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.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 