.

HOWEVER, the next day Kronk's lawyer issued a statement admitting that he was not only arrested for the charges (meaning probable cause was found for the arrest) but that a Grand Jury was convened. The very fact a grand jury was convened is a big deal and it does not mean they found he did not do it, it only means they did not believe that a conviction could be obtained "beyond a reasonable doubt."
And I know this - he had the arrest records expunged, and expungements usually occur because someone has something embarrassing in their past they do not want someone to find out about.

So Kronk is no angel, is he Caylee's killer - I don't think that AT ALL. I just have no problem with him being fully vetted.
.

snip and bbm

What's that old adage defense lawyers love? A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich? I would think the fact that a GJ didn't indict Kronk would hold more water with you, no? In the same vein, how about the fact that Casey was indicted by a GJ before the body was even found?

And honestly, don't you think that what's been done to Kronk in the media by the defense is light years away from a "thorough vetting"?

 

[msinformed]

There is nothing wrong with having a record expunged. And if I'm not msitaken, not all convictions are eligible. RK's obviously was. Extremely serious crimes...with prison sentences having been served...require a pardon (hope I'm getting this right).

In some states, you can receive a first offender pardon for certain offense(s) (felonies), having never served time in the Dept of Corrections, i.e., probation.

I'm curious as to Mr. Hornsby's stance relative to expunged records. He brought this up regarding RK and embarrassment ....................

 

[RR0004]

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing so hard right now. I could honestly see these two getting into fiesty debates daily!

Tee hee...me, too.

 

[msinformed]

If you don't mind me asking, would you ever appear on NG as a regular contributor?

Of course he would. In a heartbeat.

However, chances of him receiving that invitation are slim to none ................ or, maybe not, he would be a great "whipping post" for NG!

 

[msinformed]

Well, Mr. Hornsby has "left the bldg. Must of gotten as hot as my kitchen is, for him ............ which reminds me .............. I have LOTS of bakin' to do!!
*scurrying to kitchen*

Will check back later to see if some of our unanswered ?s get answered.

 

[Just Jayla]

snip and bbm

What's that old adage defense lawyers love? A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich? I would think the fact that a GJ didn't indict Kronk would hold more water with you, no? In the same vein, how about the fact that Casey was indicted by a GJ before the body was even found?

And honestly, don't you think that what's been done to Kronk in the media by the defense is light years away from a "thorough vetting"?

We should not presume that the state has not already thoroughly vetted RK. The last time this type of scenario heated to a boiling point (ToddM naming JG as a suspect in open court), the state unloaded discovery to the defense which included a thorough investigation of Jesse.

 

[LFlorida]

Nope, I do not assume that level headed people are pro-defense in general; but we are talking a death penalty case. So any person who remains on the jury must be willing to impose death as a punishment. So, by definition they are more prone - to impose the death penalty - than a non death penalty qualified panel.

That by definition means you will have a more conservative jury panel, so if you are left with a conservative panel - the more level headed people you have versus cowboys, the more pro-defense your jury gets.

Its like this, assume our trial is about politics. FOX is conservative, MSNBC is liberal, and CNN is moderate. By default no MSNBC jurors are even allowed on jury, so you are left with FOX and CNN jury pool. Defense would want more CNN than FOX, the State would like all FOX.

lol, this is slightly o/t, but it's worth it. ['least I think so.]

About 10 yrs ago I was called for jury duty in a Central Fla courtroom. During voir dire, an elderly gent was asked if he could be unbiased and could he base his decision on the facts alone.

He replied:

Yessirree. I'm all for the death penalty. Hang 'em is what I always say.

It was a DUI case, though, so he was dismissed. [I wasn't.]

 

[impatientredhead]

There is nothing wrong with having a record expunged. And if I'm not msitaken, not all convictions are eligible. RK's obviously was. Extremely serious crimes...with prison sentences having been served...require a pardon (hope I'm getting this right).

Was RK convicted?
I thought he was just charged and had that sealed?

