Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers('Cause He was Really Guilty)

Court TV ^ | Harriet Ryan

[cyncooper]

I take the "three day weekend of terror" as an ironic reference to the torment Westerfield allegedly suffered.

That is NOT what the reference was.

It clearly was a reference to Westerfield waging the terror upon Danielle.

[spqrzilla9]

OJ's first lawyer was an entertainment lawyer whose name escapes me. He called in Weitzman.

I think Weitzman is full of crap here and I'll explain why. At the time, Weitzman's reputation was as a lawyer whose main talent was cutting deals for celebrities. He was brought in as a plea bargainer. The legal community reputation of Weitzman is that he isn't a very good trial lawyer and so everyone assumed that he'd be replaced once OJ decided not to plea. So I think that Weitzman is revising history here to get himself on TV.

[John Jamieson]

O'Reilly was very convident last night on Crier ...... that he will lose. He's right. He even had Crier agreeing with him.

You see, by this twisted logic, losing means you were right and winning means you were right. How can he lose!

[John Jamieson]

So the "reasonable doubt" defense has to go!

Just what would be left, lynch mobs?

[cyncooper]

Gee, I don't remember this kind of outrage against the OJ lawyers;

John! You're kidding, right?

To this day Johnny Cochran's name is uttered with contempt and cited as THE example of what we're talking about here.

[John Jamieson]

Did talk show hosts sue him?

I don't think Feldman was tough enough, he lost remember?

[cyncooper]

In all the cases, the testimony was true and relevant.

No, the points the defense tried to make were false and proven to be false by the prosecution after the defense did their muddying of the waters.

[Jaded]

So, so, sorry, Abramson used to be the blonde. Knew it was one of those LA.. Alred was ...Simpson. They both got tons of face time afterwards.

The abuse excuse was pretty thin, IMO. Very popular there for a while.

I really do think they should revisit televising entire trials though, because it turns in to a costly circus. Opening, fine, closing fine... Oh wait, there's money involved.

[Jaded]

Whatever.

[bvw]

He can lose ratings. He will. But the ol' Father Coughlin style of talk show hosting finds it's brightest light in the far more dapper and secular catholicocite O'Reilly. O'Reilly -- the package -- works by finding an object of hatred, scorn and derision and stoking up the furnaces of hatred and anger against it.

I liked his taking on the Red Cross and Hollywacko, and some other issues -- but his method has only one way of operating, and that is hardly any to intellect, but to nearly all emotion. And the most firebrand, mob rousing emotion. That he sells into the "righteous wrath" market -- it's a dangerous one, and especially dangerous in that that's the only way he relies on to reach his audience. It's like training junkyard dogs, worse -- anger and wrath are so potent in any use that any repeated, time-after-time use takes one to that level -- vicious doghood. Alpha-dog, but dog still.

[cyncooper]

So the "reasonable doubt" defense has to go!

Of course not, and you know me better than to imply that I don't believe in our system of justice and that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt a defendent's guilt.

To my mind that would not include spinning false tales for the jury.

[John Jamieson]

"No, the points the defense tried to make were false and proven to be false by the prosecution after the defense did their muddying of the waters."

Would not that be the case in just about all lost cases? What's different here? (You watched it, that's what was different.)

[cyncooper]

I haven't weighed in on whether I think O'Reilly has merit to his plan to lodge a complaint.

FWIW, while I have sympathy for his point of view, I don't think Feldman would be found to have done something which he should be disciplined for. I do believe that Cochran had similar complaints filed against him.

I am just posting my thoughts on how I find the presenting of scenarios a defense attorney knows to be false to the jury to be distasteful.

[slimer]

In short, its just a job, man, just a job.

Just a job that has serious consequences that pertains to peoples lives and in some cases their death. Therefore, this job, the job of being a lawyer, bears a higher degree of ethical standards, which at least in the Avila case, lead to the death of Samantha Runnion, perhaps because the lawyers attitude was "it's just a job, man".

The lack of outrage and the willingness to accept this degree of low ethical standards within our Justice System, reflects the attitude and condition of our society today and I am outraged by it.

[John Jamieson]

"To my mind that would not include spinning false tales for the jury".

Since under our law, only the jury is charged with determining the facts, this would apply to ALL lost cases.

[cyncooper]

Whatever.

What?

[Illbay]

I never said "thought." I said "knew."

[Illbay]

This rule of conduct 1) does not proscribe punishment if violated, ergo is unenforceable and inconsequential, 2) refers to lawyers, not DEFENSE LAWYERS, 3) does not state that posing fabricated alternate scenerios is an artifice or false statement.

Paul Begala? Here on FR? That IS you, isn't it?

[John Jamieson]

On one level, our system is quite simple. The prosecution exaggerats the value of their "evidence" and the defense exaggerates the value of "reasonable doubt". The jury then decides the "true" facts.

I thought you agreed with the jury's verdict? What's the problem? Would you have been happier if DW was given a much weaker defense? Why not have no trial at all then?

[cyncooper]

I thought you agreed with the jury's verdict? What's the problem?

No problem. There was a discussion going on.