Casey Anthony cleared

[tombo]

How do you know what transpired during the meetings between Casey and her lawyer? At the very least he knew from the police reports that she was prone to lying, he had no reason to believe that she wouldn't lie to him, too. So why would he ask her any questions at all, knowing that 1) he probably wouldn't get a straight answer, and 2) if she did kill Kaylee and admitted it to him, his defense strategy could be impacted by the legal restraints he'd face in defending his client. His job was to try to thwart whatever evidence the prosecution introduced so that their burden couldn't be met. He could do that without asking his client to confess to him. He did his job. If he'd done it in such a way that rules of law were broken then he'd be risking a mistrial and/or censuring by his peers; neither of those happened. I don't see a problem with the defense attorney here; I see that the prosecution didn't satisfy the burden of proof.

You gloss over the what if she told him while applauding the fact that her attorney's defense destroyed the prosecutions case and burden of proof based entirelly on what ifs.

What if she told him and he still presented this defense? What legal restraints would he have faced? He can say or do anything to get her off even IF he knows she did it. How do you feel about this case and this lawyer IF she did tell him she killed her daughter and he presented the fake scenario (lies) to get her ruled not guilty? Was he a masterfull lawyer running circles around the prosecution or a liar who will do or say anything to win?

You "gloss over" the fact that many attorneys know their clients did it but still shout to the rooftops that their client is innocent. Do you see a problem with any attorney lying or is that just his job? Many times they know their client is guilty but they still tell the jury that it was consensual sex not rape, that they were in Disney World when the crime happened, that there was an ex boyfriend that wanted to kill her more than their client did, that the police planted evidence, etc, etc, etc when everything they say and present is a lie. If they win that is ok? If they lie and make the jury think it was the victim's fault is that OK because the prosecution couldn't prove he raped her? If it was your daughter raped or murdered would you say well it doesn't matter that the defense attorney lied, it is the prosecution's fault for not satisfying the burden of proof?

In the Casey Anthony case you want to say what if he didn't know for sure she did it. Neither of us will ever know for sure if she told him she did it or not because to divulge that information would cause him to lose his license. I assume she told him what happened because the attorney usually asks their client for the truth because they hate to get blind sided by facts the defendant refused to tell them, but we will never know for sure.

Back to my original point. How do you feel about lawyers who tell the jury that their client is innocent even though their client admitted they did it using attorney client priviledge? I feel they are paid liars and I can't imagine making a living that way. I have no admiration for them, only disgust. How about you? Do you admire them or despise them?

 

[SueDonJ]

... Back to my original point. How do you feel about lawyers who tell the jury that their client is innocent even though their client admitted they did it using attorney client priviledge? I feel they are paid liars and I can't imagine making a living that way. I have no admiration for them, only disgust. How about you? You admire them or despise them?

In my little experience with the attorneys I worked for who did criminal defense work, yes I admired them. They provide a service that's necessary in our justice system, most times to folks in desperate situations who would otherwise be left to rot by the society at large. From what I saw they were able to use their knowledge of the law to insist that the basic tenet of our system - innocent until proven guilty - was upheld. The five I knew managed to do that without compromising their integrity, and the fact that they could go to work in that environment repeatedly without becoming jaded is something to be commended. The only thing they could do to lose my admiration, is to take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner of the clients they are supposed to be serving.

But I do understand your position, Tombo, and I understand that we're looking at this from two different perspectives. It appears to me that you think the defense should have to prove its position at the same time the prosecution does, and defense attorneys can't do their job without sacrificing their morality. I'm comfortable with the entire burden of proof resting with the prosecution, and think that there really isn't a much higher moral calling than helping the most desperate among us. As long as either side doesn't break any of our laws in their zealotry to protect them, I'm satisfied.

 

[tombo]

But I do understand your position, Tombo, and I understand that we're looking at this from two different perspectives. It appears to me that you think the defense should have to prove its position at the same time the prosecution does, and defense attorneys can't do their job without sacrificing their morality. I'm comfortable with the entire burden of proof resting with the prosecution, and think that there really isn't a much higher moral calling than helping the most desperate among us. .

I don't have any problem with the prosecution having to bear the burden of proof. I do have a problem with the prosecution being held to a higher standard. I have a problem with the prosecution having to tell the truth or else a conviction can be overturned on appeal but when the defense lies it's butt off and gets a not guilty verdict, their clients are forever not guilty and can never be tried for the crime again even though the defense lied. Helping the most desperate among us is not a moral calling if you defend them by telling lies to prove they are innocent when you know they are guilty.

 

[SueDonJ]

... If it was your daughter raped or murdered would you say well it doesn't matter that the defense attorney lied, it is the prosecution's fault for not satisfying the burden of proof? ...

I had to separate this because it's impossible to know in advance how I would react to such a horrible experience, and it's much too personal in the overall abstract discussion. But I hope that I would be strong enough to put the courage of my convictions ahead of my heartache. Of course I can't know for sure (and knock on wood I never have to find out,) but I hope that in such terrible circumstances I would still be able to recognize that the prosecutor failed to do his job.

Hmmmm. I hate this question. It's a little unfair that you posed it because there isn't any way I can answer it without sounding holier-than-thou. That's not how I want to come across but it can't be helped. Either I throw my convictions out the window the minute the victim becomes my flesh and blood, or, I stick with my convictions and become a cold-hearted mother who doesn't have enough concern for my murdered daughter's eternal rest. No way to win here.

By the way, the closest we've ever come to criminal court was when Eileen was in 2nd grade and a pervert flashed her and a friend while they walked up the hill towards school one morning. Her friend's mom and I were watching from the bottom of the hill and saw nothing - the man was standing behind some bushes out of our sight. When the girls told us at lunchtime what had happened we were shocked because we hadn't seen anything in their steps to alert us, and they were so shocked that they continued on to school and didn't tell anyone until we were there to do lunch duty. Eileen got a look at his face, her friend did not. Eileen was able to pick him out of a photo line-up the next afternoon after he'd been arrested that morning outside another school, sitting in his car and flashing all the kids who walked by. We were there for the trial and Eileen gave a very short victim impact statement, which the DA read while Eileen sat beside the judge. The guy got the minimum sentence even though I thought he should have been a death penalty candidate. But the guys I worked for helped me to understand the process so that I didn't rant and rave. Two years later they also let me know when they saw him again in court for a similar arrest, and with their help the DA was convinced to not settle for anything less than the max sentence. He still wasn't beheaded in the center of town but the system worked as best it could. It's not anywhere near the situation you've posed, though.

 

[tombo]

I had to separate this because it's impossible to know in advance how I would react to such a horrible experience, and it's much too personal in the overall abstract discussion. But I hope that I would be strong enough to put the courage of my convictions ahead of my heartache. Of course I can't know for sure (and knock on wood I never have to find out,) but I hope that in such terrible circumstances I would still be able to recognize that the prosecutor failed to do his job.

This is where we will forever have to disagree. If the defense attorney LIES and his LIES get his client found not guilty, I will not blame the prosecutor, I blame the lying defense attorney. You look at the trial as the defense can do or say anything false or true to defend their client and the prosecution has to overcome any lies the defense told. Why is it OK for the defense to lie? I feel that both sides should present the truth and let the jury decide based on facts, not based on lies.

 

[SueDonJ]

I don't have any problem with the prosecution having to bear the burden of proof. I do have a problem with the prosecution being held to a higher standard. I have a problem with the prosecution having to tell the truth or else a conviction can be overturned on appeal but when the defense lies it's butt off and gets a not guilty verdict, their clients are forever not guilty and can never be tried for the crime again even though the defense lied. Helping the most desperate among us is not a moral calling if you defend them by telling lies to prove they are innocent when you know they are guilty.

Have you considered at all that the scenarios introduced by Casey's defense attorney could have been introduced by all of the players he had interviewed? That quite possibly he wasn't lying or fabricating stories that had absolutely no basis to be introduced? And have you considered that the prosecution's burden includes a directive to disprove every scenario introduced by every player, if they don't mesh with the charges they've brought? I won't agree with you that Casey's attorney blatantly lied about anything because I don't know what was confided to him. I actually do agree with the mob who think Casey got away with murder. But again, it was the prosecution who effectively secured the "not guilty" verdict and her release, not her attorney.

 

[tombo]

Have you considered at all that the scenarios introduced by Casey's defense attorney could have been introduced by all of the players he had interviewed? That quite possibly he wasn't lying or fabricating stories that had absolutely no basis to be introduced? .

If the defense attorney had interviewed one single person who said that they knew that Kaylee drowned, that George got her body out of the pool, that George hid the bdy, etc, etc, etc, he would have had them on the stand to bolster his case. The closest he could find was an alleged mistress who said that George told her that it was an accident. He made the whole story up beyond any reasonable doubt. That is why he did not have one single person testify and that is why he had zero proof of any kind. He lied. Casey is free because of his lies. The prosecution didn't fail. The defense cheated, lied, and won.That is nothing to be proud of.

 

[6scoops]

When Jose Baez decided to use his imaginative theories, in his opening statement with no intention to ever put Casey Anthony on the stand to corroborate his story, He was CHEATING TO WIN!!!

Even other defense attorneys agree this was a low ball, scummy move. He has only been a attorney for 3 years. He finished law school in 97.

