What Do the Stone Pavers Mean to Jose Baez?

During a deposition of botanist Jane Bock on February 12, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez brought up the issue of stone pavers even though they had never been mentioned by the witness in response to any questions by the prosecution.  The statements of Mr. Baez may be read at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27085571/detail.html

Jeff Ashton: “I mean, I wasn’t there, but it appears from this photograph that the log was slightly raised above the ground, which you can’t really appreciate in the other photographs, but –”

It appears the remains of murdered Caylee Anthony were found in the vicinity of a fallen log, which the prosecution believes to have been at a higher elevation than the plastic bag full of human remains.  Part of the log appears in the photographs and by the statements of forensic investigators to have been raised off the ground.  Mr. Ashton’s statement is weak because of his admission he “wasn’t there”, but he clarifies he is relying upon the photographic evidence.

Jose Baez: “I think for clarification purposes, we should just make sure that the record’s clear that only a small portion of the tree or log is shown.  We don’t know if it’s propped up against something to make it in the air or –”

For some reason, Mr. Baez feels it is important to establish the log does not rise above the ground because of the slope of the land, but because it is “propped”.  He does this by introducing the the possibility it may be “propped up against something to make it in the air” and limiting his statement to only the photograph being shown at the time of the question, even though it was established hundreds to thousands of photographs of the crime scene exist as part of the evidence record.

Jeff Ashton: “My understanding… first of all, let me say this photograph is 196008.  My understanding from the crime scene technician is it’s not.  This is how it appeared.  The log is slightly above the ground at that particular point, I believe.”

Mr. Ashton catches on to the limiting of Mr. Baez’s statement to this particular photograph and states the number of the photo for the court record.

Jose Baez: “But if you can see on the very left, there are those stone pavers, the famous stone pavers there.”

Mr. Baez now introduces the “stone pavers, the famous stone pavers”.  Why does Mr. Baez believe the “stone pavers” are “famous”?  The pavers are only famous because the private investigator, Dominic Casey, searched the wooded area near the vicinity of the discovery site prior to the discovery looking for “stone pavers”.  Mr. Casey claimed he was told by a psychic the body would be found near “stone pavers”.  Now, Mr. Baez points out “stone pavers” were, in fact, near the body.

To review, Mr. Baez is telling the court “stone pavers”, the very “stone pavers” which his private investigator sought in the months prior to Caylee Anthony’s discovery, the “stone pavers” made famous by the release of the video of Mr. Casey’s search and his subsequent police interview, were found near the remains.  Mr. Baez is telling the court in no uncertain terms his private investigator did have knowledge of both the location of the body and the items in the immediate vicinity.  Does Mr. Baez believe his revelation will be helpful to the defense?  Does it not seem to verify Mr. Casey had knowledge about the crime scene he could only have obtained either directly or indirectly, perhaps through a defendant’s trusted attorney, from the person who placed the body at the location?

Jeff Ashton: “I’m not sure what that is.”

Mr. Ashton placed no significance on the “stone pavers” until they were brought up by Mr.Baez.  This may have been an official Jose Baez Moment of D’uh (my thanks to regular reader Zoe for this elegant turn of phrase).

Jose Baez: “I believe that’s what it is, from my review of the evidence.”

Mr. Baez insists these are the “famous stone pavers”, but qualifies his conclusion is based upon “my review of the evidence”, not his personal knowledge of items in the area gleaned from his client.  Oddly, Mr. Baez distances himself from the pavers with “that”, even though he broached this subject.

Jeff Ashton: “Okay.  Why are you saying this right now?”

Mr. Ashton is now intrigued by the reasoning behind Mr. Baez speaking about the “famous stone pavers” during a deposition revolving around plant life at the discovery site.  Mr. Ashton is most likely confused as to the botanical relevance of the “famous stone pavers”.  Is Mr. Baez trying to say the “famous stone pavers” were holding the log off the ground?

Jose Baez: “The reason is that you’re asking the witness to make a conclusion that the skull is underneath the tree or the log.”

Mr. Baez reveals he has no idea where Mr. Ashton is going with this line of questioning concerning the log.  Mr. Baez is attempting to refute a conclusion Mr. Ashton has not stated and does not plan to state.

Jeff Ashton: “No, no, no.  I wasn’t asking that at all.”

Jose Baez: “Let me finish for the court reporter.  And you’re making the assertion based on your research of the evidence that there is nothing propping up the tree or the log, and that’s all I want to make clear.  Of course, you’re free to ask the question however you want, but I don’t think that conclusion could be made by that photograph.”

Mr. Baez, the great interrupter, chides Mr. Ashton for not allowing him to “finish”.  It is of great importance to Mr. Baez to demonstrate something was propping up the log.  Why?  Again, Mr. Baez limits his statement to “that photograph”, a photo Mr. Baez distances himself from, a photo he does not like.  However, he also admits a conclusion the log is not propped up is “based on your research of the evidence”, not a single photograph.

Jeff Ashton: “No, no.  And I was indicating the evidence indicated, if I recall it correctly, is that, I believe, that the log is not moved here, that it is actually… I don’t want… it’s not under the log as if the log came down.  It’s just, it’s lower than the log was my understanding.  And I didn’t know if that was…”

In order for Mr. Baez to follow the course of the deposition, Mr. Ashton must break down his objective into simple terms.  “The log is not moved here”.  The log is in this position because this is where it came to rest in the course of it’s natural life cycle, not due to human interference.  There is a slope to the land which places the remains at a lower elevation than the log.

We have learned Mr. Baez is not able to perceive the direction or objective of a line of questioning by the prosecution, a professional failing also demonstrated during the most recent hearings.

We have learned Mr. Baez wants a jury to believe the log is propped up, perhaps to later argue the bag was not underwater.

We have learned the “famous stone pavers” are so important to Mr. Baez, he felt a need to point them out during a botanical evidence deposition even though they had nothing to do with either plants or propping up the log.

We have learned the private investigator employed by Mr. Baez sought the “famous stone pavers” and such pavers do exist, at least in the mind of Mr. Baez, near the site of the discovery of two-year-old Caylee Anthony’s earthly remains.