Casey Anthony

[Liability]

I have seen cases where the criminal case hinged totally on a medical opinion of doctors. The doctors come and testify before the grand jury and one of the doctors' testimony was not exactly what the prosecution believed it would be! It was totally opposite of what the other 2 doctors had testified to.
So which doctor is "lying"?
Perjury is rarely, if ever, indicted and prosecuted. In almost every trial I have seen someone will take the stand, swear to tell the truth "so help me God", sit down and then violate that oath.
Real world is not like TV drama.

A difference of medical opinion is not the same thing as lying, necessarily.

 

[oldsalt]

I have seen cases where the criminal case hinged totally on a medical opinion of doctors. The doctors come and testify before the grand jury and one of the doctors' testimony was not exactly what the prosecution believed it would be! It was totally opposite of what the other 2 doctors had testified to.
So which doctor is "lying"?
Perjury is rarely, if ever, indicted and prosecuted. In almost every trial I have seen someone will take the stand, swear to tell the truth "so help me God", sit down and then violate that oath.
Real world is not like TV drama.

A difference of medical opinion is not the same thing as lying, necessarily.

Exactly. Sigh, the legal world according to the dawg....

 

[Gadawg73]

I have seen cases where the criminal case hinged totally on a medical opinion of doctors. The doctors come and testify before the grand jury and one of the doctors' testimony was not exactly what the prosecution believed it would be! It was totally opposite of what the other 2 doctors had testified to.
So which doctor is "lying"?
Perjury is rarely, if ever, indicted and prosecuted. In almost every trial I have seen someone will take the stand, swear to tell the truth "so help me God", sit down and then violate that oath.
Real world is not like TV drama.

A difference of medical opinion is not the same thing as lying, necessarily.

That is exactly my point. TV drama has witnesses suddenly appearing in court with "I did it" BS.
How could anyone mount any defense without offering witnesses with completely DIFFERENT VERSIONS of what the prosecution stated happened?
And not all defense witnesses are lying.
And not all prosecution witnesses are telling the truth.
Real world.

 

[Liability]

I have seen cases where the criminal case hinged totally on a medical opinion of doctors. The doctors come and testify before the grand jury and one of the doctors' testimony was not exactly what the prosecution believed it would be! It was totally opposite of what the other 2 doctors had testified to.
So which doctor is "lying"?
Perjury is rarely, if ever, indicted and prosecuted. In almost every trial I have seen someone will take the stand, swear to tell the truth "so help me God", sit down and then violate that oath.
Real world is not like TV drama.

A difference of medical opinion is not the same thing as lying, necessarily.

That is exactly my point. TV drama has witnesses suddenly appearing in court with "I did it" BS.
How could anyone mount any defense without offering witnesses with completely DIFFERENT VERSIONS of what the prosecution stated happened?
And not all defense witnesses are lying.
And not all prosecution witnesses are telling the truth.
Real world.

Again, the "how could" question is answered in Courts across the land day after day.

There have been many cases where the defense essentially concedes the "facts" as asserted by the prosecution but takes the position that notwithstanding the actions, there was no CRIME committed.

No. Not all defense witnesses are lying. Many are the ones telling the truth.

No. Not all prosecution witnesses tell the truth. Sometimes they are abject liars.

It is the real world I am talking about, too; not t.v. legal dramas. Those can be entertaining, but are often quite misleading.

 

[Contumacious]

The concern which the 5th Amendment was designed to address was the prospect of a government compelling people to say things which could then be used BY the government to prosecute and imprison them. Once that threat is removed, it is perfectly fair and reasonable in a free society to expect people to step up to the plate and provide testimony when needed for the system to function..

I knew that the thumbsuckers and naive would respond as shown above.

Let's consider the case of Susan McDougal.

she was given immunity from prosecution but EXCLUDED ANY PERJURED TESTIMONY.

Anyone familial with the "Whitewater Case" knows that it was a politically charged case in which Republican prosecutor Kenneth Starr was looking to stick it to Bill Clinton.

The US is no longer a free country. We are a fascist republic where our "rights" our subject to the discretion of the slavemasters.

.

 

[Liability]

The concern which the 5th Amendment was designed to address was the prospect of a government compelling people to say things which could then be used BY the government to prosecute and imprison them. Once that threat is removed, it is perfectly fair and reasonable in a free society to expect people to step up to the plate and provide testimony when needed for the system to function..

I knew that the thumbsuckers and naive would respond as shown above.

