When Will Brad Conway’s 15 Minutes of Hypocrisy End?

Even though defense attorney Brad Conway resigned from representing the parents of Casey Anthony in 2010 and has no current connection to the upcoming trial, he continues to speak to the press about the case.

Some of the newest gems from the Conway quote collection may be read at the following link.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-casey-anthony-trial-jury-venue-20110415,0,7905854.story

Brad Conway: “I think one of the interesting things or one of the difficult things about picking a jury in this case is: How do you get rid of the people that want to be on the jury to gain notoriety?”

It is ironic a man who has no current connection to the case and never represented the defendant, a man who claimed he voluntarily removed himself from the case, tells the press he has an interest in the selection of the jury with a focus on “the people” who want to be connected to the case “to gain notoriety”.  “How do you get rid of the people that want to be” an attorney connected to the case “to gain notoriety”?  Surely, Mr. Conway could give the world a unique perspective on this question.

Comparing the Anthony case to the O.J. Simpson trial, Mr. Conway noted some jurors “wanted their 15 minutes of fame afterwards.”

The irony continues as Mr. Conway speaks about people who want “their 15 minutes of fame afterwards”.  After what?  After they resign?  After they have no legitimate reason to be speaking to the press about a matter in which they have no involvement?

Brad Conway: “Those are people I wouldn’t want on my jury.  But in a case like this that’s gotten not just national attention but worldwide attention, how do you avoid the juror that wants to be on there for that reason?”

“Those are the people” who Mr. Conway attempts to distance from himself with the word “those”, the very people who mirror the objectives of Mr. Conway.

“Attention” is sensitive to Mr. Conway, who tells the audience “this” case, which is close to him or to which he wishes to be close, has garnered not just “national attention”, but “worldwide attention”.  Mr. Conway is paying close “attention” to the type of “attention” “this case” is receiving.

Mr. Conway distances himself from “that reason”, the desire to be part of the “worldwide attention”.  Unfortunately for Mr. Conway, his own motivations must be questioned as he makes this distancing statement to a media outlet for dissemination to a wide audience as he continues to connect himself to “this case”.

We have learned… nothing.  Mr. Conway has NOTHING to contribute to this case or our understanding of it.

Could Cheney Mason Live Without the Prosecutors?

During a hearing on April 15, 2011, defense attorney Cheney Mason stated his feelings about prosector Jeff Ashton’s participation in the selection of the jury for the trial of Casey Anthony, charged with the murder and disposal of her toddler daughter, Caylee Anthony.

The comments of Mr. Mason can be heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27561873/index.html

As the judge discusses the particulars of procedures the court has put in place in order to safeguard the secrecy of the undisclosed venue in which the jury will be selected, Mr. Mason interjects a comment.

Judge Perry: “You’re not going to be able to tell your family where you’re going.  Don’t you have a cell phone?”

Jeff Ashton: “I… I do have a cell phone.”

Judge Perry: “Okay.  Then… uhh… because I have no jurisdiction over your family.”

Jeff Ashton: “Ahh… well…”

Judge Perry: “If you can’t abide by that you need to talk with Mr. Lamar to see if he can replace you. You can let him know the next morning at 8am.”

Jeff Ashton: “I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.  Only one of us is going to know where we’re going and be choosing hotels and the others will not have it.”

Cheney Mason: “We can live without you.”

Jeff Ashton: “Excuse me?”

Cheney Mason: “We can live without you.”

“We can live without you” – Not only does Mr. Mason interject this unprofessional and uncalled for comment, he repeats it to be sure Mr. Ashton understands Mr. Mason would prefer Mr. Ashton not be present during jury selection.

Who is “we”?  Although Mr. Mason apparently has the courage to deliver a personal insult to Mr. Ashton in open court, he does not have the courage to verbally accept the responsibility for the comment himself.  Instead, he uses the pronoun “we” to include an undefined number of others as party to his decision to insult Mr. Ashton.  Who does he include?  Mr. Baez?  Ms. Anthony?  Ms. Medina?  Ms. Sims?  The Honorable Judge Perry?  Ms. Drane Burdick?  The State of Florida?  We do not know, but we do know Mr. Mason and only Mr. Mason chose to ignore all personal and professional decorum by insulting another professional during a hearing which was being broadcast to the world.

Why does Mr. Mason feel he “can live without” Mr. Ashton?  By comparing the performance of the defense and the prosecution over the course of the hearings of the past several weeks, it is apparent to even the most legally uneducated the prosecution is winning far more conflicts than it is losing.  As a lead player for the prosecution, much of the responsibility for their consistently superior performance is Mr. Ashton’s.  In contrast, Mr. Mason has made virtually no legal moves of any postive impact for the defense, although he has been party to several disasterous motions, such as the attempt to insert psychiatrict witnesses for the defense which was abandonded during this same hearing.  Mr. Mason is also personally responsible for the defense’s loss to supress from trial the statements of their client to law enforcement prior to her arrest.  Mr. Mason most likely feels Mr. Ashton’s absence during jury selection would be a blessing to a defense team which seems to have trouble even filing one motion without significant spelling and grammar errors.

We have learned Mr. Mason fears Mr. Ashton’s abilities as a prosecutor to the extent Mr. Mason is unable to refrain from spurting out insulting comments in open court, much as he fears Kathi Belich so much he cannot refrain from spouting non-sensical phrases when she approaches.

We have learned despite all rumors and reports to the contrary, Mr. Mason is not a professional in either his actions as an attorney or as an officer of the court.

We have learned Mr. Mason is frightened and anxious about the upcoming selection of a jury which will judge both his client and his actions as her counsel.

Does Cheney Mason Think the Tape Won’t Stick?

Defense attorney Cheney Mason, a man who is having so much fun defending his client he screams non-sensical phrases at local reporters while he attempts to escape their notice by hiding behind an umbrella as he flees the courthouse, granted an interview to a national news show which will air his comments this weekend.

A portion of the comments of Mr. Mason may be read pre-national television airing at the following link.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/04/casey-anthony-she-lied-about-nanny-linda-kenney-baden-tells-48-hours-mystery.html

Interviewer: “Prosecutors believe Caylee’s killer asphyxiated her by wrapping duct tape on her mouth and nostrils.”

Mason: “No evidence of that.”

Mr. Mason distances himself from the belief of the prosecutors with the word “that”.  Mr. Mason does not like the theory of the prosecution.  Hardly a surprise as the prosecution’s theory deals directly with the method and means of the homicide of two year old Caylee Anthony, the victim Mr. Mason’s client is accussed of murdering.

Interviewer: “No evidence of that?”

The interviewer is probably thinking specifically of the duct taped coupled with medical examiner’s report detailing her opinion the child’s airways were blocked by the tape and causing her death.  The interviewer may also be thinking of the sealed photographs of the victim’s remains which were recently entered into evidence by the prosecution.

Mason: “No. That’s a figment of imagination of an overzealous prosecutor in my opinion. And we’ll enjoy dealing with that in the courtroom.”

“in my opinion” – Mr. Mason must notify the interviewer his allegation the prosecution’s theory is “a figment of imagination” is the opinion of Mr. Mason and Mr. Mason only.  Others have differing opinions.  Others have facts and do not rely on opinion.  Yet Mr. Mason, who should have an intimate knowledge of the case and the evidence, relies upon his own opinion.  Again, Mr. Mason distances himself from the theory with the word “that”.  Mr. Mason describes the “prosecutor” as “overzealous”, an indication of sensitivity as it is an extra and unneeded word which also reveals Mr. Mason does not believe the “prosecutor” to be “inept” or “incapable” or “lying” or any of a myriad of other words he could have chosen.  Instead, the worst description of the “prosecutor” which Mr. Mason can verbalize on national television tells the audience the attorney in question is passionate about his work and this case.

“we’ll enjoy dealing with that in the courtroom.” – Mr. Mason changes from speaking about himself to speaking about “we”.  Who is “we”?  Mr. Mason and his client?  Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez?  Mr. Mason and the referenced prosecutor?  We do not know, but we do know Mr. Mason makes yet another reference to his enjoyment of this case.  Where is his joy when speaking to local reporters?  Where is his happiness when he mumbles in the courtroom rather than projecting in the sonorous tones which he employs in interviews such as this?  Again, Mr. Mason slips a “that” in to verbally push the prosecution’s theory far from himself.  Why will Mr. Mason only enjoy “dealing” with the theory “in the courtroom”?  Does he not enjoy speaking about it outside the courtroom?  Mr. Mason has revealed he is uncomfortable with this topic even in this defense friendly national interview.

We have learned Mr. Mason is not having fun with this case outside the courtroom.

We have learned Mr. Mason’s defense of his client will rely upon his opinion, but we do not know if fact will play any part.

We have learned Mr. Mason believe the prosecution has more zeal to try this case than he does himself.

We have learned Mr. Mason had best ensure he continues to bring his umbrella to court, no matter how few clouds are in the sky.

Is Jose Baez Prepared to Defend His Client at Trial?

Defense attorney Jose Baez gave a lengthy telephone interview which aired live on a national television show on April 5, 2011 during which he made comments about his preparation for the upcoming trial in May 2011.

The comments of Mr. Baez may be heard at the following link.

http://www.myspace.com/565006329/videos/video/107687473

Interviewer: “Do you feel like you’re ready for this case or would you like to add a couple more days to that calendar to prepare?”

Jose Baez: “You know umm…, I uhh… we’re just… I’m just focused at the task at hand.  Unfortunately, I wish I could answer that.  I’d love to… but that’s the way it is with every case.  You know, you sit there, you prepare, you prepare, you prepare, you prepare and the day comes and then you… there’s always things that you wish you had done and always things that you would like more time for, but umm… that… that’s I guess uhh… part of what it’s like to try a case.  Trying a case is a very exhausting experience and it’s very… umm… you… you… you never do prepare enough.”

“You know umm…, I uhh… we’re just… I’m just focused at the task at hand” – Mr. Baez begins his answer by not answering the question.  The word “just” suggests “focused at the task at hand” is not the only focus Mr. Baez has at this time as “just” is an attempt to persuade this is all he is doing.  The word “focused” does not tell the listener if Mr. Baez is currently preparing or is prepared for the trial and the pretrial hearings.  Mr. Baez begins to speak about “we”, who the listeners must assume is the defense team, but changes to speak only for himself.  If Mr. Baez is “just focused at the task at hand”, the other members of the defense team may be “focused” elsewhere.

“Unfortunately, I wish I could answer that” – For some reason, Mr. Baez cannot state if he is or is not prepared for trial.  The use of “unfortunately” announces he feels it would be beneficial to himself to be able to say he was prepared, as saying he is not would surely still be unfortunate.  Why is Mr. Baez not able to state he is prepared?  Would it harm the case if he did so?  If so, what possible negative impact could be the result of the lead defense attorney stating he is prepared to defend his client at trial?  What prevents Mr. Baez from answering?  Mr. Baez distances himself from the question with the word “that”, he is not comfortable with the question, he doesn’t like it.  Again, Mr. Baez has not answered the question.  Most likely, Mr. Baez is not prepared for this case.

“I’d love to..” – What would Mr. Baez “love to” do?  We do not knew because he did not finish his thought.  Would he “love to” say he is prepared?

“but that’s the way it is with every case” – What is the “way it is with every case”?  An inability to state if the defense attorney is prepared?  Mr. Baez is about to tell the audience “the way it is” with all of his cases, his “every case”.

“You know, you sit there, you prepare, you prepare, you prepare, you prepare” – The words “sit there” indicate a tension in this statement.  Does it make a difference if the attorney sits or stands as he prepares?  No, the inclusion of the phrase is the verbal delay of a difficult answer as the speaker vies for time in which to prepare further words, indicating he does not wish to speak the words which immediately come to mind.  The repetition of “prepare” indicates a sensitivity to preparation.  The “you” is not the listener, it is Mr. Baez, who attempts to persuade the listener this is the way it would be if they were the attorney.  It is doubtful if other attorneys would agree with his statements concerning pretrial preparation.  Do Mr. Ashton and Ms. Drane Burdick feel unprepared?

“and the day comes and then you… there’s always things that you wish you had done” – When the moment comes to defend his client, Mr. Baez “always” feels he is under prepared.  There are “things” he did not do, but wishes he had.  Did he not think of these things?  Was he not aware of the preparation needed for trial?  Is this a result of his inexperience or of his laziness?  Will he be telling Ms. Anthony during the trial about the “things” he wishes he “had done”?

“and always things that you would like more time for” – Three years is not enough time for Mr. Baez to prepare for a trial.

“but umm… that… that’s I guess uhh… part of what it’s like to try a case” – When Mr. Baez feels he did not prepare adequately and wishes he had done more and desires more time, he guesses this is “what it’s like to try a case”, but he does not know for sure.  Mr. Baez is not sure what “it’s like to try a case”.  Clearly, inexperience has been and will continue to be a major factor in the defense of Ms. Anthony.  What is the other “part of what it’s like”?

“Trying a case is a very exhausting experience” – Mr. Baez is exhausted.  Even though he is not prepared for trial, Mr. Baez is already exhausted by the “experience”.  A defense attorney is telling a national audience he is exhausted by actually “trying a case”.  Does he mention this to his clients prior to taking their cases?

“and it’s very… umm… you… you… you never do prepare enough” – Mr. Baez never prepares “enough”.  All of his recent hearing appearances support this statement.  Mr. Baez is telling the truth.  He “never” prepares “enough”.  This statement should bring vast comfort to his current client whose life may depend upon the outcome of this trial.  Ms. Finnell should take careful note of this statement and accelerate her own preparation as her services will be vital in the very near future.

We have learned through his own explicit statements, Mr. Baez is not prepared for this trial and never will be.

We have learned Mr. Baez is never prepared for any case.

We have learned Ms. Anthony needs to hear this interview for herself.

Does Jose Baez Know What He is Doing?

On April 5, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez gave an interview on a nationally broadcast television station during which he made remarks concerning how he initially became involved in the defense of Casey Anthony, currently on trial for the murder of her two year old daughter, Caylee Anthony.

The comments of Mr. Baez may be heard at the following link.

http://www.myspace.com/565006329/videos/video/107687473

Interviewer: “What made you decide that you wanted to take this case on and then what made you decide to be so committed to it?”

Jose Baez: “Well, heh… heh… unfortunately, I didn’t know what I was getting myself into when I… when I signed onto this case. If… if… if you recall, I was… when I met Casey Anthony… it… she… this case was not uhh…. highly publicized.  It grew and grew and grew from there, so…  it wasn’t a situation where I knew that this was going to be what it ended up being and umm… and I made a conscious decision, OK, I’m going to do this.  Not that I wouldn’t do it uhh… it’s just simply that it was not what I expected it to turn out to be.”

“Well, heh… heh…” – Mr. Baez begins his answer with nervous laughter.  Does he find his memories of agreeing to defend a client who brought him to the level of fame he is able to command instant national television access humorous?

“unfortunately” – Mr. Baez finds something about about the circumstances connected to his decision to represent Ms. Anthony to be unfortunate for himself.  By preceding his answer with this word, Mr. Baez informs the listeners he is about to reveal the aspect he considers unfortunate.

“I didn’t know what I was getting myself into when I… when I signed onto this case” – This is the unfortunate part of Mr. Baez’s decision.  Who is not favored by fortune?  Mr. Baez.  Why is he not favored by fortune?  Because he “didn’t know” what he was getting into.  Mr. Baez, a defense attorney who often claims to be competent, admits on national television he didn’t know what he was agreeing to when he took on Ms. Anthony as a client.  What exactly did Mr. Baez not know?  Ms. Anthony’s character?  The charges against her?  How to defend a client charged with a crime?

“getting myself into” – There is a hint of denial of personal responsibility in this phrase.  Mr. Baez tries to shift the decision from himself for the situation he is in to another, but the other is himself.

“I signed on to this case” – The case is close to Mr. Baez, it is “this case”, not “that” case.  Mr. Baez “signed on”, this is his action, not the action of any other, it is entirely his decision, his choice, but it does imply Ms. Anthony asked him to do so.

“If… if… if you recall” – Mr. Baez expects the interviewer to remember minutia about the personal and professional life of himself.  Mr. Baez sees himself and his life as worthy of the interest of national news professionals.

“I was… when I met Casey Anthony…” – What was Mr. Baez?  Inexperienced?  Inept?  Unknown?  Hungry for fame and fortune?  We do not know as he stops himself from completing his thought, but whatever he was when he “met Casey Anthony”, it is not what he believes himself to be today.

“it… she… this case was not uhh…. highly publicized” – Mr. Baez experiences significant trouble formulating this answer as he shifts from one unspeakable thought to another.  Mr. Baez is a poor off-the-cuff speaker whose mouth tends to get him into trouble by verbalizing the truth before he can commandeer his tongue to speak his preferred spin.  We do not know what “it” or “she” or even “this case was not” as he never finishes speaking these thoughts.

“highly publicized” – The key word is “highly”.  Mr. Baez states the case was “publicized”, therefore this was a reason for Mr. Baez signing on which he reveals by speaking the word.  Publicity was a factor in his decision.  He expected publicity, although the level of publicity surprised him.  Money from the client could not have been a factor as the client was penniless and, if Mr. Baez did not expect a national audience, he could not have expected an eventual lucrative licensing agreement for the exclusive use of family photos and videos with a national television broadcaster.  Mr. Baez did not take this case for payment in cash, but for payment in local advertising through local media interview opportunities.

“It grew and grew and grew from there” – Although he signed on for publicity, the continued growth of the attention on the case is sensitive to Mr. Baez as shown by his repeating the word “grew” three times.  The word “grew” also demonstrates this growth is not within the control of Mr. Baez, he is not able to either stop or start the growth.  The public attention on the case is not his to command, although he can take advantage of it as he does by calling this interviewer and receiving virtually immediate air time.

“so…  it wasn’t a situation where I knew that this was going to be what it ended up being” – Mr. Baez re-emphasizes he did not know what he was doing when he agreed to take the case, specifically in the area of public interest.  He did know the case was receiving local publicity and he knew what he was getting into at that level, but not now that the public interest and attention has grown beyond his control.  Mr. Baez distances himself from “this”, which he is close to, and what it has “ended up being” with “that”.  He liked it when he was in control, he does not like it now, even though he is utilizing his ability to speak to a national audience as he makes this remark.  Notice Mr. Baez tells us what the “situation” was not, but does not tell us what the “situation” was, which is an avoidance of the original question.

“and I made a conscious decision, OK, I’m going to do this” – After telling the listeners a moment before signing on was his decision, Mr. Baez now denies he “made a conscious decision”, implying the decision was subconscious, like his heartbeat or breathing.  Again, even though he made the decision, Mr. Baez attempts to shift the responsibility for the decision to someone else, but has no one else to whom to shift it.  Mr. Baez wants the audience to believe he did not make the decision to take the case.  Who does decide which defendants Mr. Baez represents if not Mr. Baez?  The phrasing is extremely interesting as the meaning Mr. Baez wishes to convey depends upon the listener attaching the previously used “not” from “wasn’t” to this portion of the sentence, but the actual wording states “I made a conscious decision, OK, I’m going to do this”, indicating this is exactly what occurred even though Mr. Baez is denying it.

“Not that I wouldn’t do it uhh…” – Mr. Baez flips and flops faster than a frog in a frying pan.  First, he didn’t know what he was deciding, then he was not the one making the decision, now he would make the decision even though he did not.  Mr. Baez may have realized after uttering the last sentence he sounds like a fool for stating on national television he doesn’t know what he is doing when he decides to represent clients.

“it’s just simply” – Mr. Baez plants a verbal signpost the next phrase will be of the utmost sensitivity to him and will not be “just simply” as he must convince the listeners of the “just simply” prior to his statement.

“that it was not what I expected it to turn out to be” – Mr. Baez begins his simple reason for regretting his decision to represent Ms. Anthony by distancing himself from his own statement with the word “that”.  What he is about to say is most likely not true.

“it was not what I expected it to turn out to be” – What about the case is “not what I expected it to turn out to be”?  Since Mr. Baez has focused on the publicity tied to the case, the listener probably assumes the national interest and coverage of the case.  But, it could be any aspect, from the state bringing charges of murder, to their eventual announcement they sought the death penalty, to the departures of key members of the defense team, to his own disappointing performance in court during the recent hearings.  None of this is what Mr. Baez “expected it to turn out to be”.  Interesting is his use of the word “was”, a past tense verb.  The case “was” not what Mr. Baez expected, but may now be what he currently expects.  When did the change in his expectation occur?

We have learned Mr. Baez has regrets about signing on to represent Ms. Anthony, although we did not learn exactly what he regrets or when he began regretting it.

We have learned Mr. Baez told a national television audience he did not know as a lawyer what he was getting himself into when he agreed to take on this client, as close to an admission of professional incompetence as could be given without stating he should not be an attorney.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not like what this case has become through its growth in publicity.

How Special is Jose Baez?

Defense attorney Jose Baez spoke during a hearing held April 8, 2011 about the car driven by his client and ultimately abandoned by her in a public parking lot where it was recovered and eventually returned to the legal owner, Cindy Anthony, who called the police stating the smell of a dead body emanated from the vehicle.  Without Mrs. Anthony’s call which summoned the police to her home, the disappearance of two year old Caylee Anthony may have never been known by anyone outside of the Anthony family as she had already been missing, but unreported to authorities as such, for more than thirty days.

The car is the catalyst which set into motion all of the events in the investigation, prosecution, and defense of death of Caylee Anthony which have occurred over the nearly three years since Mrs. Anthony’s 911 call and which are currently being resolved in a court of law.  A jury of twelve plus their alternates from another county are about to be forced from their homes and their loved ones for an undetermined period of time because of the recovery of this vehicle and the smell which permeated it to the point it filled a forensic investigation bay larger than the courtroom with a stench described by witnesses as overpowering and the worst odor they have smelled in their lives, an odor Mr. Baez suggests derives from Velveeta cheese even though the witness he put on the stand who transported the bag of garbage containing the box of Velveeta stated no residual smell remained in her car after the transport nor did she notice one during the transport.

As the initial piece of evidence in the disappearance of Caylee Anthony, the car was scrutinized using several scientific and investigative methods, all of which Mr. Baez is attempting to have suppressed from trial in the recent evidentiary hearings.

The comments of Mr. Baez in regards to the various tests and the car may be seen and heard at the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/user/S0meRand0mName#p/u/3/SWo1GBDxTAg

Jose Baez: “It… it’s funny how all of the new things that the state is attempting to introduce all revolve around this car, all of the air, the hair, the dog.  It’s as if they’re trying to put a square peg into a circle hole.  They are asking this court to take… to go into a territory where no judge has gone before. And they’re asking this court to admit highly speculative, highly controversial evidence in a case where there must be a heightened reliability.”

“it’s funny” – Mr. Baez finds “it”, which we assume to be the evidence produced by the state’s scientific and investigative methods, to be “funny”.  This word could be amusing or it could mean strange or odd.  But if Mr. Baez finds the introduction of evidence by the state to be strange or odd, why does he utilize the word “funny” which carries with it a connotation of fun, amusement, entertainment, frivolity?  In the serious setting of a capital murder trial and at the end of a series of hearings in which the state has extracted testimony from defense experts admitting the scientific methods employed by the state experts is generally accepted in the scientific community, why is Mr. Baez thinking in terms of “funny”?

“how all of the new things that the state is attempting to introduce” – What is “new” about the “things”?  None of the scientific methods utilized by state experts are “new”, although some of the ways in which the findings are being utilized are novel, much as preparing bacon and eggs for breakfast is not new, but combining them into a casserole served at dinner may be novel.  The “state” is not “attempting to introduce” as the state has introduced.  Mr. Baez and the defense team are “attempting” to suppress the evidence, but the evidence has been introduced and is a part of the court file and discovery.  Mr. Baez attempts to distance himself from the evidence with the word “that”.  The word “things” is a verbal dismissal of the evidence which minimizes the importance of the state’s findings.

“all revolve around this car” – The word “all” indicates sensitivity to the evidence as it is used twice in the same sentence to encompass “all” the evidence.  This phrase is a window into the mind of Mr. Baez.  He is the one who determined to what “all” refers.  He defined “all” through the filing of his motions.  These hearings have all revolved around the evidence which he chose to combat.  This is not “all” of the evidence the state has against his client.  It is true “all” of the evidence covered in these hearings revolve around “this car”, a car which is close to Mr. Baez as demonstrated by the use of “this”, but only because “all” of the evidence Mr. Baez chose to attempt to suppress through Frye hearings came from the car.  To Mr. Baez, “this car” is vital in the case against his client which is the reason he is attempting to suppress every piece of evidence which came from the car just as he attempted to suppress the statements made by Mrs. Anthony concerning the smell which poured from the trunk.  Mr. Baez’s thoughts and concerns “revolve around this car”.

“all of the air, the hair, the dog” – Air testing is not new, hair testing is not new, dog searches are not new, but they all concern Mr. Baez.  The defense experts all admitted the scientific methods employed to test the air and the hair are generally accepted.  Dogs are excellent indicators of various odoriferous items such as drugs, wild game, live humans, and dead bodies and have been employed as such for hundreds of years.

“into a territory where no judge has gone before” – Judges make routinely make decisions about the suppression of scientific evidence from trial.  This judge has been there many time “before”.  This is not new “territory” for a judge.

“to admit highly speculative, highly controversial evidence” – The interpretation of the “evidence” may be “highly speculative, highly controversial”, the “evidence” itself is not.  However, the “evidence is “highly” sensitive to Mr. Baez.

“in a case where there must be a heightened reliability” – Mr. Baez believes this case, perhaps simply because of his own involvement, requires “heightened reliability”, “heightened” above the “reliability” required for any other case.  Why does this case warrant an increased standard of evidence as opposed to any other case being tried in the state of Florida?  How does this case differ from any other case?  Why does Mr. Baez consistently feel he is entitled to special treatment?  There is a sensitivity demonstrated through three references in one sentence to height.

We have learned even in the face of almost certain defeat in terms of the motions argued at these hearings, Mr. Baez finds the proceedings amusing and entertaining.

We have learned Mr. Baez has been and remains concerned about the car which smells like death his client drove and abandoned during the thirty plus days she did not report her daughter missing to police or even her own family and friends.

We have learned Mr. Baez continues to believe he and his client deserve special treatment which no other defendant and defense attorney receive in the state of Florida.

Can Jose Baez Be Called a Good Trial Lawyer?

On April 1, 2011, a hearing was held in preparation for the trial of the suspect of the murder of two-year-old Caylee Anthony.  After attempting to introduce new evidence and receiving multiple scoldings by the court, defense attorney Jose Baez began to ask a defense expert a series of questions based upon a specific report, a report which was not provided to either the prosecution or the court.  Prosecutor Jeff Ashton requested a copy of the referenced report, as well as a short recess during which he would read it.

The actions of Mr. Baez leading up to this moment may be seen and heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27399675/index.html

Instructions and commentary provided by the court about this issue may be seen and heard at the beginning of the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27400279/index.html

Judge Perry: “Folks, since y’all don’t quite understand the subtleties of trial practice, from now on if you have a document that you gonna have a witness refer to it, please have a copy for your opponent and a copy for the court.  Those are things that so-called good trial lawyers will do.  If you don’t have that and you don’t have those to provide during the trial, don’t use it.”

“Folks” – Although Judge Perry uses the word “folks” to address both sides, his comments are aimed at the party which did not provide copies of the report to both their “opponent” and “the court”, Mr. Baez.

“since y’all don’t quite understand the subtleties of trial practice” – Judge Perry refers to “y’all” which would indicate multiple individuals who do not “quite understand” their duties when trying a case.  Since the defense is at fault for not providing copies of the report to all sides, Judge Perry is most likely referring to Mr. Baez and his co-counsel, Cheney Mason, and perhaps Dorothy Sims.

“quite understand” – The judge is a master of subtlety himself, as well as consistently maintaining a professional demeanor and demanding the same from the those who practice law in his courtroom.  He has couched his statement of the lack of understanding by Mr. Baez about trial behavior in the nicest manner possible.

“Those are things that so-called good trial lawyers will do” – The judge distances himself from “those” things which “good trial lawyers will do”, most likely because “those” things are not happening in his courtroom.  He cannot refer to “these” because such “things” are not occurring near him.  “Those” are distant from the actions of Mr. Baez, meaning Mr. Baez a part of the group of “so-called good trial lawyers”.  Mr. Baez cannot be called a “good trial” lawyer.  If Mr. Baez is not a good trial lawyer, he must be the opposite.  Mr. Baez is a bad trial lawyer.

We have learned the court does not believe all attorneys who are called “good trial lawyers” truly are as indicated by the phrase “so-called”.  Only one attorney for the defendant is a “so-called good” trial attorney.  The court is disappointed in the performance of Mr. Mason.

We have learned the court does not see in Mr. Baez the behavior inherent in a good trial attorney.

We have learned the court does not believe Mr. Baez has an understanding of the subtleties of trial practice.

We have learned the education of Mr. Baez continues at the expense of the taxpayers, and ultimately, the life of his client.

We have learned Mr. Baez may not be able to operate a copy machine or be capable of enough forethought to request his employee, Michelle Medina, to do so for him.

When we add what we have learned from the comments of the court to earlier articles by this author, we learn Mr. Baez has a consistent problem providing necessary evidence, whether it be documents or photographs, to either his own team, his opponents, or the court.  Mr. Baez consistently flaunts his responsibilities as an officer of the court and as a man holding the life of another in his hands.

Is Cheney Mason the Stupidest Attorney on the Face of the Earth?

On Thursday, March 31, 2011, defense attorney Cheney Mason, a man who predicted defending Casey Anthony from a charge of first degree murder would be “fun”, answered a local reporter’s question as he exited the court building, the same place he predicted he would stroll away from arm in arm with his client in late May or early June 2011.

The exchange between the reporter and Mr. Mason may be seen and heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27389076/index.html

Kathi Belich: “Do you believe the judge is biased?”

Cheney Mason: “You are probably the stupidest reporter on the face of the Earth.  Get out of my way.”

“You are probably” – This is a weak statement.  If Mr. Mason truly believed Ms. Belich is “the stupidest reporter on the face of the Earth”, he would not have needed to insert the extra weakening word “probably”.  If Mr. Mason does not believe Ms. Belich is “the stupidest”, what does he believe about Ms. Belich?  Most “probably”, he believes the opposite.  In regards to this case, she is “probably” the most knowledgeable, at least in the mind of Mr. Mason whose use of an umbrella to shield himself from the questions of Ms. Belich reveals his fear of her tenacity which will not allow him to escape his past comments and court filings.

Why does Mr. Mason feel a need to use a physical shield?  He feels a need to protect himself.  A man who feels a need to protect himself feels vulnerable.  A man who feels vulnerable fears a force outside himself.  A knight in battle used a shield to protect himself from the attacks of others because he feared the damage such an attack would inflict on his body.  Mr. Mason feels he is under attack by Ms. Belich and fears the damage such an attack will inflict on his psyche and his reputation.

Why does Mr. Mason feel he is under attack?  The question of Ms. Belich reflects the words Mr. Mason employed in a recent court filing in which he stated the judge made a decision which went against the defense because he had a bias towards law enforcement.  Mr. Mason fears his own words.

Why does Mr. Mason fear his own words?  Mr. Mason used the same words as weapons to attack another.  Therefore, Mr. Mason believes any use of the same words is an attack.  Ms. Belich uses Mr. Mason’s words in the question she poses to Mr. Mason, who views such words as weapons aimed against him.

Mr. Mason flees from Ms. Belich, unable to stand his ground and compete in her chosen field of words even though his chosen field is the same.

We have learned Mr. Mason is terrified of Ms. Belich, so terrified he is physically unable to face her and mentally unable to formulate a coherent response to her question, resorting to hurling insults in a feeble attempt to drive her away, much as unarmed villagers might ineffectively hurl stones at an elephant to drive it from the streets of the town.

We have learned Mr. Mason hides behind an umbrella from his fearsome foe in a manner his co-counsel would “probably” describe as “like a little girl”, an insult Mr. Mason’s co-counsel hurled at the prosecutor during a deposition.  Is Mr. Mason having “fun” hiding from Ms. Belich?

We have learned Mr. Mason is vying mightily with his co-counsel, Jose Baez, for the title “stupidest” attorney “on the face of the Earth”.  Who will win?  Only the defendant, Casey Anthony, will be able to give a definitive answer as she enters the chamber in which she will face the combined result of her defense team’s stupidity and her own terrible actions, the ultimate penalty which can be imposed by the state of Florida, the loss of her life.