2010.04.30 Defense responds to JS order stepping down

New Posts

butterfly1978 said:
I think this motion\statement shows how childish the defense is, and what I am suprised about is CM signed it. I would expect something like this from JB but I thought CM was more professional than this.
I say statement because this is in no way a motion, just a legal statement on record where they say we dont like what you said and we want the last word.
Click to expand...

Bold mine.

bwahahahaha! Somehow, I don't think Cheney will get the last word on this.
 
:banghead: I just don't understand why the defense is wasting so much time on motions that IMO have no merit. But I am no attorney. They are wasting tax payer dollars, States time, and the Judges time. The create this side circus show and then expect the media not to report about it. It has been the defense and the Anthony's since day one that has created all the negative reporting to-wards Casey and her defense.

They create it and then whine. From what I could tell today the new judge seems very stern and I sure hope he will hear this motion ASAP and put the defense in their place. So, they don't like Judge Strickland opinion and reason for stepping down, so what! The got what they asked for! Lucky for them that Strickland made a gracious exit...especialy after all the nonsense Strickland put up with, then they go after his Career. What about spending time trying to defend their client that has been charged with the murder of her 2 year old precious baby girl! I just don't understand what they hope to accomplish or gain with this new Objection Motion that they filed.
 
I would have expected something like this to be filed elsewhere---with the FL JQC (Judicial Qualification Commission), if applicable, but not as a motion in this case.
JMO
 
Its funny how in the first part it states that the judge was wrong by replying instead of just ordering or denying the motion.

They also state that it was wrong for him to point out the notary stamp expired even though it was it was just a mistake. LOL

and in part 17 it states that there was no way JS could have known about HL statements about taking a crate of oranges as payment because it was said in a confrence yet they are the ones that said that in court, but further up they accuse JS of falsely reprsenting or recalling the facts.

I will steal JS now famous statement the irony is rich... LMAO!
 
mitzi said:
Just looked at the PDF...filed at 8:27 AM this morning...three minutes before the hearing. :furious:
Click to expand...

Yes, sneaky, disingenuous and deceitful...then afterwards, they get on TruTV and try to appear professional saying they had nothing further to say about the matter.
 
I know RHornsby feels conflicted about blogging these days but I sure hope he dusts off his keyboard about this one..... I would love to know his thoughts.
 
butterfly1978 said:
Its funny how in the first part it states that the judge was wrong by replying instead of just ordering or denying the motion.

They also state that it was wrong for him to point out the notary stamp expired even though it was it was just a mistake. LOL

and in part 17 it states that there was no way JS could have known about HL statements about taking a crate of oranges as payment because it was said in a confrence yet they are the ones that said that in court, but further up they accuse JS of falsely reprsenting or recalling the facts.

I will steal JS now famous statement the irony is rich... LMAO!
Click to expand...

I heard that clearly stated in open court (the orange crate statement). It must be part of the court transcript if we all heard it stated. Not too smart to deny it in this motion, eh? lol
 
eaglemom said:
I know RHornsby feels conflicted about blogging these days but I sure hoe he dusts off his keyboard about this one..... I would love to know his thoughts.
Click to expand...

I've got a feeling he is going to reference that 'pissing match' again. ;)
 
What'sThatClue said:
I heard that clearly stated in open court (the orange crate statement). It must be part of the court transcript if we all heard it stated. Not too smart to deny it in this motion, eh? lol
Click to expand...

I see now why they think they can win in KC case when they can blatantly lie about something they said in open court
 
eaglemom said:
I know RHornsby feels conflicted about blogging these days but I sure hoe he dusts off his keyboard about this one..... I would love to know his thoughts.
Click to expand...

I don't see how Richard could NOT comment on this. He may be many things but he is fair.

I think we will have a fair accounting of this motion coming from Richard at some time in the future. At least I hope we will.

Love ya Richard

:woohoo:
 
A typical and petty response by the defense designed to illicit the anger of the current Judge. Pretty much am used to the defense's tactics by now. Delay. Blame the state for the release of information when they are gabbing on any television that would listen. Fail to show up with the documents that were requested. Fail to provide proof positive that SODDI. Go on a fishing expedition for documents. And finally, try to declare, that nowhere in this current solar system can their so obviously guilty client (so guilty it gives me a migrain) get a fair trial.

To the defense: This defendent is the proverbial abyss. You wanted to try this turkey in open court. You are getting your wish. The state doesn't just allow dead babies to go forgotten. KC is not walking away from this. She will either spend her natural life in jail or be executed. This is your turkey. Stop trying to smear everyone else but your client.

JS, I am sure, is totally relieved to be removed (voluntarily) from this nonsense. JMO.

The defense can be as petty and blustering and all fire and brimstone as they want to...it won't change the fact that their damn client knows exactly what happened to Caylee and refuses to acknowledge as much.
 
Part 3 of the motion says the blogger has headlines including "Casey Must Die", "Murder Pre Meditated and Stupid" and "Casey Guilty As Charged". I went back on Dave's blog to October 09 but saw no such articles entitled that. Did MD remove some threads from his blog? Or are those headlines prior to Oct 09? I'm curious what those articles were in reference to, I mean he could headline it "Casey Must Die' and in the article he could remprimand people for saying that without a trial, which means you can't judge a book by it's cover, CM.
I didn't go further back because I have to take the cat to the vet right now.
 
Gnatcatcher said:
Part 3 of the motion says the blogger has headlines including "Casey Must Die", "Murder Pre Meditated and Stupid" and "Casey Guilty As Charged". I went back on Dave's blog to October 09 but saw no such articles entitled that. Did MD remove some threads from his blog? Or are those headlines prior to Oct 09? I'm curious what those articles were in reference to, I mean he could headline it "Casey Must Die' and in the article he could remprimand people for saying that without a trial, which means you can't judge a book by it's cover, CM.
I didn't go further back because I have to take the cat to the vet right now.
Click to expand...

Yes they were there, I read them. However the title really had nothing to do with the content of the article, the articles were actually fair and were actually favorable to the defense. However I think that JB did not actually read the articles, just the title because had he read the articles he would have realized that.
 
I have tried to get to the motion but the link is not working for me. Is there possibly another link for it??
 
Gnatcatcher said:
Part 3 of the motion says the blogger has headlines including "Casey Must Die", "Murder Pre Meditated and Stupid" and "Casey Guilty As Charged". I went back on Dave's blog to October 09 but saw no such articles entitled that. Did MD remove some threads from his blog? Or are those headlines prior to Oct 09? I'm curious what those articles were in reference to, I mean he could headline it "Casey Must Die' and in the article he could remprimand people for saying that without a trial, which means you can't judge a book by it's cover, CM.
I didn't go further back because I have to take the cat to the vet right now.
Click to expand...


The blogger in question deletes articles all the time.
So that's nothing new.
 
Mumsy said:
I have tried to get to the motion but the link is not working for me. Is there possibly another link for it??
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5131974&postcount=15"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2010.04.30 - 05.02 Today's Current News - ***NO DISCUSSIONS HERE PLEASE ***[/ame]
 
Gnatcatcher said:
Part 3 of the motion says the blogger has headlines including "Casey Must Die", "Murder Pre Meditated and Stupid" and "Casey Guilty As Charged". I went back on Dave's blog to October 09 but saw no such articles entitled that. Did MD remove some threads from his blog? Or are those headlines prior to Oct 09? I'm curious what those articles were in reference to, I mean he could headline it "Casey Must Die' and in the article he could remprimand people for saying that without a trial, which means you can't judge a book by it's cover, CM.
I didn't go further back because I have to take the cat to the vet right now.
Click to expand...

I never saw any "Headlines"with any of those words used in the titles. I did see some comments with those words included. Comments from the reader's not from MD.
 
It wont surprise me if they file one on Judge B. Perry now that he said "like yesterday".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 156 more.
Total: 4,098 (members: 157, guests: 3,941)

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
3,941
Total visitors
4,098
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,527
Messages
17,970,389
Members
228,794
Latest member
EnvyofAngels
Back
Top