Let's consider the case of Susan McDougal.

she was given immunity from prosecution but EXCLUDED ANY PERJURED TESTIMONY.

Anyone familial with the "Whitewater Case" knows that it was a politically charged case in which Republican prosecutor Kenneth Starr was looking to stick it to Bill Clinton.

The US is no longer a free country. We are a fascist republic where our "rights" our subject to the discretion of the slavemasters.

.

Nobody gets a bye on perjury, you moron.

I knew you'd come back with something dreadfully lame.

You always do.

,

 

[Contumacious]

The concern which the 5th Amendment was designed to address was the prospect of a government compelling people to say things which could then be used BY the government to prosecute and imprison them. Once that threat is removed, it is perfectly fair and reasonable in a free society to expect people to step up to the plate and provide testimony when needed for the system to function..

I knew that the thumbsuckers and naive would respond as shown above.

Let's consider the case of Susan McDougal.

she was given immunity from prosecution but EXCLUDED ANY PERJURED TESTIMONY.

Anyone familial with the "Whitewater Case" knows that it was a politically charged case in which Republican prosecutor Kenneth Starr was looking to stick it to Bill Clinton.

The US is no longer a free country. We are a fascist republic where our "rights" our subject to the discretion of the slavemasters.

.

Nobody gets a bye on perjury, you moron.

I knew you'd come back with something dreadfully lame.

You always do.

,

What a fucking ding dong

And WHO, fucktard, decides whether you committed perjury?!?!?


The case of Julie Hiatt Steele: the human cost of the Kenneth Starr witch-hunt

By David Walsh
9 March 2001

Julie Hiatt Steele, hounded and prosecuted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr during the Clinton impeachment campaign of 1998-99, is facing severe financial and personal difficulties arising from Starr's vendetta against her.

Steele hasn't worked since February 1998, when she submitted an affidavit in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case undermining the credibility of Kathleen Willey, a one-time Clinton supporter who achieved notoriety by going on the Sixty Minutes television program in March 1998 and accusing Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances.

Steele lost her employment when the affidavit and her refusal to go along with Willey's version of events became public knowledge. Subsequently she became the target of an extraordinary campaign of prosecutorial terror and intimidation by Starr's office.

Steele was dragged before two grand juries. Her daughter and brother, as well as a former lawyer and accountant, were also interrogated. She was forced to turn over tax and bank records, credit reports and telephone records to Starr's investigators. Most despicably, the Office of the Independent Counsel threatened to move against Steele's parental rights, making public the fact that it was looking into the procedures—which were, in fact, entirely legal—by which she had adopted her son in Romania.

Ultimately, in January 1999, Starr indicted Steele on three counts of obstructing justice and one charge of making false statements. She faced the possibility of 35 years in jail and a one million dollar fine. Starr's office pursued its legally baseless and vindictive case against Steele to trial in May 1999. The case ended in a hung jury and mistrial, a humiliating defeat for Starr. His office decided not to pursue a retrial.


Salon Newsreal | Starr's lowest blow

.

 

[Liability]

I knew that the thumbsuckers and naive would respond as shown above.

Let's consider the case of Susan McDougal.

she was given immunity from prosecution but EXCLUDED ANY PERJURED TESTIMONY.

Anyone familial with the "Whitewater Case" knows that it was a politically charged case in which Republican prosecutor Kenneth Starr was looking to stick it to Bill Clinton.

The US is no longer a free country. We are a fascist republic where our "rights" our subject to the discretion of the slavemasters.

.

Nobody gets a bye on perjury, you moron.

I knew you'd come back with something dreadfully lame.

You always do.

,

What a fucking ding dong

And WHO, fucktard, decides whether you committed perjury?!?!?


The case of Julie Hiatt Steele: the human cost of the Kenneth Starr witch-hunt

By David Walsh
9 March 2001

Julie Hiatt Steele, hounded and prosecuted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr during the Clinton impeachment campaign of 1998-99, is facing severe financial and personal difficulties arising from Starr's vendetta against her.

Steele hasn't worked since February 1998, when she submitted an affidavit in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case undermining the credibility of Kathleen Willey, a one-time Clinton supporter who achieved notoriety by going on the Sixty Minutes television program in March 1998 and accusing Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances.

Steele lost her employment when the affidavit and her refusal to go along with Willey's version of events became public knowledge. Subsequently she became the target of an extraordinary campaign of prosecutorial terror and intimidation by Starr's office.

Steele was dragged before two grand juries. Her daughter and brother, as well as a former lawyer and accountant, were also interrogated. She was forced to turn over tax and bank records, credit reports and telephone records to Starr's investigators. Most despicably, the Office of the Independent Counsel threatened to move against Steele's parental rights, making public the fact that it was looking into the procedures—which were, in fact, entirely legal—by which she had adopted her son in Romania.

Ultimately, in January 1999, Starr indicted Steele on three counts of obstructing justice and one charge of making false statements. She faced the possibility of 35 years in jail and a one million dollar fine. Starr's office pursued its legally baseless and vindictive case against Steele to trial in May 1999. The case ended in a hung jury and mistrial, a humiliating defeat for Starr. His office decided not to pursue a retrial.


Salon Newsreal | Starr's lowest blow

.

Reading comprehension aint yer strong suit, shit bird.

Of course, you don't HAVE any strong suits.

If you are granted immunity, you don't get immunity from perjury, you sub-standard sub-moron.

You can get immunity from the substantive crimes you may have committed about which you are afraid to have to testify. But once you get immunity, you asshole, you are obligated not just to speak but to speak TRUTHFULLY. That''s kinda why they put you under oath or affirmation, you dipshit.

As for WHO determines whether or not you lied under oath, that is not exactly a tough question, ya cretin.

Initially, the prosecution makes the call or your case wouldn't get presented to the Grand Jury. Then, THEY decide if there is reason to accuse you of having lied under oath on a material matter or not. If they indict your stupid ass, then ultimately it is the judge and/or the jury that decides whether you committed perjury, ya fucking stupid cock-scraper.

,

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

well, she's out.

 

[oldsalt]

She's out, indegent, state paying for the appeal, she's pleading the fifth in civil deps, what a great gal!

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

She's out, indegent, state paying for the appeal, she's pleading the fifth in civil deps, what a great gal!

I believe she has to pay the appeals costs. But either way, she should just take the misdemeanors and leave. I wonder if it is her desire or if the lawyers who want to pursue the charge reversals.

 

[oldsalt]

She's out, indegent, state paying for the appeal, she's pleading the fifth in civil deps, what a great gal!

I believe she has to pay the appeals costs. But either way, she should just take the misdemeanors and leave. I wonder if it is her desire or if the lawyers who want to pursue the charge reversals.

Her lawyers already filed the ppw for indigent status.

defense attorneys filed a notice of appeal Friday on the four counts of providing false information to law enforcement. Attorneys also filed paperwork saying that Anthony would be indigent for the appeal, meaning taxpayers would also have to foot the bill for the appeal process.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28564660/detail.html#ixzz1SNJspA9j

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

She's out, indegent, state paying for the appeal, she's pleading the fifth in civil deps, what a great gal!

I believe she has to pay the appeals costs. But either way, she should just take the misdemeanors and leave. I wonder if it is her desire or if the lawyers who want to pursue the charge reversals.

Her lawyers already filed the ppw for indigent status.

defense attorneys filed a notice of appeal Friday on the four counts of providing false information to law enforcement. Attorneys also filed paperwork saying that Anthony would be indigent for the appeal, meaning taxpayers would also have to foot the bill for the appeal process.

Read more: Casey Anthony Released From Jail - Casey Anthony Murder Trial Extended Coverage News Story - WESH Orlando

ah thanks for the update.

if i were her, i'd refrain from any more court, testifying, legal battles for the rest of my life!

 

[oldsalt]

I believe she has to pay the appeals costs. But either way, she should just take the misdemeanors and leave. I wonder if it is her desire or if the lawyers who want to pursue the charge reversals.

Her lawyers already filed the ppw for indigent status.

defense attorneys filed a notice of appeal Friday on the four counts of providing false information to law enforcement. Attorneys also filed paperwork saying that Anthony would be indigent for the appeal, meaning taxpayers would also have to foot the bill for the appeal process.

Read more: Casey Anthony Released From Jail - Casey Anthony Murder Trial Extended Coverage News Story - WESH Orlando

ah thanks for the update.

if i were her, i'd refrain from any more court, testifying, legal battles for the rest of my life!

I'm sure they appealed because of the depositions for the civil cases.

 

[Gadawg73]

I knew that the thumbsuckers and naive would respond as shown above.

Let's consider the case of Susan McDougal.

she was given immunity from prosecution but EXCLUDED ANY PERJURED TESTIMONY.

