Saturday
Mar262011
Top
Navigation
Archives
MISSING
MISSING - Lauren Spierer
Sierra LaMar
MISSING - Tiffany Sessions
MISSING - Michelle Parker
MISSING - Tracie Ocasio
MISSING - Jennifer Kesse
Contact Me!
Life is short. Words linger.
ORBBIE Winner
Comments
RSS Feeds
Saturday, March 26, 2011 at 8:02PM
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (46)
I bet they are wishing that they never filed the motion to get JS recused. It was a big mistake! They need to be careful what they wish for. I bet JS is sitting back and laughing at them for their stupid move. This is a great post, Dave!
Thank you, Mary Jo. You know, whenever I have the chance, I can't help but rub it in for obvious reasons.
Dave: All I can see is a picture of Judge Strickland and your title "Miss Me Yet". I hope I'm not being presumptuous to think there is an article somewhere?
No, there's no article, nan11. This one is just a statement. I think I am in a position to say something like this. Although it's only 3 words, a word is worth a thousand pictures, just like the other way around. Are they having second thoughts yet?
Hi Dave! You make an excellent point here with The Honorable Stan Strickland's photograph!
Such unspeakable morons this defense team has proven to be.
I am very pleased that The Honorable Judge Belvin Perry Jr., (whom I highly esteem and respect as well as Judge Strickland) immediately DENIED the motion by the defense!
While some are amazed with Cheney Mason's daring and bold move, I find it to be very foolish
and unwarranted.
I do believe that Judge Perry has been very fair to both sides in these pre-trial hearings, and has bent over backwards to help the pathetic struggles of an incompetent lawyer- Jose Baez.
I have watched many trials and pre-trial hearings and have never seen anyone so blatantly disrespectful and clueless as Baez.
I am eagerly awaiting your thoughts on all that transpired this past week, including the motions!!! Take care, Dave and thank you!
~~~Note to SnoopySleuth: Did you read my message to you in Dave's last post? I am not assuming that your silence to my question indicates an answer of a resounding "No". I will respect your decision and not return to MainStreamFair unless I receive your permission, out of respect for you. Peace~~~
As much as the nation was glued to the OJ trial, this one may be a real laugher, and I don't mean that in a cynical way. I just don't see the defense as being strong enough to mount a formidable campaign against the state.
How appropriate Dave. My guess is a loud yes. Yesterday is gone, so Baez and Mason need to admit they can't defend her and get on with it. Baez is acting more and more like the know it all playground bully. Nothing he does surprises me. Judge Strickland has probably had a private laugh or two. I know that Judge Strickland will always be respectable but I hope he has an opportunity to smile at them each time they are in courthouse.
The idea just popped in my head while I was on the phone. It is VERY appropriate. They're still going to file motions right up to the end, but there's going to come a time when Judge Perry says, "Time to apply the brakes, folks. It is what it is."
Suzanna~~you don't need my permission to come to my blog, read or contribute as a commenter. I certainly hope you will join us sometime. I am sorry that I did not understand your message to me before.
First time commenters go into moderation but once approved, it is clear sailing.
Thank you so very much, SnoopySleuth! I am sorry that my comment was not clear.
I look forward to reading your posts! I find your comments very helpful and interesting.
I am in agreement with you most of the time. Thank again!
*Thanks again!
Dave all I can really say is LOL! Very foolish defense attorneys. I am sure they more than miss him. Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.
I knew you'd get a kick out of it, Laurali. I'm glad you liked it. Thank you.
Suzanna~~That sounds great to me. I don't mind when folks are not in agreement with me. We learn alot from each other and constructive criticism is always welcome. I am like Dave in that I do not allow name calling of any of the players in the case. Our blogs are quite similar except I have a full head of hair while he.... ahhh those shiny pates are sexy.
Hello all! I've been following this blog for some time, but this is my first time to post. I figured I may as well finally join in.
I predict and am worried that Mason is going to try to have JP recused. Does anyone with some legal knowledge know if he will be able to accomplish this or not? I read somewhere that one of the "factual" errors Mason referred to was JP wrote in his denial order that Casey said the office in which she was interrogated at Universal was her office, which is indeed not factual, and a mistake on JP's part. Does anyone know if an error as simple as that could cause problems for JP and the entire proceedings?
I'm worried and hope someone can ease my mind.
Hi LisaT - Welcome to the world of commenting on my blog! Mason may try to get JP recused, but it's not going to happen. There's really no grounds for it. Yes, the judge made a couple of errors, but not enough to step down or cause an appeal later on if Casey's convicted. No doubt, Mason will capitalize it, but it's not a major problem.
I'm very happy you decided to make your debut tonight! Thank you for that. If you want me to set you up with an account, e-mail me and let me know. At the bottom of the left sidebar is a submission form. That comes right to my e-mail. I'd be honored to have you. In any event, thank you, and make yourself at home.
Im not sure if Im right but Mason wouldve known that J Perry wouldve deneid his motion for a re do on the mirranda an agents of the state issues.Even so he is getting on the record his beleif that J Perry is biased against the defence.So when he apeals J Perry at a higher court in theases matters.He may have some amunition .J Perry signed many of the search warrants for hopespring J Perry was the Judge that sat at the Grand Jury who indited Casey for first degree murder.An as cheif Judge J Perry chose to take on this case himself,It could be argued that he is a tad to involved .......
Hi ecossie - The only thing is, Judge Perry is very tight with higher judges and he is quite respected. His track record on appeals is impeccable. I don't think the defense will have a leg to stand on if she's convicted.
Me again, Dave. Okay, I'll stop looking around for a delicious article. I thought maybe my computer was hiding it on me.
Actually, this is a fine idea. You know, I'm quite certain that Judge Strickland would never have told Mr. Baez to 'stick to the four corners' of his motion. He seemed to always go the extra mile in trying to satisfy the defense.
When I hear phone call after phone call, statement after statement--everything coming in, you bet I cheer. (Because I'm very biased toward the prosecution. lol ) However, I'm not so certain that would have been the case with Judge Strickland. He was very moderate and patient.
The defense spun the wheel. I don't know if they got what they wanted; but, I do know that they got what they deserve.
Surely, the defense will face serious repercussions if they try a second spin of the wheel?
I'll be working on a new one soon, nan11, but I just had this sudden idea for this one. The defense spun the wheel and I KNOW they DID NOT get what they wanted. Serves 'em right.
Judge Strickland: "Ms Anthony and the truth are strangers." I often wonder if those words started to get etched in Cheney Mason's mind as he reviewed the case before joining the defense.
Mason: "You trust me don't you?" spoken by the man who was going to show the court who was about to rule the roost. You could see that Judge Strickland was taken aback by Mason's audacity yet he responded with, "of course, I trust you." That same day, Mason's first day on the job, he made it a point to throw a snide remark towards Jeff Ashton, something to the effect, "we don't pay attention to the ignorant." Maybe not in those exact words. Not long after that day, Judge Strickland denied a couple motions that Mason, no doubt, helped to prepare.
Then Mason put the wheels in motion to get rid of Judge Strickland. It was the underhanded way that Mason went about getting the judge to recuse himself that makes me bristle. A fall guy, a deceptive P.I. and a news reporter who just happened to have a copy of the motion to recuse the judge before it was even filed with the court.
Mr Mason, you planned to have fun. How about a big smile? You are the laughing stock among your peers now, you arrogant ^%$#$.
You hit that nail right on the head, Snoopy. He's arrogant, alright.
Ah, Dave, I am glad you still have your sense of humor. What the defense needs the most is a good lawyer to give them some advice about how to address the Court. Annoying the judge is not smart!
Are you going to be on with Simon and Jan tomorrow? I sure hope so!
SnoopySleuth, I have been checking your old blog site frequently and missing your intelligent posts and clever sense of humor. I will check that new site immediately.
Hi Nanna Frances - Despite everything, my sense of humor is still quite intact. I agree that annoying the judge is not a smart thing to do, but knowing Judge Perry and his demeanor, he's not the begrudging type.
I will be on Simon's show today, along with the usual suspects, so it should be a good one.
Snoopy's has a new blog now, and it's been quite busy, too. She would enjoy your visits and comments. Try this address:
http://mainstreamfair.wordpress.com
Thanks!
What are the odds that Cheney bails on the defense in order to save face once the trial starts? I wonder.
It may be to Mason's chagrin, Rusty, but he's in this mess for the duration whether he likes it or not. Besides, and it's a positive in his favor, he's not a quitter. I imagine he'll stick around to help with an appeal if she's convicted.
Hahaha! This is one of my favorite posts of yours, Dave, and only you could pull it off so nicely being as you were involuntarily and inappropriately involved in HHJS recusal. It does serve the defense team right!
I'm not too concerned if Mason does manage to take the recusal of HHJP to a higher court perchance it even happens. He would like to think it would take months to resolve but! I think it would only take days due to HHJP's reputation. Let Mason go for it. He might get thrown off the high horse he rides on in this rodeo.
Thank you, Sherry. I couldn't help myself, given the circumstances. You know, my involvement and the past month of rulings and embarrassing moments. It's not that I want to rub it in, but they sure do deserve what they get.
As for recusing this judge? Pshaw! Ain't going to happen. Compared to a horse, Mason is an ass.
Hi, Dave! I literally snurffled hot tea all over my monitor when this came up. All I can say about it is indeed they do!
I heard an interesting report. I'm not sure where it was. WFTV, I think. It said that the language used in the motion to reconsider is the same language the defense used when asking Strickland to recuse himself. It also contended that this could be a tactic to delay the trial. If the defense appeals Perry's denial on this motion, they could ask a higher court to delay the proceedings until this matter has been settled. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on that?
Gee, Joy, I hope it didn't come out your nose, too. This was one of those spontaneous ideas. It popped into my head and up it went.
Bill Sheaffer said so on WFTV. You are correct. Here's what Hal Boedeker wrote on the Sentinel Website:
WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the defense team’s language on the latest motion echoed the language they used in getting Strickland off the case. “The defense doesn’t get a ruling they like, what do they do? They attack the judge,” Sheaffer said.
I'm going to address the whole thing in my next post explaining why I think Mason did it. Thanks!
Perfect three words Dave! HAHA. I got it right away and laughed out loud. 3 words can say so much.
Thanks, debwagstongue. I simply couldn't resist.I gave in to temptation.
Good Morning Dave -
I enjoy your site and your updates on the Caylee/Casey saga. KEEP EM COMIN!
I have a Question or Comment for you and the "forum".
The other day, I was reading the updates on the two day FRYE hearings, from our local news stations WFTV-WESH-FOX..etc, and I forgot which one posted this video.... but it was a youtube video of MASON (before he was part of the Duhfense), and another female prosecutor of who's name I can't remember, but they were speaking about when Caylee's remains were discovered.
The Topic of discussion was, how this discovery is really a nail in Casey's Coffin.
My Question/Comment I have is, has anyone Questioned (I was hoping Kathy Belich would, and I would do a PAY-PER-VIEW to see it!!), MASON about the Comments he made on that video, now that he's defending Casey?
It would be interesting to see that ole GEEZER tap dance himself out of that question!
Keep up the good work DAVE!
Bill
Hi Bill! Welcome to my humble blog.
I think it's human nature to do about faces. I mean, how many people are incredibly lovey-dovey when they first meet and 10 years later, when the divorce is final, they hate each others guts and don't have a kind thing to say about each other?
I like your idea, but the show would be over after one question because it would have to do with Mason's about face. His reply would simply be that he changed his mind after reviewing the facts about the case. If a follow-up question is asked, which it would be, he would weasel his way out. You know, attorney/client privilege and not being able to give away the defense strategy. I know one thing, he wouldn't want to be alone in a room with Kathi. He doesn't like her one bit.
Thank you, Bill, I hope you hang around for awhile and comment further.>/b>
Oh that's hilarious!!! So simple yet so eloquent!!! 3 little words and a picture say it all!
Shaeffer said on one of his interviews that this last motion was worded similarly to the one about Judge Strickland before his recusal, but that they're going to have a hard time shaking Perry for any reason. That even being used as a delaying tactic won't take long because Judge Perry is so well respected in the judicial community. One way or another Casey will see trial!
I thought this would be hilarious, too, after I thought about it. Considering the hatchet job Mason did on Strickland, it's good to see them getting it right back. Indeed, the irony is rich!
Thanks, Connie.
OHMYGOSH!!! Dave you are so mean. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA but I love it, and I bet they are losing lots of sleep because of it.
Have a great Sunday!!!
Oh, I'm mean and nasty, alright, but only to those who deserve it. Other than that, I'm a nice guy. Thanks, shyloh, you have a great Sunday. too. I'll be on Simon's show later.
You are a nice guy Dave! The picture says it all and no article is needed. Someone on the Orlando Sentinal site by the name of Orlando_East had mentioned to bring Judge Strickland back.
This person is always mentioning how bad LE is and Judge Perry.
Thank you, Janet. Absolutely, the picture and caption says it all. Orlando_East has been defending Casey a long time and I think it's mostly meant to aggravate others. The defense made their bed and they are stuck with it.
Dave,
Really, don't understand why you keep insulting Judge Strickland. You do it time and time again. Is it only because someone in the blog world upset you? The comments sent me to a post of November 2010 and now this...
Wow.
HUH??? What the... This is no insult to Judge Strickland. I have no idea where your idea came from. Trust me, I know a hell of a lot more about this judge than you think, and this was a compliment. The point I made here was that the defense screwed up big time. Do they have second thoughts?
Dave, I have been meaning to email you privately and tell you about another blog - they are discussing how the defense wants HHJP off the bench. They say a blogger got JS off the case. I don't know how to intelliegently to tell them to reread the motion and a blogger did not cause this. They do not name you, But, otherwise I respect this blog. I just feel unfaithfull to you.
I really hope you are keeping up with your health.
Snoop- I privately e-mailed you. Are you too busy?
Please do e-mail me with the info, Annie. I have a good idea which blog is spreading that crap around, but I'd like to know for sure. Yes, please send it to me. Do you know my address? Also, don't say anything on that blog. You'll be banned, I'm sure.
Thank you for letting me know.
Your post indicates the defence should be sorry they substituted Perry for Strickland?
Why?
All the answers presume Perry is somehow a better or tougher Judge. Am I wrong? Incredibly myopic view of the world, if you don't get that. A comparision automatically suggests one is better than the other, n'est pas?
Nothing personal, of course.
No, no, no, EH. My slogan, which I have maintained since Strickland stepped down, has been that the defense went from Strickland to stricter. Had you familiarized yourself with my sentiments, and I wouldn't expect you to as a relatively new reader, you would have known that Mason had hoped to cash in his courthouse chips and get a replacement judge who would remove the DP. That plan backfired miserably and they got a judge who is 8 for 8 in sentencing defendants to death. Strickland's record is not nearly as harsh, but we'll never know now what he would have done.
EH,
All due respect, I believe you need to reread all of the articles on Dave's site. He, as well as the rest of us marinaders, admire Judge Strickland. Dave has simply stated to the defense, "Do You Miss Me Yet?' because they had the judge removed to try and get a new judge who would see things their way. Sometimes you just need to be careful what you wish for! Read back to the beginning. Dave has the utmost respect for Judge Strickland. We all do.
Dave, Great article! Glad to be reading and enjoying this fine Sunday afternoon! Keep the articles coming. I love learning and laughing! Thankyou, as always!!!!♥♥
Thank you very much, SageMom. Had EH read my work, she would know better. Is she THAT closed minded? She will not come back to my blog.
By the way, EH, if you want to publicly call me a one note wonder, you'd better learn to read music first, and do it where I can hear you yodel.
Dave sent email to yahoo account. Don't know any other.
Got it, Annie. Thank you. I'll answer your e-mail after 60 Minutes.
E H, I will put this in bold since you went looking for your few minutes of fame. You see, I am a very patient person and was waiting for your wool attire to start itching so bad, you would have to resort back to your wolf's clothing. Now go report back to your peers at the landfill. Ta Ta
Dave, do alleged lawyers eat Spam sandwiches?
Annie~ I did not receive an email from you.
Dave,
With EH'S wool attire itching, does this make her a WOOL-Y BULLY? I tend to think so.
SageMom, you're putting your e-mail address where your name is supposed to go. I'm fixing it before it's published, so no one can see what your address is.
EH was a pawn; a stoolie. Whatever, he/she will not be back.
EH will never be back on this blog. "It" was an obvious plant.
It has been a long trial and strange things always come crawling out of the woodwork. We need to just ignore it. Life is too short.
I am wondering the comment about the two Dr.'s that will be evaluating Casey's mental health? I am wondering just what is to be accomplished there and who pays for that?
Thanks for the heads up on that Dave. Guess I need to wear my glasses more often. NOT a small mistake and again, thank you for correcting. Still wondering about the two Dr.s and loved the Simon and Garfunkel reference in above article. Of course Simon and Jan are a nice duet too! Either way, I love to listen in on both1
I don't have any of the details on the doctors yet. I mean, about Thursday and all. I'll snoop around and see what I can find out. If I do, I will let you know, SageMom. Don't worry about your mistake. I will always fix it if I see it. Meanwhile, don't you have a membership? If not, you should, because that bypasses moderation and you wouldn't have to worry about putting up the wrong name. Let me go look...
You gave me a good laugh this morning Dave! Although I bet Judge Strickland would have gotten tougher as the case progressed. What cracks me up is Jose Baez calling his case 'high profile'. This case has high coverage, not because the defendant is a star, but because of Jose & Cheney's idiotic actions. If Casey had normal attorneys who didn't go on TV, didn't say asinine things to the press, coached their defendant and her family on proper court room behavior, tried the trial in a timely manner instead of dragging it out for what?, didn't write all those crazy motions that they knew would be denied, and weren't hell bent on taking this case all the way thru to the penalty phase for their own personal reasons, then this case would not have reached this level of interest. It's the cast of clowns that keep it amusing.
I'm glad you got a good laugh out of it. I often wonder how much different this case would be had someone like Mark MeJame taken on the case. This one is so filled with 'what ifs' it's ridiculous. Thanks Patti o.
Dave,
I have been reading your blog for awhile now but this is the first time I am commenting. I apologize in advance for this long post! I appreciate the fact that your reporting on this case is very fair and I like that you are not an "Anthony basher." Yes, the way they have handled their granddaughters death at the hands of their daughter is questionable, but I have never been in that situation, so I have no place to judge them. I am so sick of reading all the blogs that only say nasty things about George, Cindy, and Lee so it is nice to read somewhere that shows a little more respect for them as human beings. Do I think Casey is guilty as sin? Yes, but she is responsible for her actions, not her family. If my child was accused of murdering my grandchild (i don't have children yet) I know I would not want to see the state execute my child. I don't know exactly how I would react but I know that I would not want to see my child sentenced to death no matter what.
In terms of Judge Strickland and Judge Perry, this just proves to the defense that "the grass isn't always greener on the other side." They gambled and lost by trying to get Strickland recused. Judge Perry is not going to stand for this nonsense. I'm not sure if Cheney Mason filed this motion because he is trying to sway the judge into ruling in favor of the defense in the upcoming motions so that he doesn't appear biased, or if he filed the motion because there was a small inaccuracy in Perry's decision and he wanted to make sure he covered all his bases as a defense or attorney, but whatever the reason, it's not going to fly.
Do you still think it's possible that the defense could try to plea bargain the case at the last hour?
Hi, Meghan - Welcome to commenting! Sorry I'm late responding. I'm "researching" my next article. Just so you know, there's no such thing as a comment that's too long, so there's no need to apologize.
I try to be fair, and I do not like bashing anyone in the outside world, so I don't allow it here. The Anthony family is not without faults, but I don't think it's fair for the outside world to add to their misery. I can certainly understand the general public's frustration, but you're right. No one knows how we would (or should) react to a nightmare like this one. There are no laws, and I find that many of the bashers act worse than the Anthonys. Tenfold.
Unfortunately, I feel that Mason is up to the same tricks he used to request Judge Strickland's recusal. This thing with Judge Perry just reeks of it, and that's what I'm working on now. Hopefully, it will be an interesting read, but for sure, I'd hate to see another judge taken out by the likes of him.
