1/15/2009

Who Is Jose Baez Besides Being Casey Anthony's Attorney?

After reading today at Examiner.Com that Jose Baez's past experience involves winning 32 out of 34 trials while working as an intern at a Public Defender's Office as well as doing internet training at Lexis-Nexis, I was shocked.

How did this guy get to be the lead counsel on the biggest case of the year? And however snooty this may sound, Casey Anthony BETTER have a dream team if this is the type of experience we're talking about here.

Most defense attorneys work years before they take on felony cases of this magnitude, where the death penalty is involved. And that's before you add in all the media hoopla. What gives?

Here's what I found out about Jose Baez.

1. First of all, his website doesn't allow you to read his bio page - it just clicks back to the home page when you attempt to go there. Nice, expensive website.

2. WESH-TV in Orlando reports that it has checked out his recent past experience in their records; however when you compare this to the Baez site with its four "success stories," it's duplicative.

Plus, there's only FOUR and they are the kind of wins you'd expect an aggressive, Young-Turk type of defense attorney to have on his site at this point. NOTHING near to the complexity of the Anthony matter.

3. You can't pull up his information at Martindale, when is a site owned by Lexis - purportedly, his former employer. He's not in Martindale???? What??????

4. The Florida Bar Association shows Jose Angel Baez to be in good standing with them, with offices in Kissamee, Florida. He was admitted to practice in September 2005.

5. I found a site, avvo.com, that reports Jose Baez got his law degree from St. Thomas School of Law - while Investigation Discovery quotes Baez's web site as Baez having a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Criminology from Florida State University. Same source also quotes the Baez site as Baez working for the Public Defender's Office since 1995.

Okay.

We know that he's been licensed to practice for around 3 years when he takes the Casey Anthony case.

We know that he's got an office in Kissimmee, and he's paid for a very nice website.

We know he's not listed in Martindale (a real red flag to lawyers out there).

Today, I can't get anything off the website. However, it appears that those seeking information about Baez have had access to it, and it's been from his own website that they've reported his "success stories" as well as his background and experience.

Personally, I'll give Jose Baez this: as a trial lawyer, you go into a courtroom and take responsibility for another human being.

It takes a whole lot of chutzpah to do that job. Courage, huevos, whatever you want to call it.

And it's clear that Jose Baez has that in spades.

What's not clear is what the heck Jose Baez thinks he's doing, representing Casey Anthony. Her defense is something that even the most seasoned of advocates would find challenging.

He's gone out and got himself some co-counsel. Good. Great.

Because there's a thing called "ineffective assistance of counsel" that every jailhouse lawyer can chant like a mantra upon appeal and if my search of the web is all we've got to put in an appellate brief here, well - Katie Bar the Door.

Point of Error comin'.

Unless, of course, on the first day of trial we get a Surprise Change in Lead Counsel -- a Mystery Lawyer who reveals himself or herself as things tee up (wouldn't that make a great Nancy Grace Bombshell?).... 



Update:  After a self-imposed gag order on posting regarding the Casey Anthony Case, I have begun posting again beginning June 3, 2011.  For reasons on the gag, and why I decided to lift it, you can read my June 3d post. 

You May Also Be Interested in Elements State Must Prove to Win - Three Prongs to First Degree Murder in Florida and Circumstantial Evidence vs. Direct Evidence.

184 comments:

A Voice of Sanity said...

Where is the evidence of homicide? I see improper disposal of human remains. I see possible death by misadventure. I don't see a mens rea or an actus reas for homicide of any type. How good does this lawyer have to be given these facts?

Lord Tom said...

What kind of a "lawyer" would try to pass off low-level, supervised STUDENT LAW CLINIC WORK as if it were a series of 'trial victories' earned by a LICENSED PROFESSIONAL?!

In 1997, Baez was a lowly student at a lowly law school (St. Thomas, ranked 182nd in field of 185 US law schools).

He then took 8 YEARS to pass the bar exam (in 2005).

How then could he have ANY bona fide trial experience that dates back to 1997, let alone a 'record' of 32 'wins'?!

Shockingly, he tried to pass off his 1997 STUDENT work experience as legitimate PROFESSIONAL experience on his website in 2008, and has only recently removed it.

If such misrepresentation is not grounds for disbarment in Florida, it ought to be!

Anonymous said...

Casey picked him because he speaks Spanish and she thought he could talk to Zanny and get Caylee back.

Anonymous said...

I think Casey actually chose Mr. Baez because someone at the OC Jail gave her his information.

Anonymous said...

@ voice of sanity. Wow. Sounds like someone took a 100 level law class as an undergrad! Don't be afraid to do a little research into the case. There are aggravating factors and premeditation duct tape/chloroform/neckbreaking searches on the computer, etc. Are you related to Jose Baez? Try reading a bit it won't hurt you I promise.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Where is the evidence for the use of chloroform?
Can you connect it to the mother?
Can you prove that the duct tape is connected to the body?
How do you establish the time the duct tape was applied if it ever was?
Can you relate it to the time of death?
What evidentiary value (if any) does a claim of computer searches have?
Do you operate solely on guesswork?

So far that's a FAIL for you.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^
maybe it doesn't know how to read.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the article Reba.
Voice of sanity you really need to go back and read the autopsy report, forensic reports etc and then ask yourself if it's plausable that a 2 year old wrapped duct tape around her own mouth and nose. That she had the strength to rip 3 lengths of duct tape to do so and then remained conscious to double bag herself in a plastic bag, then laundry bag, where she finally laid to rest in an act of suicide?? Did she walk down to the forest herself???
People cover up murders to make them look like accidents. They don't cover up accidents to make them look like murder...not if they're sane. Oye this trial can't end fast enough. Once KC's dealt with, we can focus on watching Baez get disbarred.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Voice of sanity you really need to go back and read the autopsy report, forensic reports etc and then ask yourself if it's plausable that a 2 year old wrapped duct tape around her own mouth and nose.

I made no such claim. I would be surprised if anyone other than Casey did that, however it isn't proof of homicide, merely proof of improper disposal of human remains. Can you prove, to a moral certainty, that Caylee didn't die of a viral infection, reaction to cold medicine or any other reason? Because that is the burden the state must meet. If you disagree, explain the millionaire Robert Durst verdict in TX.

Robert Durst

Anonymous said...

Voice of Sanity- If Caylee Anthony died of a viral infection and her lawyer, the topic of this blog post, didn't counsel his client to be honest with Law enforcement and take a plea when it was only child endangerment and child neglect on the docket, then he really is a very poor Defense Attorney isn't he?? His client is facing the death penalty now and will likely get no less than LWOP.
Once again, go back and read all the released Forensic reports and discovery released. You'll find your chloroform evidence there, you'll find your motive there.
Can you explain why a Mother fails to get her child medical treatment for a viral infection? Can you explain why she failed to report her child missing? After 31 days it was the Grandmother who called and reported 'the kidnapping' to police. Can you explain why a Mother would lie repeatedly to police regarding a death that could be explained medically and why a dream teams worth of lawyers would allow this case to go for years when they could have requested a speedy trial before the bbody was even found? She's had her psych evaluations and has been deemed sane. So I'm afraid, like it or not, the deck is stacked on the murder charges, not a death due to viral infection.
Wait... maybe Casey called her daughter the little snothead in the text messages to her lover du jour that will be admitted into evidence because she had a viral infection.
Not a single claim you made re accidental death, viral infections whatever doesn`t support the idea that Jose Baez is a complete incompetent worthy of investigation by the Florida Bar. THE TOPIC WE ARE COMMENTING ON. Besides, I`ve been to your blog and know you like to take an oppositional stance, which is your right. As Canadians, you and I, perhaps we can agree that it won`t be you or I who eventually convict Mr Baez`s filicidal client, it will be a Florida jury.
As an RN, I believe it could be argued that a conscious failure to provide medical treatment for an acute but treatable ailment in the richest country in the world, might still be considered Murder and is. Before we Canucks lost access to TruTV, I watched several successful prosecutions in US courts for exactly that.
Too bad for her she doesn`t have a better lawyer looking out for her.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Anonymous said: "If Caylee Anthony died of a viral infection and her lawyer, the topic of this blog post, didn't counsel his client to be honest with Law enforcement and take a plea when it was only child endangerment and child neglect on the docket, then he really is a very poor Defense Attorney isn't he?"

No, a damn good one. Never talk to the police. Scott Peterson did and got framed for murder. Others shut up and never got arrested.

Anonymous said: "Once again, go back and read all the released Forensic reports and discovery released. You'll find your chloroform evidence there, you'll find your motive there."

There's no 'evidence' of chloroform. Those sensors are not reliable. They pick up the wrong things.

Anonymous said...

@voice of sanity... but she DID talk. The whole zanny the nanny story and then the (brilliant) second version of said story, this time complete with a supposed script, lol, that she was forced to read from. She had a chance before Caylee's body was found. Actually her own attorney agrees with that point, since it was Chaney himself when interviewed as an analyst (before joining her defense team), that she had a decent shot at walking since, up till that moment there was no body but later on, after the body WAS found, said her fate was sealed. He even knows she is doomed and only joined the team, in his words.... for the fun of it. Sorry, but Casey is no OJ. In fact, she is more like Scott Peterson.... only stupider.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Sorry, but Casey is no OJ. In fact, she is more like Scott Peterson.... only stupider.

Like Scott Peterson? You mean she is completely innocent? Even I don't claim that.

As for 'stupider', he has a college degree. Do you?

Anonymous said...

Good thing for ; casey U are hanging in thair........good-luck to u TO: lawer jose baez

holly619 said...

@ Voice of Sanity
I'm with you. People just clearly aren't understanding what Baez' role as a defense attorney - or that of any defense attorney for that matter - is. It is not to prove innocence. It isn't even to believe their client is innocent. All they SHOULD have to do in the effective justice system that this country claims to have, is lead 1 out of 12 jurors to see that there is a CHANCE she did not do this.

I have seen the evidence that people keep telling you to read, as if you haven't done so. I don't conclude that the state is able to meet their burden based upon their case so far. Unless a lot more comes out at trial, I don't see how anyone can say they've done so.

The very science behind some (if not most or all) of the evidence linking Casey to the remains (i.e. chloroform, decomposition, cadaver dogs,etc) is actually in court this week for a Frye hearing. The defense is doing a pretty good job putting major holes in the testimony of the prosecutions' expert witness, who provided the basis for much of their case against Casey.

A poster on here made the "argument" if you wanna call it that, that Caylee didn't kill, duct tape, hide, etc herself. That isn't how this works buddy. Casey isn't guilty by default.

It is the burden of the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt to 12 unbiased jurors that Casey committed this crime. Not just that there was a crime committed, and not that the defense didn't prove innocence. But to prove that Casey intentionally murdered Caylee.

You guys can honestly say after hearing both sides that there is NO chance Casey didn't commit this crime? How do you know this?

ChattyCathy said...

JB is nothing but a juvenile playing a game,He brown noses when he has too otherwise it’s a game to him!
This video shows his actions are not appropriate and just how serious he takes the case!
It is so obvious to watch him and kc from the mark 2:49!
Watch caseys hands direct him first to the left,then to the right…and he blocks the cam while she thinks she’s getting away with giving the court the finger! While they laugh!
It is soooooooooo Obvious!
JB this is Caylee’s justice and not a dang playground for you and your snickers and games with the mother of a child whose dead!
You are the lowest form of life there possibly can ever be……jmo!

http://www.youtube.com/user/S0meRand0mName#p/u/17/xTyyQCfo1bg

Anonymous said...

There is something about the way those two interact with each other that doesnt sit right with me. It's like two teenagers. Every time I see them together I always get the feeling something is going on. I couldnt sit on the jury. No matter how fair or open-minded I would try to be I can't get passed the fact nobody NOBODY reported that little girl missing for a month. I just can't.

A Voice of Sanity said...

I couldnt sit on the jury. No matter how fair or open-minded I would try to be I can't get passed the fact nobody NOBODY reported that little girl missing for a month. I just can't.

What about people who leave a dead relative in the house to mummify? That's happened several times. People are weird. I need to see actual evidence, not claims that, "I wouldn't have done that". I've done things, like note down a license plate, that seem logical but that most people don't do. There are few 'rules'.

Anonymous said...

FYI, for more biographical information ..Jose Baez just did an extensive HLN tv interview which aired the day after jury selection was completed. Baez spoke at length about his life/ He seemed sincere and said he feels the Justice system is often unfair to minorities, poor, etc. Was very open,and seemed personalble....Was raised by a single mom,, joined the navy after fathering a child/wanted to support the child...not ssure re any other p details. but this wabtimpregnating his girlfriend,when he was 17. He also stated that he preferred defendindg clients, rather than working as a prosecutor. The show aired right after the jury was selected,so most likeky they could not see it-- however the timing suprised me,could have waited till after the case was decided? Today, first day of trial.,,sad, sad situation.

A Voice of Sanity said...

He sure dealt a blow to the prosecution. It remains to see if he can follow through, or if ignorance and prejudice will win over reason and the law.

Anonymous said...

Dealt a blow to the prosecution??? Are you serious?? He looked like the biggest idiot I've ever seen. He is clearly a HORRIBLE trial lawyer, especially with this serious of a case. I mean I think he is trying to put that doubt out there, but all he's doing is make a circus of this case. For us to believe what he said in his opening statement, it would mean like 5 different things had to happen just the way he said, for this to all work out just the way it did. For us to believe the prosecution, it just has to work out that Casey did it, lied, tried to cover it up, etc. He is the worst attorney I have ever witnessed. He sunk this case for Casey the first day. She will fry, and I am glad, as she should.

A Voice of Sanity said...

We'll have to see if the jury is as ignorant as you think they are and whether the Not True Scotsman fallacy will fool them or not. They may just be too smart for that.

Anonymous said...

KITCHEN SINK DEFENSE!! Mr BAEZ seems to be over reaching. THEY COULD HAVE PRESENTED THE WHOLE CASE, INCLUDING PTSD,, BUT WITHOUT HAVING THE FATHER AS THE ONE WHO FOUND CALEY IN THE POOLie,, as a co-conspirator.!!

THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MORE CREDIBLE..ACCUSING THE FATHER OF FINDING THE DEAD CHILD IN THE POOL SEEMS TO BE FAR FETCHED. AND TOGETHER,, WHAT DID THEY do with CALEY?? DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES.? LIKE I SAID,, A KITCHEN SINK DEFENSE.

Anonymous said...

As a layperson observer I had followed this case on a forum that does analyze and sort information on child death/missing cases. Most were claws out from the beginning over this however it always seemed to me something happened to the child by accident and everything post that was denial, guilt, ptsd. It is too bad her lawyer did shoot for the bleachers and drag her father into it when an accidental drowning and disposal of remains with ptsd could swing then number of jurors they would need. Thank you for your blog and putting another legal voice out for what we on the other side see.

Anonymous said...

Wow!! the ignorance of people in this country. Apparently it offends some folk to see an Attorney help shed light on a very troublesome case. Mr. Baez was hired to do a job and that is to create a clearer picture to what happened and who did what. Like most lawyers he's doing only what most lawyers do. As for his creditability like the good book says he who has no fault let him be the first to cast a stone. Apparently you would be the first to have garbage in your closet.

The Worst Service in the World said...

I agree with VofSanity. What troubles me is the fact that she appeared to be a pretty good mother with grand parents that would surely have taken custedy of Cayle. Casey surely knew that would be an option.

Furthermore, if you look at her cell records it's clear she tried multople timea to reach her parents on tbe most logical day of Cayle's death. There are more than 10 unanswered calls to them in a less than 15 minute time span, which all went unanswered. Casey was obviosly in a panic over something.

In addtion, the drowning in the family pool seems plausible considering the ladder was indeed left up, according to the evidence I've seen. Take all that in context with the family "fight" between Casey and Cindy the night before and it's reasonable to think Casey's state of mind would be spinning with thoughts of what her mom and dad were going to do to her when they learned of her utter failure to look after their beloved granddaughtor. Perhaps it was in that mental state that she made the decision to attempt to cover the whole dredful thing up.

Thus, in her mind, she is primarly thinking about hiding this accident from her family--not the police. This would explain why she acted so inexplicably for the next month. It is only after Cindy finally calls 911that Casey starts thinking about what she is going to say to the police. And, by that time she feels like she's all in in terms of the cover up.

Now I ask those of you that believe the Cold-blooded Monster scenerio: what evidence makes premeditated murder more plausable than the theory I just layed out?

Anonymous said...

who would put duck tape on some one"s nose and mouth if it aws a accident

Anonymous said...

Wow... this guy... Baez is REALLY bad. Watching him this morning is unsettling. I could do a better job. This defense is completely insane. Haven't they heard of Occam's Razor?

I would have totally bought it if they said, "Casey was living a party lifestyle and as she mentioned in her messages to Tony, she really didn't know. She was perpetually drunk or drugged and she is guilty of serious negligence, but not murder." But that doesn't explain duct tape or Poo blankets FROM THE HOUSE. Sure, if we had some jury magistrate trained in critical thinking, maybe it wouldn't meet the requirements of the burden of proof, but since we have a jury of typical, dumb folks that decide matters of fact, if you say "this kid has duct tape on her and was found with items from the house, like a story book and Poo blanket," I think that would make up the minds of the jury by itself. I bet this will be an incredibly quick jury decision. Why oh why would they try to make up a fantasy about GA? If it were true, they wouldn't be having such candid conversations on the jail phone call video, where Casey begs to see her father, and say "Surprise, surprise" sarcastically about the swimming pool theory.

Shane said...

No fingerprints
No DNA
No eyewitnesses
No confession
No cause of death (undetermined means)

Anonymous said...

Where is everybody's concious? any parent in guilty from the moment they neglect their own child! accident or not she is guilty of not really caring or looking or for not saying the truth for God Sake! a child is dead and she is guilty she is the mother and did not care for her own child and on top of that she went partying, come on people that's why Moral principles are going down the drain, if she kill her or not that is not the issue, she did not care for her child that alone make her guilty!!!

A Voice of Sanity said...

The moral principle of not judging before all the facts are known seems to have vanished like buggy whips and gas mantles.

Anonymous said...

I predicted over 3 months ago, that Baez would use a "drowning in the pool" defense. Also, I predicted sexual abuse to be a mitigating factor. When I heard him use it, I just about fell to the ground. Because as soon as I predicted it, I laughed and sad no-one would be that foolish because to agree with a previous poster, who in their right mind covers up an accident?

Casey is a sociopath, not a dumbass. These crazy comparisons to other cases like Scott Peterson and OJ don't work. This is one of the few cases in American history where we see a true sociopath, a woman, get rid of her responsibilities because she truely doesn't have a sense of morality.

I cannot really think of another case like this. Everyone who wants to comment on this ought to spend the same 20 years I have been reading about sociopaths. Unless you have first hand experience with one, you really cannot know how deceitful they are. And you cannot know how remorseless they are. Yet they can appear to be charming and loving. What kind of a loving Mom dirty dances with women when her daughter just died even if accidental? No accident here.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Shrug. What sort of president confuses an intern's vagina with a humidor?

Anonymous said...

okay...jose baez is really making a fool of himself...i cant for the life of me understand his experience...it seems however he snatched this case he did so with a death grip... no doubt to bathe in the book deals.. and movie offers he is dreaming of...he refused to let it go to a death penalty capabile attorney...and hired... and fired a ton of legal help with death penalty experience but only as background attorneys... not letting them outshine him... he mistakingly takes center stage...and horribly so... i cringe each day i hear his repeated errors... his empty crfoss examinations... his argumentative expletes...his ignorance of any type of law in a courtroom scares me... because i dont want casey winning an appeal...Baez is ridiculas and will get nothing from this if he continues to make himself look like a kindergartner...i bet he will lose... judging on his tactics that seem to be grandious and dramatic but dead in the water...he loves himself... cant carry himself with any kind of respect for the law...is an absolute moron...youd think hed read up on some of the court room procedures or get some help without trying to grab the spotlight...if what ive seen is right regarding the lack of experience ive found that Baez retains...Caseys goin down....

Anonymous said...

I hate to be a nitpicker but it's Kissimee,FL not Kissamee.

Anonymous said...

Just have to add - (after dealing with sociopaths) most would grab on to any opportunity to blame someone else for their misfortune. So, an accidental death of Caylee would fit well into CA's life. She would milk it for all it is worth. It would completely go against a sociopath to leave such a tempting oportunity alone. Also, Don't please be misled into thinking someone who has been felt up by her brother makes it okay to be without morals. It isn't all that unusual for young boys to cop a feel. Not saying it is right, but most of the women I speak to have some sort of a brother story.

Anonymous said...

well, Jose does have some nice suits and ties

Kerrin Arzoo said...

To just say, Baez aside, when the HELL has Casey ever been consistent in her story? Justice you say? How about some goddamn straight answers and truth?

Anonymous said...

I'm Canadian!

From what I've seen Mr. Baez would not be allowed to
practise as a paralegal much less be lead defence in a capital murder case.
We love and respect you neighbours,but what 's up with your legal system.
't
Get Casey a real lawyer,because if she is convicted and get's the death penalty her family will be the ones to
suffer and they didn't do anything.

Anonymous said...

Um, it's a [Winnie the Pooh] blanket..not a Poo blanket. Gee whiz. Read a book.

Anonymous said...

We have the right to choose who defends us. From free to the most expensive lawyers. And then there's Baez. Casey could have and should have fired him from the beginning, but this is her choice. Now she has to live with it.

Anonymous said...

I don`t know who you know it alls are but Jose` has gone to great lengths and been fducked over by belvin. "FISHING EXPEDITION" WHAT BULLSHIT. cASLYEES` DAD(GEORGE) HAS JUST ABOUT CONVICTED HIMSELF.

Reba Kennedy said...

Hello everyone,
I have lifted my self-imposed gag order on commenting on the Casey Anthony case - for details, please read my June 3rd post.

As for responding to each of your comments (above), it's too late to respond to each one.

I will be posting regularly on the trial from now on.

I will be responding to comments from today forward.

I will do this blanket response to the comments above here:

As an attorney, I've cringed more than once watching Baez in action. Example? Having the judge on more than one occasion bring up that there was a December 2010 deadline for evidence motions and that things are waived now - ugh. Involuntary lawyer shudder.

However, the key to this case is not Baez (that's the appeal): the key now is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed capital murder. And if a guilty verdict is returned, then it's going to be balancing aggravating factors vs mitigating circumstances. That's when the death-qualified co-counsel will take the lead, I'm assuming: in that second phase.

philip said...

I have been watching the whole story unfold right from the start. I have always wanted to know who IS Jose Baez. Nobody ever gave any background information on the guy. How did Jose become Casey's attorney? Was he court appointed or referred to Casey by someone? At the beginning after Casey was arrested, Jose was on a retainer schedule? Who paid his retainer? What does George and Cindy think of Jose Baez as a person?

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Philip,
An earlier comment does give more info on his background, seems there was an interview after the jury was chosen where Jose Baez gave details on his personal background. I missed it. (See Anonymous' comment on May 24th.)

As for how he's being paid, at some point Casey Anthony was ruled to be indigent. Which means that the State of Florida pays for her counsel.

As I recall, there was some controversy because she received a substantial payment from one of the major news outlets for personal photos and there was an argument that this should nix any indigent status.

However, what you are watching today is the State of Florida picking up the tab on this trial for both the state's prosecution as well as the indigent defense.

Speaking specifically about a retainer, I don't have any info on that. Maybe someone else does, who will leave a comment.

Thanks for writing,
Reba

Anonymous said...

Baez is going to hang this girl, it probably was an accident, to much benedryl, cough meds, or chlor. All he is looking for is his book deal, get rich, and get out of central florida, because I can assure you he will not be getting any new clients from this. This was a sad, unfortunate, tragedy, I do not believe she did it intentionally, I believe it was an accident, because she couldn't find anyone to babysit, she wanted to party, and had to put the baby in the trunk so no one would notice, it is hot as hell in florida in june, and she lost track of time thus this unfortunate tragedy. I feel awful for the family, and all other children that have been lost because mistakes, accidents, and careless parents. She has issues no doubt, but Baez is only making it worst, instead of cutting a deal. My sadness goes out to all the children that have been involved for things out of their control, god bless the anthony family, I am very sorry for your loss in so many ways.

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Anonymous,
I think you'll find that Nancy Grace agrees with you here - at least, what you've shared here aligns with the opinions she was voicing last night on her show. (At least the part of the show that I saw, I missed part of it.)

By the way, my friend Diane Fanning was on Nancy Grace last night, giving her opinion on things. She's an experienced True Crime writer, and so far, her book on this case is the only published book out there. Of course, she may be writing more - and Aphrodite Jones is in Orlando, another true crime writer. FYI, Diane doesn't make deals with anyone on her books: no sharing of profits, fees, etc.

Anonymous said...

