Post Legal Questions Here

New Posts

SeriouslySearching said:
Gotcha, Ang! I do try to be cautious. : ) I haven't called anyone horrible things lately that I know of...but I will keep all of that in mind definitely!
Click to expand...

Oh yes you have!! I think you've said some nasty things on the Kelly Nolan (madison) thread about her murderer. :) Which, of course, we don't know who that is, and I don't think he's going to sue you for defamation considering he'd be in JAIL... :)
 
chicoliving said:
Some posters approach these cases from a law standpoint, others from the evidence, media reports, what we see on TV, etc.

What we type in these little boxes is considered our opinion unless otherwise noted. Otherwise noted would be the excerpt snips that we post that we've gotten elsewhere and we have to follow the copyright rules to give credit to the correct source.

We'd like to keep the discussions of these cases on an adult level and that's why some rules have been added like referring to the players in any case by their names or intials and not the silly names no matter how tempting.

Everyone is entitled to type in these little boxes and express their opinion whether you agree with their opinion or not.

Our software has some handy features like the ignore feature. I suggest utilizing the features that are available and if all else fails just scroll on by and respond only to those posts you are interested in actually discussing rather than dissing a select member or two.

Frankly I'm ashamed of the posts I deleted that were nothing but personal attacks and smart *advertiser censored* comments directed at a member. We're above that or so I thought.
Click to expand...

Here's a timely example of subpeona angst. Hopefully, nothing comes of it, but, as I said elsewhere, just the receipt of a subpeona send shock waves and immediately causes great concern.

As posted today on CourtTV's message board
"Ok now my hubby wants me to get off this board because he thinks I am getting us in trouble for my post on here."

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=321387&perpage=20&pagenumber=7
 
I think it would be best if the term, "Cowardly Lion" were not used.
 
Trino said:
I think it would be best if the term, "Cowardly Lion" were not used.
Click to expand...
Agreed Trino.

When I joined this site it was understood that Acronyms were fine, Pseudonyms were not when discussing case names.
 
Ang50 said:
Oh yes you have!! I think you've said some nasty things on the Kelly Nolan (madison) thread about her murderer. :) Which, of course, we don't know who that is, and I don't think he's going to sue you for defamation considering he'd be in JAIL... :)
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. LOL Maybe he will come out of the woodwork and sue me so they can arrest him!! :rolleyes:
 
Hmmm, I have not seen too many or hardly any legal questions posed here but but I have a question for pondering about 'a' lawyer, any lawyer or specifically Mr. Brodsky.

WE read elsewhere that Hillary C. was Bill C's 'sounding board' on matters of national interest and other matters, with links to those exact words from Hillary's mouth.

I am wondering IF IF Mrs. B is a sounding board for her husband in the matter of his case work for DP? Do WE think he discusses the case with his spouse?

Am I the only one who thinks Mrs. B might indeed ask questions of Mr. B at the end of the day. Such as "Hello dear, how was yer day etc.?

Do WE think that Mr. B, deep down feels his client is guilty? How difficult would this be IF IF WE were the defense attorney for someone like the current suspect of interest?

.


What might WE think of Mr. B, and whether deep down inside he believes his client to be guilty?
 
Brodsky "believes" his client. It is the beauty of being a criminal defense atty. They can lie to themselves and everyone else. My guess is there isn't a Mrs. B. that means a darn thing to him so he would never listen. What is important to him is the money and fame at the moment. This is the biggest case he ever has taken on, imo, and he probably will never be hired again for such. We all know how well he has come across in the press. He can't handle it.
 
I have a legal question involving Kathleen's death and Stacy's.

We consider what others say that someone else told them as hearsay. But if that can be backed up with cell phone records is it then no longer heresay but admissable to let the pastor say what Stacy told him?

Meaning Stacy says there were calls from her to Drew the night Kathleen was murdered that went unanswered. Drew says he was trying to call Kathleen all weekend with no response.If cell phone records show that Stacy was calling Drew at 3 AM say, and he didn't answer can then the pastor's timeline of events be used? Drew was supposed to be in bed with her and wasn't ..that was his alibi..it doesn't prove he was at Kathleen's, but does prove he lied about where he was and what he was doing. What do you bet he would comeup with another women yet, to say he was with her that night?
 
TGIRecovered said:
I hope we won't have to continue to endure a poster who insists upon scaring the poop out of people who are just participating in a conversation. It is rude and annoying. What I don't understand, is that when anyone responds to this perpetual antagonism, it is the person who responds who is chastized but the rude and repetitive posts are allowed to continue.Why not just remind the the original poster that the point has been made, stop responding to everyone else with the same fear-mongering warnings over and over again?I'm sorry to sound like a whiner. I appreciate the difficulty of being a moderator and admire the mod's willingness to handle this thankless task. It just seems to me that it would be much more efficient to have a little talk with this one poster than for many, many others to have to reassure less experienced posters time and again that they won't be dragged in to court. It's like a big bad wolf roaming around looking for young lost sheep to scare.Susan
Click to expand...

