687 users online (97 members and 590 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 45 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 664
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    783

    Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby

    Quote Originally Posted by Soju View Post
    Snipped for space. BBM

    Maybe I'm a bit slow, but when you say that Ms.Lyon's comments will never see the light of the courtroom, are you excluding jury selection? You seem to be saying two different things. Do you mean her comments will never make it into evidence at trial, but most certainly will be brought up in jury selection? Makes no sense to me.

    Ms.Lyon to potential juror: "Have you ever heard me say that women prosecutors wear strap-ons and that I will do anything to win and jurors are stupid and that by definition, if you become a member of a death-qualified jury you are a killer?"

    potential juror: "no".

    Ms.Lyon: "your honor we'd like to have this person excluded on the basis that he/she has heard me say inflammatory things about myself and is thus unable to render an honest verdict based on the afacts of this case."

    Huh? I seriously don't get it.
    Here is how jury selection works. The jurors first fill out questionnaires that the lawyers get to review, then the judge asks preliminary questions, the state asks their questions, and then the defense asks questions.

    A major topic is going to be who heard pretrial publicity. So while Potential Juror 1 may not have heard the tapes, Potential Juror 2 may have and will then say "well I heard she said this about jurors, and I think she is a witch." Suddenly PJ1, who had no position agrees with PJ2 and asserts his agreement when asked if anyone else agrees with PJ2.

    Now both jurors would be stricken for cause, as they would have exhibited a bias against the defense team.

    Now once this will likely become a heated topic, and suddenly PJ5, PJ7, PJ14, etc all express the same bias - and they all too are excluded.

    Now the State is left with PJ3, PJ4, PJ6, PJ9, PJ9, etc who all said they understood the context of what was said and why it was said and they stay in the jury pool because they have not expressed a bias against the defense, nor by saying they understand the context of the statements are the expressing a sympathy for the defense that the State could use to strike them for cause.

    So basically, once this questioning is done. All of the shoot now, sort 'em out later people are off the jury and you are left with more level headed people.

    Now, once the jury is seated with a pro-defense jury, the statements will never be discussed again.

    Also, the entire audio of her speech would not be played for any reason, even during jury selection. Rather, the only exposure during jury selection would be what people remember hearing.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by rhornsby View Post
    Here is how jury selection works. The jurors first fill out questionnaires that the lawyers get to review, then the judge asks preliminary questions, the state asks their questions, and then the defense asks questions.

    So basically, once this questioning is done. All of the shoot now, sort 'em out later people are off the jury and you are left with more level headed people.

    Now, once the jury is seated with a pro-defense jury, the statements will never be discussed again.
    .
    Oh, I understand how jury selection works. My comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek. However, Ms.Lyon would have us believe (and indeed has filed numerous motions stating as much) that death-qualified juries are more conviction-prone than non.

    Besides, the part bolded by me in your statement is in fact ideal as far as I"m concerned. I guess it's funny to me that you assume the level-headed people will automatically be pro-defense.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by rhornsby View Post
    Here is how jury selection works. The jurors first fill out questionnaires that the lawyers get to review, then the judge asks preliminary questions, the state asks their questions, and then the defense asks questions.

    A major topic is going to be who heard pretrial publicity. So while Potential Juror 1 may not have heard the tapes, Potential Juror 2 may have and will then say "well I heard she said this about jurors, and I think she is a witch." Suddenly PJ1, who had no position agrees with PJ2 and asserts his agreement when asked if anyone else agrees with PJ2.

    Now both jurors would be stricken for cause, as they would have exhibited a bias against the defense team.

    Now once this will likely become a heated topic, and suddenly PJ5, PJ7, PJ14, etc all express the same bias - and they all too are excluded.

    Now the State is left with PJ3, PJ4, PJ6, PJ9, PJ9, etc who all said they understood the context of what was said and why it was said and they stay in the jury pool because they have not expressed a bias against the defense, nor by saying they understand the context of the statements are the expressing a sympathy for the defense that the State could use to strike them for cause.

