Is Jose Baez Fighting the Good Fight?

Attorney Jose Baez made many interesting comments during a hearing for his client Casey Anthony held on October 29, 2010.

Video of the comment this article will focus on may be found at the following link.  The comment begins about minute 21:00.

http://www.wftv.com/video/25566372/index.html

Jose Baez: “I’ll try to address directly the points made by first the Orange County Jail.  Umm… I was a bit shocked that they start their argument off by claiming they don’t have a position, but yet they file a brief and argue a position.  I don’t understand.  Uhhh… we have a situation here where we’re not asking the jail to do anything or to take an affirmative act, but to refrain from doing something.  Ummm… it’s not like they have a dog in this fight, but yet for some reason they continue to uhhh… fight the good fight so to speak.”

“I’ll try” – Mr. Baez begins by promising he will “try”, but will not succeed.  Mr. Baez will fail at the his proposed goal.

“to address directly the points made by first the Orange County Jail” – This is his goal.  The extra word “directly” is another indication of his discomfort over attempting to deceive his listeners he intends to “address” the points.  The extra word “first” is the first verbal obstacle to directness tossed out by Mr. Baez, a finding supported by his failure to identify a “second”.  Mr. Baez will be anything but direct in his address of the points made by an unknown number of members of a group including the Orange County Jail.

“I was a bit shocked” – Mr. Baez was “shocked”, but not much.  He “was” shocked, but he is not “shocked” as he makes this statement even though the event causing his shock occurred moments before.  His “shock” is in question because of the modifier “bit”.

“that they start their argument off by claiming they don’t have a position” – This is what “shocked” Mr. Baez, who is uncomfortable with it as indicated by the use of “that”.  Is he uncomfortable because “bit shocked” is a lie?  Or is he uncomfortable because the “claiming” really did shock him?  We don’t know.  Mr. Baez was “shocked” the attorney for the Orange County jail started arguing against the wishes of Mr. Baez.  The word “off” is interesting as it is extra, indicating it is significant, probably indicating sensitivity to “by claiming they don’t have a position”.

“by claiming they don’t have a position” – Is this what she claimed?  Or did she claim the jail was not involved with the prosecution of Casey Anthony?  Did the attorney for the Orange County Jail really claim the jail has no position regarding the complete overhaul of their administrative policies for all inmates?  Did we all sleep through that part?  Or was Mr. Baez watching a different court hearing on his IPad?

“but yet they file a brief and argue a position” – Has the attorney for the Orange County Jail lost her mind?  She filed a brief claiming a position prior to coming to court, but during the hearing she claimed the Orange County Jail had no position?  And Judge Perry never questioned her about the sudden change in position?  Wait… look carefully at this part… “and argue”… someone call the hospital for this poor woman right away.  She filed a brief claiming a position, appeared in court claiming no position, then argued for her position as claimed in the filed brief.  Is Jose Baez the only person in the courtroom with the compassion necessary to see the agony his fellow attorney must be suffering as she shifts from one reality to another within her mind?  Will no one else help?

“but yet” – A verbal indicator of deception.  “But” refutes what came before.  “Yet” does the same thing.  Together they form the dynamic duo of deception.

“I don’t understand” – Enjoy the honesty.

“we have a situation here where” – Mr. Baez has moved from the honesty of “I” to the murkiness of “we”.  Who is “we”?  We don’t know, but they own the “situation”, they “have” it.  The double location “here where” indicates the next section is sensitive.

“we’re not asking the jail to do anything” – “We” has been identified as Mr. Baez and the others who ask the jail.  What do “we” ask the jail?  Nothing, because “we are not asking”. Mr. Baez then lists what he and his companions are not asking.  They do not ask the jail “to do anything”.

“or to take an affirmative act” – Mr. Baez and his cohorts also do not ask the jail to “take an affirmative act”, showing sensitivity to “act” with the word “affirmative” as an act cannot be other than affirmative.

“it’s not like they have a dog in this fight” – Mr. Baez employs a metaphor.  Mr. Baez is involved in a “fight”, which is close to him as seen by “this”.  Mr. Baez has a “dog” in “this fight”.  The Orange County Jail does not have a dog in “this fight”.  Mr. Baez has an interest in the outcome of the “fight”, but the Orange County Jail does not.  If Mr. Baez is successful with his motion, the Orange County Jail will be forced to spend untold thousands of dollars on a complete administrative overhaul of their policies, which Mr. Baez characterizes as a dog which is not in the fight.

“but yet” – We’ve seen these two rascals before.

“for some reason” – The Orange County Jail has no dog in this fight and claimed they had no position, now they have “some reason”.  Mr. Baez feigns ignorance to the reason, even though he knows they have “some reason”.

“they continue to uhhh… fight the good fight so to speak.” – The word “fight” is repeated three times in this sentence, indicating extreme sensitivity to “fight”.  Mr. Baez is in a “fight” and it consumes his thoughts.  Mr. Baez is fighting as he speaks.  The Orange County Jail did not have a dog in this fight, but now they “fight the good fight”, meaning the Orange County Jail is in “this fight” despite the previous deception.  Not only is the Orange County Jail in “this fight”, they “fight the good fight”.  The Orange County Jail fights on the side of good.  The Orange County Jail fights against Mr. Baez and his “we”.  Mr. Baez fights against the Orange County Jail.  Mr. Baez fights against those who “fight the good fight”.  Mr. Baez is not fighting the “good fight”.  Mr. Baez is fighting the bad fight.  “Continue” shows this fight has been ongoing for some time prior to this hearing.  Mr. Baez has been fighting the bad fight for awhile.

We have learned the Orange County Jail does have a position in this fight and Mr. Baez knows they have some reason for continuing their resistance against his demands.

We have learned the Orange County Jail fights the good fight by appearing in court to argue against his motion to keep his client’s snack lists from the public.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not fight the good fight.

How Many Investigators Does Linda Kenney Baden Believe are Employed to Convict Casey Anthony?

This article is the third in our series examining the Facebook statement of Linda Kenney Baden regarding her recent withdrawal from the defense team of Casey Anthony.

Ms. Baden’s 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/

“As you know The State’s Attorney has hundreds of attorneys and investigators, millions of dollars and unlimited access to untold State and Federal resources: all trying to find evidence to convict Casey Anthony. They have also employed dozens of investigators and many different forensic labs to try and find what they call ‘scientific evidence’ against Casey.”

“As you know” – Ms. Baden begins this paragraph with an attempt to convince the reader they already “know” and, therefore, accept her upcoming statement as true.

“The State’s Attorney has hundreds of attorneys and investigators” – Although true, this statement is misleading.  How does the number of “attorneys and investigators” employed by the State have any bearing on this case?  How many of the “hundreds of attorneys and investigators” have made a contribution to this case?  The prosecution witness list tells the real story.  The number of attorneys and investigators employed by the State to work on this case does not number in the hundreds.

