Why Did Jose Baez Request Access to the Discovery Site?

On December 17, 2008, about week after the remains of Caylee Anthony were first discovered in the woods near her home, Jose Baez released a statement which he may not have solely written, but which he did approve, to the press.

The press release may be found at the following link:

http://cayleeanthony.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/baez-lashes-out-at-investigators/

“The Casey Anthony Defense Team has made numerous attempts to preserve the evidence in and around the location where the human remains of what appear to be a small child were found.

Law enforcement has been repeatedly asked to allow reasonable access by medical and scientific experts for the defense, including requests for photographs, and assistance with maintaining a secure examination scene prior to any media or general public access.”

“The Casey Anthony Defense Team has made numerous attempts” – This press release identifies a group named “The Casey Anthony Defense Team”.  Who is included as a member of the “Team”?  We do not know.  This statement claims the “Team has made numerous attempts”.  Who on the “Team” made the “numerous attempts”?  How many is “numerous”?  What is an attempt?  Is it a phone call, a motion filed with the court, a press release, a news conference?  We do not know the answers to any of these questions, making this statement vague at best, misleading at least, and deceptive at worst.

“to preserve the evidence” – This is what the “Team” made “numerous attempts” to do.  The implication is the evidence was not preserved because “attempts” are not successes.  They attempted, but did not preserve the evidence.  What impact could the “Defense Team” possibly have on preservation of evidence?  The implication is law enforcement does not preserve evidence and must be overseen by the “Defense Team”.  What exactly have they done to attempt to preserve evidence?  We do not know, but since no “Defense Team” member stepped foot on the grounds of the discovery site, they could not have attempted anything which included direct physical contact with the evidence, making any preservation questionable.

“in and around the location” – There are two geographic areas the “Defense Team” is concerned about preserving evidence, “in and around”.  The “Defense Team” is acknowledging the evidence “around” the “location” may be important to the investigation.  To most people, the woods would be the location, no need to specify an “around”.  However, this press release does identify “around”, meaning “around” is significant to the defense.  Why?  Do they know of “evidence” which is “around the location”?  Jose Baez has been adamant the prosecution has not turned over exculpatory evidence.  Is there a connection?

“where the human remains of what appear to be a small child were found” – The “Defense Team” acknowledges the “human remains” have not been identified as “a small child”, therefore they have not been identified as Caylee Anthony.  The “Defense Team” has been working to “preserve the evidence” at a “location” which is not identified as being connected with their case.

“Law enforcement has been repeatedly asked” – This is one form of attempt.  However, even though “law enforcement has been repeatedly asked”, it is not clear they were “asked” by the defense team from the structure of the sentence.  Who exactly “asked”?  How many times is “repeatedly”?  In what manner was law enforcement asked?  Were they asked in writing or verbally?  Who in law enforcement was asked?  The cop standing guard at the site or the sheriff?  Asking is sensitive for the “Defense Team” as the word “repeatedly” is an additional unneeded word.  The asking happened in the past, not in the present.

“to allow reasonable access” – This is what law enforcement was asked to do.  “Access” is limited by “reasonable”.  What constitutes “reasonable”?  We do not know.  Who decides what is “reasonable” and what is not?  Apparently, the “Defense Team” who implies law enforcement is unreasonable by not granting their requests.  However, law enforcement, by not granting the requests, defines the requests as not “reasonable”.  The “Defense Team” wishes the audience of this press release to believe law enforcement is unreasonable rather than admitting their requests were unreasonable.

“by medical and scientific experts for the defense” – The “Defense Team” acknowledges “medical and scientific experts” have had access to the scene, but not those “for the defense”.  “Experts” are preserving the evidence, but since the remains are not identified, the defense has no reason for access, making any request for such access unreasonable.

“including requests for photographs” – Is the “Defense Team” requesting their experts to be allowed to take “photographs” or are they asking for “photographs” taken by the experts who have examined the scene?  We do not know.  The “Defense Team” identified their requests for access as “reasonable”, but do not identify the request for “photographs” as “reasonable”.  Is this because they recognize this request as unreasonable?  Or because this request is “reasonable”, causing no anxiety which must be relieved by tacking on the word “reasonable”?

“and assistance with maintaining a secure examination scene prior to any media or general public access” – Is it “reasonable” to believe the police will continue to maintain “a secure examination scene” after they have completed the official state investigation?  Would it not be the responsibility of the “Defense Team” to hire and fund a security detail to guard the scene for the duration of their needs?

We have learned the “Defense Team” made unreasonable demands of law enforcement during the investigation of the discovery site of the remains of Caylee Anthony.

We have learned the “Defense Team” is not willing to provide specific details on who in law enforcement were notified of the defense requests or in what manner those requests were made.

We have learned the “Defense Team” wishes the public to believe law enforcement did not preserve evidence during the recovery.