After reviewing recent statements by Orlando attorney Cheney Mason concerning the duct tape evidence in the Caylee Anthony murder trial, we turn our attention to duct tape comments made in October 2009 by fellow defense team member Linda Kenney Baden.
Video of the Ms. Baden’s comments may be found at the following link.
Linda Kenney Baden: “It was ruined and spoiled in a lot of ways. For instance, the most important piece of evidence that the state thought they had, which was this… this… uh… demonizing duct tape uhhh… was contaminated by the FBI.”
“It was ruined and spoiled” – We are not sure what “it” is because we did not hear the question asked by the interviewer. We can surmise the question concerned evidence and “it” is evidence against Casey Anthony. “ruined and spoiled” – We do not know how it was “ruined and spoiled”. Was all the evidence “ruined and spoiled” or only some of it? By using two words that mean nearly the same thing, Ms. Baden shows sensitivity to “ruined and spoiled”. “Ruined” is more important than “spoiled”.
“in a lot of ways” – Increased sensitivity shown by these unneeded words which limit “ruined and spoiled”. If evidence is “ruined and spoiled”, it cannot be used. The evidence cannot be “ruined and spoiled” in a few ways or in some ways or in a lot of ways, as any “ruined and spoiled” makes it unusable. One way is enough. Either “ruined” or “spoiled” is enough. We should doubt the evidence is “ruined” or “spoiled” in any way.
“For instance” – This is one example of the “lot of ways” the evidence was “ruined and spoiled”.
“the most important piece of evidence” – More evidence exists than this “piece”, but this one is the worst for the defense. This piece of evidence is so important, the entire phrase “the most important piece of evidence that the state thought they had” is a description of the “duct tape”. This piece of evidence is of such extreme importance to Ms. Baden, she must introduce it like a World Wrestling Entertainment announcer starting the main event.
“that the state thought they had” – “that” indicates sensitivity to the modifier “the state thought they had”. The state still has the duct tape, so the state has changed their mind as to what they believe is the most important piece of evidence they have. How does Ms. Baden know what the state believes? She is not privy to their discussions. Ms. Baden speaks for herself imagining herself in the position of the state. To Ms. Baden, the duct tape was the most important piece of evidence. She now believes other evidence to be of more importance than the tape. The state “thought” the duct tape was the most important, but the defense is frightened more of something else.
“which was this… this… uh…” – After a big intro, she is unable to name the piece of evidence that is “most important”. Sensitivity shown to the characterization of the duct tape in the next phrase.
“demonizing duct tape” – The duct tape turns people into demons. The tape is responsible for the public seeing the murderer of Caylee Anthony as a demon. Killing a child with duct tape is the act of a demon. The tape is evil. Association with the tape turns a person into a demon. The tape has power.
“was contaminated by the FBI” – The FBI ruined and spoiled the demonizing duct tape by contaminating it. Is it possible to ruin and spoil or contaminate an item which is already demonic? Does contamination reach the level of “ruined and spoiled”? The FBI ruined and spoiled the duct tape by adding something to it, not by subtracting something from it.
Linda Kenney Baden: “Another party that did not belong to the FBI, did not belong to law enforcement, did not belong to Casey or any of her family members that is on that duct tape.”
We do not know the exact question, but Ms. Baden speaks about a sample of DNA found on the duct tape for which the source has not been identified. The order in which a person states a list signifies the relative importance of each item to the speaker. The DNA sample does not have an identified source and Ms. Baden lists the possible sources in the order most important to her.
“the FBI” – The FBI contaminated the duct tape. The FBI added something to the duct tape which “ruined and spoiled” it. An unidentified sample of DNA is on the tape, but does not match anyone in the FBI. The FBI did not add this DNA sample to the tape. The DNA was already on the tape when the FBI received it.
“law enforcement” – Second most important possible source to Ms. Baden is “law enforcement”, who did not “contaminate” the tape as their DNA is not on it.
“Casey” – Ms. Baden is defending Casey Anthony, but the possible presence of her DNA on the duct tape found wrapped around Caylee Anthony’s skull is the third of a list of four possible sources. Casey Anthony’s DNA being found on the duct tape is not as important to Ms. Baden as the discovery of FBI or law enforcement DNA.
“any of her family members” – Casey Anthony’s family members are not on trial, being defended by Ms. Baden, or suspects in this case. Why does Ms. Baden include them in this statement? Is this an indication the defense believed it was possible DNA from George, Cindy, or Lee Anthony would be found on the duct tape?
“that is on that duct tape” – Ms. Baden is uncomfortable with what is on the tape or what she says is on the tape and the tape itself as indicated by the distancing word “that” used twice.
Todd Macaluso: “Stranger, there was a stranger involved.”
“Stranger” – Mr. Macaluso states the unidentified DNA belongs to a “stranger”. The DNA does not belong to Roy Kronk, Jesse Grund, Ricardo Morales, Zanny the Nanny, Zanny’s sister, River Cruz, Leonard Padilla or any of the others in the host of characters that surrounds this case.
“involved” – We have no idea what the “stranger” was “involved” in. The death of Caylee? The disposal of Caylee? An unrelated incident that involved the tape before it was used in the murder? We cannot tell from this statement.
We have learned Ms. Baden feels the duct tape be evidence of such importance it was at one time the most important piece of evidence.
We have learned the defense believed evidence identifying Casey Anthony and her family members would be found on the tape. The FBI and law enforcement are listed first because they would be most important to the defense as lots of DNA from either would help to invalidate the evidence. Ms. Baden is an experienced attorney who specializes in forensic evidence. She is aware the DNA of forensic technicians often is found during this type of testing. She builds entire cases around such findings. By continuing the list with Ms. Anthony and her family, Ms. Baden has informed us the defense also expected their DNA to be found, an indication the tape did come from the Anthony home.
Responding to questions about the duct tape found with the remains of murdered two-year-old Caylee Anthony, Orlando attorney and co-counsel for the defense Cheney Mason made a few interesting comments.
Video and media articles can be found at the following links:
Cheney Mason: “There are photographs that we have showing where it is and thus establishing that there’s no… the tape was not adhered to any part of this child, some stuck on the hair, that’s all. The rest of it’s not accurate.”
Reporter: “So, there was not tape over her nose and airways?”
Cheney Mason: “No, was not.”
“There are photographs” – Photos exist of “it”, the duct tape.
“that we have” – The defense, “we”, has the photos. Mr. Mason is uncomfortable with the photos or does not like to have them as indicated by “that”.
“showing where it is” – The photos show where the duct tape “is”. When is “is”? Is it now? We know if the photos show “where”, they must show the duct tape “where” it was at the time the photos were taken. When were the photos taken? Are these the same photos released in discovery we have all seen or are they different photos?
“and thus establishing that there’s no…” – Sensitivity shown by extra word “thus” and distancing word “that”. These photos may not establish what Mr. Mason is asserting as he is sensitive about “establishing”. What do the photos establish? We do not know because Mr. Mason did not finish. He stopped himself and began a new thought.
“the tape was not adhered to any part of this child” – The tape was going to show us “no” something, but now it show what the tape “was not”. How do photos that show “where” the tape “is” establish where the tape “was not”?
“was not adhered to any part of this child” – The tape “was not adhered”. Was the tape wrapped around? We don’t know from this statement, only that it was “not adhered”. The tape was not stuck “to any part of this child”. Sensitivity shown by use of extra words “any part of”. Mr. Mason feels close to “this child”, but he is also sensitive about her.
“some stuck on the hair” – “some” of the tape, but not all. Before, Mr. Mason spoke of “the tape”. Now, he speaks only of portions. This is an attempt to minimize “the tape” and the discrepancy between this statement and his preceding one. Before, the tape was not stuck to “any part”, now “some” is “stuck on the hair”, not “her” hair, but “the hair” in a bid to divorce “any part” from “the hair”. Hair is part of “this child”. The duct tape was stuck to her hair. The duct tape was “adhered” to a “part” of “this child”. Mr. Mason tells us he lied to us in the previous breath.