I am new to this site and posted in the last few days, however, don't see my post. Perhaps it wasn't "approved" by the moderator? In any case, up until day 3 of the trial I could have been a juror, that's how little I knew, or cared to know, about this case, other than the bare basics. I think you would seriously have had to been living in a cave for the last 3 years to know nothing, but I digress. I sat down to eat lunch and the trial happened to be on TV. I really got interested and since then have caught up with all the testimony, key players, etc. As far as Baez, I googled his bio and apparently he has been involved from the very beginning, not court appointed, just went the jail and became Casey's attorney. She had heard either other inmates or workers at the jail mention his name. If you Google his bio you will be dumbfounded that this man is basically trying his first case on one of the trials of the century. He has very little experience, did not attend a very well ranked law school, took 8 years to pass the bar, etc. I feel so sorry for Casey with him as her attorney, unless it is an intentional ploy to be able to claim incompetent counsel for reasons of appeal (which from what I've seen of the trial so far would certainly hold up!) For the life of me, I cannot understand why Cheney Mason, one of Florida's most prestigious trial lawyers, isn't taking the reigns more on this case. Baez looks like an absolute buffoon! I do not believe Casey murdered Caylee. So far there has been no evidence that points to that fact. If the jury can do as they were instructed to and keep the emotion out it and only follow the evidence, then I believe Casey will get off. Is Casey a verging on sociopathic, yep. Was she molested by George, probably. By Lee, evidently, as he submitted to a paternity test (George has not). Does Cindy Anthony know more than she is letting on, I believe so. Why is there no father listed on Caylee's birth certificate? Where are the paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins? NO ONE from Caylee's father's family has emerged in 3 years??? Something doesn't add up on that end, which puts doubt in my mind that perhaps George is the father of Caylee. Why did he move out 3 months after she was born? Why is Cindy sticking by George who pubically humiliated her by having an affair during all this with a younger woman, and NOT sticking by her daughter??? There is so much about this case we will NEVER know, only those involved know the truth, but as for reasonable doubt, I believe that has already been established. The prosecution has the burden of proof, yet it appears the judge sides more with them than the defense, probably because they are much more qualified in courtroom proceedings than Baez. I do believe, whether intentional or not, law enforcement made mistakes and if nothing else Casey will get off on a technicality. It is almost ridiculous to think that in 3 years someone at some point didn't make a mistake in the paperwork. Whatever happens, I do hope everyone who is watching will not crucify Casey just because she was young and made a lot of mistakes, but remember that the true victim in all this is that beautiful little girl Caylee.

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Anonymous,
I'm not sure what happened to your prior post - while there is a delay before publication so I can moderate comments for the usual reasons, I don't show a record of a pending post and I appreciate you taking the time to write again.

Sounds like you are following along with lots of details in the trial and I thought I'd share two things:

first, I posted today on the elements that the prosecution have to prove to win their case. Casey Anthony has been charged not only with first degree murder but with manslaughter, details in that post; and

second, there is an online forum that you might like - Websleuths. They have a section dedicated to this case and their research files, etc. are very thorough. For example, I believe that George Anthony has been ruled out as Caylee's dad through DNA testing but those over at Websleuths will have all the details on that, as well as lots of the other points you've made.

Thanks for writing,
Reba

DAVID FROM OREGON said...

Bueno.. Coma-Sta Amigo,s...Senior Jose Baez is actually a very difficult Lawyer to figure out... His credentials prove he is allowed to practice Law and even though he graduated at a not so populor Law School, He is the lead lawyer to one of the biggest cases in history...Be aware that he is doing a pretty good job at proving his client Casey Anthony is a very big liar...

Anonymous said...

Reasonable doubt- that is the standard. Baez is going to have to do something other than discrediting FBI and CSI experts to instill reasonable doubt. His client is a psychopathic liar,for sure. With Cheney Mason on the team, ineffective assistance of counsel will be hard to prove, even if Baez is a dolt. Maybe they're just anticipating the appeal, but the judge has a tight rein on proceedings so not to allow any reason for appeal. Our tax $$ are really flowing down the drain here, so it's good we're getting this "entertainment" value from the trial.

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi David from Oregon,
One of the issues isn't just that he's licensed to practice law in Florida but whether he's death-qualified - which his co-counsel has achieved. Is having the death qualified attorney setting second chair sufficient to meet the Florida statutory requirement? I dunno.

And, listening to those jailhouse recordings it's really amazing to me now only how much Casey lies but how much detail she gives to the fabrications. Wow.

Thanks for writing,
Reba

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Anonymous,

For me, the reasonable doubt focus is on the prosecution, since the trial is still where the state is putting on its case and it's their burden to prove the charges against Casey beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm trying not to think so much right now on what the defense is doing (or not) and more on what the prosecution is doing. Today's introduction of the AIR evidence, that was fascinating for me.

I mean, I get the experts who have years of experience in smelling decomp testifying that they smelled that smell and know what it is. That evidence, nothing new. But the cans of air? Wo Nellie.

Which is why I posted today on the elements that they've got to meet: can they meet the burden on manslaughter? Sure seems easier than the first degree murder hurdle, but they've got a plan in mind to try and meet that one. We'll see.

And, insofar as ineffective assistance of counsel, I've posted here on what that standard is, too. It's not just who is setting at the table, it's what is in the trial record. The appellate court will review on appeal what it receives in (1) the evidence and (2) everything that the court reporter has transcribed. There will be points of error, could be oodles of them.

For example, whenever the judge rules that an objection to evidence has been waived because the December 2010 deadline to file motions to suppress, etc., was missed ... well, that's a point of error on appeal. Lawyer error. Not as big a deal as when a lawyer in a civil suit misses a limitations deadline, that's serious malpractice, but missing a deadline is never good. Saving grace here, if the evidence motion would not have been a winner if it had been filed back in December.

I'm rambling. Point I'm trying to make is ineffective assistance of counsel is a hard appellate argument to win, as a general rule, and it's more a point by point appellate argument - can get technical fast - not just a overview on lawyer performance.

Thanks for writing,
Reba

A Voice of Sanity said...

"Which is why I posted today on the elements that they've got to meet: can they meet the burden on manslaughter? Sure seems easier than the first degree murder hurdle, but they've got a plan in mind to try and meet that one. We'll see."

How will they meet the standard for assault, let alone anything else? The prosecution needs to have witnesses prove that:

The child did NOT die by accident.
The child did NOT die from illness.
The child did NOT die from other non injury cause.

Where is that evidence?

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Voice of Sanity,
I hear you - I'm anxious to see how the prosecutors pull together their direct evidence, too.

From my post on 06/04/11, I gave the info on the Jury Instructions from the Florida Supreme Court's site.

Here's the lingo from those instructions on Homicide:

"There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

"To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

"1. (Victim) is dead.

"2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

"3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

"Definitions.

An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

Right now, let's see:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Is Caylee Anthony dead? I think that the remains have been identified by DNA, right? However, this evidence isn't in the record yet.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

Here, VofS, is where I think you're watching closely. Was the death caused by Casey? If so, was it a criminal act? State prosecutors must put in evidence here, and I think we'll see more on this prong next week.

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Premeditation is defined in the instructions. Doesn't take much time between thought and deed. I'm assuming the computer stuff on recipes for choroform, etc. will be part of the evidence we're gonna see come in - and maybe the earlier evidence already in the record comes into this prong, too: the motivation that the state is arguing about wanting a life with Tony, partying without responsibility, etc.

Circumstantial evidence is respected - it's not as good as direct, but it can work in a murder case.

Here in Texas recently, a man was convicted on killing his wife without a body, murder weapon, etc.
If you're interested in reading up on that case, defendant is Charles Stobaugh, victim is Kathy, here is a Dallas Morning News article on the conviction:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/denton-county/20110217-denton-county-jury-finds-charles-stobaugh-guilty-of-murdering-estranged-wife-as-final-divorce-decree-neared-in-2004.ece.

Thanks for writing, Voice! Hope to hear more from you as the direct evidence keeps coming in next week!
- Reba

Theresa said...

I seriously hope she does NOT get off, this woman is scary and I believe completely that George and Cindy were the original targets

I believe that the Jury will accept the banding evidence from the hair. I believe that the Jury will accept the evidence from scientific analysis done on the air by the body farm folks in Tn. I believe that the Jury will accept the repeated testimony of people who know what decomp smells like when they said "that was the smell of decomp" I believe these things because I am not an attorney, I am not in law enforcement or the media, I am just a regular person with a four year Computer science Degree and were I on that Jury I would accept it all.

I do NOT accept the scattered defense. I do not see how Baez can argue that the body was never in the car while at the same time try to say that George was destroying evidence and had access. The Defense lost all credibility when they tried to impeach George because the Wrecker guy threw trash away but didn't say a word to Cindy for using bleach and fabreeze to clean the car.

In closing I'd like to say that I do not believe that the defense has a chance in hell of changing the Jury's mind unless they put Casey on the stand to explain all of the damning evidence presented in those Jail house calls.

I may be wrong, but I believe that because I resemble the Jury more than a legal analyst or Lawyer or member of the media that I do have better insight into what the Jury might be thinking.. and as a person who raised a daughter as a single parent alone who is also now a Grandmother I can tell you the Jury is saying .. This girl is guilty guilty guilty.

Sorry if you disagree "Voice of reason" but the fact of the matter is, the Jury is a group of regular folks, not a group of wanna be lawyers.

A Voice of Sanity said...

While the circumstances in the Stobaugh case are highly suspicious, women HAVE disappeared before, such as those who vanished in the 60's only to be found by the FBI years later. I'd like SOME evidence of homicide.

As for the chloroform, when will they find a proof of purchase by Casey? Otherwise this is People v. McCall [10 Cal. App. 2d 503], and should not be allowed in.

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Teresa,

I am very appreciative of your taking the time to comment here - and for what you've contributed.

I also totally agree that you've got great insight into what those jurors are thinking, think you are totally on point that the jury's thinking "guilty" right now (I'm imagining a cartoon balloon above their heads right now) and I tip my hat at your computer science degree. I wish I had one, I am a geek-wannabee with just enough knowledge to destroy things.

You know, it's different in the courtroom where people are there with you - I'm wondering what the jurors are doing during the day, how they are watching Casey at the table.

Especially with those videos from the jail on the screen last week. Wowser. What a moment in time.

Thanks so much for writing!
Reba

Theresa said...

Reba,

I got my degree after having raised my daughter alone. I graduated with a BS in CS 2 weeks before my 40th Birthday. One site I have been using to watch the trial (totally addicted and spending way too much time on this) actually has a live blog and two cameras, one on Casey and one on the Witness or current attorney at the podium. This site has VERY little commentary but when they do comment it is to tweet from one of their reporters in the courtroom. Frequently they report what the Jury is doing during things like when the damning interrogation tape played or during the Casey outburst in the Jail house videos. I'm providing the link as I think you'll find it a great place to have a birds eye view.

http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthony/index.html

Live coverage with the cameras and blogs start there about 30 minutes before the trial. Almost zero chatter from talking heads and when they do have an analyst it's brief and insightful. Enjoy!!

Glad I found this blog, it's a place to go when the live blog shuts down LOL

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Voice,
Yeah - the Stobaugh defense would agree with you but the guy still got convicted...circumstantial evidence can be enough for a jury to find murder. Now, it's the job of his appellate lawyers.

California and Florida? Florida's rules of evidence and its precedent may not see things the same as California courts do. While the model rules are pretty much accepted throughout the country, Florida is known to be much more conservative, overall, so we would need Florida precedent here, hopefully one from its high court. Judge P is going to use Florida state case law here and he would consider this to be a secondary source, at best.

Also, I think there were recipes for chloroform found on the hard drive, where it could be made from household items. I don't know where I remember this from, can't give a source, but I do know it stuck with me b/c it was a shocker like the SAPD Detective who told me how easy it was for my child-client's parents to cook up a bunch of meth in their tiny apartment, using things like a coffee maker and bleach and stuff. One trip to WalMart and voila. Scarey stuff, and when I heard the choloform recipe I remember thinking - it's just like what the detective was talking about.

I ramble, I ramble. Point being that the evidence may be a recipe from the computer not a receipt from a store.

Thanks for writing, VofS!
Reba

A Voice of Sanity said...

"Sorry if you disagree "Voice of reason" but the fact of the matter is, the Jury is a group of regular folks, not a group of wanna be lawyers."

The jury is not tasked with "figuring out the case".

The jury is not tasked with "deciding who is guilty".

The jury is tasked with deciding IF the state has proved guilt BY THE EVIDENCE and BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

If they do more than this they have broken their oath.

That's why the verdict of the OJ jury was right -- they said they thought he was guilty but the state so badly mishandled the evidence and lied so often about it that they would not convict on it.

