Is Jose Baez Part of a Criminal Investigation?

8 Feb

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.

Advertisements

41 Responses to “Is Jose Baez Part of a Criminal Investigation?”

  1. kathlb February 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    I have been waiting for this- I feel it’s the first in a long line of criminal investigations connected to the defense lawyers (most importantly JB), Cindy Anthony,Lee Anthony, George Anthony, the Milsteads, Dom Casey, and on and on. I think Conway was warned in advance to cut all ties since they felt he was one of the good guys and needed to get away from the Anthonys immediately. I think that this is just the very beginnings of a criminal and an investigative probe by the Florida Bar Assn. and various law suits like what Judge alluded to when letting Baez know he was going to be sued by other lawyers for starters. I could be wrong, however I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. LOL 🙂

    • MsBingo February 8, 2011 at 2:41 pm #

      too funny kathlb. I spit coffee all over my keyboard.

    • bullstopper February 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

      I am wondering if all the e-mail records they found match up.

      Or did someone change the text of the e-mails Laura seems to think are unknown to her and pass it off as hers?

  2. MsBingo February 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    Good article, BullStopper. That pic sure portrays a different Hose a Baez – don’t ya think? Gone is his arrogance and false bravado. I’m thinking he might need some new undergarments after last status hearing (knowing Judge Perry was going to call the DNA lab). By the way…appears defense now has until March 23 for their report from the lab. Obviously HJBP spoke with them. Can’t wait to hear the REAL story about this defense requested testing.

    • bullstopper February 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm #

      My favorite part was when Jose was speaking about the expert he can’t get to return his calls and the judge asked if he called the institute he runs and Jose said, it’s a big place before admitting he never called.

      • nums24 February 8, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

        And to add to the irony, that same Dr. Logan that bozo has allegedly been unable to reach appeared on WFTV News on the same night of the 2/4/11 hearing for a bath salts report: http://www.wftv.com/news/26750580/detail.html

        WFTV was able to get tests back in a week and get the elusive dr. on video!

        Great Article Bull!

      • bullstopper February 8, 2011 at 10:08 pm #

        😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

        😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

  3. myra manes February 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    *shakes head*

    Good grief, why hasn’t Baez been disbarred yet?

    *sigh*

    ————————————-

    Spot on article as usual Bull, thanks .. 😀

    • bullstopper February 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

      The Bar is just waiting for his foreclosure to wrap up…

      • myra manes February 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

        I hope you’re right, Bull ..

  4. MsBingo February 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    Just want to add that if he doesn’t get that mole off his face soon it’s going to need it’s own custom made suit come trial time. ROFL.

    • VENICE February 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm #

      I guess huge facilities don’t have receptionists or operators. Geesh….moron!

      • kas February 8, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

        Venice:

        Also, there are no phones in Tahiti. (But apparently, Twitter)

        The things this case has taught me.

    • 38special February 8, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

      MsBingo..good observation about that mole! I’m kinda thinking that those lapels of hair on his temples might begin spreading. They’ll cover it up thank goodness.

  5. MsBingo February 8, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

    After last Friday’s status hearing, I’m starting to get a little freaked. Something is up. Why and how is the state of Florida (including HJBP) allowing this circus? He (JB) should be yanked off this case.

  6. damagdpets February 8, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    Did anyone else notice that in the LB interview Baez instead of asking how are you feeling or are you feeling OK, instead, Leads LB with questions like you are crying and sveral others that in court would be objected to as leading the witness. He does not ask how she feels but tells her how she feels……

    • bullstopper February 8, 2011 at 3:30 pm #

      He was attempting to set up a position LB changed her testimony out of fear of prosecution by the state. However, she never provided an answer which would allow him to support such a position. In this passage, it is clear she was not aware of the investigation involving Baez and Mason, so her own fears of prosecution would probably have been low and she insists slightly later she has no fear because she is truthful.

      The other thing that hurt him was Mason not being able to establish her testimony prior to any “fear”.

  7. damagdpets February 8, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    MsBingo
    Careful what you wish for….if the State Bar were to respond right now and it was not good…it could through the trial out the window if they had to get another attorney and would cost us another couple of years. I could see it now…Mason telling Perry that he could not take over because Baez knows too much and after all is the lead attorney of record. The only reason I think Mason is there is because he could easily make Baez the scapegoat.

  8. VENICE February 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    hmmmmmmm….2+2 = ???

  9. MsBingo February 8, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

    damagdpets: I’m not sure what the legal ramifications would be (let’s hope KatPrint weighs in on this) but I’m guessing it would be the same, say, if Jose were to be run over by a bus while waddling out of the tavern after happy hour on Friday? What would be the difference? A short delay…new counsel…game on. Heck – take the case of David Westerfield (San Diego,California- convicted of murdering 7 yr old Danielle VanDam). Tried, convicted and sentenced to death within months of the discovery of her body. I think total time from crime to conviction was under 6 mos. Casey Anthony has been in jail over 2 1/2 years. What’s a couple more months? My biggest gripe is the mockery that this schmo has made of the legal system and the taxpayers. IMO he should be YANKED out of there, publically humiliated and let the court get down to business and get this witch in prison. Again, JMO.

  10. bullstopper February 8, 2011 at 4:34 pm #

    This is well worth reading if only for the language about additional defense extensions for experts in bold print.

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

    • Katprint February 9, 2011 at 2:09 am #

      IMO, if some truly unforeseeable event were to occur such as the death of one of Casey’s attorneys, the judge would indeed give some additional time. The NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS language in the Order was intended to address Baez’ tendency to assume he doesn’t really have to meet court deadlines because he will be given extensions if he files a motion asking for them (even if he doesn’t bother to schedule that motion for a court hearing.)

      If Baez and Mason become legally unavailable due to death, disability or disbarment, the Public Defender’s office will step in and, again, I think the judge would give them additional time to get up to speed.

      Plus, attorneys normally give each other some leeway as a matter of professional courtesy. The prosecution is not making a fuss about Dr. Spitz bona fide medical problems. I once had an attorney’s office call at 9:30 am to cancel a deposition scheduled for 10 am because the attorney had been in an auto accident on his way to my office and he was in the ER being treated for a broken leg. About 5 1/2 years ago, I was handling some personal injury cases on a part-time basis when I ended up having an unscheduled c-section, and opposing counsel agreed to re-take some depositions that he had noticed AND TAKEN in my absence. Similarly, from time to time attorneys bring their children into court with them due to childcare problems. It would be disruptive and intolerable for attorneys to always bring their children into court with them rather than hire childcare, but we all understand that sometimes real life goes in ways that we did not expect.

      • bullstopper February 9, 2011 at 10:58 am #

        I really liked how Jose pretended to be caught unawares at the last hearing when the motion he filed for an extension was brought up by the judge and tried to blame the court for his not being noticed it would be addressed.

  11. cecelia February 9, 2011 at 7:39 am #

    IF the Attorneys for whatever reason were off this case, (although i don’t think mumbles CAN leave other than a health issue that forced it) with casey’s indigent status the court would appoint her attorney. couldn’t they appoint somebody like terrance Lennamon who was co-counsel for a bit early on? He knows the case, could be brought up to speed fairly quickly…
    ITA with the posters that think the duhfense team WILL try to pull something to delay at the last possible minute. i just have to wonder if it would backfire on them like getting JS off the bench for this case. IMO CM looks resigned to having to stay in for the long haul, i also think he wishes lead counsel would get sucked into a giant sinkhole effectively putting an end to the moronic shenanigans he keeps failing miserably at. jmho

    • shyloh February 9, 2011 at 10:39 am #

      I believe the only one that can’t walk in this is Hose Baez. I believe is Mason what to bail out he can. Just like Andrea Lion and Lindy K Baden.

      • shyloh February 9, 2011 at 10:40 am #

        OOps no edit button. Let me try that again.

        I believe the only one that can’t walk in this case is Jose Baez. I believe if Mason whats to bail out, he can. Just like Andrea Lion and Lindy K Baden.

    • Katprint February 9, 2011 at 3:31 pm #

      I don’t think the judge could force an attorney to take on a case by appointing the attorney against the attorney’s will, especially not an indigent case where the attorney has not been paid and will never be paid, and extra-especially not a case where he has already had to withdraw due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

  12. myra manes February 9, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    I’m predicting heart failure in the near future for Baez ..
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    It’s his ONLY out and I’m sure, by now, he’s dying to get out!

  13. Anonymous February 9, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    Damagdpets-Here is a video you might find interesting relative to what can be held back from the defense, what evidence prosecutors have no control over, the all important “protected work product” and Mr Baez’s quest to find out Mr Ashton’s theory of the case.

    Anthony’s Defense, Prosecutors Argue Over Evidence

    (I posted this over at the JBMission but it didn’t show up when I hit submit).

    • VENICE February 9, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

      OMG Anon,
      jbmission edited your post for “lack of substance”. Is this chick for real??? I don’t get her.

  14. VENICE February 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    Figures.

  15. Anonymous February 9, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    Venice-I don’t think she thought I had a “lack of substance” so much as she just does not publish opposing viewpoints. This is the gist of what I wrote.

    Not “Lead Evidence” see Fl ss 90.901. Authentification and identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. The requirements of this section are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims (that the child was alive during the last week in June).

    Nothing Ms Goode told LE could be substantiated. Caylee being alive in April or May is not in dispute. Ms Goode’s belief that she saw Caylee in a white dress with a white bow getting into a car with a large Hispanic woman during the last week in June is evidence that cannot be admitted because it is in contradiction to the facts. The child’s death is documented in the record as being June 15-16, 2008.

  16. Anonymous February 9, 2011 at 8:04 pm #

    Venice-I just saw that she took the post down that said, “Not Lead Evidence see Fl ss 90.901 Hope this is helpful.” I guess the Rules of Evidence are irrelevant when discussing Fl v Anthony. That’s all I wrote on post number one.

    I sent Damagedpets a link about evidence I thought she would like (see above)and the rest of the message was sent to NTS.

    • VENICE February 9, 2011 at 9:20 pm #

      Keep up the great work Anon 🙂

    • VENICE February 9, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

      Personally, I do not for the life of me know why Damagedpets gives those hypocrites the time of day. The infamous “snoop” just gave him a verbal spanking. jbmission is a degrading blog!

  17. Anonymous February 9, 2011 at 11:27 pm #

    Venice-I believe people who have been demeaned learn coping skills which are unacceptable at home and in the workplalce but are practiced and perfected on the internet.

    She does not honor or accept what is considered truthful nor will she allow the truth to be part of any discussion. If it were she would have nothing to write about.

    Lawyers, judges, police, FBI and posters can all be insulted and after the sucker bunch is given she turns to her gentle reader and says “I know how to act like a lady”.

    Sorry JBMission, you don’t.

    • Venice February 10, 2011 at 12:14 am #

      You are so correct!!!!! Lady’s don’t libel authority figures and respectable tax-payers. She’s shameful! I see someone very far from the term “lady”.

  18. Anonymous February 10, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    Good Morning Venice-Yes, it’s shameful but it is also a little sad too. She works feverishly to hunt down one of hundreds of tips reported to LE-albeit one that went nowhere literally and figuratively, and tried to link it to what?

    I posted the link to Ms Anthony’s statement to police once and was surprised it was deleted. I’m not surprised today. Ms Anthony after admitting to lying throughout her entire interrogation and when provided an opportunity to set the record straight said, “I’m sticking to my story”.

    Both Ms Anthony and Ms Mission have had ample opportunities to tell the truth and all they have done to date is tell a story.

    • Venice February 10, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

      Good Afternoon Anon!
      She states “there is no name-calling here”.
      yet, Indygal states we (us & others) are just too stupid to see this case for what it is.

      I have a huge problem with hypocrisy. It speaks volumes as to her character.

      jbmission thinks the world is theirs. Settle there Al Pacino….the world is not receptive of deceit, lies, and unethical behavior such as slander!!!!!!!!!

  19. Anonymous February 11, 2011 at 10:59 am #

    Venice-I give them a lot more credit than most people. I do not for one moment think they cannot comprehend English or the significance of the discovery. That is not their focus.

    All that matters to Ms Mission is the opportunity to say what she wants anytime of the day or night. That is how she interprets her right to free speech-no holes barred. No standards.

  20. Anonymous February 11, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    Venice-It never entered their collective minds that Ms Goode followed the case and was glued to her seat the day the remains were found and listened intently to Dr G. announce that Caylee’s death was a homicide. She dated her death June 15-16, 2008.

    I am sure Ms Goode realized her recollection of the events she witnessed and reported to police were unfounded. She nevertheless had her ears and eyes open for this child and did her civic duty. I am sure she felt morally bound to report what she saw in the hopes that it would help both the grandparents and the dear mother who was arrested for neglect.

    To have to read her tip to police posted and discussed on a blog almost two years after the fact might be a source of embarrassment to her. Although she was aware that her interview report would not remain “secret” she probably never realized that what she saw would be up for discussion on the internet. Was it really necessary to do this? I don’t think so.

    When LE calls on the public to help them find missing children will folks keep their ears and eyes open and “report anything unusual, no matter how insignificant”? I hope so.
    ______________________________________

    What about redacting her name and where she volunteered?
    It’s a matter of public record (supplemental report) but readers would have had to hunt it down and more than likely most wouldn’t. A discussion could follow, no matter how onesided, while maintaining the anonymity of the tipster.

    That’s what it means to have standards.

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: