Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[mitzi]

So the requirement is ten days after the defense becomes aware of impropriety, even if it happened six months ago? I'm trying to understand exactly what the time frame is. I thought it was ten days from when the impropriety happened, not ten days from when the defense found out about it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just heavily confused on when this ten day time period was supposed to start. It seems ludicrous to me that six months could go by and they not notice this, and then they have ten days after finding out about it to make a motion? This doesn't seem fair or legal.

And do we know exactly when that supposed telephone call happened? I've heard talk about it, but not exactly when it allegedly happened. I don't think it happened less than ten days ago unless I'm wrong.

I also wanted to say I really respect your opinion, and you've clarified a lot things for all of us here. Thanks so much for being here with us!

Bold mine.

I agree with the bolded above (by me)...and how does the PI or the defense prove that they discovered this within 10 days of filing their motion? Do we and the court just take them at their word? Hmmmmm....hard to do, in my opinion.

Personally, I think it's more like how ever many days since Mason joined the team...and I think that's more than 10 days. Baez doesn't have the smarts to come up with this motion against the Judge.

 

[spqr]

Wasn't he notarizing Casey Anthony's signature?

I believe he was. I was trying to answer a question for another poster as to whether or not a notary could notarize their own sig. :thumb:

 

[mitzi]

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!

Bold mine.

Have you listened to the blog radio talk? They ask if he is friends with the Judge, and he hems and haws...what he should have said is: NO, WE ARE NOT FRIENDS!....Of course, that wouldn't bring more "fame" and "new bloggers" to MD, now would it. :furious:

 

[TorisMom003]

Do we have a handwriting specialist on board here at WS? I still don't think that the signature from this motion is actually Casey's signature. I know that there are "tells" that a person can not do away with when writing even when they try to disguise their handwriting. I look at the comparisons on post number 177 of this thread and they look nothing alike to me. The Cs are completely different as are the Ys.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8845&d=1271463040

 

[Soju]

No, do you have authority on this matter? Do you work in the criminal court system? Do you disagree with the ethical rules laid out in the motion? This can be solved easily. If you feel it is okay for a Judge to say such a thing as Kc Anthony and the truth are strangers, is okay and you have no issue with it at all, then just say so. I feel the opposite. I want Judge's to be responsible and impartial. That is my opinion.

You're missing the point of WHEN he made the statement that CA and the truth are strangers. That's crucial. He made the statement when he was RENDERING A VERDICT on the bail issue. Judges are NOT neutral when they make decisions, nor should they be. They have to give reasons for their decisions, and he was giving reasons as to why her bail was being set so high. The end. To take his statement out of the legally appropriate context is to be very disengenuous, IMO. When you say you want judges to be responsible and impartial, taking JS's comments IN THE APPROPRIATE CONTEXT, he has been just that.

 

[static]

I think the defense has beat a good horse to death on this one. If only Judge Judy could take over...

 

[butwhatif?]

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.

Okay, let me make it very clear that I have read only ONE of MD's blog entries, that was linked earlier in the thread. I'm basing the 'pro-defense' thing on the single blog entry I read where MD himself insinuates that people see him as being too sympathetic toward the A clan .(Like telling him not to sit on the defense side of the courtroom).

What he wrote in that single entry does not sound anti-defense, the way the motion makes him out to be.

For example:

I must be honest with you. As much as you may despise these people, George and Cindy Anthony are a very attractive couple in real life. When the hearing ended, Casey turned around and I saw her face to face as she walked in my direction. No matter how ugly you feel she is inside, she is still a pretty girl. She was short, no doubt, and and not as chunky as her latest jail photos show. She’s still quite petite. I wanted to get an up close and personal look at her and I did. Did she look like a cold-hearted baby killer? I can’t say. Is there a certain look? Did I miss something? All I can tell you is that she was there, and without these charges, she would still be Casey. It didn’t appear that over a year in jail has hardened or aged her.

Notice how MD says "YOU", not " I "? That gives me the impression that he is saying you "You guys think this, but I'm still on the fence". The 'Did I miss something' implies that she doesn't look like a killer. Hardly anti-defense IMO.

I've been torn about reading ALL of his blog entries, because part of me feels like it's so unimportant anyway, and I don't want to give the defense any more ammunition by looking at what he has had to say, and giving it the appearance of him having more followers than he did before this motion.


Gosh, I'm going around in cirlcles in my own head. :banghead:

MD and the defense have turned much ado about nothing into something potentially VERY expensive for tax-payers.

But what's worse is, this case seems to be about everyone EXCEPT Caylee Marie Anthony.

JMO

 

[southernbrunette]

Defense may have to re-file this motion, as it was signed and notarized by this GREAT attorney CM and his notary expired in November. I'm sure if they want to play this game, JS can play it too.

http://www.wftv.com/news/23190216/detail.html

 

[darnudes]

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 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 forum/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....

This is actually a really great theory, and I wouldn't put it past some of them for a moment, but I don't think this is what happened. JS has a pretty distinctive voice and you would have to be very talented to imitate that.

 

[LancelotLink]

Let me give this one a try.

JS made that statement when confirming Casey's charges, after admitting her own testimony that she lied to officers, after testimony was submitted to the court disproving Casey's statements about how and where she left Casey, and after Casey refused to give LE any further statements.

JS wasn't making a flippant general comment, he was commenting on the content of that particular hearing. That nothing had been submitted by either the SA OR the defense that verified Casey was telling the truth about anything. Thus JS's comment the truth and Miss Anthony are strangers.

