Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[nancy botwin]

Dave is hardly a private citizen. He has blogged and made videos and done interviews and is a constant presence online in this case. And this is not about the reality of Judge Strickland, it is about the appearance that they have concocted out of his actions and the appearance CAN be interpreted two ways...It is open to interpretation and therefore, the Judge WILL in all likelihood, recuse. It will be up to his superior to guide him along with this decision...and his superior is not going to do anything to even appear as if KC was denied a fair and impartial trial, and if that means His Honor steps down? That is just what it will mean.

It does not mean the judge DID anything wrong...it means what he did COULD be interpreted that way, especially by the movant, none other than KC...

I disagree on two levels. First, I don't feel like most people know who Marinade Dave is, so I think that significantly constrains any "appearance of impropriety." Also, I don't feel like most people even knew that Judge Strickland had interacted with Marinade Dave. I think this whole Marinade Dave thing has failed to register on the public's radar-- until today's motion, of course.

Second, from the information released today, it appears their interaction-- or "courtship" as the defense calls it-- was very minimal. Strickland simply said he liked Marinade Dave's blogging style, how he investigated things, and tried to be balanced. IMO, Strickland wasn't talking about the case, he was talking about the blogger/blog and being congenial. Strickland said very little to MD. Marinade Dave said a lot about Strickland-- or "rhapsodized" as the defense called it. The memo in support of this motion read like a page out of Mean Girls, IMO. I wonder if Regina George is the newest addition to the defense...:woohoo:

 

[toetag]

She IS a VERIFIED attorney on this site.
And she very well knows of which she speaks. :blushing:
AND she is a well respected member, very well respected.

Thanks for the info.

 

[magic-cat]

I disagree one two levels. First, I don't feel like most people know who Marinade Dave is, so I think that significantly constrains any "appearance of impropriety." Also, I don't feel like most people even knew that Judge Strickland had interacted with Marinade Dave. I think this whole Marinade Dave thing has failed to register on the public's radar-- until today's motion, of course.

Second, from the information released today, it appears their interaction-- or "courtship" as the defense calls it-- was very minimal. Strickland simply said he liked Marinade Dave's blogging style, how he investigated things, and tried to be balanced. IMO, Strickland wasn't talking about the case, he was talking about the blogger/blog and being congenial. Strickland said very little to MD. Marinade Dave said a lot about Strickland-- or "rhapsodized" as the defense called it. The memo in support of this motion read like a page out of Mean Girls, IMO. I wonder if Regina George is the newest addition to the defense...:woohoo:

I would say many people in Virginia would not recognize a reporter or a media rep from let's say, uhm, New York...but it doesn't matter who recognizes that person...He has MADE himself a reporter of this case. He blogs almost daily about it. He goes to the crime scene and takes videos. He has been involved with this case and is a public face in this case. And I knew he had gotten that compliment from the Judge...it was posted on HERE almost as soon as Dave posted it on HIS site...If a man carries a camera, and a video recording device and is going around conducting interviews? He is the media. He even referred to himself as such-he said out of all the media, he was the one who got picked out for the preferential treatment? He himself says he IS the media...who am I to argue? :waitasec:

I read the entire document, including the supporting articles that were included, and I must say, just from a laymans point of view? It is ALL in the interpretation...and in THAT case? He must avoid even the appearance of impropriety...and that potential is there, that possibility that there was an ulterior motive. I know there was not. You know there was not. The defense even knows there was not...but still the merry-go-round is now spinning...and when it stops I am afraid that His Honor will step off...

I hope I am dead wrong...and will eat my hat with salt on it if I am... GLADLY...

 

[magic-cat]

Thanks for the info.

You are most welcome...

 

[beach]

They hope by attacking Strickland he will begin to show bias. He won't. He is a fair minded jurist and will follow the law to the letter and the spirit of the law.

They are using the spaghetti defense and it isn't working.

They can delay all they want, right now it is like pushing a trud uphill but next year, in May it will be like a turd ball rolling downhill gathering speed as it moves.

From that comment I wonder if AZ is really an attorney???

BBM

Hi toetag and Welcome!

Just so you know, Tricia is very strict about verifying those who post in any professional manner. We also have chemists and other professionals who offer their opinions and knowledge. They are required to privately submit their credentials in order to be allowed to post in that capacity. There are others here that are also professionals, but would rather not be identified as such. Anonymity is paramount around WS.

Like magic-cat said, AZ is very well respected here at WS. She would be the first to tell you in re. her quote you cited, that was only her opinion and that you have every right to disagree.


eta: Here is the list of verified professionals. [ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4526379&postcount=1"]http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4526379&postcount=1[/ame]

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I would say many people in Virginia would not recognize a reporter or a media rep from let's say, uhm, New York...but it doesn't matter who recognizes that person...He has MADE himself a reporter of this case. He blogs almost daily about it. He goes to the crime scene and takes videos. He has been involved with this case and is a public face in this case. And I knew he had gotten that compliment from the Judge...it was posted on HERE almost as soon as Dave posted it on HIS site...If a man carries a camera, and a video recording device and is going around conducting interviews? He is the media. He even referred to himself as such-he said out of all the media, he was the one who got picked out for the preferential treatment? He himself says he IS the media...who am I to argue? :waitasec:

I read the entire document, including the supporting articles that were included, and I must say, just from a laymans point of view? It is ALL in the interpretation...and in THAT case? He must avoid even the appearance of impropriety...and that potential is there, that possibility that there was an ulterior motive. I know there was not. You know there was not. The defense even knows there was not...but still the merry-go-round is now spinning...and when it stops I am afraid that His Honor will step off...

I hope I am dead wrong...and will eat my hat with salt on it if I am... GLADLY...

I agree, but could we just do salty dogs instead? :innocent:

 

[toetag]

I disagree one two levels. First, I don't feel like most people know who Marinade Dave is, so I think that significantly constrains any "appearance of impropriety." Also, I don't feel like most people even knew that Judge Strickland had interacted with Marinade Dave. I think this whole Marinade Dave thing has failed to register on the public's radar-- until today's motion, of course.

Second, from the information released today, it appears their interaction-- or "courtship" as the defense calls it-- was very minimal. Strickland simply said he liked Marinade Dave's blogging style, how he investigated things, and tried to be balanced. IMO, Strickland wasn't talking about the case, he was talking about the blogger/blog and being congenial. Strickland said very little to MD. Marinade Dave said a lot about Strickland-- or "rhapsodized" as the defense called it. The memo in support of this motion read like a page out of Mean Girls, IMO. I wonder if Regina George is the newest addition to the defense...:woohoo:

Excellent observations.

 

[legalmania]

I notices that too, KC's & Baez's seen to be very similar in style and pen pressure. Is it legal for a lawyer to sign for her client if he fact did sign in both places?

It depends, does he have power of attorney, is there something in their contract, giving him the right.He is her agent so a lot comes into play. I know Baez is a notary. It just depends. By the way I'm a paralegal, do I qualify to get on this list?

 

[toetag]

In answer to your last question? Emphasis...just plain old ordinary emphasis...see how things can be misinterpreted? :blushing:

Don't know who misinterpreted, not me. I was at a loss but curious, so I asked. Thank you for your reply.

 

[nancy botwin]

I would say many people in Virginia would not recognize a reporter or a media rep from let's say, uhm, New York...but it doesn't matter who recognizes that person...He has MADE himself a reporter of this case. He blogs almost daily about it. He goes to the crime scene and takes videos. He has been involved with this case and is a public face in this case. And I knew he had gotten that compliment from the Judge...it was posted on HERE almost as soon as Dave posted it on HIS site...If a man carries a camera, and a video recording device and is going around conducting interviews? He is the media. He even referred to himself as such-he said out of all the media, he was the one who got picked out for the preferential treatment? He himself says he IS the media...who am I to argue? :waitasec:

I read the entire document, including the supporting articles that were included, and I must say, just from a laymans point of view? It is ALL in the interpretation...and in THAT case? He must avoid even the appearance of impropriety...and that potential is there, that possibility that there was an ulterior motive. I know there was not. You know there was not. The defense even knows there was not...but still the merry-go-round is now spinning...and when it stops I am afraid that His Honor will step off...

I hope I am dead wrong...and will eat my hat with salt on it if I am... GLADLY...

I'm not going to lie-- I hope you're wrong too
I don't know-- I guess I'm out of the loop with the whole Marinade Dave thing-- that said, I think it'll be a steep slippery slope if judges are forbidden from talking with people who avidly blog, twitter, facebook, etc about high profile issues because everyone seems to avidly blog, tweet or FB about something. Maybe the legal culture is particularly rigid in FL, I don't know. Where is the esteemed Richard Hornsby...?

I'm of the opinion that the Marinade Dave affair is tantamount to Judge Strickland saying "great hair cut" to Kathy Belich -- or shaking his head and saying "lots to think about, I know what I'll be doing all weekend. Have a good one!" to an attorney who shares an elevator with him at the end of the day.

 

[beach]

Nancy, would you offer your opinion in re. my question in this post please?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5076031&postcount=286"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5076031&postcount=286[/ame]

TIA!

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I'm not going to lie-- I hope you're wrong too
I don't know-- I guess I'm out of the loop with the whole Marinade Dave thing-- that said, I think it'll be a steep slippery slope if judges are forbidden from talking with people who avidly blog, twitter, facebook, etc about high profile issues because everyone seems to avidly blog, tweet or FB about something. Maybe the legal culture is particularly rigid in FL, I don't know. Where is the esteemed Richard Hornsby...?

I'm of the opinion that the Marinade Dave affair is tantamount to Judge Strickland saying "great hair cut" to Kathy Belich -- or shaking his head and saying "lots to think about, I know what I'll be doing all weekend. Have a good one!" to an attorney who shares an elevator with him at the end of the day.

What good examples you gave. Both comments would be very fair and true and JS should be able to think them and say them. Unless he had agreed to be a judge in some cosmetology contest that Kathy was in next week.

That's the difference.

 

[toetag]

I notices that too, KC's & Baez's seen to be very similar in style and pen pressure. Is it legal for a lawyer to sign for her client if he fact did sign in both places?

Yes, but he would need a written, signed and notarized power of attorney to do so.

 

[nancy botwin]

Nancy, would you offer your opinion in re. my question in this post please?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5076031&postcount=286

TIA!

Excuse me for quoting myself, but I re-read the motion -

From paragraph 1, section f:

My question is --- should we expect the SA to file a response to this motion?

I don't think so? I honestly don't know.

 

[toetag]

BBM

Hi toetag and Welcome!

Just so you know, Tricia is very strict about verifying those who post in any professional manner. We also have chemists and other professionals who offer their opinions and knowledge. They are required to privately submit their credentials in order to be allowed to post in that capacity. There are others here that are also professionals, but would rather not be identified as such. Anonymity is paramount around WS.

Like magic-cat said, AZ is very well respected here at WS. She would be the first to tell you in re. her quote you cited, that was only her opinion and that you have every right to disagree.


eta: Here is the list of verified professionals. http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4526379&postcount=1

Thanks. I realize that now, someone clued me in. I appreciate the explanation also.

 

[RR0004]

I realize I'm coming in late to the conversation...but I did think it a bit odd for MD to be called up to the bench. Worthy of a motion at taxpayers' expense? Nah. I can't help but feel JB is tired of all the smack downs. It's not the first time the defense has tried to get rid of someone...first it was the SA...now the judge. I'm getting annoyed. Can we just move forward without all these needless distractions?

 

[RR0004]

So they tried to get the prosecution removed and now the judge? Is it not time to start investigating Baez and his improprieties at the jail??

Me thinks JB is quite aware that JS knows a lot.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Thanks...it IS soooooooo unfair, but in the end, as long as their is a trial and there is a judge sitting on the bench ruling by the letter of the law, as judges tend to do? KC will get what is coming to her. It will be heartbreaking if Judge Strickland does not get to see it to its finish...but if that will keep that monster from gaining a new trial on appeal? Then let it be...:banghead:

I just have developed a new and entirely more noxious hatred for the defense team of KC Anthony...they are despicable in every way and my only comfort is in knowing what goes around does indeed come around and theirs is coming for them as surely as the sun rises each morning...

If the FL Bar ever wakes up and fulfills its responsibilities, I think Baez will be in some serious and hopefully career ending trouble.

 

[miss plum]

It's too bad the defense memo doesn't have '*flush-flush* flush-a-roo!' scrawled on it in giant round letters.

 

[tiff07]

My personal opinion is that both Judge Strickland and Dave Knechel are extremely impartial and Baez isn't acting in the best interests of his client by filing this.