    So basically, once this questioning is done. All of the shoot now, sort 'em out later people are off the jury and you are left with more level headed people.

    Now, once the jury is seated with a pro-defense jury, the statements will never be discussed again.

    Also, the entire audio of her speech would not be played for any reason, even during jury selection. Rather, the only exposure during jury selection would be what people remember hearing.
    Thanks for the glimpse of what could happen during jury selection.

    Although I may not agree with all you have said in your posts here, I sincerely appreciate your efforts. I am happy to have the opinions of someone who is much more knowledgeable about the law, as well as the legal environment in Orlando,than I am, made available in this forum. I do hope you keep posting.

  4. #4
    Snaz's Avatar
    Snaz is offline "Heavens to Habeas Corpus" ~ Legal Eagle Lion
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sunny Florida
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by rhornsby View Post
    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.
    Mr. Hornsby, your words make for interesting reading, and I mean no disrespect here, but for me to believe everything you have said (both here and your own blog) is to assume that I believe that WJS is the person who "leaked" the tapes. You say you verified it... can you show us proof beyond all reasonable doubt that he is, indeed, guilty of that which you accuse him?

    And with all due respect, wouldn't it have been better to do what you felt you needed to do to correct this wrong you say WJS has committed and not announce it for all to see, patting yourself on the back all the while? Gloating is not usually one's finest attribution.
    "Judge, Mr, Ashton is laughing at me..... " ~ Jose Baez, Closing Argument 7/3/11 (Paraphrased, of course!)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the Woods In Georgia
    Posts
    5,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaz View Post
    Mr. Hornsby, your words make for interesting reading, and I mean no disrespect here, but for me to believe everything you have said (both here and your own blog) is to assume that I believe that WJS is the person who "leaked" the tapes. You say you verified it... can you show us proof beyond all reasonable doubt that he is, indeed, guilty of that which you accuse him?

    And with all due respect, wouldn't it have been better to do what you felt you needed to do to correct this wrong you say WJS has committed and not announce it for all to see, patting yourself on the back all the while? Gloating is not usually one's finest attribution.
    Thank you Snaz!
    Even those who placed bar complaints against Baez didn't blog about it..
    NO disrespect, but really who cares? How does this outing of audio tapes by whom benefit CAylee?
    The who doesn't matter, the content of the audio does.
    Justice For Caylee Marie

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Emerald City
    Posts
    6,476
    Okay, so if I am following the logic of Mr. Hornsby's post:

    BS released the tapes to get ratings/readers (which is his job) and in doing so has set up the trial for a pro-defense bias because anyone with a bad opinion of Ms. Lyons will be dismissed from the jury pool. That about sums it up right?

    It seems to be BS's story will have zero effect on jury selection because the ONLY people in the world who would have listened to those tapes are people like ourselves that are interested in this case, legal proceedings, and true crime, etc..... and that the vast majority of that pool already had an opinion about Ms. Lyons and what she is willing to do to win a case.

    Anyone with that feeling that says they can not set it aside would be dismissed. But I would suggest that person would have been dismissed anyway.

    Everyone seated on a jury in this case will have an opinion going in. There is no way to be a local and not be aware of the case. The entire jury will have been exposed to information and reports prior to trial. They will be asked to set that aside.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaz View Post
    Mr. Hornsby, your words make for interesting reading, and I mean no disrespect here, but for me to believe everything you have said (both here and your own blog) is to assume that I believe that WJS is the person who "leaked" the tapes. You say you verified it... can you show us proof beyond all reasonable doubt that he is, indeed, guilty of that which you accuse him?

    And with all due respect, wouldn't it have been better to do what you felt you needed to do to correct this wrong you say WJS has committed and not announce it for all to see, patting yourself on the back all the while? Gloating is not usually one's finest attribution.
    Well, I will not reveal my source, but there are two ways my assertion will be verified.

    First, to make a claim such as I did about not just another lawyer, but one who is a local television personality, I better be pretty confident I would survive any resulting defamation or libel suits. And let me just say this, I would love to place BS and Belich under oath in a deposition - so there will be no such suit forthcoming. I think their silence will be my answer. Because if he had accused me of what I accused him, well you all know the rest.

