On May 24, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez delivered his opening statement to the jury in the trial of Casey Anthony, accused of murdering her two-year old daughter Caylee Anthony in June of 2008.
After claiming Caylee Anthony had accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool after exiting the Anthony residence under her own power, Mr. Baez went on to describe the reaction of his client to the unexpected death of her little girl. The statements of Mr. Baez may be seen and heard at the following link.
http://www.wftv.com/video/28009322/index.html
“On June 16th, 2008, after Caylee died, Casey did what she’s been doing all her life or for most of it, hiding her pain. Going into that dark corner and pretending that she does not live in… in the situation that she’s living in. She went back to that deep dark ugly place called denial to pretend as if nothing was wrong. And you’ll see as the evidence comes in that that is the most likely conclusion of the evidence. That something’s not right here. Something’s not right with this girl.”
“On June 16th, 2008, after Caylee died” – Mr. Baez unequivocally states Caylee Marie Anthony died on June 16, 2008. The rest of the statement concerns the actions of Casey Anthony “after Caylee died”.
“Casey did what she’s been doing all her life” – Ms. Anthony acted after Caylee’s death exactly the same as she has “all her life”. The behavior of Ms. Anthony did not change due to Caylee’s death. Ms. Anthony continued as if no change had occurred in her life. There is no difference in the behavior of Ms. Anthony as witnessed prior to the death of Caylee or after. Prior to the death of Caylee, Ms. Anthony stole and lied. After the death of Caylee, Ms. Anthony stole and lied. None of the actions of Ms. Anthony after Caylee’s death can be contributed to or excused as a reaction to Caylee’s demise.
“or for most of it” – Mr. Baez serves the jury a verbal waffle. He turns a strong statement into a weak one by redefining “all of her life” to “most of it”. Mr. Baez is not sure about this statement. Maybe Ms. Anthony has always acted like this and maybe she hasn’t. But whether she has or she hasn’t, none of what she does can be explained by her feelings and emotional reactions to the death of her child because no one can discern a difference in her actions prior or post.
“hiding her pain” – Mr. Baez explains Ms. Anthony was “hiding her pain” when she refused to cooperate with police during the investigation for her missing daughter and sent them on a wild goose chase for Zanny the Nanny. Mr. Baez understands the jury will come to realize the actions of Ms. Anthony indicate she was attempting to hide something, so he gives them an object to focus their attention, the “pain” of Ms. Anthony. Will the jury believe this or will they also notice she could have been hiding her guilt or her responsibility in the murder and disposal of her daughter?
“Going into that dark corner and pretending that she does not live in… in the situation that she’s living in” – The word “live” or its variation “living” appears twice in this sentence. “Living” is important to Mr. Baez. Keeping his client “living” is the responsibility he has assumed.
“She went back to that deep dark ugly place called denial to pretend as if nothing was wrong” – “Denial” is “ugly”. Is this foreshadowing a claim of “ugly coping” later in the trial? Notice, this is what Ms. Anthony did after Caylee was dead. This is not a statement of innocence of murder. This does not explain how Caylee left the land of the living. Mr. Baez is concentrating on the period of time after Caylee died, even though he claims the “31 days” are a distraction. For Mr. Baez, they are a distraction as such is how he utilizes them to distract the jury from the event of importance, the homicide of Caylee.
“And you’ll see as the evidence comes in that that is the most likely conclusion of the evidence.” – This sentence is the key to the entire opening statement of Mr. Baez. This sentence demonstrates the lack of belief Mr. Baez has in his own remarks. “You” is the jury and perhaps the home audience. The jury will “see” from the “evidence” several possibilities. Mr. Baez claims the “most likely” possibility is Ms. Anthony was in a state of denial over the loss of her daughter. It is important to note Mr. Baez DOES NOT state this is the “conclusion” or this is the truth. The other possibilities remain “likely” even if Mr. Baez does not personally deem them “most likely”. Mr. Baez does not exclude the other conclusions to be drawn from the “evidence”. Mr. Baez provides the jury with his preferred conclusion, but he does not assure the jury his conclusion is the correct conclusion, that it is true, that his client told him this information, or that he believes in it personally. Notice the double “that that” which distances Mr. Baez from “the most likely conclusion of the evidence”.
“Something’s not right with this girl” – Truth does issue from the mouth of Mr. Baez when he least expects it.
We have learned Mr. Baez has locked Ms. Anthony into a corner by nailing down one of the few facts which did lend reasonable doubt to the defense, the exact date of the death of Caylee Anthony. If no one could definitively state when Caylee died, the defense could have maintained a kidnapping may have occurred, someone else had Caylee, and murdered her after Ms. Anthony was confined to jail. Instead, Mr. Baez has managed to place his client at the scene and time of the death.
We have learned Mr. Baez is not willing to verify the truth of his statements in regards to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. He is willing to toss out possibilities, but he is not willing to commit to even his prefered possibility. If Mr. Baez cannot demonstrate a personal belief in the story he tells, how can the jury place faith in it?
Tags: Andrea Lyon, casey anthony, caylee anthony, cheney mason, cindy anthony, dorothy sims, george anthony, jose baez, judge perry, Kathi Belich, Lee Anthony, Linda Kenney Baden