Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[butwhatif?]

MD wasn't saying KC must die. That was his headline, and his intepretation of the state having the DP on the table. (I think so anyway)

Or do you mean that headline alone is sensationalising things, and showing a bias toward the defense?

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I have been out of pocket and just checking in on this latest business.
Yes it was KC's signature that he was notarizing and not his own.
IMO, the stamp situation will be rectified and be a big nothing.

But just so I understand what is going on, JS told MD that he had a fair and balanced site? The only exposure I have ever had has been pretty much against KC, so I kind of understand why this is an issue. If the judge think s things like "KC must die" represents fair and balanced blogging,isn't that a bit telling?yikes.(no offense MD)
Disclaimer I am NOT up to speed I am still on time out so I may be missing much.
Tell me what I am missing please

Not to defend MD, because I believe he not only willingly stepped into this himself, and with both feet, but, the content of his "Casey must die" article was not what you would expect from the title. It was only his shock-value way of announcing that the State was seeking the DP.

In fact, MD has stated more than once that he isn't an advocate of the DP.

 

[Marina2]

Sorry if this has already been brought up. It just struck me now that even this alleged conversation between MD and JS was about being fair and balanced.
Doesn't that show that JS is just giving Kudos to someone who is commenting on the case without bias, because so few do?

Doesn't the alleged content of the convo PROVE that JS is not showing any bias toward either the state or the defense ,since he was allegedly praising MD for not showing any bias in his blogs? :waitasec:

I have been out of pocket and just checking in on this latest business.
Yes it was KC's signature that he was notarizing and not his own.
IMO, the stamp situation will be rectified and be a big nothing.

But just so I understand what is going on, JS told MD that he had a fair and balanced site? The only exposure I have ever had has been pretty much against KC, so I kind of understand why this is an issue. If the judge think s things like "KC must die" represents fair and balanced blogging,isn't that a bit telling?yikes.(no offense MD)
Disclaimer I am NOT up to speed I am still on time out so I may be missing much.
Tell me what I am missing please

The motion makes Strickland's statement look very bad. Remember, this all has to be taken as fact.

Snipped from motion:
The precipitating grounds for disqualification is the revelation that the judge has apparently developed a personal relationship with a journalist/blogger known fictitiously as "Marinade Dave", who has historically presented numerous stories of severe bias and prejudice against the Defendant.

At that time the judge essentially validated the journalist's opinions and blogging actions by telling said "Marinade Dave" how he (the judge) admired "Marinade Dave" and thought him to be fair, posting the best blogs that had read on the internet.


Mr. Knechel has written extensively about the Anthony case. His wrtings are posted to his blog and accessed by Judge Strickland through the internet. Mr Knechel's prior writings, of which Judge Strickland feels are "really fair" and the "best blog out there," have titles which include "Casey Anthony must die", Caylee's murder: premeditated and pretty stupid to," and "Guilty as CHARGED." The contents of these blog posts--prior to October of 2009, when Judge Strickland first approached Mr. Knechel--predominantly include pro--prosecution assertions. In Mr. Knechels's blog posting on February 1, 2009 he gives a synopsis of his theory of the case in which he paints Casey Anthony as a lazy, foul-mouthed liar who killed her child and was too stupid to realize that the body would be found when she disposed of it so close to the Anthony home, Mr. Knechel's theory paints Ms. Anthony as just another dumb party girl willing to do anything to maintain her dumb party girl image. He asserts his belief that Caylees's death was the result of a premeditated crime and murdering Caylee was the way for Ms. Anthony to return to her carefree days of her childhood. Mr Knechel goes as far as to assert that Ms. Anthony was a psychopath with low self-esteem who sometimes has a violent side and whose impulsive nature is what led her to kill Caylee. The blog entry concludes by asseting that Ms. Anthony is another murderer who deserves punishment and that when she does, Ms. Anthony will become a footnote in history. These are the very assertions to which Judge Strickland was presumably referring when he concluded that Mr. Knechel has "the best blog going out there", one that is "really fair"

The motion goes on to assert (among other things) political motivations, publicity seeking, and bias against the entire defense team, citing JS complaint to the bar about JB.

 

[JBean]

Not to defend MD, because I believe he not only willingly stepped into this himself, and with both feet, but, the content of his "Casey must die" article was not what you would expect from the title. It was only his shock-value way of announcing that the State was seeking the DP.

In fact, MD has stated more than once that he isn't an advocate of the DP.

Oh thank you. once again I have fallen victim to headline.

<-----Jbean

I better read the article because wasn't it an issue early on that AL was saying the state was basically saying "KC must die?"would kind of bolster that notion. Ok I will go find it and read now in case that is referenced and before I make an idiot out of myself..again.

 

[JBean]

From my perspective....

We don't know the exact content of words spoken between the two. On his blog, MD claims JS stated he (MD) has been fair and balanced in this case

In the interview attached to the motion, MD does not include the "in this case" wording...

MD blogs on many subjects, including diabetes, grilling, marinades, etc...you can see numerous links on the top of his page

Which leads me to my next speculation....IF JS did indeed make a comment to MD about his blog, do we know for a fact that it was in relation to this particular case????

I see the issue that makes sense. Ok better git myself up to speed.
But I honestly don't think JS was talking about fair and balanced marinades.

 

[TorisMom003]

There was Dc stuff covered in the Motion. I believe that Js fell for a rumor that Dc heard thru hearsay that Jb said something unethical. So the Judge made a complaint to the state bar. Js has had it out for Jb all along. Kc needs an impartial Judge. Hope he steps down, but I know he wont. IMO

Are there any facts to back up the "JS has had it out for JB all along" line? I have not seen that at all in any of the court hearings. When a defense team goes to court for a motions hearing about having their client declared indigent one would expect said defense team to be prepared for court with copies of where the money already spent went. However this defense team went to court completely unprepared. Judge Strickland did not say anything negative towards the defense team concerning this incident.

Perhaps a lawyer can weigh in here but could a judge hold the defense in contempt for some of the things that this defense team have done so far? For instance not handing over discovery to the SAs when a ruling had been made and the defense had been given a deadline and the defense ignored that deadline and did not turn over the discovery.

If I recall correctly Judge Strickland did not make a complaint to the bar against Baez because of something that Baez said. Wasn't it because of Baez making deals with media for payments for photos on Casey's behalf? Or was it because of the "improper" relationship between Baez and Casey? I seem to remember both of those being issues with which Judge Strickland felt that Baez was not behaving in the manner that he should be. Someone please tell me if my thoughts are confused.

I have seen Judge Strickland bend over backwards for Baez and the rest of the defense team when most other judges would have lost their patience with the defense's antics a long time ago.

 

[butterfly1978]

Okay, I am going to actually read the motion now and will have tons of questions along the way...

First off Why was the defense doing an investigative interview with a blogger in the fiorst place on April 11... What information would the blogger have about the death of Caylee?

How is the Judge being prejudice by stating that he thinks a blogger is fair and that he admired him? It sounds like an opinion to me, and how does Casey think she will not get a fair trial because the Judge reads a blog. Okay, I do agree that C. D. and E. of part 1 of the motion is in favor of the Prosecution, but hasn't it also been stated that his blog is also favorable to the defense. Which means JS statement is accurate if its speaking of both sides.

PArt 5 makes no since. The Judge does not decide KC's gui;t or innocents a jury does so I dont get that part/

Caseys handwrighting is really telling on the motion. I don't think she wanted to sign it, and did she just sign it with one name Casey? Does she think she is Cher or Madonna now?

How can the drafter of a motion notarize it as well? Is that legal?

 

[logicalgirl]

I see the issue that makes sense. Ok better git myself up to speed.
But I honestly don't think JS was talking about fair and balanced marinades.

I guess my question is - do we know for certain JS mentioned "fair and balanced" at all or was that simply MD's poetic license?

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Personally, I don't think Strickland used the "fair and balance" wording....I think those words were added in during the public retelling of the story since MD seems to continually have used those words to describe JS !

Since MD writes about a widely varied amount of subjects, Judge Strickland could very well have told MD, "You have a fairly balanced blog", meaning, you write about many, many things.

And then, MD took off with that to feed his own ego.

 

[JBean]

Personally, I don't think Strickland used the "fair and balance" wording....I think those words were added in during the public retelling of the story since MD seems to continually have used those words to describe JS !

Ok I am catching on. I will really get up to speed before posting. thanks kent :blowkiss:

 

[RR0004]

Okay, I am going to actually read the motion now and will have tons of questions along the way...

First off Why was the defense doing an investigative interview with a blogger in the fiorst place on April 11... What information would the blogger have about the death of Caylee?