    Second, I only said I was informed he was being given the option to resign or be expelled. So my money is on him no longer being a member after a month or so (enough time for him to save face and resign).

    If I am wrong, well he will still be a member and at that that time and you can call me out. I am not worried.

    p.s. And let's not forget that WFTV took down every trace of the information and BS is their employee; so if he dishonestly acquired it for them, they would be as liable for any resulting civil suits as BS.

    On the other hand, if they had acquire it legitimately, do you really think they would "cave" to a bunch of defense lawyers?

    This was the ONLY Casey Anthony story they have ever removed. They were pretty concerned and their statement allowed them an easy way to save face.
    Last edited by rhornsby; 11-25-2009 at 06:17 PM. Reason: added post script

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,547
    Quote Originally Posted by rhornsby View Post
    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.
    I doubt Kathy Belich reveals her sources, even to Mr Sheaffer. Those recordings were 'out there' for public consumption; I viewed them and there was no warning that the material was not for distribution. Ms Lyons has just had a short sharp lesson in the power of the WWW- ie Never say anything in public that you do not want to see on You Tube.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Soju View Post
    Oh, I understand how jury selection works. My comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek. However, Ms.Lyon would have us believe (and indeed has filed numerous motions stating as much) that death-qualified juries are more conviction-prone than non.

    Besides, the part bolded by me in your statement is in fact ideal as far as I"m concerned. I guess it's funny to me that you assume the level-headed people will automatically be pro-defense.
    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.

  10. #10
    Snaz's Avatar
    Snaz is offline "Heavens to Habeas Corpus" ~ Legal Eagle Lion
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sunny Florida
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by rhornsby View Post
    Well, I will not reveal my source, but there are two ways my assertion will be verified.

    First, to make a claim such as I did about not just another lawyer, but one who is a local television personality, I better be pretty confident I would survive any resulting defamation or libel suits. And let me just say this, I would love to place BS and Belich under oath in a deposition - so there will be no such suit forthcoming. I think their silence will be my answer. Because if he had accused me of what I accused him, well you all know the rest.

    Second, I only said I was informed he was being given the option to resign or be expelled. So my money is on him no longer being a member after a month or so (enough time for him to save face and resign).

    If I am wrong, well he will still be a member and at that that time and you can call me out. I am not worried.

    p.s. And let's not forget that WFTV took down every trace of the information and BS is their employee; so if he dishonestly acquired it for them, they would be as liable for any resulting civil suits as BS.

    On the other hand, if they had acquire it legitimately, do you really think they would "cave" to a bunch of defense lawyers?

    This was the ONLY Casey Anthony story they have ever removed. They were pretty concerned and their statement allowed them an easy way to save face.
    Mr. Hornsby, with all due respect, you STILL did not answer my second question. I ask AGAIN... why didn't you just do what you felt needed to do...... and then just be quiet about it? Why did you feel it so necessary to inform the public of this and your part in it? Once reported, it seems to me, it would have been handled and dealt with.... without you tooting your own horn.

    Frankly, regardless of how the tapes were obtained by Ms. Belich, I am glad she published them. Ms. Lyon should know in this day and age, you shouldn't SAY or DO anything you don't want to end up on the internet..... or maybe Ms. Lyon is one of those "technology challenged" persons Mr. Baez spoke of to Judge Strickland.

    I have a TON of respect for Mr. Sheaffer for not blasting you the way you have blasted him..... I have always believed if I ever needed the services of an attorney, I would want Mr. Sheaffer. My opinion has not changed. I once had a lot of respect for you.... until you started this personal attack against Mr. Sheaffer.

    There is a way to do things... and a way NOT to do things.... I believe you chose the way NOT to do things.

    JMO.
    "Judge, Mr, Ashton is laughing at me..... " ~ Jose Baez, Closing Argument 7/3/11 (Paraphrased, of course!)


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    20,002
    Quote Originally Posted by rhornsby View Post
    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.
    Well, it sure put things in perspective for me...helped me to see all sides of this case. I realize I will not determine the fate of CA, but I also know now...more than ever...she doesn't have a prayer...so in the end, it is about Caylee.