Do I think the defense will try to plea? No, absolutely not. By accusing a judge of bias, that's not going to garner any plea points. Besides, it's too late in the game. The judge would deny it, I'm sure.
Thanks for writing. Please feel free to join us. You are more than welcome, you know. Besides, I like your view on things.
Dave
I totally agree that the defense is not going to plea. I think I'm becoming convinced that the defense is going to use George as the fall guy, and that he knows this and is going to play along in order to try to save Casey. I think that is the reason for the doctors being brought in, and that this is the only way they have to defend Casey. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.
Here's my opinion, LisaT...
I don't buy the story that George will acquiesce to the defense and plead the Fifth in order to save his daughter. One thing about that theory from WFTV is this: The smell of death was in the trunk of that car. We all believe Caylee's body was in the trunk, right? When and how did George access it during the month Casey and Caylee were missing? Casey took off on 16 June and her parents had no idea where she was. I'm sorry, but I agree with Hal Boedeker on this one:
"What did you make of this report? I usually admire Sheaffer’s analyses, but tonight’s theory was outlandish to me.
"What’s the next theory? Martians came and took Caylee?"
And I like Bill, so it's not a knock on him at all, but I just don't think WFTV took the car into consideration before throwing the theory out there. When Jeff Ashton cross examines and asks about where he found the car, how will George be able to answer?
You and Hal Boedeker are right. It is extremely outlandish. But to me, any suggestion of Casey's innocence and trying to place blame anywhere else is outlandish. So perhaps this theory is no more ridiculous than any other? I guess we shall see...
Outlandish is certainly the right adjective to use when describing the defense, and I'm sure George will be used to his own detriment, but there's no way they can pin the murder on him.
I agree. .
I don't think their idea is to successfully put the blame on George but to create reasonable doubt. I liked KB and Shaeffer's take on it. Bear with me now. If, as they hope, they get a jury pool who hasn't been kept up to date on this case and, like my daughter, say "Casey who?" then they could just possibly create that little niggling bit of reasonable doubt. BUT, having said that, I would like to add the rest of my daughter's quote... "you mean that woman who didn't report her daughter missing for a month?" THAT'S what they're going to remember and that has nothing to do with George. They will have to prove this screeching, griping woman from the jail tapes was actually afraid of her own father to the extent she didn't report her own daughter missing. Like every other defense they've tried this one is a minefield. After all, it was GEORGE who went to the impound to get the car his daughter just parked at Amscot, and GEORGE who first noticed the smell and would recognize the smell as decomposition. And the neighbor who saw Casey backing into her garage, not George. It won't fly for so very many reasons.
When I first read the article that George could be the fall guy for the defense, my heart sank a little, until I really started thinking about how outlandish (great word choice LisaT!) this is. A reasonable juror will not go for this theory and I don't think George will go along with it either. Also, if for some reason George did go along with this, couldn't the prosecution remind George of his response when Jose Baez recently asked him if he would "do anything to help Casey?" and he answered in the affirmative that he would do anything.
I still can't get past the 31 days...and I don't think a reasonable juror would either. I do feel symapthy for George and I pray that he does right by his granddaughter and when it comes time for him to testify will tell the whole truth of everything he knows, I truly believe that if he chooses to tell the whole truth, a huge weight will be lifted off him. Hopefully it is not too late for him to do the right thing.
In terms of the defense team, if they do try this theory (and we still don't know if they will) that George is responsible for Caylee's death, I think it would backfire on them. I don't think George will go along with it, I don't think he will plead the fifth, and I think the defense is inching closer to having Casey's blood on their hands. Would the defense face any legal ramifications if they try to throw a person that they know is innocent under the bus to try to exonerate their client?
Attorney: George Anthony Didn't Kill CayleeCasey Anthony Charged With Murder In Death Of Daughter
Maybe we'll see George get all acrobatic here and doing some flips soon...
New Casey Hearing Scheduled For ThursdayHearing To Address New Defense Witnesses
Thursday's hearing is at 10:00 EST. The defense wants to add 6 new witnesses of which 2 are mental health experts.
MotionClarifyingMotionForLeaveToFile AdditionalWitnesses