Is Jose Baez Part of a Criminal Investigation?

At the end of Laura Buchanan’s November 17, 2010, deposition concerning her claims or non-claims of not finding the remains of Caylee Anthony when she searched a wooded area near the Anthony home, defense attorney Jose Baez asked her a few questions.

The queries of Mr. Baez may be found at the following link.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/70800957/20101117-Laura-Buchanan-Deposition-Pt2

Jose Baez: “Okay.  And you’re obviously seeing e-mails that you sent that you didn’t even know or remembered existed?”

“And you’re obviously seeing” – Why is Ms. Buchanan’s “seeing” obvious?

“e-mails that you sent” – “That” distances Mr. Baez from Ms. Buchanan’s sending of the “e-mails”.  Mr. Baez asserts Ms. Buchanan “sent” the “e-mails”, the action was hers, not his.

“that you didn’t even know” – “That” distances Mr. Baez from the claim of Ms. Buchanan not knowing she sent “e-mails”.  “Didn’t” is in the past tense.  Ms. Buchanan did not know in the past, but she does at the time of the question.  If Ms. Buchanan sent the e-mails, when did her knowledge of doing so disappear and when did it return?  “Even” is an extra word denoting “know” as sensitive to Mr. Baez.

“or remembered existed” – “Remembered” is far different from “know” as it indicates forgetting.  In other words, Ms. Buchanan did “know”, even if she forgot she knew.  “Existed” is extremely interesting as it is an extra word which changes the meaning of “remembered” from memory of the sending to knowledge the e-mails are saved in some format accessible by law enforcement.  Mr. Baez later speaks of law enforcement seizing e-mail records from his office, Mr. Mason’s office, and Cindy Anthony.  How would Ms. Buchanan “remember” any of these three saved copies of her e-mails or had records still in their computers?

Laura Buchanan: “Yeah.”

Ms. Buchanan agrees, but we do now know to what she agrees.  That she is “obviously seeing e-mails”?  That she did not know, but now does, that she sent the e-mails?  That she doesn’t remember Mr. Baez has copies of the e-mails?

Jose Baez: “Okay.  Are you aware that those subpoenas… that those e-mails were subpoenaed by the State Attorney’s Office… they subpoenaed my office for… are you aware of that?”

“Are you aware that those subpoenas” – Mr. Baez must interrupt his flow of words to correct “subpoenas” with “e-mails”.  The “subpoenas” are sensitive to Mr. Baez and the focus of his thoughts as he phrases this question.  “That those” distances Mr. Baez from “subpoenas”, which he does not like.

“that those e-mails were subpoenaed by the State Attorney’s Office” – Again, “that those” distances Mr. Baez from “e-mails” which “were subpoenaed”.  This issue is very sensitive for Mr. Baez.

“they subpoenaed my office for” – This is the reason for the sensitivity.  The State Attorney’s Office “subpoenaed” Mr. Baez’s “office”, which means they “subpoenaed” his records against his wishes.

“are you aware of that?” – Mr. Baez feels it important Ms. Buchanan be aware his office was searched for her e-mails.

Laura Buchanan: “Yeah.  I mean, how else would she have them?”

Ms. Buchanan seems convinced records of the e-mails she no longer remembers “existed” could only have come from the office of Mr. Baez.  She does not seem to be “aware” in the sense she has confirmed knowledge (in other words, no one in law enforcement informed her), but she came to the conclusion based on the fact the prosecution is in possession of e-mails she sent to Mr. Baez.

Jose Baez: “Okay.  Are you aware that other criminal investigative subpoenas have been
issued, like to Mr. Mason’s office?”

“that other criminal investigative subpoenas have been issued” – Mr. Baez reveals the subpoena served on his office to retrieve his e-mail records is part of a “criminal” investigation.  A crime has been committed and law enforcement had enough evidence to convince a judge to issue a subpoena to check for further criminal evidence at the offices of Mr. Baez and Mr. Mason.  “That” distances Mr. Baez from “criminal investigative subpoenas”.

“like to Mr. Mason’s office” – Mr. Baez reveals more subpoenas have been served than just to his and Mr. Mason’s offices.

Laura Buchanan: “I don’t… I don’t know.  I don’t guess.”

Ms. Buchanan confirms she has no knowledge of who has been served subpoenas in an attempt to gather her e-mails.

We have learned Mr. Baez and Mr. Mason possess records law enforcement feels are evidence of criminal activity in connection to the Caylee Anthony murder investigation.

We have learned Mr. Baez is extremely sensitive about his office being searched for Ms. Buchanan’s e-mails as part of a criminal investigation.

We have learned Mr. Baez wanted to know if anyone had informed Ms. Buchanan both he and Mr. Mason were the targets of a criminal investigation spurred by her communications with them.