You are absolutely NOT a whiner, lol......
We had to sit thru this persons posts thru the Scott P trial, and it was just as unpleasant then...I have taken to using that handy dandy "ignore" feature here, then you dont even have to read the posts from this person.
I also wish that a mod could speak personally to someone inclined to antagonize and inflame peoples emotions on these threads, but I guess they just dont want to do that.
I totally feel your pain, and put myself in "time out" the other evening, because I was coming periouslly (sp?) close to making a personal attack on a certain poster intent on making me do just that...I am sure you know what I am talking about, I think you were there, lol....
Also, somehow a certain poster has rigged his reply/quote option to look as though the quotes arent coming from him, it's strange, and I wonder how he does it...
 
DeltaDawn said:
I have a legal question involving Kathleen's death and Stacy's.

We consider what others say that someone else told them as hearsay. But if that can be backed up with cell phone records is it then no longer heresay but admissable to let the pastor say what Stacy told him?

Meaning Stacy says there were calls from her to Drew the night Kathleen was murdered that went unanswered. Drew says he was trying to call Kathleen all weekend with no response.If cell phone records show that Stacy was calling Drew at 3 AM say, and he didn't answer can then the pastor's timeline of events be used? Drew was supposed to be in bed with her and wasn't ..that was his alibi..it doesn't prove he was at Kathleen's, but does prove he lied about where he was and what he was doing. What do you bet he would comeup with another women yet, to say he was with her that night?
Click to expand...

Indeed! These are the very things I'm wondering about. I read somewhere LE leaked some info about these cell phone records. Sure wish I knew for sure what that was. Anyone know?

gaia:cool:
 
TKS2003 said:
You are absolutely NOT a whiner, lol......
We had to sit thru this persons posts thru the Scott P trial, and it was just as unpleasant then...I have taken to using that handy dandy "ignore" feature here, then you dont even have to read the posts from this person.
I also wish that a mod could speak personally to someone inclined to antagonize and inflame peoples emotions on these threads, but I guess they just dont want to do that.
I totally feel your pain, and put myself in "time out" the other evening, because I was coming periouslly (sp?) close to making a personal attack on a certain poster intent on making me do just that...I am sure you know what I am talking about, I think you were there, lol....
Also, somehow a certain poster has rigged his reply/quote option to look as though the quotes arent coming from him, it's strange, and I wonder how he does it...
Click to expand...



All posters need to do to quote properly is to push the quote button. BUT BUT IF IF IF they want to fiddle with the system You just insert
Miss Fit AND then put the stuff you are wanting to display as your own MENTAL input --- dopey deal - you can insert your name right after the quote part like I will put my name after the quote above in red. When finished you then put
Click to expand...
It then looks like you thought of it all yourself, instead of properly quoting the person who originally posted it ->that is the proper way to do a 'quote'.

So you will note that not ALL of the correct parts of an original quote show up like they are supposed to IF IF the person just clicks the quote button to respond.

Did I cover your question, or did I miss the boat?

.
.
 
TKS2003:
Click to expand...
Also, somehow a certain poster has rigged his reply/quote option to look as though the quotes arent coming from him, it's strange, and I wonder how he does it...
Click to expand...

I had to manually change the incorrect attribution when I quoted a post which again, misreprestented a post of mine, just this morning.
If you'll read those posts carefully, you'll see that this is done to everyone... seems to care not whose words he or she misrepresents. It's an old, cheap trick.

Susan:innocent:
 
I have noticed a few posts recently and saw a few comments about having problems with the quote function. If that happens try fixing it with by making sure that this is in the part you want quoted

name said:
Quote[/ QUOTE] but remove the spaces. That should make the quote function work correctly.
Click to expand...
 
I am going to try to link to an article I read this morning abt a case in WIS where they are using other people's testimony of the wife saying that her husband was trying to murder her. She was poisoned, they have her body, but trying to prove who poisoned her is similiar to Drew's case with both Kathleen and Stacy. Infact he even had a girlfriend waiting in the wings that is the new Mrs. Sound familiar..
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/national/2008/01/02/Poisoning.Death/

It has a great discussion about hearsay and circumstantial evidence..which there is alot of involving Kathleen's and Stacy's cases/
 
Apparently some have now noticed that our software has a glitch that occasionally messes up the quotes. This has been going on since last March. No one needs to manipulate the quotes for it to malfunction.

ENOUGH of the singling out of members. The next post that is about another poster I will be arranging some vacations from the board. Either edit your posts yourself or I will be deleting them.
 
Camper said:
Hmmm, I have not seen too many or hardly any legal questions posed here but but I have a question for pondering about 'a' lawyer, any lawyer or specifically Mr. Brodsky.

WE read elsewhere that Hillary C. was Bill C's 'sounding board' on matters of national interest and other matters, with links to those exact words from Hillary's mouth.

I am wondering IF IF Mrs. B is a sounding board for her husband in the matter of his case work for DP? Do WE think he discusses the case with his spouse?

Am I the only one who thinks Mrs. B might indeed ask questions of Mr. B at the end of the day. Such as "Hello dear, how was yer day etc.?

Do WE think that Mr. B, deep down feels his client is guilty? How difficult would this be IF IF WE were the defense attorney for someone like the current suspect of interest?

.


What might WE think of Mr. B, and whether deep down inside he believes his client to be guilty?
Click to expand...

My experience as a legal assistant is that you know what you can talk about and what you can't. In all honesty, there are things I just didn't tell my husband, b/c even though you think you can trust someone, they aren't under confidentiality agreements and can easily forget and discuss a case with someone else. In that case, my job, or the attorneys' job (and license) is on the line.

Anything DP tells him in confidence has to be kept in confidence, wife or not. If he tells her something and she blabs it, his license can be pulled.
 
DeltaDawn said:
I have a legal question involving Kathleen's death and Stacy's.

We consider what others say that someone else told them as hearsay. But if that can be backed up with cell phone records is it then no longer heresay but admissable to let the pastor say what Stacy told him?

Meaning Stacy says there were calls from her to Drew the night Kathleen was murdered that went unanswered. Drew says he was trying to call Kathleen all weekend with no response.If cell phone records show that Stacy was calling Drew at 3 AM say, and he didn't answer can then the pastor's timeline of events be used? Drew was supposed to be in bed with her and wasn't ..that was his alibi..it doesn't prove he was at Kathleen's, but does prove he lied about where he was and what he was doing. What do you bet he would comeup with another women yet, to say he was with her that night?
Click to expand...

There are twenty-four exceptions (my last count) to the hearsay rule. It is one of the most complicated and studied areas of law.

Stacy's alleged statement to the pastor represents hearsay. If she were available to suffer from her alleged statement, it might be admitted at trial because it goes against her self interest, viz., if true, it incriminates her, at a minimum, as an accessory-after-the-fact to murder. Penalties for such a crime differ amongst states; e.g. in California, an accessory-after-the-fact is open to a charge of felony murder, which is as serious as it gets for an accessory-after-the-fact.

Given that Stacy is not available, we are looking at twice removed hearsay; i.e., Drew to Stacy, Stacy to the pastor. I've said elsewhere that I see no clear hearsay exception that applies. In my mind's eye, admitting the alleged statement as evidence in a murder trial against Drew would represent new case law (if upheld upon appeal).
 
Hey Wudge, can you explain to us what the changes are in the 2004 US Supreme Court decision on hearsay in cases where the defendant is believed to have been the cause for the victim/witness not being able to testify?
 
mysteriew said:
Hey Wudge, can you explain to us what the changes are in the 2004 US Supreme Court decision on hearsay in cases where the defendant is believed to have been the cause for the victim/witness not being able to testify?
Click to expand...


I will dramatically net. The case is Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The ruling in Crawford supplanted the prior controlling standard covering unavailable witnesses and their testimonial statements. That prior standard being Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980).

In "Crawford", the Supreme Court gave resolution favor to the Confrontation Clause in the 6th amendment, which gives the accused the right to confront witnesses against him. This tightened the standard held in "Ohio", which required an adequate indicia of reliability (famous guideline) along with a firmly rooted hearsay exception or, on another possible path, it looked for particular guarantees of trustworthiness.

Bottom line, the ruling in "Crawford" narrowed the hearsay exception standard as regards unavailable witnesses and their testimonial statements.
 
Camper said:
All posters need to do to quote properly is to push the quote button. BUT BUT IF IF IF they want to fiddle with the system You just insert It then looks like you thought of it all yourself, instead of properly quoting the person who originally posted it ->that is the proper way to do a 'quote'.

So you will note that not ALL of the correct parts of an original quote show up like they are supposed to IF IF the person just clicks the quote button to respond.

Did I cover your question, or did I miss the boat?

.
.
Click to expand...

Thanks Camper, just checked back in and saw this helpful hint....yep, you covered it for me, now if only I remember it, lol!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 235 more.
Total: 4,058 (members: 236, guests: 3,822)

Online statistics

Members online
236
Guests online
3,823
Total visitors
4,059
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,546
Messages
17,954,544
Members
228,530
Latest member
kac313
Back
Top