How is the Judge being prejudice by stating that he thinks a blogger is fair and that he admired him? It sounds like an opinion to me, and how does Casey think she will not get a fair trial because the Judge reads a blog. Okay, I do agree that C. D. and E. of part 1 of the motion is in favor of the Prosecution, but hasn't it also been stated that his blog is also favorable to the defense. Which means JS statement is accurate if its speaking of both sides.

PArt 5 makes no since. The Judge does not decide KC's gui;t or innocents a jury does so I dont get that part/

Caseys handwrighting is really telling on the motion. I don't think she wanted to sign it, and did she just sign it with one name Casey? Does she think she is Cher or Madonna now?

How can the drafter of a motion notarize it as well? Is that legal?

My big question is...this is all Dave's say...correct? No one knows what exactly was said, right? With a headline like that, is it a stretch to say that Dave may have plumped up his story a bit?

 

[butterfly1978]

My big question is...this is all Dave's say...correct? No one knows what exactly was said, right? With a headline like that, is it a stretch to say that Dave may have plumped up his story a bit?

Exactly, have you ever played the telephone game? Or listened to a southerner (like me) tell you about the fish that got away?

 

[logicalgirl]

My big question is...this is all Dave's say...correct? No one knows what exactly was said, right? With a headline like that, is it a stretch to say that Dave may have plumped up his story a bit?

LOL - er...ummm.........also known as poetic license....:innocent:

 

[JBean]

Can someone point me to where we find out from JS what he actually did say to MD? because the stuff the MD is saying in news interviews and in the motion is bad!.
Trying to compare what Dave has reported and what we know to be the truth.
thanks still catching up.

ETA:Ok I see no one knows what was actually said except as dave reports is and he has not been consistent.

How do you all feel if what is reported is accurate? Do you think that is bad?

 

[mitzi]

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.

I'm behind a few pages still, and just using your post to post my own.

It seems that MD will allow "kooks" like JM to post their gibberish, claiming freedom of speech, but all posts from today, by posters who begged MD NOT to go on the blog talk radio, have been omitted...ALL OF THEM. Of course, it's his blog and I guess he can do what he wants, but just seems disingenuous to me.

Back to catching up.

 

[butterfly1978]

Can someone point me to where we find out from JS what he actually did say to MD? because the stuff the MD is saying in news interviews and in the motion is bad!.
Trying to compare what Dave has reported and what we know to be the truth.
thanks still catching up.

As far as I know there is no proof as to what was really said

Wow, Its been a long time since I have seen a thread with almost 1000 posts

 

[logicalgirl]

Can someone point me to where we find out from JS what he actually did say to MD? because the stuff the MD is saying in news interviews and in the motion is bad!.
Trying to compare what Dave has reported and what we know to be the truth.
thanks still catching up.

ETA:Ok I see no one knows what was actually said except as dave reports is and he has not been consistent.

How do you all feel if what is reported is accurate? Do you think that is bad?

That is one of the reasons we are all so indignant - JS cannot legally respond!

 

[JBean]

As far as I know there is no proof as to what was really said

Wow, Its been a long time since I have seen a thread with almost 1000 posts

It has been even longer since i have seen such heated argument about what was actually said and no one even knows what that is :floorlaugh:

 

[magic-cat]

I do not believe that any reasonable person would entertain the thought that they could not receive a fair trial from a judge who complimented a blogger who is sympathetic to their own case. How could a reasonable person reach that particular conclusion?

Also Marinade makes it clear in his response to this motion on his blog that there was more than one interview done with him on this. He states that he did not REALLY see the motion until after ALL the interviews were done. Question: What was the first date good ole Marinade was actually interviewed, considering he used the words ALL the interviewS. That is a plural for certain, so was the LAST interview the one on the date in this motion, or was that the first interview? And what WAS said in TOTALITY in all those interviews that were all done and over with before he got a look at the motion? And how is it that the media was interviewing him several hours BEFORE the motion was even filed ABOUT Judge Strickland again, I am still a little fuzzy on that one Dave...ESP must abound in this instance is all I know.

 

[mitzi]

Perry / Mason

Secrets allegedly being withheld from the defense.

Alleged judicial improprieties

Alleged Invisible Nanny's

Jailhouse memoirs


My question...... will this "straight to DVD" / "movie of the week" be released on a Tuesday which is standard practice....or on a Friday at 4:58 PM?

LOL! Not sure, but it will for sure be a multiple DVD set! :crazy: