Berwyn Talk Forum

Patsy, I guess there is more to comment on:

Casey Anthony Case Fuels Push in States for 'Caylee's Law'

Published July 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The trial and acquittal of Casey Anthony has spawned a slew of proposed laws named after her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, as lawmakers and their constituents try to extract some measure of reform out of a case that ended -- for many onlookers -- with frustration.

The state proposals, which sprung up after an Oklahoma woman started an online petition drive Tuesday, would generally make it a felony for a parent not to report the death or disappearance of his or her child in a certain period of time.

Lawmakers have been drafting the bills at a furious pace since the Florida mother was found not guilty Tuesday in the death of her daughter.

In Maryland, Sen. Nancy Jacobs said she received nearly two dozen emails from constituents in the days following the verdict. She said they asked that she review Maryland law and find a way to criminalize the act of not reporting the death of one's child.

Jacobs, who is proposing a bill, said her version would make it a felony for a parent, legal guardian or caretaker not to notify law enforcement of the death of a child within a short period of time after the death is discovered.

Back in Florida, several lawmakers filed "Caylee's Law" on Thursday. Their proposal would require caregivers to promptly report a missing or dead child, and to promptly report to law enforcement the location of a child's corpse if it is known.

Other proposals are either filed or in the works in North Carolina, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and other states, according to local reports.

Caylee was last seen on June 16, 2008, but her mother didn't report her missing. The child's grandmother notified authorities July 15.

The case captivated the country for three years, but Anthony was convicted this week only on counts of lying to investigators. She is expected to be released July 17.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/08/anthony-case-fuels-caylees-law-proposals-in-state-capitals/#ixzz1RXirzn6r

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/08/anthony-case-fuels-caylees-law-proposals-in-state-capitals/

*******************

they are looking to make it felony to not report after 24 hours.

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 01:56:44 PM
Regarding the making money off of cases for those directly involved in the case (in the courtroom), like Marcia Clark and Darden, and now Baez, jury, etc. ... there should be like a 5 year buffer from the time the case is over till the point they are allowed to benefit monitarily from writing a book, a TV show, or movie, or appearances of any kind.  If you want to go and do it for nothing ... go ahead.  But no monies should be paid to anyone for anything until a good time has passed.  And this would extend to say maybe Casey doesn't write the book, or Baez, but they have someone else write it for them, or movie rights for the future (you can sign 5 years from now), or anything else.  Bottomline, no monetary gain for whatever length of time.  

Under what theory of law, and why, would you bar an attorney from making money off a case he/she worked on?

Funny how most people have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with imbeciles like Paris Hilton, the Jersey Shore crew, Kim Kardashian making boat loads of money for NO APPARENT REASON whatsoever, but you have a problem with a licensed attorney making money offf a case he worked his ass off on? Wonderful.

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 01:33:14 PM
I can't even watch Ashton on TV cause I wanna smack him around, and it's just the system itself.

Somehow cause you hire a bountyhunter to bail out your client, this automatically means the bountyhunter is on YOUR side.  Why?  It's a private business and any testimony that bountyhunter can provide I would think would be important.  But, no, by way of motion and citing attorney/client privilege the Court doesn't allow it.  I have a problem with that, and since it was by way of motion, and not just assumed, and no doubt that motion was rebutted by the prosecution, the prosecution was not able to bring some very important information.

The info they could have gotten from Padilla and his team, was that George lied about seeing Casey leave the next day before he went to work.  Lee told Padilla directly that Casey left the night that Cindy choked her out after a big fight about stolen checks and money.  Further, if this team could have testified, they could have neutralized the testimony of River Cruz who said George told her it was an accident that snowballed out of control.  It was Padilla's right hand man (cause it was a 3 person team at that house), who told George outright something to effect of .... you know George, this may have been an accident that got out of hand.  Telling this to a man who could not reconcile anything at this point, and a possibility was given to him.  To discount the testimony of 3 ppl who were with the Anthonys at their home for weeks, and what all went on there is just a travesty.  This is as close as they were going to come to eyewitnesses as to what went on over there ... and the prosecution was shut out.  That said, I think the prosecution would have bumbled that too.

I didn't see Ashton's opening statement.  All I heard from the talking heads was how masterful it was.  I didn't see his closing statement ... I heard that was masterful too.  I did see his shared rebuttal, however.  I wasn't impressed, and when he laughed during Baez's rebuttal, I would have beat him over the head with a baseball bat.  To have all the hard work that many entities put into this case, go this far, and pull a stunt like that ... there was absolutely no excuse for it, other than he is an arrogant ass, and that winning a high profile case was far more important to him than justice for Caylee.  So make no mistake, I dislike Ashton ALMOST as much as I dislike Baez.

Max Cady .... YOU WERE MY LAWYER !!!!!

What in God's name are you talking about? What motion?

Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 03:05:16 PM

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 01:56:44 PM
Regarding the making money off of cases for those directly involved in the case (in the courtroom), like Marcia Clark and Darden, and now Baez, jury, etc. ... there should be like a 5 year buffer from the time the case is over till the point they are allowed to benefit monitarily from writing a book, a TV show, or movie, or appearances of any kind.  If you want to go and do it for nothing ... go ahead.  But no monies should be paid to anyone for anything until a good time has passed.  And this would extend to say maybe Casey doesn't write the book, or Baez, but they have someone else write it for them, or movie rights for the future (you can sign 5 years from now), or anything else.  Bottomline, no monetary gain for whatever length of time.  

Under what theory of law, and why, would you bar an attorney from making money off a case he/she worked on?

Funny how most people have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with imbeciles like Paris Hilton, the Jersey Shore crew, Kim Kardashian making boat loads of money for NO APPARENT REASON whatsoever, but you have a problem with a licensed attorney making money offf a case he worked his ass off on? Wonderful.

I don't give a rat's ass about theory of law.  When Paris Hilton, Jersey Shore, and Kim Kardashian profit off the death of a child, then I will speak.  Entertainment is loaded with  ppl that make money for nothin on the MTV.

I've already explained my reasons and I'm sure you would feel differently if it was your kid that had been murdered, and you sit there and watch the murderer go free (say you in your mind was certain of their guilt), and both the alleged murderer and their attorney then proceed to make tons of money off your kid's death.  Let me just observe you, if I may, under those circumstances.  Oh, that wouldn't bother you at all, right.  Cause you're Jackal.  Your the just it's all about law man.  The fact that it's your kid wouldn't even come into the equation right?  You'd tune in yourself to see what they had to say, right?  Forget about the Casey Anthony case.  This could be any high profile case that media wants to get it's grubby hands on that involves the henious murder of anybody.

My guess is that if we went back in time and brought back all the high profile case to be tried in this day and age, that they would all get off.

speck - oh, you were under the bed?  how could you see his face clearly if you were traumatized and under the bed ... sure it couldn't be someone who LOOKED like my client?

gacy - those bodies where there when he bought the house.  Someone else was putting the bodies there and he had no knowledge of it.  Ppl came in and out of that house and anyone of them could have had time to dispose of bodies there.  Oh, he was trying to cut your air off during sex ... that is a sexual practice used by many today.

manson - he was convicted of murder and to my knowledge he physically himself never killed anyone (that we know of).  They'd have a field day with that case.  So do you listen to the ramblings of some guy on a street corner when he tells you to go and kill all the (fillin your own blank here)?  No.  You have your own free will.  OH, he's a svengoolie?  I see.  

Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 03:06:59 PM

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 01:33:14 PM
I can't even watch Ashton on TV cause I wanna smack him around, and it's just the system itself.

Somehow cause you hire a bountyhunter to bail out your client, this automatically means the bountyhunter is on YOUR side.  Why?  It's a private business and any testimony that bountyhunter can provide I would think would be important.  But, no, by way of motion and citing attorney/client privilege the Court doesn't allow it.  I have a problem with that, and since it was by way of motion, and not just assumed, and no doubt that motion was rebutted by the prosecution, the prosecution was not able to bring some very important information.

The info they could have gotten from Padilla and his team, was that George lied about seeing Casey leave the next day before he went to work.  Lee told Padilla directly that Casey left the night that Cindy choked her out after a big fight about stolen checks and money.  Further, if this team could have testified, they could have neutralized the testimony of River Cruz who said George told her it was an accident that snowballed out of control.  It was Padilla's right hand man (cause it was a 3 person team at that house), who told George outright something to effect of .... you know George, this may have been an accident that got out of hand.  Telling this to a man who could not reconcile anything at this point, and a possibility was given to him.  To discount the testimony of 3 ppl who were with the Anthonys at their home for weeks, and what all went on there is just a travesty.  This is as close as they were going to come to eyewitnesses as to what went on over there ... and the prosecution was shut out.  That said, I think the prosecution would have bumbled that too.

I didn't see Ashton's opening statement.  All I heard from the talking heads was how masterful it was.  I didn't see his closing statement ... I heard that was masterful too.  I did see his shared rebuttal, however.  I wasn't impressed, and when he laughed during Baez's rebuttal, I would have beat him over the head with a baseball bat.  To have all the hard work that many entities put into this case, go this far, and pull a stunt like that ... there was absolutely no excuse for it, other than he is an arrogant ass, and that winning a high profile case was far more important to him than justice for Caylee.  So make no mistake, I dislike Ashton ALMOST as much as I dislike Baez.

Max Cady .... YOU WERE MY LAWYER !!!!!

What in God's name are you talking about? What motion?

A motion was brought by defense to keep out the testimony of bountyhunter and his team who spent 2 weeks living with the Anthonys, who heard and observed tons while there, reported same to authorities.  Baez was successful in keeping all that out.

Where is your moral outrage over that little kid that got shot in Roseland the other night?

Why is this particular case so upsetting, when dozens of kids in the Chicagoland area are murdered every year?

Quote from: OakParkSpartan on July 08, 2011, 06:24:13 PM
Where is your moral outrage over that little kid that got shot in Roseland the other night?

Why is this particular case so upsetting, when dozens of kids in the Chicagoland area are murdered every year?

Because of the high profile of the case, OPS, she brings attention, is a poster child for ALL the children that are murdered.  A case like this is EXACTLY what shines the light on murdered kids and gets ppl thinking about it.  It's no more or less important than any other child murdered, but the others don't get the press ... this one did, therefore, it serves as a pointman to talk about it.  Like the Amber Alert resulted from the disappearance of Amber Hagerman, we now will have laws created like the one they are proposing for not reporting a child missing out of the Anthony case.  One dead child can carry a torch for the others that are not given the press this one has.  Further, you talk like it was the public's idea to televise.  Where is it shown that the public had authority to demand the trial be televised.  It was HLN, a subsidary of CNN, that saw this was going to be GOLDEN, to coin Blago's familiar phrase.  This is more GOLDEN than Obama's vacant senate seat as far as the press was concerned, and they will continue to milk it from here on out.  Just like the media did with Blago.  He was on CNN, he was on FOX, he was on The View.  Stop blaming the public and put the blame where it lies ... on the media, cause they had the dollar signs flying all over in their dreams, and they were right.  Even ppl who never knew about this case before got caught up in it.

So don't talk about my moral outrage.  That outrage extends to any child murdered and there is no justice.  We live in a society of throw away kids.  Like you point out ... between parents themselves and the gangs ... kids are on the firing line, instead of growing up without a care in the world feeling loved and protected.  That's what it has come to.  Child porn and child sex slaves are epic.  Whether you agree with outcome of Anthony trial or not, it puts the focus back on the kids and gets ppl motivated to come up with more protections to ensure the rights of these poor defenseless children.

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:29:57 PM
A motion was brought by defense to keep out the testimony of bountyhunter and his team who spent 2 weeks living with the Anthonys, who heard and observed tons while there, reported same to authorities.  Baez was successful in keeping all that out.

Why was that excluded? maybe the US Constitution?

What additional "protections" are you going to come up with that will stop drive by shootings and random bullets?

This is all a bunch of BS with the people getting so wound up about this kid.

What are you doing about this:  http://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=385672

Are you doing any outreach?  Or are you just showing your "outrage"?

Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 11:16:21 PM

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:29:57 PM
A motion was brought by defense to keep out the testimony of bountyhunter and his team who spent 2 weeks living with the Anthonys, who heard and observed tons while there, reported same to authorities.  Baez was successful in keeping all that out.

Why was that excluded? maybe the US Constitution?

Jesus Jackal, why do you bring something so irrelevant up???  You are supposed to be SCREAMING FOR BLOOD!

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about theory of law.  When Paris Hilton, Jersey Shore, and Kim Kardashian profit off the death of a child, then I will speak.  Entertainment is loaded with  ppl that make money for nothin on the MTV.

You're going to bar someone from writing a book without any legal justification whatsoever?

QuoteI've already explained my reasons and I'm sure you would feel differently if it was your kid that had been murdered, and you sit there and watch the murderer go free (say you in your mind was certain of their guilt), and both the alleged murderer and their attorney then proceed to make tons of money off your kid's death.

I'd want to catch my child's murderer, but in THIS case, there was absolutely no evidence Casey Anthony even committed agg child abuse, much the less murder. Your blind outrage at the heinous nature of the crime also blinds you to the fact that 12 people unanimously felt there wasn't anywhere near enough evidence to convict Casey of ANY felony, much the less MURDER.

QuoteLet me just observe you, if I may, under those circumstances.  Oh, that wouldn't bother you at all, right.  Cause you're Jackal.  Your the just it's all about law man.  The fact that it's your kid wouldn't even come into the equation right?  You'd tune in yourself to see what they had to say, right?  Forget about the Casey Anthony case.  This could be any high profile case that media wants to get it's grubby hands on that involves the henious murder of anybody.

Not sure what you're saying here, but if it were my kid, I'd want to catch the murderer or person responsible, not a Casey Anthony. Not sure what part of that you don't understand.

QuoteMy guess is that if we went back in time and brought back all the high profile case to be tried in this day and age, that they would all get off.

Your "guess" is based on what exactly? Care to count how many Cook County defendants have unjustly been sent to their deaths, or almost sent to their deaths?

Quotespeck - oh, you were under the bed?  how could you see his face clearly if you were traumatized and under the bed ... sure it couldn't be someone who LOOKED like my client?

gacy - those bodies where there when he bought the house.  Someone else was putting the bodies there and he had no knowledge of it.  Ppl came in and out of that house and anyone of them could have had time to dispose of bodies there.  Oh, he was trying to cut your air off during sex ... that is a sexual practice used by many today.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Outright idiocy of the highest nature. Not even worthy of a comment.

Quotemanson - he was convicted of murder and to my knowledge he physically himself never killed anyone (that we know of).  They'd have a field day with that case.  So do you listen to the ramblings of some guy on a street corner when he tells you to go and kill all the (fillin your own blank here)?  No.  You have your own free will.  OH, he's a svengoolie?  I see.

Accomplice liability, felony murder, take your pick, Manson would get convicted seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

Please, if you're entirely clueless about the law and legal principles, stick to something you DO know about, like Berwyn circa 1960.

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 06:49:37 PM

Quote from: OakParkSpartan on July 08, 2011, 06:24:13 PM
Where is your moral outrage over that little kid that got shot in Roseland the other night?

Why is this particular case so upsetting, when dozens of kids in the Chicagoland area are murdered every year?

Because of the high profile of the case, OPS, she brings attention, is a poster child for ALL the children that are murdered.  A case like this is EXACTLY what shines the light on murdered kids and gets ppl thinking about it.  It's no more or less important than any other child murdered, but the others don't get the press ... this one did, therefore, it serves as a pointman to talk about it.  Like the Amber Alert resulted from the disappearance of Amber Hagerman, we now will have laws created like the one they are proposing for not reporting a child missing out of the Anthony case.  One dead child can carry a torch for the others that are not given the press this one has.  Further, you talk like it was the public's idea to televise.  Where is it shown that the public had authority to demand the trial be televised.  It was HLN, a subsidary of CNN, that saw this was going to be GOLDEN, to coin Blago's familiar phrase.  This is more GOLDEN than Obama's vacant senate seat as far as the press was concerned, and they will continue to milk it from here on out.  Just like the media did with Blago.  He was on CNN, he was on FOX, he was on The View.  Stop blaming the public and put the blame where it lies ... on the media, cause they had the dollar signs flying all over in their dreams, and they were right.  Even ppl who never knew about this case before got caught up in it.

So don't talk about my moral outrage.  That outrage extends to any child murdered and there is no justice.  We live in a society of throw away kids.  Like you point out ... between parents themselves and the gangs ... kids are on the firing line, instead of growing up without a care in the world feeling loved and protected.  That's what it has come to.  Child porn and child sex slaves are epic.  Whether you agree with outcome of Anthony trial or not, it puts the focus back on the kids and gets ppl motivated to come up with more protections to ensure the rights of these poor defenseless children.

So maybe the Orange County Prosecutor's office should have charged the person who DID IN FACT commit murder/manslaughter, or in the alternative, charge Anthony with an offense that they had a realistic chance of proving?

Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 11:28:28 PM

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about theory of law.  When Paris Hilton, Jersey Shore, and Kim Kardashian profit off the death of a child, then I will speak.  Entertainment is loaded with  ppl that make money for nothin on the MTV.

You're going to bar someone from writing a book without any legal justification whatsoever?

QuoteI've already explained my reasons and I'm sure you would feel differently if it was your kid that had been murdered, and you sit there and watch the murderer go free (say you in your mind was certain of their guilt), and both the alleged murderer and their attorney then proceed to make tons of money off your kid's death.

I'd want to catch my child's murderer, but in THIS case, there was absolutely no evidence Casey Anthony even committed agg child abuse, much the less murder. Your blind outrage at the heinous nature of the crime also blinds you to the fact that 12 people unanimously felt there wasn't anywhere near enough evidence to convict Casey of ANY felony, much the less MURDER.

QuoteLet me just observe you, if I may, under those circumstances.  Oh, that wouldn't bother you at all, right.  Cause you're Jackal.  Your the just it's all about law man.  The fact that it's your kid wouldn't even come into the equation right?  You'd tune in yourself to see what they had to say, right?  Forget about the Casey Anthony case.  This could be any high profile case that media wants to get it's grubby hands on that involves the henious murder of anybody.

Not sure what you're saying here, but if it were my kid, I'd want to catch the murderer or person responsible, not a Casey Anthony. Not sure what part of that you don't understand.

QuoteMy guess is that if we went back in time and brought back all the high profile case to be tried in this day and age, that they would all get off.

Your "guess" is based on what exactly? Care to count how many Cook County defendants have unjustly been sent to their deaths, or almost sent to their deaths?

Quotespeck - oh, you were under the bed?  how could you see his face clearly if you were traumatized and under the bed ... sure it couldn't be someone who LOOKED like my client?

gacy - those bodies where there when he bought the house.  Someone else was putting the bodies there and he had no knowledge of it.  Ppl came in and out of that house and anyone of them could have had time to dispose of bodies there.  Oh, he was trying to cut your air off during sex ... that is a sexual practice used by many today.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Outright idiocy of the highest nature. Not even worthy of a comment.

Quotemanson - he was convicted of murder and to my knowledge he physically himself never killed anyone (that we know of).  They'd have a field day with that case.  So do you listen to the ramblings of some guy on a street corner when he tells you to go and kill all the (fillin your own blank here)?  No.  You have your own free will.  OH, he's a svengoolie?  I see.

Accomplice liability, felony murder, take your pick, Manson would get convicted seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

Please, if you're entirely clueless about the law and legal principles, stick to something you DO know about, like Berwyn circa 1960.

Jackal you talk outta your ass.  Tend to defending the boozers and dope heads.  They NEED you.  Leave the high profile cases to da big guys, who I suspect have never called you to weigh in on anything.  You found your nitch.  Fits you.

Quote from: OakParkSpartan on July 08, 2011, 11:18:50 PM
What additional "protections" are you going to come up with that will stop drive by shootings and random bullets?

This is all a bunch of BS with the people getting so wound up about this kid.

What are you doing about this:  http://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=385672

Are you doing any outreach?  Or are you just showing your "outrage"?

Brian, in the case of the drive-bys, the only thing I can think of is that it is up to the community to work together to give whatever info they have to authorities.  Instead a code of silence to protect the perps ... maybe a hotline so that the tips can come in without worry of retaliation.  The gang related problems are much more complex.  I don't have all the answers.  What's the matter with you ppl?  Do you hate kids?  Do you have kids, Brian?  If not, is that why you don't care?  IDK.  You don't have to have kids to be concerned about the welfare of defenseless little ones. 

I started this thread on 5/24 with another post on 5/25.  My next post wasn't until 6/10, followed by flurry of posts beginning 7/6 after the verdict.  It's not like I was posting everyday from 5/24 all the way to the verdict.

geez, ppl ... it's all over the news and I guess we are just supposed to ignore it.  Great.  Now get back to talking about educating kids or the history of Berwyn, gay marriage and god, or what food to put in your gut.  It was just a thread devoted to a very hot topic in the news.  You don't care to post about it ... or discuss anything ... I don't really give a flying leap.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

figures...the meathead answer when all else fails.

Quote from: billyjean on July 09, 2011, 12:24:25 AM

Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 11:28:28 PM

Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about theory of law.  When Paris Hilton, Jersey Shore, and Kim Kardashian profit off the death of a child, then I will speak.  Entertainment is loaded with  ppl that make money for nothin on the MTV.

You're going to bar someone from writing a book without any legal justification whatsoever?

QuoteI've already explained my reasons and I'm sure you would feel differently if it was your kid that had been murdered, and you sit there and watch the murderer go free (say you in your mind was certain of their guilt), and both the alleged murderer and their attorney then proceed to make tons of money off your kid's death.

I'd want to catch my child's murderer, but in THIS case, there was absolutely no evidence Casey Anthony even committed agg child abuse, much the less murder. Your blind outrage at the heinous nature of the crime also blinds you to the fact that 12 people unanimously felt there wasn't anywhere near enough evidence to convict Casey of ANY felony, much the less MURDER.

QuoteLet me just observe you, if I may, under those circumstances.  Oh, that wouldn't bother you at all, right.  Cause you're Jackal.  Your the just it's all about law man.  The fact that it's your kid wouldn't even come into the equation right?  You'd tune in yourself to see what they had to say, right?  Forget about the Casey Anthony case.  This could be any high profile case that media wants to get it's grubby hands on that involves the henious murder of anybody.

Not sure what you're saying here, but if it were my kid, I'd want to catch the murderer or person responsible, not a Casey Anthony. Not sure what part of that you don't understand.

QuoteMy guess is that if we went back in time and brought back all the high profile case to be tried in this day and age, that they would all get off.

Your "guess" is based on what exactly? Care to count how many Cook County defendants have unjustly been sent to their deaths, or almost sent to their deaths?

Quotespeck - oh, you were under the bed?  how could you see his face clearly if you were traumatized and under the bed ... sure it couldn't be someone who LOOKED like my client?

gacy - those bodies where there when he bought the house.  Someone else was putting the bodies there and he had no knowledge of it.  Ppl came in and out of that house and anyone of them could have had time to dispose of bodies there.  Oh, he was trying to cut your air off during sex ... that is a sexual practice used by many today.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Outright idiocy of the highest nature. Not even worthy of a comment.

Quotemanson - he was convicted of murder and to my knowledge he physically himself never killed anyone (that we know of).  They'd have a field day with that case.  So do you listen to the ramblings of some guy on a street corner when he tells you to go and kill all the (fillin your own blank here)?  No.  You have your own free will.  OH, he's a svengoolie?  I see.

Accomplice liability, felony murder, take your pick, Manson would get convicted seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

Please, if you're entirely clueless about the law and legal principles, stick to something you DO know about, like Berwyn circa 1960.

Jackal you talk outta your ass.  Tend to defending the boozers and dope heads.  They NEED you.  Leave the high profile cases to da big guys, who I suspect have never called you to weigh in on anything.  You found your nitch.  Fits you.

LOL!!!!

Hey bj, send me a postcard from Bermuda when you cross examine your FIRST witness.

When all else fails and no arguments are left to be made, resort to a factually devoid personal attack...LOL.

I'm very comfortable with my niche (spelled with a che), professional reputation, and overall track record and ability.

As they say in our parts "those that can, do, those that can't, talk about it".

Have a nice day.

Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 07:40:23 PM

Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 07:24:54 PM
  What I enjoyed most is how all the legal experts on tv were so totally wrong about everything they said would happen. After the verdicts they were whining why her attorneys didn't ask for her release at that very time. They also said judges NEVER give jail time for the misdemeanors she was convicted of. DUH, wrong again guys. And apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release. I'm no lawyer but by what little I do see of court cases I would never bet on a jury's decision or the ruling or sentencing of a judge. As shocked as I was about this verdict I gotta admit I was just as shocked when 11 woman and 1 guy convicted Blago on so many counts. I think I would rather gamble in a Casino these days than a courtroom.

The whole process because of attorney strategies and manuevers has turned the whole process into a crap shoot.

Attorney strategies? You mean like DNA evidence? The DNA evidence that ultimately cleared a Will County man of the death of his daughter after he spent nearly three years in jail? Are those the "strategies" you're speaking of?

You DO remember the Will County case, don't you? It wasn't that long ago. And THAT case had a "purported" confession. In other words, MORE evidence than what Florida brought against Anthony.