2011.01.05 Hearing TES Volunteer Computer Subpoena

  • #621
I love your logic and I too would guess that a lawyer's unsubstatntiated belief that Joe Jordan has relevant/exculpatory photographs on its own would not in the least influence an appellate court. Appeal courts generally do not retry cases. I think any future appeals lawyer would have to establish that J Perry's ruling was legally flawed and importantly that it was predudicial to his client's defense. i.e would have effected the outcome of the trial. Given all the evidence in this case, I think the Joe Jordan issue is a storm in a tea cup. And wisely cos "death is different", J Perry left the door open for Baez. Lets see if he walks through it.
That right there was why HHJP could not grant the defense a subpoena.

While NJ Lawyer's opinions are compelling, they only become relevant when or if Baez can substantiate the blogger, JJ, has any photos at all. Baez didn't do that; he only speculated.

What it came down to at the hearing was, imo, HHJP asking, 'Where's the evidence that the blogger took photos, and the evidence that the photos he blogged belong to him?'

Baez's answer amounted to, 'Um...he pointed to a map.'

He was going in circles.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think no judge is going to issue a subpoena based on speculation, because that's not "just cause".

It really comes do to: What photos? Who took them? Prove both.

Of course, I'm willing to stand corrected by one of the lawyers here.

ETA: If Baez would have done his homework, he'd have that subpoena.

Just my opinion.

Sometimes I feel like I care more about what's going on with the evidence in this case than he does. His efforts just seem so half-hearted at times.

Based on NJ Lawyer's posts in this thread, he/she would be far more dedicated to making sure KC's defense was exhausted.
 
  • #622
That right there was why HHJP could not grant the defense a subpoena.

While NJ Lawyer's opinions are compelling, they only become relevant when or if Baez can substantiate the blogger, JJ, has any photos at all. Baez didn't do that; he only speculated.

What it came down to at the hearing was, imo, HHJP asking, 'Where's the evidence that the blogger took photos, and the evidence that the photos he blogged belong to him?'

Baez's answer amounted to, 'Um...he pointed to a map.'

He was going in circles.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think no judge is going to issue a subpoena based on speculation, because that's not "just cause".

It really comes do to: What photos? Who took them? Prove both.

Of course, I'm willing to stand corrected by one of the lawyers here.

ETA: If Baez would have done his homework, he'd have that subpoena.

Just my opinion.

Sometimes I feel like I care more about what's going on with the evidence in this case than he does. His efforts just seem so half-hearted at times.

Based on NJ Lawyer's posts in this thread, he/she would be far more dedicated to making sure KC's defense was exhausted.

ITA

And I think Baez could open up a huge can of worms for himself if he pursues J Jordan...... Kronk like fashion, i.e. tries to make him a feature (conspirator) of the defense's case. There were imo hints of that during his presentation to the Judge. The irony is the whole TES record fiasco and subsequent permission to access thousands of searchers' records was founded on a motion where the defense's so called good faith basis was dependant on Laura Buchanan's and Joe Jordan's statements to their PI, Mort Smith. Not that long ago, we had two searchers and listed witnesses alluding that another PI was trying to get them to change their testimony. I dont think Baez wants a jury to hear about Miss Buchanan or the allegations against Jeremiah Lyons, and that is a distinct possiblility imo if he opens the proverbial door for the prosecution.

Despite his considerable efforts to keep his trial strategy close to the vest, Baez imo just keeps on demonstrating that he has nothing by way of a credible defense. He's the prosecutor's gift that just keeps on giving. Now in 20 days, the State will be in posession of comprehensive reports by defense experts :waitasec: and if he steps out of line again, $3.00 dollar an hour Jose could find himself in civil contempt.
 
  • #623
Anyone Baez and co try to throw at the jury as a possible SODDI will just cause a massive eyeroll by all .. It's a bad strategy but it seems Casey has left them with no other option. Her bad, his bad for not being able to convince her to plead early on. It's a mess and there is little they can do about it now.
 
  • #624
That right there was why HHJP could not grant the defense a subpoena.

