- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Casey Anthony's lawyer admits she killed daughter Caylee, investigator says
Posted on 5/26/16 at 10:53 am to SabiDojo
Posted on 5/26/16 at 10:53 am to SabiDojo
quote:
I like him. His reputation is on the line. I'd do the same thing.
Yeah, you need to get out in front of that as much as possible and do everything in your power to make yourself seem innocent.
0
Posted on 5/26/16 at 10:57 am to biglego
Something tells me that even if you did get her pregnant, she wouldn't mind. She'd just hide the body better next time. Sick bitch she is.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 11:01 am to biglego
quote:
It's still his job to make the government prove it.
Is it his job to frame another person for it? If proven, that is all super illegal, imprisonment/disbarment offenses.
Not a little bit of it. All of it - each alleged action separately.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 11:06 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Is it his job to frame another person for it?
How did he frame someone else for the murder of Caylee?
Posted on 5/26/16 at 11:15 am to SabiDojo
quote:
How did he frame someone else for the murder of Caylee?
That was his expressed intention, according to the investigator.
It can also be inferred, "Find the body before anybody else does."
It is, at a minimum, conspiracy and obstruction of justice - again, if proven. I don't want to invest too much into the word of a single witness. But, those suggesting the allegations aren't of serious misconduct, somehow suggesting that's "just what lawyers do" are mistaken, IMHO.
This post was edited on 5/26/16 at 11:16 am
Posted on 5/26/16 at 11:23 am to Ace Midnight
The evidence against her was shite, and Baez exposed it. He didn't fabricate evidence. He didn't lie in court. He didn't have to.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 12:24 pm to BuckeyeFan87
she put on a few lbs and almost all went to her chest
Posted on 5/26/16 at 12:28 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
That was his expressed intention, according to the investigator.
well assume that strategy, at one time, did exist
the investigator is trying to gad paid before we all forget about the story, so he's going to spice it up
creating a theory that other people could have committed the crime is not unethical
now if baez really did order him to find the body, implying he'd affect the crime scene before the police go there? yeah
Posted on 5/26/16 at 12:32 pm to airfernando
"A murderer hath no eternal life abiding in him."
Posted on 5/26/16 at 3:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the investigator is trying to gad paid before we all forget about the story
I'm not discounting this in my analysis. But, it is not out of the realm of possibility - other attorneys have done worse.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 3:44 pm to CAD703X
Darlie Routier was the one that did this
Posted on 5/26/16 at 3:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
creating a theory that other people could have committed the crime is not unethical
Even if the client admits to you that they did it, it's OK to create a theory that others could have committed it? Knowing for certain that the others did not do it?
Seems unethical to me, but I truly have no idea. I knew it wasn't unethical if you didn't know for sure.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:06 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
It's a famous case in Georgia, apparently. She ran off with the kids as a fugitive and she turned herself in. She'so fine.
Her name is Chelsea Cullen.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:08 pm to Festus
quote:
Even if the client admits to you that they did it
i was always told to never ask this question. it opens up a can of worms
if the investigator is telling the truth, baez did a bunch wrong and that would probably be included
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:08 pm to Festus
quote:
Even if the client admits to you that they did it,
I think that they aren't supposed to do this. You can "know" that your client is guilty, but I think if you actually know that your client is guilty (as in an actual open admission) that you are supposed to remove yourself from the case. So that would already be an ethical issue.
This post was edited on 5/26/16 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:11 pm to Peazey
quote:
I think that they aren't supposed to do this. You can "know" that your client is guilty, but I think if you actually know that your client is guilty (as in an actual open admission) that you are supposed to remove yourself from the case. So that would already be an ethical issue.
What? No. It only changes how your defense is presented.
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:13 pm to SabiDojo
But to be clear, you're never allowed to bang or be banged for compensation.
That's every state, right?
That's every state, right?
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:15 pm to Peazey
quote:
You can "know" that your client is guilty, but I think if you actually know that your client is guilty (as in an actual open admission) that you are supposed to remove yourself from the case. So that would already be an ethical issue.
if you KNOW, you're very restricted in how you present your defense and your client can't testify, basically
if you know they did it and you let the client testify that they didn't, then that's fraud on the court
if you know they did it and your client insists on testifying and you know it will lie, you're supposed to basically call a timeout and tell the judge and other counsel that you are worried that a fraud is about to be put on the court, which is a serious issue
i will go look it up, but as i recall, you can know and still present a defense. "the state cannot prove x, y, z occurred and therefor they can't meet their very high burden in this matter" should be ethical. i haven't had to look up the regs on that since law school, though, so i may be wrong there
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:15 pm to jbgleason
quote:I imagine he was responding to a question from People magazine, its not like he called a press conference and invited TMZ and People
The part where he makes the statement to "People Magazine" and not a legit news source is hilarious. Attention whore much there Counselor?
Compared to other well publicized murderers who got away with it like OJ and Zimmermen CA seems to have avoided the public spotlight.
I think the death was accidental ( although CA was responsible , wanted the kid to "sleep" ) and she isn't a complete psyco
time will tell
Posted on 5/26/16 at 4:16 pm to BRgetthenet
quote:
But to be clear, you're never allowed to bang or be banged for compensation.
That's every state, right?
i don't think so
what's terrible is that not all states explicitly state this in their rules (like Louisiana)
but the LASC has imputed that duty onto attorneys
the model rules, iirc, have this provision
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News