Though I didn't see Barth with Catherine Crier, I DO agree she should not have said what she said re: Virgie and her disabled son. O'Quinn should NOT have said Stern is a murderer, either! Crier knew Barth could not answer directly some of the questions she posed to her, and it sounds like she went on a bit too much with that.Barth was pushed too far,IMO, and cracked. We will get more answers as time goes on, in the proper forums, I hope. Unfortunately, all sides involved need some type of spokesman and that job falls to lawyers involved all too often. Like I said, I would love to see a lot less of them on TV.
My take on O'Q is that he loves to grandstand. It's as if he's "throwing down the gauntlet" to see if Howard, or anyone else, dares pick it up. Does this have something to do with being from Texas?
I don't particularly care for Catherine Crier, but I thought she was nicer to Barth than I would have been. She asked Barth a question about something Stern was alleged to have done, and Barth totally ignored her and went on a tirade about what Virgie had done. She asked her again, and she attacked someone else rather than answer a "yes or no" question. Crier asked her to please answer her question, and the woman would not shut up. Crier told her she was too good a lawyer to be doing that, because she knew that Crier and others were aware of what she was up to. I am no attorney, but I knew what she was up to...she didn't want to answer the question, so she was 'chasing out rabbits' trying to defame someone else and change the subject! I would have cut off her mike, and told her if she was not going to answer the question, but only going to use the time to attempt to destroy someone else's character and credibility, she was not welcome on the show!
I did see the interview on Crier's show, also saw her last week with Ashley Banfield where she was allowed to go on adnauseam trashing Virgie. Crier asked her a question and she didn't want to answer the question. Instead, she tried every way possible to turn the question on Virgie and LB. It didn't work and was quite transparent.
Hi Tabor
You have posted some very thoughtful comments from a neutral perspective. That is called fairness.
Since I will not likely be called for jury duty, I offer biased opinions that are based on what I have read, observed and experienced in my real life.
In the matter of paternity let's pretend Howard and Larry are overnight truck drivers who are both acquainted with a waitress at a diner.
Larry has boyish good looks and drives a huge Peterbilt. Howard has a smaller Kenworth.
Larry works 18 hour days and earns a respectable income -he is a good driver and loves his job -he owns his truck, rents an apartment and pays his bills.
Howard just hangs around the diner - his parents are leasing the truck and they pay all his bills. He has a license but doesn't like to drive at night. He has a tab at the diner.
Waitress (we'll call her Bonita) becomes pregnant with Larry's child. Bonita also likes crystal meth and is holding a winning Lotto ticket. Larry wants her to stop the crystal meth because of the baby - and invest the Lotto monies in rehab.
Howard wants Bonita to cash in the Lotto ticket, pay his tab, buy him some new clothes, flee to Mexico and avoid Larry.
In a drugged up stupor, Bonita runs to Mexico with the Lotto winnings, does not stop using meth - has a baby in a Mexican Motel - does not pay for the room. Howie tells Bonita to do the Motel owner and keeps the Lotto winnings in the baby's diaper bag. He clips it to his belt and tells Bonita the money is in the Bank of Mexico.
Larry is frantic - he drives to Mexico but is stopped at the border.
Who should get the baby?