While NJ Lawyer's opinions are compelling, they only become relevant when or if Baez can substantiate the blogger, JJ, has any photos at all. Baez didn't do that; he only speculated.

What it came down to at the hearing was, imo, HHJP asking, 'Where's the evidence that the blogger took photos, and the evidence that the photos he blogged belong to him?'

Baez's answer amounted to, 'Um...he pointed to a map.'

He was going in circles.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think no judge is going to issue a subpoena based on speculation, because that's not "just cause".

It really comes do to: What photos? Who took them? Prove both.

Of course, I'm willing to stand corrected by one of the lawyers here.

ETA: If Baez would have done his homework, he'd have that subpoena.

Just my opinion.

Sometimes I feel like I care more about what's going on with the evidence in this case than he does. His efforts just seem so half-hearted at times.

Based on NJ Lawyer's posts in this thread, he/she would be far more dedicated to making sure KC's defense was exhausted.

ITA with almost all that you wrote except about Mr. Baez getting his subpoena, I think he should have asked for this tidbit of information while he deposed JJ.
Knowing any pictures were taken at JBP it is unbelievably poor work on the part of the defense not to ask about every aspect of every piece of photographic evidence, including the possibility of there being pictures of other sites.
JJ's Lawyer says no such pictures exist, none have ever been posted or even hinted at by JJ or anyone close to him.
So had he done his homework he would have asked JJ the question at his deposition, been answered in the negative and with no probable cause, that would have been the end of it.
I don't believe with the current information and unless JJ suddenly confesses to a treasure trove of hidden pictures, Mr.Baez had no chance of getting a subpoena no matter what he did. JMO
 
  • #625
ITA with almost all that you wrote except about Mr. Baez getting his subpoena, I think he should have asked for this tidbit of information while he deposed JJ.
Knowing any pictures were taken at JBP it is unbelievably poor work on the part of the defense not to ask about every aspect of every piece of photographic evidence, including the possibility of there being pictures of other sites.
JJ's Lawyer says no such pictures exist, none have ever been posted or even hinted at by JJ or anyone close to him.
So had he done his homework he would have asked JJ the question at his deposition, been answered in the negative and with no probable cause, that would have been the end of it.
I don't believe with the current information and unless JJ suddenly confesses to a treasure trove of hidden pictures, Mr.Baez had no chance of getting a subpoena no matter what he did. JMO
You're absolutely right. And I forgot to take into account the fact that Baez obfuscated during the hearing, trying to lead HHJP into inferring that JJ's Dec 2010 deposition was the first time Baez became aware that JJ was on Suburban Drive, which isn't true at all.
 
  • #626
IMO for now, the defense strategy, based on the patterns I've seen in these motion hearings, especially the TES 4,000, is going to be 'massive government conspiracy against our client', and I'm not sure this is even a planned strategy. If the defense continues to act the way the defense has acted so far, I will be completely surprised if at trial they are not continually trying to bring in things they are not allowed to, the state will object, the judge will sustain, and they will pretend they have this mountain of exculpatory evidence that the mean old state of Florida will not allow them to use. Maybe they can convince at least one person on the jury the court is picking on them.

I can see it now. A state witness will be on the stand, Mason will constantly be interrupting the flow of testimony because he can't hear, then at cross-examination time, Baez will stand up and make some snide comment about how he has no questions prepared because the state did not even tell the defense about this witness until 4pm the previous day, even though this witness would have been on the list for the past year and a half at least.
 
  • #627
IMO for now, the defense strategy, based on the patterns I've seen in these motion hearings, especially the TES 4,000, is going to be 'massive government conspiracy against our client', and I'm not sure this is even a planned strategy. If the defense continues to act the way the defense has acted so far, I will be completely surprised if at trial they are not continually trying to bring in things they are not allowed to, the state will object, the judge will sustain, and they will pretend they have this mountain of exculpatory evidence that the mean old state of Florida will not allow them to use. Maybe they can convince at least one person on the jury the court is picking on them.

I can see it now. A state witness will be on the stand, Mason will constantly be interrupting the flow of testimony because he can't hear, then at cross-examination time, Baez will stand up and make some snide comment about how he has no questions prepared because the state did not even tell the defense about this witness until 4pm the previous day, even though this witness would have been on the list for the past year and a half at least.

