During a deposition in September 2010, defense attorney Jose Baez, a man who has proven himself time and again on national television and in court to be one of the worst public speakers in the Florida legal system, insulted the verbal choices of prosecutor Jeff Ashton. The insult by Mr. Baez may be read at the following link.
Jose Baez: “Why must you scream in front of everyone, including the witness, who…”
Jeff Ashton: “Because you keep talking over me.”
Jose Baez: “No one is talking over you. You just screamed. You screamed like a little girl.”
“You just screamed” – Mr. Baez asserts Mr. Ashton “just screamed” which would indicate no words issued from the throat of Mr. Ashton. “Just” appears to be a reference to time suggesting Mr. Ashton “screamed” directly before Mr. Baez question of “Why must you scream”. Can “just” have both the meaning of “only” and specify a time frame? Or is this double talk from Bullstopper?
The purpose of looking at the specific words and the multiple meanings behind each word is to understand words do have many meanings and our initial comprehension of a statement may not be correct. We choose our spoken words in fractions of a second, with no time for reflection on the connotations of all the meanings of the word. But we do know all the meanings when we subconsciously choose to verbalize the word. So the question becomes, why this particular word with its specific set of multiple meanings instead of another synonym which would have a differing set of alternate meanings?
In this instance, why include the word “just” at all? Were not all parties present at the time Mr. Ashton “screamed”? Would there have been any confusion as to the time frame if Mr. Baez had not included the word “just”? Would the impact of the statement “you screamed” be lessened by not inserting “just”?
“You screamed like a little girl” – Mr. Baez is not satisfied with his previous statement and must repeat himself. However, he now leaves out the word “just”. He must leave out “just” because he now asserts Mr. Ashton did not “just” scream, but “screamed like a little girl”. Mr. Baez believes comparing the verbalization of Mr. Ashton to the verbalization of a “little girl” will embarrass Mr. Ashton.
We have learned Mr. Baez feels a need to respond to Mr. Ashton with insults and childish taunts rather than to remain on a professional level, most likely because Mr. Baez, as seen in his written motions, is unable to compete with Mr. Ashton within their chosen profession.
We have learned Mr. Baez would feel insulted if someone were to refer to him as a “little girl”. Mr. Baez is sensitive about both his height, “little”, and his manliness, “girl”.
We have learned Mr. Baez does not mind making insincere statements in open court such as “I have a great deal of amount of respect for these prosecutors who sit here”. Mr. Baez has such respect for “these prosecutors” he is able to refer to one of them as a “little girl” during a court recorded deposition.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 