Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[butterfly1978]

I totally disagree with this post. And calling my stuff bull crap is not very nice. It is not bull crap. She said to them that was her way of getting them out there to look at the tape. This thread is not about Kc lies, its about Judge S. unethical behavior. He is biased and not fair at all. He very seldom sided with the defense. If he denies this motion, people will keep watch on him with all future motion decisions. He has not given the defense ample opportunity to make reasonable request at all. There may be a real perp out there . No kidding. IMO

You are correct its not about KC's lies... yet you brought it up.
Unethical behavior? Why because he is a human and read the internet?
He has sided with the defense many times.
Ample time? its been two years, 6 months TES asked Bias to come and he never showed.
Your right there is a real perp and she is sitting in jail, not the imaginary one in KC's mind.

 

[RR0004]

His comments were not based on facts at all. They were based on an interrogation that was based on a false date (june 9th) , false cameras accross the street, and detectives making things up. There whole premise is based on false hoods. He should have never fallen for it. He is a Judge, and should know better. He may be a good man, but he is not a good Judge to be partial to one side. I am sure he insisted Kc be at all hearings just to make sure the cameras were there. He is caught up in the 15 minutes of fame disease. I doubt he will man up and step down. IMO

The cameras would be there with or without Casey. The public wants justice for Caylee...they don't give a hoot about Casey. There are legally sound reasons for having her there...and you've read here long enough to know that...so sorry if I don't provide a link. : )

 

[butterfly1978]

Like I've had to do on almost every other thread on the Caylee forum I'm respectfully withdrawing from the ongoing frustration of trying to have a conversation abt the topicther_beatingA_Dead.
I admire you guys for giving it your best shot! :thumb:

I will say that I believe Judge Stan has done his job fairly and without prejudice!

I agree! I said earlier I am leaving, this time I really am.... this is ridiculous.

 

[RR0004]

His comments were not based on facts at all. They were based on an interrogation that was based on a false date (june 9th) , false cameras accross the street, and detectives making things up. There whole premise is based on false hoods. He should have never fallen for it. He is a Judge, and should know better. He may be a good man, but he is not a good Judge to be partial to one side. I am sure he insisted Kc be at all hearings just to make sure the cameras were there. He is caught up in the 15 minutes of fame disease. I doubt he will man up and step down. IMO

How do you know what it was based on, NTS? She lied in her statement before she even left the house.

 

[RR0004]

I agree! I said earlier I am leaving, this time I really am.... this is ridiculous.

Be patient with them...

 

[butwhatif?]

It is important that the jury see an impartial Judge, otherwise they may become suspicious of the state. IMO

I totally agree with you! And JS has proven that he is impartial, despite having opinions of his own.


There's a difference between there being even a hint of impropriety on the Judges part, and the defense trying to make him look improper.

That's what's happening here, imo.

 

[TorisMom003]

I totally disagree with this post. And calling my stuff bull crap is not very nice. It is not bull crap. She said to them that was her way of getting them out there to look at the tape. This thread is not about Kc lies, its about Judge S. unethical behavior. He is biased and not fair at all. He very seldom sided with the defense. If he denies this motion, people will keep watch on him with all future motion decisions. He has not given the defense ample opportunity to make reasonable request at all. There may be a real perp out there . No kidding. IMO

Judge Strickland has time and time again not called Baez out for things that clearly were not done properly. If Judge Strickland were biased as you are claiming then IMO he would have told him what he thought of his wrongly filed and flawed motions. However I have not seen one hearing where Judge Strickland has done this. Judge Strickland has made it a point for Casey to be in court for all appearances, you say so that the Judge gets camara time, I say so that Casey can see for herself what her lawyers are up to so that ineffective counsel does not have a shot of coming up during the appeals process. Judge Strickland has calmly and patiently sat there and listened to Baez ramble during motions hearings. Judge Strickland has allowed the defense to come to court unprepared and not said one word about how unprofessional that is to the defense while in open court. Judge Strickland has handled himself in a very respectable manner, which is not something that can be said for the defense IMO. There have been "victories" for the defense in terms of some of the motions. A biased Judge would make a judgement in favor of the side he agrees with at least 90% of the time. This is not the case with Judge Strickland. As far as Baez being there for the right reasons, before the media, etc or whatever it was you said.........Baez has been the one that has constantly made appearances on tv whereas the SAs have not. Judge Strickland also has not. When a lawyer holds a press conference to announce to the public that he has just filed a motion for change of venue because of to much information being let out to the public and that it could taint the jury pool, then that attorney is guilty of doing exactly what he claims he doesn't want to happen. If anyone involved in this case is guilty of using this case to further their careers, get publicity, etc it would be the defense team as they are quite often searching for a camara to talk to.

 

[RR0004]

Judge Strickland has time and time again not called Baez out for things that clearly were not done properly. If Judge Strickland were biased as you are claiming then IMO he would have told him what he thought of his wrongly filed and flawed motions. However I have not seen one hearing where Judge Strickland has done this. Judge Strickland has made it a point for Casey to be in court for all appearances, you say so that the Judge gets camara time, I say so that Casey can see for herself what her lawyers are up to so that ineffective counsel does not have a shot of coming up during the appeals process. Judge Strickland has calmly and patiently sat there and listened to Baez ramble during motions hearings. Judge Strickland has allowed the defense to come to court unprepared and not said one word about how unprofessional that is to the defense while in open court. Judge Strickland has handled himself in a very respectable manner, which is not something that can be said for the defense IMO. There have been "victories" for the defense in terms of some of the motions. A biased Judge would make a judgement in favor of the side he agrees with at least 90% of the time. This is not the case with Judge Strickland. As far as Baez being there for the right reasons, before the media, etc or whatever it was you said.........Baez has been the one that has constantly made appearances on tv whereas the SAs have not. Judge Strickland also has not. When a lawyer holds a press conference to announce to the public that he has just filed a motion for change of venue because of to much information being let out to the public and that it could taint the jury pool, then that attorney is guilty of doing exactly what he claims he doesn't want to happen. If anyone involved in this case is guilty of using this case to further their careers, get publicity, etc it would be the defense team as they are quite often searching for a camara to talk to.

IMHO...Judge Strickland has the patience of a saint.

 

[RR0004]

I totally agree with you! And JS has proven that he is impartial, despite having opinions of his own.


There's a difference between there being even a hint of impropriety on the Judges part, and the defense trying to make him look improper.

That's what's happening here, imo.

Gosh...the defense must really have zippo.

 

[mitzi]

I totally disagree with this post. And calling my stuff bull crap is not very nice. It is not bull crap. She said to them that was her way of getting them out there to look at the tape. This thread is not about Kc lies, its about Judge S. unethical behavior. He is biased and not fair at all. He very seldom sided with the defense. If he denies this motion, people will keep watch on him with all future motion decisions. He has not given the defense ample opportunity to make reasonable request at all. There may be a real perp out there . No kidding. IMO

Bold mine.

You're right NTS, there is a real perp out there, and she's sittin' in a 6 X 8 foot cell.

You and I must be watching different hearings, cuz I don't see Judge S. having ANY unethical behavior...he has bent over backwards to be fair to the defense. Are ya wearing blinders? :waitasec:

 

[Dignity4Victims]

No, I think he is blinded by fame. Calling a defendant a liar is not an honorable thing to do. Its the same as saying , this liar over here is innocent until proven guilty. I disagree that it was ethical. I believe it was unethical. I have never heard a Judge do something like this. At any rate, none of it really matters because I do not believe he will step down. I can't believe the Judge is the one going to make this decision. I think it should be someone above him. Who's watching big brother here? If he does not step down, there will prolly be grounds for appeal in the future. Kc deserves a fair trial, we all deserve a fair trial in this country. Kc can not get a fair trial with this Judge. IMO

Sometimes the truth hurts, and yes, it is honorable for your Honor or anyone else to speak the truth and the truth just happens to be that, "Casey and the truth are strangers."

Funny, for a few reasons. One, that Judges often give truthful commentary from the bench during decisons, and this decision happened to be one deciding Casey's bond amount. One that he was required by law to make.

And secondly, funny you refer to "unheard of", because no normal, "innocent" mother would wait over a month to report her baby "missing" when in fact she wasn't missing at all, nor would they refuse to cooperate with, and lie like a dirty rug to LE in the quest to locate their baby daughter, unless of course, that mother had already murdered her baby daughter.

 

[JustJax]

I have been offline for a couple of days. My baby boy just graduated from Marine boot. Can I get a quick word if this is a bunch of hyperbole or what? I cannot feature the Judge throwing it all away to get chummy with a blogger, wtf?

 

[mitzi]

I think the defense has turned over their discovery to the SA as the Judge ordered them to. It is SA not turning it over to sunshine. IMO

NTS...you should go read the thread where attorneys answer legal questions...AZLawyer answered the question as to when the defense discovery gets released to the public. Just a hint...the defense doesn't have to release their discovery to the public...just another way that the perp gets one over on the victim.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Gosh...the defense must really have zippo.

For every stupid, worthless motion they put forth, they prove that more and more.

They aren't even conducting themselves as though Casey is innocent, even they don't believe it according to Mason's diatribe as has been quoted all over this board from his very own words. They have a mother who murdered her baby and tossed her away like garbage on their hands and they can't quite figure out what to do with her. Jurors have a special hate for mothers who murder their babies, and those attorneys know it. Casey is whackadoo, but not quite nutty enough to plead insanity, a known, proven diabolical liar who makes up stories so bizarre they have no ends to tie together to form a straight line.

They are desperate, and it shows.

 

[RR0004]

I have been offline for a couple of days. My baby boy just graduated from Marine boot. Can I get a quick word if this is a bunch of hyperbole or what? I cannot feature the Judge throwing it all away to get chummy with a blogger, wtf?

Congratulations!!!!!!

 

[RR0004]

NTS...you should go read the thread where attorneys answer legal questions...AZLawyer answered the question as to when the defense discovery gets released to the public. Just a hint...the defense doesn't have to release their discovery to the public...just another way that the perp gets one over on the victim.

But it would have to be filed (right?)...and as far as I can tell...nope, nada has been filed.

 

[mitzi]

But it would have to be filed (right?)...and as far as I can tell...nope, nada has been filed.

I think so. Here is the answer from AZLawyer...sorry, don't know how to bring over something from another thread.

FROM: AZlawyer:

The defense is not held to the same rules of disclosure as the prosecution--they have a lesser obligation--and the defense has no obligation at all under the Sunshine laws, because they are not a governmental agency.

The defense does have to disclose documents they want to use as exhibits at trial, among other things--so if they don't disclose those things, they won't get to use them at trial. That result is probably fine with the prosecution, so why push the defense to disclose something?

Not wanting to tip your hand re: strategy is generally no excuse for nondisclosure. The whole point of disclosure is to tip your hand lol.

 

[RR0004]

For every stupid, worthless motion they put forth, they prove that more and more.

They aren't even conducting themselves as though Casey is innocent, even they don't believe it according to Mason's diatribe as has been quoted all over this board from his very own words. They have a mother who murdered her baby and tossed her away like garbage on their hands and they can't quite figure out what to do with her. Jurors have a special hate for mothers who murder their babies, and those attorneys know it. Casey is whackadoo, but not quite nutty enough to plead insanity, a known, proven diabolical liar who makes up stories so bizarre they have no ends to tie together to form a straight line.

They are desperate, and it shows.

Makes you wonder (once again!) if this has been put out to masquerade some new info that's coming down the pike.

 

[mitzi]

Makes you wonder (once again!) if this has been put out to masquerade some new info that's coming down the pike.

Makes you wonder...since some discovery is supposed to be released soon.

 

[RR0004]

I think so. Here is the answer from AZLawyer...sorry, don't know how to bring over something from another thread.

FROM: AZlawyer:

The defense is not held to the same rules of disclosure as the prosecution--they have a lesser obligation--and the defense has no obligation at all under the Sunshine laws, because they are not a governmental agency.

The defense does have to disclose documents they want to use as exhibits at trial, among other things--so if they don't disclose those things, they won't get to use them at trial. That result is probably fine with the prosecution, so why push the defense to disclose something?

Not wanting to tip your hand re: strategy is generally no excuse for nondisclosure. The whole point of disclosure is to tip your hand lol.

But...if they have released the information to the State...then it would be fair game?