Is Jose Baez Frightened by an “Imaginary Stain”?

12 Jan

Florida defense attorney Jose Baez filed a motion December 30, 2010, to block the introduction in trial of any evidence concerning a stain in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car.  Mr. Baez’s motion indiscriminately mixes two distinct issues into a muddled mess.

The first issue is the existence of a stain in the trunk of the Pontiac Sunbird.

The second issue is the relevancy of a stain in the trunk to the murder trial of Casey Anthony.

The motion may be found at the following link.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Motion%20to%20Exclude%20-%20Stain%20in%20Trunk%20of%20Car.pdf

“On July 22, 2008, Detective Yuri Melich testified at a bond hearing for Miss Anthony and referenced a stain in the trunk of the Pontiac Sunfire driven several weeks prior by Miss Anthony.  Mr. Melich testified that law enforcement found a stain in the trunk of the car that came up questionable.  This stain was brought up again during the questioning of George Anthony.  The speculation and imaginary theory was that the stain was either blood or decompositional fluid of Caylee Marie Anthony.”

“referenced a stain in the trunk” – The detective “referenced a stain”, which means “a stain” existed in the trunk.  The “stain” is real.

“of the Pontiac Sunfire driven several weeks prior by Miss Anthony” – Mr. Baez attempts to distance Miss Anthony from the car, the trunk, and the stain.  Why does Mr. Baez need to distance Miss Anthony from the “stain” if it is irrelevant as he claims throughout the motion?  Does the “stain” become more relevant the more closely it is associated with Miss Anthony?

“The speculation and imaginary theory” – Theories and speculation concerning the stain are sensitive to Mr. Baez as he uses two terms minimize the reality of the “stain”.  “Theory” cannot be “imaginary”.  There either is a “theory” or there is not.  No one imagines there might be a theory.  “Theory” is especially sensitive for Mr. Baez.

“that the stain was either blood or decompositional fluid of Caylee Marie Anthony.” – Mr. Baez distances himself from this conclusion with the use of “that”.

“Miss Anthony seeks to exclude all evidence of this imaginary stain, silhouette or fantasy image.  While it may not be difficult to imagine that someone would have a stain in the trunk of their car, this creation of imaginary evidence has become common place in the State of Florida vs. Casey Anthony.  While pictures and theories of a stigmata or the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast may be good for television, it has no place in a Court of law.  This evidence is pure speculation and irrelevant.  The basis of this motion is that (1) the stain is irrelevant, and (2) even if evidence was found to be relevant in some limited way, its prejudicial impact would so far outweigh its probative value as to deprive her of a fair trial.”

“Miss Anthony seeks to exclude all evidence of this imaginary stain, silhouette or fantasy image” – Mr. Baez is extremely sensitive about the “stain” for which he uses three descriptions to minimize the reality of its existence, “imaginary stain, silhouette or fantasy image”.

“to exclude all evidence” – If a stain is “imaginary”, can there be “evidence” it exists?  How can the court “exclude all evidence” of something which does not exist?  What is the court expected to “exclude”?

“imaginary stain” – The “stain” is real.  There is a “stain” in the trunk of the Sunbird.  The “stain” is not “imaginary”.  Mr. Baez attempts to dismiss the reality of the “stain” with his choice of words.

“fantasy image” – Mr. Baez now refers to the “stain” as an “image”, even though his goal is to prohibit anyone else from seeing an “image” in the “stain”.

“silhouette” – This word is important as it is the only description of the “stain” in this sentence to which Mr. Baez does not add a minimizer, such as “fantasy” or “imaginary”.  In other words, for Mr. Baez, the stain is a “silhouette”.

“While it may not be difficult to imagine that someone would have a stain in the trunk of their car” – Notice the word “imagine”.  How many times does Mr. Baez use the word “imagine” or its close relative “imaginary” in this document?

“this creation of imaginary evidence has become common place in the State of Florida vs. Casey Anthony” – Notice Mr. Baez does not state who is responsible for “the creation of imaginary evidence”, it could be the state, it could be the defense, it could be a third party.  How does one create “imaginary evidence”?  “Evidence” is “evidence”, it either exists or it does not, it cannot be “imaginary”.  People might imagine there is “evidence” which has not yet been produced, but the concept is not the same.  “Evidence” could be fabricated and false, but even then it is exists, it is tangible, it is not “imaginary”.  “This” brings Mr. Baez close to the “creation of imaginary evidence” which he finds “common place”.

“While pictures and theories of a stigmata or the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast may be good for television” – Mr. Baez equates the murder trial of Miss Anthony with religion.  Mr. Baez attempts to ridicule the perception of those who perceived the “stain” to form a “silhouette”.  Mr. Baez is cognizant of what is and is not “good for television”.  Mr. Baez connects what “may be good for television” and this case.

“it has no place in a Court of law” – What is “it”?  “Pictures and theories of a stigmata or the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast”?  This sentence is true, neither “stigmata or the Virgin Mary” belong in “a Court of law”, at least not for this trial.

“This evidence is pure speculation and irrelevant” – The “imaginary stain” has now become “this evidence”, which is close to Mr. Baez.  The speculative aspect of “this evidence” is more important than it’s relevancy to the trial.  “Speculation” is sensitive as seen by the use of the extra word “pure”, as if “speculation” could be tainted or less than pure.

“The basis of this motion is that” – Mr. Baez distances himself from his definitions of the “basis of this motion” with “that” even though he describes the “motion” as close to himself with “this”.

“(1) the stain is irrelevant” – Mr. Baez acknowledges the “imaginary stain” exists, although he does wish to label it as “irrelevant”.

“(2) even if evidence was found to be relevant in some limited way” – Mr. Baez demolishes his own assertion “the stain is irrelevant” by now admitting there is a possibility it both is and will be found by the court to be “relevant”.  “In some limited way” is an attempt to minimize the possible relevancy of the “evidence”.

“its prejudicial impact would so far outweigh its probative value as to deprive her of a fair trial” – Mr. Baez claims “evidence” a stain exists in the trunk of Miss Anthony’s car, even though forensic examinations have shown the stain not to be biological material like blood or decomposition fluids, will “deprive her of a fair trial”.  Mr. Baez asserts if the jury learns Miss Anthony had a stain of unknown origin, but not organic, in the trunk of her car, they will find her guilty of murdering Caylee Anthony.

We have learned Mr. Baez wishes the court to believe any evidence of a stain in the trunk of Miss Anthony’s car is “imaginary”.

We have learned Mr. Baez is desperate to convince the court the stain is not connected to the homicide of Caylee Anthony as seen by his many grammatical attempts to minimize the stain’s existence and relevancy.

We have learned Mr. Baez feels if the jury knows the “evidence” about the stain, Miss Anthony will be found guilty.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes the judge granting his motion to block the stain and any associated evidence from trial would be a miracle on par with witnessing “a stigmata or the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast”.

Advertisements

22 Responses to “Is Jose Baez Frightened by an “Imaginary Stain”?”

  1. louisiana January 12, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    JOSE BAEZ’ BRAIN IS IMAGINARY, AND SHOWS A LACK OF EVIDENCE TO EXIST. LOL!!!

    • Venice January 12, 2011 at 5:57 pm #

      Great comment louisiana! LOL!!!

  2. kathlb January 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    I remember way back at the beginning of the investigation, when the first round of items were sent in to be examined, one gentleman from LE said that the stain was blood. Immediately he changed his tune and all other LE just evaded that question and finally said there was no blood. It was eventually dropped, but I have always felt it was blood and it was Caylee’s. I guess we will find out who was right and who was wrong eventually. Casey is toast regardless, but if it was Caylee’s blood, she is burnt toast.

    • bullstopper January 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

      The stain was not blood and was not biological. It is not evidence of Caylee’s decomposition.

      However, if Caylee was in the trunk and a liquid was spilled around her, it is conceivable the stain would take the shape of Caylee as the liquid would run to the lowest point, the liner pressed down by the weight of Caylee’s body.

      But, impressions of a stain shape are not going to be admitted in court.

      The trick with this motion is Jose moves beyond the “ink blot” syndrome where everyone sees something personal to them in an irregular shape, like a cloud, and he tries to get all evidence of the stain banned.

      Why?

      What is the stain and what could it prove?

      If it is irrelevant, why does Jose feel the need to submit a motion to exclude what the prosecution could not use to their advantage as it is irrelevant?

      There is more to the stain than the fetal shape attributed to it.