“that’s all” – Mr. Mason distances himself from his statement and this additional attempt to minimize his outright lie.
“The rest of it’s not accurate.” – The “rest of” what? “It” is Mr. Mason’s statement prior to “some stuck on the hair”. The “rest of” his statement is “not accurate”. Previously, Mr. Mason informed us he lied by stating the truth of what the photos showed. Now, he says he lied.
Reporter: “So, there was not tape over her nose and airways?”
Cheney Mason: “No, was not.” – Mr. Mason is reflecting the language of the reporter. “No” by itself would have been a strong answer. The addition of “was not” weakens the statement by setting time frame to the tape being over her nose and airways. When was “was not”? Before she died? After she was bagged? When they found her body? Is that because her nose was gone? This is a weak denial.
We have learned Mr. Mason and the defense possess photographs of the duct tape which show the tape stuck to Caylee Anthony’s hair. We have learned the defense feels these photographs and the duct tape are important to the case because the co-counsel attempted to minimize the meaning of these items.
On Tuesday, September 28, 2010, the defense team for Casey Anthony deposed Orange County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia, who performed the autopsy of Caylee Anthony.
We learned in an earlier article Jose Baez, lead counsel for the defense, is concerned about the autopsy report being part of the trial. More than a year ago, he attempted to block public access to the report. Within the past month, he announced an addition to the defense team of an attorney who specializes in countering expert medical testimony, Dorothy Sims, who participated in the deposition of Dr. Garavaglia.
The referenced article may be found at the following link:
This article will focus on a short exchange between a reporter and Cheney Mason, co-counsel for the defense, on his way into the deposition of the medical examiner. Video of Mr. Mason’s comments and a background article may be found at the following link:
The following video has a more complete recording of the interview in which the reporter’s first question can be heard:
Cheney Mason: “Well, it’s critical because it means nothing. That’s the bottom line, that’s what we’re confirming.”
We are not sure what question the reporter asked to begin this interview, but the news story implies it concerned the ruling of homicide in the autopsy report.
“”Well, it’s critical because it means nothing.” – “Well” is an extra word which indicates sensitivity to the statement. We do not know what “it” refers to because we did not hear the reporter’s question, but we assume the ruling of homicide in the autopsy report or the report itself.
“critical” – It is vital, success or failure are determined by it. The autopsy report is key to this case.
“because it means nothing” – Why is the autopsy report “critical”? Because it does not mean anything. The autopsy report is critical because it means nothing. How can something which is nothing be “critical”? How can a “meaningless” report be meaningful to the case as we assume a “critical” item would?
If the autopsy report and the ruling of homicide “means nothing”, why did Mr. Baez attempt to have it sealed from the public before Mr. Mason joined the defense team? Mr. Baez felt it had meaning a year ago. What has changed?
“That’s the bottom line” – Mr. Mason is uncomfortable with the “bottom line” as he attempts to distance himself by using “that”. The “it means nothing” referenced by “that’s” is sensitive to Mr. Mason.
“that’s what we’re confirming” – Mr. Mason is still uncomfortable with “that” statement he made of “it means nothing”, which may not be true as he is now “confirming” his statement with someone else who forms “we”. They are “confirming” his statement together, which makes it a theory at the time of the interview. Mr. Mason desires the autopsy report to mean nothing, but if they are unable to confirm, the report will not “mean nothing”.
We have learned Mr. Mason believes the autopsy report not only means something, but is critical. He wants it to mean nothing.
On November 26, 2008, a few days after a bitter e-mail from Cindy Anthony to Larry Garrison became public knowledge, Mrs. Anthony spoke to a reporter about the hairbrush incident.
This article will focus on the first two minutes and twenty seconds of the interview, which can be found at the following link.
Reporter: “Did you purposely give investigators the wrong hairbrush?”
Cindy Anthony: “No, absolutely not. Ummm… the night that ummm… John Allen and Yuri Melich came, it was the night before the grand jury… I mean not the grand jury hearing… the bail hearing… the bond hearing for Casey, so that was what? The week after we found out that Caylee was ummm… missing. Ummmm… they came to our house specifically to show me the camera of the video that I took… that I shot of Caylee ummm… because originally we thought it was June 8th. And again, you know, we’re distraught, we’re trying to go dates whatever and they said could have been June 15th. And I said well what’s June 15th? He goes… cause the date sounded familiar… he goes Father’s Day. And I said well yeah. And I can verify that with my mom. So, we… I tried to get my mom on the phone and she wasn’t available that night, but the next morning, the morning of the bond hearing I did verify that. But that night they also asked me if I had a toothbrush or a hairbrush or a comb of Caylee’s. So, immediately I go into Casey’s bathroom which is Caylee’s bathroom. And I go through ummm… her… the drawers and I found the brush that Casey used on her hair and Caylee’s hair. And I got a toothbrush. And I went into Caylee’s room and I couldn’t find a hairbrush or comb in her room. So, I went to Sgt. Allen and Yuri Melich and I said I know this brush Casey and Caylee used. I can’t tell you for sure if it has Caylee’s hair in it or not, but I said I could not find a comb or a brush in her bedroom. OK. So, I gave it to them that night. And I said you guys already have a toothbrush because it was in Caylee’s backpack that was still in the vehicle the night that… you know… that… that we got the car back from the tow yard. So they already had a toothbrush, but I gave them another toothbrush. I have a toothbrush in Ca… in my bathroom. I didn’t give them all three toothbrushes because they didn’t need it. I do have a hairbrush in my bathroom that I forgot about that I do use for… that I did use for Caylee in my room. Did I go around and find all the brushes? No. It wasn’t deception. OK. All it was was going into her room couldn’t find anything going into the bathroom that they use together and I know that I used that brush on Caylee and I know that Casey used it. So, no. And… and when I handed the brush to them I was very honest with them and I told them that both Casey and Caylee used that brush. So, no, there’s no deception.”
The reporter asks a question, did Mrs. Anthony give law enforcement the wrong hairbrush on purpose?
If Mrs. Anthony wished to deny she purposely gave the wrong hairbrush to investigators, the simplest answer would have been “No” or “No, I did not”. Mrs. Anthony says neither and spends more than two minutes doing so.
“No, absolutely not.” – The “no” would have been strong if not for the use of “absolutely not”, which we have seen in past articles is the trumpet of deceit. “Absolutely” is a favorite of the Anthony family. “Absolutely” does not mean “yes”. “Absolutely not” does not mean “no”. Both are a way to avoid saying either “yes” or “no”. If the answer of “no” is true, why does it need to be bolstered by a phrase which means “certainly not”? Grammatically, the answer is now “no” with the modifier “absolutely not” referring to the answer of “no”. Her answer is “absolutely not” “no”, or “yes”.
If Mrs. Anthony’s reply of “no” were true, why would she need to explain her actions to the public as she does for many additional sentences? Each sentence further weakens her initial answer.
“Ummm… the night that ummm… John Allen and Yuri Melich came, it was the night before the grand jury… I mean not the grand jury hearing… the bail hearing… the bond hearing for Casey, so that was what?” – Mrs. Anthony begins telling a story by confusing listeners as to the true date of the event. She ends the sentence by asking the reporter the date to which her story refers. This is a verbal trick to elicit trust from the listener before the story is even told. Instead of listening, the audience is now searching their own memory of “grand jury” and “bail hearing” and other court appearances to help Mrs. Anthony pin down the date.
“The week after we found out that Caylee was ummm… missing.” – Mrs. Anthony supplies her own answer. The audience can now agree with her forming a bond of trust which Mrs. Anthony will utilize when making her next statements.
