Does Baez Actually Believe Casey is Innocent? - A Philosophical Discussion

[otto]

That is what I have thought since opening statement from the DT as well. Why on earth would an atty let their client sit in jail for three years if it was an accidental drowing that her father covered up?

Maybe I am the one that is crazy here, but, If she were my client, I would have set up a conversation with LE directly after hearing this, to get them investigating that scenario, and get justice rolling. It would have saved his client, LE, SA's office, HIM, and taxpayers, a whole lot of time and a massive amount of money...

Police recorded several interviews, but they couldn't get any information from her through her lawyer after her arrest. I seem to recall that a deal was on the table for about a week or two where she could plead and lead investigators to the body. The death penalty was off the table. She denied involvement. After the body was found, the death penalty was put back on the table. If it was a drowning, what prevented her from coming forward at that time that a plea agreement was available for accidental death?

(after the body was found, the heart sticker answered that question)

 

[elementary]

Anyone in their right mind hears "31 days" and knows she murdered her baby. Even Baez is not stupid in this regard. They all know she's guilty. They just don't care.

 

[otto]

Remember, she's always the "mom" of the group. (How grotesquely ironic.)

Reminds me of an old nursery rhyme

There was an old woman
Who lived in a shoe
She had so many children
She didn't know what to do.

She gave them some broth
Without any bread
Spanked them all soundly
And sent them to bed.

 

[Mohabi]

Back to the subject of this thread: I do not care a HOOT what Mr. Baez believes. Mr. Baez tries to hide his ignorance behind disrespect, dishonesty, unethical behavior, and last - but not least - a thoroughly disgusting smile.

I'm so sorry Mr. Baez, but it's not working.

 

[SeekingJana]

I don't know how this works exactly, but is it true that a person accused of a crime is NOT supposed to tell his or her defense attorney that they are guilty, if they are?

Or what happened, etc?

Somewhere I got this strong idea that attorneys are NOT supposed to know about guilt so they can argue for their client but I might have read that in one of my many crime/ mystery novels..
So sorry if this is the dumbest question ever asked on WS. I realize it could well be.

Thanks,
Maria

 

[elementary]

In the medical profession, physicians in training learn very early on that there is a subset of patients that are unlikely to survive despite any aggressive or invasive therapy, without which they would surely die.

The overarching commitment to helping people in life-threatening circumstances, however, demands that aggressive or invasive remedies be administered in the hope that the patient's life *could* be saved, even if the likelihood of improving the patient's condition by employing them is limited or unlikely. (In the interest of avoiding totally unnecessary suffering, however, doctors are not obligated to perform procedures that they know are absolutely useless, or futile.)

And, beyond the above, doctors who are sincerely committed to ethical and humane care are taught to rationalize aggressive or invasive measures of
support of a patient even *if* they feel that particular patient has a limited likelihood of responding to them, because they know that perfecting a
technique that may not help one patient today may go a long way toward helping another in the future.

I hope my metaphor is clear. I think all of the above is at work in the DT's mind by their
commitment to Casey's apparently hopeless defense.

A lovely metaphor indeed, except for this simple fact: the DT has decided to use, without
informed consent and most aggressively and invasively, the bones, marrow, blood and organs
harvested from living people in order to save their client. In fact, they are eviscerating
alive, wholly conscious and unwilling victims. In keeping with that metaphor, this makes them monstrous sadists and opportunists. They are not rescuers, they are killers. Metaphorically speaking.

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

So what separates these lawyers from the others? This is obviously a rhetorical question. Do you think it is a greater sense of morality within the defense profession, or is it the "selfish need" ( for lack of a better term) to not be associated with the Titanic?

Ok I will try to answer the best I can. I believe JB was young and inexperienced and saw this as a chance of a life time. Lights, camera's action so to speak! I do not think he thought she was guilty and I think he believed what he was saying.....initially!

Like I said the others jumped on board and then fled when the well ran dry.

CM his belief WAS..guilty but I think he saw an opportunity that he thought was going to be lucrative and put his name in the spot-light. I think his EGO led him to believe that he is really the only person that can help ICA....(might still think so.)

Sims, huh, well I have to refer back to my OP.

As for other Attorneys, I think they are probably glad no one referred ICA to them (now) but at first they probably saw some of the writing on the wall due to experience.

All Just my opinion and I've been wrong before!

 

[LinasK]

I don't know how this works exactly, but is it true that a person accused of a crime is NOT supposed to tell his or her defense attorney that they are guilty, if they are?

Or what happened, etc?

Somewhere I got this strong idea that attorneys are NOT supposed to know about guilt so they can argue for their client but I might have read that in one of my many crime/ mystery novels..
So sorry if this is the dumbest question ever asked on WS. I realize it could well be.

Thanks,
Maria

Without having read this thread first... I know some defense lawyers, and you're right- they DO NOT ask their client whether they are guilty or not, they do not want to know! Having said that, a few months ago, I found out that O.J.'s lawyers did in fact know he was guilty, but justified it to themselves under "moral cover"!

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I have no way of knowing what Jose Baez believes or doesn't believe. But if his opening statement is based on the version of events his client gave him, and he believed that cockamamie tale, then he's an idiot.

JMO

 

[Sleuth5]

My Father, may he rest in peace, was a very honorable man. He was a well respected defense attorney for 40 years. He never did represent any rapists or child killers because he was not comfortable with that. But he did try some murder cases. And he also represented many clients accused of extortion, robbery and other criminal offenses.

When I was a child I was sometimes embarrassed by that while growing up.
I was a little ashamed of what some people said, that my father was defending evil people. I used to lie about his job. Then when I was in college I worked in his office in exchange for my tuition. And my eyes were opened to my own ignorance. There are a whole lot of innocent, needy people who get dragged into the legal system. Just because an ex-wife accuses a father of touching his daughter does not make it so. These are the people who need a good, powerful attorney.

And besides all of that, even 'guilty' people need representation. That is how our Justice system works, and if there were no lawyers willing to help the accused, it would simply fall apart. So I felt the need to say a good word for my father, maybe because of all those years that I was ashamed of his noble career.

A heartfelt and moving tribute that I'm sure your father would be intensely proud of. I agree wholeheartedly and do not wish to live in a country where we abandon the rule of law and the right of accused to receive a fair trial. Without that, we don't have much standing between one false accusation and a lynch mob.

:cow:

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

Wonder if Mr. Baez had a child of his murdered, duct taped on the mouth, triple bagged and dumped in the woods like trash, for the animals to disarticulate, would he want someone just like himself doing just like he has done to try to set the killer free???......Just have to wonder that's all.....JMO

I often wonder what Jose Baez would do if one of HIS kids were to go missing.. or something happened and they had to rely on air samples and other "junk science" to either find them or help prosecute the person suspected.
I'm betting the "junk science" would be welcomed then.

 

[Mohabi]

Without having read this thread first... I know some defense lawyers, and you're right- they DO NOT ask their client whether they are guilty or not, they do not want to know! Having said that, a few months ago, I found out that O.J.'s lawyers did in fact know he was guilty, but justified it to themselves under "moral cover"!

Moral cover?? I'm going to have to goggle for the definition of *Moral Cover*.

 

[katydid23]

A heartfelt and moving tribute that I'm sure your father would be intensely proud of. I agree wholeheartedly and do not wish to live in a country where we abandon the rule of law and the right of accused to receive a fair trial. Without that, we don't have much standing between one false accusation and a lynch mob.

:cow:

Exactly. My Dad got a lot of his clients by referral from members of State Attorneys office. It is a symbiotic relationship. If they have friends or family who need help, they call defense attorneys they respect. And when my dad had a problem with an ex client who was being threatening, he called his contacts in the SA.

So I guess it kind of bothers me when people judge defense attorneys so harshly, and lump them into the same vein as their clients. Every single person in this forum has to realize that they or their family could someday find themselves in need of an attorney. They might see things differently then. imoo

 

[JimEverett]

A criminal lawyer, on either side, does not care about the truth - they care about the evidence.

 

[BG4pip]

So here's the thing- cliches are cliches for a reason. (And I'm going to apologize in advance to any defense attorneys out there that are NOT cut from the same cloth as JB et al.) But people generally think of defense attorneys as tricky, or sleazy, probably because they defend rapists and murderers all day long, so as the saying goes, when you lie down with dogs you get fleas.

What would make someone take up this profession? If there are any defense attorneys out there, I'd love to hear your thoughts on all of this. Do defense attorneys make a significantly more amount of money than a prosecutor? I just can't see why someone would choose this over what would commonly be considered the more satisfying job of locking up and ridding society of child molesters and drug dealers and murderers.

Sure you can say you love the law, and believe in the justice system as a cornerstone of our democracy etc etc, but that's what ANYONE on either side of the fence is going to say; that they want to work to uphold justice in our legal system. What would make somebody choose as their life's work to aid people guilty of crimes against society at large to walk free? I don't mean to sound glib or holier-than-thou, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm a lawyer. Let me say, first, that I consider JB is an embarassment to my profession. In my experience, he is also, thank goodness, an aberration.

I understand that the public perceives the goal of the defense lawyer is to get the client off. A lawyer doing his work, on a day to day business, may not disagree. When the client is innocent, the lawyer achieves his or her goal by seeking the truth. When the client is guilty, the lawyer looks for loopholes in statutes, misconduct by police, prosecutors, and jurors, or errors by judges, and seeks to exploit those things for the client's benefit.

But when we stop to philosophize, we see it from a different perspective. We say that there is a social contract among us by which, for our mutual benefit, we consent to live by certain rules. To accomplish this, we create a government to determine what those rules are, and to enforce them. And we empower our government -- and provide it with enormous resources -- to determine who has violated the rules, and to punish them by depriving them of property, liberty, or -- as in this case -- life, itself.

It is the government, not the lawyer, that has the responsibility of deciding who is deserving of punishment. The lawyer's role is to ensure that the government exercises its power to punish correctly.

Whether innocent or guilty, a client's objective is to avoid being punished. So, when the guilty client is convicted and sentenced, the lawyer "loses". But, despite the loss, the lawyer who did his or her job well achieves the important goal of protecting those of us who are innocent by ensuring that the prosecutor's "win" was fair and square.

 

[MNlady]

They know that she is guilty. Last week I got sick of seeing Atty. Sims hugging and fawning all over Casey. I called Judge Perry and left a message on his voice mail. I told him that Atty. Sims was being too personal and was acting in a very prejudicial manner, etc. I told him that this was a murder trial not a love-fest. I know that he received my message because Ms. Sims has not put a hand on Casey since.

I was just reading a sidebar printed in one of the news sites last night in which it said that Jeff Ashton told Judge Perry that he understood that Casey would sometimes get upset and there wasn't much that could be done about it, but the hugs and the arm around Casey, patting her, was inappropriate and was geared toward the jury to get them feeling sympathy. Judge Perry said he'd been watching it and as YET it hadn't gone far enough to look 'staged' but at the same time he told the DT to 'watch it'.
Sims has been 'cool' toward Casey ever since that particular sidebar~!
So Judge Perry got the message from both of you. :great:
** I read so much last night that I can't tell you where it was nor get a link for it.

 

[Just Jayla]