I think I have mentioned this here at WS before, but if anybody (back in the day) has ever read the book Helter Skelter by Vince Bugliosi regarding the Manson murders and subsequent trial....I believe it is a preview as to how this trial will go as far as the defense tactics. Manson made a mockery of the judicial system when he was representing himself...by objecting to each sentence of the prosecution, rambling on and on and on, etc. It took 4x as long as it should have to finish the trial due to his antics. That, IMO, will be how JB and CM conduct themselves in the courtroom.
 
  • #628
IMO for now, the defense strategy, based on the patterns I've seen in these motion hearings, especially the TES 4,000, is going to be 'massive government conspiracy against our client', and I'm not sure this is even a planned strategy. If the defense continues to act the way the defense has acted so far, I will be completely surprised if at trial they are not continually trying to bring in things they are not allowed to, the state will object, the judge will sustain, and they will pretend they have this mountain of exculpatory evidence that the mean old state of Florida will not allow them to use. Maybe they can convince at least one person on the jury the court is picking on them.

I can see it now. A state witness will be on the stand, Mason will constantly be interrupting the flow of testimony because he can't hear, then at cross-examination time, Baez will stand up and make some snide comment about how he has no questions prepared because the state did not even tell the defense about this witness until 4pm the previous day, even though this witness would have been on the list for the past year and a half at least.

bbm
Government Conspiracry??? That post brought back to mind the following statement made by Baez in April 2009

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/19174406/detail.html
Baez: Forces Out To Get Anthony
State To Seek Death Penalty In Case
 
  • #629
IMO for now, the defense strategy, based on the patterns I've seen in these motion hearings, especially the TES 4,000, is going to be 'massive government conspiracy against our client', and I'm not sure this is even a planned strategy. If the defense continues to act the way the defense has acted so far, I will be completely surprised if at trial they are not continually trying to bring in things they are not allowed to, the state will object, the judge will sustain, and they will pretend they have this mountain of exculpatory evidence that the mean old state of Florida will not allow them to use. Maybe they can convince at least one person on the jury the court is picking on them.

I can see it now. A state witness will be on the stand, Mason will constantly be interrupting the flow of testimony because he can't hear, then at cross-examination time, Baez will stand up and make some snide comment about how he has no questions prepared because the state did not even tell the defense about this witness until 4pm the previous day, even though this witness would have been on the list for the past year and a half at least.

Will Baez and Mason push the envelope at trial?, they may try but that's why the guy who wears the robes and sit on high is there. They are officers of the court and are therefore subject to contempt charges, bar complaints and as we've recently seen sanctions. I don't think Mason wants to go out with a stain on his apparently blemish free record. And I think J Perry will be much stricter at trial, when a jury is present. Not to mention the effect on jurors themselves, who imo will not find Casey Anthony a sympathetic figure and would soon tire of Mason having to have everything repeated for him.
Can't wait :woohoo:
 
  • #630
  • #631
Yep. if you cant attack the evidence, attack the witnesses. I give jurors more credit. In this case as a juror I would want to hear Casey Anthony's story.

krisskross, I haven't said it before but I enjoy reading your posts. :)
 
  • #632
In some very small - in fact teensy weensy - heck no - a minute speck in my mind, I pity Baez and Mason and understand there current defense strategy of rushing after every tumbleweed blowing freely on the landscape.

I mean I hate what they are trying to do to completely innocent people! BUT, how the heck do you defend this woman?

What fine and upstanding qualities can you point to and say there is no way ICA could have done this to her own child. I don't think they will be able to say she was a loving and devoted mother, nor an honest, hardworking single parent, nor a good and supportive friend, nor had such a horrendous childhood that has shaped her into this monster.

And on the other side of the ledger, they have a huge amount of evidence that simply cannot be refuted. As much as Baez really really annoys me - I do think he went into this case believing she had not committed this crime.

Or is my brain simply in the middle of a weird blip caused by continually getting kicked off my connection to the WS site?
 
  • #633
While NJ Lawyer's opinions are compelling, they only become relevant when or if Baez can substantiate the blogger, JJ, has any photos at all. Baez didn't do that; he only speculated.
Yes, Baez speculated. His testimony sucked. He should have known A, B and C a year ago. Etc. But in keeping the "big picture" in mind (which includes the inevitable appeals of what I HOPE will be a conviction of Casey), my overall thoughts are:

We can analyze the sufficiency of Baez's subpoena, it's breadth, it's legality and more generally whether he sucks as a lawyer (he's not brilliant - he's a local yokel who hangs at the jail to get clients). And on that basis decide whether his motion, as drafted, should be denied. It's fun to analyze all this and heck, that's what WebSleuths is for. But in the grand scheme of things, all it means is that appellate lawyers will agree with us and say "Yeah, that subpoena and motion totally sucked" and "WebSleuthers were right - Baez's response (he accused JJ of pointing to a map) was lame", etc. They'll argue ineffective assistance of counsel. They will say a crucial part of the defense was the question of how long the body was at the Suburban Drive spot and, through Baez's screw-ups, the question was never fully explored. Baez should have asked at the deposition, he knew about it at that point, etc. etc. But he didn't and that hurt Casey's defense. The risk of having a conviction overturned is so easily addressed at this point. Prosecutors reach an agreement with the blogger for an "in camera" review of stuff and everything is kept private. The blogger can even sit in the room while the review takes place. Plus, the whole process saves time and money - why? Because the case will no longer include:

(1) Three days of trial with Baez submitting blog posts by JJ to the jury and suggesting JJ omitted photos of the body location which JJ suggested he searched but didn't photograph. At summation, Baez will tell the jury they can't convict if there is any reasonable doubt and in my experience, some jurors find the most RIDICULOUS things to constitute "reasonable doubt" (especially if they are against the death penalty).

(2) Appellate arguments based on failure of defense counsel to fully explore an issue that was crucial to Casey's defense.

Who cares if Baez didn't do a good job with his overly broad subpoena and whether he screwed up at the JJ dep by not asking some questions? Prosecutors, and probably JJ too, want Casey Anthony to be convicted so probably, they'll get together on agreeing to some reasonable review of JJ's stuff to avoid (1) and (2) above. It won't hurt prosecutors and if it's a limited review with JJ present, it won't hurt JJ too much. I think the parties will be smart and arrange this.

Because of the above, I just don't see the point in arguing that Baez isn't entitled to A, B or C because his subpoena is overly broad, or he should have asked such and such question at such and such time, or whatever. Yes, you can dig up old stuff showing Baez knew A, B and C (or should have) one year ago but.....the State isn't prosecuting Baez, it's prosecuting Casey Anthony and assuming a conviction is obtained, Baez's scew-ups will benefit Casey in the end. Her appellate lawyers will not be boneheads like Baez. They will be brilliant lawyers from huge law firms with pro bono sections that do death penalty appeals. Which is why you will sometimes see prosecutors helping the defense (if it won't hurt the prosecution's case). Let's face it - with all Casey's antics, the trunk of the car, coffin flies, partying, lying to LE....there isn't much of a defense here. Baez doesn't have much to work with so defense has decided on "location of body" as one of a handful of possible defenses, and therefore prosecutors will want to make sure defense can't complain about not having evidence to support its (ridiculous) defense.
 
  • #634
  • #635
Yes, Baez speculated. His testimony sucked. He should have known A, B and C a year ago. Etc. But in keeping the "big picture" in mind (which includes the inevitable appeals of what I HOPE will be a conviction of Casey), my overall thoughts are:

We can analyze the sufficiency of Baez's subpoena, it's breadth, it's legality and more generally whether he sucks as a lawyer (he's not brilliant - he's a local yokel who hangs at the jail to get clients). And on that basis decide whether his motion, as drafted, should be denied. It's fun to analyze all this and heck, that's what WebSleuths is for. But in the grand scheme of things, all it means is that appellate lawyers will agree with us and say "Yeah, that subpoena and motion totally sucked" and "WebSleuthers were right - Baez's response (he accused JJ of pointing to a map) was lame", etc. They'll argue ineffective assistance of counsel. They will say a crucial part of the defense was the question of how long the body was at the Suburban Drive spot and, through Baez's screw-ups, the question was never fully explored. Baez should have asked at the deposition, he knew about it at that point, etc. etc. But he didn't and that hurt Casey's defense. The risk of having a conviction overturned is so easily addressed at this point. Prosecutors reach an agreement with the blogger for an "in camera" review of stuff and everything is kept private. The blogger can even sit in the room while the review takes place. Plus, the whole process saves time and money - why? Because the case will no longer include:

(1) Three days of trial with Baez submitting blog posts by JJ to the jury and suggesting JJ omitted photos of the body location which JJ suggested he searched but didn't photograph. At summation, Baez will tell the jury they can't convict if there is any reasonable doubt and in my experience, some jurors find the most RIDICULOUS things to constitute "reasonable doubt" (especially if they are against the death penalty).

(2) Appellate arguments based on failure of defense counsel to fully explore an issue that was crucial to Casey's defense.

Who cares if Baez didn't do a good job with his overly broad subpoena and whether he screwed up at the JJ dep by not asking some questions? Prosecutors, and probably JJ too, want Casey Anthony to be convicted so probably, they'll get together on agreeing to some reasonable review of JJ's stuff to avoid (1) and (2) above. It won't hurt prosecutors and if it's a limited review with JJ present, it won't hurt JJ too much. I think the parties will be smart and arrange this.

Because of the above, I just don't see the point in arguing that Baez isn't entitled to A, B or C because his subpoena is overly broad, or he should have asked such and such question at such and such time, or whatever. Yes, you can dig up old stuff showing Baez knew A, B and C (or should have) one year ago but.....the State isn't prosecuting Baez, it's prosecuting Casey Anthony and assuming a conviction is obtained, Baez's scew-ups will benefit Casey in the end. Her appellate lawyers will not be boneheads like Baez. They will be brilliant lawyers from huge law firms with pro bono sections that do death penalty appeals. Which is why you will sometimes see prosecutors helping the defense (if it won't hurt the prosecution's case). Let's face it - with all Casey's antics, the trunk of the car, coffin flies, partying, lying to LE....there isn't much of a defense here. Baez doesn't have much to work with so defense has decided on "location of body" as one of a handful of possible defenses, and therefore prosecutors will want to make sure defense can't complain about not having evidence to support its (ridiculous) defense.
bbm
Hi NJ Lawyer - I'm pretty sure the jury will be death penalty qualified, so they can't be 'against' the death penalty unless they lie during jury selection.
 
  • #636
NH Lawyer - glad you stayed.
 
  • #637
Quote from Leila
Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 10,726


http://www.wftv.com/video/26171628/index.html#

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...hxtYFYQjRZ_7hQ

From your link above.................

"Richard Crique works in a mortuary. He is one of the searchers that spent days looking for Caylee. He told investigators about one of the first times he searched near the area where Caylee's remains were found.

"It just hit me. I got a whiff of something that didn't belong there," said Crique. But he told detectives that water kept him and other volunteers = from doing a thorough search. "Describe the water," said one of the investigators."It was clear. About knee deep," said Crique."


Other searchers have also stated there was water in the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found.The second search done by Texas Equasearch in early November tried to search that area and called off the search as they almost lost one of their ATVs. I remember Tim Miller being interviewed on the last day of the search and saying how they had hoped to search that area but it was too dangerous to attempt it with that much water there. There was no way Tim Miller could have known then that a little more than a month later, the water would have receded and Caylee's remains were found there. There's too many people who've stated the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found was under water for several months.



JB is so obsessed with the remains site, I think he's basing his entire defense on something that didn't happen. He wants to present to the jury that sometime after Casey was in jail, someone placed Caylee's remains where they were found. But, he has no way of proving that was the case, and the facts suggest that Caylee's remains were likely placed there in mid to late June 2008 and remained there until their discovery on Dec. 11, 2008. It's like JB is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. "
__________________

I agree Leila.

The jury is going to hear from Tim Miller, the jury is going to be shown many photos that depict the magic spot as Judge Perry calls it, thoroughly under water. Others like Danny Ibison and Richard C. are going to further testify that they could not search, as they had to abort their attempts as the area was knee deep in water.
OK that is a very, very clear idea that will remain in the jury's mind, the PHOTOS.
Then if someone else gets on the stand and claims they did not think the area was under water, or Jose tries to work that into his opening and or closing statements. He may as well be asking of the hardworking, taxpaying members of the jury, are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?

They are going to of course believe what they saw with their own eyes, a swamp like area in the photo.
This would be like asking the Scott Peterson jury members , after listening to Amber Frye's columnious tapes, are you going to belive me or your lying ears?

If it looks like water from the ground and areal photos.....it was water, even a child on a jury would not be convinced otherwise.

As usual, the defense brings up matters that absolutely work against their claims. They just never learn. The last time they did this, Jose brought up Henry Lee as a reason the judge should allow the defense experts to be alone with the evidence.....they wound up with not only
OCSD being in attendance, but also
staff from the state's attorney office and
for the entire day to be videotaped!!!

Defense expert Bill Sheaffer summed it up, with the age old, "Be careful what you wish for; because you just might get it".

The jury may not know what to make of Joe and his letter he sent in to authorities. I n the words of my late Grandmother, "I don't know what possessed him to do such a thing". I believe Mr. Miller is going to be very compelling for them. If the jury hears from Mr. Miller, Baez is not going to be in need of another expert, he is going to be in need of a miracle.

The only thing that Baez said that is true, imo, is that Joe did insert himself front and center by sending in that letter. The domino effect that letter started is astounding. Looking back on it now I am sure he regrets how flippant his decision to write was and what a poor understanding he had of the ramifications of what if he is wrong had.
Whenever my husband and I are arguing, and I know he has got me on something, how I stall for a second to think up my next point, is I always say....honey....what if you are wrong? Then we both laugh and it is squashed.
In criminal law, what if you are wrong is a much more present and real question that demands an answer....that is for Mr. Mason, for his edification this morning.
I wish Joe would have held on to his letter and just asked himself that one simple question.

I like to close with you just can't make this stuff up,so, does anyone recall Jose actually did ask someone; reporters maybe, are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes?
I belive the photos! http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/20480714/detail.html
 
  • #638
Yes, Baez speculated. His testimony sucked. He should have known A, B and C a year ago. Etc. But in keeping the "big picture" in mind (which includes the inevitable appeals of what I HOPE will be a conviction of Casey), my overall thoughts are:

We can analyze the sufficiency of Baez's subpoena, it's breadth, it's legality and more generally whether he sucks as a lawyer (he's not brilliant - he's a local yokel who hangs at the jail to get clients). And on that basis decide whether his motion, as drafted, should be denied. It's fun to analyze all this and heck, that's what WebSleuths is for. But in the grand scheme of things, all it means is that appellate lawyers will agree with us and say "Yeah, that subpoena and motion totally sucked" and "WebSleuthers were right - Baez's response (he accused JJ of pointing to a map) was lame", etc. They'll argue ineffective assistance of counsel. They will say a crucial part of the defense was the question of how long the body was at the Suburban Drive spot and, through Baez's screw-ups, the question was never fully explored. Baez should have asked at the deposition, he knew about it at that point, etc. etc. But he didn't and that hurt Casey's defense. The risk of having a conviction overturned is so easily addressed at this point. Prosecutors reach an agreement with the blogger for an "in camera" review of stuff and everything is kept private. The blogger can even sit in the room while the review takes place. Plus, the whole process saves time and money - why? Because the case will no longer include:

(1) Three days of trial with Baez submitting blog posts by JJ to the jury and suggesting JJ omitted photos of the body location which JJ suggested he searched but didn't photograph. At summation, Baez will tell the jury they can't convict if there is any reasonable doubt and in my experience, some jurors find the most RIDICULOUS things to constitute "reasonable doubt" (especially if they are against the death penalty).

(2) Appellate arguments based on failure of defense counsel to fully explore an issue that was crucial to Casey's defense.

Who cares if Baez didn't do a good job with his overly broad subpoena and whether he screwed up at the JJ dep by not asking some questions? Prosecutors, and probably JJ too, want Casey Anthony to be convicted so probably, they'll get together on agreeing to some reasonable review of JJ's stuff to avoid (1) and (2) above. It won't hurt prosecutors and if it's a limited review with JJ present, it won't hurt JJ too much. I think the parties will be smart and arrange this.

Because of the above, I just don't see the point in arguing that Baez isn't entitled to A, B or C because his subpoena is overly broad, or he should have asked such and such question at such and such time, or whatever. Yes, you can dig up old stuff showing Baez knew A, B and C (or should have) one year ago but.....the State isn't prosecuting Baez, it's prosecuting Casey Anthony and assuming a conviction is obtained, Baez's scew-ups will benefit Casey in the end. Her appellate lawyers will not be boneheads like Baez. They will be brilliant lawyers from huge law firms with pro bono sections that do death penalty appeals. Which is why you will sometimes see prosecutors helping the defense (if it won't hurt the prosecution's case). Let's face it - with all Casey's antics, the trunk of the car, coffin flies, partying, lying to LE....there isn't much of a defense here. Baez doesn't have much to work with so defense has decided on "location of body" as one of a handful of possible defenses, and therefore prosecutors will want to make sure defense can't complain about not having evidence to support its (ridiculous) defense.

I will NEVER understand why a certain blogger is allowed to attend every hearing as if he's a journalist. After all the trouble he has caused, he should not be allowed in the court room. Seems like it's just asking for more trouble.
 
  • #639
In some very small - in fact teensy weensy - heck no - a minute speck in my mind, I pity Baez and Mason and understand there current defense strategy of rushing after every tumbleweed blowing freely on the landscape.

I mean I hate what they are trying to do to completely innocent people! BUT, how the heck do you defend this woman?

What fine and upstanding qualities can you point to and say there is no way ICA could have done this to her own child. I don't think they will be able to say she was a loving and devoted mother, nor an honest, hardworking single parent, nor a good and supportive friend, nor had such a horrendous childhood that has shaped her into this monster.

And on the other side of the ledger, they have a huge amount of evidence that simply cannot be refuted. As much as Baez really really annoys me - I do think he went into this case believing she had not committed this crime.

Or is my brain simply in the middle of a weird blip caused by continually getting kicked off my connection to the WS site?

I have to wonder Logicalgirl, when was the first time Baez realised she lied to him. Was it one day in, two days, a week. Was it finding out she was potless and couldn't pay him that $5000.00 retainer, was it around July 30th when she put out the JBP switcheroo story. And how did he really feel when he heard about the air samples and hair with the proximal banding. Oh, to be a fly on that jailhouse wall each time he visited her and told her he had discovered yet another one of his client's half truths. e.g. your phone records show you didn't have a black jack phone phone Casey and you couldn't possibly have gotten a phone call from Caylee on July 15th. I think he knew early on but, the di was cast. He was already fast becoming a celbrity lawyer. There was no body.
 
  • #640
bbm
Hi NJ Lawyer - I'm pretty sure the jury will be death penalty qualified, so they can't be 'against' the death penalty unless they lie during jury selection.
Jurors are more likely to find something to be "reasonable doubt" in a capital case than a non-capital case, notwithstanding dp qualifications. Separately....as far as death penalty qualified juries, a juror may say she would be *able* to impose a death penalty but the reality is she'd be so reluctant to do so that she'd end up looking for "reasonable doubt" in tenuous places. It's just human nature. My definition of giving someone the benefit of the doubt is going to be very different than someone else's. This skirmish is not worth the risk. Prosecutors will work it out. They have a strong case. Some here might like to punish Baez for his sucky lawyering, lies, whatever but the prosecutors will take a longer view and go for the big prize.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
81
Guests online
2,392
Total visitors
2,473

Forum statistics

Threads
632,687
Messages
18,630,543
Members
243,255
Latest member
LuteAndLyre
Back
Top