Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Spangle]

Perhaps JB is on a little revenge kick with this motion, since JS filed a complaint against JB with the FL Bar just a couple weeks ago.

It's as if JB is grasping at straws here. An old comment made by JS, a comment to a blogger? Sheesh.

IMO, JS has been more than fair and patient with JB and his ridiculous motions.

What? He filed one just a couple of weeks ago? That would be his second one against JB. Wouldn't it?

Anyway, where can I find the info about this?? Thanks!

 

[beach]

How would the media know this motion was gonna be filed if it hadn't when MD talked to them. Why would MD just out of the blue tell News 13 about his relationship with JS.

Just hours before the motion was filed, Knechel told News 13 about his relationship with Strickland.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/...membered_as_defenses_scapegoat.html?refresh=1

I need to re-read it, because it is entirely possible I misinterpreted it. On first glance, I took DM's statement to mean he was referring to requests from media for interviews to comment on a motion he didn't even know existed.

Thanks for linking it. I will take another look in just a bit. Juggling a few things right now.

 

[What'sThatClue]

What? He filed one just a couple of weeks ago? That would be his second one against JB. Wouldn't it?

Anyway, where can I find the info about this?? Thanks!

My apologies. I was reading the thread and failed to notice the first post was April 8, 2009. I will go back and edit my post. I got confused, I think, because I was reading the last page and the entries there were more recent. So sorry. :banghead:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82620&highlight=baez+complaint

I still think it's a sort of vendetta tho because of the complaint tho.

 

[Astraea]

Since this thread is about JS and the current motion before the court I am REALLY trying to not veer off topic. BUT I have to say that I am a little surprised at the attacks on NTS...even addressing the poster by name. I feel like I walked into a gang beating. Just because a poster doesnt agree, it does not make them a troll. If anything, it should show that a jury room may not be full with death to casey jurors as much as some would like it to be! It only takes one juror after all!

Sadly there is an undertone here of extreme prejudice towards anyone with a differing opinion. It is, in my opinion, not ok to excuse bad behaviour on the part of others (ie Judge Strickland,Maya Derkovic, and others mentioned in this thread) in order to secure a conviction of Casey. Merely the suggestion to "make up evidence" online, is just over the top and even in jest does nothing for justice in this matter.

I for one agree with NTS that the Judge has shown the appearance of being less than impartial. Calling a blogger up before he has even set a time to reconvene for his ruling tells me that he has more important things on his mind...like complementing said blogger. If it were my life in his hands I would also be fearful of his inablity to remain impartial....the motion sets out the reasons for this belief, and those reasons are founded, in my opinion.

That being said, we of course will have to wait and see if JS recuses himself. There is just no way to know for sure, based on our speculations here, what the Judge will decide.

 

[Sparky]

I need to re-read it, because it is entirely possible I misinterpreted it. On first glance, I took DM's statement to mean he was referring to requests from media for interviews to comment on a motion he didn't even know existed.

Thanks for linking it. I will take another look in just a bit. Juggling a few things right now.

Oh I was just bouncing off your post.

I just wondered if it was hours before and the defense filed it close to 5pm, how the media knew about it.

 

[beach]

Astraea, I agree with much of what you are saying. In defense, I believe frustration is at an all time high because lately every thread seems to get derailed by claims that KC isn't a liar. I've recently learned to try to just ignore and not take the bait in re. those claims. There is nothing anyone could ever say that would convince me KC is a truthful person. So, I go back and read the thread title and try to keep myself on track.

 

[beach]

Oh I was just bouncing off your post.

I just wondered if it was hours before and the defense filed it close to 5pm, how the media knew about it.

I've got a hunch somebody tipped 'em off. *ahem*

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

notthatsmart, I find I usually disagree with your opinion on at least 99% of your posts. And although I disagree with this one 100%, I have to give you credit for evaluating things the same way the defense team does. That, alone, gives your posts more interest. I will certainly be viewing them in a different light in the future.

This post, from a different thread, was what you posted two days before the motion was submitted to the court to disqualify the Honorable Judge Strickland:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5060701&postcount=131"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Accident or Intentional; Evidence and Debate[/ame]

and on page 10 it is listed as the first complaint in their Statement of Facts in their memo. I have to give credit where credit is due. You certainly saw this one coming!

 

[countzero]

Regarding comments made about Judge Strickland to KC during the bond hearing, this link provides the documents where KC swore the last date she "saw" Caylee was June 9, 2008, page 28. CA swore the last date she saw Caylee was June 8, 2008, page 34 and GA swore the last date he saw Caylee was June 9, 2008, page 36.

These three statements are just a few of the many pieces of the paperwork that Judge Strickland had to review during the bond hearing.

Both dates we now know were false. And so the coverup began, but that is for another thread.

 

[beach]

Oh I was just bouncing off your post.

I just wondered if it was hours before and the defense filed it close to 5pm, how the media knew about it.

Thanks for linking the Channel 13 article in your earlier post.

I'm strictly just guessing here, but I'm thinking the defense alerted the media about the motion they were about to file. Kinda like, "be at the courthouse at 4:50pm on Friday so you can get your scoop and all those bloggers will have something juicy to chat about over the weekend". LMAO! So, the media starts speed dialing Dave even before the motion is filed to get a comment. Dave is like, "WTH are ya talking about?"

Like I said, that is strictly a GUESS. I'm sure there are people here at WS who have thought more about it and have better theories. I've been more focused on the FL Rule that AZ posted and Nancy Botwin commented on and haven't given this too much thought.

 

[RR0004]

This motion can't be coming from casey...according to her secret letters, she loves the judge because he cares about how great she looks in court

Wow...this was good for my first morning chuckle!

 

[Sparky]

Thanks for linking the Channel 13 article in your earlier post.

I'm strictly just guessing here, but I'm thinking the defense alerted the media about the motion they were about to file. Kinda like, "be at the courthouse at 4:50pm on Friday so you can get your scoop and all those bloggers will have something juicy to chat about over the weekend". LMAO! So, the media starts speed dialing Dave even before the motion is filed to get a comment. Dave is like, "WTH are ya talking about?"

Like I said, that is strictly a GUESS. I'm sure there are people here at WS who have thought more about it and have better theories. I've been more focused on the FL Rule that AZ posted and Nancy Botwin commented on and haven't given this too much thought.

I agree, just thought it was odd while reading the article this morning.

Anyways, can't wait to see what happens nxt Fri at 4:48 pm.

 

[LambChop]

Judges are allowed the freedom to have lives outside the court room. They can speak with SA they can speak with the media they can speak with whomever. They just can't discuss the case DIRECTLY which JS did not do. He merely stated the man was a fair blogger, unlike many that are out there. I was in court one day with my husband, we were with the plaintiff's side and after the session the judge called my husband up to the bench for a conversation. Nothing improper. My husband was an LE detective and the judge knew him well. And is it not the jury who will decide KC's fate. The judge is there for one thing to make sure the players play nice, make decisions on motions, know the laws and to make sure KC gets a fair trial according to the law. What I have seen is a judge who has been very respectful to her since she has been in court. He is an officer of the court, he needs to be respected.

Had a gag order been put in place there would be little media interest, KC would not have been able to pay her attorney $89,000 for her present trial nor would she have been able to pay him the remainder of the money on the fraud trial which he now does not have to disclose. So who is the big winner here? Only person who has profitted handsomely from this case is JB, not JS. jmo

 

[magic-cat]

If someone posts an opinion, it is thereby open to discussion. If they do not wish to discuss the opinion, then it would be logical NOT to post the opinion. This is reasonable, yes? For myself, I do not ever attack another poster, even when I disagree with them. BUT I do often disagree, as is my right, and am standing at the ready to back up many if not most of my arguments with facts or evidence...otherwise post as "theory"...There is an old saying, If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I think it applies in so many cases. If those who hold minority opinions, for whatever reason, feel they should be able to post those opinions without anyone disagreeing? Well, that is just not going to happen. We ARE all entitled to our opinions, and we ARE all entitled not to agree with someone elses opinions. There IS a civilized way to do this, and I think for the most part, we are civilized here. Ocassionally...yes, it gets out of hand...and in THOSE cases? That is what the alert button is for. BUT to expect to post without any opposing opinions? That is not a reasonable expectation, especially when one is posting in the minority position. That said, I hardly ever agree with some of our posters, but do not feel the need to "attack" them, BUT I do often and vehemently attack their POSTS...as is the right of each and every one of us here.

 

[magic-cat]

How would the media know this motion was gonna be filed if it hadn't when MD talked to them. Why would MD just out of the blue tell News 13 about his relationship with JS.

Just hours before the motion was filed, Knechel told News 13 about his relationship with Strickland.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/...membered_as_defenses_scapegoat.html?refresh=1

HINKY METER ON HIGH ALERT HERE!

Just hours BEFORE the motion was filed they asked for his comments? Ok so they knew about the motion before it was filed, AND he knew about it before it was filed...

hinky hinky hinky

 

[nanny1]

Judges are allowed the freedom to have lives outside the court room. They can speak with SA they can speak with the media they can speak with whomever. They just can't discuss the case DIRECTLY which JS did not do. He merely stated the man was a fair blogger, unlike many that are out there. I was in court one day with my husband, we were with the plaintiff's side and after the session the judge called my husband up to the bench for a conversation. Nothing improper. My husband was an LE detective and the judge knew him well. And is it not the jury who will decide KC's fate. The judge is there for one thing to make sure the players play nice, make decisions on motions, know the laws and to make sure KC gets a fair trial according to the law. What I have seen is a judge who has been very respectful to her since she has been in court. He is an officer of the court, he needs to be respected.

Had a gag order been put in place there would be little media interest, KC would not have been able to pay her attorney $89,000 for her present trial nor would she have been able to pay him the remainder of the money on the fraud trial which he now does not have to disclose. So who is the big winner here? Only person who has profitted handsomely from this case is JB, not JS. jmo

You alway's say things in such an elegant way Lambchop..

 

[LambChop]

notthatsmart, I find I usually disagree with your opinion on at least 99% of your posts. And although I disagree with this one 100%, I have to give you credit for evaluating things the same way the defense team does. That, alone, gives your posts more interest. I will certainly be viewing them in a different light in the future.

This post, from a different thread, was what you posted two days before the motion was submitted to the court to disqualify the Honorable Judge Strickland:


Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Accident or Intentional; Evidence and Debate

and on page 10 it is listed as the first complaint in their Statement of Facts in their memo. I have to give credit where credit is due. You certainly saw this one coming!

That was a good catch. Another coinky dink. There are just way too many of them in this case.

 

[RR0004]

Thanks for linking the Channel 13 article in your earlier post.

I'm strictly just guessing here, but I'm thinking the defense alerted the media about the motion they were about to file. Kinda like, "be at the courthouse at 4:50pm on Friday so you can get your scoop and all those bloggers will have something juicy to chat about over the weekend". LMAO! So, the media starts speed dialing Dave even before the motion is filed to get a comment. Dave is like, "WTH are ya talking about?"

Like I said, that is strictly a GUESS. I'm sure there are people here at WS who have thought more about it and have better theories. I've been more focused on the FL Rule that AZ posted and Nancy Botwin commented on and haven't given this too much thought.

...and it won't be the last time they do it either. Now they'll be able to discuss all the posts that have been generated...we'll see copies somewhere, I'm sure. Truly, they obviously don't have ANYTHING else. They haven't done ANYTHING else to move this case forward. But what's becoming more and more apparent with the passage of time is that they could care less about justice for Caylee. I mean at least give it a go and come up with a plausible theory of who else did this. Why aren't the PIs searching high and low for the REAL perp? Why are they eating taxpayer dollars interviewing Marinade Dave? So what, another judge will be seated and he'll get to look at those ridiculous motions and rule similarly? What's the outcome through all this? They've emphasized Casey's guilt with a big huge explanation point!!! They're just plain sleazy IMHO.

PS- and I guess they wanted us to stop discussing the letters...not to worry JB...the public has a longggggggg memory!

 

[denjet]

notthatsmart, I find I usually disagree with your opinion on at least 99% of your posts. And although I disagree with this one 100%, I have to give you credit for evaluating things the same way the defense team does. That, alone, gives your posts more interest. I will certainly be viewing them in a different light in the future.

This post, from a different thread, was what you posted two days before the motion was submitted to the court to disqualify the Honorable Judge Strickland:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Accident or Intentional; Evidence and Debate

and on page 10 it is listed as the first complaint in their Statement of Facts in their memo. I have to give credit where credit is due. You certainly saw this one coming!

hmmm, who would know 2 days before the court filing that this motion would be coming? The defense? :waitasec:

 

[countzero]

notthatsmart, I find I usually disagree with your opinion on at least 99% of your posts. And although I disagree with this one 100%, I have to give you credit for evaluating things the same way the defense team does. That, alone, gives your posts more interest. I will certainly be viewing them in a different light in the future.

This post, from a different thread, was what you posted two days before the motion was submitted to the court to disqualify the Honorable Judge Strickland:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Accident or Intentional; Evidence and Debate

and on page 10 it is listed as the first complaint in their Statement of Facts in their memo. I have to give credit where credit is due. You certainly saw this one coming!

Just to add to this, KC will have a JURY trial not a beach trial as she did with the fraud charges. The jury will judge her, not the judge. Whether it will continue to be Judge Strickland or another, I personally believe the end result will be the same ..........