And yes only certain convictions can be expunged, and only a certain number of times.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content...-Application-for-Certification-of-Eligib.aspx

Shows a list of things they will not seal or expunge in Florida.

 

[lisalei321]

After reading through every bit of this thread, well, all I can say is...

I hope Mr. Hornsby skin is as thick as he assured Tricia that it was, cause right now, all I can smell is pork rinds.

<lisalei321 wishing Mr. Hornsby the best of luck surviving the roasting he is currently getting>

I still like WJS blog too, I've always loved a good debate!

 

[chckmate22]

ok so being from chicago i have to chime in here...at 03:24 in part one she states "anyone who has ever parked their car in Hyde Park" to be honest this comment completely annoys me because I am not sure if she is being racist or is she speaking of the affluant community.....Hyde Park is one of the poorest/richest communities all in one...depending on what side of Hyde Park Blvd you live on...so I wish she would be just a little more specific because I am not sure if she is speaking of the poor people or the Dr's that live there btw anyone who cares President Obama also lives in Hyde Park FYI....sad cause I am only 3 mins in and already I am annoyed:furious:

 

[Patty G]

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing so hard right now. I could honestly see these two getting into fiesty debates daily!

fftopic: Nancy would win "hands down". :crazy:

 

[elementary]

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.

With that said, Mr. Kronk does not come to the table with clean hands. There are so many questionable things about him that I do not lose a second of sleep over him being vetted by the defense.

Let us not forget, we all originally thought Ms. Kerley's claim were recent fabrications because she had an ax to grind. And Kronk had previously denied he had anything to hide.

HOWEVER, the next day Kronk's lawyer issued a statement admitting that he was not only arrested for the charges (meaning probable cause was found for the arrest) but that a Grand Jury was convened. The very fact a grand jury was convened is a big deal and it does not mean they found he did not do it, it only means they did not believe that a conviction could be obtained "beyond a reasonable doubt."

And I know this - he had the arrest records expunged, and expungements usually occur because someone has something embarrassing in their past they do not want someone to find out about.

So Kronk is no angel, is he Caylee's killer - I don't think that AT ALL. I just have no problem with him being fully vetted.

p.s. A person I know from high school worked with Kronk in his "office" job before Kronk got the axe. The only thing Kronk cared about was reward money and his workers compensation claim for his back. And he apparently bragged about putting the stick he used up for sale on eBay and other loony ideas to make a buck.

I am now thoroughly confused. I thought expunged records would simply not be made public. Am I wrong? Is there some evidence of that?

Here, Mr Hornsby is being allowed to say whatever he likes, like the hearsay bolded in the last paragraph, and that is allowed? All it does is besmirch Mr Kronk. So is Mr Hornsby posting his legal opinion or his personal opinion? And why is no one calling him on all the hearsay????

Why does he need to come on and trash Mr Kronk with hearsay? Isn't the legal analysis all that is necessary for debate?

 

[Hell's Belle]

<respectfully snipped>

As for the tapes, I really don't have the time to listen to them - nor do I need to so that I can answer your question.

What you want me to say is that her comments were outrageous and that she is evil, etc.

No, no, no, no, no. That is not what I want you to say! I realize that you are responding to many different people and can't keep them all straight.

But I have been to these seminars and they are as much pep talks and war stories as they are actual informational speeches.

So she used graphic language to get her point across about the people she deals with. Her language and her blunt delivery is no different than the delivery of the people who express their disgust for the Anthony defense. You may not want to admit that, but it is true.

Counselor. You are missing my point. I have listened to this particular tape. You have not. I happen to largely *agree* with you that her talk was as much a pep talk and series of war stories as it was an actual informational speech (with one exception noted below). Your view, however, is speculation based on your listening to other tapes--*not this tape.* Mine is based on listening to the actual tape, so I know everything that she actually said at the seminar. You do not. I distrust sweeping generalizations that people make about evidence that they have not actually reviewed.

I also freely and willingly admit that her language and delivery are very similar to many WS postings about the defense. Myself, I shy away from ad hominem attacks (I particularly dislike the posts about AL's frumpiness/bad hair/etc.).

I hate listening to Jose Baez argue motions, but that is because I think he is a terrible lawyer, not because he is evil or outrageous. I happen to think that Andrea Lyon is a far, far superior lawyer, and I had no problem with anything she said from an ethical point of view.

I *was* disappointed in some of the comments she made in passing about female prosecutors in particular. My own take on this is that she came up back in the day when there were fewer women practicing law, and there was actual denigration of women. I think she has unconsciously adopted some of those old sexist attitudes as a part of the "us vs. them" mentality that exists in all areas of the bar that take a consistent position from one case to the next (prosecutors and defense attorneys, as opposed to divorce attorneys who represent the guy one day, the gal the next). Her talking about "ugly" being on the bench was, I felt, an ad hominem attack of just the sort that I despair being made against her.

As for ordering a copy of the materials, please try - it will be a dead end. If you haven't noticed, their website is not the most modern setup around. They basically have an email form that sends your information to their executive director. That person in turns verifies your membership by phone and then processes the delivery.

Frankly I don't care enough to try. I will take your word for it.

As for the organization's "beef," don't you think you are being a little too conspiratorial about why they are angry. Remember, they invited Ms. Lyon to speak because of her reputation as one of the country's top death penalty lawyers and she agreed to come. It is this seminar where Mr. Baez met her and apparently approached her about working on the case (he has previously said that is where he met her, I just don't think any of you put two and two together).

But now a member of the organization that has invited her dishonestly obtained the seminar materials for the sole purpose of distributing it to Ms. Belich. And now, Ms. Lyon is being vilified for the speech she gave. From FACDL's perspective (or any organization) it matters not whether it is deserved, it only matters that they will be unable to attract other quality speakers to their seminars because people will not trust its members to abide by an agreement not to distribute proprietary materials (simply meaning protected by copyright).

So if royalties were paid for the use of the tapes, would that be all right? Are you saying that this is just a copyright violation? Or that this organization cannot attract quality speakers unless their opinions are kept confidential because they are so unpalatable to the public? AL has written far too many articles expressing similar views for me to accept this without a certain amount of skepticism.

Now, much has been made of the financial motives for my actions <snip>

Nope, you're setting up a straw man here, at least in part. There is certainly a possibility that you might hold a grudge against the man for reasons that are not entirely financial. Although your actions might be rationalized as altruistic, so the argument goes, you are out to get him because of past grievances. You know they say revenge is a dish best served cold. *That's* what I'm not seeing you address.

Now lets talk about the email - what exactly did I release, I released my own words blasting his handling of the case. And if you actually read what I wrote WHEN I wrote it, I foresaw this entire train wreck.

There is no prohibition anywhere that I am aware of that prohibits me from releasing my own thoughts. The email just provides verification of my current claims.

If this were a trial, my email would be considered a prior consistent statement made before I had a motive to "lie" to rebut inferences of recent fabrication. <snip>

Yes, I understand the notion of rebutting a claim of recent fabrication. My difficulty here lies in not being wrapped up in certain intricacies of the case. My recollection, which is fairly dim, is that you had some actual involvement in the case in...September 2008? And parted ways fairly dramatically with Baez? I thought it was on the subject of whether to plea bargain asserting mental illness on Casey's part. I will see if I can find my source for that. I recall wondering at the time how you felt you could reveal that information. (I could, however, be imagining all this.) ETA: I may be confusing you with Terence Lenamon! Oops. Whatever.

Under some circumstances, I think you certainly can be prohibited from releasing your thoughts if they would tend to reveal even a former client's confidences or secrets. However, based on my refreshing my recollection I suspect you weren't ever really working with Jose Baez.

 

[doogiesgirl]

There has been quite a bit of discussion on this thread about this very thing. RH is alleging the professional association is quite upset the AL audio tape of her dp conference in front of defense atty's, has been leaked. RH furthered that he notified the organization himself that BS is the one that leaked the tape to KB.

Wa wa wa

Does he need some cheese to go with his whine? moo


TY--BTW

So let me get this straight - Mr. Sheaffer posts on his blog that it abhorrent to him that Ms. Anthony's defense would adopty an "end justify the means" approach, but when he dishonestly obtained material he knew was not to be distributed, it was okay because it "honors the memory of Caylee?" So in such a case, his end - reporting on Ms. Lyon's speech - justifies his means - lying.

Make no mistake, he did not do that for altruistic reasons. He did not obtain the materials and then secretly distribute them to one of you to cause a sensation - he only obtained the materials for a story that he wanted to feed you. And for what?

Have you thought about how this really affects the case? He has just made it ten times as hard for the State to get a pro-prosecution jury, because the minute the content of those tapes comes up during jury selection - any person who disagrees or expresses disgust with them will be excluded for cause. And their feelings likely would not have been identified without the tapes to discuss. So then the jury pool starts becoming more pro-defense, because the people who are not removed for cause are the people who did not have a gripe with the content or means of delivery. Kathi Belich did that to your case - make no mistake, she played right into the Anthony defense camp by releasing tapes that have no evidentiary value.

And let us talk about the evidentiary value - below is an excerpt from the Florida Jury Instruction on deliberation that will be read to the jury:

3.10 RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.
2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses [and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence] and these instructions.
3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.
4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case

Now, make no mistake - Ms. Lyon's comments are not admissible evidence in any shape or form, they will not see the light of that courtroom.

So Mr. Sheaffer's reporting on them may have made everyone in here hate Ms. Lyon more - BUT IT DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HELP THE STATE CONVICT CASEY ANTHONY.

Bill Sheaffer is a good lawyer, he should know there is no evidentiary value in the tapes and that the lawyers are not on trial.

He obtained the tapes so that he could feed the pro-prosecution viewers a juicy story - even if it might make it harder for the State to get a more favorable jury.

Personally, it seems such a tactic dishonors the memory of Caylee.

So, without blasting me, think about the logic behind my analysis of the true value of the tapes being released and ask yourself if you are being manipulated just like Baez tries to manipulate the other side.

You are taking me way too seriously....it's called a wisecrack.

One thing I disagree with .... so far I haven't seen BS dishonor the memory of Caylee....that honor goes to the defense. moo

 

[doogiesgirl]

I've come in late so if you've answered this already just ignore me. Where do you see KC? Your personal opinion...as a person the state is playing games with or guilty as charged? moo

 

[MD MOMMY]

No, no, no, no, no. That is not what I want you to say! I realize that you are responding to many different people and can't keep them all straight.

Under some circumstances, I think you certainly can be prohibited from releasing your thoughts if they would tend to reveal even a former client's confidences or secrets. However, based on my refreshing my recollection I suspect you weren't ever really working with Jose Baez.

*snipped by me*

Yes you are confusing him with TL..I believe the only contact RH had with JB was an email from a listserve, where JB was scrounging for help.

 

[rhornsby]

Thanks, understood. I guess my point was more about the playbook, the strategy being presented and your take on it? Where do you/others typically draw the line versus the AL playbook?

Well now I must apologize, I did not get that. I'll see if I can listen to them this weekend.

 

[Blaise]

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing so hard right now. I could honestly see these two getting into fiesty debates daily!

'Put Hornsby on the screen.'

Blaise

 

[rhornsby]

snip and bbm

What's that old adage defense lawyers love? A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich? I would think the fact that a GJ didn't indict Kronk would hold more water with you, no? In the same vein, how about the fact that Casey was indicted by a GJ before the body was even found?

And honestly, don't you think that what's been done to Kronk in the media by the defense is light years away from a "thorough vetting"?

What have they really done to him except talk to his ex-wives and son? They talked to people he knows... Am I missing something.

Now if you are implying Jose Baez got them to lie for him, okay show me some proof. Or better yet, I will wait to see if the State deposes these people (if you think I am a smart *advertiser censored*, Jeff Ashton will tear them apart of they are transparent as they seem).