Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Schmerty_Jones]

Oh I agree. I am just trying to figure out why they might think this is a good idea. :waitasec:

Don't try to figure out these ridiculous motions & the defense asking to get rid of the State & now the brilliant & capable Judge.
This ladies & gents is a CIRCUS!!!! We are (at least I am) to old for these not so amusing high-jinks. Bozo the clown shooting himself in the foot ..not funny!! Now if it were his head that may be effective. They want some way to get Casey out of jail. Innocent they say she is!. I am not so sure Casey want to go back into society! She has alienated her family. She has no skills so doesn't want to work, no qualifications ,& is so notorious most of her party friends would not be seen dead with her. I'm not sure even Casey doesn't want the death penalty especially now she has found religion. She would like most of all some friendly inmates to manipulate & three squares & a cot daily & she doesn't have to work or take care of a kid. I'm tired of watching her & the dishonest defense . Enough already. I wish Judge Strickland the best ,practicing his admirable skills & talent!

 

[LambChop]

LambChop, it appears that, in Florida, the judge is not allowed to question or deny the facts alleged in the first motion to disqualify filed by a party:

Fla. Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.330(f)

The judge
against whom an initial motion to disqualify under
subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the
legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on
the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally
sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order
granting disqualification and proceed no further in the
action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order
denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No
other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of
denial shall not take issue with the motion.

:banghead:

So basically if he denies the order it can be determined that he finds no truth in the allegations; if he steps down JS as good as admits he feels he acted improperly. Let's hope he does the right thing. JMO

ETA: Do you think, as an attorney, that this will "tick off" a lot of the legal community? If JB had something substantial I could see it. But this is just "cry baby" stuff. Really is this the best the defense can do? Chasing ex-wives of RK, TES searchers and bloggers when we still have not seen a composite of Zani the Nanny.

 

[sleutherontheside]

With Tricia's permission I am linking to Marinade Dave's Blog. His latest post responding to the motion regarding Judge Strickland is not only explosive, but thought provoking. http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/

A snip with all credit to MD. Please visit his blog for the rest of the story and comments.

When private investigator Jerry Lyons came calling last Sunday, I had no idea of the tack the defense would ultimately take. The guy was as smooth as butter. To be truthful, he was exactly like a car salesman who loads you up with all the options without you knowing it and before long, you pay a huge price. First, he plied me with compliments about my blog. Then, he asked me whether Casey could get a fair trial in Orlando. He questioned my friendship with police, especially Sgt. John Allen of OCSO. He segued into the judge and before I knew what he was doing, he got me to talk. Mind you, as soon as I realized what he was up to, I told him the defense would be stupid, stupid, stupid for going after Judge Strickland and I stopped. But it was too late.


Clearly, it was a pick and choose edit intended to do one thing and one thing only: nail the judge to a cross. How naive I was, but did I purposely help the defense? Not in your life. Did I think this selectively taped conversation would work against the judge? No, not initially, and I only spoke to him to begin with because I felt there was nothing to hide; that the state, law enforcement and the judge were on solid ground.

Had the defense cited ALL of my posts, it would see there is a fair and open-minded balance of views, to which my loyal readers will attest. How dare an unrefined, wet-behind-the-ear lawyer and an over-the-hill windbag attorney write such drivel. Ask my critics whether I am an Anthony lover or not and see what response you get.

 

[LambChop]

Don't try to figure out these ridiculous motions & the defense asking to get rid of the State & now the brilliant & capable Judge.
This ladies & gents is a CIRCUS!!!! We are (at least I am) to old for these not so amusing high-jinks. Bozo the clown shooting himself in the foot ..not funny!! Now if it were his head that may be effective. They want some way to get Casey out of jail. Innocent they say she is!. I am not so sure Casey want to go back into society! She has alienated her family. She has no skills so doesn't want to work, no qualifications ,& is so notorious most of her party friends would not be seen dead with her. I'm not sure even Casey doesn't want the death penalty especially now she has found religion. She would like most of all some friendly inmates to manipulate & three squares & a cot daily & she doesn't have to work or take care of a kid. I'm tired of watching her & the dishonest defense . Enough already. I wish Judge Strickland the best ,practicing his admirable skills & talent!

I think KC hopes they have "pole dancing & shot girls" in Costa Rica. Apparently her plans are when she gets out, change hair color, change name, buy RV and drive to Costa Rica. Oh one more thing, sunglasses, gotta have the sunglasses cause she's a celeb, you know.

 

[miss plum]

With Tricia's permission I am linking to Marinade Dave's Blog. His latest post responding to the motion regarding Judge Strickland is not only explosive, but thought provoking. http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/

A snip with all credit to MD. Please visit his blog for the rest of the story and comments.

When private investigator Jerry Lyons came calling last Sunday, I had no idea of the tack the defense would ultimately take. The guy was as smooth as butter. To be truthful, he was exactly like a car salesman who loads you up with all the options without you knowing it and before long, you pay a huge price. First, he plied me with compliments about my blog. Then, he asked me whether Casey could get a fair trial in Orlando. He questioned my friendship with police, especially Sgt. John Allen of OCSO. He segued into the judge and before I knew what he was doing, he got me to talk. Mind you, as soon as I realized what he was up to, I told him the defense would be stupid, stupid, stupid for going after Judge Strickland and I stopped. But it was too late.


Clearly, it was a pick and choose edit intended to do one thing and one thing only: nail the judge to a cross. How naive I was, but did I purposely help the defense? Not in your life. Did I think this selectively taped conversation would work against the judge? No, not initially, and I only spoke to him to begin with because I felt there was nothing to hide; that the state, law enforcement and the judge were on solid ground.

Had the defense cited ALL of my posts, it would see there is a fair and open-minded balance of views, to which my loyal readers will attest. How dare an unrefined, wet-behind-the-ear lawyer and an over-the-hill windbag attorney write such drivel. Ask my critics whether I am an Anthony lover or not and see what response you get.

And that, my friends, is why I wish with all my heart that well-meaning civilians would not insert themselves into high profile cases; the risk of their ego overtaking their judgement is too great. The defense knew how much Marinade Dave loves to be praised, a quick perusal of his blog would have shown them that. He was a fish in a barrel. I'm sorry he feels bad, and I'm sure he is a very nice man, and he does write well, and his blog does seem to be balanced, but the sad, bald fact is that his ego has created yet another roadblock for the prosecution.

 

[strawberry]

How many PIs does the defense have anyway? This Lyons guy isn't the same one who was taped by the searcher is he?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Let's do our best to discuss points raised in the motion and points raised by MD. Let's not discuss or dissect MD. Tricia was gracious enough to allow me to post the info and link to a blog as it is timely and relevant to the thread. I do not want to regret posting this information and possibly contributing to a discussion of MD's character as a person or blogger. Do me proud fellow members.

 

[LambChop]

With Tricia's permission I am linking to Marinade Dave's Blog. His latest post responding to the motion regarding Judge Strickland is not only explosive, but thought provoking. http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/

A snip with all credit to MD. Please visit his blog for the rest of the story and comments.

When private investigator Jerry Lyons came calling last Sunday, I had no idea of the tack the defense would ultimately take. The guy was as smooth as butter. To be truthful, he was exactly like a car salesman who loads you up with all the options without you knowing it and before long, you pay a huge price. First, he plied me with compliments about my blog. Then, he asked me whether Casey could get a fair trial in Orlando. He questioned my friendship with police, especially Sgt. John Allen of OCSO. He segued into the judge and before I knew what he was doing, he got me to talk. Mind you, as soon as I realized what he was up to, I told him the defense would be stupid, stupid, stupid for going after Judge Strickland and I stopped. But it was too late.


Clearly, it was a pick and choose edit intended to do one thing and one thing only: nail the judge to a cross. How naive I was, but did I purposely help the defense? Not in your life. Did I think this selectively taped conversation would work against the judge? No, not initially, and I only spoke to him to begin with because I felt there was nothing to hide; that the state, law enforcement and the judge were on solid ground.

Had the defense cited ALL of my posts, it would see there is a fair and open-minded balance of views, to which my loyal readers will attest. How dare an unrefined, wet-behind-the-ear lawyer and an over-the-hill windbag attorney write such drivel. Ask my critics whether I am an Anthony lover or not and see what response you get.

I LOVE IT This is a must read. I love you Dave. I was never a fan of his blog but I will read from now on. Let's give the man a hand. :Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie: He tells it like it is.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

With Tricia's permission I am linking to Marinade Dave's Blog. His latest post responding to the motion regarding Judge Strickland is not only explosive, but thought provoking. http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/

A snip with all credit to MD. Please visit his blog for the rest of the story and comments.

When private investigator Jerry Lyons came calling last Sunday, I had no idea of the tack the defense would ultimately take. The guy was as smooth as butter. To be truthful, he was exactly like a car salesman who loads you up with all the options without you knowing it and before long, you pay a huge price. First, he plied me with compliments about my blog. Then, he asked me whether Casey could get a fair trial in Orlando. He questioned my friendship with police, especially Sgt. John Allen of OCSO. He segued into the judge and before I knew what he was doing, he got me to talk. Mind you, as soon as I realized what he was up to, I told him the defense would be stupid, stupid, stupid for going after Judge Strickland and I stopped. But it was too late.


Clearly, it was a pick and choose edit intended to do one thing and one thing only: nail the judge to a cross. How naive I was, but did I purposely help the defense? Not in your life. Did I think this selectively taped conversation would work against the judge? No, not initially, and I only spoke to him to begin with because I felt there was nothing to hide; that the state, law enforcement and the judge were on solid ground.

Had the defense cited ALL of my posts, it would see there is a fair and open-minded balance of views, to which my loyal readers will attest. How dare an unrefined, wet-behind-the-ear lawyer and an over-the-hill windbag attorney write such drivel. Ask my critics whether I am an Anthony lover or not and see what response you get.

The points he raised sound like backpedalling. He is not convincing to me at all. Don't believe he was 'tricked'. I think he sounds embarrassed and his points in that blog are self serving.

 

[beach]

Well, the first thing that comes to my mind after readying Dave's article is - another one under the bus. Mason & Baez should be careful to look in the rearview mirror 'cause they are dangerously close to backing over their own client. Ooops. ahhh....karma.

I was glad to read that Dave regretted ever posting anything on his blog about his post-hearing private conversation with JS. I can understand getting caught up in the moment and wanting to be loyal to your readers by relaying your experience. But, yeah....in retrospect, not such a great choice.

The defense is stupid for this cheap shot. Hey guys....ya know that jury pool you're so worried about tainting? Well, they're catching wind of this too, ya know. These are exactly the kind of dishonest, manipulative strategies that give defense lawyers a bad name. I'm sorry for those attorneys that work their arses off to defend their clients and while adhering to ethical standards. I really feel bad for JS and Dave. I'm just totally disgusted by Cheney Mason and his buddy Jeremy Lyons.

Ugh. I suddenly feel the need for a shower.

 

[beach]

hey SOTS, I was typing before I read your most recent post. Edit or delete as you see fit. Thanks so much for linking the article! :blowkiss:

 

[LambChop]

Let's do our best to discuss points raised in the motion and points raised by MD. Let's not discuss or dissect MD. Tricia was gracious enough to allow me to post the info and link to a blog as it is timely and relevant to the thread. I do not want to regret posting this information and possibly contributing to a discussion of MD's character as a person or blogger. Do me proud fellow members.

Sorry sleutherontheside. I did not see this message when I posted. Just got carried away. I read those blogs that were raised in the motion and I wondered, too, if JB actually read them, or was I misreading them myself. I thought MD was being very fair and the title was misleading. But then that is what reporters do. Post a title that will draw you into the article and it is sometimes misleading. All-in-all from what I read he seemed to focus on the facts just as he did in the video about how Suburban Drive appears now. jmo

 

[Macushla]

Let's do our best to discuss points raised in the motion and points raised by MD. Let's not discuss or dissect MD. Tricia was gracious enough to allow me to post the info and link to a blog as it is timely and relevant to the thread. I do not want to regret posting this information and possibly contributing to a discussion of MD's character as a person or blogger. Do me proud fellow members.

I will try very hard to step lightly here, but MD's character does come into play here, as he stresses in his blog - and yes, I did go and read it. He admits he fell for the PI's flattery and that started the ball rolling. I understand him being angry that they have taken a lot of his writing out of context and he has the right to be. I am sure he did not want any of this to happen, but he fell for, as he put it, the used car salesman act knowing in advance that he was talking to someone from the defense team. Why did he think they were talking to him? I am given to understand he has blogged about how people are being dragged into this mess, did he think the defense wanted advice from him?

Sorry, I will stop before I go any further. But as he put himself out there in this particular article, I do think his actions and his explanations are subject to discussion.

 

[notthatsmart]

Mods, pls move/delete if inappropriate. Just heard on Channel 13 that the defense had made a motion to have Judge Strickland removed for his conversation with Marinade Dave.
Looking for link..... Live now Channel 13

After he made his comment about Kc and the truth are strangers , I knew his true colors would end up shining at some point. He is not impartial. He has ruled accordingly. The defense has nothing to lose by doing this. IMO

 

[Numbers]

The points he raised sound like backpedalling. He is not convincing to me at all. Don't believe he was 'tricked'. I think he sounds embarrassed and his points in that blog are self serving.

ITA. I find his blog in general self-serving.

I also deplore his request that his followers email and call this PI to tell him he is an idiot (or worse). What if this PI investigates and/or takes action against these people? Seems MD can't see very far past his out-of-joint nose.

 

[sleutherontheside]

The reason I posted the info and link to his blog was to offer some support to the theories that:

The interview was heavily edited.
There was another perspective to consider.
The defense may utilize legal but morally unethical tactics.

That said.......I am not supporting MD's blog entry as fact, nor am I citing him as a media reference. BUT.....as MD is a party that has been referenced in the defense motion, I think it only fair to point out that..... It appears to be a standard practice of the defense investigative team, to interview, video, record, and transcribe their personal interviews with people without any formal "swearing in" or final transcript approval by the interviewees.

Is it illegal to attach an edited transcript as part of a motion? No it is not. But I have to wonder........why go through the trouble of an interview and the expense of transcription and video.....if it can't be VALIDATED?

And again...I will remind people not to use this thread to dissect MD. This thread is about the motion.......and while we are allowed to discuss the points raised by MD.......the thread is not about MD. We are above the sites that resort to trash and bash. Use this new info to fuel constructive discussion not criticism. Consider it like your own personal "energy bar". Power on my friends.

 

[beach]

Okay, well I do have a valid point that I think should be discussed. (Well, at least I think it is valid. )

I have a real problem with the 'breaks' in the motion - why does Cheney Mason get to decide what is relevant to include/exclude. I realize it is HIS motion, but it reeks of dishonesty. The odor is so rauncy I can smell it 1,000 miles away. If you want to use the 'interview' to back up your motion, use ALL OF IT or NOTHING.

Also, why just include the inflammatory TITLES of Dave's post with absolutely nothing substantial that alludes to the content, which was more often than not PRO-DEFENSE?!? It is more than misleading...it is DISHONEST.

I have a MAJOR problem with those two things, in particular. Personally, I think JS should go back to sitting on his rainbow, say "Motion DENIED. Do we have any other business to take care of today?"

 

[Horace Finklestein]

After he made his comment about Kc and the truth are strangers , I knew his true colors would end up shining at some point. He is not impartial. He has ruled accordingly. The defense has nothing to lose by doing this. IMO

That's nonsense. Strickland has been overly fair and generous with the defense. I think the defense has a lot to lose by doing this because the next judge may be a bit stricter. It seems more likely that a judge would be more strict than less strict imo. It saddens me to see Judge Strickland painted as unfair, it's just silly to think that imo.

 

[LambChop]

I will try very hard to step lightly here, but MD's character does come into play here, as he stresses in his blog - and yes, I did go and read it. He admits he fell for the PI's flattery and that started the ball rolling. I understand him being angry that they have taken a lot of his writing out of context and he has the right to be. I am sure he did not want any of this to happen, but he fell for, as he put it, the used car salesman act knowing in advance that he was talking to someone from the defense team. Why did he think they were talking to him? I am given to understand he has blogged about how people are being dragged into this mess, did he think the defense wanted advice from him?

Sorry, I will stop before I go any further. But as he put himself out there in this particular article, I do think his actions and his explanations are subject to discussion.

PI's are not bound by the same rules as LE. They can present themselves as anything they want as long as they don't say they represent LE. It is very often what the PI's DON'T SAY that PI's rely on to get in the door. People assume too much when someone shows up and introduces themselves as a PI and an admirer. You're under no obligation to talk to them and still people do. I know because my husband was licensed for 20 years and never had a problem getting people to talk no matter what side of the table he represented. It always amazed him how people will just talk because they think you're like Detective Maddox. JMO

 

[sleutherontheside]

Okay, well I do have a valid point that I think should be discussed. (Well, at least I think it is valid. )

I have a real problem with the 'breaks' in the motion - why does Cheney Mason get to decide what is relevant to include/exclude. I realize it is HIS motion, but it reeks of dishonesty. The odor is so rauncy I can smell it 1,000 miles away. If you want to use the 'interview' to back up your motion, use ALL OF IT or NOTHING.

Also, why just include the inflammatory TITLES of Dave's post with absolutely nothing substantial that alludes to the content, which was more often than not PRO-DEFENSE?!? It is more than misleading...it is DISHONEST.

I have a MAJOR problem with those two things, in particular. Personally, I think JS should go back to sitting on his rainbow, say "Motion DENIED. Do we have any other business to take care of today?"

I think your points are valid indeed. Of particular note is the break immediately following MD comments about another blog with a scientific POV. IMO...it is relevant. Perhaps the defense is saving that one for another motion.