Does Jose Baez Read Court Orders?

During a hearing on February 4, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez made a series of comments concerning a court order defining allowed expert testimony at trial.  The comments of Mr. Baez may be heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/26751020/index.html

Jose Baez: “I do have a… a point of clarification that I’d like on… as to the court’s order.  Uhhh… your honor had previously laid out that for the defense experts if they do not include it in their report or if it’s included in deposition, that uhhh… they would be precluded from testifying about that at trial.”

“I do have a… a point of clarification that I’d like on” – Mr. Baez speaks in the present tense about “a point of clarification” he wishes the judge to clarify.

“as to the court’s order” – Mr. Baez references “the court’s order”, but does not specify which order.

“your honor had previously laid out that for the defense experts” – Mr. Baez defines “the court’s order” as applying to “the defense experts”.

“if they do not include it in their report” – Mr. Baez uses the vague pronoun “it”, which we and Judge Perry must assume references expert opinion testimony.

“or if it’s included in deposition” – This statement is an error by Mr. Baez as he should have said “if it’s” NOT “included in deposition”.  The way Mr. Baez has stated this phrase would cause any testimony from “the defense experts” which the prosecutors discovered during deposition to be precluded from trial.  Surely, Mr. Baez does not wish for such to occur.

“that uhhh…” – Mr. Baez distances himself from the next phrase, the preclusion of defense expert testimony from trial.  Mr. Baez is not comfortable with defense expert testimony not being allowed at trial.

“they would be precluded from testifying about that at trial.” – “They” references “the defense experts”.  The use of “that” is odd because Mr. Baez distances himself from his own experts’ testimony not included in reports or depositions.

Judge Perry: “Correct.”

Jose Baez: “Does that also apply to the state’s experts?”

Mr. Baez refers to the preclusion of previously undisclosed expert testimony as “that”, distancing himself from the order and displaying sensitivity to the requirements of the court placed upon the defense.

Judge Perry: “If you read the order, it said for both.”

The order to which Mr. Baez seems to be referring may be found at the following link.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Order%20Granting%20States%20Motion%20for%20Sanctions%20-%20Motion%20to%20Compel.pdf

“the court set forth a list of specific information to be provided with regard to both state and defense experts”

“4. Opinions that are not expressed in a written report or at depositions taken during discover will not be allowed at trial.”

Jose Baez: “Okay.  I wasn’t sure, I certainly wasn’t clear on that.  Now, there was another point I wanted to make.  What if the state decides to forgo their deposition?”

“I wasn’t sure” – By itself, this is a strong statement using the specific pronoun “I” and with no signs of limitation, sensitivity, or distancing.

“I certainly wasn’t clear on that” – Mr. Baez destroys the credibility of his previous phrase by adding these words which demonstrate sensitivity and distancing.  The extra word “certainly” defines “wasn’t clear” as sensitive and calls into question the certainty of Mr. Baez in regards to the order as without the word, the listener would not have questioned certainty.  “That”, a word now repeated six times in a few sentences, distances Mr. Baez from his understanding of the court’s order.

“Now, there was another point I wanted to make.” – Mr. Baez switches from the present tense to the past tense.  This was “another point” Mr. Baez “wanted to make”, but not one which he still wishes to make, even though he goes on to make it.  “The point” “was”, but no longer “is”.  The word “now” causes more confusion as to the meaning of Mr. Baez as it is a reference to the present, but his statement is in the past.

“What if the state decides to forgo their deposition” – Apparently, Mr. Baez feels the state forgoing a deposition of a defense expert will affect the defense’s ability to present defense expert opinion testimony at trial.  Why would this be so?  It seems Mr. Baez is telling the court the reports he is submitting do not contain all of the defense expert opinion testimony which he wishes to present at trial.  In other words, the written reports submitted by the defense are incomplete.

Judge Perry: “Forgo the deposition of what?”

Jose Baez: “Of any of the experts.  Does that still apply?”

Mr. Baez again employs his old friend “that” to distance himself yet again from “the court’s order”.  Mr. Baez wishes to present defense expert testimony at trial not included in their reports.

Judge Perry: “The order applies.”

We have learned if Mr. Baez did read the court order, his reading comprehension skills may be as poor as his use of the spoken and written English language.

We have learned the expert reports submitted by the defense likely do not contain all of the testimony Mr. Baez wishes to have available for trial.  We cannot be sure if this is due to laziness or oversight in preparing the reports or if it is part of a larger defense strategy to keep expert testimony secret as long as possible.

We have learned what is “certainly” not clear to Mr. Baez is crystal clear to Judge Perry.

Did Jose Baez Believe Caylee Anthony Was Seen At a Florida Airport?

In late July 2008, defense attorney Jose Baez appeared on national television where he made several comments about a possible sighting of two-year-old Caylee Anthony, missing for more than a month before assistance from law enforcement was sought by her family.  The comments of Mr. Baez may be read at the following link.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/16965987/detail.html

Jose Baez: “Someone said they were 99 percent sure they spotted her at the airport boarding a flight or on a flight to Atlanta.  We don’t know what the final destination was.”

“Someone said” – As Mr. Baez makes this comment, he is preparing to defend a client who is being investigated by the homicide department of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.  Most attorneys would take such as a sign they may be defending against a murder charge in the near future.  The best possible defense against a murder charge would be to find a live Caylee Anthony.  Mr. Baez knows of a tip of “someone” spotting a live Caylee Anthony, but he does not know the name of the “someone”.  Mr. Baez also distances himself from the actual act of spotting by beginning with the phrase “someone said”.  If he truly believed this tip to be credible, it is more likely he would have stated “someone spotted”, not “someone said” “they spotted”.

“they were 99 percent sure” – Mr. Baez admits there is at least a one percent chance this spotting was not of Caylee Anthony.  This phrase further distances Mr. Baez from the tip and reveals his own belief in the report to be less than “99 percent”.  This is not a statement Mr. Baez or the Anthonys believe in the tip “99 percent”, only those who reported the tip, individuals who have never met Caylee Anthony, believe “99 percent”.

“they spotted her at the airport boarding a flight or on a flight to Atlanta” – How could someone have “spotted” Caylee Anthony “at the airport” if she was “on a flight”?  While it could be possible “they spotted” her “boarding”, unless they were on the same flight, they could not have seen her “on a flight” due to airport security regulations which would not have allowed them to board a plane for which they did not have a boarding pass.  Again, Mr. Baez is sketchy on the details of what could be the winning ticket to free Ms. Anthony of all criminal charges in relation to the disappearance of Caylee Anthony.

“We don’t know what the final destination was” – Mr. Baez uses the vague pronoun “we”.  Who is “we”?  Mr. Baez and Ms. Anthony?  Mr. Baez and Cindy Anthony?  Mr. Baez and law enforcement?  We do not know.  The phrase “final destination” refers to the fact Atlanta is a major airline hub where many passengers change flights during a layover to reach their “final destination”.

Jose Baez: “One of the things that seemed very encouraging was they asked her for her name and she answered her name.  The way she answered her name is exactly as the family knows she answers her name by using both her first, middle, and last name and the way she pronounces her last name.”

“One of the things that seemed” – Mr. Baez distances himself from his claim of “very encouraging” with the word “that”.  The word “seemed” is in the past tense, indicating at the time Mr. Baez made this statement on national television, he no longer believed this tip to be credible.  At one point, it “seemed”, but now it does not seem.  What are the other “things” which “seemed very encouraging” and why does Mr. Baez not expound upon them?

“very encouraging” – The word “encouraging” is marked sensitive by the use of the extra and useless word “very”.  This event is either “encouraging” or not, the word “very” does not make it more or less so.

“they asked her for her name and she answered her name” – Mr. Baez claims knowledge “they asked her for her name”, even though he does not know if “they” saw her in the airport or on a plane.  The previously used word “spotted” also comes into question as it suggests “they” only saw her, but now Mr. Baez claims they also spoke with her.  Also brought into question is the statement of “99 percent” assuredness this was Caylee Anthony.  If “they” asked her for her name and she replied “Caylee Marie Anthony”, why is there a one percent possibility it was not her?  Perhaps even more important, who was she with and did they attempt to persuade “they” this was not Caylee Anthony?  Surely, a two-year-old child was not boarding a plane alone.

“The way she answered her name is exactly as the family knows she answers her name by using both her first, middle, and last name” – Mr. Baez claims the little girl at the airport replied to the question about her name with the words “Caylee Marie Anthony”.  How does Mr. Baez know this to be true?  Is this what “they” reported?  Wouldn’t this reply be more persuasive to the defense and the police than merely “seemed very encouraging”?  The little girl said her name “exactly as the family knows she answers”, yet this tip no longer seems credible at the time Mr. Baez makes his statement in the past tense.  Who is “the family?  Is it Casey Anthony?  Cindy Anthony?  George Anthony?  Lee Anthony?  All four?  We do not know as Mr. Baez remains unspecific, an action which drains credibility from his statement.

“and the way she pronounces her last name” – How does Mr. Baez or “the family” know how the little girl at the airport “pronounces her last name” if none of them were there to hear it?  Did “they” record the event and the Anthonys listened to the audio?  It is ludicrous for Mr. Baez to suggest this sighting was of Caylee Anthony based upon a pronunciation none of the family heard.

We have learned Mr. Baez most likely did not believe in the credibility of this sighting at the time he made this statement on national television.

We have learned Mr. Baez expects the public to believe law enforcement has received a credible tip as to the whereabouts of missing Caylee Anthony, knowledge which would help the legal case of his client tremendously, yet he does not know the name of the tipsters, even though he does know how the little girl pronounced her name.

We have learned Mr. Baez may handle the calculation of percentages as poorly as he handles the English language.

Do the Experts Employed By Jose Baez Believe No Forensic Evidence Exists to Convict Casey Anthony?

More than a year after Caylee Anthony was reported missing to law enforcement and her mother, Casey Anthony, became entangled in multiple criminal charges for her actions during the 31 days she did not report her daughter missing, two of her defense attorneys appeared on national television on October 2, 2009, to plead her case to the public.  A comment made during the interview by her lead attorney, Jose Baez, may be found at the following link.

http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/10/video-casey-anthony-lawyers-on.html

“What they’re lacking in this situation with all that’s coming out is any forensic evidence,” Baez said. “That’s the problem with the case; there’s not enough to substantiate these charges.”

“What they’re lacking” – Who is “they”?  We assume “they” is the prosecution, although it could be law enforcement or the public or another unknown “they”.

“lacking in this situation” – “They” are “lacking”, meaning they do not have something Mr. Baez believes “they” need.  Mr. Baez limits his comment to “this situation”, a “situation” which is close to him and comfortable as seen by the use of “this”.  Mr. Baez is part of “this situation” and he is fine with it, especially as he comments on a nationally televised program.

“with all that’s coming out” – Information which Mr. Baez believes to be a large amount is “coming out”.  From where is it “coming out”?  “That’s” indicates Mr. Baez is not comfortable with the information “coming out”, even though he is comfortable being in “this situation”.  The information “coming out” causes Mr. Baez distress.