That was the truth for that particular hearing. confirmed by Casey herself. I'm not understanding why there is an issue with that.

I agree. The statement "The truth and Ms Anthony are strangers," was a succinct explanation of why he was ruling the way he did at her bond hearing. He was letting her know, this is why we are where we are.

 

[LancelotLink]

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.

This sucketh!

 

[butwhatif?]

Quote from MD:

Originally, I gave her very good advice. I told her to be careful who she talked to and what she said. She told me she always told the truth and had nothing to hide. OK, fine, but remember that everything you say may be scrutinized later on

(bbm) Why can't people ever seem to take their own advice? :banghead:


ETA: Is it just me or does this page seem more of a well-rounded, balanced blog than the main one we've looked at? Wonder which one JSS was referring to, if he did actually refer to it at all?

http://marinadedave.blogspot.com/se...d-max=2011-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=6

But, more importantly, the 2009 page of entries:
http://marinadedave.blogspot.com/se...-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=16

Hmm, now what if JS had read this blog, that doesn't even MENTION Caylee or the case in 2009 when they had the discussion, and JS noticed him in the courtroom, and had him sought out by the court officer to have a chat, not knowing that MD has another blog that focuses a lot on the Caylee case?

I can see the possiblility that JS could be giving kudos for a well rounded blog that covered everything from art, to food, to history, and personal health written by some guy called Marinade Dave.

And I can imagine MD seeing that as a compliment and automatically thinking that the judge was referring to the blog that covers the case, and thinking that well-rounded was the same as 'unbiased', and got all caught up in the moment and posted what he did on the other blog.


Am I making sense? Lol, I know what I'm trying to say, just hope you guys are following. The pages speak for themselves. Compare the two I've just linked to the following:

http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/state-releases-more-evidence-today/

 

[miss plum]

Maybe he did take his own advice and this current scrutiny was his aim.

 

[Aedrys]

Maybe he did take his own advice and this current scrutiny was his aim.

Possibly. He's removed the last two posts (the one where he responded to the motion and the one where he went on blog talk radio) and the only thing left now is his new response, which is short and sweet and says he thinks the judge shouldn't step down and this is just a diversionary tactic. Oh, and he addressed rumors about the media interview, which I swear seems to stem from things we were saying here!

Yet he STILL has that dang poem on the right hand side. He really should take that down if he believes in Judge Strickland.

And I'm not sure he's going to have many readers left. Apparently he's not even respecting those who support him anymore. So tell me, Dave, who's going to read your blog if you're against everyone who reads it?

Oh well, the defense may have to refile anyway. I hope they do and it's past the ten day time period. That would just be awesome!

 

[diz39]

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

BBM. This may be totally off topic, but this was the first thread I started here, and I am thrilled how everyone has responded with lots of good thoughts and insight. Yay!
:dance::dance::dance::dance:

 

[magic-cat]

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.

A lot has changed/been uncovered since then, and I know I myself did a 360 when I came to the realization that Marinade Man is what you call an Anthony lover...especially after I saw him sitting in the same row with the family of the Inmate Anthony and discovered he had passed his card to Jose Baez in a PREVIOUS hearing and that he had brought something to court for Brad Conway that he received from a private source. Bah humbug Dave! Assisting in the ruination of a GREAT mans reputation won't win you any brownie points buddy.:banghead:

Defense may have to re-file this motion, as it was signed and notarized by this GREAT attorney CM and his notary expired in November. I'm sure if they want to play this game, JS can play it too.

http://www.wftv.com/news/23190216/detail.html

His notary commission was NOT expired. He just either used the wrong stamo or was too cheap to spring for a new one?:blushing:

This sucketh!

Big TIME! :furious:

 

[magic-cat]

[/b]

BBM. This may be totally off topic, but this was the first thread I started here, and I am thrilled how everyone has responded with lots of good thoughts and insight. Yay!
:dance::dance::dance::dance:

You did GOOD! This one is a doozy for certain!

 

[magic-cat]

Possibly. He's removed the last two posts (the one where he responded to the motion and the one where he went on blog talk radio) and the only thing left now is his new response, which is short and sweet and says he thinks the judge shouldn't step down and this is just a diversionary tactic. Oh, and he addressed rumors about the media interview, which I swear seems to stem from things we were saying here!

Yet he STILL has that dang poem on the right hand side. He really should take that down if he believes in Judge Strickland.

And I'm not sure he's going to have many readers left. Apparently he's not even respecting those who support him anymore. So tell me, Dave, who's going to read your blog if you're against everyone who reads it?

Oh well, the defense may have to refile anyway. I hope they do and it's past the ten day time period. That would just be awesome!

Luckily we have at least quoted portions of that original blog showing his REAL STORY! He gave himself away and now he is HIDING THAT FACT! Real professional there Marinade Man...real media man aren't you? NOT!:banghead:

 

[JBean]

Just as an aside. when a poster says "I know" something will happen in the future,
like
I know KC will be convicted or
I know JS will not recuse himself or
I know that Cindy will be charged with obstruction
you can deduce it is their opinion without them saying "jmho" because it is in the future and has not happened yet. It cannot be a linkable fact and can only be opinion. So let's not play the show me a link for something that I know will happen in in the future game.
please and thank you

where this post lands is random AND if you don't know what I am talking about don't worry be happy.


ETA: As always the flip side of that is,if there is a fact of this case that is documented clearly, please don't state things to the contrary because it is counterproductive and you will be called out so fast by the members it will make your head spin.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I believe you can get a cached copy of the page as it appeared before edits by googling the heading and adding cache to the search.