How the defense team used social media to their advantage

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is exactly why I have never posted a theory or suggested anything that the DT could use. Its pretty sad when they have to look to others to find a defense or understand the case:twocents:
 
They would not have to have registered just to read what was being posted here...only if they wanted to post.
 
SMK said:
This is an indication of how strong an influence the internet and forums like this really do have. But the prosecution could have gotten lots of ideas from here as well, and maybe they did. At least, their theory echoed what many believed about the "Bella Vita" motive. The question is, why was it not believed?
Click to expand...

I dont think so, the prosecution isnt tasked with coming up with ideas. Their job is actually to... i know, this will sound crazy.... tell the truth and show evidence that supports it lol. I think it's insulting that defense attorneys admit that their theory of innocence was not based on what happened, but based on judging people's stupidity and weakness. I dont want a prosecutor to try to change the theory based on what the public likes or is susceptible to, I want them to present what the evidence shows. And they did.

Unfortunately we ended up with 12 people with no critical thinking skills and common sense, but I wouldn't want the prosecutors to lower themselves to the disgusting level the defense team did in this case just to win. Id rather focus on making jury duty harder for people to get out of, making laws that jurors cant profit on cases, and not automatically excuse someone who has heard about the case as long as they say they can judge fairly on the evidence.
 
This only adds to my disgust. This only adds to my belief that the sleazy defense team tactics are the only reasons a murdering monster mother is being set free on Sunday and will be allowed to potentially procreate again. This only adds to my belief that lies and more lies heaped onto lies and more lies worked against the the true aim of our justice system--to arrive at the truth. Instead of "the truth shall set you free", we all now see that it's really lies that shall set one free.
 
During the prosecution's closing argument, I wondered if JA had gotten the idea about Caylee beginning to talk from a thread on this forum. The moment he referred to Caylee forming sentences and that it wouldn't be long before she would expose Casey's lies, I thought about that (insightful) thread on here about Caylee "tattling".
 
Clock's Tickin said:
according to the jurors interviewed so far:
1)the prosecution lawyers weren't as fun to watch as JB Inconsistent with instructions
2)George behaved badly on the stand Not evidence
3)they didn't want to be responsible for anybody's death without knowing "manner of death" of the victim HHJP told them not to consider this in the G/NG phase, IIRC

Ohhhhh the insanity!!!!
Click to expand...

Red by me....so, any hooo, I kinda figured JB was peeking at us when we started the Jose "Quite Frankly" Baez thread and we never heard "quite frankly" again. A couple of other little things here and there.

There are very few, IMO, blogs, forums or otherwise that would be worth viewing or could be taken seriously aside from this one. This is, after all, the forum where a head detective (that always reminds me of the Damon Wayans bit), friends, bondsman, attorneys and other key sleuthers primarily reside.

I don't feel we gave them anything to use against Caylee, and that is the important issue. If the jury chose to do what they did, it has little to do with us. What I would hope, in the very least, is that maybe this consultant took a look at the many other threads on this forum and passed along to the :loser: squad the good work that is done here. Not that they care about justice for missing children, but I would like to think they realize there is a much greater good out there than their paychecks.
 
No one here should feel responsible AT ALL. Discussions were done here in good faith.

But here's my issue: every person that testifies... swears to tell the truth in that courtroom. But the Cheney Mason/Jose Baez team is not concerned with "truth." They are actually concocting stories as they go along...that Internet research tells them might just float. There's nothing about "truth" in that.

They realized George was vulnerable. BINGO! They made the man a child rapist. Didn't matter that it was a lie. George and Lee, no matter how anyone feels about them, will have to live the rest of their lives burdened by the lies of slick, saavy lawyers who came here and elsewhere to choose their Targets-to-Smear.

This is the Cheney Mason/Jose Baez approach to their jobs. Trial by trumped-up character assassination.

If the Internet was the origin for choosing Targets...then it would seem...everything they said was created by the jury consultant, not Casey.
 
stmarysmead said:
Another quote:

"I preferred to have people on the jury who didn't have children. All the bloggers kept saying, 'I'm a grandparent and if my grandkid went missing for three minutes I would know,' or, 'I'm a mother and I wouldn't be out partying if my daughter was missing.'
Click to expand...

Guess the bloggers weren't that idiotic.

But I've never understood this idea that the childless would be OK with the murder.
 
gee if casey was so innocent why the need to scrounge the web for insight. the evidence would have spoken loud and clear for her. oh wait. there was nothing pointing to her being inncoent of the charges. JMO. ugh. everyday i read something new that angers me again. it feels like this trial/verdict will continue to twist the knife deeper into those of us who cannot stop reading about it. everyday is a new reason to be upset. i wish i could stop reading/posting on this particular case post verdict but at times its catharic to discuss this because no one in my world cares to listen. they are all 'over it"
i actually feel bad since i've neglected reading all of the other cases since the trial started.

i always felt the DT read this site. so JB isnt brilliant. posters are. at least he got to read everyones opinions on his behavior - although he probably thinks he since he "won" it doesnt matter.
 
stmarysmead said:
No one here should feel responsible AT ALL. Discussions were done here in good faith.

But here's my issue: every person that testifies... swears to tell the truth in that courtroom. But the Cheney Mason/Jose Baez team is not concerned with "truth." They are actually concocting stories as they go along...that Internet research tells them might just float. There's nothing about "truth" in that.

They realized George was vulnerable. BINGO! They made the man a child rapist. Didn't matter that it was a lie. George and Lee, no matter how anyone feels about them, will have to live the rest of their lives burdened by the lies of slick, saavy lawyers who came here and elsewhere to choose their Targets-to-Smear.

This is the Cheney Mason/Jose Baez approach to their jobs. Trial by trumped-up character assassination.

If the Internet was the origin for choosing Targets...then it would seem...everything they said was created by the jury consultant, not Casey.
Click to expand...

And she was glad to oblige-The jury consultant didn't shake KC's head for her, mouth stupid utterances-nope-she did all the dramatic acting by her little self.
 
This isn't anything new, though. Defense attorneys in big cases have always kept an eye on what the public is saying, and I don't think that's a bad thing. The actual players in a trial can't always tell how their strategies are being received, and finding out what other people think is as close as they can get to an idea of what the jurors might be thinking. The only difference now is that the internet is here to make that easier (or maybe harder, in that there's way more info to sort through). Twenty years ago attorneys monitored what was being said in magazines, newspapers, and on TV.
 
IMO, trials are almost always about who puts on a better case, not just about the "truth". Both sides leave out what won't help their case. I'd be willing to bet I've never seen a trial where someone did not lie on the stand, just not as obviously and provable as Cindy did.
 
But doesn't this show that they were not presenting Casey's story? Is it legal for attorneys to make up the story as they go along...depending on vulnerabilities that their consultants feed them?
 
1tasha said:
Guess the bloggers weren't that idiotic.

But I've never understood this idea that the childless would be OK with the murder.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone figures childless people 'would be OK' with anything. At least I hope no one thinks that.

I think the idea is that people with children or grandchildren would be more likely to focus in on the '31 days' and post-disappearance behavior and interpret it according to their own parenting and how they think they would act, perhaps to the extent that it would overshadow everything else. So I can understand the defense in this case leaning toward jurors without children who wouldn't zero in on just that.
 
We all knew they were reading here. We knew they were reading here WHILE THE TRIAL WAS GOING ON. There were many statements said in open court that came straight from some of our threads. In fact, I waved to Dotty many times as that seemed to be her main job, babysitting and reading blogs.

It does make you wonder though which bloggers (who are now missing from amongst us) were DTwannabes, or are just maybe dis-illusioned and have stopped posting. Not all of them IMHO were the obvious plants...the ones that you had to put on your ignore list. Guess we will never know. Kind of like what happened to Caylee. We'll never know.
 
stmarysmead said:
But doesn't this show that they were not presenting Casey's story? Is it legal for attorneys to make up the story as they go along...depending on vulnerabilities that their consultants feed them?
Click to expand...

All in a defense attorney's day's work.
 
I hope NG or one of those shows will discuss this article. To me, it shows the inherent dishonesty of Baez and Mason...crafting their story as they go. (Oh, people have a low opinion of George..GREAT! Let's blame George!)

I used to read on a travel information website that suddenly chose a special group of posters who had a special title they put in their signatures and some odd status. Every few months, some others would seemingly be chosen at random to have this status. One day, someone posted an article about a talk a Marketing guru had given at a conference. She was applauding the idea....and explained that the purpose of creating this entitled group that got free travel perks...was to have strong posters influencing opinions on that Board in favor of one company.

Busted!

There was considerable outrage and soon the signatures were required to be removed and that special "program" was disbanded.

I think as many people as possible need to know what things this Defense team was doing..to "influence" and "choose" their villains.

It was not about the truth...it was about crafting whatever it takes.
 
I think any good attorney adjusts his or her case as a trial proceeds, and not necessarily just because of clues they're getting to how their case is being received by outsiders. As evidence comes in and witnesses testify, things come up that give them an opportunity to focus on or even capitalize on certain elements of the case.

If anything, I wouldn't have a very high opinion of any attorney, especially in a complicated case, who has a specific outline and plan before the trial starts and never changes it.
 
MarthaM said:
I think any good attorney adjusts his or her case as a trial proceeds, and not necessarily just because of clues they're getting to how their case is being received by outsiders. As evidence comes in and witnesses testify, things come up that give them an opportunity to focus on or even capitalize on certain elements of the case.

If anything, I wouldn't have a very high opinion of any attorney, especially in a complicated case, who has a specific outline and plan before the trial starts and never changes it.
Click to expand...

For instance, when the blogs started attacking George Anthony, Singer and her team took notice and encouraged the defense to beef up their attacks on the defendant's father.

"We had to know how much to blame George," she said.

This sounds like they used this research to decide who to vilify. If they were telling the truth...or even Casey's version of the truth...there would be no difference in "how much to blame George."

The truth is the truth. This was a sham defense. They perpetrated a fraud IMO.
 
Blaming George for a role in Caylee's death does not have to be a fraud by the defense, not if they believe it is possible. I'm still not sure he didn't have some role in her death, cover-up, etc...and if they were seeing feedback that the public had doubts about him too, well, it would be foolish to abandon their theories that involved him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 3,353 (members: 182, guests: 3,171)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
3,171
Total visitors
3,353
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,818
Messages
17,959,579
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top