“is any forensic evidence” – Mr. Baez claims no “forensic evidence” is “coming out”.  The extra word “any” indicates “forensic evidence” is sensitive to Mr. Baez.  At the time this comment was made, the findings of the Oakridge Laboratory from the testing of Ms. Anthony’s car had been released to the public via the Sunshine Laws in Florida.  As of the writing of this article, Mr. Baez continues to try to exclude the Oakridge findings from trial, so far with no success.  It seems Mr. Baez’s claim on national television no “forensic evidence” had come “out” at the time of his statement is incorrect.  Typically, one would assume the remains of Caylee Anthony which were found strewn across miles of wooded land near the Anthony house ten months prior to this statement were also “forensic evidence”, but Mr. Baez apparently does not believe her skeleton, the items found with her such a duct tape, the plants growing through her, or the insects living in her to be “forensic evidence”.

“That’s the problem with the case” – What is the “problem with the case”?  Mr. Baez claims the lack of “any forensic evidence” to be a problem, but distances himself from this statement with the word “That’s”.  How is “that” “the problem”?  Would any other defense attorney find a lack of “forensic evidence” against his client to be a “problem”?  Wouldn’t most defense attorneys find such a “situation” as “this” to be an advantage, not a “problem”?  If nothing being released to the public is “forensic evidence”, why does Mr. Baez have a “problem”?

“there’s not enough to substantiate these charges” – If there was truly “not enough to substantiate these charges” would Casey Anthony be in jail?  This statement is false.  It would have had more validity if Mr. Baez had said “there’s not enough to substantiate” a conviction, as Ms. Anthony’s incarceration until trial is proof there is “enough to substantiate” the charges.

As many of the experts employed by Mr. Baez to counter various pieces of “forensic evidence” which will be presented at trial have departed from the defense team and yet others are no longer communicating with Mr. Baez, it would seem reasonable to assume these experts felt they could not counter the “forensic evidence” filed by the State of Florida.  Therefore, the former and some of the current expert members of the defense team do believe “forensic evidence” exists which will damage the defense.

We have learned Mr. Baez makes comments on national television which do not fit the facts of the case as known by the public.

We have learned Mr. Baez may not understand the term “forensic evidence” or how such may hinder his efforts to defend his client or how a lack of “forensic evidence” should not be a problem for the defense.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not understand the minimum legal requirements to substantiate criminal charges and hold his client in jail pending trial.

Is Cheney Mason More Confused Than Jose Baez?

On February 18, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez wrote an e-mail to Judge Perry’s assistant detailing the reasons he feels the defense is not in violation of a court order issued verbally during a hearing on February 4, 2011, and clarified in a written order on February 7, 2011.  The order may be read at the following link.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Order%20Memorializing%20Status%20Hearing%20of%20Feb%204,%202011.pdf

Judge Perry: “By February 17, 2011 at 4:00pm, defense counsel shall submit to the Court and State in writing, the specific issues that will be objected to in accordance with Frye, including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions.”

“defense counsel shall submit to the Court and State in writing” – The order specifies the “defense counsel” must (“shall”) “submit” by the imposed deadline.

“including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions” – The defense must submit in writing “those objections previously addressed in the motion”.  This means even if “those objections” were included in a motion, they must be resubmitted as part of an all-inclusive list of Frye objectionable issues.

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26942318/detail.html

Jose Baez: “We are a bit confused.  Mr. Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye.  When I read order from the status hearing.  I understood it to mean that if we were objecting to anything not in our motion that it should be in writing, that was also my understanding as to what was discussed at the status hearing.  I have also discussed the matter with Mr. Mason and he is just as confused if not more.  Our objections are clearly laid out in our motions.  If I had any other objections I would raise them after reading the State’s response but they have not filed one yet.  If the Court is requesting that we do something additional we would like to be heard in chambers to clear up the matter.  Otherwise I think the logical choice would be to wait until the State files their response, so that we can be even more specific as to the issues to be heard.”

“We are a bit confused” – Who is “we”?  Mr. Baez is writing an e-mail from himself to the judge’s assistant, presumably for the judge to also read, but distances himself immediately from his statements by using the vague pronoun “we”.  Mr. Baez claims he is not solely responsible for violating a court order.

“Mr. Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye” – Most likely, Mr. Ashton did not ask Mr. Baez about “my objections to Frye” as the court order addresses the defense objections to specific scientific evidence which will be resolved in a Frye hearing.  Surely, Mr. Baez is not objecting to Frye as this will be a vital avenue to excluding evidence from trial.

“When I read order from the status hearing.” – Mr. Baez writes an incomplete sentence and leaves out the word “the” before “order”.  Mr. Baez may have written this e-mail in a hurry.

“I understood it to mean that if we were objecting to anything not in our motion” – Mr. Baez addresses his understanding of “it” which we presume to refer to “order”.  Mr. Baez switches from the vague “we” to the specific “I”.  Mr. Baez is not speaking for Mr. Mason.  This is not how Mr. Mason “understood” the “order”.  Since the order clearly stated “including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions”, it is difficult for anyone else to understand how Mr. Baez “understood it to mean” only “anything not in our motion”.

“that it should be in writing” – Mr. Baez distances himself from writing new objections with the word “that”.

“that was also my understanding as to what was discussed at the status hearing” – Mr. Baez distances himself from both his previous statement and his claim of “my understanding” with the word “that”.

“I have also discussed the matter with Mr. Mason” – When did Mr. Baez discuss “the matter with Mr. Mason”?  Before or after Mr. Ashton contacted Mr. Baez?  Was not filing as required by the court order part of a defense strategy?

“and he is just as confused if not more” – In what way is Mr. Mason “more” “confused” than Mr. Baez?  What is the source of Mr. Mason’s confusion?  Is Mr. Mason confused by the interpretation of Mr. Baez?  Is Mr. Mason confused by his co-counsel’s determination to violate multiple court orders as the trial approaches?  For Mr. Baez, there are levels of confusion.  He is at a certain level of confusion and Mr. Mason is on the same level (“just as”) or he has progressed to a greater level of confusion.

