Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[beach]

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

Thanks for that much to you, mitzi and Dignity4Victims for throwing out the hints you can and still respect the TOS, 'cause I don't have the first clue who you are talking about. :waitasec:

Riddle me this - will I find JM more or less creidble than say...oh, Joy Wray?

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

Doesn't matter if you wish to dispute or not, WS 'ers can watch the video and see Casey escorted through the exit by the CO. After she has left, GA and CA start to walk through the door. At that point you can see that MD has been stopped at the doorway. Sorry it doesn't agree withe the story you are trying to promote here, that he interrupted the proceedings to talk to Dave, but it did not happen that way. I was watching that day and I have watched the video several times to ensure accuracy.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

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.

He isn't stating a "theory", he's stating everything as fact. Fact that this isn't Caylee who is deceased, fact that State Attorney Lawson Lamar is underhandedly framing Casey Anthony, fact that Caylee is captured on video at the airport, etc., ad nauseum.

He is libeling several people, against the law to do so and MD is providing him a platform to do so which if we're talking "ethics" here, is that ethical of MD to encourage this nonsense, and what, exactly, is MD's agenda in doing so?

Has MD learned nothing from all of this mess he's created? Is his ego really worth it to him by throwing others under the bus by allowing JM's ridiculous and illegal nonsense? It only further proves that MD isn't in this for the right reason. This case really isn't "all about him!"

 

[Aedrys]

Thanks for that much to you, mitzi and Dignity4Victims for throwing out the hints you can and still respect the TOS, 'cause I don't have the first clue who you are talking about. :waitasec:

Riddle me this - will I find JM more or less creidble than say...oh, Joy Wray?

About the same. Those two should share a crazy boat together, or at least a padded cell. I can't believe he's okay with JM posting on his site. So it's okay to surround yourself with crazy people as long they aren't attacking someone? Doesn't that sound very Anthony to anyone else?

 

[Dignity4Victims]

About the same. Those two should share a crazy boat together, or at least a padded cell. I can't believe he's okay with JM posting on his site. So it's okay to surround yourself with crazy people as long they aren't attacking someone? Doesn't that sound very Anthony to anyone else?

Exactly!

 

[sleutherontheside]

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.

ITA......and there have been a few asked to leave WS for that reason alone. There is nothing wrong with sharing that you have inside info....but you must be prepared to back it up or have Tricia verify it. When people don't want to bother doing so.......they lose their credibility. When people post things like that the reason is to direct traffic to their blog.

And now....."stayed tuned as I have some explosive info that even the attorney's don't know in this case"............it's called a TEASE........and IMO it only has a place right before the commercial break to keep viewers from leaving before you return with the details. It's a tool, but it doesn't make it appropriate for use in all circumstances. Think the boy that cried wolf.

 

[shelbar53]

If that IS true, then Mason and Baez are BOTH incompetent

From your link:

This will be Judge Perry’s seventh term as Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, having served from 1995 to 1999 and again from 2001 to present. Judge Perry received his Juris Doctor from Thurgood Marshall School of Law, a Masters Degree in Education from Tuskegee University and a Bachelor of Science Degree in History also from Tuskegee University. Prior to taking the bench as a Circuit Judge in 1989, Judge Perry served as an Assistant State Attorney within the Ninth Circuit. Along with currently serving as Chief Judge, Judge Perry also serves as the Chair of the Trial Court Budget Commission for the state court system.

This can't be right, why on earth would they want to replace Strickland with Perry? :waitasec:

Is there a history with Judge Perry and Mason? Maybe Mason wanted "a good ole boy" as judge.
Will other judges "remember" Baez actions in this case and maybe somehow give Baez a hard time with future cases? Not that Baez would be able to specifically pin point details of how he is being retaliated aganist. I would not want to go to a defense lawyer knowing how he aggrevated judges and maybe grudges are held.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

There are different thresholds for different rules of law.

True, and according to law, Judge Strickland has done nothing illegal.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Court Hearing 16 Oct 2009

JS asks to speak to MD

Mark 4.34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWIO_luem4&feature=related

Bumping for discussion of what is heard at the 4:34 mark. Is that when the judge asks to have DM remain after court is dismissed?

 

[sleutherontheside]

He isn't stating a "theory", he's stating everything as fact. Fact that this isn't Caylee who is deceased, fact that State Attorney Lawson Lamar is underhandedly framing Casey Anthony, fact that Caylee is captured on video at the airport, etc., ad nauseum.

He is libeling several people, against the law to do so and MD is providing him a platform to do so which if we're talking "ethics" here, is that ethical of MD to encourage this nonsense, and what, exactly, is MD's agenda in doing so?

Has MD learned nothing from all of this mess he's created? Is his ego really worth it to him by throwing others under the bus by allowing JM's ridiculous and illegal nonsense? It only further proves that MD isn't in this for the right reason. This case really isn't "all about him!"

Just because JLM is stating things as fact, doesn't make it so. If JLM is libeling people.......it's not my concern because it isn't happening here. KWIM??? I don't think there is anyone reading his "theories" that actually believes them, but if they do.....it's their issue to wrestle. I think MD is in a precarious position.....trying to defend his actions AND demonstrate neutrality.

