Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[mitzi]

So Marinade Dave, who was sitting with the Anthonys in court during the hearing in question, and had already previously given his business card to Jose in a previous hearing, blogs about the good judge calling him up and telling him how FAIR his blog is. Then he later is interviewed NUMEROUS times by the defense, and did not REALLY see the motion until after ALL those interviews were completed, and then interviewed with the press ABOUT Judge Strickland BEFORE the motion was even filed, hours before I might add...This smacks of no good!

Now, now, now, magic-cat, keep calm...as I stated in my post above yours, DM is going to clear everything up tonight on a radio talk show. *is my sarcasm showing?* :banghead:

 

[magic-cat]

It is just amazing when you look DEEPLY into a thing what you can discover...and this STINKS to high heaven!

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Yup! Also, MD also gave his card to Brad C. and told him he had a "little something" for him. Whatever it was, he ended up mailing it to him.

Was just now at his blog, and I guess "fame" isn't so fleeting...DM will be on some guy's "BlogTalkRadio" tonight to discuss. About 95% of posters there are telling him to not do it and just stay silent, but of course, he is unable to do that.

MD also wrote in one of his articles not long ago, that he was in the elevator with Baez and others and had "a conversation" that he wouldn't disclose.

Of course he wrote the article surrounded by a lot of innuendo and mystery, probably just to get the reaction he got which was all of his followers begging him to disclose what the conversation was about. Of course he again refused.

 

[magic-cat]

He has probably been in collusion with the defense on this EVER SINCE THAT HEARING! The poor judge, thinking he was being fair by congratulating an obvious Anthony defender on his fairness to all sides, is now accused of wrong doing because of that? Congratulations Dave! WOW! No wonder you so confidently wrote that you did not want it to be this way and to be the man who CHANGED THE COURSE (of history?) and derailed the entire case. No wonder. It all comes clear to me now. I am so glad you wrote the one liner that sent my flags up...that one little word, REALLY, has a great deal of meaning. You gave yourself away without meaning to...oh well, perhaps during one of your extensive interviews, which were edited severely, you said some other things they did NOT want us to hear, huh?

 

[cuppy199]

Now, now, now, magic-cat, keep calm...as I stated in my post above yours, DM is going to clear everything up tonight on a radio talk show. *is my sarcasm showing?* :banghead:

Who's show?

 

[mitzi]

Who's show?

Not sure if I can say...some guy named "Simon". ????:waitasec:

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Now, now, now, magic-cat, keep calm...as I stated in my post above yours, DM is going to clear everything up tonight on a radio talk show. *is my sarcasm showing?* :banghead:

He's also got the "infamous" JM over there today, screeching that he has proof Caylee is alive because "he's been working this case for months", the nanny has been found and is being watched, Atlanta police are involved, blah, blah, blah.....

Now I ask you this, why would anyone who wants to be taken seriously even promote such nonsense on his blog? He's grossly libeling LE, State Attorney Lawson Lamar, Dr. Garavaglia and others, and MD is providing the platform to do so.

Agenda?

 

[sleutherontheside]

THe show is on blog talk radio and began at 4PM EST.

 

[beach]

I must admit magic-cat, I was skeptical of your suspicions that MD was 'sleeping with the defense' so to speak, but considering all that has JUST been discussed and uncovered (the blog talk spot), I digress. In a big way. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I sure hope that JS didn't just feel the stab of yet another knife.

I'm not even gonna think $$$ was exchanged. For now, I will just think Dave has a huge ego and is full of himself.

UGH. now, stop uncovering things that keep me glued to this thread 'cause i really need to go study!!

 

[cuppy199]

Not sure if I can say...some guy named ????:waitasec:

Thanks I know exactly who that is Im not sure if he can be said either.Anyone else know?

 

[sleutherontheside]

He's also got the "infamous" JM over there today, screeching that he has proof Caylee is alive because "he's been working this case for months", the nanny has been found and is being watched, Atlanta police are involved, blah, blah, blah.....

Now I ask you this, why would anyone who wants to be taken seriously even promote such nonsense on his blog? He's grossly libeling LE, State Attorney Lawson Lamar, Dr. Garavaglia and others, and MD is providing the platform to do so.

Agenda?

Let me clarify something regarding JLM.....

His posts have been on every forum and most blogs. They always share the same theory though are often tweaked a bit. MD took some flack from other posters there (I am not a poster there but I do drive bys regularly on the WWW) about why he was allowing JM to say such things.

MD responded with the explanation that everyone there is free to express an opinion and if a post does not attack another poster he'll let it stand.

 

[mitzi]

He's also got the "infamous" JM over there today, screeching that he has proof Caylee is alive because "he's been working this case for months", the nanny has been found and is being watched, Atlanta police are involved, blah, blah, blah.....

Now I ask you this, why would anyone who wants to be taken seriously even promote such nonsense on his blog? He's grossly libeling LE, State Attorney Lawson Lamar, Dr. Garavaglia and others, and MD is providing the platform to do so.

Agenda?

Is JM that freakazoid that posts outrageous bits of information all over the blogs and media reports in the comments sections? Geesh! Nice person to align oneself with!

 

[sleutherontheside]

Thanks I know exactly who that is Im not sure if he can be said either.Anyone else know?

Actually, he is listed in discovery as he had sent a letter to JS. James L. MacIntyre or McIntyre.

 

[mitzi]

Let me clarify something regarding JLM.....

His posts have been on every forum and most blogs. They always share the same theory though are often tweaked a bit. MD took some flack from other posters there (I am not a poster there but I do drive bys regularly on the WWW) about why he was allowing JM to say such things.

MD responded with the explanation that everyone there is free to express an opinion and if a post does not attack another poster he'll let it stand.

Bold mine.

But God forbid you post something unflattering about MD...ZAP! Gone!

 

[Astraea]

Wishful thinking maybe, but the hearing is well over.

The hearing was not over by any means. No one had been dismissed from the room. Casey had not left the court when JS stopped to ask the bailiff to bring MD up as you stated. This is just complete fallacy. I can handle a differing opinion....but facts on tape ....I just cant be bothered to dispute...it is there to see.

 

[sleutherontheside]

THey do seem to let a number of them stand.

May I just take this moment to say again....... how I appreciate WS for operating differently than other forums. I imagine it can get exhausting other places when trying to actually discuss issues when you keep getting derailed by attacks, nonsense, and bullying.

 

[whiteangora]

MD also wrote in one of his articles not long ago, that he was in the elevator with Baez and others and had "a conversation" that he wouldn't disclose.

Of course he wrote the article surrounded by a lot of innuendo and mystery, probably just to get the reaction he got which was all of his followers begging him to disclose what the conversation was about. Of course he again refused.

And that is the Hook these bloggers use to keep their captive audience. It's all bs games.
That's why here at WS we are not allowed to say, "I know something but I can't talk about it".....and that's why our information is usually the most accurate.
Now, if MD is so fair and unbiased I suggest the next hearing he attends that he pull up a chair in the center aisle of the courtroom and not sit on the defense side.

 

[Nore]

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.

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?

----------------
O/T JustJax,congrats to your son and God Bless.

 

[Astraea]

So, what is it that you "think" Judge Strickland said to MD? You say "it was a lot more", which according to MD was nothing more than to say the Judge found MD's blog to be fair and impartial.

Do you have proof that it was more than this, or are you just saying that it was more without actual proof to back that statement up?

You just proved it yourself. He said more then "hello".

As far as interrupting the proceeding. JS did exactly this when he spoke to the bailiff and made his request. After he made his request he returned to the seemingly less important topic at hand, the motion.

 

[Astraea]

That's not only ridiculous, it's just not true.

For example, convicted drug dealers aren't arrested for "appearing" to traffic drugs. They are convicted due to solid, factual findings that such a crime occurred.

The law is interested in, and base their conclusions on facts, not assumptions, and certainly not "appearances"!

There are different thresholds for different rules of law.