• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

How can a lawyer defend the Ohio kidnapper and look themselves in the mirror?

Climber

Climber

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Location
Clovis/Fresno
Moto(s)
01 Goldwing GL1800
Name
Brett
Lawyers: Ohio kidnap suspect will plead not guilty
Attorneys Craig Weintraub and Jay Schlachet (SCHLACK-et) tell WKYC-TV that suspect Ariel Castro has been portrayed as a "monster" in the media, and after meeting with him Tuesday they don't see him that way.

Weintraub says it's unfair and offensive that "the media and the community want to demonize this man before they know the whole story."

Schlachet says details of Castro's innocence "will be disclosed as the case progresses."
Click to expand...
How can any person with an IQ of over 100, who has been following this case and knows the absolute facts of this case (i.e. those girls were held captive in his house for 10 years after being kidnapped, and were raped and beaten) make those statements without having to immediately rush off to first give confession, then take a long hot shower and scrub their skin raw to feel anything but soiled?

It appears that these lawyers are either liars (probably the truth) or given to such self-delusion that it boggles the mind!

Yeah, I understand their saying that 'everybody deserves a fair trial', but there is absolutely zero doubt that this guy is a scumbag of the highest order.
 
They are just doing what they are trained to do; go by the law. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

But yeah, I get what you're saying and agree with you 100%.
 
Climber said:
How can any person with an IQ of over 100, who has been following this case and knows the absolute facts of this case (i.e. those girls were held captive in his house for 10 years after being kidnapped, and were raped and beaten) make those statements without having to immediately rush off to first give confession, then take a long hot shower and scrub their skin raw to feel anything but soiled?
Click to expand...

Based on the names I'd say they wouldn't need to go to confession seeing as they're Jewish. :twofinger

Yeah, I understand their saying that 'everybody deserves a fair trial', but there is absolutely zero doubt that this guy is a scumbag of the highest order.
Click to expand...

Tell us how you really feel about child molesters. I don't think you've ever really gone in to details here about it. /sarcasm
 
Because if they say what they feel, then the accused can very easily say he wasn't represented correctly and get his conviction overturned. It is in their and everyone's best interest for them to say these things. It shows that they are giving him a proper defense. Then they simply let the prosecution win.
 
Easy. This is a very high-profile case. As an attorney representing this man you want to generate publicity for yourself and/or your law firm. They want to do the best job they can at protecting this guy in order to sell themselves so when the next OJ rolls around they're #1. That's how it goes.
 
The appointed defender has to say that crap with a straight face, but it doesn't mean that he has to do a good job!

I'd like to hang him by his nuts from a willow tree and let the victims go all piñata on him, but the legal process is a good thing for the bigger picture.
 
Like it or not, no matter how repugnant, everyone deserves competent legal council when accused of a crime. Everyone.
 
Climber, you don't know many attorneys do you?

In 1623 Shakespeare wrote the first thing we do is kill all the attorneys. Thats almost 500 years of attorney hate!
 
Climber said:
Lawyers: Ohio kidnap suspect will plead not guilty

How can any person with an IQ of over 100, who has been following this case and knows the absolute facts of this case (i.e. those girls were held captive in his house for 10 years after being kidnapped, and were raped and beaten) make those statements without having to immediately rush off to first give confession, then take a long hot shower and scrub their skin raw to feel anything but soiled?

It appears that these lawyers are either liars (probably the truth) or given to such self-delusion that it boggles the mind!

Yeah, I understand their saying that 'everybody deserves a fair trial', but there is absolutely zero doubt that this guy is a scumbag of the highest order.
Click to expand...

If you are going to take the case, you have to be professional, and that means doing your utmost to assist/protect your client. A party is entitled to legal representation, no matter the alleged crime.

Pleading not guilty is normal and a standard tactic. Make the state prove the elements, and pleading guilty gives you more leeway for any sort of plea bargain.

Defendant seems like an unbelievable scumbag, but this is more a big picture thing (representation for all defendants, no matter what). Our system is better because of it.
 
I get that they have to defend him 'to the best of their ability', that's just a given and being professional.

But, I know that I wouldn't be able to make the following statement:
Weintraub says it's unfair and offensive that "the media and the community want to demonize this man before they know the whole story."
Click to expand...
If I was a lawyer defending him, I might say a variety of things but that one is too far, IMHO.
 
in the same way a lier oops meant a lawyer can sue mcdonalds cause a lady put a cup of hot coffee between her thighs with NO cap on it to put in sugar while driving a car.

sadest part is they won millions of US dollars and even got payed.


.
 
Climber said:
I get that they have to defend him 'to the best of their ability', that's just a given and being professional.

But, I know that I wouldn't be able to make the following statement:

If I was a lawyer defending him, I might say a variety of things but that one is too far, IMHO.
Click to expand...

All part of the process. Maybe he is preparing for a venue change, maintain leeway for arguing insanity (part of the "whole story"), etc. If you understand that the job is to defend "to the best of ability," then you should understand making statements that seem outrageous to the average person.
 
Same thing as doctors rendering aid to sick/injured scumbags.

Not their job to pass judgement.
 
packnrat said:
in the same way a lier oops meant a lawyer can sue mcdonalds cause a lady put a cup of hot coffee between her thighs with NO cap on it to put in sugar while driving a car.

sadest part is they won millions of US dollars and even got payed.
Click to expand...

I know your MO is to post and then never respond when you're replied to, but here it goes anyway...

Do you have any idea about the actual details of that case? If you did then you'd more than likely alter your opinion on the matter. :rolleyes
 
Traq said:
I know your MO is to post and then never respond when you're replied to, but here it goes anyway...

Do you have any idea about the actual details of that case? If you did then you'd more than likely alter your opinion on the matter. :rolleyes
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. That lady was a victim of PR spin against her, she really got fucked up by the hot coffee.
 
packnrat said:
in the same way a lier oops meant a lawyer can sue mcdonalds cause a lady put a cup of hot coffee between her thighs with NO cap on it to put in sugar while driving a car.
Click to expand...

"A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused."
 
Ant said:
Beat me to it. That lady was a victim of PR spin against her, she really got fucked up by the hot coffee.
Click to expand...

Yup.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed.
Click to expand...

And it was settled out of court for less than $600k.
 
CockyRooster said:
The appointed defender has to say that crap with a straight face, but it doesn't mean that he has to do a good job!

I'd like to hang him by his nuts from a willow tree and let the victims go all piñata on him, but the legal process is a good thing for the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

+1

Lets not spoil the system for one off case, it's a very slippery slope!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top