Let's remember......the big difference here is that WS is a forum for discussion and requires statements like JLM's to be backed up. I notice he hasn't posted his "theories" here. There is a reason. I can't let people like that upset me because if one day I decide to stir things up somewhere and post all sorts of crazy..........I want my chance too.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

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.

So because he said more than "hello", which was to compliment MD on his blog specifically using the word, "fairness", that's somehow to you more evil than a simple "hello"??

Really? You're serious?

 

[countzero]

Well now, I don't believe that LDB and JA would be walking over the desk where JB was standing talking between themselves and totally diss Judge Strickland if the hearing wasn't over. You can plainly see and hear KC walking out the door with the bailiff behind her, chains clinking. No one would move unless after asking to approach the podium at all IF Judge Strickland had NOT ended the hearing.

He apparently is casual in his manner as we have all witnessed. Fair and casual. He rocks in his chair, he smiles and laughs and when he needs to move the proceedings along, he does just that.

If one goes back to the beginning of all these hearings, you will find how consistent they are when and how they end. Nothing new or different with any of them as far as I am concerned.

 

[Astraea]

Doesn't matter if you wish to dispute or not, WS 'ers can watch the video and see Casey escorted through the exit by the CO. After she has left, GA and CA start to walk through the door. At that point you can see that MD has been stopped at the doorway. Sorry it doesn't agree withe the story you are trying to promote here, that he interrupted the proceedings to talk to Dave, but it did not happen that way. I was watching that day and I have watched the video several times to ensure accuracy.

Ok, lets try this another way. Did you LISTEN to the proceeding? Because he clearly takes a few moments DURING the proceeding and speaks to the bailiff about detaining MD. Then he RETURNS to the proceeding. I am wondering why, in the middle of a proceeding, when he is supposed to be listening, paying attention, and then returning a decision, his focus is on the blogger sitting in the back, thats all.

I of course have no idea how the court will rule. If I were the defendant and the judge in my case seemed preoccupied with a blogger who had written headlines such as those discussed in the motion, I would also move to recuse the judge. Given the fact that the death penalty is the consequence if the jury decides guilty, I would have hoped that JS would have handled this a little more professionally. Especially since he apparently KNOWS the publicity surrounding this case.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Just because JLM is stating things as fact, doesn't make it so. If JLM is libeling people.......it's not my concern because it isn't happening here. KWIM??? I don't think there is anyone reading his "theories" that actually believes them, but if they do.....it's their issue to wrestle. I think MD is in a precarious position.....trying to defend his actions AND demonstrate neutrality.

Let's remember......the big difference here is that WS is a forum for discussion and requires statements like JLM's to be backed up. I notice her hasn't posted his "theories" here. There is a reason. I can't let people like that upset me because if one day I decide to stir things up somewhere and post all sorts or crazy..........I want my chance too.

I agree no one believes JM's spew, and like you, it doesn't "upset" me, either, but I do find it laughable that on one hand, MD is portraying himself as the victim in all this, and yet he's perpetuating more of the same out of the other side of his mouth.

MD isn't in any position that he didn't voluntarily put himself in, and he really does have the option to put a lid on it, rather than continue exploiting himself and his own agenda.

 

[sleutherontheside]

What I am sensing here is that people are getting......shall we say...."passionate". The goal here my friends is not to PROVE anyone wrong. Respect other's interpretation and move on.

Has anyone looked into the case law cited in the motion. BOTH are Florida cases which says to me JB never touched this motion, because thus far he is noted for using case law from elsewhere and with VERY loose affiliation.

 

[Astraea]

True, and according to law, Judge Strickland has done nothing illegal.

I dont think it is a matter of the Judge "breaking the law". Just to clarify I also never once stated that JS had "broken the law". Sorry if I had confused you in some way

 

[Astraea]

Bumping for discussion of what is heard at the 4:34 mark. Is that when the judge asks to have DM remain after court is dismissed?

At about the 4:50 mark.

 

[TrialAddict]

Doesn't JS as the bailiff to ask the guy in the striped shirt to wait or something, because he wants to say hi to him. This was BEFORE it was over, JS went on to say a few words saying he would try to get it done this today... Then something was said about going to another room by the defense. THEN JS said the guy in the striped again as people were leaving the court room. So he asked to have the guy in the stripped shirt see him twice. Once while the hearing WAS still going on, and then after as people were leaving

 

[Astraea]

So because he said more than "hello", which was to compliment MD on his blog specifically using the word, "fairness", that's somehow to you more evil than a simple "hello"??

Really? You're serious?

I think you are now starting to attribute statements to me that I certainly never posted.:waitasec:

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I dont think it is a matter of the Judge "breaking the law". Just to clarify I also never once stated that JS had "broken the law". Sorry if I had confused you in some way

"According to the law" is just that, either lawful or unlawful. Here is your post where you do, indeed, make that reference.

The "appearance" of impropriety in my opinion is what matters according to the law.