2010.05.11 Jose Baez talking with reporters

[Turnadot]

If, as JB claims, KC is innocent why would they even challenge the duct tape???

I don't believe LE ventured a theory about the duct tape, that would be SA's department based on crime scene photos, interviews and the ME report.

BBM

Of course Baez claims KC is innocent - so do I, from a legal stand point. She is innocent until proven guilty. So Baez is right, imo. If I were a defense attorney, that's exactly what I would say. 'My client is innocent...' or 'My client is innocent of these charges, blah blah blah...' Even if intellectually I knew, based upon the evidence, that my client did indeed kill their child, sister, stranger, etc.

So I see these as two separate things.

I think Baez is challenging the duct tape because it appears his defense strategy is "straw clutching" and "spaghetti toss".

...imo

 

[Dells]

If, as JB claims, KC is innocent why would they even challenge the duct tape???

I don't believe LE ventured a theory about the duct tape, that would be SA's department based on crime scene photos, interviews and the ME report.

I am in total agreement w/you.

 

[LambChop]

So what did we learn from the talk with reporters. Duct tape.....huge problem, HUGE.

 

[Turnadot]

So what did we learn from the talk with reporters. Duct tape.....huge problem, HUGE.

Baez is blowing smoke, imo. Just like he did when he claimed to have proof that Caylee's remains were dumped in the swamp after KC went to jail. Whatever came of that? Not. A. Thing.

 

[denjet]

I just listened to that raw interview. JB most definitely was polite to all the reporters, including K. Belich. I think he got a SEVERE talking to after he stormed off last week. I don;t know who talked to him, but it has had a dramatic effect.

What made me shake my head in disbelief was his statement that finding Caylee's remains did not make that much difference as the State had already indicted KC! Not that much of a difference??? To me, that was one of the most callous comments I have ever heard him make.

Yes, his attitude was completely turned around ... someone took him aside, definitely ...
What I find interesting is WFTV is an ABC affiliate and although Baez will take money from ABC on the one hand, he's been nothing but rude and argumentative when it comes to WFTV, specifically Kathi Belich ...
It was strange that he actually answered her questions, and quite a few ... most of the questions in that presser came from Kathi ...
Hmmmm, makes me wonder WHO gave Baez a talking to ?:waitasec:

 

[denjet]

He does seem more somber and much more polite, especially to KBelich..

He's talking about the duct tape and he doesn't believe, he actually said it's not conclusive because a PO said it...is he serious???

When was it placed there, who placed it there or how it was placed there..I couldn't catch what is said in the last couple of minutes when he tells the male reporter, come on, your better than that! Something about the videos of Caylee she sold...at around 6:20 mark...

Other than that, I agree, not sarcastic, at least till the ending...JMHO


Justice for Caylee

Quite a switch-a-roo ! He was rude to Bob Kealing of WESH (one of Baez's favorite go to stations) and polite to Kathi B .... :waitasec:

 

[notthatsmart]

You bring up a good point that the jury shouldn't only take LE's word on things. The same is true for the defense as well. Just because JB says something, that doesn't make it fact either. That's why I think it is important to allow the jury the chance to see as much of the evidence as possible so that they will be able to come to their own conclusions on things.

I think the same thing could be said about the pictures of Casey partying after Caylee went missing. In court, the defense said that pictures of Casey partying on June 20th have nothing to do w/Caylee being missing. The prosecution disagrees and I believe they think it goes to show her frame of mind and it goes to show that she was not out looking for her missing daughter her every waking moment like she told LE. I say let the jury see those pictures of Casey partying so that they can make up their own minds.

I think the dispute on the photos would be to make sure that Sa is not using the photos based on the way she was dressed to show she was a bad mom. If Sa just wants to show Kc was out while they say her daughter was missing, it probably won't be an issue. So, I agree in that context, they should look at the photos. I think June 20 is a problem as well when no one has time of death.

There is another problem with the child missing scenario and I am not sure how to explain it, but I will try to give an example.

1: Baby goes to babysitter on day one.
2: Babysitter calls and says were at the beach or amusment park.
3: Babysitter phone number no longer works, but still recieves a call
4: Babysitter calls on day 5, says were in Miami.
5: Mother still thinks everything is fine and has talked to baby.
6: Week 2 Mother begins to worry and has someone helping her find baby.
7: Day 31 realizes that baby has been missing all along and has been fooled.
8: End of Example or hypothetical, not fact......not opinion

Many posters are going retro or backwards to prove their theory or to try to state as fact.

Because she says on day 31 that her child has been missing for 31 days, does not mean she knew on day 1 thru 30 that her child was missing. It is just selective on peoples part to assume what she knew on July 15th she knew all along. It will have to be established in court exactly when she realized there was a problem. IMO

 

[ecs5298]

I think the dispute on the photos would be to make sure that Sa is not using the photos based on the way she was dressed to show she was a bad mom. If Sa just wants to show Kc was out while they say her daughter was missing, it probably won't be an issue. So, I agree in that context, they should look at the photos. I think June 20 is a problem as well when no one has time of death.

There is another problem with the child missing scenario and I am not sure how to explain it, but I will try to give an example.

1: Baby goes to babysitter on day one.
2: Babysitter calls and says were at the beach or amusment park.
3: Babysitter phone number no longer works, but still recieves a call
4: Babysitter calls on day 5, says were in Miami.
5: Mother still thinks everything is fine and has talked to baby.
6: Week 2 Mother begins to worry and has someone helping her find baby.
7: Day 31 realizes that baby has been missing all along and has been fooled.
8: End of Example or hypothetical, not fact......not opinion

Many posters are going retro or backwards to prove their theory or to try to state as fact.

Because she says on day 31 that her child has been missing for 31 days, does not mean she knew on day 1 thru 30 that her child was missing. It is just selective on peoples part to assume what she knew on July 15th she knew all along. It will have to be established in court exactly when she realized there was a problem. IMO

Your posts never cease to amaze me!

 

[jon_burrows]

If you go back jb did state during that time that kc was living at his office that they were preparing for this....He said that several times--that was why she was there all the time--working on the defense and possiblity of charges to come...

Casey said in her jail house visits that she needed to get out of jail to help find Caylee, not to prepare for a murder defense and wheel and deal to the highest bidder for pictures of her deceased child.

JB and Casey need to get their stories straight.

IMO

 

[Turnadot]

I think the dispute on the photos would be to make sure that Sa is not using the photos based on the way she was dressed to show she was a bad mom. If Sa just wants to show Kc was out while they say her daughter was missing, it probably won't be an issue. So, I agree in that context, they should look at the photos. I think June 20 is a problem as well when no one has time of death.

There is another problem with the child missing scenario and I am not sure how to explain it, but I will try to give an example.

1: Baby goes to babysitter on day one.
2: Babysitter calls and says were at the beach or amusment park.
3: Babysitter phone number no longer works, but still recieves a call
4: Babysitter calls on day 5, says were in Miami.
5: Mother still thinks everything is fine and has talked to baby.
6: Week 2 Mother begins to worry and has someone helping her find baby.
7: Day 31 realizes that baby has been missing all along and has been fooled.
8: End of Example or hypothetical, not fact......not opinion

Many posters are going retro or backwards to prove their theory or to try to state as fact.

Because she says on day 31 that her child has been missing for 31 days, does not mean she knew on day 1 thru 30 that her child was missing. It is just selective on peoples part to assume what she knew on July 15th she knew all along. It will have to be established in court exactly when she realized there was a problem. IMO

Do me a favour. It's just a small one. Read or listen to KC's statements to LE.

 

[Dells]

I think the dispute on the photos would be to make sure that Sa is not using the photos based on the way she was dressed to show she was a bad mom. If Sa just wants to show Kc was out while they say her daughter was missing, it probably won't be an issue. So, I agree in that context, they should look at the photos. I think June 20 is a problem as well when no one has time of death.

There is another problem with the child missing scenario and I am not sure how to explain it, but I will try to give an example.

1: Baby goes to babysitter on day one.
2: Babysitter calls and says were at the beach or amusment park.
3: Babysitter phone number no longer works, but still recieves a call
4: Babysitter calls on day 5, says were in Miami.
5: Mother still thinks everything is fine and has talked to baby.
6: Week 2 Mother begins to worry and has someone helping her find baby.
7: Day 31 realizes that baby has been missing all along and has been fooled.
8: End of Example or hypothetical, not fact......not opinion

Many posters are going retro or backwards to prove their theory or to try to state as fact.

Because she says on day 31 that her child has been missing for 31 days, does not mean she knew on day 1 thru 30 that her child was missing. It is just selective on peoples part to assume what she knew on July 15th she knew all along. It will have to be established in court exactly when she realized there was a problem. IMO

BBM

But, in Casey's interviews w/LE she tells them that ZFG kidnapped her daughter on June 16th. I don't see a way for the defense to refute that, especially when that information came straight from Casey's mouth.

 

[cecybeans]

I think the dispute on the photos would be to make sure that Sa is not using the photos based on the way she was dressed to show she was a bad mom. If Sa just wants to show Kc was out while they say her daughter was missing, it probably won't be an issue. So, I agree in that context, they should look at the photos. I think June 20 is a problem as well when no one has time of death.

There is another problem with the child missing scenario and I am not sure how to explain it, but I will try to give an example.

1: Baby goes to babysitter on day one.
2: Babysitter calls and says were at the beach or amusment park.
3: Babysitter phone number no longer works, but still recieves a call
4: Babysitter calls on day 5, says were in Miami.
5: Mother still thinks everything is fine and has talked to baby.
6: Week 2 Mother begins to worry and has someone helping her find baby.
7: Day 31 realizes that baby has been missing all along and has been fooled.
8: End of Example or hypothetical, not fact......not opinion

Many posters are going retro or backwards to prove their theory or to try to state as fact.

Because she says on day 31 that her child has been missing for 31 days, does not mean she knew on day 1 thru 30 that her child was missing. It is just selective on peoples part to assume what she knew on July 15th she knew all along. It will have to be established in court exactly when she realized there was a problem. IMO

I think that a reasonable jury would think that the mother's obligation at point number three, whenever that occurred would be to immediately inform authorities. What kind of mother would wait 24 hours (much less two weeks) to decide a child she had not seen once was now MIA and then "have someone help her find" a truly missing child? Especially a child that had never been gone from her own bed and home for more than a night or two? And why would it take another two weeks and the baby's grandmother insisting she be produced (with strenuous objections and requests for "one more day" by the mother) for said mother to have the epiphany that her child is "truly missing"?

I think a reasonable jury would expect that a mother should assume her child is missing if she had not seen her within 24 hours and a babysitter would not respond. And this mother did NOT report her child missing - the grandmother did.

 

[EclecticArtist]

Not sure if this is O/T...

Did I hear right that JP issued a "gag order"? If this is correct, why would JB be speaking to the press???

 

[Kimster]

Stay constructive or this thread goes away. Thanks

 

[Turnadot]

Not sure if this is O/T...

Did I hear right that JP issued a "gag order"? If this is correct, why would JB be speaking to the press???

IIRC, the gag order isn't "on" yet.

 

[cecybeans]

Not sure if this is O/T...

Did I hear right that JP issued a "gag order"? If this is correct, why would JB be speaking to the press???

IIRC, JP issued a gag order to be in effect when the COV location is decided until shortly before the trial, to avoid the media and public learning exactly from where the jury pool will be coming. I am not sure if that gag order would cover anything else besides COV, although I imagine that could be determined at a later date.

 

[believe09]

I think the dispute on the photos would be to make sure that Sa is not using the photos based on the way she was dressed to show she was a bad mom. If Sa just wants to show Kc was out while they say her daughter was missing, it probably won't be an issue. So, I agree in that context, they should look at the photos. I think June 20 is a problem as well when no one has time of death.

There is another problem with the child missing scenario and I am not sure how to explain it, but I will try to give an example.

1: Baby goes to babysitter on day one.
2: Babysitter calls and says were at the beach or amusment park.
3: Babysitter phone number no longer works, but still recieves a call
4: Babysitter calls on day 5, says were in Miami.
5: Mother still thinks everything is fine and has talked to baby.
6: Week 2 Mother begins to worry and has someone helping her find baby.
7: Day 31 realizes that baby has been missing all along and has been fooled.
8: End of Example or hypothetical, not fact......not opinion

Many posters are going retro or backwards to prove their theory or to try to state as fact.

Because she says on day 31 that her child has been missing for 31 days, does not mean she knew on day 1 thru 30 that her child was missing. It is just selective on peoples part to assume what she knew on July 15th she knew all along. It will have to be established in court exactly when she realized there was a problem. IMO

Very logical. But I wonder, where does the J Blanchard Park kidnap/script scenario fit in here?

sorry, O/T. strike at will mods...

 

[notthatsmart]

BBM

But, in Casey's interviews w/LE she tells them that ZFG kidnapped her daughter on June 16th. I don't see a way for the defense to refute that, especially when that information came straight from Casey's mouth.

What happened to June 9th? when did this change?

 

[believe09]

BBM

Of course Baez claims KC is innocent - so do I, from a legal stand point. She is innocent until proven guilty. So Baez is right, imo. If I were a defense attorney, that's exactly what I would say. 'My client is innocent...' or 'My client is innocent of these charges, blah blah blah...' Even if intellectually I knew, based upon the evidence, that my client did indeed kill their child, sister, stranger, etc.

So I see these as two separate things.

I think Baez is challenging the duct tape because it appears his defense strategy is "straw clutching" and "spaghetti toss".

...imo

I agree with this, and fwiw believe that he does not "know" Casey is guilty in that she has not told him she is. Because I think we have discussed at length that if she has told him when and how she killed her child, he would be in a tough spot should she take the stand and make statements that he could impeach with his knowlege of her guilt.

 

[Turnadot]

Very logical. But I wonder, where does the J Blanchard Park kidnap/script scenario fit in here?

Day 1 - rent movies
Day 2 - nothing
...
....
......
......
...
Day 17 - avoid mother
......
.........
Day 20 - drunken possibly bisexual dance
........
Day 22 - continue avoiding mother
........
Etc