>>>>>> In my 32 years as a Trial Consultant, in my experience MOST
>>>>>> lawyers
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>> that "working on a case" is filling out the deposit slip and taking
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> client's check to the bank!
>>>>
>>>>> Well, isn't that check needed to pay people like you, when a good
>>>>> attorney can try his own case without needing a trial consultant?
>>>>
>>>> You know something Larry - in my experience the REALLy good
>>>> lawyers seek
>>>> out experienced Trial Consultants who are experts on various issues.
>>>> The
>>>> medium range lawyers accept them. the REALLY piss poor lawyers drone
>>>> on why
>>>> they don't need them. There are many thousands of certified trial
>>>> consultants in America for a reason Larry. I am not the only one.
>
>>> Which of the various issues do you claim to be an expert in?
>> They are listed on my website Larry. If you REALLY want to know and arn't
>> plaing one of your usual children's games on Usenet.
> I went to your web site, as well as others that pertain to you and your
> business, and even if I was in the market for a trial consultant, I
> wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole.
Oh goodie - the MORON went to the David Moore website and he believes
it. Like I said I PRAY for prosecutors like you. Tell me something, Larry,
when you do a trial, do you often use ANONYMOUS witnesses? Untested
evidence???????????
Let me give you a couple HINTS Mr. Bullshit artist. There is a REASON
that Mr. Moore CANNOT use a legitimate ISP to post his venom. There is also
a reason that the website you refer to MUST be hosted offshore. It was
booted from more than a dozen ISP's, even one in Ghana. But I think that
would be JUST the type of evidence YOU would put on before a court.
>>>>> I mean, isn't a litigator needing a trial consultant sorta like a
>>>>> surgeon hiring a surgical consultant to help him perform a
>>>>> procedure?
>>>> Sort of being done Larry. They have surgical teams. Seems to cut
>>>> down on
>>>> malpractice claims.
>>>>>> At hearings I have actually heard a lawyer tell a client
>>>>>> complaining
>>>>>> that he wasn't being aggressive enough; "Hey, I'm here, what else
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> you want?"
>>>> No smart assed answer Larry?
>>> Of course not, you didn't provide nearly enough information to know if
>>> being aggressive would have been in the client's interest or not.
>> Tell me Larry in all your VAST wisdom, how can the defense win with
>> NO
>> CASE???????????????
> The defense needs a case?
Yes Larry I know that's strange to you, but YES. The defense doesn't
need to PUT ON a case, however, not having one is a sure fire way for a
client to go BYE BYE...
> Why would I ever hire a trial consultant that doesn't understand which
> party has the burden of proof?
Larry I gave you a pass on the antics in ATC. You got your lunch ate
there, looking for seconds? Oh I know all about the "burden of proof"
bullshit Larry, you can fool others with that crap. Your problem is that you
face UNPREPARED defense lawyers every day and you THINK that your victories
makes you a GREAT GREAT GREAT lawyer. Burdens? Cut the shit Larry you have
entire police departments extensive forensic labs and a laundy list of
PAYROLLED expert witnesses. And STILLL you whine like a baby. Yes Larry ON
PAPER and on LAW & ORDER the prosecution has the burden of proof. But Larry,
that's TV not a real courtroom. Go bullshit idiots like Kunt Wills.
>>> There was recently a trial over a horrible torture-rape in New York
>>> City. The victim was on the stand for hours describing the ordeal that
>>> almost left her dead. The defense lawyer declined to cross-examine
>>> her,
>>> and instead vigorously cross-examined the forensic witnesses who
>>> collected the evidence and analyzed the DNA that tied the defendant to
>>> the crime.
>> Depending on the nature of her testimony that could be a wise
>> decision.
> But what if the defendant leaned over and criticized his attorney for
> not being aggressive enough? How do I know this isn't the case that
> your anecdote came from?
Then I would say he is a BAD lawyer for not having discussed it with his
client beforehand. Or just an ARROGANT PRICK like some prosecutors I have
encountered, it seems to come with some JD's.
>> Juries don't like beating up a victim. Unless you can really show she's
>> lying, it is probably wise not to go there. HOWEVER, Larry, a defense
>> lawyer
>> should discuss trial startegy with his client BEFORE trial.
> And the client might not like it and be very upset over that strategy,
> which is why I pointed out that your anecdote was woefully inadequate in
> the facts for me to not have a "smart assed answer."
Look Larry - a GOOD lawyer who has PREPARED his case - has gone over
that with his client. The problem YOU have is that 90%% of your cases are
handled by Public Pretenders. A GOOD defense lawyer has met extensively
with his client to prepare him for the day's festivities as well as the
CASE, and I don't care what STUPID comments you make that the defense
doesn't NEED a case, that only proves how limited YOUR knowledge is.
>>> Was he not being aggressive enough with the victim or in his defense of
>>> his client? Would a confrontational cross examination have just
>>> backfired and turned the jury against the defendant even more?
>> It could have. Did he discuss it with his cleint first?
> How the heck would I know?
That's your problem Larry - you SHOOT before you know what the target
is.
> Why would I ever hire a trial consultant that doesn't understand the
> attorney-client privilege?
Larry the answer is OBVIOUS. If the lawyer HAD discussed it with his
client than his client would not have come unglued when he said; "NO
QUESTIONS YOUR HONOR." He'd KNOW why he didn't ask the victim questions.
However if he has said "NO QUESTIONS YOUR HONOR" to ALL the prosecution
witnesses, I'd say he SUCKED.
>>>> Here is something for YOU to chew on with your smart assed
>>>> comments.
>>>> Take the OJ case. Both sides had trial consultants. OJ's team had Jo
>>>> Ellan
>>>> DiMitrius one of the best Trial Consultants ever. The "Dream Team"
>>>> listened
>>>> to her. Marcia Clark had a trial consultant, and like you thought they
>>>> are
>>>> useless and did NOT listen to him.
>>> 1) Why would she have a trial consultant, paid for by the taxpayers,
>>> and
>>> not listen to him or her?
>> Because the decision to hire the TC came from Garcetti (HER BOSS).
>> And
>> she's an arrogant bitch. Which is the key factor that turned off the
>> jury.
>> She neeeded to town down her venom. Every time she was told to back off
>> she
>> turned it up a couple notches. Even Garcetti told her to calm down. She
>> just
>> got pissed, her ego wouldn't let her listen. Like MANY lawyers.
> Can you document any of these claims?
Do you EVER fukkkkin READ Larry? This is NIFONG DEJA-VU all over again.
Do you EVER READ on the things you leap into? EVER Larry? Will you START
with Marcia Clark's book "WITHOUT A DOUBT?" Christ you are DENSE boy!
Hasn't your crap on the Duke case washed off your face YET? Oh Larry DON'T
GO THERE!!
>>> 2) How do you know who she did or didn't listen to? Were you privvy to
>>> their communications?
>> I know both trial consultants involved you IMBECILLE!
> At least I can spell imbecile, you imbecile.
You should be able to, it seems to be your middle name.
> Why would I ever hire a trial consultant who resorts to name calling
> when someone asks him how he knows a piece of information, and doesn't
> even spell the insults correctly?
Oh Larry I only do it with clowns like you and Kent Wills and a few
selected others who EARN the titles.
>>>> WHO WON?????
>>> Are you really claiming that OJ's trial consultant was the reason he
>>> was
>>> acquitted, and the lawyers don't get any of the credit whatsoever?
>> Did I say that jackass? They get plenty of credit, they listedn to Jo
>> Ellan.
> So you're willing to give the lawyers credit for being good puppets who
> carried out the trial consultant's plans. How magnanimous of you.
Larry - WHO WON???? Puppets? Maybe you MISS the whole "TEAM" deal. I
know it is WAY abopve your pay grade. You know Larry, you remind me of Night
Court's prosecutor Dan Fielding when he got demoted to animal court.
>>>> You see she set about doing ALL the things he warned her NOT to do.
>>>> Everyone who has looked at the case
>>>> has come back with the same analysis. That if she had not done those
>>>> things
>>>> she would have gotten a conviction.
>>
>>> So she didn't only disregard the consultant she hired, she did the
>>> exact
>>> opposite. Why didn't she fire him, then?
>>
>> because she didn't hure him. Garcetti did!
>>
>>>> You know Larry - you remind me of a story my mother told me. It
>>>> kind
>>>> of
>>>> parallels the arrogance of lawyers like you. She told me a story of
>>>> one
>>>> of
>>>> my brother's friends in High School who have her a ride to the
>>>> supermarket.
>>>> He was a bit of a crazy driver and nearly hit a pedestrian. When she
>>>> protested, the lad replied "Oh it's okay I have my license now, they
>>>> have
>>>> to
>>>> look out for ME!"
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you search out and READ Justice Berger's address to the
>>>> American Bar association back in the 70's you might want to dial back
>>>> your
>>>> own arrogance a notch or two.
>>
>>> I'm not arrogant, I'm confident in my abilities. And the results I
>>> achieve show my confidence is well-founded.
>> Oh how I wish we had a case against an arrogant prick like you.
> Come and get one. I practice in New York City. Come up here and see if
> anyone's desperate enough to hire you. You'd be busy telling the
> defendant he has a burden in the case, blab to the world all of the
> discussions you, the attorney, and his client had, and then tell the
> attorney to do everything you tell him to without question like a good
> puppet, and call him mis-spelled insults if he didn't.
Yes Larry well I don't get to PICK where my next client will be. Since I
don't do PRO BONO and Public Pretenders can't pay me, it may take a while,
but I still PRAY for prosecutors like you.
