JB's responsiblity - Did he know that Caylee was dead

[cloud]

Unfortunately, yes. The murdered baby gets three bags and heart sticker to rot with and Mommie Dearest gets a herd of lawyers and experts to try to try to get her out of consequences for what she's done. Dead baby's don't have rights but their murdering Mommies do, and lots of 'em. That's what we've come to in American justice! We really shouldn't be all that proud of our legal system, if you ask me.

It's not just in the US. I think our legal system is fair and just... Just because some people are 'bad' doesn't make the justice system 'bad'

The DP is sanctioned murder, IMO. I say let them live and enjoy the fruits of their labour every minute of every day,

JMHO

 

[cloud]

Someine asked how many innocent people have been executed. The answer of course is that no one knows. but there are some documented case:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there...innocent_person_executed_in_the_United_States

It says "Yes, there have been 111 people exonerated (freed) while waiting, and a dozen or so found innocent after execution. http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/deathpenalty/ "

I suspect the numbers are much much higher, but those are the ones they have documented proof of.

That's the second reason I don't support the DP.

The first is simply down to logic:

it is illegal to kill (unsanctioned)
the punishment is death (sanctioned)

 

[snow_walker]

One of the few good things to come out of all this horrible mess is that people who might otherwise have gone all their lives firmly believing that the justice system is doing an excellent job, is that those people are now seeing for themselves how flawed it really is. Taking off the blinders is the first step towards fixing anything, getting a good first hand look at the problem, and getting people involved on a real level in finding soloutions for at least some of the problems.

Maybe it is time to shake the sacred tree of client attourney relationships, for example. Should lawyers be allowed to keep firm knowledge of their clients guilt to themselves when it means an innocent person will suffer in prison or possibly die for a murder they did not commit? Should they be allowed to conceal knowledge such as where the body of a victim might be found, and let the public go on funding millions of dollars to continue the search?

I am not saying these things should change, but it is time to consider and discuss such issues, and all the implacations of changing the ground rules.

AND the death penalty needs to be discussed honestly and openly, if not here, then in our own homes and hearts.. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic involved in officially sanctioned murder. I don't think it even makes much sense even if you support it in principle, when you consider all the legal problems it entails for everyone involved.

 

[cloud]

One of the few good things to come out of all this horrible mess is that people who might otherwise have gone all their lives firmly believing that the justice system is doing an excellent job, is that those people are now seeing for themselves how flawed it really is. Taking off the blinders is the first step towards fixing anything, getting a good first hand look at the problem, and getting people involved on a real level in finding soloutions for at least some of the problems.

Maybe it is time to shake the sacred tree of client attourney relationships, for example. Should lawyers be allowed to keep firm knowledge of their clients guilt to themselves when it means an innocent person will suffer in prison or possibly die for a murder they did not commit? Should they be allowed to conceal knowledge such as where the body of a victim might be found, and let the public go on funding millions of dollars to continue the search?

I am not saying these things should change, but it is time to consider and discuss such issues, and all the implacations of changing the ground rules.

AND the death penalty needs to be discussed honestly and openly, if not here, then in our own homes and hearts.. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic involved in officially sanctioned murder. I don't think it even makes much sense even if you support it in principle, when you consider all the legal problems it entails for everyone involved.

The legal problems are remote, in a sense. You make a powerful argument about a revision of the laws that have goverened for such a long time without allowing for the growth and progress (good or bad) that is bound to occur in 10 or less years in today's terms.

The legal system we abide by, and let me be quite clear that I think it's as fair as you can possibly hope for... yet it has somehow lost its teeth.

To me, it's unimaginable that someone could strut into a courtroom sporting a smirk and proudly displaying clothing bought with stolen money. It's the epitomy of "in your face" statement and she was so very proud of it.

Her daughter was 2 and she demanded attention from her mom. She couldn't give it - she killed it (I use "it" advisedly). Now she wants mercy and understanding.

The DP is anathema to me. But sometimes there comes along a case when you think ... how low and cruel and selfish and callous and vindictive can you get?

Then I always come back to what if they would do it again? Who's going to protect them ?

 

[JBean]

One of the few good things to come out of all this horrible mess is that people who might otherwise have gone all their lives firmly believing that the justice system is doing an excellent job, is that those people are now seeing for themselves how flawed it really is. Taking off the blinders is the first step towards fixing anything, getting a good first hand look at the problem, and getting people involved on a real level in finding soloutions for at least some of the problems.

