I tend to agree at this moment. Judge Blawie was very firm with FD. Hopefully, by amending the more rigorous parts of MT's bail agreement, he may gain allowance from the Appellate Court to keep the ankle bracelet.
When counsel meets in chambers before the hearings, it seems that "things" are often discussed. I wonder what JS discussed about MT and her distress level if the attorneys met in chambers with the judge prior to the public hearing held in late August . (Am I correct in believing that an attorney for the defendant can't meet privately with the judge without opposing counsel present, even in a criminal case.)
Did the judge talk with the attorneys prior to his written ruling? Was Attorney Colangelo involved in the decision to let MT visit her father in Florida? (An assuming she has a current driver's license to fly, as she shouldn't have anymore passports, right?)
And, what is the big deal about attending hearings in Stamford? AS looked truly relieved that the Oct. 1 hearing would be virtual. I really don't understand the angst the man has about driving to Stamford.
The other thing that I have been wondering about are the parents' properties that were used to secure MT's bail. What would happen if one of those properties were sold? Would that change her bail as it did for FD?
Lots of wondering over here, I guess.
MOO...IMO...just wondering!