“Our objections are clearly laid out in our motions” – This has nothing to do with the current court order which specified another submittal despite any pleadings in prior “motions”, no matter how “clearly laid out”.  Mr. Baez has dropped the specific “I” for a “we” which includes the “more” confused Mr. Mason.

“If I had any other objections I would raise them after reading the State’s response but they have not filed one yet” – Mr. Baez made a similar remark during the hearing, to which Mr. Ashton replied he was unable to provide a response because the defense had not submitted all of the discovery, specifically several expert reports which Mr. Baez has delayed for almost three months.  Mr. Baez attempts to blame the “State” for his refusal to submit the required list of objections.

“If the Court is requesting that we do something additional we would like to be heard in chambers to clear up the matter” – By requesting an in-chamber hearing, Mr. Baez is not only attempting to build in further delay, but to keep his discussions over his non-compliance private and away from the courtroom cameras.  Mr. Baez shows “the Court” in this statement he does not accept the Court’s authority by referring to the order as a request.

“Otherwise I think the logical choice” – Mr. Baez admits his suggestion is probably not “the logical choice” as only he thinks it is.  Others will question his thinking and logic.

“would be to wait until the State files their response” – Mr. Baez prefers this option because he controls the discovery which determines when “the State” will be able to file “their response”.

“so that we can be even more specific as to the issues to be heard” – Mr. Baez claims the defense cannot be “specific” until the State files a response.  Why is this so?  Does Mr. Baez not know the “specific” issues he wishes to address based upon evidence examination and expert opinions?  Is Mr. Baez unable to pick out the “specific” issues from the discovery filed by the State over the last two years even though Mr. Ashton can?  Is Mr. Baez admitting he is an inferior attorney when compared with Mr. Ashton?

We have learned Mr. Baez stuck with his long-term pattern of blaming the State for his personal failings in this e-mail.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes Mr. Mason is more confused than himself, indicating Mr. Mason may not have the ability to understand complex matters as clearly as Mr. Baez.

We have learned Mr. Baez continues to struggle with writing full sentences and utilizing proper grammar and punctuation.

Does Jose Baez Really Believe Court Orders Are for Naught?

During a hearing on February 4, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez defended his blatant refusal to follow court orders in a long-winded, rambling, verbal assault against the prosecution and the futility of the orders previously entered by the court in regards to deadlines for the submission of expert reports.  The verbal nonsense of Mr. Baez may be heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/26750720/index.html

Jose Baez: “Well, I… I can answer the court’s questions.   I’m really not concerned with Ms. Reich’s tweets.  Counsel can keep that.  Uhh… she is traveling out of the country.  I cannot control if she travels and goes out of the country.  Now, as far as the times she was present, I made multiple attempts and I did reach her and I did speak with her.  But, upon speaking with her, and I’ve spoken with a couple of experts as we’ve been preparing these reports and I’ve been working with getting them information, I have information that I would like to share with these experts because the state is attempting to, and this has been shown through some of the depositions the state is taking, is they are trying to get experts from one field, one forensic area, to accept those opinions from another state expert in another area.  And there’s been a conflict as to whether that’s a proper thing to do or not.  And these are the things I’d like to be able to get with the experts together so we can actually discuss it.  If… if Professor, I’m sorry, if… uhhh… Kathi Reichs… Dr. Reichs is an issue, I will make all efforts to contact her in… in Tahiti and to ensure that she… that she puts something quickly together as some of the state’s experts have.  It’s… it’s not an issue of a comprehensive report because many of the reports that the state’s given us is, for example one is a one-line… a one sentence e-mail and… and Mr. Ashton considers that a report.  So, I… I can certainly ask her to put a one sentence or two sentence e-mail, but however if she comes up with new opinions upon meeting with her and which I plan to do with other experts, it… we’re going to have an issue where I want to be able to give that discovery to the state and why go through it twice.  And that’s the only reason I ask for the additional time.  I think it would be redundant to do it otherwise.  But if the court prefers that, I’ll get on the phone, I’ll have her send me an e-mail with… with some outlines of her current opinions pending future… uhhh… future information and we’ll take it that way.  Again, this is all… this is all for naught because I… I certainly believe that upon having additional information she’s going to have other opinions.  So why do this twice?  And that’s the only reason I asked for those limited experts, and we’re talking about three experts here.”

“I’m really not concerned with Ms. Reich’s tweets.” – Just prior to these remarks, the prosecution submitted a print-out of Kathi Reich’s tweets in support of their position she was available prior to the deadline for report submissions, therefore she could have produced her report before she left the country on vacation.  Mr. Baez states he is “not concerned”, but adds the extra word “really” which indicates he is attempting to minimize the concern he feels about the prosecution going to such levels to research his possible excuses they arrive at court prepared with documentation his expert was available.

“Counsel can keep that” – Mr. Baez returns his copy of his expert’s tweets to the prosecution in a theatrical attempt to demonstrate he is “really not concerned”.

“Now, as far as the times she was present, I made multiple attempts and I did reach her and I did speak with her.” – Mr. Baez spoke with his expert prior to her leaving the country, but what did he say to her?  Did he tell her to prepare a report?  Or did he tell her not to?

“But, upon speaking with her, and I’ve spoken with a couple of experts as we’ve been preparing these reports and I’ve been working with getting them information, I have information that I would like to share with these experts” – Mr. Baez changes the topic from the report which has not been submitted by Ms. Reichs by speaking about his conversations with “a couple of experts” which we assume refers to experts other than Ms. Reichs.  Mr. Baez has been “working with getting them information”, but has not gotten them the information.  Mr. Baez still has “information that I would like to share”, indicating he has not shared it yet.  Mr. Baez has been speaking to experts about his desires to share information with them, but has not shared any information with them.  Mr. Baez was ordered by the court to submit reports for all experts in December 2010, but after the deadlines for submittal in January 2011 have passed, and as late as early February 2011, Mr. Baez has not shared what he believes to be critical information needed by the experts to form their opinions.  Mr. Baez, by his own admission in this statement, has made no efforts to secure the reports required by the court.

