Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[JBean]

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

well we all remember when he sought out Dave that day and that was a bit odd.

maybe nothing maybe something.

If MD reports all this stuff and the defense has no way of knowing if it is accurate or not, wouldn;t they be a bit derelict if they did not file this motion? i mean we can only go by what Dave reports and the same applies to the defense. They have the same information that we do.

 

[logicalgirl]

How do I feel if it is accurate?

Well, I have a hard time feeling it is accurate, however, if there is any possibility JS did comment on Marinade Dave's Caylee blog, rather than another topic - well first I would want to know:

What are the rules for Judge's comments regarding statements made during a private conversation? I saw no indication JS made his comments to MD as an "interview" for his blog, or that he expected to be quoted on Dave's blog.

Secondly, I think if the statements are accurate - this is a pretty homogenized statement to make about Dave's blog - I sure wouldn't have made such a "fair and balanced statement" at the time.

No harm - no foul IMO

 

[Dignity4Victims]

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.

I'm listening now to MD's radio interview today, and he remarks, "everyone has blown this completely out of proportion."

I'm not quite understanding how he can say that in earnest and with a clear conscience, considering he is the one who ran back to his blog after the Hearing and "blew it all out of proportion" for his own self-serving interest. :waitasec:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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?

Here's the zingger, JBean, it doesn't really matter if it's accurate or not. Here's what AZlawyer said about the rule earlier:

bbm

No, my point was that he has to grant the order if it is "legally sufficient," even if the facts alleged are completely false. It looks like, in Florida, you get one chance to do a motion to disqualify without proving your facts--and even if the judge knows perfectly well they are not true. After that, any additional motions to disqualify are more carefully scrutinized.

 

[mitzi]

To me he's just exchanging pleasantries - he recognized Dave and made small talk,which, being the gracious man he appears to be, included a compliment. Dave was feeling very flattered that JS recognized him and had seen his blog. He even composed some doggerel about it, he was a bit starstruck I think.
Here it is :-
It's Monday night and aren't we proud
That Judge S whispered Oh so loud
It's that man Dave I want to see
So Bailiff, please bring him to me
At that, surprised, our Dave did pause
To chastise me he has no cause
There must be something else amiss
The next few moments simply bliss
The good Judge said then 'I'm impressed'
And Dave was thinking 'I feel blessed'
What had transpired is no surprise
Our Dave's a hero in our Judge's eyes

As you can see, our Dave is given to using a little hyperbole.

Excuse me while I :sick:

 

[butwhatif?]

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.

The part of the motion I have highlighted in red is not fact though. It's opinion and interpretation. MD's headlines could have been, ahem ,misconstrued as having a bias against the defendant, but the content is generally viewed by most followers as pro-defense. KWIM?

Shouldn't the entire blog be taken into account, rather than it being based on a few select words that appear to be biased against the defendant?

We still don't know if MD embellished his story a little on the blog about his conversation with JS. I guess that's what it comes down to. We don't know which blog entry JS was referring to or if he commented about bias regarding the blog at all.

The motion does make it appear improper, but is it really? Only JS can answer that question.

 

[Marina2]

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?

We don't know for certain anything was said by JS. That's the sad part of all this. For the purposes of this motion the truth doesn't matter at all. All allegations will be taken as fact by the Court.

To quote Nancy Botwin "If the motion had alleged that JS had winked at MD and pulled a Casey Anthony voodoo doll out from under his robe, JS would have to accept that allegation was a fact too. That's how the rule operates."

Because of the absurdity of this rule, (can't challenge the truth of the allegations) I think JS will rule according to how he thinks an appeals court will read the motion. If he thinks it won't fly with them, he'll stay on. If he thinks there is any chance of a conviction being overturned because he stayed on, he'll recuse himself.

The good thing is that KC has only one shot at having a judge disqualified based on a bunch of unproven allegations. Next time, she'll have to back it up with facts.

 

[miss plum]

I'm listening now to MD's radio interview today, and he remarks, "everyone has blown this completely out of proportion."

I'm not quite understanding how he can say that in earnest and with a clear conscience, considering he is the one who ran back to his blog after the Hearing and "blew it all out of proportion" for his own self-serving interest. :waitasec:

Are you suggesting he marinated his story to add extra flavor?

 

[JBean]

Are you suggesting he marinated his story to add extra flavor?

But he did it in a really fair way.

 

[magic-cat]

I just saw in one news article where Marinade says of his relationship with his honor, I wouldn't say we're friends. That's it. He does not clarify that whatsoever! He is up to his neck in this muck with the defense and he is not helping as is his claim of what he wishes. I call foul on Marinade...

But sadly we can only look at their allegations in the motion, and what a reasonable person would presume from those allegations, assuming they are true. I, as a reasonable person, would think Wow! What a cool judge! He actually thinks that the blogger, one of the only ones who doesn't trash me out utterly and completely, is being fair...Cool.

MOTION DENIED!

 

[Astraea]

Well that is NOT what you said in your post #658.
" The HEARING was not over by any means".

For the sake of accuracy, when you are supporting a motion that tries to impugn the reputation of a fine Judge, it might be better if you stick to either Hearing or Case or Trial , as they are not interchangeable.
But since you are backtracking on what you said I will leave it at that.

I try to use the appropriate term according to the context I am using it in at the time. My apologies if any poster finds that confusing. It is of course not my intention. A case, a trial, a hearing, all different things imho.

 

[magic-cat]

well we all remember when he sought out Dave that day and that was a bit odd.

maybe nothing maybe something.

If MD reports all this stuff and the defense has no way of knowing if it is accurate or not, wouldn;t they be a bit derelict if they did not file this motion? i mean we can only go by what Dave reports and the same applies to the defense. They have the same information that we do.

Well the defense sent out their private eye to interview Marinade, how many times is a mystery, but MD says ALL the interviews were over before he REALLY even saw the motion, so that to me indicates they delved into it pretty deeply with him. And remember, Dave is actually an Anthony and defense sympathizer, and if you read the actual stories and not just the headlines that were included with the motion? They are partial to KC and not biased against the defense in least. The defense has WAY more info than we do considering they interviewed him extensively and also recorded said interviews, but cut out BIG CHUNKS of the the interviews when doing the transcription for having been "off subject".:blushing:

 

[magic-cat]

Excuse me while I :sick:

I will join you. I have already read that several times and the ego of the man is astoundingly LARGE. He developed a HERO complex out of a small compliment about the fairness of his blog? Good lord! :banghead:

 

[miss plum]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the next undisputed winner of the 'Padilla of the Week' award is....

 

[mitzi]

Thanks! And I agree it's a problem!
I'm reposting this explanation of the truth/falsity issue too because I think it might help illuminate things. Like you are all flushing out here, it doesn't matter if the defense's allegations are actually false. JS has to look at them as if they are true, even if he knows them to be false.

Judge Strickland has to look at all the allegations in the motion as facts (JS called him at the hospital, summoned him to the bench, said MD's blog was "the best" etc. etc.) If the motion had alleged that JS had winked at MD and pulled a Casey Anthony voodoo doll out from under his robe, JS would have to accept that allegation was a fact too. That's how the rule operates.

The legal sufficiency is determined by contemplating whether the facts alleged were "reasonably sufficient" to cause a "reasonably prudent" party (in this case, Casey Anthony) to believe she won't receive a "fair and impartial" hearing/trial before that judge.

A subjective fear of bias is not legally sufficient. The judge's history of issuing adverse rulings against the moving party is not legally sufficient.

IMO the facts alleged in the motion aren't sufficient to withstand the reasonableness/objective fear test, whereas the winking/voodoo doll brandishing hypothetical would be legally sufficient, if that offers any clarity?

Bold mine.

Nancy, I just have to say, this is the most succinct explanation for law dummies, like me! Thank you! :blowkiss:

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I will join you. I have already read that several times and the ego of the man is astoundingly LARGE. He developed a HERO complex out of a small compliment about the fairness of his blog? Good lord! :banghead:

Trust me, if you think his blog reflects his ego, you do not want to listen to his blog interview!

It's amazing that any one person could be so in love with himself, think of himself as such a 'celebrity', and then at the end of his interview, he begs to be allowed to broadcast the addy of his website to garner even more attention.

Does this man not learn, or what?

 

[ynotdivein]

IMO this motion to dismiss JS is a perfect micro-cosm of this entire case. It is literally a psychologically significant blueprint of the defense's current mindset. And both this motion and this case place us squarely in a new paradigm, a recently and contingently constructed reality. Let us take a virtual tour of this brave new world.

Welcome to a dimension…

Where the wainscoting is perennially befouled with desiccated spaghetti that never quite stuck to the wall.

Where even CA/GA flinch at the sound of squealing bus tires a block or so away.

Where judge-shopping is the fashion du jour because judges cannot be trusted to abide by jure (but wait isn't there going to be a JURY?)

Where a "sociopath" (CA's term) "mother of the year" (also CA's term) shakes her booty for her "boys" and the boys behind the camera, before, during AND after her baby decays for how many days inside trash bags inside a laundry bag in swampy land half a mile from the only place that baby likely knew as home (her mother's boyfriends' beds and carseat meds aside).

-----

Oh wait um, back to reality. Sorry 'bout that digression. So JS had a conversation at the end of a hearing with someone who writes stuff on the interwebs, and that someone then gets puffed up and writes his version of alleged convo on his blog? Hm.

Next doc dump in T minus how many days, and counting...

Oop and btw MOO!

 

[logicalgirl]

The part of the motion I have highlighted in red is not fact though. It's opinion and interpretation. MD's headlines could have been, ahem ,misconstrued as having a bias against the defendant, but the content is generally viewed by most followers as pro-defense. KWIM?

Shouldn't the entire blog be taken into account, rather than it being based on a few select words that appear to be biased against the defendant?

We still don't know if MD embellished his story a little on the blog about his conversation with JS. I guess that's what it comes down to. We don't know which blog entry JS was referring to or if he commented about bias regarding the blog at all.

The motion does make it appear improper, but is it really? Only JS can answer that question.

Geez I got my head bitten off at the very beginning of this thread by saying MD was pro-defense, even when I corrected it to pro-Anthony parents it fell like a stone.

 

[logicalgirl]

And let me say this about this supposed phone call FROM JS to MD while he was in the hospital for tests.

When he was sent to the hospital, he posted this information on his blog, as well as a photo of from inside his room, along with the hospital name, room number and phone number.

As many who have read his blog know, MD has gotten involved in quite a few very brutal form/blog wars over the last several months and to state he has his share of detractors is an understatement.

So WHO is to say that the phone call he claims to have received from JS sending "well wishes" was ACTUALLY from JS, and not someone he had engaged during one of the wars who thought it would be funny to "trick" MD after he bragged so much about his "relationship" with JS, and wanted to see if he would then post about this "phone call"???

Could have happened....

Have I told you lately I love the way your brain thinks? Devious suspicions ferreted out! Excellent - what a delicious thought re the phone call! I can actually see that happening....IMO

 

[miss plum]

logicalgirl, i just noticed that was your 999th post!