CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict?

[KC H8TRS R DOLTS]

DillinghamLawFirm wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree: Convictions for crimes of moral turpitude--like theft--generally bar one from government employment.

You would think so, but......

[KC H8TRS R DOLTS]

marcemon wrote:

<quoted text>
What confession?

"I DON'T REALLY WORK HERE!!!"

[tired of silly]

DillinghamLawFirm wrote:

<quoted text>
I have not followed the case after the murder trial.

Apparently, unlike the ghouls and freaks who keep this thread alive, you had enough sense to know that when the trial was over, there WAS no more case, despite the wack-ass theories you'll see here if you care to read back. All manner of loonies, all in one place!(Now watch them spit and sputter because someone said they're nuts for continuing to focus on something that's OVER, LOL)

[T-REX]

Poe 14 wrote:

<quoted text>
Now if you could just wipe her record clean of the felon charges, she just might get a job cleaning toilets somewhere

I dont think so this time because to many things have happened and people,including Judges are fed up with the B getting by with everything.

[Diane Ax]

DillinghamLawFirm wrote:

<quoted text>
That makes perfect sense, and I understand your angst. Thank you for the civil reply. Do you feel this thread helps with such things?
We lawyers often discuss social media and how the cases are discussed on these sites--particularly the high profile cases--and wonder about the effect social media has on jurors and public perception of those cases. Florida releases more information than most states, and most of us feel it is counter-productive to the fair administration of justice.

This that could be a case study in trying interfering with right of a defendant to a fair trial.

When they thought the change of venue would be to Miami a few on this thread went to Miami Topix in an effort to deny Casey her right to be considered innocent until proven guilty on a court of law by trying to negatively influence potential jurors.

I think Dade County jurors would have been just as smart as Pinellas County jurors and would have seen the state didn't have the goods to convict.

[DillinghamLawFir m]

KC H8TRS R DOLTS wrote:

<quoted text>Casey Anthony was not free to leave, in my reasonable opinion.
Casey Anthony was taken by the cops - to Universal Studios - so the cops could "lock her into her lies" - lies which they had foreknowledge were in fact lies - lies they did easily "lock her into" after closing her in a small room with 3 burley cops.
They didn't discover the lies by happenstance during the course of - or as a result of - the Universal interrogation.
They knew well in advance that she lied and, they intended to arrest her for the lies, before she walked through the Universal gate without a lawyer.
Now, once there, once Casey admitted (CONFESSED) she lied (SELF-INCRIMINATION)- Miranda/Waiver of Miranda becomes tantamount to protect the integrity and admissibility of the (railroaded) statement.
Mind you, this was all after Casey had already been handcuffed and detained in a patrol car immediately upon Cindy Anthony declaring "I WANT HER ARRESTED".
Is there a such thing as an UNARREST?
I don't think so.
Miranda warning is also to remind the absent minded of their right not to step further into the shitpile.
There seems to be a fine line between what constitutes arrest or custodial interrogation.
The professional has the burden of erring on the side of caution - not the suspect.
I believe the trial court erred by ruling the statements were admissible -- and I believe the appellate panel will reverse the conviction.

Actually, you have misapprehended the law. SCOTUS has ruled in a long line of cases that even if an initial arrest is bad, the defendant can remove the taint of the arrest--or even a bad confession--by initiating contact with the police. There is also the doctrine of inevitable discovery that holds that if evidence would have been found despite a bad arrest and/or confession, then that evidence is admissible.

Now, does these exceptions always apply? Certainly not. But your statement was incorrect.

[DillinghamLawFir m]

tired of silly wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently, unlike the ghouls and freaks who keep this thread alive, you had enough sense to know that when the trial was over, there WAS no more case, despite the wack-ass theories you'll see here if you care to read back. All manner of loonies, all in one place!(Now watch them spit and sputter because someone said they're nuts for continuing to focus on something that's OVER, LOL)

The. level of acrimony is astounding. I thought Facebook debates got heated, but they are sunburns compared to the nuclear wars waged here. It all seems quite pointless.

[Diane Ax]

KC H8TRS R DOLTS wrote:

Pope Benny XVI amassed over one million Twitter followers in just two days.
Totally shattering JadedJustice's record of 20 followers in two months.
Wow! Just Wow!

LMAO!
And that's just his English twitter account only!

Go Benny!

[T-REX]

KC H8TRS R DOLTS wrote:

<quoted text>Casey Anthony was not free to leave, in my reasonable opinion.
Casey Anthony was taken by the cops - to Universal Studios - so the cops could "lock her into her lies" - lies which they had foreknowledge were in fact lies - lies they did easily "lock her into" after closing her in a small room with 3 burley cops.
They didn't discover the lies by happenstance during the course of - or as a result of - the Universal interrogation.
They knew well in advance that she lied and, they intended to arrest her for the lies, before she walked through the Universal gate without a lawyer.
Now, once there, once Casey admitted (CONFESSED) she lied (SELF-INCRIMINATION)- Miranda/Waiver of Miranda becomes tantamount to protect the integrity and admissibility of the (railroaded) statement.
Mind you, this was all after Casey had already been handcuffed and detained in a patrol car immediately upon Cindy Anthony declaring "I WANT HER ARRESTED".
Is there a such thing as an UNARREST?
I don't think so.
Miranda warning is also to remind the absent minded of their right not to step further into the shitpile.
There seems to be a fine line between what constitutes arrest or custodial interrogation.
The professional has the burden of erring on the side of caution - not the suspect.
I believe the trial court erred by ruling the statements were admissible -- and I believe the appellate panel will reverse the conviction.

""Mind you, this was all after Casey had already been handcuffed and detained in a patrol car immediately upon Cindy Anthony declaring "I WANT HER ARRESTED""

I disagree with that, the police were there summoned by Cindy LYING Anthony because of her 911 call'
I need someone arrested for stealing my car and money from my bank acct a lot of money.
At that time she was considered a suspect and detained legally in handcuffs in the patrol car. That is pretty standard policy at every police dept I know.they do not have to tell her her rights or miranda her at that time.Only when they complete thier investigation and determine she is guilty of the crimes reported,then and only then will they tell her she is now under arrest and miranda her.
You have no concept of police procedure,do you.

[DillinghamLawFir m]

Diane Ax wrote:

<quoted text> This that could be a case study in trying interfering with right of a defendant to a fair trial.
When they thought the change of venue would be to Miami a few on this thread went to Miami Topix in an effort to deny Casey her right to be considered innocent until proven guilty on a court of law by trying to negatively influence potential jurors.
I think Dade County jurors would have been just as smart as Pinellas County jurors and would have seen the state didn't have the goods to convict.

The courts have become increasingly aware of and concerned with social media. I foresee a day coming when judges will heavily scrutinize every juror's social media accounts. Some lucky person will invent software that collects and collates social media profiles on jurors, and lock them out of such sites while trials are ongoing.

[Double Jeopardy]

KC H8TRS R DOLTS wrote:

<quoted text>Casey Anthony was not free to leave, in my reasonable opinion.
Casey Anthony was taken by the cops - to Universal Studios - so the cops could "lock her into her lies" - lies which they had foreknowledge were in fact lies - lies they did easily "lock her into" after closing her in a small room with 3 burley cops.
They didn't discover the lies by happenstance during the course of - or as a result of - the Universal interrogation.
They knew well in advance that she lied and, they intended to arrest her for the lies, before she walked through the Universal gate without a lawyer.
Now, once there, once Casey admitted (CONFESSED) she lied (SELF-INCRIMINATION)- Miranda/Waiver of Miranda becomes tantamount to protect the integrity and admissibility of the (railroaded) statement.
Mind you, this was all after Casey had already been handcuffed and detained in a patrol car immediately upon Cindy Anthony declaring "I WANT HER ARRESTED".
Is there a such thing as an UNARREST?
I don't think so.
Miranda warning is also to remind the absent minded of their right not to step further into the shitpile.
There seems to be a fine line between what constitutes arrest or custodial interrogation.
The professional has the burden of erring on the side of caution - not the suspect.
I believe the trial court erred by ruling the statements were admissible -- and I believe the appellate panel will reverse the conviction.

1. You do not fit the definition of a reasonable person, ever.
2. Casey went with the detectives on her own free will, eagerly.
3. Cindy wanted Casey arrested for stealing the car and money but mainly so Casey would disclose where Caylee was. Cindy has no authority to authorize or demand anyone be arrested.
4. We've discussed this here before. You can be handcuffed and placed in a cruiser and be released if you ask and are not a suspect, violent, etc. You are not under arrest if you are cuffed and placed in a cruiser unless you are told you are being arrested.
5. Casey admitted she lied about some things, but not everything. Not helpful to the detectives in any way, shape or form. She provided the detectives with no valid information on Caylee's whereabouts.

[Springer review board]

Diane Ax wrote:

<quoted text> LMAO!
And that's just his English twitter account only!
Go Benny!

Stop trying to fool them Days.

You have zero friends except me for the last 4 years.

When are you going to wake up and fly right?

[Double Jeopardy]

DillinghamLawFirm wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, you have misapprehended the law. SCOTUS has ruled in a long line of cases that even if an initial arrest is bad, the defendant can remove the taint of the arrest--or even a bad confession--by initiating contact with the police. There is also the doctrine of inevitable discovery that holds that if evidence would have been found despite a bad arrest and/or confession, then that evidence is admissible.
Now, does these exceptions always apply? Certainly not. But your statement was incorrect.

Her statements and interpretations of the law are always incorrect.

[KC H8TRS R DOLTS]

DillinghamLawFirm wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, you have misapprehended the law. SCOTUS has ruled in a long line of cases that even if an initial arrest is bad, the defendant can remove the taint of the arrest--or even a bad confession--by initiating contact with the police.

Let's see them.

Casey did not initiate the contact.
Casey did not untaint a bad arrest.
Casey was summoned by police who used her own father to propagate the secret plot to lure her to Universal Studios.

Once there, Casey confessed to a crime - the crime they intended to charge her with before she got there - and at which point she should have been given the opportunity to have counsel present.

Casey was in la-la land, foolishly believing that Caylee was going to be returned by her 3rd birthday -- so long as she maintained the ridiculous pre-scripted lies.

The duress she was under was abundantly clear.

[Diane Ax]

T-REX wrote:

<quoted text>
Your full of it from the soles of your feet to the hair on your head.
A respectable lawyer and even bad ones, would never be posting on a thread about a baby killer.

Now you don't think Mr. Hornsby is a respectable attorney?

That's certainly a change.

[KC H8TRS R DOLTS]

Double Jeopardy wrote:

<quoted text>
Her statements and interpretations of the law are always incorrect.

Haha!

Yet "her" predictions as to the legal outcomes are always spot-on.

And here you are, a self-professed legal encyclopedia of all laws,(God's and man); couldn't foresee the easily foreseeable acquittal as to Counts 1, 2, & 3?

Very funny, that.

[KC H8TRS R DOLTS]

Diane Ax wrote:

<quoted text> Now you don't think Mr. Hornsby is a respectable attorney?
That's certainly a change.

Hornsby is a genius.
And not just because he agrees with me on many things.
Okay.....a few things.

[KC H8TRS R DOLTS]

DillinghamLawFirm wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, does these exceptions always apply? Certainly not. But your statement was incorrect.

Define: "Protecting you from Them"

[Your Next]

Ramble-tard wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Fred!!!!! Wilma has been worried sick... Us too, where you been and are you ok?

Been on a vaction from topix...Forgot to tell Wilma I'm sure you took very good care of her Barney...

[Your Next]

Diane Ax wrote:

<quoted text> LMAO!
And that's just his English twitter account only!
Go Benny!

Miss Lardass I got the munchies got any Ham Hocks cooked???