Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Dignity4Victims]

Where is this information coming from....that JS actually called MD while he was in hospital (but still actively posting on his blog)?

Just read an exchange between MD and his "right hand gal" on the Radio show blog that has now been removed and they comment about the false rumors that phone calls were exchanged between JS and MD instead of the phone call "inquiring about his health"?


So was this supposed phone call made by someone else who claimed to know JS and stated that JS was inquiring about his health...cause if that is the case, now we are getting into VERY murky area...?

Thanks for posting that the interview has already been removed. How odd is that? If you aren't embarrassed about your stance and you're being 100% truthful, why would the interview suddenly be deleted?

Murky is right, especially pertaining to the "right hand gal".

 

[magic-cat]

Bumping for discussion of what is heard at the 4:34 mark. Is that when the judge asks to have DM remain after court is dismissed?

Ok, lets try this another way. Did you LISTEN to the proceeding? Because he clearly takes a few moments DURING the proceeding and speaks to the bailiff about detaining MD. Then he RETURNS to the proceeding. I am wondering why, in the middle of a proceeding, when he is supposed to be listening, paying attention, and then returning a decision, his focus is on the blogger sitting in the back, thats all.

I of course have no idea how the court will rule. If I were the defendant and the judge in my case seemed preoccupied with a blogger who had written headlines such as those discussed in the motion, I would also move to recuse the judge. Given the fact that the death penalty is the consequence if the jury decides guilty, I would have hoped that JS would have handled this a little more professionally. Especially since he apparently KNOWS the publicity surrounding this case.

Uhm, if he wanted to speak to Dave and offer his compliment of fairness then he had to catch him before he left court. There was a lull in the proceeding when he asked the baliff to get him, and there was nothing else AFTER he did that was there? He said is there anything else? And there wasn't was there???:waitasec:

And just FYI, judges OFTEN do not return instant decisions...he is not required to be singlemindedly dedicated to thinking of nothing but the KC Anthony case. He can multi-task, just like the rest of us...Don't you think?:blushing:

There IS no jury in this case yet. The defense has not even begun to deposition the witnesses. We are a LONG way off from the jury. So I don't see where the jury that was not present in the hearing is at issue? :waitasec:

It was hardly in the MIDDLE of the proceeding when this NON event occurred.:snooty:

 

[magic-cat]

Bumping for clarity in regards to my point about "appearance" in this situation we are discussing.

Sorry AZlawyer...I didnt want to just reword what you had written...hope thats ok.

Since the time when AZLawyer made that post? A LOT has changed in the APPEARANCE of this entire scenario. There was no appearance of or any actual impropriety here. The judge was actually throwing a compliment to someone who IS sympathetic to this useless excuse for a defense team.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

[/B][/COLOR]

How so? Whether he said "hello", or "great blog, nice to see someone impartial", both reflect a sense of being neutral, which is what the position of a Judge is all about. At no time has it been reported that Judge Strickland gave MD any indication of anything sinister, which would be evil, going on between them.

Then what do you believe was said, and why do you not believe it was pertaining to MD's blog written in fairness? Just curious.

I agree, but I don't believe in the least that the thorn in the Defense's side has anything to do with MD. The issue of Judge Strickland's comment, "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers" has been raised time and again on this board, and I fully believe that this is exactly what has the Defense all in an uproar. They can't raise a motion about that now due to the time lapse, therefore, this is their "backdoor" way of having the Judge removed for his comment. Dishonest, but also very expected by the Defense. [/B]

I totally agree with your blue comment. And I would add to that, in reading the motion, you will see they are also adding to the MD complaint by saying that it not only shows bias but also demonstrates that the Honorable Judge Strickland is being nice to MD to gain favorable publicity (mentioning, as well, that the Honorable Judge Strickland's reelection is soon upon us). They are trying to claim multiple layers of improprieties!

Talk about something "snowballing out of control;" there's a blizzard in Florida!

 

[magic-cat]

IMO there's nothing "evil" about it, but it sure shows a greater appearance of impropriety to opine as to the fairness of a blogger's posts than to say "hello" to a blogger.

As I've mentioned before, I personally doubt that JS actually made the "fairness" comment at all, but he won't be able to consider whether the allegation is true or false in deciding the motion.

One thing that just occurred to me today is that JS could deny the motion as "legally insufficient" based on the fact that the only allegation that would justify disqualification (the supposed comment about "fairness" etc.) happened six months ago and was presumably known to the defense six months ago (because MD sure wasn't keeping quiet about it). The only thing that happened recently (within the time limit for a motion to disqualify) is that the defense learned that the judge called MD in the hospital and therefore, perhaps, was reading MD's blog--which IMO is not even an appearance of impropriety.

That's another thing. It is being reported IN THIS THREAD that the judge called him at HOME and I thought he called him in the hospital as well. Does anyone know for sure?

What I don't understand is why the defense would want Judge Strickland off this case. The Judge has been more than fair and patient with Baez. He has ruled in favor of the defense on plenty of motions, he has even told Baez on occasion when to cite more legal precedence to bolster his motions, he has always allowed Baez more time on deadlines when asked.

Is this a common motion in capital cases in order to delay? Is Mason just wanting to start fresh with a new judge since he is now taking over? Do they really have an issue with Judge Strickland or is this just some tactic?

This is a TACTIC for certain, and a rather dense one if you ask me...:blushing:

 

[magic-cat]

WHERE is the underlined above stated??? Did I miss a part of the investigators interview, or has MD edited and changed his original blog about this conversation when he posted it last year?

First time I have seen the Anthony case SPECIFICALLY mentioned in regards to supposed comments from JS?????

You have to go and read his blog. He is continually accused of being an Anthony lover and his blog posts are always extremely fair to the defense. He is not as fair with the state in my own opinion as he is the defense. Like in one blog he talks about how the state is wasting money going for the death penalty and it's just a tactic.

And in the motion itself, you can see where the interviewer stops the tape and writes in Off subject repeatedly...THOSE are the things we NEED to hear...and not just what they SELECTED for us to hear.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I totally agree with your blue comment. And I would add to that, in reading the motion, you will see they are also adding to the MD complaint by saying that it not only shows bias but also demonstrates that the Honorable Judge Strickland is being nice to MD to gain favorable publicity (mentioning, as well, that the Honorable Judge Strickland's reelection is soon upon us). They are trying to claim multiple layers of improprieties!

Talk about something "snowballing out of control;" there's a blizzard in Florida!

Even if Judge Strickland does step down, his legacy, "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers", will live on in the swirl of the public, Orlando or otherwise.

You just can't un-ring that bell!

 

[sleutherontheside]

Even if Judge Strickland does step down, his legacy, "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers", will live on in the swirl of the public, Orlando or otherwise.

You just can't un-ring that bell!

Yep.......just like Todd Macaluso's $70K gem "We have proof that the body was placed there while Miss Anthony was in jail".......and JB's "When you hear everything at trial this will all make sense".

Some things you can't erase.

 

[magic-cat]

Thanks! And I agree! Disturbing implications aside, after watching the video posted below, I'm starting to reconsider my opinion that Judge Strickland will deny the motion.


If Richard Hornsby thinks Judge Strickland will step down, I bet he's right. From what I've seen, RH has successfully and intelligently predicted the outcome of all the legal issues in this case.

I think he is dead wrong and that Judge Strickland will not step down. I have done a complete about face since I first learned of this, and considering EVERYTHING in totality? The judge did not even do anything that HINTS of impropriety...unless offering a compliment to a defense sympathizer (one of the only ones out there I might add) is somehow an act of impropriety, and I just don't see that it is. I cannot believe all of this. I hope he files a MOTION DENIED first thing when the courthouse opens! He should, because this is ALL ridiculous in the extreme.:banghead:

 

[ZsaZsa]

Yep.......just like Todd Macaluso's $70K gem "We have proof that the body was placed there while Miss Anthony was in jail".......and JB's "When you hear everything at trial this will all make sense".

Some things you can't erase.

Yes, that quote may be one of the biggest reasons for this motion- muddy the waters for a while and hope no one remembers that evidence was due in February...

 

[magic-cat]

But my question was where you got the information you paraphrased that JS specifically referred to the Caylee Anthony case, the Anthonys and MDs blogs specifically ABOUT this particular case when he uttered them to MD?

That's what I am looking for....IF in fact JS had this conversation verbatim with MD, it could have been about ANY of the numerous blog subjects on MD site....??

It has been stated (by Marinade Dave) on his site, that Judge Strickland told him he had the best site out there and that he had the most fair site, etc...And if you READ his site in depth you see he is a defense sympathizer hardcore. Someone said all he said to Dave was hello, and someone else said he said way more than hello and I was simply putting it into context what he actually is alleged to have said with whom he actually alledegedly said it unto.

 

[butterfly1978]

I think JS has been more than fair with the defense, however I beleive that the judge if he decides not to recuses himself will not allow the BS he has been allowing in the court anymore. I will laugh my butt off when JB starts his rambling and the judge tells him to hush and he continues and the judge charges him with contempt... After this JS isn't going to be so nice anymore.

I'm just wondering, do lawyers normally ask the judge to recues himself? or is this something that only happens in rare cases? Also if the JS does step down what does this do to his career?

 

[LambChop]

Does this MD just talk about KC or other cases as well????

 

[seekingjustice**]

Is there any proof that JS made any phone call enquiring after his health?

 

[magic-cat]

I guess this is my point...

Marinade Dave blogs about many things.

Marinade Dave is diabetic and blogs extensively on this subject as well.

Who is to know whether or not JS is diabetic, or perhaps has a diabetic family member?

JS discovers MD blogs on diabetes and finds them informative and helpful to his situation.

During a hearing, JS recognizes MD in the "audience" of the courtroom and recognizes that he is the "diabetes blog guy" and asks his bailiff to call MD up.

A brief conversation takes place where JS states that MD has the best blog out there (perhaps referring to subject of diabetes) and he finds it very informative.

MD walks away with peacock feathers flying and rushes back to his blog (now getting lots of hits due to Caylee case) and doesn't outright repeat conversation verbatim, but leaves readers under the impression that JS was SPECIFICALLY referring to Caylee blogs...doesn't STATE this (so no retraction needed), but ego takes over...

After next hearing, MD seeks out Bill Shaffer, KB, Sheriff Beary, etc...

So this may be getting WILDLY out of context and out of control....guess that is why it was filed late on a Friday afternoon....is our attention deflected yet???

This could all be very possible but Marinade states that the judge told him he had the most fair site, and since they were IN a KC courtroom at that time and Dave was sitting with the family? I assume he WAS referring to the KC case IF in fact he ever said that at all...we have only one mans word for this-a guy who calls himself Marinade Dave.

 

[magic-cat]

But WHERE is it stated that JS specifically stated "IN REGARDS TO THE CAYLEE ANTHONY CASE"....???

Me thinks someone who purposely instigated himself into this CRIMINAL trial solely for self purposes is talking around bushes....implying without getting caught making untrue actual statements.

Nowhere...but I think it is the "fair" remark that implies it, since he IS very very very very fair to KC and the Anthony family...and is continually calling folks out on his blog for calling him an Anthony Lover.

 

[magic-cat]

(And please don't think I am arguing with you...)

But doesn't Fox also use the "fair and balanced" phrase?

Just wondering if maybe MD interjected the words "fair" and "balanced" into his paraphrasing JS comments on his blog, as he (MD) felt he compared to Fox News?!

I don't.

It could have been anything EXCEPT the absurd thing of which it stands accused.

 

[LambChop]

So where's the beef? If defense has read his blog, which they should if they planned on filing a complaint, and they know he often supports the family, why would they submit a motion they know is false. If you actually read the blogs with the titles listed in the motion, the blogs are very fair to KC. Seems to me that either the PI is sloppy or defense is lazy, or a little of both. I don't think this will make KC very happy. By-the-way does anyone else feel this was at the bottom of their bag of tricks to counter Maya's chloroform interview.....????

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I guess this is my point...

Marinade Dave blogs about many things.

Marinade Dave is diabetic and blogs extensively on this subject as well.

Who is to know whether or not JS is diabetic, or perhaps has a diabetic family member?

SUPPOSE:

JS discovers MD blogs on diabetes and finds them informative and helpful to his situation.

During a hearing, JS recognizes MD in the "audience" of the courtroom and recognizes that he is the "diabetes blog guy" and asks his bailiff to call MD up.

A brief conversation takes place where JS states that MD has the best blog out there (perhaps referring to subject of diabetes) and he finds it very informative.

MD walks away with peacock feathers flying and rushes back to his blog (now getting lots of hits due to Caylee case) and doesn't outright repeat conversation verbatim, but leaves readers under the impression that JS was SPECIFICALLY referring to Caylee blogs...doesn't STATE this (so no retraction needed), but ego takes over...

After next hearing, MD seeks out Bill Shaffer, KB, Sheriff Beary, etc...

So this may be getting WILDLY out of context and out of control....guess that is why it was filed late on a Friday afternoon....is our attention deflected yet???

But it all comes back to the point that AZlawyer explained (if I understood correctly). It does not even matter if what the defense team alleges is true or not. The Honorable Judge Strickland cannot take the merits of its truthfulness (or untruthfulness) into consideration. He can only consider that, if the defendant considers the allegations they made are a fact, does that belief fall within the rules of disqualification.

I don't believe he did anything wrong. But, apparently it doesn't even matter if he knows he did nothing wrong. . . It's beside the point. (Am I understanding this right, AZlawyer?)

 

[magic-cat]

This is the link to the ACTUAL blog post that is in question here.
http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/it-was-my-honor-your-pleasure/

Since it is implied in the motion that the subject discussed in this blog is part of the reason for the motion, I am hoping it is ok to provide the direct link to the exact blog post we are discussing. If not I am sure the mods will whisk it away...