2010.07.30 Baez Interview

[Searchfortruth]

Charity ? The thought of Jose "donating" to any charitable organization is unbelievable. A mystery charity to go along with the mystery nanny, and the mystery defense.

 

[TrY]

I watched both WFTV and WESH's videoclips about the Baez's financial problems of not paying his mortgage. Perhaps he should hire the same attorney that helped the Anthonys with their foreclosure issue?

After watching the raw video of Baez's interview before RK's depo, I think it's pretty obvious that Baez is pretty thin skinned when it comes to certain reporters including Kathi Belich and Bob Kealing -- especially when they are reporting news that makes Baez look bad.

 

[Macushla]

O/T

I want to apologize to anyone that my direct quotes I borrowed from the R. Hornsby q and a thread here at WebSleuths , have offended. Just because it was indeed a quote does not mean I should have perpetuated it. Mr. Baez insults Ms. Belich, Mr. Mason insults Ms. Belich, the certainly they have insulted Judge Strickland, the ADA on this case, often, and so many innocent witnesses. It was refreshing for someone to call him out on it. Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to offend the good, good people who read here. There are other quotes that get the same idea across. My personal favorite is from the Florida bar, so I will use that one.

Again, my humble apologies. I am no saint. Just because something is laugh out loud hysterical to me, is no excuse for not having the good manners edit for public consumption. I am sorry!!

TWA: You NEVER offend. You educate, enlighten, entertain, and keep us on our toes. You are a fountain of information for all of us. You quoted one lawyer's opinion of another, much as I use the quote from JS as my 'signature' and I can't believe someone actually complained. I will say no more as I am on the verge of 'overstepping the TOS' as it is.

Your contributions on this forum are, in my opinion, invaluable and your insights beyond price. You have nothing to apologize for - again in my humble opinion, of course.

 

[nums24]

Baez on Issues with jane Velez Mitchell now

Here is the transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/30/ijvm.01.html

 

[affinity]

I didn't understand what the point was in bringing up his money issues as soon as he stepped up to the reporters like he did. I have seen that they (defense team, Casey, Cindy, George, etc) all appear to have reasons for everything they do. So what was the reason behind this? Perhaps it was the person that Baez and co were deposing that day. Perhaps Baez knows that they (defense team, etc) have gone to far in trying to find "reasonable" doubt by bringing up unsubstantiated claims about Kronk. Perhaps Baez knew that the line of questioning (during the deposition) was going to be along the lines of the same shady, dirty handed nonsense that they (defense team, etc) have done in the past. Perhaps Baez knew that those interviewers/reporters would ask him some questions about Kronk that he didn't want to answer or ellaborate on. So what better way to avoid all of that than to start right off the bat by pointing out that the media has gone on their own "witch hunt" and that Baez found it childish and wanted to make sure he got his "sound bites" in there. In my opinion Baez would have been better off keeping his comments about anything else quiet and talked only about the matter at hand. But then again I am the type of person that doesn't fling everything but the kitchen sink against the wall when I am staring the truth in the eyes. I don't accuse innocent people of something, anything to make sure that a guilty person has some small chance of getting away with their crime.

MOO

ETA I apologize for any spelling errors, mind is not quite up to speed yet today.

He was amazed and irked that "the media" sent a helicopter to film his house, presumably because his foreclosure is big news. He views the reporters as part of this big machine that goes crazy over any salacious tidbit. It was actually quite a good "deflection" tactic. HOWEVER, I totally agree that it is incongruent for him to take issue with the press...because he has conversely wanted and courted press coverage. Most lawyers in my area do not talk to the press! They said things like "no comment". We are aware that JB wants this case to advance his career. He definitely will have name recognition in the end. Many of us know names like Judge Ito, Marcia Clark, etc....not sure what good it does if your name recognition is because you went down in complete flames.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

He didn't come close to making sense. He contradicted himself by complaining about coverage (during...a press conference) and then complaining about the "witch hunt" while explaining how much he "didn't care" about the "witch hunt" - then I guess it somehow randomly occurred to him that he is on some noble quest and he has to hold his head high and do the right thing - because he was using the old martyr phrases like he's just sacrificing so much for his client. Bizarre.

He does have a fixation with the whole "To kill a mockingbird" thing, though tragically misguided. Why does my skin crawl when he speaks? He's a gaffe machine.

 

[USARDOG]

I imagine I will stand alone in saying I thought this was the best interview I have seen him do. Thought he spoke professionally and coherently for the first time in this case.

OK, too much about "your girl" or what ever that was... but other than that, I thought this was his best interview to date.

 

[whiteangora]

I imagine I will stand alone in saying I thought this was the best interview I have seen him do. Thought he spoke professionally and coherently for the first time in this case.

OK, too much about "your girl" or what ever that was... but other than that, I thought this was his best interview to date.

I usually agree with you USARDOG, not this time tho.
I think JB's best interview was the one where he said, "No comment". Oh, wait......:waitasec: he never did that, did he?

 

[sleutherontheside]

I always find choice of words interesting. Often I read too much into them....other times I believe that "verbiage" can be telling.

In the JB interview linked in post #1 of this thread.......
At 2:40......he states....
Every accused person in this country is allowed to put on a defense, and when one curtails that defense it's a very dangerous thing.

I do recognize that attorneys at times refer to "putting on" their defense. But.........as a stickler for "saying what you mean" and "meaning what you say".........I consider phrases such as......."presenting our defense", "presenting our case", "presenting our position", "proving our case"...etc.......to be a clearer and more convincing way to illustrate your role.

When an attorney is defending the "once in a career client".........he might "read" as more credible if he refers to "presenting their defense" as opposed to "putting on a defense".

One puts on shoes, puts on a tie and jacket, or puts on a happy face and a smile. But, if you sound like you are defending the right to put on a "show" (which is just how the comment struck me) it can really work against you. A pretrial "circus" does not a show make.

IMO.......you put on a defense if it is for "show"....you "PRESENT" a defense if you have something or someone to defend.

I have certainly been accused of "reading too much" into the way people express themselves..........but it never hurts to think about things.

 

[ynotdivein]

He didn't come close to making sense. He contradicted himself by complaining about coverage (during...a press conference) and then complaining about the "witch hunt" while explaining how much he "didn't care" about the "witch hunt" - then I guess it somehow randomly occurred to him that he is on some noble quest and he has to hold his head high and do the right thing - because he was using the old martyr phrases like he's just sacrificing so much for his client. Bizarre.

He does have a fixation with the whole "To kill a mockingbird" thing, though tragically misguided. Why does my skin crawl when he speaks? He's a gaffe machine.

:applause:

(and "gaffe machine"? :rotfl:!)

 

[butterfly1978]

I always find choice of words interesting. Often I read too much into them....other times I believe that "verbiage" can be telling.

In the JB interview linked in post #1 of this thread.......
At 2:40......he states....
Every accused person in this country is allowed to put on a defense, and when one curtails that defense it's a very dangerous thing.

I do recognize that attorneys at times refer to "putting on" their defense. But.........as a stickler for "saying what you mean" and "meaning what you say".........I consider phrases such as......."presenting our defense", "presenting our case", "presenting our position", "proving our case"...etc.......to be a clearer and more convincing way to illustrate your role.

When an attorney is defending the "once in a career client".........he might "read" as more credible if he refers to "presenting their defense" as opposed to "putting on a defense".

One puts on shoes, puts on a tie and jacket, or puts on a happy face and a smile. But, if you sound like you are defending the right to put on a "show" (which is just how the comment struck me) it can really work against you. A pretrial "circus" does not a show make.

IMO.......you put on a defense if it is for "show"....you "PRESENT" a defense if you have something or someone to defend.

I have certainly been accused of "reading too much" into the way people express themselves..........but it never hurts to think about things.

It may be the only truthful thing he has ever said. He and Mason will be putting on a defense, because they certainly dont have one to present, especially thrying to explain away 31 days, decomp in the trunk and the baby found 15 houses down the street after she tells her family she is close. Yep he was honest in stating they will be puttong on a defense just like they continue to put on a show every chance they get.

 

[affinity]

I imagine I will stand alone in saying I thought this was the best interview I have seen him do. Thought he spoke professionally and coherently for the first time in this case.

OK, too much about "your girl" or what ever that was... but other than that, I thought this was his best interview to date.

You aren't alone ..I agree with you.

 

[Omachka]

I usually agree with you USARDOG, not this time tho.
I think JB's best interview was the one where he said, "No comment". Oh, wait......:waitasec: he never did that, did he?

Ummm, no he didn't... but he ran away from Kathi Belich once. :biggrin:

 

[RR0004]

I thought the interview was contrived in the sense that Jose approached the cameras knowing exactly what he was going to say. IMO it was nothing more than Jose's schtick...jokes and all. Ha Ha...what's so funny?