Anyone familial with the "Whitewater Case" knows that it was a politically charged case in which Republican prosecutor Kenneth Starr was looking to stick it to Bill Clinton.

The US is no longer a free country. We are a fascist republic where our "rights" our subject to the discretion of the slavemasters.

.

Nobody gets a bye on perjury, you moron.

I knew you'd come back with something dreadfully lame.

You always do.

,

What a fucking ding dong

And WHO, fucktard, decides whether you committed perjury?!?!?


The case of Julie Hiatt Steele: the human cost of the Kenneth Starr witch-hunt

By David Walsh
9 March 2001

Julie Hiatt Steele, hounded and prosecuted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr during the Clinton impeachment campaign of 1998-99, is facing severe financial and personal difficulties arising from Starr's vendetta against her.

Steele hasn't worked since February 1998, when she submitted an affidavit in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case undermining the credibility of Kathleen Willey, a one-time Clinton supporter who achieved notoriety by going on the Sixty Minutes television program in March 1998 and accusing Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances.

Steele lost her employment when the affidavit and her refusal to go along with Willey's version of events became public knowledge. Subsequently she became the target of an extraordinary campaign of prosecutorial terror and intimidation by Starr's office.

Steele was dragged before two grand juries. Her daughter and brother, as well as a former lawyer and accountant, were also interrogated. She was forced to turn over tax and bank records, credit reports and telephone records to Starr's investigators. Most despicably, the Office of the Independent Counsel threatened to move against Steele's parental rights, making public the fact that it was looking into the procedures—which were, in fact, entirely legal—by which she had adopted her son in Romania.

Ultimately, in January 1999, Starr indicted Steele on three counts of obstructing justice and one charge of making false statements. She faced the possibility of 35 years in jail and a one million dollar fine. Starr's office pursued its legally baseless and vindictive case against Steele to trial in May 1999. The case ended in a hung jury and mistrial, a humiliating defeat for Starr. His office decided not to pursue a retrial.


Salon Newsreal | Starr's lowest blow

.

Salon Newsreel? That story was about as fabricated as they come. Steele was/is a liar and was caught doing so.
And I am/was not a fan of Starr but anyone with any knowledge of this case knows that Steele wanted to sell her story to a large rag mag and had to change her story to do so.
And that would be perjury when in an affidavit before there was a different story.
"I lied as a favor to Willey" was what Steele said.
You folks really believe that BS?

 

[JimH52]

Go to this web site and stop this witch from gaining from murder.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/st...m-profiting-on-death-of-Caylee-Marie-Anthony/

 

[ABikerSailor]

There's suspicion that she's in Columbus OH.

Maybe someone could start a Facebook page and call it "Tracking the Murderous Casey Anthony", with people sending in photos of where they've seen her at.

Like I said.......I'd like to see her life become a living hell.

 

[JimH52]

There's suspicion that she's in Columbus OH.

Maybe someone could start a Facebook page and call it "Tracking the Murderous Casey Anthony", with people sending in photos of where they've seen her at.

Like I said.......I'd like to see her life become a living hell.

Agreed

 

[Gadawg73]

The IT expert employed by the prosecution stated today that the prosecution fraudulently left out the fact that the computer was only searched once for "choloroform" and it was a site that explained how it was used in the 1800s that was hit.
He stated he told the prosecution it was not the 84 times and that evidence was WITHHELD from the defense.
What? Prosecutorial misconduct? Never! We watched it on TV and they said it was 84 times and the prosecution NEVER lies about anything.
Just the tip of the iceberg here folks.
For uninformed: This is all over the internet and it did happen. Go do your homework yourselves and see the truth. I still believe she is not innocent but this FURTHER shows why the jury was correct 100% with their verdict.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

The IT expert employed by the prosecution stated today that the prosecution fraudulently left out the fact that the computer was only searched once for "choloroform" and it was a site that explained how it was used in the 1800s that was hit.
He stated he told the prosecution it was not the 84 times and that evidence was WITHHELD from the defense.
What? Prosecutorial misconduct? Never! We watched it on TV and they said it was 84 times and the prosecution NEVER lies about anything.
Just the tip of the iceberg here folks.
For uninformed: This is all over the internet and it did happen. Go do your homework yourselves and see the truth. I still believe she is not innocent but this FURTHER shows why the jury was correct 100% with their verdict.

Jose Baez included this information in his closing arguments. Its good to see the statement supported.