“that Caylee was ummm… missing.” – “that” indicates sensitivity, which we would expect of any grandmother speaking of her missing daughter. Stumbling over “missing” also indicates sensitivity which we would also expect. Although we now know that “missing” was not an accurate statement, at the time this comment was made, Caylee was “missing”, so we will give Mrs. Anthony the benefit of the doubt. Her sensitivity is legitimately explained by the circumstances.
“they came to our house specifically to show me the camera of the video that I took” – It is important to Mrs. Anthony for us to know John Allen and Yuri Melich did not “come to our house specifically” to obtain a hairbrush, they came to “show me the camera”.
“to show me the camera of the video that I took” – The investigators came to show Mrs. Anthony the “camera of the video”, a strange wording which does not make sense. She is telling us they showed her a camera and a video, a video she herself recorded. The police found the camera and in the camera, they found a video which was recorded by Mrs. Anthony.
“that I shot of Caylee ummm… because originally we thought it was June 8th.” – The video was of Caylee. Now Mrs. Anthony switches subjects and speaks of “originally” thinking of a specific date. “We” makes the statement weak as Mrs. Anthony was speaking of “I”, but now changes. What did “we” originally think was June 8th? The video she shot of Caylee?
“And again, you know, we’re distraught, we’re trying to go dates whatever” – Mrs. Anthony tells us why “we” originally thought “it” was June 8th, “we” were distraught and “trying to go dates whatever”. “You know” is another verbal attempt to convince the listener they agree with what Mrs. Anthony is saying. “We” were “trying to go dates whatever”, meaning the investigators asked for dates and the Anthonys, the assumed “we”, “go” “whatever”. The Anthonys gave any dates “whatever” to the investigators including the false date of the last sighting of Caylee as June 8, 2008.
“they said could have been June 15th” – The investigators told Mrs. Anthony they thought the video “could have been June 15th”.
“And I said well what’s June 15th?” – Mrs. Anthony’s granddaughter disappeared. Mrs. Anthony never narrowed down the date she last saw her granddaughter until the investigators brought her own camera to her to show her a video she recorded of Caylee on Father’s Day sitting on the lap of Mrs. Anthony’s own father. When shown the video, Mrs. Anthony continues to stick to her date of June 8th, going so far as to question the investigators about the details of June 15th. “What’s June 15th” – The last time Mrs. Anthony saw Caylee Anthony alive, but this is not a significant date to Mrs. Anthony.
“He goes… cause the date sounded familiar… he goes Father’s Day.” – Mrs. Anthony tells us she already knew the significance of the date because it “sounded familiar”. She needs to share this with us so badly, she interrupts herself to smash this information into her statement.
“And I said well yeah. And I can verify that with my mom.” – She tells the investigators “yes”, but needs to verify the uncomfortable “that” with her mom. Mrs. Anthony, even after seeing the video of Caylee sitting on the lap of her grandfather during a special trip which Mrs. Anthony personally took her on after not seeing Caylee for many days, needs to “verify” with her own mother the video was taken on Father’s Day, a full week after the date Mrs. Anthony reported last seeing Caylee. By word placement, Mrs. Anthony is verifying with her mother that June 15th was Father’s Day.
“So, we… I tried to get my mom on the phone and she wasn’t available that night, but the next morning, the morning of the bond hearing I did verify that.” – Lots of sensitivity to verifying this information with her mom. Cindy Anthony verified with her mother that Cindy Anthony lied about the last time she saw Caylee Anthony alive. There is doubt as to Mrs. Anthony trying to “get” her mother “on the phone” and her mother not being “available that night” as shown by the use of “but” which renders that preceding it as false.
“But that night they also asked me if I had a toothbrush or a hairbrush or a comb of Caylee’s.” – Mrs. Anthony distances herself from “that” night by using “that”. The investigators asked her for items of Caylee’s.
“So, immediately I go into Casey’s bathroom which is Caylee’s bathroom.” – “So” is an indicator of deception. There is doubt Mrs. Anthony “immediately” went into Casey’s bathroom. Why does Mrs. Anthony feel the need to explain to us the bathroom is Casey’s? “Which is Caylee’s bathroom” – If the bathroom is Caylee’s, why not simply call it Caylee’s bathroom and leave the Casey bit out?
“And I go through ummm… her… the drawers and I found the brush that Casey used on her hair and Caylee’s hair.” – What did Mrs. Anthony “go through”? “Her” becomes “the drawers”. She does not find the brush Casey used on Caylee’s hair, but the brush “Casey used on her hair and Caylee’s hair”. The investigators asked for Caylee’s brush. Mrs. Anthony brings them Casey’s brush, the one she used on “her hair”.
“And I got a toothbrush.” – Whose toothbrush? Casey’s toothbrush? Caylee’s toothbrush? We do not know.
“And I went into Caylee’s room and I couldn’t find a hairbrush or comb in her room.” – “Immediately” Mrs. Anthony went into Casey’s bathroom to find Caylee’s hairbrush. Now, she goes to Caylee’s room, but does not find a brush. “in her room” indicates sensitivity to the statement as it is the second reference in the same sentence to “Caylee’s room”. Why does Mrs. Anthony need to tell us what she did not find and where she did not find it? Adding details about what did not happen and where it did not happen at are indicators of deception.
“So, I went to Sgt. Allen and Yuri Melich and I said I know this brush Casey and Caylee used.” – “So” is our friend, the indicator of deception. Mrs. Anthony is close to “this brush”, she likes it, she is comfortable with “this brush”.
“I can’t tell you for sure if it has Caylee’s hair in it or not, but I said I could not find a comb or a brush in her bedroom.” – She makes no claims this is the brush the investigators requested. It is a brush which may or may not be the requested item. Lots of sensitivity in this and the last sentence as to what she “said” and told the investigators as seen in the many words for speaking. She repeats she is telling the investigators.
“OK.” – Mrs. Anthony again attempts to elicit agreement from the audience.
“So, I gave it to them that night.” – What did Mrs. Anthony give them “that” night? “It”. What is “it”? “This brush”, the one that is close to Mrs. Anthony, Casey’s brush that Casey used for Casey’s hair, not Caylee’s brush, not the brush the police requested, the wrong hairbrush.
“And I said you guys already have a toothbrush” – Mrs. Anthony, after not turning over the requested hairbrush, harassed law enforcement officers who have made a special trip to her home to verify she lied to them about the date her granddaughter disappeared because they requested an item they may already have.
“because it was in Caylee’s backpack that was still in the vehicle the night that… you know… that… that we got the car back from the tow yard.” – The toothbrush the police have was in a backpack which belonged to Caylee. Is it Caylee’s toothbrush? We do not know because Mrs. Anthony never says it is Caylee’s toothbrush, it is “a toothbrush”, just like the toothbrush Mrs. Anthony retrieved from Casey’s bathroom. Mrs. Anthony is sensitive to Caylee’s backpack “still” being in the vehicle as indicated by “that”. The night “we got the car back from the tow yard” is extremely sensitive as marked by “you know”, “that”, and “that”.
“So they already had a toothbrush, but I gave them another toothbrush.” – They may not have “already had a toothbrush” because “so” casts doubt on the statement and “but” marks the first part as untrue. Mrs. Anthony’s granddaughter is missing while she makes disparaging comments about the officers searching and shows hesitation about sacrificing a toothbrush for the cause.
“I have a toothbrush in Ca… in my bathroom” – Another toothbrush exists. Is it Caylee’s toothbrush and not a toothbrush from Casey’s bathroom used for both? We don’t know, but we do know it is in “my bathroom” where Mrs. Anthony kept the hairbrush she used only for Caylee which she did not turn over to investigators, the right hairbrush.