“because the state is attempting to, and this has been shown through some of the depositions the state is taking, is they are trying to get experts from one field, one forensic area, to accept those opinions from another state expert in another area.” – Mr. Baez blames “the state” for the fact he has not related the information he deems so important to his experts.  Mr. Baez claims the state’s relationship with state contracted experts interferes with his ability to communicate with defense experts.  Mr. Baez has learned through state “depositions” some state experts may accept the opinions of experts in another field, much as a jury may accept opinions of state or defense experts in various fields.  For instance, the state’s botanic expert may accept the opinion of the state medical examiner the duct tape was applied around Caylee Anthony’s head and jaw prior to the her death.

“And there’s been a conflict as to whether that’s a proper thing to do or not.” – If there has been a “conflict”, what are the sides and who are the opponents?  Does Mr. Baez have a conflict with Mr. Mason about whether the defense should attack the state for state experts accepting the opinion of experts in another field?  Since Mr. Baez is making this statement in open court, he would appear to be referring to a “conflict” between the defense and the prosecution.  Since the conflict “has been”, a verb in the past tense, there is no current “conflict” about this issue.  The “conflict” has been resolved.  Since the “conflict” is in the past in the words of Mr. Baez, this “conflict” cannot be currently preventing him from communicating information to defense experts.  The “conflict” is irrelevant at the time Mr. Baez makes this statement, which brings into question why Mr. Baez felt it necessary to mention.  Most likely, Mr. Baez lost the “conflict” as he brings up an irrelevant topic, but does not crow about a personal win.  It is possible Mr. Baez is telling the court none of the defense experts will agree with each other because to do so would be improper.

“And these are the things I’d like to be able to get with the experts together so we can actually discuss it.” – Mr. Baez explains he has ignored the deadlines imposed by the court because he desires to “actually discuss” the propriety of an expert in a specific field accepting the opinion of an expert in a different specific field, presumably about the different specific field in which the first expert is not an expert.  “Discuss” is marked as sensitive by the extra word “actually” as there would be no other way to “discuss”.  Mr. Baez feels physical proximity is required for discussion.

“If… if Professor, I’m sorry, if… uhhh… Kathi Reichs… Dr. Reichs is an issue” – Mr. Baez stumbles around a statement of his lack of submittal of a report by Ms. Reichs being “an issue”.  Mr. Baez is aware “Dr. Reichs is an issue” as he is addressing the court which brought this “issue” to his attention and asked him to explain why it remained an “issue”.  Mr. Baez suggests his non-compliance with a court order is a non-issue.  Not only does Mr. Baez trip over the correct form of address for Ms. Reichs in this sentence, he changes from his earlier reference to her as “Ms. Reichs”.

“I will make all efforts to contact her in… in Tahiti” – Notice this is not a declaration or promise Mr. Baez will contact Ms. Reichs, instead he speaks only of “efforts to contact”, implying he will not be able to “contact” her and does not accept responsibility should he fail in his “efforts”.

“and to ensure that she… that she puts something quickly together as some of the state’s experts have” – Mr. Baez again attempts to shift responsibility for not submitting expert reports in accordance with the court’s order to the prosecution.  The word “quickly” is a reference to haste, a concept with which Mr. Baez is closely acquainted.  Mr. Baez claims the court is forcing his expert to act with haste despite the more than two months during which Mr. Baez failed to provide his expert with the information he feels she requires and the state’s experts acted with haste in the preparation of their reports.

“It’s… it’s not an issue of a comprehensive report” – Mr. Baez stumbles at the beginning, but this statement is true.  Mr. Baez is correct in stating the “issue” is not a “comprehensive report”.  The issue is Mr. Baez’s refusal to comply with the court’s mandate he submit all of his experts’ reports prior to the date of this hearing.  The issue is also the motion Mr. Baez filed requesting an extension of the deadline, a motion he failed to calendar, then truthfully told the judge he did not believe it was calendared when the judge asked Mr. Baez to explain the reasoning for his request.  Mr. Baez is capable of telling the truth when he feels it will suit his purposes.

“because many of the reports that the state’s given us is, for example one is a one-line… a one sentence e-mail and… and Mr. Ashton considers that a report” – Mr. Baez makes his own case worse by implying a one sentence e-mail from Ms. Reichs would have prevented this ridiculous assertion the reason Mr. Baez did not file a report from Ms. Reichs is because he was unable to convince her to send him a one sentence e-mail.  Mr. Baez appears to be giving the reason “a comprehensive report” is not the “issue”, but is presenting reasons he feels it should be an “issue”.

“So, I… I can certainly ask her to put a one sentence or two sentence e-mail” – Mr. Baez does not promise to deliver an e-mail from Ms. Reichs, only “ask her”.  He will not ask her to send him the e-mail, just to “put” it.

“but however if she comes up with new opinions upon meeting with her and which I plan to do with other experts” – This sentence fragment is exceptionally sensitive to Mr. Baez as he uses two words in a row which mean the same thing, “but” and “however”.  Even though Ms. Reichs has examined the evidence, Mr. Baez feels her opinions will change and become “new” if he meets with her in person.  Mr. Baez also plans to meet “with other experts”.  Mr. Baez is telling the court the opinions of the defense experts, opinions which have been submitted in writing to the court, will change after he meets physically with each expert.

“we’re going to have an issue where I want to be able to give that discovery to the state and why go through it twice” – This is the first sentence in which Mr. Baez hints he may have a valid understanding of the consequences the defense will face by Mr. Baez’s refusal to comply with court orders.  Mr. Baez anticipates “an issue” arising after he meets with his experts.  The “issue” will be if the defense experts change their opinion based upon information which Mr. Baez may only convey in person, the court will not accept a change in their testimony despite Mr. Baez wanting “to be able to give that discovery to the state” due to the fact the deadlines for submission of such testimony will have passed.  Mr. Baez has put himself into a position where he does not have the time to convince his experts their submitted opinions are incorrect.  Mr. Baez attempts to state the problem is he does not wish to “go through it twice” with Ms. Reichs, yet he will be going through it twice with the other experts he plans to meet with in the near future.

“And that’s the only reason I ask for the additional time” – There are several indicators this sentence is a lie.  “That’s” distances Mr. Baez from the claim of “the only reason”.  “Reason” must be questioned because it is preceded by the extra word “only”.  If it truly was the “only” reason, there would be no need to assure the court it is the “only” reason.  The biggest indicator this sentence is a lie is we cannot be sure to what “only reason” Mr. Baez is referencing since he has spent the last several minutes describing several including his desire to meet with all the experts in person, his expectation the opinions of the experts will change once they hear the information he has not given them, his knowledge there will be an “issue” when he tries to introduce changed expert testimony, and his unwillingness to “go through it twice”.  Which of these is the “only reason”?  We do not know, but we do know this sentence is a lie.  Mr. Baez has multiple reasons for asking for additional time.  In addition to the lengthy list he has provided the court, he may have more.

“I think it would be redundant to do it otherwise” – Mr. Baez believes following the court’s order to submit expert reports “would be redundant”.  Mr. Baez believes he has the power to determine which court orders must be obeyed and which can be ignored due to redundancy.  Mr. Baez does not know if this is true, he “thinks” it is.  Others, including Judge Perry, do not think the same.

“But if the court prefers that” – Mr. Baez acts as if he is waiting for the court to confirm the preference despite multiple court orders defining the deadline for submittal of Ms. Reich’s report as a date prior to the date of this hearing.

“I’ll get on the phone, I’ll have her send me an e-mail with… with some outlines of her current opinions pending future… uhhh… future information and we’ll take it that way” – Mr. Baez believes he can submit expert reports, write a sentence about “pending future information”, and change expert opinion testimony closer to or during trial.  What does Mr. Baez mean by “future pending information”?  According to his earlier statement, he is in possession of information which he has not communicated to his experts.  There is nothing either “pending” or “future” about such information.  If Mr. Baez withholds vital information from his experts so they were unable to include it in the submittal of their planned testimony, he cannot seriously expect the court to accept his determination to delay communications as a valid reason for a change of testimony after depositions by the prosecution have been conducted.

“Again, this is all… this is all for naught” – Mr. Baez believes the efforts of the court and the prosecution to convince him to comply with court orders “is all for naught”.  Whether he complies or does not, Mr. Baez has announced he plans to change the testimony of his experts closer to trial and he does not stand by the reports he has filed to date, therefore all of the hearings and orders have been “for naught”.

“because I… I certainly believe that upon having additional information she’s going to have other opinions” – Mr. Baez stands by his belief his experts will be allowed to change their opinions despite a written report filed with the court.

“So why do this twice?” – This is Mr. Baez’s reasoning for not complying with court orders.  He sees no reason to “do this twice”.  He appears to have convinced himself the once he does it will be enough even if he misses all the deadlines.

“And that’s the only reason I asked for those limited experts” – The only reason Mr. Baez filed a request for additional time is because he personally does not want to have to “do this twice”.

“and we’re talking about three experts here” – Mr. Baez is sensitive about the number of experts in question as he refers to “limited” in the previous phrase, now defines the number as “three”.  Mr. Baez feels he should be allowed to not comply with court deadlines if he complies with the majority of an order.

We have learned Mr. Baez feels court orders are merely suggestions, they do not need to be followed, and even if he follows them, he will introduce changed testimony after all deadlines have passed.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes by not communicating with his experts, he will be able to build additional delays into this trial.

We have learned Mr. Baez thinks he will be able to successfully blame the prosecution for his personal decisions and failures.

Is Mr. Baez Flaunting the Expertise of the Defense Experts?

Defense attorney Jose Baez spoke to the press on December 15, 2008, concerning his experts and funding of the defense of Casey Anthony, who is awaiting trial for the murder of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony.  The comments of Mr. Baez may be found at the following link.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/18284043/detail.html

Jose Baez: “We have qualified people, the best in the business, reviewing this evidence.”

It is unclear if Mr. Baez is referring to defense experts in this comment as he uses the words “qualified people” then qualifies their qualifications with the phrase “the best in the business”.  What is their “business”?  How did Mr. Baez determine they are the “best”?  If they are the “best”, Mr. Baez is stating his experts are superior to the experts employed by the State of Florida.  As some of these “qualified people” have left his team between the time he made this comment and early 2011, it would stand to reason those who continue to work with Mr. Baez, even if they do not return his phone calls, may not be “the best in the business”

Jose Baez: “I’m not about pumping my chest and flaunting about who we’re bringing in, you’ll see it when they come.”

Mr. Baez claims he is “not about pumping my chest and flaunting” even though he just trumpeted his “qualified people” are “the best in the business”.  It is likely Mr. Baez did not know who he was “bringing in”, which is supported by his most recent filing concerning experts in which he lists yet another expert recently retained, more than two years after this comment.

Jose Baez: “We have certain experts we were hoping to get closer to the scene.”

Of all the “qualified people” who are “the best in the business”, Mr. Baez only desires “certain experts” to “get closer to the scene”.  Does he want the “certain experts” to investigate or examine the scene?  We do not know as we are unable to determine from his words what will be accomplished by physical proximity to “the scene”.

Jose Baez: “I don’t think it’s any concern of anyone who’s paying for all of that. It’s confidential information, and I’m not about to disclose confidential information.”

“I don’t think it’s any concern of anyone who’s paying for all of that.” – This sentence is a lie.  “I don’t think” means this assertion is open to debate as other may “think” differently.  The premise of the comment is false.  Payment must be a “concern” for whoever is paying the bills, a person who would fit into the description “anyone”.  “Concern” is sensitive to Mr. Baez as seen by the use of the extra word “any”, which adds no meaning to the sentence other than to highlight “concern”.  “For all of that” distances Mr. Baez from what is being paid for with the distancing word “that”.

“I’m not about to disclose confidential information.” – “Not about to disclose” is a reference to time.  Mr. Baez is “not about to disclose” at the time he is making the comments.  This does not mean he did not disclose or will not disclose “confidential information”.

We have learned Mr. Baez believed the experts who were initially with the defense team were “the best in the business”, which brings into question how he feels about his current experts.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes when he flaunts he is not flaunting.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not want anyone to know who paid for the early days of Casey Anthony’s defense.

Are the Experts Working for Jose Baez Superior to the Experts Working for the State of Florida?

Jose Baez, defense attorney for Casey Anthony accused of murdering her two-year-old daughter, spoke to the press on December 13, 2008 about the professional quality of the defense experts.  His comments may be found at the following link.

http://cayleeanthony.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/anthony-defense-team-gets-first-look/

Jose Baez: “We should be able to observe the scene.  This isn’t just anyone we’re allowing in,  we’re allowing in people they come to when they train.”

“We should be able to observe the scene” – Mr. Baez refers to the discovery site of a body which remained unidentified at the time Mr. Baez made his comments.

“This isn’t just anyone we’re allowing in” – Mr. Baez places himself and unknown others refered to by “we” in charge of who is allowed “in”.  The people Mr. Baez feels “should be allowed to observe” are not “just anyone”, therefore they are someone, presumably someone of importance.

“we’re allowing in people they come to when they train.” – Mr. Baez is obsessed with the notion he controls who is allowed “in” and who is kept out, even though he began his comments by acknowledging he personally is not “able to observe the scene”.

“people they come to when they train.” – This is who Mr. Baez would allow “in”.  Mr. Baez asserts his team of experts is comprised of the “people” who trained the state experts.  But he makes his assertion in a weak manner by employing the phrase “they come to”.  Mr. Baez does not state outright these individuals are the same individuals who trained the state experts, he hints it could be so.  Mr. Baez attempts to convince those listening to his comments the experts working for the defense are superior in expertise to the state experts.

We have learned Mr. Baez feels access to an active crime scene investigation should be determined by the relative experience level of an individual regardless of their association or lack of association with a legitimate law enforcement organization.

We have learned Mr. Baez desperately wanted to be in charge of personnel access to the discovery site of Caylee Anthony’s remains.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes his experts, the most prominent of whom has departed from the defense team, are professionally superior to those utilized by the State of Florida.

Will the FBI and Secret Service Soon Write Judge Perry a Letter About Jose Baez Lying to the Court?

On the 16th of February, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez filed a motion explaining why he filed a defense supplemental witness list after the deadline imposed by the court.  The defense motion may be found at the following link.

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26889140/detail.html?utm_source=manual&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=casey+updates

“1. Despite being in daily contact, including the day before her filing, counsel for the State of Florida has made no attempts to contact the undersigned in order to resolve this dispute or make inquiry of the supplemental witness list filed by the Defense.”

Mr. Baez fails to identify the specific “dispute”.  The State of Florida is requesting the court strike Mr. Baez’s latest witness list because it was filed after the deadline and without the proper supporting paperwork.

“counsel for the State of Florida has made no attempts to contact the undersigned” – Mr. Baez believes “counsel for the State of Florida” has a duty and obligation to contact him prior to filing court documents, especially when they will request one of his motions to be stricken.

Mr. Baez seems to feel he is owed special treatment by the State of Florida regardless of the number of court rules and orders he breaks and ignores.

“Despite the obvious date of 2003 on the diary the State has at tax payers expense, spared no expense in utilizing both the FBI and Secret Service to date this diary to fit their timeline.”

“Despite the obvious date of 2003 on the diary” – If the date was truly “obvious”, would Mr. Baez feel the need to utilize the extra word to describe it as such?  The date is not “obvious” as it is “’03” and not “2003” as Mr. Baez claims.  It is not even “obvious” the numerical reference is a date.

“the State has at tax payers expense, spared no expense” – Commas and apostrophes are not the strong suit of either Mr. Baez or his legal aides.  “Expense” is extremely sensitive to Mr. Baez as he uses the same word twice within a four word stretch.  Mr. Baez is sensitive about “tax payers expense”, about which Kathi Belich often queries him.  Does the payer of the “expense” have anything to do with the outcome of the tests?

“in utilizing both the FBI and Secret Service to date this diary to fit their timeline.” – Mr. Baez accuses “the FBI and Secret Service” of conspiring with the State of Florida to skew scientific test results to support a prosecutorial theory of a crime.  This is a very serious accusation.  Mr. Baez goes beyond claiming the test results are inaccurate or misinterpreted to an outright allegation of impropriety in professional, ethical, and moral standards on the parts of three separate law enforcement organizations.

“The State has also failed to establish; How they are prejudiced by the timing of defense supplemental witness list?” – Grammar and punctuation are not the strong suits of Mr. Baez.  The State is not required to establish how they are “prejudiced” as they need only object based upon the court deadlines.

We have learned Mr. Baez thinks court deadlines do not apply to him because he is so special the prosecutors must request his permission to file a motion asking he be compelled to comply with court orders.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not understand the legal process as evidenced by his inability to grasp the legal requirements for a motion to strike by the State of Florida.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not read Bullstopper or does not wish to take seriously the multiple comments about his misuse of grammar and punctuation.  Mr. Baez may not understand his poor writing skills force others to view him as a fool.

Does Jose Baez Know All the Answers?

In August 2010, Mr. Baez spoke to the press concerning his feelings about his client and a possible death sentence resulting from her trial.  The comments of Mr. Baez may be found at the following link.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-casey-anthony-death-penalty-20100815,0,6307759,full.story

Jose Baez: “This case falls far from being a death case.  They don’t know how she died. They don’t know when. They don’t know why. Before you take someone’s life, you should have all the answers.”

“This case falls far from being a death case.” – How far is “far”?  Mr. Baez explains the distance between “this case” and “a death case” with his following statements.

“They don’t know how she died.” – Who is “they”?  Those other than Mr. Baez.  “They” do not know, but Mr. Baez implies he does know.  Mr. Baez knows “how she died”.  How does Mr. Baez know?  Presumably, his client told him.

“They don’t know when.” – “They” do not know the date or time of Caylee Anthony’s death, but Mr. Baez does.  If Mr. Baez does not know, would he not have phrased his statement more along the lines “Nobody knows” or “No one but the killer knows”?

“They don’t know why.” – “They” do not, but Mr. Baez does know “why”.

Order is important.  Most important to Mr. Baez is their lack of knowledge concerning “how”.  Next most important is “when”.  Of least importance is “why”.  The relative level of importance of each item from the viewpoint of Mr. Baez seems to correlate with the legal importance of each piece.  Prosecutors will first define Caylee Anthony is dead and the results of the medical examination followed by an approximation of the time of death based on best available evidence including plant growth and insect life cycles.  Prosecutors may attempt to explain the “why”, but do not have to establish motive to prove guilt.

“Before you take someone’s life, you should have all the answers.” – If all the “answers” are not known, is Caylee Anthony less dead?  Is her murderer less guilty because the state could not completely define every aspect of the crime?  This statement is a summary of the legal strategy of Mr. Baez who hopes a lack of physical evidence will result in a not-guilty verdict with no effort on his part.

Notice Mr. Baez makes no statement as to the guilt or innocence of his client in regards to the death of Caylee Anthony.  Mr. Baez does not say the prosecution will fail because his client is not guilty of the crime of which she is accused.  In fact, Mr. Baez admits there is a worthy criminal case against his client with the term “this case”, he only denies it reaches the level of a possible death sentence.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes he knows the how, when, and why of Caylee Anthony’s murder.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes the prosecution will fail to convict his client based upon the evidence presented in discovery, even though he continues to file motion after motion attempting to discredit and supress evidence which should not be able to affect the outcome of the case as he claims it does not show the how, when, or why of Caylee Anthony’s murder.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes his client should be prosecuted for a crime, although he feels a death sentence is too harsh a sentence for her crimes.

Is Jose Baez Too Famous to Seat an Unbiased Jury?

In late 2010, the legal defense team for Casey Anthony requested extra funds from the state of Florida to secure the release of transcriptions from the depositions of the Oakridge Laboratory experts which were taken in Tennessee.  The extra funds were needed because the transcription service utilized by the defense team refused to accept the rates established by the JAC.  During court hearings and in court documents, the defense team presented the transcription company as tricksters who initially agreed to accept the JAC payment schedule, then changed their minds once payment became due.

The owner of the transcription service company, Gerald Tyke Stogsdill, does not accept this characterization of his actions and decisions by Jose Baez and Cheney Mason.  He wrote a letter to Judge Perry which included the e-mail chain between his company and the offices of Mr. Baez and Mr. Mason.  His letter and attachments may be found at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26875662/detail.html

“I had Sara look over our upcoming and past appointments to see whether we had done or were going to be doing any work for Michelle Medina and/or anybody named Baez or some connection to The Baez Law Firm.  Nothing could be connected to those names.  Sara asked each reporter with my office whether those names meant anything to them.  Nobody could recall ever dealing with a “Medina” nor a “Baez”.  I verified as best I could through Sara that we had not signed any contract.  It appeared to be something that could wait until I returned from vacation.  In light of the fact that at least once a month we get a request to fill out forms to facilitate payment of an invoice that had already been sent, it didn’t seem to be urgent.”

“I had Sara look over our upcoming and past appointments to see whether we had done or were going to be doing any work for Michelle Medina and/or anybody named Baez or some connection to The Baez Law Firm.  Nothing could be connected to those names.” – The names “Baez” and “The Baez Law Firm” are unknown to Mr. Stogsdill even though he interacts daily with legal professionals.

“Sara asked each reporter with my office whether those names meant anything to them.  Nobody could recall ever dealing with a “Medina” nor a “Baez”.” – The name “Baez” is meaningless to an office full of court reporters.

“I verified as best I could through Sara that we had not signed any contract.” – Mr. Stogsdill did not sign a contract with Mr. Baez.

“It appeared to be something that could wait until I returned from vacation.” – The concerns of Mr. Baez are of less importance to Mr. Stogsdill than his own vacation.  Mr. Baez if not more  important than other attorneys.

We have learned Mr. Baez failed to secure a contract with Mr. Stogsdill specifying payment at the JAC rates.

We have learned the name “Baez” does not entitle the bearer to special treatment or reduced rates by vendors.

We have learned despite constant national television appearances for more than two years, professionals connected to the legal industry are unaware of Mr. Baez, his defense of Casey Anthony, and his defense dream team.