"An order from the Supreme Court of Florida states that he was denied admission (for eight years) because of his failure to pay child support to his ex-wife and secure life and health insurance for his teenage daughter. It states that he had previously declared bankruptcy, written bad checks and defaulted on student loans, the court said."

He is obviously not at all a moral character, just a character!

 

[glypnirsgirl]

I have spent about 8 hours watching the videos of the police and FBI witness interviews available on YouTube. I believe that this is the start of those "scenarios."

The odds are stacked so far in favor of the prosecutors, they get to open first and close last. They have the opportunity to respond to any and every argument/scenario/what if/lie that the defense comes up with.

The prosecutors (in Fort Worth - I don't know about other jurisdictions) usually have an investigator that can immediately go to investigate those scenarios.

If a defense attorney told lies to get an acquittal for someone that was accused of murdering one of my loved ones, I would be furious. I would even be more furious if the prosecutors failed to rebut those lies.

elaine

 

[tombo]

When Jose Baez decided to use his imaginative theories, in his opening statement with no intention to ever put Casey Anthony on the stand to corroborate his story, He was CHEATING TO WIN!!!

Even other defense attorneys agree this was a low ball, scummy move. He has only been a attorney for 3 years. He finished law school in 97.

"An order from the Supreme Court of Florida states that he was denied admission (for eight years) because of his failure to pay child support to his ex-wife and secure life and health insurance for his teenage daughter. It states that he had previously declared bankruptcy, written bad checks and defaulted on student loans, the court said."

He is obviously not at all a moral character, just a character!

Thanks for confirming what I assumed. He cheats his kid out of insurance, he wrote checks assumed to be good which were not, he filed bankruptcy leaving people who he owed money to out of luck, and he refused to pay for his student loans. Not a big shock that he cheated and lied in court.

 

[tombo]

I have spent about 8 hours watching the videos of the police and FBI witness interviews available on YouTube. I believe that this is the start of those "scenarios."

The odds are stacked so far in favor of the prosecutors, they get to open first and close last. They have the opportunity to respond to any and every argument/scenario/what if/lie that the defense comes up with.

The prosecutors (in Fort Worth - I don't know about other jurisdictions) usually have an investigator that can immediately go to investigate those scenarios.

If a defense attorney told lies to get an acquittal for someone that was accused of murdering one of my loved ones, I would be furious. I would even be more furious if the prosecutors failed to rebut those lies.

elaine

The prosecution did rebutt the lies. However the lies told by the defense created enough doubt that the jurors felt they could not feel sure Casey did it beyond reasonable doubt. If you listen to the juror response she said that she didn't like what George Anthony said on the stand and didn't feel like he was telling the truth. George had nothing to do with this case other than in the false scenario created by the lying defense attorney.

So if the defense lies and the prosecution rebutts to no avail, who are you mad at?

 

[tombo]

I have spent about 8 hours watching the videos of the police and FBI witness interviews available on YouTube. I believe that this is the start of those "scenarios."

The odds are stacked so far in favor of the prosecutors, they get to open first and close last. They have the opportunity to respond to any and every argument/scenario/what if/lie that the defense comes up with.

The prosecutors (in Fort Worth - I don't know about other jurisdictions) usually have an investigator that can immediately go to investigate those scenarios.

If a defense attorney told lies to get an acquittal for someone that was accused of murdering one of my loved ones, I would be furious. I would even be more furious if the prosecutors failed to rebut those lies.

elaine

The advantage is for the defense. If I am not mistaken the prosecution has to turn over every single piece of evidence it uncovers to the defense before the trial. The defense does not have to give any of it's evidence to the prosecution. The prosecution can not bring up any surprise witnesses but the defense can have hidden facts and witnesses. The prosecution can win the case but have it overturned on appeal. The defense wins once and that win is forever. If the prosecution is caught in a lie a mistrial can be declared. if the defense is caught in a lie, no problem. How can you possibly feel the prosecution has the advantage?

 

[6scoops]

Jose Beaz is a good salesman!!

Thanks for confirming what I assumed. He cheats his kid out of insurance, he wrote checks assumed to be good which were not, he filed bankruptcy leaving people who he owed money to out of luck, and he refused to pay for his student loans. Not a big shock that he cheated and lied in court.

Ohhh wait there's more:

The Florida Supreme Court said his financial mishaps coupled with failure to pay child support "show a lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law."

 

[rickandcindy23]

Watching Fox News last night, Casey's boyfriend's roommate said Zanny is a common nickname for Zanex. Why did that not come out in court?

 

[myoakley]

The 8th commandment says , "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor." It does not make an exception for lawyers. If the legal system allows defense lawyers to lie in order to exonerate their clients, the moral law does not. And, on judgment day, it is the moral law which will prevail.

