Did Linda Kenney Baden Ever Intend to Defend Casey Anthony in Trial?

In our fourth study of the Facebook statement of Linda Kenney Baden, we will explore her statements concerning her commitment to the trial of Casey Anthony.

Ms. Baden’s full statement may be found in the comments of the following linked article.

https://bullstopper.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/is-jose-baez-frightened-of-spicy-peanuts/

“It was important to help the trial lawyers understand and identify the real science and distinguish it from the kind of unvalidated science that the National Academies of Science (NAS) report addressed last year. Even with the nearly two years of pro bono time I have volunteered, and my funding this year of my own travel expenses because it was in the best interest of the client that I fulfill my commitment review the forensic science during discovery, Florida rules prevent the funding of a pro bono out of state lawyer’s expenses even in a death penalty case.”

“It was important to help the trial lawyers” – Helping the “trial lawyers” “was important”, but no longer is important.  Why is it no longer important?  Because Ms. Baden accomplished this task and the trial lawyers have been helped?  Or because Ms. Baden is withdrawing from representation, so this is no longer important to her?  Ms. Baden distinguishes “trial lawyers” from herself.  She is not one of the “trial lawyers”.  Even when it was important to help them, she was not a trial lawyer.  Ms. Baden never intended to be a trial lawyer in this case.

“understand and identify” – This is what it was important to help the trial lawyers do before Ms. Baden withdrew.  Order is important.  The understanding of the trial lawyers is more important than their ability to identify.

“the real science” – It was important to help the trial lawyers first understand, then learn to identify, “real science”.  There is more than one type of “science” for Ms. Baden, “real science” and science which is the opposite, or not real.  However, the word “real” identifies Ms. Baden’s concept as false as the word “real” cannot make the word “science” either more or less real.  “Science” is “science”.  “Real science” is still “science”.  A “science” which is not “real” is a false science.  A false “science” is not “science”, it is something other than “science”.

“and distinguish it” – Ms. Baden adds a third reason it was important to help the trial lawyers, to “distinguish” “real science” from other science.  Ms. Baden is sensitive about identifying not real science as this is the second statement of identification in the same sentence.  If the trial lawyers were able to “identify” real science, they would at the same time “distinguish it” from not real science.

“from the kind of unvalidated science” – Sensitivity shown to “unvalidated science” through the use of the extra word “kind”.  There is more than one “kind” of “unvalidated science”, but Ms. Baden is only concerned about one “kind”, all other “unvalidated science” is fine.  The word “unvalidated” is not the opposite “real”.  “Unvalidated” does not preclude the “science” from being “real”.  Ms. Baden is implying “unvalidated science” is not “real science”, it is false science.

“that the National Academies of Science (NAS) report addressed last year” – Ms. Baden is only concerned by “unvalidated science” which was “addressed last year” by the National Academies of Science.  It was important the trial lawyers could “distinguish” “real science” from this “kind”.  But now it is not important.  There was something in last year’s report which concerned Ms. Baden, but is no longer important for an unknown reason.

“Even with the nearly two years of pro bono time I have volunteered” – Ms. Baden is sensitive about her “pro bono time” as she must define the term as “time I have volunteered”.  Ms. Baden has not “volunteered” two years, but “nearly”.  Ms. Baden exaggerates the amount of time she “volunteered”.

“and my funding this year of my own travel expenses” – Ms. Baden funded her “own travel expenses” “this year”.  Ms. Baden did not fund her “own travel expenses” last year.  The funding and the travel expenses are Ms. Baden’s and she is sensitive about them, especially the travel expenses as indicated by the additional word “own”.  Ms. Baden owns the travel expenses.  They are hers.  Were they too high?

“because it was in the best interest of the client that I fulfill my commitment review the forensic science during discovery” – Ms. Baden is so sensitive about funding her own travel expenses, she must explain why she chose to do so, even though the expenses were hers.  Before Ms. Baden posted this Facebook statement, “it was in the best interest of the client that I fulfill my commitment”.  It is no longer in the “best interest of the client”.  Something has changed.  Ms. Anthony is no longer Ms. Baden’s client, but “the client”.  The fulfillment of the commitment is uncomfortable for Ms. Baden, who distances herself by using “that”.

“my commitment review the forensic science during discovery” – Ms. Baden made a commitment.  Her commitment was to “review the forensic science during discovery”, another indication Ms. Baden never had any intention of being a part of the defense team during trial.  Her “commitment” only covered “during discovery”.  Ms. Baden made no commitment to be part of the defense team during the trial.  Her total commitment was to “review the forensic science”, not to do anything about it, not to file motions to suppress or exclude, but to “review”.  “Science” is now “forensic science”, which could be “real science” or “unvalidated science”.

“Florida rules prevent the funding of a pro bono out of state lawyer’s expenses” – Ms. Baden twists the “Florida rules” to again state her “pro bono” status.  The “Florida rules” do not prevent what she claims.  If Mr. Baez wished to fund the expenses of Ms. Baden, the “Florida rules” do not prevent him from doing so.  The “Florida rules” do prevent payment from the State of Florida to Ms. Baden, but not because she is “pro bono”.

“even in a death penalty case” – The “even” mirrors the earlier use of “even with” Ms. Baden employed to describe her “nearly” two years of pro bono work.  Ms. Baden feels there should be an exception made for the funding of her expenses by the “Florida rules” because she is “pro bono” and this is a “death penalty case”.

We have learned Ms. Baden’s efforts were in the best interest of her client until recently.  We have learned Ms. Baden’s efforts would no longer be in the best interest of her client.

We have learned Ms. Baden wishes her readers to believe Florida rules prevent her from receiving funding for her travel expenses even though the responsibility for the failure to fund her travel expenses falls on the privately retained counsel, Jose Baez.

We have learned Ms. Baden never had any intention of remaining with this case through trial as her commitment was for the discovery process only.