“millions of dollars” – Money is important to Ms. Baden.  We saw in the analysis of her first paragraph of this statement, Ms. Baden claimed economic concerns over her personal expenses as the number one reason she was leaving the defense team.  But how many dollars has the State spent on this particular case?  More importantly, how many dollars more has the State spent on this particular case compared to any other capital murder case?

“and unlimited access to untold State and Federal resources” – The State has unrestricted access to “untold State and Federal resources”.  Ms. Baden is vague and unspecific in her claim.  She is not even sure such resources exist as they are “untold”.  Of course, we know all discovery must be turned over to the defense, most of which is also subject to the Sunshine laws.  Therefore, findings from all resources are told, meaning all resources are told, no resources remain “untold”.  “Unlimited access” implies the access by the defense to the same resources is limited, yet the defense has all the same findings and the ability to conduct their own depositions of personnel.

“all trying to find evidence to convict Casey Anthony” – This is the claim Ms. Baden attempted to convince her readers they already knew.  “All” includes “hundreds of attorneys and investigators, millions of dollars and unlimited access”, “all” of which are trying to “find evidence” for the purpose of convicting Casey Anthony.  Is the purpose of the investigators and resources to convict Casey Anthony, or are they trying to “find evidence” of what happened to Caylee Anthony?  Should money spent investigating a crime be counted as funds spent to “convict” an individual suspect?  Should the money and time spent by “attorneys and investigators” discrediting the lies of Casey Anthony be counted as resources expended to “convict Casey Anthony”?  Wasn’t it Ms. Anthony who filed a police report on July 15, 2008 requesting the State begin immediate expenditures in an effort to locate her missing daughter?  Should those funds also be counted as part of the efforts of the State “to find evidence to convict Casey Anthony”?

“trying to find evidence” – Ms. Baden implies the State has not found “evidence” to “convict Casey Anthony” despite the unlimited resources expended on this case as they are “trying”, not succeeding.  If the State has not found “evidence” which can convict, why is Ms. Baden concerned about the dollar amount and number of investigators assigned to this case?

“They have also employed dozens of investigators” – We assume “they” refers to the State’s Attorney.  Ms. Baden is sensitive about “investigators” as this is the second time she has named them in the same paragraph, but she has moved from “hundreds” to “dozens”, which is less than “hundreds”.  Ms. Baden is exaggerating the number of investigators, but is unable to remain consistent in her exaggeration.  There is a possibility these “dozens” are distinct from the earlier mentioned “hundreds” because of the use of “also employed”, which would indicate in addition to the “hundreds”.

“and many different forensic labs” – The “also” may apply to the “many different forensic labs” as they were not mentioned earlier.  “Forensic labs” are sensitive to Ms. Baden as seen by the extra words “many different”.  We would assume multiple labs would be “different” labs, but Ms. Baden feels it important to state.  Ms. Baden is an expert in legal forensics and the forensic labs cause her discomfort.

“to try and find what they call ‘scientific evidence’ against Casey” – The State has tried, but not found “what they call ‘scientific evidence’ against Casey”.  Is Ms. Baden stating the State has not found scientific evidence “against Casey”?  No, she is not.  She is saying the State has not found “they call” scientific evidence.  Who is “they”?  The State?  The labs?  The investigators?  The attorneys?  The media?

“to try and find” – The State has tried, but failed.

“what they call ‘scientific evidence’ against Casey” – Ms. Baden draws special attention to ‘scientific evidence’.  The use of quotes indicates Ms. Baden does not believe the “what” is ‘scientific evidence’.

We have learned Ms. Baden is extremely concerned about ‘scientific evidence’.  She attempts to discredit ‘scientific evidence’ by referring to it as “what”.  She attempts to discredit the findings of the investigators and labs by implying the use of multiple of each by the State is in some way nefarious.  She attempts to discredit the State’s Attorney by exaggerating the number of attorneys and investigators it employs.  She attempts to discredit everyone involved with the prosecution by claiming their purpose is solely to convict Casey Anthony, implying they have skewed their individual contributions towards this goal.

We have learned Ms. Baden wishes us to believe the employees of the State, for no personal gain of their own, have cast aside their moral obligations to the truth and to justice in order to convict Casey Anthony.

How Many Weeks Does Linda Kenney Baden Believe Are In a Year?

This article is our second look at the Facebook statement of Linda Kenney Baden regarding her recent withdrawal from the defense team of Casey Anthony.

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

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

“After nearly two years of representing Casey Anthony in the forensic area, the forensic discovery is about to end. This year alone I took nearly a week’s worth of depositions of FBI laboratory criminalists in Washington, D.C. in person and just recently in September several days of depositions of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories by Skype.”

“After nearly two years of representing Casey Anthony in the forensic area” – Ms. Baden limits her representation of Casey Anthony to only the “forensic area”.  Ms. Baden does not take responsibility for the defense as a whole, she does not take responsibility for any of the actions of Jose Baez, Cheney Mason, or Andrea Lyon.  Ms. Baden represented Ms. Anthony only “in the forensic area” and wants to be sure we understand her limited role.  Ms. Baden has not represented Ms. Anthony for two years, but “nearly two years”.  Ms. Baden wishes to increase in the minds of her readers the amount of time she has invested in this case.

“the forensic discovery is about to end” – Ms. Baden is withdrawing from representing Ms. Anthony prior to the end of forensic discovery.  Ms. Baden wishes to minimize her departure by suggesting her job is over, but manages to inform us her job is not over, so she is leaving her job unfinished.  Ms. Baden is also deceptive in her phrasing by changing the focus from the “forensic area” to “forensic discovery”.  Her job as legal defense specializing in forensics would not be over with the end of “forensic discovery”, as the discovery is only the beginning.  The most important aspect of her job would have been finding legal methods of excluding or minimizing the damaging forensic evidence, a job not yet begun.  Although the defense experts have examined and some will now test the evidence, her job would have been weaving the defense experts findings into a legal shield for her client.  Ms. Baden has represented Ms. Anthony, but has not defended her.

“This year alone” – Ms. Baden is sensitive about the time she has spent on this case this year as indicated by the extra word “alone”.

“I took nearly a week’s worth of depositions of FBI laboratory criminalists in Washington, D.C. in person” – Ms. Baden did not take “a week’s worth of depositions”, she took “nearly”.  How near?  We do not know from Ms. Baden’s words, but we do know she wishes her readers to feel she spent a week taking depositions.  How much is a “week’s worth”?  Does this mean if she worked extra fast, she could have completed a “week’s worth” in less than a week?  Ms. Baden is sensitive and tricky in her wording about time.

“and just recently in September several days of depositions of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories by Skype” – Ms. Baden is again vague in her time references and attempts to increase the reader perceived length of time of Ms. Baden’s labors.  How many days is “several days”?  We do not know from her words, but we do know she is sensitive about the days by the inclusion of “just recently in September”, which has extra words and places the event in a specific time frame in an attempt to lend credibility to her claim of “several days”.

Ms. Baden is also sensitive about the method of her participation by including the phrases “in person” and “by Skype”.  Does the method make a difference in the time spent by Ms. Baden on this case?  Yes, “in person” indicates travel, which takes time.  “By Skype” indicates Ms. Baden did not travel.  Ms. Baden spent “several days” in her office on Skype taking depositions, which saved her considerable travel time.

We have learned Ms. Baden resigned from the defense team before the forensic portion of the defense has been finalized.  She has left with her job undone.

We have learned “this year alone”, Ms. Baden spent less than two weeks on this case.  “Nearly a week’s worth” plus “several days” of depositions equals less than two weeks.  We know these two events were the lengthiest and most grueling of all of Ms. Baden’s labors “this year alone” because she chooses them to illustrate the massive amount of time she has invested in the case.  If we extrapolate based on her statements, in the less than two years she has represented Ms. Anthony, Ms. Baden has spent less than one business month representing her client, much of that on national television while promoting other personal interests.

Why Did Casey Anthony Lose Another Attorney?

Although Bull Stopper does not have a Facebook account and cannot access Facebook pages, long-time reader nums24 was kind enough to provide Linda Kenney Baden’s Facebook-posted comments concerning her withdrawal from the defense team of Casey Anthony.  Nums24’s comment with Ms. Baden’s statement may be found at the following link.

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

Due to the length of her statement, this article will focus only upon the first paragraph.  Future articles will concentrate on additional bite-size pieces.

“On Friday, October 22, 2010 I filed a motion to withdraw from representation of Casey Anthony in her Florida indictment for death penalty murder. As a result of my involvement with these types of cases, it is my viewpoint that a nationwide overhaul of the system must occur involving both expenses for out of state pro bono lawyers in death penalty cases and multi-state credit for out of state pro bono time to fulfill a lawyer’s public service obligations.”

“On Friday, October 22, 2010 I filed a motion to withdraw from representation of Casey Anthony in her Florida indictment for death penalty murder.” – True statement.  Notice the strength demonstrated through the use of “I”.  Ms. Baden performed this action, no other.  Ms. Baden filed, the decision to withdraw is hers.  The word “withdraw” rather than “resign” or other word is interesting because “withdraw” carries a flavor of retreat or defeat.  “Death penalty murders” appears sensitive because the words “death penalty” are extra, not needed to describe the indictment or the charged crime.  Ms. Baden wishes to remind her readers Ms. Anthony is charged with a death penalty offense.

“As a result of my involvement with these types of cases” – Ms. Baden has been previously involved with “these types of cases” and her “involvement” has led to a “result”.  When Ms. Baden gets involved in “these types of cases”, she causes something to happen.  What kind of cases are “these types of cases”?  We do not know, but we do know Ms. Baden is close to them by the use of the word “these”.  Ms. Anthony’s case falls into multiple categories as Ms. Baden classifies it as part of “these types”, multiple types.

“it is my viewpoint” – The result of Ms. Baden’s “involvement” is her “viewpoint”.  Ms. Baden sees things differently from others because of her previous involvement in “these types of cases”.  Others will see her upcoming claim differently because they do not share her “viewpoint”.

“that a nationwide overhaul of the system must occur” – Sensitivity and distancing to this claim are noted by the use of “that”, a distancing word.  This is Ms. Baden’s “viewpoint”, but she is not comfortable with it, which she also noted for us in the grammatical construction “it is my viewpoint”, a distancing from saying “my viewpoint is”.

“nationwide overhaul of the system” – Ms. Baden has moved from “her Florida indictment” to a “nationwide overhaul”.  What “system” needs a “nationwide overhaul”?  We do not know.  Ms. Baden was speaking about state legal systems, not the federal legal system, but she has now applied her results from her involvement in these types of cases, state cases, to the nation.

“must occur” – Ms. Baden states the “nationwide overhaul” is a necessity.

“involving both expenses for out of state pro bono lawyers in death penalty cases” – “Both” indicates there are two parts to Ms. Baden’s required “nationwide overhaul”.  The first part is “expenses for out of state pro bono lawyers”.  What does this mean?  Does it mean airlines and hotels and four-star restaurants should discount their services for pro bono attorneys in order to eliminate “expenses”?  Does it mean pro bono attorneys should change their practices and dine in lesser quality establishments in order to not rack up “expenses”?  We do not know.  Since Ms. Baden listed in her motion to withdraw the lack of funds to pay her expenses in defending Ms. Anthony, we presume Ms. Baden refers to the state of Florida’s rules which result in no payment of expenses to “out of state pro bono lawyers” by only allowing in state attorneys to be paid for expenses.  Could the states be those whose viewpoints differ from Ms. Baden’s?  Could the states have legitimate reasons for only paying the expenses of in state attorneys which do not include the personal reasons Ms. Baden has for demanding a “nationwide overhaul of the system”?

“and multi-state credit for out of state pro bono time to fulfill a lawyer’s public service obligations” – This is the second of Ms. Baden’s reasons which demand a “nationwide overhaul”.  Ms. Baden has a problem with the way in which her state applies it’s rules as to what does and does not qualify for credit as pro bono time for her personally as an attorney.  Ms. Baden has “public service obligations” and her defense of Ms. Anthony did not count towards the fulfillment of her obligations.  First, Ms. Baden implied the state of Florida needed to overhaul it’s legal system because they would not pay her expenses as an out of state attorney.  Now, Ms. Baden implies problems exist within her state’s legal system.  Who determines which pro bono service is credited and which is not?  Those with viewpoints other than Ms. Baden.  Could those others have legitimate reasons for not counting out of state service?  We do not know because Ms. Baden addresses only her own viewpoint.

Order is important.  Ms. Baden first addresses her filing of the motion to withdraw, then moves to the topic of overhauling the nationwide system.  The most important factors for Ms. Baden in her decision to withdraw from the “representation” (not defense) of Casey Anthony are the same as the reasons the nationwide system requires an overhaul.  If these reasons were not the same, Ms. Baden would not have assigned them to positions of importance within the first paragraph of her statement.

The most important reason for Ms. Baden’s withdrawal concerns expenses for out of state attorneys.  Ms. Baden does not want to donate more to the defense of Casey Anthony than her time.  Ms. Baden does not want to donate funds.  Ms. Baden does not view the payment of expenses as part of her pro bono work, the payment of expenses is for someone else to donate.  The nationwide system requires overhaul in order to require someone other than Ms. Baden pay Ms. Baden’s expenses.  This must be a new problem for Ms. Baden as she was not concerned with expense payments prior to Ms. Anthony being declared indigent, even though Ms. Baden’s services have always been pro bono.

The second most important reason for Ms. Baden’s withdrawal is her defense of Ms. Anthony does not decrease the in state pro bono time Ms. Baden is obligated to provide.  This was not a concern for Ms. Baden while she represented Ms. Anthony last year, but now it is the second most important reason for withdrawal.

We have learned Ms. Baden made the decision to withdraw from representing Ms. Anthony.

We have learned Ms. Baden withdrew from representing Ms. Anthony because Ms. Baden will not pay her own expenses and because such representation does not reduce her personal commitment to pro bono work within her own state, meaning there is no personal or professional benefit to Ms. Baden from continued representation.

We have learned the concerns which could lead to withdrawal of a pro bono attorney change when a defendant is shifted from self-funded to indigent status despite the status of the attorney as “pro bono” remaining unchanged.

Is Jose Baez Frightened of Spicy Peanuts?

On October 15, 2010, criminal defense attorney Jose Baez filed a Motion For Reconsideration of his previously rejected request to seal from the public jail records of his client, convicted felon Casey Anthony.

The motion can be found at the following link:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/58052840/Casey-Anthony-motion-to-reconsider-jail-house-visitors-privacy

“Additionally the Defendant requests that the jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs are also not subject to public record disclosure under Chapter 119, such disclosure was never contemplated by the legislature and serves only to embarrass and invade the privacy of the Defendant.  Miss Anthony has not been convicted of any of the charges for which she is being held by the Orange County Jail.”

The grammar employed by Mr. Baez is atrocious.  Please do not use his writing as a model for your own.

“Additionally the Defendant requests that the jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs” – The “jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs” are sensitive to Mr. Baez and he wishes to distance himself from them.

“are also not subject to public record disclosure under Chapter 119” – The “public record disclosure” of “jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs” is not part of the information deemed inappropriate to disseminate by the court decision Mr. Baez cites as his reason for filing this motion.  Mr. Baez is requesting the court to include these types of records as if they were covered by the court decision which did not address them, but did deal with the recording of jail telephone calls.

Order is important.  “Jail commissary records” are more important than “telephone and visitation logs”.  Mr. Baez is more concerned about the public release of the lists of snack and hygiene items Ms. Anthony orders than public knowledge of the people who call and visit her.

“such disclosure was never contemplated by the legislature” – Mr. Baez claims to know the contemplations of the legislature as they crafted and implemented the public record disclosure laws.  It is unlikely Mr. Baez has personal knowledge of the thoughts of all the members of the legislature in regards to these laws.  The purpose of informing the court he knows the thoughts of the legislature is an attempt by Mr. Baez to validate his assertions.  The laws cannot speak for themselves, Mr. Baez must inform the court of their true intent.

“serves only to embarrass and invade the privacy of the Defendant” – The “public record disclosure” of “jail commissary records, telephone and visitation logs” embarrasses Casey Anthony.  Ms. Anthony is embarrassed for the public to know her snack orders.  Ms. Anthony is embarrassed by the people who call her and the people she calls. Ms. Anthony is embarrassed by those who visit her in jail.

“invade the privacy of the Defendant” – Mr. Baez claims Ms. Anthony has an expectation of privacy while incarcerated in the Orange County Jail despite previous court rulings in her case which included reminders inmates have no rights to privacy while in jail.  Mr. Baez makes this claim even after he personally lost a motion to keep his own telephone call with an inmate sealed due to the lack of privacy of inmate phone calls.  The privacy which Ms. Anthony does not posses in jail is invaded if the public has access to the documentation of her snack orders and the people who call and visit her.

Order is important.  The most important effect of the public disclosure of Ms. Anthony’s jail documentation is the embarrassment of Ms. Anthony.  The second most important issue is the invasion of privacy.  Ms. Anthony’s rights to a fair trial are not affected by the public disclosure of the jail records.  The verdict of guilty or not guilty in her capital case is not affected by the granting or denial of this motion.  Mr. Baez’s motion has nothing to do with the trial of Ms. Anthony.

“Miss Anthony has not been convicted of any of the charges for which she is being held by the Orange County Jail.” – This is a factual lie.  Ms. Anthony has been convicted of felony charges.  Ms. Anthony is being held by the Orange County Jail as she awaits her reassignment to prison, which is delayed by her trial for the charges of murder of two-year-old Caylee Anthony.  Ms. Anthony has not been convicted of the charges for which she currently stands trial, but those charges are not the only reason she is held by the Orange County Jail.  If the charges for which Ms. Anthony currently stands trial were dropped today, the Orange County Jail would continue to incarcerate her for the felony charges for which she has been convicted.  Mr. Baez has no valid legal purpose for including this lie in his motion as the conviction status of a jail inmate does not affect their lack of right to privacy.

As of October 17, 2010, Casey Anthony is incarcerated in the Orange County Jail for Probation Felony, not charges of murder, according to the Florida Department of Corrections Website.

We have learned Mr. Baez could use some beginner courses in English grammar.  We have learned Mr. Baez is unsure of the proper use of commas and regularly abuses them.

We have learned Ms. Anthony is embarrassed by the people who visit her in jail, those who call her, anyone she calls, and public knowledge she enjoys spicy peanuts.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes the number of hair scrunchies a female inmate purchases is a fundamental issue of privacy.

We have learned this motion does not, cannot, and will not affect the murder trial of Casey Anthony.

Did Jose Baez Lie to Jane Velez-Mitchell?

Three days after Caylee Anthony was reported missing by her grandmother when she learned Caylee’s mother had not reported her missing for more than 30 days, the little known attorney for Caylee’s mother appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, guest hosted by Jane Velez-Mitchell.

A transcript of the show can be found at the following link.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/18/ng.01.html

VELEZ-MITCHELL: “Well, let me jump in here because we have that attorney with us tonight, Jose Baez, the attorney for this young mom, Casey Anthony. Thank you for joining us, sir. You heard this reporter, Kendra Oestreich, very eloquently outline a list of lies, a pack of lies investigators say your client told them. What’s your explanation for all these discrepancies? I mean, she literally took them to a theme park and then finally admitted, I don’t work here, after walking them around for several minutes.”

JOSE BAEZ, ATTORNEY FOR MOTHER OF MISSING TODDLER: “Well, actually — thank you, Jane, for having me. I can honestly say that, first off, I haven’t been turned over any type of conversations or discussions that she’s had with police, but I can honestly tell you that in this business, you can’t believe everything you read in a police report. Otherwise everyone…”

“Well, actually” – “Well” is the hallmark of deception.  “Actually” is a word used to compare.  Mr. Baez halts his verbalization and switches gears, so we do not know what he was about to compare.

“I can honestly say that” – “Honestly” is another hallmark of deception, almost always indicating the next statement is not honest.  “That” distances Mr. Baez from the next statement, further indicating deception.

“first off” – Mr. Baez has more than one lie to shelter under the umbrella of “honestly”.

“I haven’t been turned over” – Mr. Baez is passive in this scenario.  Things must be “turned over” to Mr. Baez before he can make a statement as to the truth of his client’s statements.  She may be lying, she may be telling the truth, but Mr. Baez cannot tell us based upon his personal assessment of Casey Anthony, he must rely upon the documentation of others.  Mr. Baez cannot state of his own accord Casey Anthony told the truth.  Mr. Baez reveals on national television three days after Caylee Anthony has been reported missing he does not trust his client.

“any type of conversations or discussions that she’s had with police” – Mr. Baez must rely upon the police turning over their “conversations or discussions”, he cannot rely upon his client’s account of such “conversations or discussions”.  There are differing types of “conversations and discussions” for Mr. Baez, “conversations” being more important than “discussions”.  Mr. Baez is not comfortable with the “conversations and discussions” his client has had with the police as indicated by the distancing word “that”.

“but I can honestly tell you that in this business” – “But” refutes the previous statement.  It is almost assured Mr. Baez had received “conversations and discussions” the police had with his client when he made these comments.  Our good verbal friend “honestly” again appears to tell us the next statement is a lie and to indicate Mr. Baez has not been honest with us prior to this point.  “That” is an attempt to distance himself from his next claim.  We assume “in this business” refers to the business of criminal defense, but it could refer to show business or seeking the limelight or guest appearing on national news shows, we cannot be sure.

“you can’t believe everything you read in a police report” – Mr. Baez tells the audience they cannot “believe everything”, but does not say if he can believe it or if he does believe it.  Mr. Baez implies the police have lied in their documentation of Ms. Anthony’s statements.  Mr. Baez attempts to shift the lying of his client to lying by law enforcement.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: “Well, the boyfriend says — the boyfriend says she was living with him and she never told him that her baby was missing. Meantime, she has reportedly told police that she was doing her own investigation into the disappearance of her daughter and that`s why she didn’t call the cops. You’d think she’d tell the boyfriend she was living with.”

BAEZ: “Well, I can tell you that, based on my conversations with my client, what we ended up discovering, based on these conversations, was that there’s actually a very reasonable explanation for this whole delay in reporting the incident…”

“Well” – Welcome our old ever-reliable friend “well”, who warns us treacherous verbal roads lie ahead, beware the liar.

“I can tell you that” – Mr. Baez is holding information back.  He is restrained in what he “can tell”.  He has more to tell, but cannot.  However, the reliability of what he will tell is in question because Mr. Baez distances himself from his statement by the use of “that”.

“based on my conversations with my client” – Mr. Baez again warns us of the possible unreliability of his statement by telling us it came from his client, who he has previously indicated as untrustworthy.  Mr. Baez is providing himself an out in the event his statement is revealed to be a lie.  Notice both the conversation and the client are his as indicated by the use of “my”.

“what we ended up discovering” – Mr. Baez switches from speaking for himself with “I” and “my” to an unknown “we”, indicating a high level of discomfort with the statement he is about to make, especially when compounded by the earlier and numerous indicators of deception in this one sentence.  Who is “we”?  Mr. Baez and his client?  Mr. Baez and someone else?  We do not know.  Why has Mr. Baez moved from “based on my conversations” to “ended up discovering”?  “Discovering” is not the same as conversing.  Ms. Anthony told Mr. Baez things, but Mr. Baez had to dig through her statements to discover.  Ms. Anthony may not have told Mr. Baez the truth and he had to filter her words.

“based on these conversations” – The conversations are sensitive to Mr. Baez because he speaks of basing his discoveries upon them twice, yet he is close to the conversations as indicated by “these”.  Mr. Baez was part of “these conversations” but he is sensitive about the information they revealed.

“was that” – Another attempt to distance himself from the statement he has not yet made.  Indicator piled upon indicator assure us the statement is deceptive.

“there’s actually a very reasonable explanation for this whole delay in reporting the incident” – “Actually” compares two things, but we only know this statement, not the comparison, another indication of deception.  “Very reasonable” shows sensitivity to “explanation”, which is most likely not “reasonable”.  Mr. Baez is close to “this whole delay”, he likes the delay, it worked well for him.  Mr. Baez refers to Caylee Anthony’s disappearance as an “incident”, not a crime, not a tragedy, an “incident”.  Small children disappear, it happens, it is an “incident”, not a disaster.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: “I want to hear that.”

BAEZ: “… or the kidnapping.”

“the incident or the kidnapping” – Mr. Baez offers multiple scenarios in the forms of “incident” or “kidnapping”.  Three days after Caylee Anthony was reported missing and held against her will by her nanny, the very story which her mother documented to police in her initial written report, the attorney for the mother declares on national television Caylee’s disappearance may not be a “kidnapping”.  Mr. Baez is not taking the position the two-year-old is missing due to a “kidnapping”.  Other possibilities exist, meaning the mother may be lying, his client may be lying.  Mr. Baez tells everyone in America his client, Casey Anthony, is a liar.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: “I want to hear that reasonable explanation.” – Ms. Velez-Mitchell knows Mr. Baez is lying as indicated by the use of “that” to distance herself from the “reasonable explanation”.

BAEZ: “Unfortunately, she is under criminal charges at this time. I cannot disclose any of the specific discussions that I’ve had with my client that would possibly lead to a defense. The prosecution nor the police are not telling me everything they know, and I certainly don’t think that as — launching a proper defense would be disclosing every single thing that we know.”

Mr. Baez tells Ms. Velez-Mitchell and all of America he possesses a “reasonable explanation”, but refuses to tell anyone what it is because it may “lead to a defense”.  The explanation itself, reasonable or not, is not a defense, but may “lead” to one.  No matter what the explanation is, it does not clear Ms. Anthony from wrong-doing or criminal prosecution.

We have learned Mr. Baez is overly fond of the word “well”, but his dependency is useful to us for marking his deceptions.

We have learned Mr. Baez harmed the defense of Casey Anthony by appearing on national television news programs within days of her arrest because he indicated he did not trust his client.

We have learned the existence of a “reasonable explanation” for Casey Anthony not reporting Caylee Anthony missing for more than 30 days is doubtful, but should it exist, it will not clear Casey Anthony of the charges leveled against her by law enforcement.

Did Casey Anthony Lie to Jose Baez About What Happened to Caylee?

On July 23, 2008, eight days after Caylee Anthony was reported missing, Jose Baez appeared on the Nancy Grace Show to discuss the case.

We will look at comments Mr. Baez made about the location where his client, Casey Anthony, last saw her daughter, two-year-old Caylee Anthony.

A transcript of the show can be found at the following link.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/23/ng.01.html

GRACE: “Back to Jose Baez, the attorney for Casey Anthony. Sir, you keep telling me over and over that your client, the mother, does not know where Caylee is.” – Nancy Grace asks Mr. Baez to verify information he gave earlier in the program.

BAEZ: “Correct.” – Mr. Baez agrees he did say Ms. Anthony does not know where Caylee is.

GRACE: “Where did she leave her?” – Ms. Grace asks a simple question about the location where Casey Anthony left Caylee Anthony.