Um...in the beginning, I think JB could have believed, as so many did, that an accident happened, that Caylee was sold, or otherwise given away. Generally, a lawyer does not want to know anyway.
But, a lawyer does need to know some things. A lawyer representing someone in a DUI case will certainly ask his client to explain to him what happened. Within that explanation, the client will likely make some sort of admission. I suppose this case could have been different.
But, at some point, KC had to tell JB she was lying about Zenaida.
What an attorney does next is where it counts, and there can be several directions to go. Remembering the OJ case, I always thought it was apparent in Robert Shapiro's face that he knew what OJ had done and he was disgusted. Johnny Cochran had a better poker face. Both defended their client, Cochran more vigorously than Shapiro, IMO. Cochran used the race card as it was a very strong tool in the aftermath of Rodney King. Dispicable? Yes. Effective? Very. But from what I recall, Johnny Cochran used what little he had and worked with it and around it-He did not create a massive series of misinformation and lies. And speaking of the OJ case, an attorney's personal life can be effected by their caseload-Ask Kris Jenner what she thought of her husband betraying her best friend.
And maybe JB's family is effected as well, we'll likely never know.
Either way, JB made a choice that I would have never made; Once it became apparent that KC was completely lying, once he found out where Caylee was, because I firmly believe she told him and the info got to DomC, it was his ethical and perhaps legal duty to forego any attempt to blame this crime on anyone else.
The classical scope of work of a defense attorney in the English justice system, all the way back to the days of the Magna Carta, is to insure that fair, and now constitutional, rights are not infringed by any king or government. I know we have come many centuries beyond that and the whole thing has morphed into putting on a spectacular case-But in my literal mind, all JB is obligated to do is to make sure that KC is not being oppressed by the government or wrongly accused by the people because of handicap, race, sex, or class-think Salem Witch burnings.
It drives me mad that the experienced attorneys of the state, who are bound to be fair, that some 80%+ of people polled early in this case, many of us in the public who knew something was hinky from the very beginning, and KC's own friends and family members knew from human instinct and common sense, that Caylee met foul play in the care of her mother-yet we have to set aside this common sense and ponder whether Roy Kronk did this? Whether Jesse did this? Whether George did this?
Americans are not cave people, we are not uncivilized, we are not riotous-for the most part. We are a people who are bound by rule of law and honestly, trust. Do we run red lights when no one is around to see it? Not most of us. Do we accuse innocent people of murder on the daily? Not most of us.
I am not in the hate Americans crowd, I believe my countrymen are fair and most especially when they are vetted by both the defense and the state.
When the evidence is so stinkin overwhelming, it is maddening that an attorrney would go to these lengths to cover up what I believe he knew whether or not KC told him. As if she is persecuted.
All JB was obligated to do was to protect her rights. He was in no way obligated to lie for her and he is, and it burns my butt.

 

[Robinez]

Did she have an opportunity to make a plea deal before the body was found ... somehow, that's sitting in the back of my mind. If it was a drowning, why didn't Baez jump at that - if he really believed that she was innocent.

I have thought about that many times. I think the mix of both ICA and JB's personality's is like one of those Wicked episode's on the ID channel. I think ICA would have copped a plea if she was forced to take a public defender from the get go. And I think that JB would still be in the background getting drug dealer's out on bail.

In as much as I am repulsed by ICA, I think JB saw what he wanted and what he wanted was the publicity and the ego trip and she was his ticket. She was of course, willing to ride it as long as she could because he is giving her the opportunity to grab one last time, the thing she values the most, attention.

ICA traded a behind the scenes manslaughter sentance for a spectacle and JB was the one to give it to her. I think she may think it was worth it even when she is convicted. She got one last party after all.

TC, Robin

 

[MNlady]

IMO JB did believe KC right up until the trial started, or at least most of her "story", but at the end of one of the jail video tapes, maybe the last one, the camera panned to JB and he was leaning back in his chair, looking at the ceiling, and he looked like he'd been gobsmacked. He looked sick and like he was thinking "NOW what do I do, why am I here." He really is incompetent and unprepared, lazy and disorganized. Maybe he knows he shouldn't be an attorney and is hoping he can hang it up and be a consultant to one of the talking heads or even better, have his own show. Who knows.

I thought I'd read somewhere on WS that Casey refused a plea deal because she believes she will be acquitted by going to trial. Maybe I am wrong...have been before~!

 

[otto]

I have thought about that many times. I think the mix of both ICA and JB's personality's is like one of those Wicked episode's on the ID channel. I think ICA would have copped a plea if she was forced to take a public defender from the get go. And I think that JB would still be in the background getting drug dealer's out on bail.

In as much as I am repulsed by ICA, I think JB saw what he wanted and what he wanted was the publicity and the ego trip and she was his ticket, and she was of course, willing to ride it as long as she could. ICA traded a behind the scenes manslaughter sentance for a spectacle because she loves to be the center of attention and JB was the one to give it to her. For some reason I think she may think it was worth it even when she is convicted. She got one last party.

TC, Robin

It seems a little odd that Casey was offered a brief plea deal prior to the discovery of her daughter's body - when the death penalty was off the table, and she and Baez just kept on playing it like the fiddler never got tired, like she would not get caught. The minute she was caught, the death penalty was on and ... it strikes me as though her lawyer dropped the ball on the first day - when the drowning defense might have worked ... after refusing the plea deal, it's hard to believe that it was an accident.