Objection Sustained: The Story of Jose Baez’s Bizarre Imaginarium

Although I have not had the time to post my regular series of articles chronicling the grammatical misadventures of defense attorney Jose Baez and his cast of crazed cronies, I have been watching the trial with interest.

At first only irritating as a result of his lack of legal knowledge, the courtroom efforts of Mr. Baez have been elevated to the level of excruciating to witness since the prosecution rested their case in chief.

Much like the regular character Norm on the sitcom Cheers or a WWE wrestler entering the ring, a catchphrase is heard when Mr. Baez takes to the podium.  “Objection Sustained” rings from the bench after many of the questions of the defense.

If preparation and forethought are the hallmarks of excellent attorneys, woe is the defense.  If Mr. Baez thought ahead or prepared for the witnesses being called by the defense, would he ever tell the court he is searching for the correct phrasing of his queries as he has done countless times?  If Mr. Mason has prepared for the motion to move for mistrial based on insufficient evidence, would he have needed to rely on the state’s submittal of case research with his weak assertion all cases supported his request?  If Ms. Sims had prepared, would she have repeatedly referred to numbered pictures the forensic technician witness stated were not in her report or taken by her?

Does Mr. Baez even understand how discovery works?  This week he argued by being given the entirety of evidence held by the state in the form of a copy of the data from the hard drive of the Anthony home computer, the state had pursued a strategy of overwhelming the defense with an abundance of evidence.  In other words, Mr. Baez, the same attorney who has complained repeatedly the state withheld evidence, is now claiming the state gave him too much evidence.

Ms. Burdick pointed out in open court the hard drive contains data which can be used to disprove much of the opening statement delivered by Mr. Baez.  She left it to the court and the onlookers to surmise Mr. Baez never bothered to analyze the hard drive to discover if there was anything to disprove his opening statement.  However, we should also infer he never searched the hard drive for exculpatory evidence.  Why not?  Because he did not need to search for what he knew was not there to be found.

Does Mr. Baez really believe he is winning points with the jury by ridiculing the accomplishments and careers of expert witnesses?  In the past week, Mr. Baez has insulted an expert witness by stating his scientific methods were open to contamination and lacked quality control.  He then went on to ridicule a personal friend of the witness.  Mr. Baez later asked an expert witness the number of “meaningless” jobs she performed for the FBI.

Beyond bad manners, the strategic wisdom of recalling state expert witnesses to give the additional time to explain their scientific analysis of the evidence is questionable.  Mr. Baez is so audacious he believes he can manipulate an expert in their own field of testimony even though some of the experts have been giving testimony longer than Mr. Baez has practiced law, attended law school, and stayed current on child support combined.

Why does Mr. Baez need to address the forensic evidence at all?  He has already admitted the death of the child and the presence of his client at the scene.  What does it matter if the body was in the trunk?  Is that not as plausible as not reporting the death for 31 days?  Does it change an accident to a murder if she put the body in the trunk?

I’ve heard a lot of praise for Mr. Baez on talking head shows and in the media.  Some say he is dismantling the prosecution’s case, usually the same ones who believe the prosecution’s case was weak.  I’ve been scoring this event since the first bell and I have yet to show a single point for the defense.

I’m two days behind on court proceedings, so it’s back to the web reruns for me.

Does Jose Baez Know When Caylee Anthony Died?

What makes a good lie?  Defense attorney Jose Baez seems to agree with his client more details make for better lies.  But just how important are details?

In his opening statement in the defense of Casey Anthony against charges of first-degree murder, Mr. Baez offered a new explanation for Ms. Anthony neglecting to report her daughter missing for 31 days.  Mr. Baez stated there was no need to report little Caylee missing as she was never missing, but dead after drowning in the Anthony pool.  The exact words of Mr. Baez may be heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/28009322/index.html

Jose Baez: “On June 16, 2008, Casey was home with Caylee and so was her father.  Early morning hours, the exact time is not known, it could have been early afternoon… early morning… actually, it was the early morning hours.  George Anthony approached Casey and started yelling at her, “Where’s Caylee?  Where’s Caylee?”.

“the exact time is not known” – Mr. Baez would have the jury and public believe the story he now tells came from his client.  But if this series of events originated with his client, either truth or lie, wouldn’t she have included a specific time?  Ms. Anthony is nothing if not detail-oriented in her verbal epics.  Would she have left out the critical time of the event?  Perhaps an even more important question is, did Mr. Baez even practice his opening statement one time?  Wouldn’t he have noticed this little detail problem the first time through?

“yelling” – Why are the queries of George Anthony, the responsible adult in the situation, the only one who notices the young child is missing, characterized as yelling?  Are voices raised in alarm at imagined dangers of all sorts to an unwitting toddler really not to be expected in such a situation?  Mr. Baez attempts to present his client as victim even when by his own telling of the event the true victim is Caylee Anthony, unwatched and struggling for breath in the family pool while her mother attends to hurt feelings over harsh tones.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not know when Caylee Anthony died.  Either his client did not tell him or his story is not valid.

We have learned when someone makes up a story as he speaks in which the details fall apart before he finishes, the events the speaker chronicles must be held in doubt by the listeners.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes drowning children are not suitable subjects for raised voices or alarm.

Does Jose Baez Speak in Circles?

In his opening statement in the murder trial of Casey Anthony, defense attorney Jose Baez blamed his client’s propensity for lying on her parents.  He spoke of the desire of George and Cindy Anthony to hide from the public anything they felt would be embarrassing to the family.  To do so, they would lie, and taught Casey Anthony to lie by their example.

Mr. Baez claimed the Anthonys did not want anyone to know Casey Anthony was pregnant out-of-wedlock.  Mr. Baez stated his client decided to make her pregnancy known and took a specific action to do so.  The exact words of Mr. Baez may be heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/28009322/index.html

Jose Baez: “Now, another thing you’ll hear is when Casey didn’t want to hide this anymore, she went to Cindy’s job and… in the middle of the summertime in July wearing an overcoat, a hot summer day wearing a huge coat to hide her pregnancy.”

“When Casey didn’t want to hide this anymore” – We assume “this” refers to Ms. Anthony’s pregnancy.  Ms. Anthony made a decision she “didn’t want to hide this anymore”.  Therefore, she reversed a previous decision to “hide this”.  Even if the decision to “hide this” was not hers alone, Ms. Anthony did actively “hide this” of her own accord.  She was not forced to “hide this” and she made the decision to not “hide this anymore”.

“wearing a huge coat to hide her pregnancy” – This is the action Ms. Anthony took when she decided she “didn’t want to hide this anymore”.  In order to accomplish her goal of not hiding “this anymore”, Ms. Anthony voluntarily wrapped herself in a “huge coat to hide her pregnancy”.  If Ms. Anthony had decided not to hide her pregnancy, why did she wear a “huge coat” “in the middle of the summertime in July” on “a hot summer day” for the express purpose of hiding “her pregnancy”?  Who really wanted to keep the pregnancy a secret?

As part of his presentation to prove Ms. Anthony was forced by her parents to keep her pregnancy a secret, Mr. Baez showed a picture of Ms. Anthony attending the wedding of her uncle.  Ms. Anthony is obviously swelled in the middle which does make her appear to the casual observer as a pregnant female.  Mr. Baez mentions people present at the event asked about the identity of the pregnant girl.  If Ms. Anthony’s parents desired to keep the pregnancy quiet, why did they take Ms. Anthony to a social gathering in a dress which so clearly showed her pregnant state her attorney was able to use a picture from the event as visual evidence Mrs. Anthony did go out in public with the pregnant Ms. Anthony?  Why did Mrs. Anthony not force her daughter to wear a coat to the wedding?

We have learned Mr. Baez believes Ms. Anthony wearing an overcoat for the specific reason of hiding her pregnancy is evidence she had made a decision to not hide her pregnancy.

We have learned Mr. Baez relies upon circular logic.

We have learned Mr. Baez should consider not using pictures of Ms. Anthony while she is pregnant and her parents at a social event in a grouping of many others to convince the jury the Anthonys were trying to keep her pregnancy secret.

Is Jose Baez Desperate?

 

During his opening statement in the trial of Casey Anthony on May 24, 2011, defense attorney Jose Baez stated the investigation of his client by law enforcement and the State of Florida was thorough.  He then went on to describe his only problem in regards to the investigation.  His words may be heard at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/28009322/index.html

Jose Baez: “Now, the problem with this investigation that you will find is that it reached the level of desperation and that’s going to be covered throughout my opening statement and my opening remarks.  At what point do we stop speculating?  At what point do we stop guessing?  At what point to we stop being so desperate?”

“Now, the problem with this investigation that you will find” – Mr. Baez is addressing the jury.  He hopes to persuade the members of the jury they “will find” the same problem with the investigation he claims to have found.

“is that it reached the level of desperation” – The word “that” distances Mr. Baez from reaching “the level of desperation”.  He is pushing this idea away from himself, but at the same time he is claiming this is what he found.  Did he really find the police had sunk to “the level of desperation” while conducting their thorough investigation?  What is “the level of desperation”?

“At what point do we stop speculating?” – What is the speculation of which Mr. Baez speaks?  Who is “we”?  Obviously, the term “we” includes Mr. Baez as he is the one using the pronoun.  After these statements, he goes on to speculate about the “most likely” conclusion of the evidence.  At what point will Mr. Baez “stop speculating”?

“At what point do we stop guessing?” – Mr. Baez again includes himself with the guessers, indicating Mr. Baez’s speculations are no closer to the truth than any others.  He is “guessing” along with everyone else he includes in “we”.

“At what point to we stop being so desperate?” – Another “we”, another inclusion of Mr. Baez in an undefined group of “desperate” people.  Mr. Baez is “desperate”.  Mr. Baez is “so desperate”.

We have learned Mr. Baez, on the first day of the trial, told the jury he, the lead attorney for the defense, is desperate.

We have learned Mr. Baez, on the first day of the trial, told the jury he,the lead attorney for the defense, is speculating when he tells them what happened to Caylee Anthony.

We have learned Mr. Baez, on the first day of the trial, told the jury he, the lead attorney for the defense, found only a single problem with the investigation, namely his own desperation for a different conclusion.

Does Jose Baez Believe His Own Opening Statement?

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?

Who Thinks the Local Media Is Harmful to the Trial?

On May 10, 2011, the defense team for Casey Anthony which claimed in open court the local media made a fair trial impossible for their client and beseeched the judge to bar the media from the courtroom granted a short interview to a local Orlando media station.

The comments of two lackluster attorneys may be seen and heard at the following link:

http://www.cfnews13.com/video?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/casey-defense-0510.flv&vtitle=EXCLUSIVE:%20Casey%20Anthony%20team%27s%20secret%20strategy

Jose Baez: “The court of public opinion is probably the most uneducated courtroom in the entire country.”

“probably” – The opinion of Mr. Baez is not a strongly held opinion on his part.  This is a statement of what could be, not necessarily what is.  The “court of public opinion” may be “uneducated”, but it may also not be “uneducated”.

Although the “court of public opinion” is most likely to be the “most uneducated”, if it is not the “most uneducated”, then what court is?  Mr. Baez states there is a hierarchy of educational elevations among courtrooms in “the entire country”, but only presents one possibility for the least educated.  How educated is the one in which he practices?  Will Mr. Baez be educating his courtroom?  In the first three minutes?

“entire country” – Not the “entire state” or “entire county”, which is where the defense team’s attention should be, but the “entire country” which is the potential audience for Geraldo, In Session, and 48 Hours.

Jose Baez: “The heart-shaped sticker. There is no sticker, even though it’s been clearly discussed in court.”

“There is no sticker” – What does Mr. Baez mean by this statement?  “There is no sticker” anywhere?  Or “there is no” heart-shaped “sticker”?  Or “there is no” heart-shaped “sticker” in evidence?  in existence?  which ever existed?  We do not know, we only know one thing about the “no sticker”.

What do we know about the “no sticker”?  “It’s been clearly discussed in court”.  Has the sticker been discussed clearly in court or has testimony by a lab technician who recorded seeing a sticky residue upon the surface of the duct tape found wound around Caylee Anthony’s head during testing of the tape which resulted in the destruction of the residue been the subject of discussion?

Cheney Mason:  “It’s undisputed. They have no idea the cause of death.  They don’t know how this child died.”

“They have no idea the cause of death” – Mr. Mason may not be following this case as closely as he should.  Mr. Ashton has given a fairly detailed scenario of “the cause of death” in open court.  It would seem “they” have a pretty good “idea”.  The medical examiner is confident “the cause of death” is homicide.

“They don’t know how this child died” – Who is “they”?  We assume the prosecution, but perhaps Mr. Mason refers to the jury.  Does Mr. Mason “know how this child died”?  Obviously, Mr. Mason is not a part of “they”.  If “they” don’t know, then who does know?  Those who are not part of “they”?  Those like Mr. Mason?

“this child” – This is the manner in which Mr. Mason references the deceased daughter of his client.  Her name is Caylee Anthony.

We have learned more than we want to know about both of these gentlemen and we will learn much more in the next eight weeks.

If Mr. Baez Doesn’t Know How He Became Lead Defense Attorney in the Caylee Anthony Murder Trial, Who Does?

A mere two weeks before jury selection in the most prominent case in which defense attorney Jose Baez has ever been involved, let alone led the defense efforts, he found time to give a lengthy multi-part interview to a national television news organization.  During the interview, Mr. Baez is asked questions about how he met his client Ms. Anthony.  The comments of Mr. Baez may be seen and heard at the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkIDPgvXAgo

Reporter: “How did you get to this spot?  Running one of the biggest cases many people say since OJ, how did you get to this place?”

Jose Baez: “I really don’t know.  And that’s my honest… that’s my honest uhh… answer.”

“really” – This word is a signpost of dishonesty.  The presence of this word in a declarative statement forces the astute listener to question the truthfulness of the statement because the speaker is highlighting a personal sensitivity to his statements being accepted as truth, especially the statement to which the “really” applies.  Does Mr. Baez “really” not know?  Since Mr. Baez and the reporter treat this answer as a joke, the audience is led to believe this is not the true answer and Mr. Baez does “really” know how he became involved in the Casey Anthony case and how he ended up on national television giving an exclusive interview just two short weeks prior to jury selection in the biggest trial of his career.

Reporter: “How did you end up getting involved with Casey Anthony?”

Jose Baez: “Well… apparently, there were a couple of people in the jail that referred…gave her my name and referred me to her.  So… I’ve heard people say “Ahh, he’s lucky this landed on his lap”, and it didn’t do that.”

“apparently” – This word is another of the easily spotted signposts of dishonesty.  This word allows the speaker to shed personal responsibility for the statement as this is not his answer, but the apparent answer, the answer all can see.  Mr. Baez is not attempting to shed any light on subject, in fact, he is avoiding answering the question.  Mr. Baez states what he believes everyone already knows.

“there were a couple of people in the jail” – Mr. Baez states there were an unknown “couple” who gave his name to Ms. Anthony.  Although there is an urban myth Ms. Anthony was referred to Mr. Baez by someone she spoke to in jail, no such person has ever come forward and taken public credit for this act in almost three years.  Now, Mr. Baez adds a second such person to the myth.

“referred me to her” – This phrase is confusing as it could mean someone referred Mr. Baez as an attorney to Ms. Anthony or it could be the reverse, someone referred “me”, Mr. Baez, to Ms. Anthony as a client.  In other words, this sentence could mean someone at the jail notified Mr. Baez of a possible client in need of his services.

“it didn’t do that” – This case did not land in the lap of Mr. Baez.  He did something, he put forth effort, he affected events, so this case became his.  Mr. Baez is affirming he did not become involved in this case by accident and he does know how he became involved contrary to his initial answer of “I really don’t know”.

Jose Baez: “So, I think I landed this case through hard work.”

Mr. Baez thinks, but others may “think” differently.  The belief of Mr. Baez is he “landed this case through hard work”.   Mr. Baez worked and the result of his efforts was involvement in this case.  Mr. Baez put forth effort to become involved in this case.  Others “think” Mr. Baez did not work to get this case, but he knows he did.  What did Mr. Baez do to convince Casey Anthony he was the attorney she needed?

We have learned Mr. Baez knows how he became involved in this case and with Casey Anthony.

We have learned Mr. Baez does not wish to reveal any details of the first meeting between himself and Ms. Anthony.

We have learned Mr. Baez worked to become a part of this case, work he was able to accomplish in less than a day as he was the attorney of record the day after Ms. Anthony was booked into jail.

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.