BAEZ: “With the baby-sitter. And we believe…” – Mr. Baez does not answer with a place, but with a person.  Mr. Baez does not name the person, instead describing them by naming their occupation, “the baby-sitter”.  It should be noted Mr. Baez uses the term “baby-sitter” despite the repeated use of the term “nanny” by his client.

GRACE: “What baby-sitter?” – Ms. Grace immediately recognizes Mr. Baez’s attempt to dodge the question, accepts his switch from place to person, and focuses in on the name of the “baby-sitter”.

BAEZ: “… she`s been kidnapped. Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.” – “And we believe she’s been kidnapped” shows weakness by relying on an unknown “we” who does not know if “she’s been kidnapped”, “we” only “believe”.  Even though Mr. Baez is on a nationally televised news program addressing the disappearance of Caylee Anthony who has been missing for more than a month, Mr. Baez admits her missing may not be a kidnapping, which begs the question, what does Mr. Baez believe may have happened to Caylee other than being kidnapped which would result in her prolonged absence?

Mr. Baez names the “baby-sitter” and possible kidnapper as “Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez” with no signs of sensitivity or deception.

GRACE: “Where?” – Ms. Grace returns to her original question as to the location in which Ms. Anthony left her daughter.

BAEZ: “She gave me a specific location. I’ve  —  all I have is an address. But I want to verify…” – “She”, who we assume to be Ms. Anthony, “gave” Mr. Baez a “specific location”.  Again, Mr. Baez does not answer the question.  Mr. Baez avoids answering the question.  The details about the “specific location” are sensitive to Mr. Baez as seen by his twice dodging the same question.

“I’ve –” – Mr. Baez begins to tell us something he has done, but stops himself from completing this thought.

“all I have is an address” – Ms. Grace asked for a location and Mr. Baez answers “all I have is an address”.  “All I have” is a phrase Mr. Baez employs to minimize the importance of the information he has which answers the question.  Mr. Baez has the exact answer to Ms. Grace’s query, but does not want to give it to her.

“But I want to verify…” – Mr. Baez has an address which “she” gave him, but he needs to “verify” the address prior to releasing the information to Ms. Grace.  Mr. Baez does not trust the information Ms. Anthony gave to him.

GRACE: “What’s the address?” – Ms. Grace sees through Mr. Baez’s attempts to deflect the question.

BAEZ: “I certainly don’t have it with me, if that’s what you’re looking to get.” – Mr. Baez understands he did not answer the question and attempts to end further questioning about the address by telling Ms. Grace he will not give it to her by claiming he does not have it “with” him at this time.  “Certainly” indicates sensitivity about the claim “don’t have it with me”, which leads to a conclusion Mr. Baez does have the address “with” him.  “If that’s what you’re looking to get” is an acknowledgment of both Mr. Baez’s understanding of the question Ms. Grace asked and his own refusal to answer.  “That’s” is an indication of sensitivity and distancing to the address.

GRACE: “You don’t want me to know it because it’s the same place the cops went and checked out and she didn’t live there. It was vacant.” – Ms. Grace throws out the claim the address Mr. Baez has is the same one the police already eliminated during their investigation.

BAEZ: “No, that’s not the case.” – Mr. Baez responds with sensitivity shown to the police having eliminated as a possibility of where Caylee Anthony was left the address he has been given by his client.  “No” would have been a strong answer, but the addition of “that’s not the case” indicates sensitivity and possible deception.  “That’s” is an attempt by Mr. Baez to distance himself from the police findings.

GRACE: “Then what is it?” – Ms. Grace asks Mr. Baez to clarify the reason he refuses to answer as to the location where Caylee Anthony was last seen by Casey Anthony.

BAEZ: “Well, you know, if you had told me you were going to ask me this question, I would have certainly had it with me and…” – Mr. Baez is on a nationally televised news program to discuss his client’s desire to find her daughter, but he does not have the one key piece of information his client has given to him because he was not aware the last place Caylee Anthony was seen would be brought up during the interview.  “Well” is a hallmark of deception.  “You know” is an attempt to persuade the listener the next thing said is something they already “know”, so they already agree.  “If you had told me you were going to ask me this question” shifts the responsibility for Mr. Baez’s refusal to answer from himself to the show’s host.  Mr. Baez cannot answer the question because of a failure on Ms. Grace’s part.  “Certainly” is another hallmark of deception, meaning if Ms. Grace had told Mr. Baez in advance this would be a question, he would not have “had it with me”.

GRACE: “I would assume you would know the facts like the back of your hand.” – Ms. Grace dismisses the shift in responsibility for Mr. Baez’s non-answer.  Mr. Baez chooses not to answer and Ms. Grace is not responsible for his decision.

BAEZ: “Well, you know, that’s why — I’m human. I write with a pen and paper. And that’s — hello?” – Mr. Baez begins this answer with another “well”, indicating the rest is deception, and another attempt with “you know” to persuade anyone listening they know and agree with his next statement, which he does not finish.  He moves on to “I’m human”, another non-answer to either the location or why Mr. Baez refuses to answer.  “I write with a pen and paper” is an attempt to distract Ms. Grace from her line of questioning.  Although a true statement, the method of writing has nothing to do with having or not having the address or refusing to give the address.

“Hello” – Mr. Baez realizes Ms. Grace is no longer listening to him.

We have learned Casey Anthony gave an address and the name of Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez to Jose Baez.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not trust the information Ms. Anthony provided.  We have learned Mr. Baez does not trust Ms. Anthony.

We have learned Mr. Baez, within days of taking on Casey Anthony as a client, attempted to spread the rumor on a nationally televised program Caylee Anthony had been kidnapped even though he was not convinced himself of the truth of his allegation.

We have learned Mr. Baez cannot hold his own with Nancy Grace.

Was Caylee Anthony a HUGE Problem for her Mother?

Almost a year before Caylee Anthony disappeared, her mother wrote an e-mail to a young man with whom she was hoping to establish a romantic relationship.  Although short, the e-mail contains interesting linguistic clues to how Casey Anthony felt towards her daughter.

The e-mail may be found at the following link:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1603690/casey-anthony-computer-report

“On 7/22/07, casey anthony <caseyomarie@yahoo.com >wrote: take me home, huh??? haha. maybe we can arrange that!  you won’t believe how HUGE caylee is. growing more and more everyday. i’ll try and teach her something funny to say to you, between now, and the time you FINALLY get your ass home.”

“you won’t believe how HUGE caylee is” – Caylee is HUGE, an important word to Casey Anthony as she capitalizes all the letters in the word.  Parents may refer to how tall or big their children have grown, but rarely use the word HUGE.  At just under two years of age, Ms. Anthony sees Caylee as HUGE.  Caylee is larger than big, she is HUGE.  Ms. Anthony believes a child Caylee’s age should be a specific size, but comparatively, Caylee is HUGE.

“growing more and more everyday” – Caylee is growing HUGER everyday.  The word “more” is sensitive as it is repeated twice.  She does not just grow “more”, but “more and more”.

“i’ll try and teach her” – This is not a goal Ms. Anthony plans to accomplish, she will “try” to “teach her”.  Why will Ms. Anthony not accomplish teaching her?  Laziness?  Ms. Anthony believes Caylee is unable to learn?  This is just a verbal flirt Ms. Anthony pitches to her suitor?  We do not know.

“something funny to say to you” – Ms. Anthony’s teaching will consist of Caylee learning an amusing phrase for the suitor, much as a pet would learn a trick to amuse their master’s friends.  Ms. Anthony will use Caylee to amuse herself and the target of her loins.

We have learned a year before Caylee went missing in June 2008, Ms. Anthony viewed her as HUGE and growing larger.

We have learned Ms. Anthony used Caylee as entertainment for men she wished to attract.

Did Caylee’s continued growth result in a child too HUGE for Casey Anthony to continue to tolerate?  Was Caylee not able to learn enough cute tricks to satisfy Casey Anthony?

Does Jose Baez Provide Casey Anthony With Sound Legal Advice?

On December 17, 2008, just days after the remains of missing two-year-old Caylee Anthony had been discovered in a wooded area within walking distance of her home, Jose Baez appeared on a national news program with veteran reporter Greta Van Susteren.

Mr. Baez began the interview with a description of Casey Anthony as a client.  We will examine his remarks which can be found in a transcription of the interview at the following link:

http://cayleeanthony.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/in-defense-of-casey-anthony-legal-team-for-casey-with-greta-on-the-record/

Greta Van Susteren: “Jose, there are all sorts of different types of clients. There are some who just tell the lawyer, Just go ahead and do your work. There are some who are much more involved in their case. I mean, how do you describe her as a client?”

Jose Baez: “Well, she’s very involved in her case, and I — but that’s not just her. I try that with all of my clients. I think, first of all, the one knows the most about their case is them, and I try to educate them on a constant basis to — so that way, they’re familiar with the process and they understand what it is that I’m trying to do for them, and that usually makes my job a whole lot easier.”

Ms. Van Susteren begins the interview with a question about Casey Anthony’s personal involvement in her legal defense.

“Well, she’s very involved in her case” – Mr. Baez begins with a word which weakens his commitment to the rest of the statement, “well”.  “Involved” is sensitive to Mr. Baez as seen by use of the extra word “very”, exaggerating the involvement.  The case is “her case”, not the case of Mr. Baez, not his case.

“and I —” – Mr. Baez begins to tell us something about himself, then thinks better of it, ceasing his words mid-statement.

“but that’s not just her” – “But” casts doubt on the previous statement.  Involvement in the case by the client is sensitive to Mr. Baez as indicated by use of “that’s”.  “Her” is shown as sensitive by use of “just”.

“I try that” – Mr. Baez tries “that” which is sensitive to him and he wishes to distance from himself, the involvement of clients in their cases.  Mr. Baez tries, but does not succeed.  When clients know about the legal matters of their cases, things do not go well for Mr. Baez.  Involved clients are not good clients for Mr. Baez.

“with all of my clients” – Mr. Baez tries and fails with every client.  What does he try?  His statement was “she’s very involved with her case”, which does not specify any effort on the part of Mr. Baez.  Where does his trying come into play?  We do not know.  Does he try to involve his clients or keep his clients from being involved?  We do not know.

“I think” – Mr. Baez is not sure about this next statement, it may be true or untrue.

“first of all” – There is more than one thing Mr. Baez thinks and the next statement is the first in a series of his thoughts.  The next statement is sensitive to Mr. Baez as he has prefaced it with “I think” and “first of all”.  Mr. Baez has warned us the statement may not be true and strengthened his warning by stating his sensitivity to his own statement again before making the statement.

“the one knows the most about their case is them” – This is Mr. Baez’s first thought, the client knows more about “their case” than Mr. Baez.  Therefore, Ms. Anthony knows more about her case than Mr. Baez does.  Ms. Anthony knows things Mr. Baez does not.  Ms. Anthony has not told Mr. Baez everything, otherwise he would also know as much about her case as she does.  Mr. Baez defends his clients without having all the facts.  Mr. Baez defends his clients even though they do not share everything about their case with Mr. Baez.  “The one” who “knows the most” is not Mr. Baez.  The cases are not the cases of Mr. Baez, but of the client’s.  Sink or swim, it’s their case, not his.  The clients are his as seen in the previous sentence, “my clients”.  Mr. Baez invoices clients, they are his.  Clients lose cases, which are theirs.  Mr. Baez does not lose cases, clients lose “their” cases.

“and I try to educate them on a constant basis” – This is the second in a series of thoughts of Mr. Baez.  Again, Mr. Baez tries, but does not succeed.  This time, we know what Mr. Baez tries, he attempts to educate, but is not successful.  If he were successful, he would “educate” not “try to educate”.  Mr. Baez is not able “to educate them”.  Mr. Baez limits his educational attempts to “on a constant basis”, which shows sensitivity to exactly how much education he attempts as “constant basis” would be all the time.  It is doubtful Mr. Baez tries to educate on a constant basis.

“to — so that way” – His attempts to educate his clients is sensitive to Mr. Baez to the extent he must explain why he attempts to educate, but when he begins to verbalize his reason, he stops himself and indicates the next statement is also sensitive with the phrase “so that way”, a “way” from which Mr. Baez attempts to distance himself with “that”.  The verbal stop followed by the signpost of sensitivity indicates deception.

“they’re familiar with the process” – Mr. Baez tries to educate his clients for this purpose, so they will be “familiar with the process”.  Mr. Baez limits his educational attempts to the process of the law, not the rights of the client or the defenses available to them, but knowledge of the process.  Not extensive knowledge, enough to be “familiar”.  We saw in an earlier article Ms. Anthony had legal process questions concerning the Grand Jury, the most important legal process in her case to date, for a detective investigating her case.  Was Ms. Anthony “familiar” with the process?  She was aware some of the process was secret, but not the specifics.  Was this evidence of a “try to educate” by Mr. Baez?

“and they understand what it is that I’m trying to do for them” – This is the second reason Mr. Baez gives for trying to educate his clients, who he desires “understand what it is” he is “trying to do for them”.  Mr. Baez’s clients do not understand what Mr. Baez tries to do for them.  They do not understand and their only hope of understanding is to be educated by Mr. Baez.  We, the public, do not understand what Mr. Baez is trying to do for Ms. Anthony.  We do not understand because we have not been educated by Mr. Baez.  Whatever it is which Mr. Baez does for his clients, he does not succeed because he is “trying”, not doing, not finishing, not succeeding.  Mr. Baez tries to do a lot of things including educating and doing “what” for his clients, but Mr. Baez does not accomplish what he tries to do.  The “trying” is sensitive for Mr. Baez as seen by his use of “that” do distance the “trying” from himself.  Mr. Baez does not try for himself, but “for them”.

“and that usually makes my job a whole lot easier” – Mr. Baez distances himself from this statement by the use of “that”.  He is not comfortable with his claim “trying” “to educate” his clients “makes my job a whole lot easier”.  He is not comfortable with his claim clients who “understand what it is that I’m trying to do for them” make his job “a whole lot easier”.  “Usually” limits the statement to only those clients who are not unusual and indicates sensitivity to the number of cases in which his claim is true.  “Easier” is marked sensitive by “whole lot”.  These words put into doubt Mr. Baez’s claim.  Trying to educate clients and clients who understand what Mr. Baez does do not make his job easier.

We have learned Mr. Baez tries often, but does not succeed.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes his clients to be uneducated.

We have learned Mr. Baez is sensitive about his attempts to educate his clients.

We have learned the clients of Mr. Baez do not understand what he tries to do for them.

We have learned Mr. Baez attempted unsuccessfully to educate Ms. Anthony, but she does not understand what he is trying to do for her and she does not make his job a whole lot easier.

Does Cindy Anthony Know Lee Anthony Obstructed Justice?

After Cindy, George, and Lee Anthony all retained attorneys even though none had been charged with a crime in connection to the disappearance and murder of their two-year-old family member Caylee Anthony, many wondered if any or all of the three would be charged with obstruction of justice.

Is there evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice against a member of the Anthony family?  Did one of them tamper with evidence?

We know Mrs. Anthony washed many items from the car and by her own admission provided misleading DNA samples.  We know Mr. Anthony claims to be the last person to see Caylee Anthony alive after providing a false story about her disappearance a week earlier.

But what has Lee Anthony done to obstruct justice, if anything?

We will examine a series of police questions asked of Cindy Anthony in an interview on August 8, 2008.  A transcript of the interview may be found at the following link.  The questions begin on page 26.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4825294/Casey-Anthony-Cindy-Anthony-interview

Detective: “There’s been some difficulty there about knowing what she had been doing over her laptop, that’s why…” – The detective introduces the subject of a laptop computer and informs Mrs. Anthony there is a problem with it.

Cindy Anthony: “My laptop.” – Mrs. Anthony identifies and claims the laptop the detective had identified as “her”, Casey Anthony’s, laptop.  Mrs. Anthony asserts this is her laptop, she owns it, it is hers.

Detective: “Yeah, that’s why I asked you, because this information came to me from Lee.  I haven’t even been involved in the forensic collection off that laptop so if you please excuse me for…” – The detective introduces the subject of Lee Anthony, tying him to the information the detective wishes to corroborate with Mrs. Anthony.

Cindy Anthony: “Right.”

Detective: “…talking about things I myself haven’t had hands on.  But from talking to Lee when he went and picked that computer up from Tony’s, Anthony’s that day.” – The detective identifies Lee as the first family member after Caylee was discovered missing to have contact with Mrs. Anthony’s laptop.

Cindy Anthony: “Yeah.” – Mrs. Anthony agrees Lee Anthony picked the laptop up from Tony Lazzaro’s apartment, making Lee Anthony the first family member with contact to the laptop after the police were called to investigate the disappearance of Caylee Anthony on July 15, 2008.

Detective: “And it was as if it was wiped clean from the 15th back, like it had been crashed.  So I don’t know what happened with your computer but those things would have been easily recovered if in fact something hadn’t been altered.  Just to her to let you know this is what we’re up against.” – The detective informs Mrs. Anthony the laptop had been “altered” on or after July 15, the same day Mrs. Anthony found her daughter and Lee Anthony picked up the laptop.

Cindy Anthony: “Right and that computer, all that stuff was sitting in Casey… in that apartment from the time I picked her up at 7:30.” – Mrs. Anthony picks up on the detective’s implication Lee Anthony “wiped clean from the 15th back” the memory of Mrs. Anthony’s laptop which Casey Anthony had been using during the entire period in which Caylee Anthony was missing prior to being reported to police.  The laptop is now “that computer”, but had been Mrs. Anthony’s laptop.  Other stuff was found Mrs. Anthony is not comfortable with, “that stuff”.  Where was “that stuff”?  Mrs. Anthony begins to refer to “Casey”, perhaps car.  We do not know, but we must question what “stuff” she is thinking about as she answers the question.  Mrs. Anthony is not comfortable with Tony Lazzaro’s apartment, referring to it as “that apartment”.  Mrs. Anthony establishes a time frame during which neither Casey Anthony nor Lee Anthony had access to the laptop.

Detective: “Sure.”

Cindy Anthony: “Until he picked it up, actually it was the morning of the 16th cause it was after midnight…” – Mrs. Anthony attempts to distance Lee Anthony from “wiped clean from the 15th back” by associating his actions with the date of July 16 “cause it was after midnight”.  “Actually” is a comparison word, it was this, not that, indicating Mrs. Anthony is comparing the date of the 16th to the detective’s mention of the 15th.  Since Casey Anthony was not aware she would be found at her boyfriend’s apartment on the evening of the 15th by her mother, it would seem reasonable Casey Anthony did not “wipe clean” the laptop on the 15th.  Therefore, the laptop was not wiped “clean” until after Casey Anthony no longer had access to it, an implication of Mrs. Anthony’s statements about the time she picked Casey Anthony up.  Someone who had access to the laptop after Mrs. Anthony left Tony Lazzaro’s apartment with Casey Anthony is the person who “altered” the laptop.  Mrs. Anthony implies someone at Tony Lazzaro’s apartment “altered” the laptop by distancing Lee Anthony from the 15th.  Mrs. Anthony wishes the detective to believe someone at Tony Lazzaro’s apartment wiped “clean” the laptop because they realized Cindy Anthony would call the police about missing Caylee Anthony after picking up Casey Anthony at the apartment.

Detective: “Like 2:00 in the morning.” – The detective narrows down when Lee Anthony obtained the laptop.

Cindy Anthony: “Right.” – Mrs. Anthony agrees with the detective’s time frame, 2:00 am.

Detective : “It was like 2:30 and then he got back to the house with it.” – The detective notes Lee Anthony had access to the laptop for at least half an hour and Mrs. Anthony had access to it after 2:30 am.

Cindy Anthony: “Right.” – Mrs. Anthony agrees.

We have learned someone wiped clean on July 15th or later the memory of the laptop used by Casey Anthony during the 31 days Caylee Anthony was missing, but not reported missing to police.

We have learned Lee Anthony was the first family member to have contact with the laptop after Caylee Anthony was reported missing to the police.

We have learned Cindy Anthony attempted to distance Lee Anthony from suspicion as the person who wiped clean the laptop’s memory.

We have learned Cindy Anthony was not surprised to hear the laptop memory had been “altered” or wiped “clean”.  Her first comment after the detective informed her the laptop had been “altered” was to place the laptop at Tony Lazzaro’s apartment, not surprise or shock or disbelief, but an immediate attempt to distance the laptop from the Anthony family.