“I didn’t give them all three toothbrushes because they didn’t need it.” – Mrs. Anthony somehow knows the police do not need all three toothbrushes. She does not offer the third toothbrush per her earlier statements as she gives them “another”. It is not clear if she informs the officers of the third toothbrush. Mrs. Anthony thinks about the third toothbrush and decides the police do not need it.
“I do have a hairbrush in my bathroom that I forgot about that I do use for… that I did use for Caylee in my room.” – There is another hairbrush in Mrs. Anthony’s bathroom. Mrs. Anthony “forgot about” the hairbrush in her bathroom. The forgetting is marked sensitive by “that” as Mrs. Anthony distances herself from her forgetfulness. Mrs. Anthony thought about the toothbrush and decided the police did not need it, but “forgot” about the “hairbrush in my bathroom”, the one used for Caylee, the one the police requested.
“that I do use for… that I did use for Caylee in my room” – Sensitivity and distancing by use of two “that”s. The change from “do use” to “did use” is significant and may be an indication Mrs. Anthony knew Caylee was deceased when this interview was given in late November 2008, shortly before her remains were found. Mrs. Anthony also said the police “didn’t need” three toothbrushes. Presumably when this interview was given, the search was on-going and the police “do need”, not “didn’t” in the past tense.
“Did I go around and find all the brushes? No.” – The investigators asked Mrs. Anthony for Caylee’s brushes. Mrs. Anthony tells us here she did not “go around and find” them all. Since she only describes giving one brush and one toothbrush both from Casey’s bathroom and unknown to be used for Caylee, it would seem she did not “go around and find” any.
“It wasn’t deception.” – What is “it”? Not going around to find all the brushes was not “deception”. Was giving the investigators brushes which Mrs. Anthony was not sure had been used by Caylee when she knew of those that had been used solely for Caylee deception? We do not know. Mrs. Anthony has not addressed this question.
“OK.” – Mrs. Anthony wants the reporter to agree with her definition of “not deception”.
“All it was was going into her room couldn’t find anything going into the bathroom that they use together and I know that I used that brush on Caylee and I know that Casey used it.” – Sensitivity jackpot. Mrs. Anthony is so weak in her assertion of “not deception”, she must define what she did do that was “not deception”. In this version, Mrs. Anthony first goes into “her” room before going into Casey’s bathroom, but earlier in this saga Mrs. Anthony stated after the investigators made their request, “so, immediately I go into Casey’s bathroom”. Indicators of deception don’t come anymore glaring than this.
“I know that I used that brush on Caylee” – “that brush” is not “this brush” anymore. The change from “this” to “that” may indicate she is not speaking about the same brush, which has also changed from the brush Casey used on Casey and Caylee’s hair to one which Mrs. Anthony knows she personally used on Caylee.
“I know that Casey used it” – Did Casey use it on Caylee as earlier asserted? We do not know, only “that” she used it, which is a thought Mrs. Anthony wishes to distance from herself.
“So, no” – What is Mrs. Anthony answering “no” to? We do not know, but we do know it is a deceptive “no” from the use of “so”.
“when I handed the brush to them I was very honest with them” – This brush and that brush has now become “the brush”. Mrs. Anthony is sensitive about “them” as she says it twice. She was honest, but only when she handed the brush to them. She was “very” honest, which weakens “honest” and casts doubt on the assertion as honesty does not come in degrees. One is either honest or not honest, there is no middle ground. Mrs. Anthony did not give them the brush, she “handed” them the brush. She may not have done so willingly.
“I told them that both Casey and Caylee used that brush” – The brush is now “that” brush again. “both Casey and Caylee used” is sensitive by use of “that”. Both may not have used “that” brush. Mrs. Anthony tells them, but is this the “very honest” thing she told them when she handed them the brush? Is she talking about the hairbrush or the toothbrush? We don’t know. We know she was “very honest” and she “told them”, but they are separate in her language.
“So, no” – What is Mrs. Anthony answering “no” to? We do not know, but we do know it is a deceptive “no” from the use of “so”.
“there’s no deception” – There is no deception. But was there deception? Mrs. Anthony is telling us there is no deception now, but the story is in the past.
The original question is “”Did you purposely give investigators the wrong hairbrush”?
Mrs. Anthony’s answer is “No, absolutely not” and “So, no, there’s no deception”.
Mrs. Anthony answers a question about deception when the question was about intentionally giving the wrong hairbrush to investigators. Mrs. Anthony has not answered the question, she has avoided answering it. Mrs. Anthony is saying there was no deception. The investigators were aware she gave them the wrong hairbrush. She did not deceive them.
But Mrs. Anthony does believe she did try to deceive the investigators. She must justify her actions as “not deception” by telling us “all it was”.
Mrs. Anthony deceives us during the story by telling falsehoods about her actions, as seen in her changing chronology of events.
We have learned Mrs. Anthony practices deception on many levels, but fools only herself.
Early in the case, the FBI requested items from Cindy Anthony to aide in their search for missing two-year-old Caylee Anthony. Some of these items were used to obtain DNA samples of the missing child. After a bitter break with spokesman Larry Garrison, Mrs. Anthony sent an e-mail to him explaining why she did not give the FBI the hairbrush used only by Caylee.
A background video of the events as they unfolded at the time is available at this link:
E-mail
Cindy Anthony to Larry Garrison 11/20/2008: “I never lied I just never went to my bathroom to get the hairbrush that I used only for Caylee. As far as Tim Miller goes remember it was you who sealed the first deal with me having him come in the first place. I also trusted you so much that I let you speak to Casey.”
“I never lied” – This is not the same as “I did not lie”. This statement covers the speaker’s entire life. She “never lied”. The use of “never” in this context is an indication of deception.
“I just never went to my bathroom” – If the assertion that Mrs. Anthony had “never lied” was true, she would not feel the need to explain herself. The use of “just” marks “never went” as sensitive. Again, the use of “never” is indicative of lying as Mrs. Anthony has gone to her bathroom, so “never went” is not true. Mrs. Anthony does not tell us what she did, she tells us what she did not do in order to avoid stating what she did.
“to get the hairbrush that I used only for Caylee.” – This is what she was supposed to do and did not do. She did not get the hairbrush she used “only for Caylee”. It is important for her to identify this particular hairbrush as “only for Caylee”. We know Mrs. Anthony gave the FBI a hairbrush she claims was used by both Casey and Caylee. This is a different hairbrush used “only by Caylee”. This is not a hairbrush that Casey Anthony used for Caylee, but one that Mrs. Anthony used, “I used”.
“As far as Tim Miller goes remember it was you who sealed the first deal with me having him come in the first place.” – We do not know how far or where Tim Miller “goes”, but Mrs. Anthony states Larry Garrison was instrumental in the “first deal”. There has been more than one deal. We do not know how many deals. How did Mr. Garrison “seal” the “first deal”? We do not know, but something he did made it permanent. Did the deal involve the agreement or knowledge of Tim Miller? This sentence states “the first deal” was between Larry Garrison and Mrs. Anthony as it was “with me”. Mr. Garrison and Mrs. Anthony made some kind of “deal”. The “first deal” was for Mrs. Anthony to have “him come in the first place”. Larry Garrison convinced Cindy Anthony to bring Tim Miller into the investigation for Caylee. Mr. Garrison had to exchange something of value with Mrs. Anthony for her to make this agreement.
“I also trusted you so much that I let you speak to Casey.” – Mrs. Anthony believes she controls who can and cannot speak to Casey Anthony. Trust has levels for Mrs. Anthony. She trusted Mr. Garrison “so much”, which was enough to “speak to Casey”. She trusts others more and others less, trust is not an absolute, but a variable. Mrs. Anthony believes Mr. Garrison should feel guilt over Mrs. Anthony’s letting him “speak to Casey”, an act that is sensitive as marked by “that”.
We have learned that Cindy Anthony’s denial in this e-mail of her lying is weak and indicates deception. Mrs. Anthony feels she must justify her denial with an explanation of what she did not do. Mrs. Anthony believes she did lie.
Discovery released in the case against Casey Anthony in July 2009 revealed to the public the defense had taken Caylee’s personal items from the Anthony house. Media asked Mr. Baez if the defense withheld important evidence from the prosecution. His reply can be see in the following video:
Jose Baez: “Absolutely not. And in fact uhhh… any assertion of that would be totally false and ridiculous. I think the defense did the ethical thing here and this should be proof of it.”
The simplest answer would have been “No”. Mr. Baez gives a lengthy answer beginning with a word construction often indicating deception, “Absolutely not”. Mr. Baez does not say “no”.
“Absolutely not” is such a weak denial, Mr. Baez must bolster his flimsy response with an explanation of “fact”. The phrase “in fact” is another indication of weakness as it attempts to persuade the reader the statement about to be made by the speaker is true, it is “fact”.
“any assertion of that would be” – An assertion now is not “totally false” or “ridiculous”, but “would be” at some point in the future. “False” is sensitive as marked by “totally”. “Assertion” is marked sensitive by use of “totally false” and “ridiculous”, either would have been sufficient. “That” is distancing Mr. Baez from allegations of withholding evidence.
“I think the defense did” – Mr. Baez “think”s “the defense did”, not that he did, but “the defense”. Mr. Baez is not sure, he “think”s. Others may “think” the defense did not.
“the ethical thing here” – His thinking is limited to what the defense did “here”, only in this instance, they may not have done the “ethical thing” in other places. Mr. Baez does not know if this was the “ethical thing”, he “think”s it is. The “ethical thing” was to take physical items that any CSI-viewer would identify as having possible trace evidence from the house where warrants were being served in search of evidence in a murder.
“this should be proof of it” – We are not sure what “this” is, but it is close to Mr. Baez. The TV interview? But whatever “this” is, it “should be”, but is not, “proof of it”. The “it” is Mr. Baez’s thinking. “This should be proof of” Mr. Baez’s thinking. Mr. Baez stating to the camera his thoughts should be proof of his thinking. Mr. Baez telling us his thoughts is proof Mr. Baez thought the defense was doing the ethical thing, not proof they did the ethical thing, only proof he thought they did.
We have learned that Mr. Baez’s denial of withholding important evidence is weak. We do not know the source of the weakness. Perhaps items on the list are not important evidence, but the “cards” Ms. Anthony has yet to lay on the table are important evidence. All we know for sure is Mr. Baez is not strong in his denial of withholding evidence and although he thinks the defense did the right thing and his telling us his thinking should be proof he thought it, he is not sure as we might think differently.
This article will concentrate on a series of smell related questions posed by Jose Baez to Cindy Anthony during a hearing held on July 15, 2010. The questions begin about 6 minutes and 38 seconds into the following video.
Jose Baez: “And it was also your understanding and your feeling that law enforcement did not believe that was… that Caylee was alive?”
Cindy Anthony: “Correct”.
Jose Baez: “Or at least was not acting as such?”
Cindy Anthony: “Correct”.
Jose Baez: “And when you made these statements to law enforcement, that you had smelled a… a dead body or you had experience to that effect that was because you wanted them to see… to know that the smell that you smelled was different than that of a dead body?”
Cindy Anthony: “Yes, I guess”
Jose Baez: “And because of this… and while you were telling them this it’s because you wanted them to keep searching for a live Caylee?
Cindy Anthony: “Correct.”
Jose Baez: “And you’re clear about that?”
Cindy Anthony: “Oh, absolutely. I… I… I still think Caylee’s alive.”
“And it was also your understanding and your feeling” – Mr. Baez asks Mrs. Anthony for her “understanding” and “feeling”, but not for fact. This is what Mrs. Anthony thought, not what was real. This testimony being based on thought and not fact is sensitive as seen by the double reference in “understanding” and “feeling” to internal thought processes.
“that” – Mr. Baez distances himself from what he is about to assert.
“law enforcement did not believe that was…” – Mr. Baez is not able to tell us what “law enforcement did not believe”, but it was sensitive as seen by second use of “that”.
“that Caylee was alive” – Although not his original intent, “Caylee was alive” is now what law enforcement did not believe. Caylee being alive is an uncomfortable thought for Mr. Baez as he distances himself with the third use of “that”. Mr. Baez has also gone to great lengths to avoid saying law enforcement believed Caylee was dead. Mr. Baez does not tell us what law enforcement believed, only what they did not believe. Someone was telling law enforcement Caylee was alive and they were not believing it.
“Or at least was not acting as such?” – Mr. Baez receives an affirmative answer, yet poses the question again, but changes it slightly. The question was already about the unverifiable “understanding” and “feeling” of Mrs. Anthony about what law enforcement “believed”, another unverifiable. Now Mr. Baez makes the question even more irrelevant by introducing another unverifiable in the form of how law enforcement “was not acting”. Not how law enforcement “was” “acting”, but how they were not. Mrs. Anthony is being asked to answer a question about how she felt and understood law enforcement did not believe based upon how they did not act. Law enforcement “was not acting”, or they were not playing around. Law enforcement was serious.
“”Correct”.” – Mrs. Anthony affirms she understood and felt law enforcement did not believe Caylee was alive based upon actions they did not take.
“And when you made these statements to law enforcement” – We do not now “when” this is because Mrs. Anthony made many statements to law enforcement. Sometime after Mrs. Anthony understood and felt the non-beliefs of law enforcement based on how they did not act.
“that you had smelled a… a dead body” – Mr. Baez struggles to say “a dead body”. “that” distances Mr. Baez from the smelling of a… a dead body.
“you had experience to that effect” – Mr. Baez inserts doubt the smell was a dead body or even a smell at all. The smell is now an “experience”. The “effect” is the smell of a dead body. Something happened to Mrs. Anthony that caused her to have exactly the same experience as smelling a dead body. Mrs. Anthony may have been playing the new Wii game, Smell the Dead Body in the Trunk Olympic Edition.
“that was because” – “that” is our signpost of distancing and discomfort. The “because” may not be the “because” after all.
“you wanted them to see…” – Mrs. Anthony wanted law enforcement “to see” something, but we do not know what because Mr. Baez stops himself for verbalizing and changes to the next phrase. She wanted them to “see” something about the smell.
“to know” – Not “to see”, but “to know”.
“that” – More distancing, more discomfort. We should doubt the next phrase.
“the smell that you smelled” – More sensitivity and discomfort with another “that”. This whole section of the question is fraught with verbal indicators of deception.
“was different than that of a dead body” – Another “that” and we all know what “that” means. But let’s try to summarize this anyway.
Mr. Baez is asking Mrs. Anthony if, at the time she made statements to law enforcement about smelling a dead body in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, Mrs. Anthony said she smelled a dead body because she desired to communicate the smell was not a dead body at all, it was different.
Mrs. Anthony, did you say the smell was a dead body because the smell was something else and you wanted to make that crystal clear?”
“Yes, I guess” – Mrs. Anthony is not sure if “yes” is her answer, she guesses. Most likely, Mr. Baez is not even sure what he asked, let alone Mrs. Anthony.
“And because of this…” – Because Mrs. Anthony said the smell was a dead body but really meant the smell was another smell or not a smell, but an experience…
“and while you were telling them this” – This is the same time that was established in the previous question as “when you made these statements to law enforcement”. What she told them is close to Mr. Baez as seen with “this”, the smell was a dead body.
“it’s because you wanted them to keep searching for a live Caylee?” – Mrs. Anthony told law enforcement the smell was that of a dead body for two reasons, the first being to communicate the smell was not a dead body, and the second being to encourage them to continue to look for a live Caylee.
“Correct.” – During this same hearing, Mrs. Anthony testified she stated the dead body smell to encourage the police to respond more quickly to her 911 call. Mr. Baez has provided two additional reasons. Mrs. Anthony agrees to all three. The only reason Mrs. Anthony disputes she said the car smelled like a dead body had been in it is because it smelled like a dead body had been in it.
“And you’re clear about that?” – Mr. Baez cannot possibly be clear about “that” himself after wading through the verbal wreckage of his queries.
“Oh, absolutely. I… I… I still think Caylee’s alive.” – The question is about continuing a search for a live Caylee, but Mrs. Anthony only address her current belief “Caylee’s alive”. She does not address the need for a continued search.
We have learned the best way to communicate a smell to another person is to describe it as something other than which it is. If something smells like roses, state it smells like clam chowder for the purposes of clear communication to law enforcement. Following such a course will cause law enforcement to continue to look for roses instead of breaking for a lunch of clam chowder.
Jose Baez: “It does her no good to show her cards, to give the prosecution any advantage that they have in putting her away for the rest of their… her life.”
“”It does her no good to show her cards” – What does her no good? “To show her cards” does her no good. “To show her cards” is “it”. “Her” is Ms. Anthony. At the time this statement was made, Caylee Anthony was still officially missing, her body had not been found. Mr. Baez speaks to the good of Ms. Anthony, but not to the good of Caylee Anthony. Ms. Anthony has “cards” she has not shown. “Cards” are a metaphor involving a playing card game in which the player keeps their hand hidden to maintain an advantage over opponents. Ms. Anthony is suppressing information. Revealing the information she is hiding will do “her no good”. Presumably, the information Ms. Anthony hides directly concerns the disappearance of her daughter. Revealing the information will result in negative consequences for Ms. Anthony. Finding Caylee will be negative for Ms. Anthony. Mr. Baez believes Ms. Anthony’s suppression of information is a game, it is amusing and entertaining, there is a contest which will end with a winner and a loser.
“to give the prosecution any advantage” – If Ms. Anthony reveals the information she is suppressing, the “no good” it will do her is to “give the prosecution any advantage”. Not just an “advantage”, but “any advantage”. The prosecution’s case against Ms. Anthony will be strengthened if they were to learn the information Ms. Anthony hides.
“that they have” – Mr. Baez is sensitive about the prosecution having “any advantage” as expressed by “that”, distancing Mr. Baez from the prosecution’s advantage. The prosecution may already have “any advantage” as Mr. Baez expresses this sentiment in the present tense, not the future if Ms. Anthony gives up her information.
“in putting her away for the rest of their… her life” – The information that Ms. Anthony is suppressing will strengthen the case of the prosecution to the extent they will be able to secure a life sentence.
We have learned Mr. Baez believes any information Ms. Anthony gives the prosecution in regards to the disappearance of her daughter will result in a life sentence for Ms. Anthony.
We have learned Mr. Baez views the defense of Ms. Anthony as a game, a diversion, an amusement to be enjoyed.
A special thanks goes out to loyal reader Niecey456 for bringing forward this quote and video. Visit her website full of Caylee facts at http://niecey456.wordpress.com/.
This article will focus on the first few minutes from the following video.
Jose Baez: “First off, I was made aware that this is a possibility of happening this evening. The police knew what they were going to do tonight, they planned it out, they knew everybody would be here and they decided to make a spectacle of this event. I understand people’s right to protest and that… that’s certainly their… their right. This is a free country. OK. And… they chose this moment to grandstand and to utilize their power to go ahead and make her… make an arrest on something that they knew two months ago as to the facts and allegations of a… of an economic crime. You didn’t see economic crime detectives come here and arrest her, you saw homicide detectives come and do that. I knew ahead of time and I sent them a fax from my office advising them that if they wanted to file additional charges, I would gladly surrender her. This… you can see, I’m going to go ahead and display a time stamp of 5:40 this evening. I then spoke with Detective Allen and I said to him, if you plan on arresting my client, you let me know and I’ll surrender her, we’ll do this like professionals. He assured me that they had no intention of doing it. Why? Because he didn’t have his stage or his cameras. OK. This is the type of display that these law enforcement officers are doing. They decide what they want to leak when they want to leak it so they can go ahead and have public perception. OK. I’ve got news for all of you folks. I’ve spoken to top DNA experts across the country and they tell me DNA is DNA. You can’t tell whether the person’s alive or dead. This stuff from the… from the university of Tennessee, that’s other… that’s… that’s other things that is still leaked by law enforcement. Nobody leaked that but the law enforcement. OK. You don’t see leaks coming out of my office. OK. And I’ve got a… I’ve got a rinky dink little office in Kissimmee. OK. But I’ll tell you something. You’ve got the power of this government and… and the Orange County Sheriff’s Office making leaks all the way out from the University of Tennessee. C’mon, that’s ridiculous! OK. It’s about time… I’ve been… I’ve been holding back on a lot of the leaks that they have… that they have decided to come forward with but it’s about time and it’s a little bit ridiculous that we’re at this point where they want to make puppets out of us all when they know a lot of people are going to be here, a lot of cameras are going to be here and they decide to put on a little show. OK. On minor economic crimes. We’re talking about $700 when the focus is, the focus should be, it always has been finding Caylee. OK. They’re more interested in making her… hold on a second… they’re more interested in making her look bad in front of all of you instead of finding Caylee and that’s the focus of what they should be doing.”
“First off” – Mr. Baez begins by telling us he has many things to say.
“I was made aware that this is a possibility of happening this evening.” – “that this” is both far and near at the same time. Mr. Baez wishes to distance himself from the following phrase, yet embrace it at the same time. He does not want the “happening”, but he does like the thought of “possibility” as it implies the arrest may not occur, even though it already has. Someone told Mr. Baez “that this is a possibility”. “was made aware” indicates Mr. Baez did nothing to obtain this information, he is passive, the knowledge was thrust upon him. Someone else told him. Who told Mr. Baez this would happen?
“The police knew what they were going to do tonight, they planned it out, they knew everybody would be here and they decided to make a spectacle of this event.” – The police were very active. Tonight’s “happening” was not a “possibility” to the police, they knew “what they were going to do”. The police knew because they “planned it out”, not just “planned it”, but “out”. The phrase is normally, “out to the last detail”, but Mr. Baez does not mention details. Perhaps the police did not plan for Mr. Baez to make these remarks to the press following the arrest?
“they knew everybody would be here” – “they” seems to be the police, but who is “everybody”? The yard and his audience are full of protesters to Ms. Anthony’s freedom. Are they “everybody”? The media is there as they are filming Mr. Baez. Are they “everybody”? Cindy and George Anthony are there. Are they “everybody”? Is Mr. Baez convinced the entire world is watching him during this broadcast, so “everybody” is there via television? We don’t know, but no matter who “everybody” is, the police knew they would be “here”.
“they decided to make a spectacle of this event” – The police “decided”. They made a conscious choice, not to arrest, but to “make a spectacle of this event”. To Mr. Baez, the arrest of Casey Anthony for economic crimes is an “event”. An “event” is a “spectacle”. An “event” is a “happening”. People look at a “spectacle”. The police made a conscious choice to make “this” event visible. Mr. Baez wants to be close to “this” event. Mr. Baez wants to be looked at.
“I understand people’s right to protest and that… that’s certainly their… their right.” – The stuttering attack and use of the words “that” and “certainly” bring into doubt the validity of “their right”, which was not the first descriptive choice of Mr. Baez, who choked away his first thoughts. Is this their right? Mr. Baez may not agree. Mr. Baez has difficulty stating protesting is their right. He is not comfortable with protesting as seen by the use of “that” to distance himself from “right to protest”. He understands the right, but he doesn’t like it.
“This is a free country. OK.” – True statement followed by a verbal request of agreement. Mr. Baez state a fact, then asks the audience to agree by saying OK. He repeats this word throughout the statement, more frequently as his assertions become wilder. Each OK is an invitation to the listener to follow further down his path.
“they chose this moment to grandstand” – Who is “they”? By word placement, it would seem to refer back to the people who have a right to protest or “a free country”. Mr. Baez seems to mean it to refer to the police, who again are making a conscious choice. It is important to Mr. Baez to inform us Ms. Anthony’s arrest was not his choice, but the choice of the police, the enforcers of law.
“this moment to grandstand” – “this” indicates Mr. Baez wants to be close to the “moment to grandstand”. It should be noted Mr. Baez is speaking to what he believes to be “everybody” in the world through the means of a television broadcast as he tells us he wants to be in the grandstanding moment. The police are not in front of the cameras at “this moment”, the time frame to which Mr. Baez refers. He is the center of attention at “this moment”, the purpose of which is “to grandstand”.
“to utilize their power to go ahead and make her… make an arrest” – They were going to “make” her do something, but Mr. Baez stammers and chooses not to verbalize his thought, instead saying they “make an arrest”, not “her” arrest, but “an” arrest. They have “their power”. Mr. Baez does not. They could have “utilized” their “power” in a different way.
“go ahead” – At some point in the past, the police were going to, then changed and were not going to arrest Ms. Anthony on these charges. But now they “go ahead”.
“on something that they knew two months ago as to the facts and allegations of a… of an economic crime” – The police knew two months ago “the facts”, Ms. Anthony forged checks. “Facts” are more important than “allegations”. “An” indicates a single “economic crime”, which is a factual lie. “Economic” is an attempt to minimize “crime”. Mr. Baez searches for a word other than “crime”, but chooses to modify it instead. “Economic crime” attempts to minimize theft, robbery, stealing, forgery.
“You didn’t see economic crime detectives come here and arrest her, you saw homicide detectives come and do that.” – Mr. Baez distances himself from the arrest with “that”. It is important to Mr. Baez to tell us the police detectives who arrested Ms. Anthony are homicide detectives.
“I knew ahead of time” – Mr. Baez knew “ahead of time”. Mr. Baez tells us he knew what time the arrest would happen. Mr. Baez also knew it would be homicide detectives arresting Ms. Anthony.
“I sent them a fax from my office advising them that if they wanted to file additional charges, I would gladly surrender her” – Mr. Baez advised the homicide detectives how to make their arrest. “if they wanted to file” – Even though the police filed additional charges and made an arrest, did they “want to”? Mr. Baez implies the police “want” to file charges against Ms. Anthony. It is their desire, not their duty. Mr. Baez would be happy to “surrender her”. Ms. Anthony was spending many hours per day at Mr. Baez’s office. He implies she was there when he sent the fax by stating from where he sent the fax. Why do we need to know where he was when he faxed it? She is at his office and he will happily surrender her.
“This… you can see, I’m going to go ahead and display a time stamp of 5:40 this evening.” – Mr. Baez was not intending to do display a time stamp, but has changed his mind and now is “going to go ahead”. For some reason we do not know, Mr. Baez was not going to show proof he “sent them a fax”. He needed to grapple with the prospect before he could commit the deed. We “can see” him “going to go ahead”. It is important to Mr. Baez that we “see” what he was not going to “display”. Mr. Baez is about to tell us a tall tale and wants us to “see” his proof so we buy his story.
“I then spoke with Detective Allen and I said to him” – Mr. Baez spoke with the detective and he said something to the detective. When someone speaks, it is implicit that they “said” something. By telling us he spoke with the detective twice, Mr. Baez is indicating the statement is sensitive to him. We should doubt he “spoke” or “said”. He may have communicated in another way, or he may not have spoken or said, or he may not have spoken directly to Detective Allen, or what he said may not have been what he is about to tell us. How did he speak with the detective? By phone? In person? We do not know.
“if you plan on arresting my client” – The fax advised the police in the event they wished to file additional charges. Mr. Baez addresses the detective about plans to arrest his client. These are not the same events. They are both if-then statements which result in the same outcome, the “surrender” by Mr. Baez of his client, but the cause is different. If either event occurs, they want or the detective plans, Mr. Baez will surrender his client.
“you let me know and I’ll surrender her, we’ll do this like professionals.” – Ms. Anthony will not surrender, Mr. Baez will surrender her. Mr. Baez believes he should be in control of surrendering. The detective is instructed to “let” Mr. Baez “know”. The detective needs to clear an arrest with Mr. Baez. The detective needs to acknowledge Mr. Baez is in charge of Ms. Anthony’s surrender. By not notifying Mr. Baez, the detective is not a professional. For Mr. Baez not to be involved is unprofessional. “This” shows Mr. Baez wishes to be close to the surrender.
“He assured me that they had no intention of doing it.” – Mr. Baez distances himself from his assertion of what the detective “assured” by use of “that”. Mr. Baez does not want to be close to this part of the sentence. We should doubt his assertion. “That” may not be what the detective “assured”. Or “doing it” may not be what Mr. Baez would have us believe. At first listen or read, “doing it” seems to refer to arresting Ms. Anthony. But grammatically, “doing it” refers to the detective “doing” what Mr. Baez instructed him to do, not to “let” Mr. Baez know. The detective has “no intention” of following Mr. Baez’s instructions.
“Why?” – Mr. Baez will now tell us his beliefs as to the motivations of the police and the detective.
“Because he didn’t have his stage or his cameras.” – Who is “he”? Presumably the detective, but we don’t know. Mr. Baez seems to be implying that the detective was not going to arrest Ms. Anthony because there was no stage or cameras. Mr. Baez is addressing a crowd of protesters that have been present at the house for days. News crews have been filming most of the time. Cameras are and had been there. However, Mr. Baez may be answering why the detective would not follow Mr. Baez’s instructions. Mr. Baez has “his stage” and “his cameras” because he showed up when he knew this “event” would take place. The detective attempted to prevent Mr. Baez from having a stage and cameras by not letting Mr. Baez “know”. The detective knew he would not have “his stage” or “his cameras” without Mr. Baez and would have preferred such.
“OK.” – Here it is again. Mr. Baez is saying, OK I made it through that one, OK they believe me.
“This is the type of display that these law enforcement officers are doing.” – What is “this”? It is close to Mr. Baez, but what is it? “This” is the “type of display”. “This” “type of display” is close to Mr. Baez. “That” distances what the law enforcement officers are doing, yet “these” bring the specific officers closer to Mr. Baez, the ones associated with him. This is what they are doing.
“They decide what they want to leak when they want to leak it so they can go ahead and have public perception.” – “These law enforcement officers” “decide” what and when “to leak” for the purpose of going “ahead” and having “public perception”. The officers were not going to have “public perception”, but changed their minds and “go ahead” and get it. They have “public perception”, Mr. Baez does not. The public perceives law enforcement, but they do not perceive Mr. Baez. The public does not notice Mr. Baez.
“OK.” – Here it is again.
“I’ve got news for all of you folks.” – Mr. Baez has spoken many sentences and he now arrives at his “news” for “all” of us. He has something to tell everyone.
“I’ve spoken to top DNA experts across the country” – The news he announces is that Mr. Baez has spoken to people.
“they tell me DNA is DNA” – Mr. Baez has a second piece of news, DNA is DNA. The people he spoke with told him so. Mr. Baez did not know DNA was DNA as he is relating “news” to us, something new. Mr. Baez needed top experts across the country to tell him DNA is DNA.
“You can’t tell whether the person’s alive or dead.” – Experts may be able to tell, but “you” can’t, presumably the protesters Mr. Baez is addressing. They cannot tell if a person is alive or dead.
“This stuff from the… from the university of Tennessee, that’s other… that’s… that’s other things” – The “stuff” is close to Mr. Baez by use of “this”, he is living with it day in and day out. “This stuff” from the university, what we know to be the air tests Mr. Baez continues to fight against, is uncomfortable to Mr. Baez “other things”. The “stuff” is not “you can’t tell” alive from dead. With this “stuff”, you can tell. The “stuff” is not DNA.
“that is still leaked by law enforcement.” – Mr. Baez is sensitive about this statement and indicates such with “that”.
“Nobody leaked that but the law enforcement.” – Nobody leaked information sensitive to Mr. Baez except law enforcement.
“OK.” – Our friend returns.
“You don’t see leaks coming out of my office.” – The protesters don’t “see” leaks “coming out” of his “office”. This is not a statement leaks do not come from his office, but that we do not see the leaks. Why can he not say “Leaks do not come from my office”? Why does he need to phrase it this way? To reduce the stress of lying. Technically, a true statement. We do not “see” leaks. No one has tied leaks directly back to his office. But do leaks come from his office? He is not saying they do not.
“OK.” – He’s back.
“And I’ve got a… I’ve got a rinky dink little office in Kissimmee.” – True statement.
“OK.” – Never get tired of seeing this guy.
“But I’ll tell you something.” – He had news, now he will “tell” us “something”. “But” indicates up to this point, he hasn’t told us anything.
“You’ve got the power of this government” – The protesters have the “power of this government”, which Mr. Baez feels close to as indicated by “this”.
“and the Orange County Sheriff’s Office making leaks all the way out from the University of Tennessee.” – The power and the sheriff’s office are “making leaks” “from the University”. They do not leak information, they “make leaks”. They force others to leak, others from the university. “all the way out” marks the statement as sensitive as they are extra and unneeded words.
“C’mon, that’s ridiculous!” – “That” is the claim Mr. Baez just made about power and the sheriff making leaks from the university. The claim is “ridiculous”. Mr. Baez tells us he knows the claim is “ridiculous”. He asks us to agree with “C’mon”.
“OK.” – Hi again.
“It’s about time…” – We do not know what “it” is “about time” for.
“I’ve been holding back on a lot of the leaks that they have… that they have decided to come forward with” – Mr. Baez has been holding back on leaks the police have come forward with. Mr. Baez holds leaks back or doesn’t leak. The police make a decision and “come forward”. The police do not leak or hold back leaks. The police come forward. When the police come forward with information, they are not leaking. Mr. Baez had “a lot” of this information and could have leaked it, but didn’t and he was rewarded for his efforts by the police coming forward with the information he could have leaked. It is an effort for Mr. Baez not to leak information, he has “been” or continuously for an extended period held back. It is an ongoing struggle not to leak.
“but it’s about time” – “but” refutes what came before. Mr. Baez has not been holding back. “It” is almost time again.
“and it’s a little bit ridiculous” – “It” is “ridiculous”. “Little bit” shows sensitivity to “ridiculous”.
“that we’re at this point” – Sensitivity show to being at this “point” with “that”. It is both about time and ridiculous we are at this sensitive point.
“where they want to make puppets out of us all” – This is the ridiculous point it is about time we got to. Mr. Baez has taken us been taking us down a verbal road to a ridiculous point. He has taken so long to bring us here, he states it is about time. Once before, he tried to get us here, but went off on another tangent. It is about time Mr. Baez got to the point, but it is a ridiculous one. Mr. Baez claims the police desire to “make puppets” of everyone. His claim is ridiculous.
“when they know a lot of people are going to be here, a lot of cameras are going to be here” – The claim of Mr. Baez is ridiculous so he must explain why the police have chosen this “grandstand” moment to “make puppets out of us all”. Making puppets requires a lot of people and cameras to be here. The people and cameras may not be here yet, they are “going to be here”.
“they decide to put on a little show” – The police decided “to put on a little show” even though they did not have “his stage” and “his cameras”. Sensitivity to “show” with word “little”. Mr. Baez is attempting to minimize the “show”, Ms. Anthony’s arrest.
“OK.” – Our buddy makes an encore.
“On minor economic crimes.” – The police put on a little show about “minor economic crimes”. “Minor” and “economic” both attempt to minimize “crimes”. Ms. Anthony was arrested for multiple “crimes”, which Mr. Baez wants us to believe are not important. A few sentences before, Mr. Baez described these multiple crimes as “an economic crime”, one crime. Now there are multiple crimes.
“We’re talking about $700” – Mr. Baez again attempts to minimize the multiple crimes by lumping them into a single monetary amount, which he will compare to the life of a child. For this entire passage, Mr. Baez has been talking about “$700”.
“when the focus is, the focus should be, it always has been finding Caylee.” – The focus is “finding Caylee”, yet we are “talking about $700”. Mr. Baez has been focused on finding Caylee throughout his comments without once mentioning her until now.
“OK.” – Yeah.
“they’re more interested in making her look bad in front of all of you” – The last “her” Jose named was Caylee. The police or whoever is “they” are “more interested in making” Caylee look bad in front of everyone.
“instead of finding Caylee” – They would rather make Caylee look bad than find her. They are making Caylee look bad by releasing University of Tennessee not DNA information that confirms Caylee is dead and arresting her mother for economic crimes.
“that’s the focus of what they should be doing.” – “that’s” could be “finding Caylee” or “making her look bad”, we don’t know which, but it is not something Mr. Baez is comfortable with as he uses a distancing word to describe it.
We have learned that the claims Mr. Baez makes of multi-branch, inter-state, inter-agency conspiracies to leak information against the defense of Casey Anthony are ridiculous.
We have learned Mr. Baez continuously struggles to not leak information he knows.
We have learned Mr. Baez was aware his client would be arrested and was not effective at bringing about any type of resolution with the authorities, perhaps not the wisest of admissions for an attorney who wishes to encourage new business.
We have learned Mr. Baez issues orders to the police and they tell him they have no intentions of following his orders.
We have learned Mr. Baez is aware he makes ridiculous statements, but continues to make them.
Mr. Baez has claimed his client is innocent from the moment he began representing Casey Anthony who was charged with crimes connected to the disappearance of her daughter, two year old Caylee Anthony.
Seven months into the case, the charges had been upgraded to murder and the prospects of a long trial loomed as Jose Baez made these comments on March 25, 2009. We will focus on an unprompted comment Mr. Baez makes about 3 minutes and 15 seconds into the clip.
Jose Baez: “…in the same token… uhhh… Casey Anthony has said she’s not guilty, she’s putting her trust in the system, and she’s hoping that it’ll work. Ummm… and… that’s… you know that’s… that’s the bottom line here. She’s innocent unless proven guilty.”
“Casey Anthony has said she’s not guilty” – Not the same as saying she is innocent. Casey Anthony has made a statement, but Mr. Baez is not commenting on the truthfulness of her claim.
“she’s putting her trust in the system” – Mr. Baez is not making a comment on what she trusts the system to do. Mr. Baez is not claiming she puts her trust in him.
“she’s hoping that it’ll work” – We do not know what “it” is. What does she hope will work? Saying she is not guilty? Or the system?
“that’s the bottom line here” – Mr. Baez distances himself from “the bottom line” with the use of “that”. What is the “bottom line here”? What is “that”? Ms. Anthony hoping “it” will work? Or Ms. Anthony putting her trust in the system? Or Ms. Anthony saying she is not guilty? “That” could be the next sentence because it does sound like Mr. Baez puts an “is” between “here” and “she”, but the transcriber could not be certain.
“She’s innocent unless proven guilty” – Ms. Anthony is only innocent if she is not proven guilty. We do not know from this sentence if Ms. Anthony is innocent or guilty. This is not a statement of innocence.
Does Mr. Baez believe his client Casey Anthony is innocent? We do not know from this statement.
We do know that Mr. Baez made this comment concerning innocence with no prompting from the media. Mr. Baez chose to make this statement under no outside influence, but chose not to say his client is innocent.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 