      • Katprint January 12, 2011 at 9:54 pm #

        I can’t find a link at this instant, but I recall one of the media’s forensic experts (on Nancy Grace?) opined that the shape probably resulted from moisture condensing on the trash bag containing Caylee then running down to nourish organisms in the carpet which grew in a shape outlining Caylee’s body. In a nutshell, picture a car left in the sun in Florida in June and natural evaporative processes taking place, raising the humidity in the car, then at night the temperature cools and the moisture in the car condenses onto all of the interior surfaces. On non-absorbing surfaces, the moisture would condense into droplets and would flow downwards. Basically, a really gruesome solar still.

        http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread266480/pg1

      • Kandy January 13, 2011 at 9:42 am #

        I think he is trying to get as much as possible thrown out so he has less to address. Makes sense and may would have helped if he’d of stopped useing “right to a fair trial” for EVERYTHING. This may could be excluded for that reason due to the ink blot scenario but he uses “rtaft” so much that even where it could help it may will not.

      • allaboutme January 17, 2011 at 10:53 pm #

        Katprint, that’s how I view the stain occurred – from condensation on the outside of the plastic bags containing Caylee.

    • Kandy January 13, 2011 at 9:44 am #

      I Agree..!! @ I believe those who destroyed ANY potential evidence should face trial or plea for acessory charges.

  3. kathy January 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    I am afraid that Mr. Baez next motion will be an imaginary Caylee.

    • bullstopper January 12, 2011 at 5:00 pm #

      He was hoping her body would stay imaginary when he took the case.

  4. J.H. January 12, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    GOOD ONE KATHY,I GOT IT I GOT! I GOT IT! MAYBE ROY KRONKS SWEAT MOVED THE SQUERALS OUT OF THE WAY AND JUMPED IN THEN WHEN SOBER LEFT SOME NON EVIDENCE FOR BOZO TO &ITCH ABOUT.

    • Rose January 12, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

      whats a squerals?

  5. offthecuff January 12, 2011 at 5:00 pm #

    Bull–you need to offer your services to poor Baez who wishes to argue the stain away but doesn’t know which is imaginary: the stain itself, the noted evidence of a stain, or the theory that the stain is from Caylee’s body fluids.

    Wouldn’t it be easier for him to argue that the stain is pizza or from the garbage or other car fluid spillage, similar to many trunk stains?

  6. Diana January 12, 2011 at 5:31 pm #

    Of course Baez wants that thrown out, because it points to no other but his lying client. If it was so insignifigant then why would he be fighting to keep it out?

    I doubt if ANY attorney could turn this case into her favor, just by her actions alone, she has sealed her fate.

  7. eggtreenews January 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    There’s a theory that the stain was in fact originally the result of Caylee’s decomposing body, but when George and Cindy recovered the car from the tow yard, one or both of them attempted to clean the trunk with harsh cleaners, chloroform, and/or gasoline from george’s sacred gas cans, effectively killing any biological material/ evidence of decomp. There were high levels of both chloroform and gasoline in the air tests of the trunk.

    • Venice January 12, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

      Hi Egg!!!! Stay cool friend!!

    • cecelia January 12, 2011 at 6:18 pm #

      ITA EggTree! the duhmfense can keep spinnin’ and posturing but come May (maybe early June) Caylee will have justice, and IMO it isn’t going to take the jury long (my bet’s @ 2.5 hrs!) to convict her skanky murdering hyde. Then hopefully the only other news we hear about Lieaez is that he’s getting dis-barred just my wish….

    • kas January 12, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

      Eggtree:
      Ok, this would almost make sense (almost) if Baez were operating from the standpoint of believing there would be no biological materials found. That said, man. It’s like he’s arguing the existence of the stain itself- he’s not THAT far gone down the Yellow Brick Rd?? It’s like he’s saying, “I don’t care if you see a stain, I don’t!!!!”

      • Venice January 12, 2011 at 8:19 pm #

        LOL Kas! Why does he insist on fighting science??

      • eggtreenews January 12, 2011 at 10:47 pm #

        Kas, 😆 Eggsactly! 😆

        How can he possibly call the stain itself “imaginary?” The man is brain-damaged. He’s gotten into Cindy’s pills.

  8. Kandy January 13, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    He’s useing “the right to a fair trial” for everything. Idiot…!!

  9. Kandy January 13, 2011 at 9:36 am #

    @cecila, I’ll take that bet but I say 1&1/2 days to fairly give them time to rehash the evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: