Media Interviews with Case Players (SA/DT) ***Merged**

[Tizzy]

I wonder if Linda will give a statement.

I read in one of the interviews from her family that she is not being allowed to speak to the media.

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk

 

[kaki]

Geraldo is such a <modsnip>.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF1cePKUda0​

Geraldo just doesn't get it .. I enjoyed watching that though.. Bill O'rielly asking all the questions I've been thinking...

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

I have heard a lot of people in the last day say that the defense will hit the media scene. Sorry for my ignorance, I've only followed this during the trial. are you saying Baez and Mason made the media circuit during the trial or before? I never saw them on tv. Guess I never see anything wrong with it since you pick a jury supposedly who hasn't followed the case, right>?

Much of the irony for the past 2+ years is this:

The defense gave numerous (over and over and over) media clips, interviews, etc....and FOUGHT FOR NOT HAVING A GAG ORDER in this case....

THEN...

for 2+ years, constantly complained about the media circus, bias, etc...whined about how KC couldn't get a fair trial because of all the media coverage....so much so that they wanted a change of venue because of all the coverage in Orlando and Florida....

THEN...
Continued to do media interviews.... up until what, the week before jury selection started, with a TV special?!?!?!?!

THEN...

post-acquital, Cheney Mason blasts the media.

Oh, the irony is rich indeed.

:twocents:

 

[D96s]

I knew it. I said right after the verdict that I bet JB already has his first interview lined up. I wonder how much more money that will line his pockets with? Here comes the money train, JB.
I also want to predict that KC will have an interview within the month, probably sooner. Strike while the iron, um, iorn is hot so to speak. I am sure that has been planned for years and it will go to the highest bidder, helping make KC rich and maybe independent for the first time in her life. Now that she doesn't need mommy and daddy she can really throw them under the bus. I believe this is the reason she wrote them off early on. She knew they had nothing more to offer her. Either she would spend her life in prison and not need them to support her or she would be acquitted and make enough money and wouldn't need them to support her. They were no longer of any use to her so they were discarded, like poor little Caylee. They are lucky she didn't actually discard them like Caylee. I firmly believe she would of if she could of.

I refuse to watch anything, or read anything, that has to do with Casey or her family or her defense team. I think Baez lied, cheated, and threw innocent people under the bus to get her off. It worked - but that doesn't stop me from believing they are slimy. Sorry if that langage isn't allowed. It's just my opinion. And Cheney flipping the bird says it all in one picture. None of them have one ounce of respect for Caylee. She was like their little pet.

 

[DairyGirl]

I have heard a lot of people in the last day say that the defense will hit the media scene. Sorry for my ignorance, I've only followed this during the trial. are you saying Baez and Mason made the media circuit during the trial or before? I never saw them on tv. Guess I never see anything wrong with it since you pick a jury supposedly who hasn't followed the case, right>?

I will bet dollars to donuts that the prosecution won't be cashing in, though. I may be wrong and if I am I will be very disappointed but I firmly believe that JB, CM and co. did this for fame and glory, not to mention riches. I believe that the prosecution did this for Caylee. If I am wrong I will be almost as devastated as I was at the verdict.

 

[ZsaZsa]

We need to take a stand and let the media know right away that we will not be watching/supporting these people that support a baby killer.

Time to let the show producers and sponsors know what we think of JB and his sleazy gang.

 

[burbqueen]

I can see if he said he felt that Casey didnt do it at all. I would be shocked, but I would be ok. But to say its an accident over murder. Why? I've heard this from other people. it was an accident that she tried to cover up. Why would your first conclusion be that she didnt murdered her kid? I dont get it. Someone explain... please!! There is no evidence of an accident!! Yet here we are...

 

[yolorado]

I have heard a lot of people in the last day say that the defense will hit the media scene. Sorry for my ignorance, I've only followed this during the trial. are you saying Baez and Mason made the media circuit during the trial or before? I never saw them on tv. Guess I never see anything wrong with it since you pick a jury supposedly who hasn't followed the case, right>?

Baez was everywhere for years. My favorite Baez appearance was him standing besides KC when she was out on parole telling us all to remember that she was the concerned mother of a missing/kidnapped child!!! (While KC dabbed at the obligatory invisible, imaginary tears) If it was an accident, why did he say that? Anyone think Baez could be prosecuted for taking money to defend an accident as if it were a murder...if in fact that was ever what he was doing?

 

[rose222]

In order to be on a jury one has to actually care about truth/justice/applied logics
Clearly this fellow and rest of his gang operate based on their most base desires (base desires dressed up as "compassion" "tolerance" etc) A mountain of evidence was ignored, their deliberations probably consisted of wanting italian food and $$$$ they could get from having KC out and about. This Huekler guy couldn't even provider clear answers as to why he didn't really consider the scientific evidence. Wretched.

 

[ladyk]

BBM--

I am in complete understandment of how our justice system works.

I think it boils down to selecting a jury is a complete crap shot, you never know what you're going to get. Scott Peterson's jury convicted him and recommended death with a lot less evidence than was presented in ICA's case. They came out and said that they based their verdict on "hundreds of small 'puzzle pieces' of circumstantial evidence." They even said that his demeanor after Laci's disappearance was a big factor in their decision. So, the truth is, another jury could have found ICA guilty. Like I said, juries are a complete crap shot.

Yes, but with Scott Peterson it was a bit different, wasn't it? He was found with the following:
Items Found in Scott's Car

Undated bill of sale with an unverified signature of Michael Griffin, the registered owner of the vehicle
An application for duplicate title for the vehicle also signed by Michael Griffin
Driver's license for John Edward Peterson, Scott Peterson's brother
Approximately $15,000 in cash, including $14,000 in $100 bills with paper wrapper bands
Credit cards:
Two Visa cards and one MasterCard issued to Scott Peterson
One MasterCard and one American Express Business card issued to Scott Peterson / TradeCorp
One Visa card issued to Anne E. Bird, Scott Peterson's sister
Chevron card issued to Jacqueline Peterson
16 music CDs
Thomas Guide map book of California
Thomas Guide map book of Central Valley Cities and surrounding areas
24 blister packs of sleeping pills
12 tablets of Viagra
Four cell phones
Double-edged dagger with a t-handle
Columbia foul-weather jacket
A hand shovel
Backpack containing:
Water purifier
Water bottle
Climbing rope
Filet knife
Duct tape
Cooking grill
Rain pants
Ziploc bags
Socks
Fire starters
Camp kit that included cooking utensils and a rope
Leather gloves
Two folding knives
Folding saw
Scissors
Two packs of razor blades
Waterproofing spray
Camp axe
Hammock
Binoculars
Mask and snorkel
Fishing rod and reel
Leatherman tool
Clothes:
Lace-up, rubberized boots
Hiking boots
Low-top hiking shoes
Two pairs of brown slip-on casual shoes
One pair brown lace-up casual shoes
Flip flops
Two pairs of black dress shoes
Sweatshirt
Four pullover long-sleeved sport shirts
Two pairs of shorts
Button-down shirt
Two pairs of casual pants
Running pants
Jersey
Three tee shirts
Two long-sleeved casual shirts
One pair of athletic shorts
Cowboy hat
Two pairs of dress socks
At least 10 pairs of athletic socks
One pair of Levis
Two neckties
A pullover sweater
A scarf
Black dress belt
At least six pairs of underwear briefs




So this is a BIT different ISN'T IT?

 

[MissDiva]

I think this thread is getting way too inflammatory and people should really relax, stop judging others and making assumptions, and just discuss the facts of what's been said.

 

[AdoraBlue]

I just cannot wrap my mind around the fact that NOT ONE of the 12 jurors stood up and said, "hey, wait a minute, there's a dead little girl here, we are going to go over the evidence, not rush this deliberation." At least we might have had a hung jury. I had thought that a hung jury would be the worst that could happen. I am going to watch Mr. Ashton's interview with Beth Karas and then sign off on Caylee until tomorrow. Hopefully, Judge Perry will give her the absolute maximum he can, though no doubt her legal team will file some sort of appeal bond to get her out and run her through the money-making machine.

 

[Etilema]

yes, you are right....it was a question based on opinions of a segment of non-jurors who watched the trial. I heard that it was obvious in the courtroom that the jurors liked Baez - responded warmly to his "good mornings".

I think that's part of what JA was referring to when he said that JB "presented himself very well". JB has that smoothness with people (reminds me of ICA in that regard).

 

[kaki]

If the death penalty had not been pursued, this case would have been over a long time ago, with ICA behind bars where she belongs. Sad, but true, IMO.

Of course, I am not saying I am anti-DP, just think this is the reality in this case.

Unfortunately I think you are right. Would have only costed a fraction of the money.. and wouldn't have been so high profile so bozo and his gang couldn't cash in so much on blood money.

If they hadn't persued the death penalty she would have been long ago convicted and forgotten....

 

[JanWhitebear]

I think this guy jumped in to be the first to get his 15 minutes of fame and fortune. I don't believe for a minute that those jurors NEVER discussed all this amongst themselves. They ALL want book deals now and TV interviews for dollars. I hope it all backfires on them.

 

[burbqueen]

Yes, but with Scott Peterson it was a bit different, wasn't it? He was found with the following:
Items Found in Scott's Car

Undated bill of sale with an unverified signature of Michael Griffin, the registered owner of the vehicle
An application for duplicate title for the vehicle also signed by Michael Griffin
Driver's license for John Edward Peterson, Scott Peterson's brother
Approximately $15,000 in cash, including $14,000 in $100 bills with paper wrapper bands
Credit cards:
Two Visa cards and one MasterCard issued to Scott Peterson
One MasterCard and one American Express Business card issued to Scott Peterson / TradeCorp
One Visa card issued to Anne E. Bird, Scott Peterson's sister
Chevron card issued to Jacqueline Peterson
16 music CDs
Thomas Guide map book of California
Thomas Guide map book of Central Valley Cities and surrounding areas
24 blister packs of sleeping pills
12 tablets of Viagra
Four cell phones
Double-edged dagger with a t-handle
Columbia foul-weather jacket
A hand shovel
Backpack containing:
Water purifier
Water bottle
Climbing rope
Filet knife
Duct tape
Cooking grill
Rain pants
Ziploc bags
Socks
Fire starters
Camp kit that included cooking utensils and a rope
Leather gloves
Two folding knives
Folding saw
Scissors
Two packs of razor blades
Waterproofing spray
Camp axe
Hammock
Binoculars
Mask and snorkel
Fishing rod and reel
Leatherman tool
Clothes:
Lace-up, rubberized boots
Hiking boots
Low-top hiking shoes
Two pairs of brown slip-on casual shoes
One pair brown lace-up casual shoes
Flip flops
Two pairs of black dress shoes
Sweatshirt
Four pullover long-sleeved sport shirts
Two pairs of shorts
Button-down shirt
Two pairs of casual pants
Running pants
Jersey
Three tee shirts
Two long-sleeved casual shirts
One pair of athletic shorts
Cowboy hat
Two pairs of dress socks
At least 10 pairs of athletic socks
One pair of Levis
Two neckties
A pullover sweater
A scarf
Black dress belt
At least six pairs of underwear briefs




So this is a BIT different ISN'T IT?

Ok, but to be fair none of that really ties him to the murder of lacy. We dont even know how lacy died! I believe they didnt even find her arms, legs and head. just a torso. All of that can be explained away. He was a fisher, hunter, etc. None of that had Lacy DNA I believe so what do you have? Circumstance and behavior. That is what Scott Peterson was convicted on. Yet no one says, "oh it was an accident and he tried to dispose of the body". why not? The facts can be twisted that way. Him and lacy got into a fight and she fell down, hit her head and he panicked. Do you understand my point?

 

[Etilema]

Also, I had read some people on the so-called Live Blog on WFTV saying that JB seems more down-to-earth and the prosecution all seemed--I can't remember the exact words they used, but sort of arrogant or out of touch with the common man. So it made me think that maybe at least some segment of the population relates more to a person like Baez than to the type of people who were on the prosecution.

 

[D96s]

I think this thread is getting way too inflammatory and people should really relax, stop judging others and making assumptions, and just discuss the facts of what's been said.

I am discussing facts. It is a fact that Cindy lied on the stand, and Baez fought like h#ll to try to make sure the State couldn't impeace her testimony. He knew it was a lie, and he wanted the jury to BELIEVE it. George and Kronk were not involved. So, when I say Baez lied, cheated and threw innocent people under the bus, I am discussing facts. Call it inflammatory if you want, but it is fact. And, yes, I find it sleazy.

 

[killingvector]

I've been through the voir dire process twice and was not selected both times, persumably b/c of my position as a faculty member at a small college. I was very passionate to be on a jury as I had never experienced the judicial process first hand (and still have not). During the first voir dires, one of my fellow prospective jurors was an undergraduate biology major. He was removed by the defense because the case involved some sort of leg injury inflicted by police.

It seems to be, through my limited experience, that lawyers want jurors who are blank slates and, perhaps, have limited opinion philosophically on the law itself. I find this to be a rather bleak and limiting process.

 

[Benchwarmer]

What bothers me about Mr. Hueckler's comments are the inconsistencies in belief: he does not accept the body located in the trunk of Casey's car b/c there there was no evidence that it was there. This belief seems contradictory to the witnesses who directly smelled decomposition: Simon Birch, Yuri Melich, both parents, Arpad Vass, Dr. Furton, ect, contradictory to the two independent hits by cadaver dogs to a spot in the trunk, contradictory to two expert witnesses who detected levels of chloroform in the parts per million range on the trunk liner and in the air, and the presence of a nine inch long human hair which could have only realistically come from Caylee (the death banding seems to bolster that it was left postmortem).

In the same breath, he supports the 'accident theory' and a very bizarre belief that tape from the trash bag fell off and stuck to the skull in a very incriminating position on Caylee's skull. In review of the defense's case, where exactly was the evidence that tape from outside the bag could possibly fall off that quickly and attach itself to the skull? Likewise, where is the evidence that a drowning or accidental death occurred? There was an inference of an accident and a theory tossed out as to the source of the tape (actually multiple theories), but Huekler goes out of his way to express that these were his beliefs as to how the events proceeded.

I can understand a declaration that he had a reasonable doubt, but to go out of his way and express support for a series of evidence without foundation demonstrates that he completely rejected the state's case so ardently that he allowed the defense to convince him of one of their many theories without having to prove any of it. In effect, it was evidence nullification.

The fact this man is a teacher of any kind scares me even though he seems to be a rational person. Where is the critical thinking?

Reasonable doubt does not equal beyond a shadow of a doubt.

:goodpost: