Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
sleutherontheside said:
So JB finds the "brief" comments between JS and MD (in court and witnessed) to be inappropriate to the point of suggesting JS be removed?

Well.....I'd like JB to dazzle me with his ethical opinions by commenting on the appropriateness of: accepting $70K from TM which was funnelled into KC's defense account, arguing against a gag order, assigning lovey dovey nicknames to KC's mom in emails, frittering away $275K of defense money, allegedly brokering deals for photo sales, wow......I could go on but I'd be up all night.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering what the process for removing Baez would be and if maybe he has been sensing that JS might make a move in that direction and simply decided to make a pre-emptive move?
 
Utterly amazing that people actually visit that 'blog'. I really hope he hasn't screwed things up. Judge Strickland is about as good a judge as one could hope for.
 
I think it is important to remember that we can't really "classify" anyone's site as pro defense or pro prosecution. Both sides have valid points that should be explored and discussed. We encourage that here as well.

Let's refrain from making derogatory comments about other sites. We have plenty of good info to discuss without "name calling".

So..........did anyone else see this coming?????????
 
Could this be 'payback' to JS for filing bar complaint against Baez? Or is it an attempt to go back to square A and drag this trial out so that in time all will be forgotten. Sheesh!

ETA: Has it been established definitively exactly what JS said to MD that day in court? And how does the defense know JS called MD to inquire after his health? Inquiring minds....
 
i didnt see it coming, to be honest.

the way strickland bowed down to them after the cameras were shut off at the indigincy hearing made me think he is a softy.

so why would you want to remove someone who might get you the fairest trial possible?
 
sleutherontheside said:
I think it is important to remember that we can't really "classify" anyone's site as pro defense or pro prosecution. Both sides have valid points that should be explored and discussed. We encourage that here as well.

Let's refrain from making derogatory comments about other sites. We have plenty of good info to discuss without "name calling".

So..........did anyone else see this coming?????????
Click to expand...

my apologies sots (whoops that doesn't sound good - Sleutherontheside) but I never thought of being pro-defense as being derogatory - just an observation that in his editorials he appears that way. Quite different to respond to someone espousing their views than a general go to it like at WS - there is a much different balance to a blog IMO when one person "manages" the points of view) If you took it to be anything different then I am sorry it was not my intention.
 
ZsaZsa said:
You can hear most of the conversation on the video. It is very brief and he congratulates MD on his blog, having read it at some time. There was no talk of KC as far as I could hear.
Click to expand...

What video is that? I recall watching/listening that day and I all I heard was JS request to speak with the man in the (whatever color) shirt. It was Dave who blogged about what JS allegedly said to him. What I would like to know is who reported that JS called Dave to inquire after his health. Something's stinky.
 
Strickland is not the chief judge of that court. I suspect the chief might sit him down and say, "OK, maybe this isn't fair, but you did overstep your bounds somewhat, and it's not worth creating appeal issues. Let's assign this one to someone else."
 
logicalgirl said:
HEY! ISN'T MARINADE DAVE VERY PRO DEFENSE? HE SURE SEEMS IT TO ME!
wth is this all about!
Click to expand...

He actually posts the point of view from both sides, but I wouldn't call him pro-defense...:confused:

When you report the facts of this case, it might seem to a lot of people that you are pro-Prosecution, but KC is so obviously guilty, how could you not be?
JS can read all the opinions on the Web if he wishes, I don't see a problem with that ... someone posted here yesterday that WS members just want to 'get a rope' for her.. If JS saw that comment he might read further, to find that there are opinions that are far more extreme with those that want leniency for her..

Is it against any ethical code of behavior for a Judge to read publications/watch TV/ read blogs about current cases?
 
logicalgirl said:
my apologies sots (whoops that doesn't sound good - Sleutherontheside) but I never thought of being pro-defense as being derogatory - just an observation that in his editorials he appears that way. Quite different to respond to someone espousing their views than a general go to it like at WS - there is a much different balance to a blog IMO when one person "manages" the points of view) If you took it to be anything different then I am sorry it was not my intention.
Click to expand...

I wasn't singling you out. There have been a few comments that inspired me.
 
ZsaZsa said:
He actually posts the point of view from both sides, but I wouldn't call him pro-defense...:confused:

When you report the facts of this case, it might seem to a lot of people that you are pro-Prosecution, but KC is so obviously guilty, how could you not be?
JS can read all the opinions on the Web if he wishes, I don't see a problem with that ... someone posted here yesterday that WS members just want to 'get a rope' for her.. If JS saw that comment he might read further, to find that there are opinions that are far more extreme with those that want leniency for her..

Is it against any ethical code of behavior for a Judge to read publications/watch TV/ read blogs about current cases?
Click to expand...


IMO no. Additionally....lets remember that the motion for change of venue in the check fraud case included references to blog / forum / news comments. So.......I would think it would have been expected that JS peruse various sites given the defense team itself has asked previously him for a ruling and and used much of the same info in their own exhibits. JS is not on the jury.
 
ZsaZsa said:
I'll have a search for the video after I eat, but here in Dave's own words are what he stated:
( Scroll way down)
http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/it-was-my-honor-your-pleasure/

JS reads the news! JS reads blogs! Shock and Awe..... Wonder if he reads WS?
Click to expand...

Strange how JB has time to write motions, but doesn't have time to go to MN office to review TES docs. JB is always trying to hit below the belt, and find a way of not dealing with the real evidence in this trial. JS will really be rocking in his chair the next time JB comes before him. I think that rainbow JS joked about is now a bomb that is going to go off in JB's face.
 
WOW good luck finding a judge as tolerant as JS, Jose. What a dumb move.
 
Judge Strickland has mentioned openly in court that he reads things and sees news (I could not even tell you which hearing it was, but I am sure I remember that).

MD has written quite a bit about how he gets harrassed for "supporting" the Anthony's, and I have personally read blog posts where he was more than careful about slinging around mud and rumor, more than "fair" in his interpretation of how the law should apply to KC...almost defending KC to the point where I was put off because I happen to loathe KC and I get annoyed when people side with her (I am allowed to loathe KC, I'm not going to be a juror).

I suppose Supreme Court Justices should not get to perform judicial review, since they certainly have conversations with lawmakers at D.C. functions-Sotomayor and Obama never related to one another on their political views? Puh-lease....Maybe Justice Thomas should be removed because he surely speaks with his wife, who has recently written a political opinion book.

Should anything cause the removal of JS anytime throughout this case, I will be praying that the replacement judge rivals Sheriff Arpaio.
 
meanwhile, in california, another long murder trial saga has been avoided.

garnrer has plead guilty to kiling both amber doubis and chelsea king in exchange for not getting the needle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 142 more.
Total: 3,718 (members: 143, guests: 3,575)

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
3,575
Total visitors
3,718
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,699
Messages
18,161,072
Members
231,829
Latest member
rswilliams65
Back
Top