Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[notthatsmart]

ITA! Some ask for the TRUTH...well what's to stop the defense from presenting it? Where is the truth? I'd consider anything reasonable. Why do some think it's only the State's job to get at the truth? They'll tell their version of it in due time. But what do we get from the defense? Anything substantial? No, we get all this bs and nonsense.
JMO

I think the defense has turned over their discovery to the SA as the Judge ordered them to. It is SA not turning it over to sunshine. IMO

 

[notthatsmart]

Are the defense using the word 'courtship' deliberately, trying to allude to more than an improper conversation between the two men?

How low can they go?

I'm sure they'll go even lower before there is an end to this case, in which KC will be convicted, regardless of which judge presides, since it's the jury that will find her guilty.

JMO.

It is important that the jury see an impartial Judge, otherwise they may become suspicious of the state. IMO

 

[RR0004]

No, I think he is blinded by fame. Calling a defendant a liar is not an honorable thing to do. Its the same as saying , this liar over here is innocent until proven guilty. I disagree that it was ethical. I believe it was unethical. I have never heard a Judge do something like this. At any rate, none of it really matters because I do not believe he will step down. I can't believe the Judge is the one going to make this decision. I think it should be someone above him. Who's watching big brother here? If he does not step down, there will prolly be grounds for appeal in the future. Kc deserves a fair trial, we all deserve a fair trial in this country. Kc can not get a fair trial with this Judge. IMO

Have you spent much time in court? Stating the obvious...and especially when determining bail...was appropriate. That was a gem of a statement and substantiated the State's request. JMO

PS- Looking for fame? Did he have a crystal ball that could see into the future? Did he know how "big" this case would become? Just curious...How come you never mentioned the defense's claim for fame?

ETA: the complete quote: "Not a bit of useful information has been provided by Ms. Anthony as to the whereabouts of her daughter," Judge Strickland said. "And I would add that the truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers."

http://crime.about.com/od/current/qt/caylee_july22_b.htm

 

[christee]

Let's see...who's accused of murdering her daughter and is scheduled to go on trial next year? That would be KC...
Who was grinning and strutting around shaking her fanny for the cameras when she was in handcuffs? Again...KC :camera:

Now who is the respected Judge in the legal system and a respected member of society? That would be Judge Stan...
And if I'm not mistaken, I don't believe Judge Strickland has wiggled his fanny for the cameras once!:thumb:

 

[AZlawyer]

To answer the questions a couple of people asked me earlier tonight--IMO the motion is "legally sufficient" if you assume the facts are true (which JS has to do because this is the defense's first motion to disqualify). I think the motion would not have been legally sufficient if the allegations were that JS called MD up to the bench and said, "Hey aren't you the guy with the news blog? Nice to meet you," then later called him in the hospital. The allegations that I think are legally sufficient are the ones about the judge opining to a blogger (who then, predictably, wrote about it) about what sort of analysis of the case he deemed "fair" or "the best." IMO this is an appearance of impropriety. But it is a borderline situation, and I think reasonable attorneys can (and do) disagree on this one.

To be clear, I believe JS has been more than fair to the defense. There has been no actual impropriety that I have seen. Moreover, I'm not convinced that he actually told MD that his blog was "fair" or "the best" at presenting the evidence. But apparently the truth of the facts alleged is not at issue for a first motion to disqualify. Which is insane...

 

[butterfly1978]

I will have to respectfully disagree. I have been through the Kc lie threads in this forum. When you say she lied about Zenaida, that is your opinion. When you say she lied to Le, that is your opinion. One lie that I know of that is not of opinion is that she did not work there, but she had a valid excuse to get them out there to look at tapes. I am not going to sit here and argue about whether Kc lied or not.

It is my opinion that no Judge should ever make comment like that. They are better off without him. He is very unfair despite what all the majority side thinks here. The next Judge could only better, but not possibly worse.

I do not believe he will step down though. This decision will be like the rest. Motion denied. IMO

Casey Lieing about Zanny the Nanny IS A LIE. Its a bold face lie. NO ONE LIVED AT THE SAW GRASS APARTMENT that Casey supposedly dropped Caylee off at, then she changes that and says it was at the park where she was assaulted given a script to follow for 31 days. She lied about working at Universal, and thats bull crap about getting LE to look at the tapes, she told people for a LONG time she worked at Universal not just LE. If she wanted LE to look at the tapes all she had to do was say so. She continuously lied to, Cindy, George, Lee, Amy, Tony and everyone she came in contact with. I guess everyone is conspiring to get Casey convicted while the "real perp" runs free. Now how much logical sense does that make?
Also JS has not denied all the defenses motion. He has given the defense more than ample opportunity to make reasonable requests, and he has been more than fair in doing so.If JS denies this motion which he should it will be because, it has no merit.

 

[RR0004]

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

OT- I loved Joe Maddox!

 

[butterfly1978]

No, I think he is blinded by fame. Calling a defendant a liar is not an honorable thing to do. Its the same as saying , this liar over here is innocent until proven guilty. I disagree that it was ethical. I believe it was unethical. I have never heard a Judge do something like this. At any rate, none of it really matters because I do not believe he will step down. I can't believe the Judge is the one going to make this decision. I think it should be someone above him. Who's watching big brother here? If he does not step down, there will prolly be grounds for appeal in the future. Kc deserves a fair trial, we all deserve a fair trial in this country. Kc can not get a fair trial with this Judge. IMO

Blinded by fame..... and how many times has JS been on Geraldo? UMMM lets see NONE!!!!

 

[butterfly1978]

I think the defense has turned over their discovery to the SA as the Judge ordered them to. It is SA not turning it over to sunshine. IMO

REALLY than where is it? Link ME PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can link you to about 20,000 pages of States discovery.

 

[RR0004]

I think the defense has turned over their discovery to the SA as the Judge ordered them to. It is SA not turning it over to sunshine. IMO

I don't think that's how it works, NTS. Go and request it and see.

 

[notthatsmart]

Have you spent much time in court? Stating the obvious...and especially when determining bail...was appropriate. That was a gem of a statement and substantiated the State's request. JMO

PS- Looking for fame? Did he have a crystal ball that could see into the future? Did he know how "big" this case would become? Just curious...How come you never mentioned the defense's claim for fame?

ETA: the complete quote: "Not a bit of useful information has been provided by Ms. Anthony as to the whereabouts of her daughter," Judge Strickland said. "And I would add that the truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers."

http://crime.about.com/od/current/qt/caylee_july22_b.htm

I read those ethics rules in the motion, and I believe what he said about Kc was unethical.

I do agree though about fame. I think LKB AL CM all came along for the fame. Jb was there before the fame. IMO

Ps, they don't have to be impartial. LOL

 

[notthatsmart]

I don't think that's how it works, NTS. Go and request it and see.

Well how does it work? I mean half of it is prolly attorney client priviledge. Are you saying the defense is suppose to turn it over to sunshine?

 

[RR0004]

It is important that the jury see an impartial Judge, otherwise they may become suspicious of the state. IMO

...and is that why you're suspicious? You haven't seen an "impartial" judge? Oh, please spend some time in a big city courtroom.

 

[Reagan]

I don't know why I'm going to waste my time typing this but c'mon notthatsmart... KC admitted that she lied to police about numerous things. She admitted that she purposely mislead investigators. She never said anything about looking at tapes either, when she admitted she lied about working at Universal. When asked what the purpose of taking LE to a place she didn't even work was, first she said to show Caylee's photo to security and ask questions, cause maybe Caylee had been at the park. That's a lie because they passed security on the way to her "office", and she didn't ask security a thing about Caylee. Then she eventually said that there was no purpose to taking them there. Remember, they went to Universal initially to speak with the outcry witnesses Jeff and Juliet.

I don't see anyone arguing so much as pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic towards anything having to do with KC and Co. Then when your claims are easily refuted, you cry foul and say that we're arguing with you. Sigh.

Anyway, in regards to MD and his latest post, I had to laugh at first, but now I feel rather embarrassed for him for even suggesting he's a member of the court... and distinguished at that. He sure does think highly of himself. I hope someone close to him tells him to keep his mouth shut because he's really digging himself a hole here. What does he do as a member of the court? Official blogger for the ninth judicial circuit?

It was bad enough when he urged his readers to spam the PI's email and blow up his phone. Now this..oh boy....

 

[RR0004]

I read those ethics rules in the motion, and I believe what he said about Kc was unethical.

I do agree though about fame. I think LKB AL CM all came along for the fame. Jb was there before the fame. IMO

Ps, they don't have to be impartial. LOL

Well then...they can't be crying about a tainted jury pool...now can they?

 

[RR0004]

Well how does it work? I mean half of it is prolly attorney client priviledge. Are you saying the defense is suppose to turn it over to sunshine?

Anyone can request it...if it's been turned over. If it's "attorney-client" info and therefore protected...then why accuse the State of hiding something?

 

[notthatsmart]

Casey Lieing about Zanny the Nanny IS A LIE. Its a bold face lie. NO ONE LIVED AT THE SAW GRASS APARTMENT that Casey supposedly dropped Caylee off at, then she changes that and says it was at the park where she was assaulted given a script to follow for 31 days. She lied about working at Universal, and thats bull crap about getting LE to look at the tapes, she told people for a LONG time she worked at Universal not just LE. If she wanted LE to look at the tapes all she had to do was say so. She continuously lied to, Cindy, George, Lee, Amy, Tony and everyone she came in contact with. I guess everyone is conspiring to get Casey convicted while the "real perp" runs free. Now how much logical sense does that make?
Also JS has not denied all the defenses motion. He has given the defense more than ample opportunity to make reasonable requests, and he has been more than fair in doing so.If JS denies this motion which he should it will be because, it has no merit.

I totally disagree with this post. And calling my stuff bull crap is not very nice. It is not bull crap. She said to them that was her way of getting them out there to look at the tape. This thread is not about Kc lies, its about Judge S. unethical behavior. He is biased and not fair at all. He very seldom sided with the defense. If he denies this motion, people will keep watch on him with all future motion decisions. He has not given the defense ample opportunity to make reasonable request at all. There may be a real perp out there . No kidding. IMO

 

[butterfly1978]

I am not attacking a specific poster just stating the obvious.... I smell a TROLL!!!

 

[RR0004]

I totally disagree with this post. And calling my stuff bull crap is not very nice. It is not bull crap. She said to them that was her way of getting them out there to look at the tape. This thread is not about Kc lies, its about Judge S. unethical behavior. He is biased and not fair at all. He very seldom sided with the defense. If he denies this motion, people will keep watch on him with all future motion decisions. He has not given the defense ample opportunity to make reasonable request at all. There may be a real perp out there . No kidding. IMO

...and only Casey knows the truth about that. Hypothetically speaking, would you have lied to LE...cause that was one of the charges that JS had to consider when determining bail? Would you have taken the police on a wild goose chase when your child was missing? He justified his ruling. Perfectly ethical. The Court does not take lying to LE lightly.

 

[christee]

Like I've had to do on almost every other thread on the Caylee forum I'm respectfully withdrawing from the ongoing frustration of trying to have a conversation abt the topicther_beatingA_Dead.
I admire you guys for giving it your best shot! :thumb:

I will say that I believe Judge Stan has done his job fairly and without prejudice!