You should read the jury instructions sometime. They're interesting (if confusing).

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Theresa,
Hey - thanks for this link!!! I'm spending too much time on this stuff too, I cannot HELP myself. LOL

Have a great evening (and day off from CA Trial tomorrow)!

Thx,
Reba

Theresa said...

There is evidence that she searched for neck breaking and how to make chloroform in March and they have demonstrated that at the time of the search she was the only one who would have been in the house.

I Googled How to make chloroform and was actually shocked at how easy it is to do so however I do not believe that that was the murder weapon. The autopsy clearly states that the duct tape was on so tight that it held the skull together after full decomposition. It also states that it was NOT placed there postmortem.

I hope we get to see Dr. G (my favorite medical examiner) testify that the Duct tape was there before she died and covered her nose and mouth.. then it's all over but the crying.

The ONLY way the defense is going to have a chance to change the mind of this Jury is if they put Casey on the stand to connect the rest of the dots. They will not likely do that so .. see ya at the appeal.

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Everyone,

I promised that I would answer all comments, and I will -- but thought I would leave this comment now ...

I don't work Sundays, so I will answer any comments on the blog from now thru Monday morning (this post or any other post) on Monday.

Thanks for stopping by here and if you leave a comment, please know your time is appreciated,
Reba

A Voice of Sanity said...

"Scarey stuff, and when I heard the choloform recipe I remember thinking - it's just like what the detective was talking about.

I ramble, I ramble. Point being that the evidence may be a recipe from the computer not a receipt from a store."


That's like saying "you looked up how to make a gun at home so you could have done it and then thrown it away". Well, she 'could' have done a thousand things. She 'could' have smothered the child. But 'could' isn't 'did' without evidence. I also looked up how to make chloroform at home. I have a year of college chemistry and I wouldn't try this. Phosgene is a truly nasty gas; look it up. It is a colorless gas which gained infamy as a chemical weapon during World War I. Horrible stuff. I don't see Casey making chloroform - she isn't that smart.

Theresa said...

"The jury is tasked with deciding IF the state has proved guilt BY THE EVIDENCE and BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT."

And what I am telling you is, that based on the evidence I have seen THUS FAR and what I KNOW will be introduced after reviewing ALL if it is ... The JURY is thinking GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. I have NOT seen the defense put out ANYTHING thus far that places REASONABLE DOUBT. On the contrary, the DEFENSE appears to ME to be reaching and grabbing at straws.

I wonder, have YOU reviewed all of the evidence in this case? Have you read all of the transcripts?

A Voice of Sanity said...

"I have NOT seen the defense put out ANYTHING thus far that places REASONABLE DOUBT. On the contrary, the DEFENSE appears to ME to be reaching and grabbing at straws."

So far, the prosecution has zero evidence for homicide. None. They seem to be desperately hoping that the jury will assume that "Any mother who would dump her child's body and lie about it MUST have killed her". This is a non sequitur, "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Disgraceful.

Natalie Tieger said...

Adrian Monk would have said "She's the guy!" right after the opening statements.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Natalie Tieger said: "Adrian Monk would have said "She's the guy!" right after the opening statements."

Adrian Monk is way smarter than that. He doesn't make stupid assumptions.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Theresa said: "And what I am telling you is, that based on the evidence I have seen THUS FAR and what I KNOW will be introduced after reviewing ALL if it is ... The JURY is thinking GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY."

If you are right then she has no chance of a fair trial. There has been zero evidence of homicide offered anywhere - in the trial, in the press.

Theresa said...

Hi again Reba,

I wanted to take a moment and comment on your original purpose for the blog and ultimately what led me to it and that is Jose Baez.

My feelings from watching the Casey cam intently during recesses, during times when she enters and leaves the courtroom and during testimony is this:

Casey, at a time when she was the most alone and vunerable got referred to Jose from other convicts. Once she reached out to him he was the first on the scene and showered a flood of male attention on her. This is a woman who lives for male attention. This is also a woman who had dreams of being engaged to someone wealthy. The late night visits made by Mr. Baez and the power she felt she had in allowing him to represent her were intoxicating. She didn't want someone like Cheney, she wanted to feed herself that emotional drug he could get from Baez. She is totally and completely smitten with the man. I have watched the dynamic of this relationship very closely and am completely convinced that it is THIS dynamic that ensured he would get and keep the case.

Will she kick herself when she hears the Jury read the verdict? Absolutely! When she realizes that he is not her knight in shining armor it's not going to be pretty and I wouldn't be surprised if she attacks him after all of this is over. But for now it is what it is.

Should Jose be ashamed of himself? ABSOLUTELY. Whether or not he did anything to encourage her feelings he should have recognized what was going on and referred her to someone else. I do not know what his ethical requirements are but from a professional perspective, he has absolutely taken advantage for his own personal gain.

Anonymous said...

My heart goes out to Casey Anthony - I am a woman old enough to be Casey's great-grandmother.I don't know if she committed the crime or not & may never know. What I do know by simply observing is that her mother, Cindy Anthony, is a crocodile tears spouting, controlling hypocrite who would blame Casey (but only in a one on one with Casey or publicly if it gained her sympathy)if Caylee had died of natural causes in a hospital. How do I know this? Because I had the same type mother and yes, I learned early in life just as Casey did to lie to the mother.
E.C.

evadare said...

Hello all,

@the Anonymous who wrote this:

" Anonymous said...

...Casey is a sociopath, not a dumbass. These crazy comparisons to other cases like Scott Peterson and OJ don't work. This is one of the few cases in American history where we see a true sociopath, a woman, get rid of her responsibilities because she truely doesn't have a sense of morality."

I agree with you, and most of the other things you've written, and in your assessment of Jose Baez.

One thing, though - George did not molest Casey. Period. Maybe the brother tried, but that's immaterial.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm interested in legal stuff, trials, psychology, shows like Nancy Grace, etc... and I think I'm a pretty astute student of human nature - no doubt about it, Casey is a sociopath, and a frightening one.

I'm sorry "A Voice of Sanity" - you are incorrect. Hopefully, no matter what, she won't get off because of people who think like you.

evadare
Sunday, June 5th, 7:44pm

Theresa said...

WOW, just when I thought the Defense in this team couldn't be worse.. I find this Jump right to the second video clip to see Cheney's life sentence prediction While the crime scene tent was still being ERECTED over Caylee's body!

LOL @ Adrian Monk comment

Anonymous said...

the judge thinks he is a joke but i think he is having fun with him getting so exasperated all the time. he is pretending he is some big shot and he is faking it all. judge knows that. thats why all is objections are overrulled and he gets in trouble so much. he is a whiner.

Reba Kennedy said...

Happy Monday, everyone!

Having read through all the comments left between Saturday evening and this morning, I'm going to combine my responses in a couple of comments rather than leave a bunch of individual ones.

1. Voice of Sanity and Theresa have commented quite a bit here on the evidence that is here, and the establishing of guilt.

Direct evidence is coming in this week - this morning, we've got the expert on the stand regarding the stench, for example. However, this is primarily a circumstantial evidence case for the State. Reading though Voice of Sanity's comments, I think Voice (and many others, undoubtedly) prefer direct evidence before convicting someone of homicide.

Actually, I think everyone could agree on that -- if we had a trustworthy videotape of every murder, then justice would be better served. Direct is best.

However, clever criminals as well as lucky ones commit crimes all the time without leaving behind much, if any, direct evidence. Sometimes, all that's available is circumstantial evidence and the courts do recognize it as a valid basis for conviction.

This is getting too long. I'll write a post on this.

Anonymous said...

Jose was inappropriate with Casey such as touching and why when she was on bail why did they stay alone in her bedroom and he had her at his office every day..He is as sick as Casey but an axis 2 personality disorder is not a defense and what Jose is doing to what is left of the Anthony family is dispicable. I think Casey feeds his sick ego since she has no other man to try and seduce. Just what I see from an enept lawyer

Reba Kennedy said...

Summary response 2: Can we opine on what the jury is thinking right now? Sure. Trial lawyers know that juries make preliminary calls on a case very early on -- as early as during jury selection, maybe opening statement. These are their individual first impressions.

They'll pick Plaintiff or Defendant, and then they'll go forward from that position.

Trial lawyers know that these impressions involve their clients and themselves - how you appear walking into the courtroom, sitting at the table, etc. is being watched by the jury. You want to be the winner of those first impressions, it's an advantage to you as you go through the trial.

Lawyers will be watching the jury, too: is there anyone taking notes? anyone sleeping? are they looking at the client or are they avoiding eye-contact?

All going to the question of "how are we doing?"

So, when anyone watching this trial opines on what the jury's thinking, it's a fair question.

However, these jurors haven't started deliberating yet. Lots of stuff happens in that jury room, where the factfinder is placed with all the evidence exhibits.

The prosecution's case is still coming in, the defense has not begun yet. It hasn't gone to the jury.

However, just as we ponder the evidence coming in, we can ponder how those 12 (and the alternates) are being impressed by this stuff.

And, as Theresa pointed out earlier, those watching this trial may be closer to the mark on what that jury is thinking than the lawyers who are pondering the procedural rulings, etc.

Personally, I think trial by media comes into play here. I didn't follow jury selection, but I assume that most on the jury were aware of the Caylee Anthony media story at some level.

Even if a juror wasn't aware of the case, they would soon be aware that the state is seeking a murder conviction against a woman they say killed her child.

That's not a defendant who is going to be liked by the jurors in the first impressions. It's a hurdle for the defense, which I assume they think can be jumped by the sexual abuse history discussed in the opening.

Thanks everyone for writing,
Reba

Reba Kennedy said...

My last summary comment today:

Thanks to Theresa, Anonymous, Evadare, on bringing up the psychological issues here.

I'm going to write a post on this one, too.

One thing, really quick, though: if Casey is found guilty of first degree murder, then her psychological state should become part of the evidence we hear as part of the penalty phase of the case.

Assuming the procedural necessities have been met, then experts should be on the stand giving their opinions - and dx - on Casey, and maybe the family dynamics, too - in efforts to mitigate against the death penalty.

Does the fact that the experienced death qualified attorney is setting at the table now but not really participating in the trial phase mean they expect to get to that penalty phase? Maybe.

Thanks all for writing,
Reba

A Voice of Sanity said...

Reba Kennedy said: "Direct evidence is coming in this week - this morning, we've got the expert on the stand regarding the stench, for example. However, this is primarily a circumstantial evidence case for the State. Reading though Voice of Sanity's comments, I think Voice (and many others, undoubtedly) prefer direct evidence before convicting someone of homicide."

First, 'stench' isn't direct evidence, it's circumstantial (and it isn't even evidence, but that's a separate matter). What too many do is confuse circumstance with happenstance.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that proves one fact from which conclusions can be drawn. For example, if someone is shot with your gun and you have possession of that gun that is circumstantial evidence. If you got your hair dyed black a month later that is happenstance. It doesn't 'prove' that you hoped to escape in disguise or the like.

If the child's body had been examined immediately after death and showed signs of strangulation that would be direct evidence. Just because you can't examine the body you aren't entitled to assume what you want. Only provable facts can be used to convict.

A Voice of Sanity said...

evadare said: "I'm sorry "A Voice of Sanity" - you are incorrect. Hopefully, no matter what, she won't get off because of people who think like you."

You are the greatest danger America faces. You believe that your opinions override actual evidence - that you are somehow 'right' and the evidence doesn't matter. Casey should be judged on the evidence and that alone, not on opinions formed by the media who are themselves lazy, incompetent dumbasses. Once you throw out the rules you throw out everything worthwhile.

A Voice of Sanity said...

If you want to read some good analysis of the case, see The Hanged Juror where she comments on the case as it goes.

James said...

Kissimmee

A Voice of Sanity said...

Quote (The Hanged Juror): "Yes, you read that correctly: Vass believes in divining rods! That means that I was right—the prosecution is presenting superstition as scientific evidence.

Theresa said...

Voice of Sanity, I am basing my opinion solely on the evidence.


I started to break it down kindergarten style for you but decided to stop wasting my time. After all you believe Scott Peterson to be innocent and applaud the OJ Simpson Acquittal. There is no reasoning with someone like you so I'll just let it rest.

The only thing that PISSES me of is that you continually insult my intelligence by stating that I am believing what the media feeds me. I have watched EVERY minute of the trial MORE THAN ONE TIME. I have READ the transcripts of the depositions and Examined EVERY piece of evidence. I deliberately do not watch the coverage on stations like HLN or Nancy Grace because I do not LIKE the way they spin things and state their opinions as if they were fact.

You can disagree with my opinion but please stop insulting my intelligence by insisting that because I disagree with you I must be ONLY reviewing media coverage. You really lose any ground you might possibly have when you do that.

When this trial started I knew very very little about the case.. I could have qualified to be on the Jury. I started watching it on day 3 and was thinking that maybe she might be innocent so, I went back and started over at day 1. I watched all of it, I also read the entire case.

Reba: When I started college my major was Polysci, my intentions were to get JD and practice law. A doctor at the university bumped into me in an intro computing course and convinced me I would be better off studying CS. I envy your degree, I have always wanted to practice law.. so there, the hat tipping is mutual =)

I did however keep polysci as a minor.. for whatever worth.. that and five bucks gets me coffee at Starbucks!

A Voice of Sanity said...

Theresa said: "After all you believe Scott Peterson to be innocent"

You are totally wrong. I know beyond any doubt that he is innocent. If it could be proved that either you or Scott Peterson killed his wife I would choose you as the killer, since you have never been proven innocent as Scott was.

Theresa said: "and applaud the OJ Simpson Acquittal."

I 'applaud' it because it is a correct verdict in law. Whether he is guilty or not I cannot say but the evidence against him was so polluted by incompetence it could not be trusted. He was never convicted beyond a reasonable doubt - doubt was all there was in this case.

I cannot say that Casey is innocent. What I can say is that under US law she must not be convicted as this will violate the law and rules of evidence.

Theresa said...

A Voice of Sanity said...
Quote (The Hanged Juror): "Yes, you read that correctly: Vass believes in divining rods! That means that I was right—the prosecution is presenting superstition as scientific evidence.
June 6, 2011 2:18 PM


Thankfully Geeks are not swayed from getting their geek on by those who do not have the mental capacity to understand science and thinking outside of the box making fun of them.

Theresa said...

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that proves one fact from which conclusions can be drawn. For example, if someone is shot with your gun and you have possession of that gun that is circumstantial evidence. If you got your hair dyed black a month later that is happenstance. It doesn't 'prove' that you hoped to escape in disguise or the like.

Getting your hair dyed black in and of itself is not incriminating. Getting your hair dyed black then saying it is black because you walked past a group of roofers spreading tar on a roof and some spilled while you just happen to be near the border of a country with a large amount of cash in your possession is a WHOLE NUTTHA STORY.

Yes, if you take a minute single portion of an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence and try to convict on that single piece of evidence you appear pretty silly.

Anonymous said...

The only alibi that would have made any sense would have been, Casey couldn't get her mother, nor anyone else to watch Calee while she partied. She had Caylee inhale chloroform so she would sleep while mommy played. When Casey returned, Caylee wouldn't wake up. Mom panicked, put her body in the trunk until she could figure out what to do. If so, why was duct tape needed to shut her up? She was tired of g-ma and g-pa doing everything for Caylee, but not for her. She was told to grow up and take care of her own kid. Casey was told, if not we will take her, sign over custody. If not, stop using us as your babysitter while you live the single life. Casey, to spite her parent's and to have the freedom she wanted killed the poor child like I mentioned, above.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Theresa said: "Yes, if you take a minute single portion of an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence and try to convict on that single piece of evidence you appear pretty silly."

But nowhere near as silly as you are if you claim there was "an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence" when there was, in fact, none whatsoever, a fact admitted by the prosecutor.

Meryl Pataky said...

I have to say I agree with Voice of Sanity to a certain extent (aside from his claims of Scott Peterson being innocent....sorry). The indictment here is CAPITAL MURDER and in order for the state to get a conviction on that indictment they need to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. So far, no such evidence or proof. YEs there were searches made and yes there was chloroform found near the body but there is no proof, i.e. fingerprints or trace that link the chloroform to Casey and you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the one that made those searches on the home computer when 3 other people had access to it. Not to say that Cindy or George definitely made those searches, but you can't say that it was Casey beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that's what Voice of Sanity is trying to get across here.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Meryl Pataky said: "I have to say I agree with Voice of Sanity to a certain extent (aside from his claims of Scott Peterson being innocent....sorry)."

If you still think Scott Peterson might be guilty, read this post:
111 Days compared with 7 Days
and then the first two pages here:
Scott Peterson is Innocent

Anyone who reads these and still maintains he could be guilty simply cannot think and cannot grasp the connection between evidence and conclusions. (Sadly, too many are like this).

Anonymous said...

nothing on his website works!!!!!! You should try it.

Theresa said...

A Voice of Sanity said...
Meryl Pataky said: "I have to say I agree with Voice of Sanity to a certain extent (aside from his claims of Scott Peterson being innocent....sorry)."

If you still think Scott Peterson might be guilty, read this post:
111 Days compared with 7 Days
and then the first two pages here:
Scott Peterson is Innocent

Anyone who reads these and still maintains he could be guilty simply cannot think and cannot grasp the connection between evidence and conclusions. (Sadly, too many are like this).


I'm sorry, link me court transcripts, link me official records, link me tangible evidence and I will go read. I do NOT read analysis put up by the general public. I don't even read stuff like that put out by mainstream media. I wont even CLICK on those links. Anybody can build a web page and spin a tale. The ONLY link I have put on this site is to a television station who is hosting ACTUAL official records and documentation and also raw court video. There is no commentary there or in any of the video, when you look at the records you are seeing ALL of the records in all of their painful entirety. Show me something that that and tell me specific documentation I should view..

I honestly had to laugh at the link you posted to the hung Juror because it is doing exactly the same thing that you claim to hate about the mainstream media. Just because it's doing it in your favor does not make it any better or any more right.

Rainey Day said...

I have lived on Earth for 53 years, and like many, I have been around people long enough that I can tell what is BS and what is not, by watching a person's demeanor, and inappropriate behavior. Her story is BS. If it isn't, then we have the greatest actors in the world - Casey and her father George! Jose Baez has a difficult job to defend Ms. Narcissist, Pathological Liar of the Year! Whether she gets the chair or not, her life in prison and her subsequent life out on the streets will not so easy as she will surely get her just rewards by those who hate baby killers!

Theresa said...

If the defense had not opted to say Casey never had the body of Caylee in her trunk I was pondering something regarding the chloroform found in the trunk.

If she did in fact drown and was subsequently placed in the trunk I would be curious to know if the acetone created during the normal decomposition of her body could combine with the chlorine in the water that would most certainly have filled her lungs and stomach to create the traces of chloroform found in the trunk.

It's too bad they opted to go the way they did, I honestly don't believe it's the truth, I'd be more inclined to believe that she'd carried the body around after the accidental drowning than to believe the most recent story presented by the defense.

I wonder if analysis has been done on chemicals created during normal analysis of the decomposition of drowning victims. Specifically of someone who drowned in a pool.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Theresa said: "I'm sorry, link me court transcripts"

Why don't I post a link to a list of clever comments made by Sarah Palin? Or G W Bush?

Theresa said: "link me official records"

Why don't I post a link to a recipe for making free gold? Or losing weight by eating ice cream?

Theresa said: "link me tangible evidence and I will go read."

Why don't I post a link to an adventure park full of unicorns? (And this one is particularly stupid, what could a "link me tangible evidence" be?)

BECAUSE NONE OF THESE THINGS EXIST! NONE!

California does not post all trial transcripts online.

Theresa said: "I do NOT read analysis put up by the general public."

Because you'd have to admit you were wrong!

You have proved me right: Anyone who reads these and still maintains Peterson could be guilty simply cannot think and cannot grasp the connection between evidence and conclusions. You obviously fear to read the truth, truth based on actual trial testimony quoted directly. Yes, I do have a link to a site where you can read or download the trial transcript, all the court motions, all of the photographs of evidence that have been released. But if I posted it you'd have an excuse to weasel out of reading it so there's no point.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Anonymous June 7, 2011 3:30 PM said: "nothing on his website works!!!!!! You should try it."

So? He's deleted the links for now. I'm sure he's too busy for more work - or attacks by crazies.

Anonymous said...

Voice of an Idiot : after nearly three years you are still commenting on this article. if you aren't getting paid to comment, and i know you aren't, i wouldn't waste another second of your life! pathetic! and comment all you want, rest assured i won't be back here to look at it.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Rainey Day said: "I have lived on Earth for 53 years, and like many, I have been around people long enough that I can tell what is BS and what is not, by watching a person's demeanor, and inappropriate behavior."

I've been here a lot longer than you then and I've learned that this is false. Even judges and cops don't have this skill - they just think they do.

Remember these VERY wise words:
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
-- Mark Twain

I know that the only way to judge is by the evidence. 'Behavior' is BS.

Cynthia Sommer didn’t fit the role of a grieving Marine widow.

Shortly after her husband died suddenly, she hosted boisterous parties at her home on the base. Authorities say she showed Marine wives her newly enhanced breasts — paid for with her husband’s life insurance policy. And within two months, she had taken up with another man.

Military investigators say Sommer wanted a life that was out of her reach as a mother of four working at a Subway restaurant and married to a strict Marine — and she allegedly poisoned her husband with arsenic to get it.

His death initially was ruled a heart attack, but tests of his liver later found levels of arsenic 1,020 times above normal, court documents show.

So they convicted that bitch for his murder and threw her in prison.
.
.
.
Only ... some extra tissue samples of his were found which had never been tested. When they were, they found zero arsenic. Turns out the lab screwed up the test horribly, so she had to be released.

So guess what? The people who helped put her behind bars -- military and county officials -- are now the target of a $15 million lawsuit. According to a draft copy, prosecutors knew plenty.

The suit cites sloppy lab work that likely contaminted the tissue samples, including some that "disappeared altogether."

The suit further accuses investigators and prosecutors of ignoring a string of experts who didn't believe the arsenic theory because arsenic should have been found in more samples.

Sommer's criminal lawyer Allen Bloom, who is not involved in the civil suit, said, "And everyone told them you've got it wrong... and yet they still went ahead with the prosecution."

So next time you are 'sure' someone is guilty because "you can just tell" remember Cynthia - and don't volunteer for a million dollar lawsuit!

Theresa said...

Why don't I post a link to an adventure park full of unicorns? (And this one is particularly stupid, what could a "link me tangible evidence" be?)

BECAUSE NONE OF THESE THINGS EXIST! NONE!

California does not post all trial transcripts online.
...
Because you'd have to admit you were wrong!
... Yes, I do have a link to a site where you can read or download the trial transcript, all the court motions, all of the photographs of evidence that have been released. But if I posted it you'd have an excuse to weasel out of reading it so there's no point.


OK, which is it.. NONE EXIST or They exist but you don't feel like posting because I "proved" you right?

Reading random analysis of facts off of the world wide web is pretty dangerous and most likely comes closer to being what is wrong with America today than what you have stated in other posts.

You sound like Baez trying to use a site like Wikipedia to impeach the Forensic Scientist the other day. ANYTHING ON THE WEB CAN BE FABRICATED.. Just because someone builds a site and spins a good tale does not make it fact..

Anonymous said...

@a voice of sanity

She researches how to make chloroform on her computer, she doesn't report her daughter as missing, she doesn't even report her car as stolen, her car contains residue of chloroform, her trunk smells of human decomposition, she borrows a shovel from her neighbor, she researches neck breaking on her computer, Kaley is found where Casey buries her pets WITH one of Casey's heart stickers on her mouth.

Yes no one saw Casey kill Caylee but at some point common sense has to prevail!

A Voice of Sanity said...

Theresa said: "OK, which is it.. NONE EXIST or They exist but you don't feel like posting because I "proved" you right?"

Here's the complete document file for the Peterson case:

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CaseFile.htm

Now you put up or shut up; post a link to the complete Phil Spector trial transcript online - if you can.

Reba Kennedy said...

Happy Wednesday, everyone -

Couple of things:

1. I've invited a psychologist who is an expert on narcissism to write a guest post here (see my post published today).

If you have any questions or comments for that psychologist, then please leave a comment on today's post about any particulars that you would like them to address.

There's always leaving comments to their post after it's published, too, of course.

2. I've posted today on how the State of Florida is footing the bill for the defense expenses (but not lawyer fees) too.

3. Since so much is being discussed here about direct evidence versus circumstantial, I'll be posting later this week on that specific issue (and I'll be talking with a Board Cert Crim Defense friend here in Texas before I write that post).

Theresa, hope to hear from you on the computer-related evidence that has starting coming in today: I think it was a blessing that the professor "bumped" you into that intro computer course!!!

Reba Kennedy said...

I've just posted on

Circumstantial Evidence vs. Direct Evidence

(http://backseatlawyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumstantial-evidence-vs-direct.html)

and I ask that further comments on the evidence be placed there, rather than this post that deals with Jose Baez.

Thanks,
Reba

Theresa said...

Wow Reba, you rock! And, one more thing for me to be Jealous of.. I am a native Texan, my family all live in Texas, my granddaughter was born in San Antonio. I am currently in Exile of sorts .. banished to the east coast .. Sometimes I liken it to when Charles Ingles had to go off to the big city to get a job and support the family because the farm was failing. I work for a large defense contractor in the Washington DC area and I have to tell you that I have been CHOMPING at the bit when it comes to listening to this computer forensic analysis.

There is sooo much more they could do but I suppose not every County Sheriff can afford to have a full time Computer Scientist on staff to yank this stuff apart and build a good forensic picture for them so they do the best that they can with the tools they have.

I wish I had a direct email for you, is there some way I can send you a private message?

Theresa said...

Theresa, hope to hear from you on the computer-related evidence that has starting coming in today: I think it was a blessing that the professor "bumped" you into that intro computer course!!!

Probably can do so over the weekend. I can listen to the trial at work but only what HLN broadcasts which is SO annoying sometimes I want to slap the talking heads on HLN. I wont be able to really listen to the computer stuff as well as I'd like to until the weekend as you only get part of the picture listening on HLN and there is a lot of testimony to catch up on. So very cool that you're doing all of this..

Yea, He thought so too while he tortured me for 4 years LOL.
THANKS!! (for feeding the addiction)

Theresa said...

Where would you like comments on the Computer evidence posted?

Theresa said...

First and foremost .. I am most certain that were I on that defense team I could get EVERY single ounce of this computer forensic evidence tossed out. I have always felt very strong about the legal precedence that has been set in this country when it comes to using computer data from emails and data files. I don't want to give any secrets away to the defense or anyone else.. but I am certain that I could build a solid argument with valid proof why NONE of this is admissible. And I do mean NONE of it.

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Theresa,
LOL about being an exile - it is really hot here in SA right now, but Texas is still a wonderful place to live! (Native Texan to Native Texan)

Thanks for the heads up on the computer stuff and I know lots of folk will be interested in what you share, tho I would ask that you post that over at the Evidence post I put up today: this comment thread is getting long and unwieldly for me, I can't find folk/topics easily.

Looking forward to reading it! Have questions for you!!!

Oh, and my email isn't a secret - it is reba AT rebakennedy DOT com.

As always, thanks for writing,
Reba

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi All,

Please post your comments regarding evidence here:

http://backseatlawyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumstantial-evidence-vs-direct.html

(it's the 6/3 post "Circumstantial Evidence v. Direct Evidence")

Thanks!!!
Reba

Michelle said...

I have no 'legal' experience nor am I a lawyer...but in watching this case I wonder if JB's in-experience (obviously showing) will benefit Casey? Could SHE ask for a mistrial due to his blunders so far?

Michelle said...

Because I do not have a law background I am sure I am not the only person with the following 2 questions.

1. Is there a rhyme or reason as to why different attornies question instead of just lead attorney for everything?

2. When they submit closing arguments will the state be able to remind the jury how much money we have already spent on the searches for Caylee and on the trial?

I ask the latter of those 2 questions because I do not wish to see my tax dollars continuing to support this little liar just so psychologists can 'study' her or to let her sit in jail getting 3 meals a day, reading, watching TV or even furthering her education at our expense.

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Michelle,
Welcome! In answer to your questions, here's what I think:

1. Jose Baez is making mistakes during the trial, and whether or not these errors will support a reversal based upon "ineffective assistance of counsel" is an open question right now. Every time the Judge has brought up a missed deadline to object to evidence (that Dec 2010 deadline) is an error. I'm also wondering about the failure to challenge the air analysis for its newness (but maybe I missed it at the trial, and maybe it got brought up at the March Frye hearings).

Short answer, she wouldn't ask for a mistrial. She would appeal a conviction based upon lawyer errors, "ineffective assistance of counsel". I posted what the details on what that is in an earlier post.

2. As for different attorneys, sharing the load in a trial like this is common practice. Those lawyers probably are getting little sleep - I feel for the female attorney, having to worry about her hair on national TV in the midst of everything else. You take this witness, I'll take that one; you do opening, I'll do closing - it's a way to divy up a big job.

3. I don't think that the money paid by the State of Florida can be a factor for the factfinder, so nope. Jury is limited to determination of the issues in the jury instructions (see earlier post on that too).

4. As for tax dollars, sad but true. Florida will be paying for Casey Anthony's 3 hots and a cot for the rest of her life (unless she gets a reversal on appeal or gets something less than 1st degree murder and actually sees freedom sometime).

Thanks for writing,
Reba

Michelle said...

Hi Reba,

Thank you for the reply. I agree, I'm almost distracted when I see that nest of a hair-do! :)

I know you mentioned what factors the jury is limited to in considering Casey's fate... I had just hoped they could squeeze in there somehow the sheer cost that Casey has put all of us (taxpayers) through with her lies so they could put an end to it.


Thanks again,
Michelle

Anonymous said...

As an average Lucy, I have a quick question: do defense attorneys know if their client is innocent or guilty??

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Anonymous,

According to some friends of mine that are Board Certified Criminal Defense attorneys here in Texas, they do not focus on innocence vs. guilt and do not want their client to talk with them about it.

They focus on guilty vs not guilty, and see their role as targeting the state's case and revealing the holes in it.

Not guilty isn't innocent, as one pointed out. It's the state not meeting their burden.

Thx for writing,
Reba

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard whether George and Cindy still visit Casey?

Anonymous said...

found this on the web:
It has taken a while for Baez to establish himself as a defense lawyer. Despite graduating from law school in 1997, the Navy veteran was denied admission to the Florida bar for eight years until 2005.
An order by the Supreme Court of Florida states that he was denied admission because of his failure to pay child support to his ex-wife and secure life and health insurance for his teenage daughter. It states that he had previously declared bankruptcy, written bad checks and defaulted on student loans, the court said.
The Florida Supreme Court said his financial mishaps coupled with failure to pay child support "show a lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law."
Baez declined several requests by ABC News to comment on this story.

Anonymous said...

Jose baez is making me crazy i want to slap him he is so stupid!! He tries to discredit expert witnesses n he makes a big fat dumbass of himself!!!! He makes a fool of his dumb self!!!! She aint got a chance simply for the fact that baez is a rediculous joke :)

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Anonymous,

I heard somewhere that George and Cindy have not visited Casey since Aug 2008, but I could be wrong.

As I remember, shortly after that Casey began spending her days in the law offices of Baez's firm - don't know when that began or ended.

Thx for writing,
Reba

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Anonymous,

Thanks for the additional info on Jose Baez' background.

That language from the state authority is pretty serious stuff.

Wonder if it will ever reappear in an appeal? I'm betting it just might...there's gonna be an appeal if Casey Anthony gets convicted, and it seems pretty logical that there's going to be an ineffective assistance of counsel argument.

Will it be strong enough for her to win on appeal? Dunno. Not many of those arguments win ....

We'll have to see what happens.

But, Anon, I agree. Some of this cross is just painful.

Thanks for writing,
Reba

DRStella said...

Clearly don't mean to be a troll. I enjoyed reading the post. But, it's Kissimmee, not "Kissamee."

Reba Kennedy said...

Hey DRStella,

You're not a troll. I've corrected the spelling. Thx for the head's up.

And thanks to the earlier comment that caught this misspelling, too. It was on my ToDo List.

Fixed.

Thanks for writing,
Reba

Professor said...

I have read with interest the comments on this blogg. This blogg appears to be like most I frequent; The person who starts the blogg (has to be right all the time) or they get pissed...It is much like a call-in radio or TV program. The one who pays the fees to the station has the last word.

Reba, it appears you have smoozers that writes comments to support your views...Nancy Grace has those who call in & brag on her children....That is Sick.

What about the commenters that brag about their college majors..........A college major does not necessarily make one smarter! A college degree is only another crook in a pig's tail; A crook does not make any more pig.... Have you heard the statement; Send a fool to college & get an educated fool?
I too, have college degrees, but sometimes I am WRONG!

I agree with A Voice of Sanity because he has the ability to think outside the box.....Not everyone has the ability to do that. Sorry he pisses you off & you believe he is insulting your intelligence. He is only trying to stress what our justice system originally set in order.

The Prosecution in this case is playing a game. It has nothing to do with justice. It has to do with whether one wins the game.... If this comment pisses you off like A Voice of Sanity did, so be it.

Anonymous said...

Reba,
This is really bothering me as an RN and parent. If your child falls into the pool accidentally and you could scoop them out and save them and decide not to but rather to just watch them die is that pre-meditated murder?
Also if your child is limp and pale, possibly blue from a drowning, asthma attack, anaphylaxis or whatever and you can call 911 for help to save them and choose not to knowing that not doing so would certainly result in the childs death, would that be pre-meditated murder?
I'm confused because the defense theory about the drowning that nobody attempted CPR for (Dr G's autopsy report states there was no antemortem trauma and no fractures- there would have been with CPR)still sounds like murder to me.
Thanks

ellie said...

Oh my, Professor, I am so sorry to see that a fellow Prof. is, in your words, "an educated fool".
For the life of me I cannot see why you feel that the prosecution is playing a game when they are in the same court as Jose Baez, the ultimate court jester!
Please say it isn't so! Why does this case make you so angry?? (as in the last sentence of your blog)

A Voice of Sanity said...

ellie said: "For the life of me I cannot see why you feel that the prosecution is playing a game when they are in the same court as Jose Baez, the ultimate court jester!"

Because the prosecution have charged Casey with 1st degree murder BUT they are only offering evidence of improper disposal of human remains, something she is NOT charged with. This is disgracefully dishonest.

Baez has little choice but to defend her against this since it is the evidence offered.

Mary said...

I discovered this blog by just doing a search for JB..wondering who and what he was..I agree with those here who are less than impressed by this guy..to me he is a bozo and in way over his head..I clicked on his website and found that it is either still under construction or out of commission..I had my suspicions of he and mis' thang at the beginning and agree that she would shimmy up to any male as I believe that is the way she communicates...I'm not convinced that he seduced her..instead was looking for a client..any client..and the rest is history

Cheney Mason, as I understand is working for free for whatever reason..supposedly a very good criminal defense lawyer but he is hard to understand and is a tad hard of hearing...kind of a good ol' boy who for me comes under the category of a little of him goes a long way

as far as the Anthony family dynamic..this is the black hole..and Cindy, for me is at the bottom of all of this..also have heard that George has an ex-wife who has said that he is a good guy but is a pathological liar..

anyway, I'm glad to have found this site and look forward to reading previous posts and future posts..thanks to all..

Mary

Merry said...

A Voice of Sanity:

Did I see you post (June 6, 2011) that Scott Peterson was "proven innocent?" Silly me, but I could swear the guy is sitting on Death Row in CA!!

Also, in your comparison of a part of the female anatomy to a humidor, is that the same as comparing a hike along the Appalachian Trail to visiting a mistress in Argentina?

Just curious.

You are as credible as Casey
Anthony!

Professor said...

ellie said...
Oh my, Professor, I am so sorry to see that a fellow Prof. is, in your words, "an educated fool".
Professor said......
I am honored you have the wisdom to discern a fellow prof; "an educated fool"
ellie saide......
For the life of me I cannot see why you feel that the prosecution is playing a game when they are in the same court as Jose Baez, the ultimate court jester!
Professor said.....
Now ellie, what strategy would you use as a defense attorney when your opening statements indicated the girl is a liar, made stupid decisions regarding notifying the proper authorities regarding the child's death due to being an abused child. (Surely you being able to analyze me as an educated fool are able to understand the behavior of an abused child. Abused children do not process information & make wise decisions the same way as those that have never been abused) The defense now sits listening to the prosecution try to prove what the defense has already stated in the opening remarks? I can't imagine how frustrating that would be!
ellie says......
Please say it isn't so! Why does this case make you so angry?? (as in the last sentence of your blog)
Professor says.......
Also, thanks for the psychological evaluation you did on my emotions. If one disagrees with the majority of statements posted here, one must be angry...lol

ellie said...

Professor says...
"Abused children do not process information & make wise decisions the same way as those that have never been abused."

"Also, thanks for the psychological evaluation you did on my emotions."

I'm sorry to tell you that you, fellow prof, know not of which you speak. It is true that sexual abuse gets blamed for many problems that people have but that does not mean that EVERY abused person has these deep, dark secrets. I was sexually abused from age 4 to 15 by my father, a well admired, prominent man in my hometown. I did not become this screwed up liar who has ruined so many lives. Even if she has some mental issues as a result of this supposed abuse, that is NO EXCUSE to murder your own child and then go out cruising, boozing, screwing,
and tatooing??

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Anonymous (RN and parent),

You asked:

"If your child falls into the pool accidentally and you could scoop them out and save them and decide not to but rather to just watch them die is that pre-meditated murder?"

"Also if your child is limp and pale, possibly blue from a drowning, asthma attack, anaphylaxis or whatever and you can call 911 for help to save them and choose not to knowing that not doing so would certainly result in the childs death, would that be pre-meditated murder?"

Here's my take:

Each state law defines crime in its own way, but following Florida's jury instructions, here is what Florida juries are instructed - and it looks like it would be premeditation under Florida's definition in either of your hypotheticals:

"“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing."

For more, including links to the Florida Supreme Court site with the official jury instructions, go here:

http://backseatlawyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/casey-anthony-trial-here-is-what-state.html

Thanks for writing!
Reba

Anonymous said...

She saw what Baez looked like and she wanted to phuck his brains out while in jail. She couldn't care less that he is a horrible lawyer.

Anonymous said...

As research chemist for over 40 yrs.
I hear all of the items that Baez has tried to interject into this trail and it makes one sick. How this guy ever got in any law school is to me a surprise. He is nothing but a show off maybe he went to the wrong acting school too! It would have helped him to brushup on some science before opening his mouth. I think he is in the same group as his client "lie,lie and more lies".If the juror can not see this is a monster that shows no emotion until it is an item about her, then she puts on her act only when the juror is present. I say duct tape her mouth and inject very slow with chloroform then bag her and place her in the Everglades to rot!

Anonymous said...

Everyone here is an attorney, it seems. Pretty funny, actually. In response to the original post, web sites like Martindale, Avvo, etc are "pay" sites, meaning that an attorney must pay these sites to get any details into the site. Most small firms don't spend money on this sort of stuff.

Also, I'd much rather have an attorney that knows what they are doing, than one who has a fancy schmancy website (though I do agree it's weird that we can't see his bio).

A Voice of Sanity said...

Anonymous said: "As research chemist for over 40 yrs."

"Research chemist?" Is that what they call it now? Bwahahahaha. And Tom Cruise is my ugly, younger brother.

Harold Bibby said...

People have a short memory this is America your instant until proven guilty in a court of law. Not the media

castingstones said...

Ellie said ...
I was sexually abused from age 4 to 15 by my father, a well admired, prominent man in my hometown.

Ellie, I'm so sorry to hear about the abuse you were subject to as a little girl where your innocence was taken away by your father at that. I can't imagine the mental dynamics you had to sustain to live that type of life and make it out on the other side.

Ellie said ...
I did not become this screwed up liar who has ruined so many lives.

While you did not become the liar that Casey became,is it fair to say that each situation is different? That although being able to identify with incest, depending on other factors involved that this was the only way she could cope?
Ellie said ...

that is NO EXCUSE to murder your own child and then go out cruising, boozing, screwing,
and tatooing??


I agree this does not give an excuse, but this is assuming that she is already guilty. But the sexual abuse she suffered and survival skills she had to maintain to live in a situation where her protectors are really perpetrators can give the public an understanding into the special hell she had to endure. In so doing, bring more awareness to what is often too hidden and a child not have to suffer in silence.

A Voice of Sanity said...

"I agree this does not give an excuse, but this is assuming that she is already guilty."

And in fact there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for what happens that doesn't involve any guilt on Casey's part, just poor decisions after the fact.

Anonymous said...

There is never a defense for duct tape any where on a baby! NO MATTER WHAT THE REAL STORY!!!!!

who is giong to ask if Casey or someone cleaned - vacuumed the car, and put the trash in the car ot try to cover up the smell? How only 12 hairs? I have more than 12 hairs stuck to my shirt on a daily basis... how only 12 hairs in the car (trunk) on a 1998 car in 2008? This to me would prove premeditation and obviously a cover up! And Baez made a big deal about testing on a car so old!!! how does it now work to his favor?

How was the Defense - Expert witness Dr. Bug guy today - called by Linda Kenney Boden on him to testify on Dec. 11 - the day body was found, but not identified yet! How did the defense know it was Caylee already? Before identified?

Why did Baez make a big deal of the Expert for the State doing his test in TN in Jan-Feb but didn't make a deal about the bug guy from Nebraska doing test with a pig in September in Nebraska? In a blanket, a laundry bag, and 2 plastic trash bags and barley 1/2 the professional experience as the State's bug guy?

How does anyone not believe Casey was involved and knows the truth! STOP THE MADDNESS! TELL TEH TRUTH AND STOP WASTING MONEY

A Voice of Sanity said...

"How does anyone not believe Casey was involved and knows the truth!"

No one says Casey wasn't involved AFTER the child was killed. The question still unanswered is how she died? Did Casey kill her? Accident or homicide? Or was she killed by someone else?

Your crazy ranting doesn't help at all.

joyce said...

teresa i read your explination of why casey would use jose baez instead of some other more competant lawyer and i couldn't agree with you more. i've watched the dynamics of these two and i couldnt figure it out till i read your comments. he has really lowered the bar for defense lawyers. he reminds me of an ambulance chaser from a bad movie

Anonymous said...

Lets see now, a beautiful 3yr old little angel was lost somehow, someway and only whoever was present will know the truth. On one hand we have witness statements/evidence to establish Casey has a history of lying, partying, interesting choice of google searches...not the best relationship with mom, just look at the jailhouse tapes, she always prefers the dad...she fails to EVER report her daughter missing, chooses to party, write things in her journal about how she has never been so happy, blah, blah...gets the it's a beautiful life tattoo, not a care in the world until her mother bursts her little bubble, catches her off guard smells the car,calls 911after freaking out that after 31 days, Casey can no longer provide a logical explanation for her missing daughter...as a result lied her daughter was kidnapped, is caught in more lies about her employment, stealing, zanny the nanny, etc. vs. the baby accidentally drowned and Grandpa George Anthony, this retired law enforcement officer, and apparently also now child molestor was the cause of all of these lies, yet there is no evidence to substantiate she really was molested? Really...you know what if I was on that jury, so far I'm not buying the defense story...the one and only consistent fact is that Casey has lied to everyone even before killing her daughter...unless she gets on that stand and gives a reasonable explanation to her untruthful behavior, I'm not buying it and hope God can forgive her, and me because I do think she deserves to fry!

Anonymous said...

Hi Reba! Nice blog - just found it this afternoon.

This may have already been said, but I didn't see it in the comments, re Baez' case career.

He had another murder case in April 2008 just months prior to meeting Casey. It was not a DP trial, but it was certainly a murder trial.

State vs Nilton Diaz, who was convicted of Child Abuse/Manslaughter and sentenced to 15 yrs.
....
Side Note: wftv Eyewitness News also learned that Baez was almost an hour late for the sentencing of his client, Nilton Diaz, in a Lake County child abuse death the day Anthony was released the first time. That same day, Baez shoved a reporter. He also kept the Lake County judge, the victim's family and witnesses waiting. When he arrived, he made no apology.

Baez also requested a special hearing the day before that, asking for a delay in Diaz's sentencing, telling the judge he expected the media to follow him to Lake County after Anthony's release and that it would be prejudicial to Anthony.

Lake County Circuit Judge Mark Nacke denied Baez's request for that delay. Baez ended up taking Casey back to her house the day she was released from jail before he headed to Lake County. No reporters followed him to Lake County that day.
....
Diaz filed a motion for a new trial claiming Baez was a defective attorney. His motion was denied.

"Diaz claims he lost his case and was convicted of manslaughter and child abuse because of Baez’ trial strategy and performance, including his decision not to disclose pertinent evidence to prosecutors. Diaz insists this prevented the jurors from viewing an important defense video. The Orlando Sentinel reports a biomechanical expert created the video, which would have shown the jury that the little girl’s skull fracture could have been accidental.

"Diaz claims, “…Mr. Baez wanted to surprise the prosecution, and the surprise blew up in the defense’s face.” Diaz also alleges, “Mr. Baez’ defectiveness affected the fairness and reliability of the trial, that confidence in the outcome was undermined.”
...
As (recused) Judge Stan Strickland said, "Indeed, the irony is rich"
...
Prior to the Diaz case, Baez represented Kissimmee Mayor George Gant. This 2007 trial was entertainment at it’s finest. Gant had been suspended from office and accused of sexual battery in connection with a gynecology exam in 2002. This air tight case fell apart when the prosecutions star witness suddenly refused to testify. So score one for Baez, but it was hardly due to his legal abilities.

In 2006 Baez took on an equally improbable case. Elvira Garcia stood accused of kidnapping her room mates 6 week old daughter. This particular case was dropped by police when it became evident that the entire event was a domestic squable.
...
I hope the media was able to secure the sidebar transcripts from today - it's always an interesting read!

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Anon,

Wow, this is interesting information, never heard of this before.

I know that Blogger comments don't allow for hyperlinking, but it you do get a chance, would you mind sending over the link for the Orlando Sentinel article? I couldn't find it (albeit it was a pretty fast surf-through).

Thanks Anon, and thanks for writing!
Reba

Anonymous said...

Sad case.

Anonymous said...

Hi Reba!

You can find the article if you goog this:

site:orlandosentinel.com nilton diaz biomechanical expert

It should be the top choice there.

HTH!

Anonymous said...

This PIECE OF SHIT SCUMBAG IS GOING TO ROT IN HELL!!!!! HOW CAN SOMEONE DEFEND A MURDERER THAT KILLED HER OWN CHILD!!!! DOES HE NOT HAVE A FAMILY OR CONSCIOUS????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KARMA ASSHOLE!! LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO OJ'S LAWYERS!!

phylly3 said...

I wonder it the chloroform started to be used on Caylee while Casey was seeing Ricardo Morales, the boyfriend before Tony. Ricardo is the one who had the joke? on his social media page about chloroform. He also testified that Casey and Caylee both slept with him in his bed and that he could not recall being intimate with Casey while the child was in the bed, and that Casey usually had Caylee with her when she stayed over night.

A Voice of Sanity said...

The whole chloroform claim is bullshit. There's no evidence she had any, no evidence she used any, no evidence she would have been able to use it, no evidence she wanted Caylee asleep or dead.

It's a very difficult substance to administer and very hard to obtain. Cough syrup is possible, chloroform is not. What tiny traces might have been there were probably a by product of carrying dry cleaning in the trunk.

See THIS LINK for the 'evidence' the state has offered and how silly it is.

Dee Dee said...

I have read all of these comments and I am somewhat perplexed. I can say I would make the best juror as I am totally Neutral and only make decisions after I see both sides. I am a 54 yr old female, retired teacher. A lot of people here seem to have already made up their minds after only circumstantial evidence! I do feel that Casey did something wrong to have Caylee missing for so long, but can we actually say that she "murdered" her daughter? No! We only know that there was child negligence here. I'm not totally in compliance with the Prosecution's case. He hasn't proven to me "without a shadow of a doubt" that Casey MURDERED her daughter. Yes, Caylee is dead; yes, Caylee's remains were found in a suspicious manner; no, we can't prove Casey was the killer! I was upset to know that the sheriff's office never did a drug test on Casey when they arrested her. I'm wondering if she was using drugs during this time?

As far as Jose Baez is concerned which is why this blog was started, I'm disappointed that I can't find anything of any significance on him anywhere on the internet. All the Baez haters need to remember that he's attempting to do his job. Defense attorneys get a bad rap because they do have to represent the bad guys. I really do believe he might be "acting dumb" here ... who knows, maybe it's a part of his bigger plan!

To end up my response, I live in Orlando and I've been in the court room on floor 23 for the Casey Anthony Trial now twice with my 3rd time coming tomorrow. I have stood in lines to be able to get inside and I can honestly say it's worth it to see how the justice system works. Before you condemn someone, try walking a mile in their shoes. Don't prejudge someone ... get all the FACTS first. Just my opinion!

Fernandez said...

Common sense is that Casey Anthony's negligence led to the death of Caylee. However, VOS is correct because the state is "drawing out" the murder with only circumstancial evidence.

In a capital murder case, the state really has to prove beyond doubt that Casey Anthony intentionally killed her daughter. Let's completely disregard the defense's theory of what happened because we know she did not drown and Grandpa staged a murder scene (c'mon lol).

I don't know how Caylee died and ended up in the woods (don't mean to sound crass), so if I was a juror I would not convict her of 1st degree Murder.

IMO, Casey Anthony does deserve capital punishment regardless because it is clear that her "negligence" led to a 2 yr old decomposing in a wooded area in plastic bags.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Fernandez said: "Common sense is that Casey Anthony's negligence led to the death of Caylee."

There's no evidence of that. None.

Fernandez said: "IMO, Casey Anthony does deserve capital punishment regardless because it is clear that her "negligence" led to a 2 yr old decomposing in a wooded area in plastic bags."

No evidence of that. All we can guess at is that she improperly disposed of the child's body after finding her dead, and even that is a stretch. It's much more likely Caylee died as a result of a stupid act by another person, as yet unknown.

Quote: "Dr. Phil's sister-in-law Cindi had apparently been driving her car when someone threw a vat of acid from an overpass. The acid broke through the windshield and burned her face and body, causing internal damage as well. She spent about three weeks in the hospital and eventually had 15 surgeries."

Is he responsible for this in some way?

Lisa said...

I just found this blog today. Very interesting. I also don't think Casey killed her daughter on purpose. I think she paniced, tried to cover it up then went on about her buisness trying to make everything "appear" normal. I don't think the prosecution is proving their case very well. I think Baez is an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Look at Kronk again maybe he put the rattlesnake there himself to keep people away from body, until the reward was big enough, and how can you see a little skull in the woods behind a tree form 30ft away

Fernandez said...

VOS is right, all the evidence in the case seems to be related to how the body was disposed AFTER death (stains in trunk, decomposition smell, Caylee's remains, pictures of partying, etc)

BUT, "how to make chloroform" searches and "BS" chloroform residue in the trunk is fishy. ALSO, the duct tape with heart sticker is inexplainable. If she was already dead, why would you tightly duct tape head/mouth/eyes? Some creepy mummification? I don't think so.

A Voice of Sanity said: "It's much more likely Caylee died as a result of a stupid act by another person, as yet unknown"

When this "another person" accidenly caused Caylee's death, was Casey concerned about her daughter's whereabout? Ooo right, she wasn't concerned with not seeing her daughter for 31 days because she left her with the nanny Zoraida/Zenaida(whatever). If she was convinced her daughter was missing, she would cooperate with authorities instead of having them run in circles. Of course this is all "if". Jurors aren't lawyers, they think like us regular people do

A Voice of Sanity said...

Fernandez said: "When this "another person" accidenly caused Caylee's death, was Casey concerned about her daughter's whereabout? Ooo right, she wasn't concerned with not seeing her daughter for 31 days because she left her with the nanny Zoraida/Zenaida(whatever). If she was convinced her daughter was missing, she would cooperate with authorities instead of having them run in circles. Of course this is all "if". Jurors aren't lawyers, they think like us regular people do."

I nearly died aged three because of another kid's stupidity. Other children, toddlers like Jamie Bulger and Derrick Robie, have died because of evil behavior by juveniles. You have to stop looking through that 1/2" vertical slit in front of you - consider other possibilities. What about kids who drop objects off freeways? They must know how dangerous it is.

Casey's behavior is exactly what I would expect from someone who has spent her life covering up and lying about bad things - why on earth would it change now? It isn't in her.

elliec said...

Does anyone know what happened to the $225,000 reward? I did read that Roy Kronk received $5,000 but that was not part of the reward.

Fernandez said...

It's one thing to lie about stealing money from your parents, it's another thing to "cover up" a child thats missing for 31 days. I do admire your passion for re-instilling the fact that a conviction should be based on evidence, and not speculation.

You've made me smarter, Thank you.
(20yrs Old btw)

Anonymous said...

Wow what a great blog !..Ive been following the Casey Anthony case for a while now. It strikes me why did Cindy Anthony clean out the car and sprayed air freshener to clear the decomposing smell also washing Casey Anthony cloths..I know over here in the U.K that would be seen as aiding and abetting, tampering with evidence,perventing the course of justice.After all Cindy Anthony made it knowing that she could smell a decomposing body from the car after they picked the car up from the pound.I do think the Anthonys know more than they are letting on.

Yolanda B said...

All I can say is that he needs to be disbard

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi all,

I've posted on the elements of first degree murder here in a separate post as well as the distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence, if you want to go into detail on either of these areas.

What I'd like to point out here is that it's my understanding that the death penalty in Florida can be a sentence under either "first degree murder" or "felony murder" and the elements post links to the Florida Supreme Court's instructions on the elements to be proven by the state for each.

The State has both its case in chief as well as its rebuttal to put evidence into the record that establishes its case.

It's premature to make a decision on what the prosecution's case has shown, or its strength or weaknesses, until we have everything on the table.

Right now, we don't.

As for the question on Cindy Anthony possibly obstructing justice, that's a good question.

Has there been perjury in this case? Another good question.

Has there been sanctionable conduct by the lawyers, and has Baez acted in contempt of court? Good questions.

I don't think this case is done when this trial is over. Casey Anthony is gonna appeal, that's a given. And there may be ancillary proceedings advancing in its wake.

Thanks to everyone for writing,
Reba

A Voice of Sanity said...

Reba Kennedy said: "It's premature to make a decision on what the prosecution's case has shown, or its strength or weaknesses, until we have everything on the table. Right now, we don't."

Except that, based on the state's own evidence and testimony, I can make a great case that Casey didn't harm her child and I see no way to make a case that she did.

Anonymous said...

I cannot believe how Baez has defended Casey....although I believe she is guilty, it is too bad she did not have the benefit of a better attorney. He won't be getting alot of new clients after this trial, unless, of course, Casey is found not guilty which will never happen.

A Voice of Sanity said...

"Baez ... won't be getting alot of new clients after this trial"

Neither will Mark Eiglarsh if people have watched him on HLN. He hasn't got a defense lawyer's brain.

Anonymous said...

Voice of Sanity you have been off all the way. Baez is not smart or capable. He is obnoxious, and should have given the lead to one of the other lawyers on the team to try to learn but his ego did not allowed that. By the way, he accused people of getting paid by the media but he got paid as well and Casey did too. 200,000.00! The State of FL is NOT paying for Casey defense, the midia is, some donations and a lawyer paid 70.000.00 to joined the team before. So... I will be surprise if Baez will not be disbarred. Casey unfortunately is guilty but I do not wish her death but she must pay for her crime. Death will only damage her family even further and will not serve any one.

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi All,

The Casey Anthony defense team was initially being paid by private funds (including that media deal for the pix).

However, CA was deemed indigent a long while back and since then, she's had her expenses paid by the State of Florida. It's my understanding that the attorneys are going it pro bono.

Details on how the defense team is being paid, how those bills are reviewed/approved, with links for more details, is in post written June 8th,

http://backseatlawyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/casey-anthony-trial-defense-costs-how.html.

Thanks everyone for writing!

Anonymous said...

Old Lady: Fascinating Blog. I've learned a lot. If I were still teaching college Humanities, I'd use this case for an education in just about everything related to human emotion and thought. Has anyone looked into the possibility ofa pedaphile ring of some sort. Organized crime involvement? Keep up the good work. The conventional media certainly won't

Raisingkanes said...

Voice of Sanity is anything but! I won't waste my time countering his/her crazy drivel. Reba, please spare us the rantings of crazy, stupid liars!!!!

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Professor Anonymous,

Great idea to teach this case in Humanities - we all know it's going to be taught in law school courses of the future.

One of my friends already joked about a bumbling, unprepared opposing counsel as "pulling a Baez." It's going to have all sorts of cultural fallout which will be interesting to watch develop.

As for organized crime, I haven't heard anything about that scenario - but who knows what all Casey was doing in her new life at Fusion. Florida is not void of organized crime, I was reading just this week about the skyrocketing insurance fraud orchastrated allegedly by the Russian Mafia to take advantage of Florida's no fault PIP coverage to $10K.

Yikes, I was about to run down a rabbit trail!

Thanks for the attaboy about the blog, it's appreciated. And, thanks for writing!

Reba

Reba Kennedy said...

Hi Raisingkanes,

First things first, what a great online moniker! So creative.

As for blocking comments, I understand the frustration that builds with certain comments - and maybe frustration is too calm a word.

Fire-breathing rage, perhaps? LOL

Right now, I do screen comments for spam (although I must admit, Blogger is pretty darn good about keeping those porno XXX sites off the comments before I even get there) and I also screen for obscenity.

And, there are times when I am very tempted to publish a subset of the comments that I receive, thinking "heck it's my blog, I'm not a newspaper," but then I stop myself.

This is "Backseat Lawyer," after all, and as an experienced trial lawyer I'm pretty weathered on facing off with someone who is opposed to my position. So, I think to myself, why should I be different on my blog than I am in real life?

Right now, my thinking has been that it would violate my personal integrity to cull the comments.

Maybe I will change my mind in the future.

I do hear you, as a reader. My non-culling of comments impacts all readers and commenters, too.

Right now, I've been assuming that anyone who didn't like a particular comment would just ignore it and scroll past it.

I'm open to suggestions here or in email from readers on their thoughts on this topic.

Which has nothing to do with Jose Baez -- the topic of this post. Arrrgh.

Thanks so much for writing, Raisingkanes,

Reba

Mary said...

has anyone wondered or does anyone know how..who..or what is financially supporting George and Cindy..in testimony this week it was stated that G&C received money early on from various media outlets, etc...did they use money raised at Caylee benefits or fund raisers to support them and what are they living on now?

A Voice of Sanity said...

I'm open to suggestions here or in email from readers on their thoughts on this topic.

How about no more anonymous comments?

Jan said...

Florida has only good old boy & more criminals than any other state in the world. the cops the judges, & everyone in this state is on the take, criminals, & if you don't play by their rules, you can't make it in Florida. Baez is a great lawyer, trying to fight the big old boys & a court case.

DALLING FAMILY said...

Hahahaha - yall mock him and whatever...and he gets the biggest acquital since O.J. Simpson! hahahah yall sound stupid now. I don't know much about him and the media killed him through out the trial, but I am an attorney and I watched the closing arguments and he won that trial therein. So props to him...I just hope that Casey really didn't do it. But remember, the issue really isn't whether or not she did it...the Jury acquitted her but that doesn't mean the don't think she did it or that she is innocent per se...it just means that there was reasonable doubt that she did it.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Guilty ONLY of being a liar - which she has been her whole life!

Jason said...

I start law school in the fall so clearly I am not well versed in all the aspects of law. I do know however that to all the criticism that Jose Baez received, all he has to say now to respond is "scoreboard".

Jan said...

I did not mock Jose Baez I said he was a great lawyer get your facts straight, fighting a witch hunt trial, against the good old boys, in the State of Florida. By the way do you wonder why someone gave Aston the finger, well the whole State of Florida should get the finger. The judicial system is a joke along with the cops cause they could not find a criminal if the criminal stood their in front of them & told them here I am. I feel bad for all the woman & children in the State of Florida, cause The State of Florida is a melting pot of crime. God help the woman & children who have to live in this horrible State. I also believe that the justice system should go to New York City to take lessons on how to fight crime & how to run a court room, also that when a cop here in Florida take's a pledge to up hold justice, they should not be on the take trying to make money off of a crime. They low life cops & the meater reader, wanted to make money off the death of a child.

Anonymous said...

Way to go, genuis! backseat lawyer is right. beyond a reasonable doubt, even.

Reba Kennedy said...

Genius is spelled with the "i" before the "u," and sorry but I have to disagree with you.

Today's verdict of Not Guilty does not reflect upon the skill of Mr. Baez, it reflects upon the prosecution's case and its dependence upon circumstantial evidence.

Many errors were committed during the litigation of this case by the defense that not only have Mr. Baez facing the possibility of contempt charges (that's still open) but would have given a post-conviction appellate attorney great fodder for a reversal based upon harmful errors during the defense in this case.

I stand by this post that I wrote in 2009.

Thanks for writing,
Reba Kennedy

A Voice of Sanity said...

"Many errors were committed during the litigation of this case by the defense ..."

And by the judge. He refused to let the defense argue the sexual molestation issue without proving it BUT he let the prosecution claim that Casey wanted a "better life with no child" without proving she wanted that OR that her life would be (somehow) better. Why is the defense held to a higher standard than the prosecution?

Reba Kennedy said...

Comments are closed for this post concerning Jose Baez's background.

If you wish to leave a comment on an issue related to the Casey Anthony trial or its aftermath, please choose from the other 25+ posts that deal with various aspects of this case, which can be found under the category "Caylee Anthony."

Thanks!
Reba

Terrence Flendersen said...

Many errors were committed during the litigation of this case by the defense that not only have Mr. Baez facing the possibility of contempt charges (that's still open) but would have given a post-conviction appellate attorney great fodder for a reversal based upon harmful errors during the defense in this case. mchenry county divorce lawyers