 

[6scoops]

Watching Fox News last night, Casey's boyfriend's roommate said Zanny is a common nickname for Zanex. Why did that not come out in court?

I didn't watch every bit, but I don't think Xanax came up at trial.
Also it was reported by one of her friends growing up that when she was younger, they would put their deceased pets in garbage bags and put stickers all over the trash bag and through them in that same area on the same street that Caylee was found!!

I don't think either of these were brought up at trial.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Casey is a liar and may have lied to her lawyers. You cannot blame the lawyers, if she lied to them. What do you do with lies, as a defense lawyer who needs to do his/ her best to make sure you get a fair trial.

I was hoping for at least a lesser conviction. But life goes on, and Casey's life will be "beautiful," as her tatoo states. She is going to be a millionaire over her dead child. One day the regret will be too much, if she actually did kill her daughter with Zanex (however it's spelled), or with Chloroform, or whatever happened. She would have to be the devil to not feel deep loss and guilt at some point. Counseling is not going to fix her.

I wouldn't want to have to live with myself after hiding the fact my child was missing. She lied and hid from her parents, the police, and her friends. She should have no one left to comfort her. What type of friends is she going to attract? Leeches and evil people will be seeking out her friendship.

Beautiful life? I think not...

 

[Tia]

... If the legal system allows defense lawyers to lie in order to exonerate their clients, the moral law does not. ....

Not ever served on a jury and don't even pretend to be a lawyer, but the legal system allows defense attny's to bring up backgrounds of rape victims to question character etc. but not that of the accused doesn't it?

 

[Pat H]

Defense attorneys do not want to know if their clients are guilty. They don't ask and they'd rather not have the defendant tell them. Most likely, Casey had the sexual abuse and drowning accident suggested to her by another inmate in the jail. She is a pathological liar so it wouldn't take much for her to spin the suggestions into the outlandish stories she told. Her attorney can then say that is what she told him. The biggest problem for any attorney at trial is to find out something they didn't know beforehand and for which they are not prepared.

 

[Tropical lady]

I have not read through the thread and I'm sure this was mentioned, but she was not cleared, she was found not guilty which does not mean she is innocent of charges.
I, too, having watched the trial from the beginning wondered if the jury listened to the same information that I did. Yes, the pieces were circumstantial, but put together for the big picture certainly made her guilty for me. I would not have gone for death with this evidence, but aggravated manslaughter looked appropriate to me.

 

[pgnewarkboy]

Not ever served on a jury and don't even pretend to be a lawyer, but the legal system allows defense attny's to bring up backgrounds of rape victims to question character etc. but not that of the accused doesn't it?

Actually, you are wrong on this.

 

[Tia]

Actually, you are wrong on this.

Explain further?

 

[pgnewarkboy]

Explain further?

Most, if not every state, has passed laws making it impossible for defense attorney's to question rape or sexual assault victims about their past sexual history. Anyone who is accused of a crime and takes the witness stand is subject to being cross examined on their credibiity. Prior convictions can be brought up or anything else that is relevant as to credibility.

 

[Marvin]

I guess from your response a lawyer is on the back of you phone book too. If you find a single phone book anywhere in the US with a Dr's ad, IBM's, or Toyota's please post which phone book it is on. Now when I said post it I do mean post factual listings, not legal talk where you suggest there might be other ads, just like there might be other killers, other body hiders, other ladder leavers, real verifiable facts. You can not create doubt with me using these tactics.


My facts are facts with references. Lawyers hate facts unless they work for them. That is why Casey's lawyer fabricated a scenario where the child died accidentally and said that Casey lied about where Kaylee was for 31 days because she had been abused as a child. The real facts didn't work for him so he changed them. You too in a lawyer like manner deflect in your post and say other people advertise too in response to my pointing out that the back of almost every phone book in the US has a lawyer's ad on it. I never said only lawyers advertise. Why do lawyers always want to twist things. Oh yeah winning is all that matters, not facts.

Hey Tombo, if you ever are falsely accused of a crime or frivously sued civilly, what are you going to do-hire a floor sweeper to represent you? Remember that the old saying, "one who chooses to represent himself, truly has a fool for a client."

 

[tombo]

Hey Tombo, if you ever are falsely accused of a crime or frivously sued civilly, what are you going to do-hire a floor sweeper to represent you? Remember that the old saying, "one who chooses to represent himself, truly has a fool for a client."

If in any of your scenarios happen to me I will hire a lawyer. Everyone needs a lawyer at some time or another.

By the way I don't hate all lawyers. My next door neighbor is a lawyer and I was at a party at his weekend home not long ago. There are 3 lawyers within 4 houses of mine, and all are nice guys. NONE are criminal defense attorneys.