Maybe it is time to shake the sacred tree of client attourney relationships, for example. Should lawyers be allowed to keep firm knowledge of their clients guilt to themselves when it means an innocent person will suffer in prison or possibly die for a murder they did not commit? Should they be allowed to conceal knowledge such as where the body of a victim might be found, and let the public go on funding millions of dollars to continue the search?

I am not saying these things should change, but it is time to consider and discuss such issues, and all the implacations of changing the ground rules.

AND the death penalty needs to be discussed honestly and openly, if not here, then in our own homes and hearts.. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic involved in officially sanctioned murder. I don't think it even makes much sense even if you support it in principle, when you consider all the legal problems it entails for everyone involved.

I think it goes without saying that our justice system is flawed. I don't think you will get an argument on that.
However, it is the best thing going on and I support it most of the time.If I were accused it is the ONLY justice system I would want to face.

 

[snow_walker]

Actually I am Canadian, which I should have mentioned earlier, but it wasn't really all that relevant to the point I was making at that point... every country feels it's own system is superior to the rest, despite whatever flaws they may freely acknowledge it has.

I know I would prefer to face justice in Canada, rather than anywhere else in the world.. that doesn't mitigate the fact that all of our legal systems are in serious need of reform.

Almost all common law of Europe and North America are based on laws 100's if not 1000's of years old.. true they have stood the test of time, but laws lead to more laws, and it is has grown into a hugely complex gordian knot ...

We will need many new laws in the near future as well, to govern the problems of the internet, to decide on many ethical issues concerning new biological breakthoughs etc..somewhere here we need to get back to a truly ethical backbone of laws.

Something it doesn't take a dozen lawyers to understand, something based on common sense, compassion tempered with 'teeth', and founded on a solid basis of equal respect for all, favoritism for none, and ready to deal with law breakers swiftly, surely and fairly.

 

[nephers]

That's the second reason I don't support the DP.

The first is simply down to logic:

it is illegal to kill (unsanctioned)
the punishment is death (sanctioned)

I agree with you 100%... i don't understand that it is illegal to kill yet the punishment for doing so can be to be killed. The death penalty is used has a deterent for others to not kill but what kind of message does it send..."it's ok for the government to do it but not for the people to do it"?. Has much as I love life in general, it would be a far greater penalty for me to sit in jail for the rest of my life then to be put to death.

 

[eddeva]

Has much as I love life in general, it would be a far greater penalty for me to sit in jail for the rest of my life then to be put to death.

*resp. snipped.
you have a good point, but still, what percentage of people handed the death penalty choose not to appeal?

 

[Linda7NJ]

So our laws allow a baby to lie decomposing in the woods to protect the mother who murdered her, do I have this right?

Yep, you got it

 

[Linda7NJ]

Isn't it appalling!! I too was dumbfounded when I learned from a lawyer on WS's that JB did not have to report, and in fact, if I understood correctly, as her lawyer, he should not report where Caylee's body was if he found that info out from KC and she instructed him not to report it. Isn't that a *advertiser censored*! I do believe that poster also added that he is not allowed to knowingly mislead the court though. I wish I would have asked if that includes misleading the public thru the media. Don't know about that one.

IMO, I think we are all sickened by this because this situation doesn't come down the pike very often. I am sure most defense attorneys have personal/professional morals that prevent them from continuing to defend a client who has confessed to killing their 2 year old child as an innocent person. Most moral attorneys, I would imagine, would say, "ok you keep your mouth shut and I will try to get you the best deal I can". Most would not continue to tell reporters and the court including the judge, that their client is innocent, that said child is still out there some where, needs to be found, LE aren't doing their jobs, etc etc etc. ANY attorney who tries to get a known killer completely off is one low life individual, who should not be allowed to practice law in our country. MY OPINION ONLY.

I think you're wrong. Defense attorneys have a job to do and are bound by the ethics of their profession and must abide by their clients wishes. It is their job to ensure their client gets a fair trial and defend their client to the best of their ability. Guilty or innocent.

It's an ugly job and I don't know how they do it and sleep at night. But they do it...every day...all over the country. It's the way the law works.

 

[ziggy]

That's the second reason I don't support the DP.

The first is simply down to logic:

it is illegal to kill (unsanctioned)
the punishment is death (sanctioned)

It is illegal to murder. Is that what you meant by unsactioned?
If someone is trying to kill me physically and I have my way, they are going to meet their maker. In self defense it would not be illegal to kill.
And I know this is a hot topic, so I don't want to go off in the wrong direction, but it's legal for a doctor to kill a viable baby in the 9th month. If it's legal for an MD to decide who will die, then why not our juries and courts if it is for the health of society? There seem to be contadicitons every where I turn. That's why it's an interesting debate.

Until murderers are not allowed to marry, have conjugals and sell artwork, music and books and get expensive medical treatments and possibly gender transformation surgeries while incarcerated, then I would be for abolishing the death penalty. I really don't think society should be responsible for taking care of these "cancers" for life.

I don't like it, but it is a deterent of sorts and I would prefer if they didn't spread their seed and their word about becoming minor celebs. Death Row is where they belong. On the table is another matter.

 

[ziggy]

I wonder, how will anyone be able to prove that JB knew where the body was? In Danielle Van Dam's case, they were literally in the deal phase when the body was discovered and the prosecutors pulled the deal immediately.

I suppose we will learn who was on the phone and who knew what when. But it coming back to proving JB knew, I wonder. If it's so, I think all eyes will be on what they try to put out there in court as a defense. After Van Dam, the public may not want to tolerate that kind of manipulation of the system.

 

[Themis]

Some have stated that JB and his agent, DC didn't have any duty to report an unfound, unclaimed dead body and that he had a duty to keep the attorney-client confidentiality. Not true. If there is a state statute that requires a person finding a dead body to report it, it must be reported. The report does not have to say how the body was found, but just that it was found. Not reporting the same is a professional ethics violation. Telling a private investigator under an attorney's hire to violate the reporting laws is also a violation of professional responsibility rules; an ethics violation. So, does Florida have such a statute requiring reporting of finding a dead body? Indeed it does.



The 2008 Florida Statutes

Title XXIX
PUBLIC HEALTHChapter 406
MEDICAL EXAMINERS; DISPOSITION OF DEAD BODIESView Entire Chapter
[SIZE=-1]406.50 Unclaimed dead bodies or human remains; disposition, procedure.--All public officers, agents, or employees of every county, city, village, town, or municipality and every person in charge of any prison, morgue, hospital, funeral parlor, or mortuary and all other persons coming into possession, charge, or control of any dead human body or remains which are unclaimed or which are required to be buried or cremated at public expense are hereby required to notify, immediately, the anatomical board, whenever any such body, bodies, or remains come into its possession, charge, or control. Notification of the anatomical board is not required if the death was caused by crushing injury, the deceased had a contagious disease, an autopsy was required to determine cause of death, the body was in a state of severe decomposition, or a family member objects to use of the body for medical education and research. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](1) The person or entity in charge or control of the dead body or human remains shall make a reasonable effort to determine: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](a) The identity of the deceased person and shall further make a reasonable effort to contact any relatives of such deceased person. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) Whether or not the deceased person is entitled to burial in a national cemetery as a veteran of the armed forces and, if so, shall make arrangements for such burial services in accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. For purposes of this subsection, "a reasonable effort" includes contacting the county veterans service office or regional office of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) Such dead human bodies as described in this chapter shall be delivered to the anatomical board as soon as possible after death. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](3) Nothing herein shall affect the right of a medical examiner to hold such dead body or remains for the purpose of investigating the cause of death, nor shall this chapter affect the right of any court of competent jurisdiction to enter an order affecting the disposition of such body or remains. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](4) In the event more than one legally authorized person claims a body for interment, the requests shall be prioritized in accordance with s. 732.103. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]For purposes of this chapter, the term "anatomical board" means the anatomical board of this state located at the University of Florida Health Science Center, and the term "unclaimed" means a dead body or human remains that is not claimed by a legally authorized person, as defined in s. 497.005, for interment at that person's expense. History.--s. 6, ch. 28163, 1953; ss. 15, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 22, ch. 73-334; s. 1, ch. 91-168; s. 1, ch. 96-251; s. 1, ch. 2002-204; s. 141, ch. 2004-301. Note.--Former s. 245.06. [/SIZE]

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/ind...0406/Sec50.HTM

 

[spqr]

*resp. snipped.
you have a good point, but still, what percentage of people handed the death penalty choose not to appeal?

I believe an appeal is automatic when a death sentence is imposed, even if not initiated by the defendant.

Legal eagles, any help?

 

[ladybugplus]

If JH's testimony is in fact true and the A family knew that Caylee was dead including DC then we can deduct that JB knew also. What is his responsibility as an attorney if he did know this? Doesn't he have to report it. Wasn't one of them (DC or JH) initially working for JB?

When I saw the raw video of Jim Hoover and heard about the trip to the site
before Dec 11 LE discovery of Caylee being in those woods I thot somethings wrong here! I think the defense team/A's knew where Caylee was dumped!
Why? Because they knew who dumped her there!

 

[ziggy]

Themis, this is splitting hairs, but hey, that's what the law does sometimes...does it matter that they did not actually FIND a dead body, only had knowledge of where one might be?