On Dec 26, 2:03*pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Dec 26, 2:10 pm, Greegor wrote:





On Dec 26, 12:35 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:

On Dec 25, 8:56 pm, Greegor wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:09 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:

The article, Greg, was about the judge having concerns that he may not be
capable of being fair when hearing the case.
Do you think that the judge, recognizing that it was possible that his prior
relationship with the defendant, was a CPS horror story?

The hearing would not be taking place AT ALL except
there is a dispute about the plea/immunity deals made.

As usual, greg you fail to comprehend the situation.

There was an immunity deal made in Ohio.

There is a claim that a similar deal was also made in Kentucky.

Particularly since two adjacent states were involved.
Can a person get immunity from two states at once
if they turn states evidence to make a case?

Two different states, two different jurisdictions.

Judges are supposed to avoid even the hint of a conflict
so asking the question even reveals a problem.

You're such a moron, greg.

Amy Baker was given immunity in Ohio in exchange for her testimony
that was used to convict David and Liz Carroll.

It was only after Baker's statement revealed the ashes of the child
were dumped into Kentucky jurisdiction that the question of the second
state's alleged immunity deal became an issue.

DS IOW if the ashes were dumped in Ohio
DS none of this would be taking place.

If the KY dumping wasn't known then why was
OHIO Mason County Attorney John Estill involved?
(You didn't really READ the article did you Dan?)

DS The Ohio Judge is NOT clairvoyant!
DS Do you really expect him to be?

G Did you actually READ this, Dan?

From the original news story:

However, Ohio prosecutors have come to Baker's defense and
claim Mason County Attorney John Estill kind of, sort of,
maybe also agreed not to prosecute Baker. Estill says
that isn't so. For the record, we tend to believe him.

Nevertheless, Baker's defense attorneys have not only
asked Wood to decide if Estill is lying but also whether
Baker's words spoken in testimony at the foster parent's
trial can be used against her in Kentucky.

Once the question of Estill's credibility was raised,
Wood realized he would be asked to rule on more
than legalities in the case. He would, in essence,
be expected to rule on his former law partner's
truthfulness. Not only did Baker and Estill once
practice law in the same firm, Estill remains a
law partner with Wood's uncle. The judge must
have realized his ability to remain unbiased
would be brought into question.

DS Your point is?
DS And I still ask you, do you think the Judge is clairvoyant?

You didn't read the original news article did you Dan?