Will anything come of these allegation against the defense?

[panthera]

(respectfully snipped for space)

IMO NO MISTRIAL FOR ICA............not for anything we've seen or heard from yet. I don't believe the SA would hold out something criminal against JB so that they could showboat at trial and arrest him. THAT kinda stunt could result in a mistrial for ICA because it would prejudice the jury - i.e.,if her atty is a crook, then it makes her look bad too......KWIM? If something truly illegal has occurred I would think that the SA has a duty to move on it before trial for this exact reason. If they don't have enough to do something before the trial, I hope they wait until the trial is over and have it be a separate issue that does not interfere with ICA's day in court - or Caylee's justice.

I completely agree. Please let us not have anything that causes another delay in the trial or a mistrial. Justice for Caylee! MOO

 

[LambChop]

There is NO REASON for defense to guess......they have the person who is the "greatest resource", as she likes to refer to herself, as a client. Defense should not have to guess. If RK was a suspect he would have been under arrest by now and KC would be free. A young woman who may be facing the death penalty is playing games. Let's give my team a clue, let's give my brother a clue, oh and for my parents another really hard and cruel clue because they had the nerve to have chili without me on Caylee's birthday. I'll show them all a thing to two. RK is not a suspect and until defense comes up with something better KC is the only person who is a suspect and I don't see that changing. The trial should have been over by now and defense is still no further along to find anyone other than Ms. Anthony, mother of the child. jmo

 

[chefmom]

but really, wasn't it just normal for the defense to say they thought a person should be/should have been investigated as a person of interest under the circumstances, i.e. (a) this person found the body when no one else could, no one could find it there even after he reported it (b) + the weird story about leaving the site and forgetting about the skull because of the snake and because he had other things on his mind, and (c) the allegations by the exwife about duct-taping etc.
Can the defense not say that? I mean they didn't make an accusation, or invent these circumstances, the circumstances were just there. I don't actually know what they can legally say about people they think should be looked into etc, I don't know how that works. They do represent the interests of the mother of the child and do speak for her, did they have a responsibility to say this?

LP getting on national TV and discussing those daisy chain theories about people, that seemed a little stronger. I was surprised he did that.

Hi, Seagull! :seeya: The defense does have a duty to either present the evidense that will exonerate their client and/or present the best possible defense they can in a court. It is LE's job to determine who qualifies as a suspect or person of interest. JB can go on tv and say that he feels that LE did not investigate anyone other than KC and that he feels other people need to be looked into, but to publicly name RK and say that he should be as much of a suspect as the mother of a missing child who lied to LE and gave no real assistance to help locate her is at best questionable. IMO, he crossed an ethical line by doing so. It is not his job to tell LE who they should consider a suspect. The broadcasting of an interview that his PI conducted with the ex-wife is unheard of. I cannot think of any other case where a defense attorney has acted the way that JB has. JMO

 

[faefrost]

but really, wasn't it just normal for the defense to say they thought a person should be/should have been investigated as a person of interest under the circumstances, i.e. (a) this person found the body when no one else could, no one could find it there even after he reported it (b) + the weird story about leaving the site and forgetting about the skull because of the snake and because he had other things on his mind, and (c) the allegations by the exwife about duct-taping etc.
Can the defense not say that? I mean they didn't make an accusation, or invent these circumstances, the circumstances were just there. I don't actually know what they can legally say about people they think should be looked into etc, I don't know how that works. They do represent the interests of the mother of the child and do speak for her, did they have a responsibility to say this?

LP getting on national TV and discussing those daisy chain theories about people, that seemed a little stronger. I was surprised he did that.

It's normal and perfectly legit for defense attorneys to say this IN THE COURTROOM. At that time they are shielded from litigation regarding what they say. So if they had waited and used questions about RK to raise doubt at trial or in a hearing it would be a non issue.

But they are not shielded from stuff they say in press interviews, press conferences or to "informed sources". So when they say something to the press indicating or implying that RK may have been involved in Caylee's disappearance, they need to be prepared to back up their statements should Mr. Kronk call their statements into question legally.

 

[AbbieNormal]

I honestly think they just want this trial over with before doing anything about Baez. I mean, can you imagine if Baez was disbarred right now? There's no way that trial would start next year if a new lawyer had to take over the entire case. No, Baez has dragged his feet this far, and thanks to the new law, he's going to be there through the trial. I do think that after Casey is taken care of, then the law is going to clamp down on Baez, the Anthony's, and anyone else who obstructed justice for Caylee.

Right now, the most important thing is getting Caylee's murderer in LWOP or on death row. With the craziness of this case, I imagine that is all they can focus on right now. It doesn't mean they aren't gathering ammunition against other people. It just means that they are storing the ammunition for later use. This case is already a circus because of ringmaster Casey. The last thing LE wants for mom and pop or Baez or anyone else to make it even more a circus. Good Lord, we've ALL had enough of crazies coming out of the woodwork in this case. Let the rest of the nuts stay where they are for right now.

No, let the attention stay where it is so by this time next year Casey is sitting in LWOP or on death row and can't hurt another child. Get the other slimy people later. Focusing on the truly evil one right now is the best course of action. It's not like Baez, the Anthony's or anyone else that obstructed justice is going anywhere or suddenly becoming productive citizens of society anytime soon.

As much as we hate to wait, that's what we're going to have to do here. The waiting is killing me, though, argh!

I hope you are right. The wait is really bugging me and I can't imagine they will end up letting Baez get away with everything he has done. If they do, my confidence in the justice system is severly damaged beyond repair if not totally ruined forever. I have see so many infractions it's just beyond ridiculous. Ineffective counsel is Baez's middle name.

 

[sumbunny]

Hummmmm. (RBBM) This makes me wonder about how we first discovered that the defense was trying to smear RK? Was it from something the defense said to the press, through a sunshine doc release, or from good ol' LP? I honestly don't remember but now that we know LP's interests are with JB and team I wouldn't be shocked that they had used him for this purpose.

Could it be that they were using LP from the get-go (much earlier than we ever suspected) to release some of their dirty smoke and mirror bombs? Specifically, I'm suspicious of the origin of the "daisy chain" theory. Could JB have asked LP to start that rumor?

I donno. The evil in so many of these characters is beyond my understanding. cough, cough ~ the smoke is really getting to me. . .

BBM- I've thought that for a long while. And, hearing from LP's sidekick Tony on here that JB and LP were actually quite chatty with each other, raised my hinky meter through the roof.

 

[kaRN]

After watching the last status hearing today, I believe the state will be putting the wheels in motion and we will see a motion by Friday. Hoping at least!!

 

[RainyGirl]

In my opinion, I believe there will be very serious repercussions for Baez and for certain defense members--whenever (and however!) this trial reaches its conclusion. In the case of Baez, we're talking disbarment at the minimum and zero future as a big 'ol TV "talking head". Just me speculating again, but I strongly feel Baez will face public (taxpayer!!) disgust and scorn when all "dirty deeds" are brought to light (Yea for the SUNSHINE LAW!). Will there be indictments? Possibly. If so, I think they will center on his (alleged) financial misconduct, (alleged) hiding/channeling funds while his client was supposed to "indigent") and (alleged) media money transactions/contracts etc. Just my thoughts......it's all just speculation! :innocent:

 

[txsvicki]

I was watching American Justice this morning which featured the trial of a woman accused of having her husband killed, I think. Anyhow, its not the charge that is important, it is that this woman, at her trial, stood up and asked the judge for a mistrial because of inaffective counsel. Her attorney stood beside her and listened to her tell the judge why "he" was inaffective. He went along with her and told the judge why he was a bad attorney for her. His last name was Amadar. He purposely went along with his client even though he didn't agree with her claim he was inaffective. He said he hated going along with her but did it for HER, his client, who was fighting for her life.

Now I remember another thread where we strongly debated this issue - as to whether a defense attorney would really do this for their client despite it making them look bad and risk their entire reputation. I posted that I have worked for a dp attorney who did just that. It does happen and I was surprised to see it on AJ today.

My point is......at the AJ trial, the Judge told them all they were like a Jerry Springer show and he hated Jerry Springer.......but he also told the defendant that she WAS GUARANTEED A FAIR TRIAL, NOT A PERFECT TRIAL. And he denied her request for a mistrial based on inaffective counsel.

IMO NO MISTRIAL FOR ICA............not for anything we've seen or heard from yet. I don't believe the SA would hold out something criminal against JB so that they could showboat at trial and arrest him. THAT kinda stunt could result in a mistrial for ICA because it would prejudice the jury - i.e.,if her atty is a crook, then it makes her look bad too......KWIM? If something truly illegal has occurred I would think that the SA has a duty to move on it before trial for this exact reason. If they don't have enough to do something before the trial, I hope they wait until the trial is over and have it be a separate issue that does not interfere with ICA's day in court - or Caylee's justice.

I watched the same program, it was about Margaret Rudin in the murder of her Las Vegas husband Ron Rudin with the attorney who met and eventually married an actress who came to see the trial? It seemed like the attorney made that silly opening statement on purpose, and he sure was full of himself. It reminded me of Casey and wondered the same thing, if Casey will have grounds for appeal. Margaret's judge didn't buy it and ordered the trial to continue, but did she ever get an appeal?

 

[MADJGNLAW]

There is NO REASON for defense to guess......they have the person who is the "greatest resource", as she likes to refer to herself, as a client. Defense should not have to guess. If RK was a suspect he would have been under arrest by now and KC would be free. A young woman who may be facing the death penalty is playing games. Let's give my team a clue, let's give my brother a clue, oh and for my parents another really hard and cruel clue because they had the nerve to have chili without me on Caylee's birthday. I'll show them all a thing to two. RK is not a suspect and until defense comes up with something better KC is the only person who is a suspect and I don't see that changing. The trial should have been over by now and defense is still no further along to find anyone other than Ms. Anthony, mother of the child. jmo

And I am still waiting for the "Defense to Produce Their Evidence They Claimed To have". Remember one of the attorney's had said they "HAD" proof of who the real killer was way back and Judge Strickland if I am not mistaken had given them a dead line to produce this new evidence and still to this day I am waiting.
:waitasec:Also, weren't there other investigations going on due to something Strickland reported to the bar and others? What ever came of that? It seems that Baez can do as he pleases and not face any reproductions for his misbehavior IMO. I sure hope that if doc's were altered that this time the bar will finally disbar him and get him out of the way before Casey can used the excuse of ineffective counsel to get acquitted. She has many attorneys and from what was said by one of the callers on JVM/NG last night it sounds as if she will be getting more? How many attorneys does one person need? I just don't get it. I say it's time to get Baez out of the picture if this case is ever going to make to trial. :cow:

 

[21merc7]

MADJGNLAW:

I fully agree with everything you just said. ^^^^

As far as the evidence KC did not do it, well, there simply isn't any.

Did JG Strickland file the complaints? If so, they have probably been looked into by now, and some sort of restriction put on, I never thought to look it all up. You can do that here. Heck, you just type in Joe Smith, Orlando Florida, leave out attorney-lawyer-or any such reference, and the state bar decisions will be one of your first google clicks.

I do wish somehow, Jose could be removed from the case. I feel he thinks it may never go to trial, he is just there for reality comedy law, (which is appalling to me), and thinks he can play that Judge in the Anna Nicole Smith television fiasco and get a t.v. show of his own. He does not seem to understand the severity of the charges against his client, his responsibility in the matter, nor the legal system in its respectful sense. I think he clowns for the reasons I just stated, and I cannot believe it. It is shameful, it is a mockery of the entire legal system and of the death penalty. I wonder if Judge P is looking into any sort of disciplinary actions now that he stated something about breaking rules.