    And I'd like to see a link of your contention that BS obtained the tape "dishonestly". Not that I don't believe you...we just like links here.

    Gotta give you credit Hornsby...you came back. But, I should warn you...WS is highly addictive.

    ETA: Knowledge is power. Knowledge is always a good thing.
    Last edited by RR0004; 11-25-2009 at 07:01 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by rhornsby View Post
    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.

    Thank you for responding.
    You're right, a dp-qualified jury is more prone to impose the death penalty than non, but what I was saying is that Lyon herself has filed motions saying that death-qualified juries are more likely to convict. I'm not even talking about the penalty phase, and neither was she.

    Your analogy is sound, IMO, but I do think it precludes a plethora of variables that would take me too far off-topic to get into here. Politically speaking, I'll go on a limb and surmise that given what we know so far of this case, even a jury chock full of Colbert or Jon Stewart fans would probably convict Casey. As for imposing the death penalty, I don't know.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by rhornsby View Post
    Well, I will not reveal my source, but there are two ways my assertion will be verified.

    First, to make a claim such as I did about not just another lawyer, but one who is a local television personality, I better be pretty confident I would survive any resulting defamation or libel suits. And let me just say this, I would love to place BS and Belich under oath in a deposition - so there will be no such suit forthcoming. I think their silence will be my answer. Because if he had accused me of what I accused him, well you all know the rest.

    Second, I only said I was informed he was being given the option to resign or be expelled. So my money is on him no longer being a member after a month or so (enough time for him to save face and resign).

    If I am wrong, well he will still be a member and at that that time and you can call me out. I am not worried.

    p.s. And let's not forget that WFTV took down every trace of the information and BS is their employee; so if he dishonestly acquired it for them, they would be as liable for any resulting civil suits as BS.

    On the other hand, if they had acquire it legitimately, do you really think they would "cave" to a bunch of defense lawyers?

    This was the ONLY Casey Anthony story they have ever removed. They were pretty concerned and their statement allowed them an easy way to save face.
    Mr. Hornsby,

    I appreciate you giving us your time and words. There is no such thing as too many lawyers on a "sleuthing" forum. Thank you for explaining Florida law.

    But--you had to know that was coming--I can't agree that "technically" legal and ethical are the same. Sometimes a human being needs to be more concerned about "doing unto others" than "doing the job".

    You and Ms. Lyons both know that Mr. Kronk had nothing to do with Caylee's demise. Whatever prior bad acts Mr. Kronk may have committed, he doesn't deserve being called a murderer, even by implication. I think you know that. I think Ms. Lyons knows that.

    Sometimes lines have to be drawn...you can't knowingly destroy an innocent person's life, even if it's a blemished life, and call yourself a moral person. Sorry...

    That being said, I do hope you stick around.
    Last edited by Jolynna; 11-25-2009 at 07:23 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolynna View Post
    Mr. Hornsby,

    I appreciate you giving us your time and words. There is no such thing as too many lawyers on a "sleuthing" forum. Thank you for explaining Florida law.

    But--you had to know that was coming--I can't agree that "technically" legal and ethical are the same. Sometimes a human being needs to be more concerned about "doing unto others" than "doing the job".

    You and Ms. Lyons both know that Mr. Kronk had nothing to do with Caylee's demise. Whatever prior bad acts Mr. Kronk may have committed, he doesn't deserve being called a murderer, even by implication. I think you know that. I think Ms. Lyons knows that.

    Sometimes lines have to be drawn...you can't knowingly destroy an innocent person's life, even if it's a blemished life, and call yourself a moral person. Sorry...

    That being said, I do hope you stick around.
    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.
    Last edited by rhornsby; 11-25-2009 at 07:44 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    20,002
    If you don't mind me asking, would you ever appear on NG as a regular contributor?
    Last edited by JBean; 11-27-2009 at 01:34 PM. Reason: removed quoted post to take the post to another thread

Page 1 of 45 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast