Sidebar Discussion #5

Status
Not open for further replies.

NocturnalLady

New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
1,312
Reaction score
6
Is anyone on the site showing sympathy for the Anthony's? For me it is one thing not to go along with something someone says about George or Lee in a comment which I do not believe to be true, but in no way can that be construed as "sympathy" for any of them. To me some of their behaviors were appalling enough without taking a broad brush and saying everything was horrific.

It is more my attempt to be objective instead of letting my anger and disgust get in the way of what I believe I saw....:waitasec:

And the same goes conversely for the prosecution. I've seen a lot of posters really get jumped on if they opine that the prosecution or the judge didn't do a perfect job. For some posters every single thing the prosecution did was perfect and they place all the blame on the stupid jury.

I think HHJP is one of the smartest judges I have ever seen. If ever I needed a judge I would pray to get one as competent as him. Do I think he ran this case perfectly? Nope. I feel that he rushed jury selection and retained jurors that clearly should not have been on a DP qualified jury. Remember the lady who didn't want to judge anyone?? There are other things I don't think he handled well but that one is a good example.

Jeff Ashton is a good lawyer but his conduct was sometimes very unprofessional. Laughing at Jose's remarks was totally wrong. Sure, what Jose said was ridiculous but there is no way Ashton should have laughed like that. He let his emotions get the better of him and I do believe it had a negative effect on the outcome of this case. Again - that's just one example.

Since the case has ended I feel like I see a trend towards "monsters and heroes". Every play in this case is being assigned their team - either a monster or hero - and that's that.

Personally I'd like to still continue to have a critical analysis of the case rather than broad brush paint everything through a lens of emotion.

Just my opinion of course.
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
MY DD feels like you do....that nobody but GA can say why he stays in that sick relationship. I get that. I don't understand it, but I have never been in that position. I do believe with all of my heart that George loved Caylee. I believe he was heartbroken when she was killed. I just cannot understand why or how someone who evidently lost the love of his life could stand by and go along with what happened. I just can't.
I guess if George and I were to sit down across the table from each other and have a conversation, and he would pour his heart out and tell me everything....even then if I KNEW everything hidden in his heart and soul...I still couldn't understand.
And I don’t understand this about me because I’ve never had to face that part of me before this case. I am SUCH a sympathetic and empathetic person. I cry at the drop of a hat. I am so softhearted I CANNOT even watch those Sara McLaughlin rescue videos or JVM animal cruelty messages....I just can’t do it.
I have seriously carried around canned goods in my car at during 2008 and 2009 would hand them out to beggars on a street corner when I stopped at a light because the thought of people losing everything during the economic collapse tore me up. Not that I have much myself, but I am always willing to give what I have...no matter what.
But these people. THESE PEOPLE...they truly bring out the worst in me. Maybe I hate them for that as much as I hate them for the injustice to Caylee.
Armchair psychoanalyzing ....

I agree with what you are saying but I'm not "hooked" into them so much that I continue to hate them - now I just observe them as if they are specimens. George is like that because he isn't like you - he doesn't have your strength or your heart or your ability to stand alone if necessary to defend what you believe in. Not many people do - they talk and talk but when push comes to shove - they lack the courage. George is a weak man, period. I don't think he'll change. It may cost him his life but I don't think he will.

The Anthony's definitely lacked the courage to face the truth of what OCA did, and what a terrible crime it was and that she killed Caylee. They clung to the belief that that couldn't happen to their family, in their family. They couldn't let themselves believe Caylee was dead and OCA killed her. So they behaved the way they did. All despicable acts.
 

RR0004

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
20,001
Reaction score
16
I don't think they would do her (or anybody else for that matter) any physical harm. I think they are 'antisocial' at their worst. Their weapon of choice seems to be their computers. I've seen their chat, it's graphic and tasteless :floorlaugh:. Don't even go look :great:. Regardless, they did earn my eternal gratitude by going after that kid in Oklahoma and all they really did to him was track him down, expose him and turn it over to the police. IMO, I think their 'anonymous' face masks and quotes of 'We are Legion' is just BS so that people will leave them alone.
They did something wicked in my town (if this is the same group we're talking about) which in the end could have put others at risk. I can't condone anything illegal. JMO
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
And the same goes conversely for the prosecution. I've seen a lot of posters really get jumped on if they opine that the prosecution or the judge didn't do a perfect job. For some posters every single thing the prosecution did was perfect and they place all the blame on the stupid jury.

I think HHJP is one of the smartest judges I have ever seen. If ever I needed a judge I would pray to get one as competent as him. Do I think he ran this case perfectly? Nope. I feel that he rushed jury selection and retained jurors that clearly should not have been on a DP qualified jury. Remember the lady who didn't want to judge anyone?? There are other things I don't think he handled well but that one is a good example.

Jeff Ashton is a good lawyer but his conduct was sometimes very unprofessional. Laughing at Jose's remarks was totally wrong. Sure, what Jose said was ridiculous but there is no way Ashton should have laughed like that. He let his emotions get the better of him and I do believe it had a negative effect on the outcome of this case. Again - that's just one example.

Since the case has ended I feel like I see a trend towards "monsters and heroes". Every play in this case is being assigned their team - either a monster or hero - and that's that.

Personally I'd like to still continue to have a critical analysis of the case rather than broad brush paint everything through a lens of emotion.

Just my opinion of course.

All very good points and thank you for these comments - you express yourself much better than me. I'm just not an all or nothing kind of mind - it doesn't work that way for me.
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
They did something wicked in my town (if this is the same group we're talking about) which in the end could have put others at risk. I can't condone anything illegal. JMO

I think there are many many kinds of groups and independents who are hackers for many reasons - I don't think we can assume this group is responsible for all hacking out there.
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
Lordy you're good. I wish I could write a one liner and let it go like that! :banghead:

You express yourself very well as does Zippitydoda, but these are opinions we are expressing here - our view of facts - it doesn't make mine any more right than yours...we're just talking among friends and I constantly seek to understand and absorb another's point of view and yours are interesting to me.
 

BigMomma

Former Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
0
BBM
IMO, it's because if they speak the truth the law suits will never end and I don't think they know how to speak the truth because their whole lives has been nothing but a sham. Can you imagine living the life they have? I sure can't.

That's right. That is the bitter end so they live with it forever, the lies will go on forever. Maybe they just don't have it in them to care, that's how it all looked like to me, unfortunately almost from day 1. Could you imagine saying things like the shell reference??? OMG! I would have had a complete breakdown if I even thought, much less said such a thing. Just cannot ever understand how these people who had such a dire problem chose to go so far out of the way to inflame just about everybody. At that point it had nothing to do with Caylee, but everything to do with them, only them. It was always another lie, another story. Sooo tired of all that. It's a tragedy too they each have a way out of it all-some sort of instability, some form of disability. That's what they say anyway:furious:
 

TotallyObsessed

New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
6,096
Reaction score
1
And the same goes conversely for the prosecution. I've seen a lot of posters really get jumped on if they opine that the prosecution or the judge didn't do a perfect job. For some posters every single thing the prosecution did was perfect and they place all the blame on the stupid jury.

I think HHJP is one of the smartest judges I have ever seen. If ever I needed a judge I would pray to get one as competent as him. Do I think he ran this case perfectly? Nope. I feel that he rushed jury selection and retained jurors that clearly should not have been on a DP qualified jury. Remember the lady who didn't want to judge anyone?? There are other things I don't think he handled well but that one is a good example.

Jeff Ashton is a good lawyer but his conduct was sometimes very unprofessional. Laughing at Jose's remarks was totally wrong. Sure, what Jose said was ridiculous but there is no way Ashton should have laughed like that. He let his emotions get the better of him and I do believe it had a negative effect on the outcome of this case. Again - that's just one example.

Since the case has ended I feel like I see a trend towards "monsters and heroes". Every play in this case is being assigned their team - either a monster or hero - and that's that.

Personally I'd like to still continue to have a critical analysis of the case rather than broad brush paint everything through a lens of emotion.

Just my opinion of course.

I agree with your post, especially about HHJP. I was one of those shouting from the rooftops about how great JP was/is. And he is. But in hindsight, I can see some glaring problems that Perry allowed, all in the name of keeping the record straight and trying to make sure conviction would hold up. NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS did he believe (I think) that she would walk free. NEVER. Otherwise, why bother trying to keep the record straight for appeal?? But because JP did that, it allowed TOO MUCH slant towards the defense, and not enough for the Prosecution -- IMHO. I agree 100% about the rushing to seat a jury, seating a jury that truly was not DP qualified issue you raised. I would love to see the voir dire questions....does anybody know if we had them?
Was it ever asked, for instance, if they had ever followed a case in the media before (NOT CASEY'S CASE, BUT ANY OTHER?) As I mentioned upthread, I watched the WM3 documentary, and some of the AFTER VERDICT stuff coming out about jury misconduct....the Jury Foreman more or less knowing after he got the summons which case it was for and asking an attorney how to make sure he was on the jury (because he was so predisposed to believe the defendants were guilty)...

ETA: ^^ That last sentence is referencing WM3 NOT CASEY'S CASE......in case somebody reads a snippet and runs with "jury misconduct" in Casey's trial....
 

krkrjx

The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
10,925
Reaction score
27,426
I agree with your post, especially about HHJP. I was one of those shouting from the rooftops about how great JP was/is. And he is. But in hindsight, I can see some glaring problems that Perry allowed, all in the name of keeping the record straight and trying to make sure conviction would hold up. NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS did he believe (I think) that she would walk free. NEVER. Otherwise, why bother trying to keep the record straight for appeal?? But because JP did that, it allowed TOO MUCH slant towards the defense, and not enough for the Prosecution -- IMHO. I agree 100% about the rushing to seat a jury, seating a jury that truly was not DP qualified issue you raised. I would love to see the voir dire questions....does anybody know if we had them?
Was it ever asked, for instance, if they had ever followed a case in the media before (NOT CASEY'S CASE, BUT ANY OTHER?) As I mentioned upthread, I watched the WM3 documentary, and some of the AFTER VERDICT stuff coming out about jury misconduct....the Jury Foreman more or less knowing after he got the summons which case it was for and asking an attorney how to make sure he was on the jury (because he was so predisposed to believe the defendants were guilty)...

ETA: ^^ That last sentence is referencing WM3 NOT CASEY'S CASE......in case somebody reads a snippet and runs with "jury misconduct" in Casey's trial....

Thank you so much for adding you ETA because I can easily see someone misreading, resulting in another rumor with legs...

IIRC, all the potential jurors were asked if they knew in advance--or even once they arrived at the courthouse--if they were there for the KC trial. And also IIRC they all said no, they had not known. Whether that was true for all of them, who knows.

I believe all trials contain errors, by the prosecution, the defense, and even by the judge. Nobody's perfect and much of the time you will hear after the fact that someone wished they had done something differently. I never expect a trial to be totally predictable and I am sure those involved never expect it as well. I do believe, however, that in this particular trial there were incidents that screamed out loud for judicial intervention and it did not come. KC being allowed to "testify" from her seat with her facial expressions and body language--and even at times mouthing or possibly saying words out loud--is just one example and that would cover numerous incidents, IMO. It's just something that is not allowed in trials so I cannot figure out why it was allowed in this one.

I don't like to nitpick too much because for the most part I believe this jury was flawed and no matter what would not have convicted. Had jury selection taken longer who is to say there would have been a better outcome...all we can do is view things in hindsight and unfortunately that is not a possibility until it is too late to take corrective action.

But yes, I will have to agree with those who say Judge Perry could have done a number of things differently, and for that matter should have. But at this point, it is what it is.
 

jon_burrows

New Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,261
Reaction score
3
Website
www.youtube.com
Question - If they were so concerned with OCA facing the death penalty, why did they not do more to get her to at least work towards a plea early on?

They were surrounded by attorneys - they had to know where this was heading, and yet they insisted over and over that OCA was not the one who did this to Caylee? It was such an "all in" position to take.

They were lying for FCA long before the DP was on the table.

IMO
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
Thank you so much for adding you ETA because I can easily see someone misreading, resulting in another rumor with legs...

IIRC, all the potential jurors were asked if they knew in advance--or even once they arrived at the courthouse--if they were there for the KC trial. And also IIRC they all said no, they had not known. Whether that was true for all of them, who knows.

I believe all trials contain errors, by the prosecution, the defense, and even by the judge. Nobody's perfect and much of the time you will hear after the fact that someone wished they had done something differently. I never expect a trial to be totally predictable and I am sure those involved never expect it as well. I do believe, however, that in this particular trial there were incidents that screamed out loud for judicial intervention and it did not come. KC being allowed to "testify" from her seat with her facial expressions and body language--and even at times mouthing or possibly saying words out loud--is just one example and that would cover numerous incidents, IMO. It's just something that is not allowed in trials so I cannot figure out why it was allowed in this one.

I don't like to nitpick too much because for the most part I believe this jury was flawed and no matter what would not have convicted. Had jury selection taken longer who is to say there would have been a better outcome...all we can do is view things in hindsight and unfortunately that is not a possibility until it is too late to take corrective action.

But yes, I will have to agree with those who say Judge Perry could have done a number of things differently, and for that matter should have. But at this point, it is what it is.

And here's another example of why I am of "two minds" about many topics and I think posters may misunderstand what I am saying.

Yes, I agree with you - things could have been done a different way, in hindsight and it is what it is. There were many many things that made this case a "zoo" from the get-go. But I also think HHJP is a brilliant judge, hardworking with an awesome mind that is quite something to watch. And that's IMO another thing that is what it is.

Sometimes a call for perfection isn't possible - in fact many times it isn't.
 

krkrjx

The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
10,925
Reaction score
27,426
And here's another example of why I am of "two minds" about many topics and I think posters may misunderstand what I am saying.

Yes, I agree with you - things could have been done a different way, in hindsight and it is what it is. There were many many things that made this case a "zoo" from the get-go. But I also think HHJP is a brilliant judge, hardworking with an awesome mind that is quite something to watch. And that's IMO another thing that is what it is.

Sometimes a call for perfection isn't possible - in fact many times it isn't.

I think Judge Perry is an awesome judge too! But he made mistakes that cannot be denied. HOWEVER...any judge would have had a helluva time with this case and the antics in the courtroom. About the only way to totally stop it might have been to declare a mistrial and start all over. Yes, I believe the situation was that out of hand.

I have often wondered how this would have gone if Judge Strickland had gone the distance. And, I have to say, I really do not know. Would he have been able to corral the animals and keep the circus aspect to a minimum any better than Perry? I really do not know. But one thing I can say is any judge at the helm of this freak show would garner my sympathy and my respect. And basically would have made mistakes, no doubt.

No matter who the judge, we would have complaints. It's the nature of this particular beast, IMO. I have criticized some of Judge Perry's decisions/rulings because I felt he deserved the criticism. But I also praise him for having a patience that I can only dream of.

We're all just pizzzed that KC got away with murder. That's the bottom line. Had she been convicted I doubt many of the "errors" of the judge or anyone else would be as noticeable.

Like you, I'm trying to be fair while at the same time express my true feelings. And it isn't easy :crazy:
 

Aedrys

If justice doesn't get you, karma will.
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
6,719
Reaction score
17
And the same goes conversely for the prosecution. I've seen a lot of posters really get jumped on if they opine that the prosecution or the judge didn't do a perfect job. For some posters every single thing the prosecution did was perfect and they place all the blame on the stupid jury.

I think HHJP is one of the smartest judges I have ever seen. If ever I needed a judge I would pray to get one as competent as him. Do I think he ran this case perfectly? Nope. I feel that he rushed jury selection and retained jurors that clearly should not have been on a DP qualified jury. Remember the lady who didn't want to judge anyone?? There are other things I don't think he handled well but that one is a good example.

Jeff Ashton is a good lawyer but his conduct was sometimes very unprofessional. Laughing at Jose's remarks was totally wrong. Sure, what Jose said was ridiculous but there is no way Ashton should have laughed like that. He let his emotions get the better of him and I do believe it had a negative effect on the outcome of this case. Again - that's just one example.

Since the case has ended I feel like I see a trend towards "monsters and heroes". Every play in this case is being assigned their team - either a monster or hero - and that's that.

Personally I'd like to still continue to have a critical analysis of the case rather than broad brush paint everything through a lens of emotion.

Just my opinion of course.

BBM. You know, that is the only example I ever see of Jeff Ashton being unprofessional. I know he's not perfect, and I would never say he is, but I get tired of seeing that one time he laughed being pulled up and equalled to three years of Jose Baez laughing, not to mention that Jose smirked throughout the trial and did so many other unethical things that he can't hold a candle to Jeff Ashton.

Again, Jeff Ashton is not perfect. He probably wishes he had a done lot of things in that trial differently, and so does HHJP. I just get tired of ONE TIME he laughed being held up as the bar to make him completely unprofessional. I just don't think that is fair to Ashton. So, what other examples are there besides that one time of laughing that makes Ashton unprofessional? I would really like to know this because I all EVER see cited is the one time he laughed. I mean really, one time laughing makes him a bad prosecutor? I don't think so. He followed the law to the best of his ability in that trial, unlike Baez. So he laughed one time. That does not destroy his career or make him a bad prosecutor.

All I'm saying is, if we're going to truly analyze this case, let's try to find more things to stick to someone than one example over and over again.
 

bayouland

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by TotallyObsessed

SNIP

I watched the WM3 documentary,


Question for anyone, what is/was the WM3 documentary? Thanks!
 

Aedrys

If justice doesn't get you, karma will.
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
6,719
Reaction score
17
And here's another example of why I am of "two minds" about many topics and I think posters may misunderstand what I am saying.

Yes, I agree with you - things could have been done a different way, in hindsight and it is what it is. There were many many things that made this case a "zoo" from the get-go. But I also think HHJP is a brilliant judge, hardworking with an awesome mind that is quite something to watch. And that's IMO another thing that is what it is.

Sometimes a call for perfection isn't possible - in fact many times it isn't.

I totally agree with this!!! Great post, logicalgirl!

ETA: I think the problem is that some of us are willing to overlook what we consider minor offenses - like JA laughing that one time - when it comes to people who fought hard for Caylee and justice. But people like Baez and the Pinellas 12, who wouldn't know ethics, logic, and reason if it bit them on the butt, they are the ones that get talked about because ALL THEY DID was be unethical and unprofessional. Even HHJP, who I agree probably did make mistakes, retained a professional dignity and never went down to Baez's level. I credit him for that, not use it against him to blame him for the outcome of the trial. Jeff Ashton and HHJP are still brilliant minds who are fantastic at what they do. This trial should not hang on them as something shameful that brings down their entire careers. That is just not fair to them at all.

I am more than willing to talk about mistakes. However, I am not willing to use those mistakes to bash the careers of Ashton and HHJP.
 

bayouland

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
0
BBM. You know, that is the only example I ever see of Jeff Ashton being unprofessional. I know he's not perfect, and I would never say he is, but I get tired of seeing that one time he laughed being pulled up and equalled to three years of Jose Baez laughing, not to mention that Jose smirked throughout the trial and did so many other unethical things that he can't hold a candle to Jeff Ashton.

Again, Jeff Ashton is not perfect. He probably wishes he had a done lot of things in that trial differently, and so does HHJP. I just get tired of ONE TIME he laughed being held up as the bar to make him completely unprofessional. I just don't think that is fair to Ashton. So, what other examples are there besides that one time of laughing that makes Ashton unprofessional? I would really like to know this because I all EVER see cited is the one time he laughed. I mean really, one time laughing makes him a bad prosecutor? I don't think so. He followed the law to the best of his ability in that trial, unlike Baez. So he laughed one time. That does not destroy his career or make him a bad prosecutor.

All I'm saying is, if we're going to truly analyze this case, let's try to find more things to stick to someone than one example over and over again.

:popcorn:

I can't think of any other important examples either but there were things mentioned previously here on this board that long timers thought should have come out - or at least emphasized, that wasn't. I can't recall what they were.

Of course, (1) he wasn't lead counsel, Linda was (2) Lamar may have been calling all shots behind the scenes. Who knows. I would love to hear an interesting conversation on this...

JMO :seeya:
 

Nore

New Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
6,586
Reaction score
20
Website
Visit site
That's right. That is the bitter end so they live with it forever, the lies will go on forever. Maybe they just don't have it in them to care, that's how it all looked like to me, unfortunately almost from day 1. Could you imagine saying things like the shell reference??? OMG! I would have had a complete breakdown if I even thought, much less said such a thing. Just cannot ever understand how these people who had such a dire problem chose to go so far out of the way to inflame just about everybody. At that point it had nothing to do with Caylee, but everything to do with them, only them. It was always another lie, another story. Sooo tired of all that. It's a tragedy too they each have a way out of it all-some sort of instability, some form of disability. That's what they say anyway:furious:
-----------------------------------------------

Hi BigMomma, I have seen so many write about the "shell" issue. There is a spiritualist meaning to this and I can only say "someone" doesnt know what the he!! they are talking about. I hope I can say this right. :crazy: the soul is the real meaning of the person. Their body is the shell. If a person believes, when the body dies the soul goes to Heaven. The shell returns to dust The body has much meaning to its loved ones. We bury, inurn them with love. We do not
throw them in a muddy hole to rot.You all know that and I know that now someone must tell this :crazy:wonder. I get upset when she speaks of this because she is no where near right.No one with love could settle for any child being thrown in a hole in the woods...:seeya:( PS I mean if a person believes in life after death) LOL. I am going from bad to worse. Now you know why I dont post too often..ROFLOL.
 

my2sense

Me - in the old country
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,282
Reaction score
2
Originally Posted by TotallyObsessed

SNIP

I watched the WM3 documentary,


Question for anyone, what is/was the WM3 documentary? Thanks!


WM3 = West Memphis 3. Paradise Lost 1, 2 and 3 documentaries.
 

RR0004

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
20,001
Reaction score
16
I think Judge Perry is an awesome judge too! But he made mistakes that cannot be denied. HOWEVER...any judge would have had a helluva time with this case and the antics in the courtroom. About the only way to totally stop it might have been to declare a mistrial and start all over. Yes, I believe the situation was that out of hand.

I have often wondered how this would have gone if Judge Strickland had gone the distance. And, I have to say, I really do not know. Would he have been able to corral the animals and keep the circus aspect to a minimum any better than Perry? I really do not know. But one thing I can say is any judge at the helm of this freak show would garner my sympathy and my respect. And basically would have made mistakes, no doubt.

No matter who the judge, we would have complaints. It's the nature of this particular beast, IMO. I have criticized some of Judge Perry's decisions/rulings because I felt he deserved the criticism. But I also praise him for having a patience that I can only dream of.

We're all just pizzzed that KC got away with murder. That's the bottom line. Had she been convicted I doubt many of the "errors" of the judge or anyone else would be as noticeable.

Like you, I'm trying to be fair while at the same time express my true feelings. And it isn't easy :crazy:

BBM- accept on appeal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top