Sidebar Discussion #5

Status
Not open for further replies.

KarmaGet'em

New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
654
Reaction score
1
There is a 3-part blog article that focuses on the issues/inconsistencies with the jury.
I don't think I can link to it (not MSM) but if you google "The Enduring Rage" you can find it.
I felt the author made some good points.
 

cecybeans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
3
: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:

Frankly I don't think I'm alone in saying it is a wonder JA maintained the control he did (as well as HHJP, LDB and all the others) during the trial after dealing with JB and his puerile and unprofessional antics for three years before it even started. (JB's behavior was practically a perfect mirror of his client's throughout).

I've often thought that I'd have had to have been physically restrained more than once if I'd had to deal with the unethical tactics, disrespectful accusations, self-aggrandizing swill, devious lies, entitled dog-in-the-manger attitude, disorganized hearing appearances and unprofessional pathetically amateur motions that guy dished out over the years that made a mockery of the entire jurisprudence system in Florida. At the very least I'd have needed heavy medication.

I think they all deserve medals and combat pay for having to put up with it at all.
 

zippitydoda

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
2,186
Reaction score
204
Lordy you're good. I wish I could write a one liner and let it go like that! :banghead:

Well, it seems we both (heart) LG and their post's - we are also very passionate about Caylee and our thoughts about what happened to her.
 

BigMomma

Former Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
0
-----------------------------------------------

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.

:seeya:Hello! I understand as do so many others that our bodies are our vessels, our shells, whatever we'd like to call it, but the way it was said about a small innocent child tossed in the woods, her own flesh and blood, her grandbaby, it was so so cold and so uncaring, like it was no big deal. The thing is, I don't think I ever saw any real truthful devastating feelings when Caylee was found. What did we see? Somebody always pulling up memorials instead of being grateful by the outpouring many strangers had shown for the 1st 6 months; until Caylee was found, then what followed and what continues to follow.

Your post is fine, you should post more often:rocker:
 

Well Done 99

New Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
2
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 agree.
The ringmaster doesn't jump in at the risk of getting his hand bitten off when the lions start mauling each other. He keeps the calm, maintains the good name of the circus and ensures the shows goes on.
 

Pattymarie

Active Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
2,102
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 tothe 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.

A few smirks (well-deserved) are nothing compared to the whole DT flipping the bird, including encouraging the defendent to do the same at the cameraman. I sat there and watched it and couldn't believe my eyes, let alone that it was allowed! Then of course there was CM and his profanity. Then JB shooting at the camera.
And JB's constant eye-rolling, mocking of the "non-chemist"
But the most outrageous behaviour of the DT lawyers was the egregious lying starting with that absurd grandstanding opening statement.
But, hey, I must have been the only one appalled because it sure did work. She got off. JA shouldn't have smirked.:maddening:
 

bayouland

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
0
Frankly I don't think I'm alone in saying it is a wonder JA maintained the control he did (as well as HHJP, LDB and all the others) during the trial after dealing with JB and his puerile and unprofessional antics for three years before it even started. (JB's behavior was practically a perfect mirror of his client's throughout).

I've often thought that I'd have had to have been physically restrained more than once if I'd had to deal with the unethical tactics, disrespectful accusations, self-aggrandizing swill, devious lies, entitled dog-in-the-manger attitude, disorganized hearing appearances and unprofessional pathetically amateur motions that guy dished out over the years that made a mockery of the entire jurisprudence system in Florida. At the very least I'd have needed heavy medication.

I think they all deserve medals and combat pay for having to put up with it at all.

:floorlaugh:Don't hold back now :) <just kidding>

The vision that makes my blood boil more than anything was the way Dorothy Simms petted and mothered the defendent. I really can't explain why that bothered me more than Baez's daily antics, but just thinking of it makes me want to bite a nail in half.
 

bayouland

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
0
A few smirks (well-deserved) are nothing compared to the whole DT flipping the bird, including encouraging the defendent to do the same at the cameraman. I sat there and watched it and couldn't believe my eyes, let alone that it was allowed! Then of course there was CM and his profanity. Then JB shooting at the camera.
And JB's constant eye-rolling, mocking of the "non-chemist"
But the most outrageous behaviour of the DT lawyers was the egregious lying starting with that absurd grandstanding opening statement.
But, hey, I must have been the only one appalled because it sure did work. She got off. JA shouldn't have smirked.:maddening:

Don't forget jumping jack Dottie (after the verdict):furious::furious:
 

BigMomma

Former Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
0
Almost on a daily basis I'd yell at the tv like HHJP could hear me, to do a Do Over or at least reprimand the DT more than he did. I was just about hoping he'd say words to the effect of 'if you can't handle this situation here and now, leave'. I'm sure the whole thing was very trying for all concerned to get the right verdict, but so many things got in the way, least of all, a pretty non responsive jury. I was very surprised right in the middle of this, one of them asked for the heart sticker and it was allowed to be surveyed before actual deliberations. IMO, that was about the time everything went downhill-meaning the jury stopped paying much of any attention.
 

Adrienne37

Former Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
3,262
Reaction score
6
As we all know hindsight is 20/20 but I've been giving this matter much thought about Judge Perry and the prosecution for the last few days, especially after reading Jeff's book and I've come to the conclusion that there were many things that could have been done differently but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a judge so it doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things. However, the single biggest mistake that I felt the prosecution made was not introducing the evidence of cell phone pings, text messages, computer activity, etc. for 6/16. I seriously doubt this jury would have paid a bit of attention to it but I think if more had been presented about the @#$##$%'s activities that day, it might have helped a bit. That said though, honestly I doubt this jury would have been capable of understanding anything the prosecution presented even if they had a step by step video of her actually murdering Caylee. It's as sickening to me today as it was the day the verdict was read.
 

Kamille

Shine bright like a diamond
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
16,708
Reaction score
5,788
: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:

I think one of the major problems with the prosecution case started long before this jury was seated. The fact that in order to find people who had no interest in current affairs and therefore had no knowledge of the extensive news coverage of the case in the years proceeding the jury selection, they had to choose from people who really don't care much about the world around them and therefore these people were completely lost and uninterested in most of the evidence that was presented to them. If this case didn't grab their attention in the news before, what would make anyone think it would grab their attention sitting in that courtroom? I also think some of them may have related to situations of abuse in their own lives and were tuned out and believed that OS lie from the get go.

In order for a jury to understand that evidence and to have been able to put everything together, it required a group of people with at least average intelligence and lots of common sense who could follow the dots and put the puzzle together. People who had some kind of an interest or knowledge in current affairs and the court system and who had perhaps at least followed other cases in the news might have stood a better chance of taking in the evidence and deliberating properly over everything that had been presented. It is well known that most people like this do anything they can to get out of jury duty. I'm sure there were many who did that in this case and are kicking themselves for it now.

This was a group of people who admittedly didn't care much for what was going on around them and lived in a bit of a bubble with themselves and perhaps their immediate circle being the only thing of importance to them. And getting back to that life and their circle of family/friends was probably pretty important to a good deal of them. Either that or some of them lied and had an agenda because of the death penalty on the table, or any number of other reasons...which is entirely possible as well. How ironic that one or more of them could have lied to get on this jury. And if anyone did have an agenda and they were the ones who took up the task of convincing everyone else that there was no case for murder because they needed certain evidence that wasn't presented to them in order to convict then the prosecution never stood a chance from day one.

Jeff Ashton did do a brilliant job in that courtroom but there were times when he could appear to be condescending to someone of average or below average intelligence. I have no idea if any of the jury members fit into this category but if there were I can see them getting their back up when he was "making mincemeat" for lack of a better expression with some of the real doozies that the defence team brought forward. The "plant lady", the "grief lady", the "pigs in a blanket" guy and the loopy old "crack the skull" medical examiner just to name a few. All of them took at least one zinger from JA's arsenal. To most of us at home watching, he was effectively making them look as ridiculous and uncredible as they were. To some members of that jury who may have sympathized with them he may have seemed condescending and disrespectful. For those who, for whatever reason, took to JB, JA would have looked condescending and disrespectful to him on a daily basis. :floorlaugh:

It's so hard to tell exactly what factors led to this disastrous outcome but I really think it started before the jury selection. Perhaps the sunshine law needs to be looked at. I live in Canada where we have publication bans to prevent any kind of jury pool tainting. While it certainly makes following a case not nearly as interesting, I think it's effective in making sure that the prosecution has a better jury pool to choose from.

MOO
 

cecybeans

Active Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
3
:floorlaugh:Don't hold back now :) <just kidding>

The vision that makes my blood boil more than anything was the way Dorothy Simms petted and mothered the defendent. I really can't explain why that bothered me more than Baez's daily antics, but just thinking of it makes me want to bite a nail in half.

Yeah that was kinda creepy. I put it off to the fact that it was her tree-hugger personality combined with JB's advice to make her look pathetic and vulnerable. DS also didn't have a long history with the defendant and I got the impression she was briefed as little as possible. During voir dire she and Ann what's-her-name always looked like they were scrambling to sit next to anybody else but her, and Ann always had a look on her face when she was next to FCA like somebody who had smelled fresh decomp. (Which pretty much describes JB's opening statement.) And toward the end, DS started to look a bit tired of jumping into mommy mode whenever the defendant decided crocodile tears were necessary. ITA - it was very unpleasant to look at.

AL did the same thing, only she looked, as one of my friends put it, like a grandmother grabbing a kid's hand in church - a kid who was about to act out - and squeezing it really hard, when FCA went through all her "make it stop" act.
 

Horace Finklestein

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
5,658
Reaction score
1
As we all know hindsight is 20/20 but I've been giving this matter much thought about Judge Perry and the prosecution for the last few days, especially after reading Jeff's book and I've come to the conclusion that there were many things that could have been done differently but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a judge so it doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things. However, the single biggest mistake that I felt the prosecution made was not introducing the evidence of cell phone pings, text messages, computer activity, etc. for 6/16. I seriously doubt this jury would have paid a bit of attention to it but I think if more had been presented about the @#$##$%'s activities that day, it might have helped a bit. That said though, honestly I doubt this jury would have been capable of understanding anything the prosecution presented even if they had a step by step video of her actually murdering Caylee. It's as sickening to me today as it was the day the verdict was read.

I'm with you on that. Unfortunately with this jury, I don't think anything would have helped them come to a different conclusion. They were lost at sea from the beginning and only got more confused over time. They didn't even understand the basics of their job.
 

Horace Finklestein

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
5,658
Reaction score
1
Tim said: "It was the first time a family was not out on the search site." Wow that is powerful and infuriating. They sure could go to Publix and ask for money, personal assistants, etc.
 

Justin Tyme

New Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
871
Reaction score
1
Yeah that was kinda creepy. I put it off to the fact that it was her tree-hugger personality combined with JB's advice to make her look pathetic and vulnerable. DS also didn't have a long history with the defendant and I got the impression she was briefed as little as possible. During voir dire she and Ann what's-her-name always looked like they were scrambling to sit next to anybody else but her, and Ann always had a look on her face when she was next to FCA like somebody who had smelled fresh decomp. (Which pretty much describes JB's opening statement.) And toward the end, DS started to look a bit tired of jumping into mommy mode whenever the defendant decided crocodile tears were necessary. ITA - it was very unpleasant to look at.

AL did the same thing, only she looked, as one of my friends put it, like a grandmother grabbing a kid's hand in church - a kid who was about to act out - and squeezing it really hard, when FCA went through all her "make it stop" act.

I agree and I think there ought to be a law against an attorney coddling their client in court. I'm sure that if FCA were a man then the judge would have told the attorney to knock it off and keep their hands to themselves. Then there was the jacking her chair down to make her appear smaller. When she was in the room with the investigators before her arrest she was in an average sized chair and she looked quiet comfortable and her feet reached the floor. Then, they made her dress in clothing that I wouldn't wear and I'm 56. My Mother is eighty-two and she wears clothing similar to some of the clothing that they had FCA wear. All this is water under the bridge now. But I found DS's coddling of FCA really disturbing and sickening and by the look on DS's face she wasn't enjoying it. So much of it was disturbing. From the opening statement, to JB's snickering and eye rolling, to DS's coddling, to the A families games & lies. We all know the story, I could go on and on. Everyone involved has had so much chit flung in their faces by FCA, the A's, the DT. I'm sorry, I just realized that I got carried away...again. Would someone please hold FCA accountable for something in her life. Someone? Anyone?

I am thankful that my children love their children and treat them with the utmost respect.
 

strawberry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
12,017
Reaction score
2,446
Hi all! Been busy sorting out my feelings as a Penn State alum. Complicated having gone there during the late 80s national championship days...hating that noone helped those boys and said that things ended for Joe the way they did..the boys come first but it's all very sad right now. Every bit of it.
 

bayouland

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
0
I think one of the major problems with the prosecution case started long before this jury was seated. The fact that in order to find people who had no interest in current affairs and therefore had no knowledge of the extensive news coverage of the case in the years proceeding the jury selection, they had to choose from people who really don't care much about the world around them and therefore these people were completely lost and uninterested in most of the evidence that was presented to them. If this case didn't grab their attention in the news before, what would make anyone think it would grab their attention sitting in that courtroom? I also think some of them may have related to situations of abuse in their own lives and were tuned out and believed that OS lie from the get go.

In order for a jury to understand that evidence and to have been able to put everything together, it required a group of people with at least average intelligence and lots of common sense who could follow the dots and put the puzzle together. People who had some kind of an interest or knowledge in current affairs and the court system and who had perhaps at least followed other cases in the news might have stood a better chance of taking in the evidence and deliberating properly over everything that had been presented. It is well known that most people like this do anything they can to get out of jury duty. I'm sure there were many who did that in this case and are kicking themselves for it now.

This was a group of people who admittedly didn't care much for what was going on around them and lived in a bit of a bubble with themselves and perhaps their immediate circle being the only thing of importance to them. And getting back to that life and their circle of family/friends was probably pretty important to a good deal of them. Either that or some of them lied and had an agenda because of the death penalty on the table, or any number of other reasons...which is entirely possible as well. How ironic that one or more of them could have lied to get on this jury. And if anyone did have an agenda and they were the ones who took up the task of convincing everyone else that there was no case for murder because they needed certain evidence that wasn't presented to them in order to convict then the prosecution never stood a chance from day one.

Jeff Ashton did do a brilliant job in that courtroom but there were times when he could appear to be condescending to someone of average or below average intelligence. I have no idea if any of the jury members fit into this category but if there were I can see them getting their back up when he was "making mincemeat" for lack of a better expression with some of the real doozies that the defence team brought forward. The "plant lady", the "grief lady", the "pigs in a blanket" guy and the loopy old "crack the skull" medical examiner just to name a few. All of them took at least one zinger from JA's arsenal. To most of us at home watching, he was effectively making them look as ridiculous and uncredible as they were. To some members of that jury who may have sympathized with them he may have seemed condescending and disrespectful. For those who, for whatever reason, took to JB, JA would have looked condescending and disrespectful to him on a daily basis. :floorlaugh:

It's so hard to tell exactly what factors led to this disastrous outcome but I really think it started before the jury selection. Perhaps the sunshine law needs to be looked at. I live in Canada where we have publication bans to prevent any kind of jury pool tainting. While it certainly makes following a case not nearly as interesting, I think it's effective in making sure that the prosecution has a better jury pool to choose from.

MOO

:aktion:

Very interesting read, thank you.

I think you are on exactly the same page as Ashton regarding jury selection.

As for the difference in personalities between Ashton and Baez, I think Baez had some good advisors or else good instincts. He took the pulse and educational level of the juror's and dummied it down. (Of course some will say this was very easy for HIM :)

I mean no disrespect to anyone without a formal education, I just mean that he talked like the average guy on the street instead of Ashton, George and Burdick who spoke like polished professionals. I'm constantly aware of this when watching effective politicians. One good example was George W Bush. He played the role as well as I have ever seen. Love him or hate him (I am not about to do politics here) he was effective. I've seen Obama do the same thing.

As for Ashton, he is a man of great confidence (shall we say) and he came across maybe a little too confident at times. :)

By the way, would you by chance be named after a hurricane? :seeya:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille"]Hurricane Camille - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 

bayouland

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
0
I agree and I think there ought to be a law against an attorney coddling their client in court. I'm sure that if FCA were a man then the judge would have told the attorney to knock it off and keep their hands to themselves. Then there was the jacking her chair down to make her appear smaller. When she was in the room with the investigators before her arrest she was in an average sized chair and she looked quiet comfortable and her feet reached the floor. Then, they made her dress in clothing that I wouldn't wear and I'm 56. My Mother is eighty-two and she wears clothing similar to some of the clothing that they had FCA wear. All this is water under the bridge now. But I found DS's coddling of FCA really disturbing and sickening and by the look on DS's face she wasn't enjoying it. So much of it was disturbing. From the opening statement, to JB's snickering and eye rolling, to DS's coddling, to the A families games & lies. We all know the story, I could go on and on. Everyone involved has had so much chit flung in their faces by FCA, the A's, the DT. I'm sorry, I just realized that I got carried away...again. Would someone please hold FCA accountable for something in her life. Someone? Anyone?

I am thankful that my children love their children and treat them with the utmost respect.

Yes Yes Yes. Yes to your whole post!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top