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.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 