This statement by Jose Baez has been my biggest WHOA moment so far....
Jose Baez stated
in court while testifying that he was retained by Casey Anthony on June 16, 2008. He filed his first Notice of Appearance as her attorney on July 17, 2008.
While some speculated that he just "misspoke" and stated the wrong month, he was actually off by
a MONTH and
A DAY :waitasec:???
Then take into consideration that a local defense attorney (RH), who is very privy to the jail, court system, etc in the Orlando area, was himself perplexed enough to publish a blog on the subject...for your recollection....
http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/12/attorney-of-record-in-record-time/
So why would Jose Baez testify in court that he entered into a client/attorney relationship with Casey as early as June 16, 2008?
I suspect the reason was a little defense strategy...a little CYA! I suspect that it is very possible that KC initiated contact with Jose Baez (consultation) shortly after the demise of Caylee, but I suspect it was some




and bull story she invented on a whim...I think she probably created a story to keep him intrigued enough that he would come running IF she initiated a followup call (if and when she got "caught....just covering her bases)....
I suspect this may even have been an in-person visit to his office for the reasons I am about to describe...I don't think Casey actually retained him at this point as she didn't have any access to money.....Amy was paying for her beer and frilly undergarments at Target!
Baez was eventually retained (obviously) but I think the decision to "back up" the date of contract came in order to protect any and all conversations he had with KC between June 16th and July 17th under attorney/client privelege.
I think Baez was very afraid that SA may uncover evidence that KC had contacted an attorney shortly after Caylee was last seen. If SA HAD uncovered such information and Baez was not yet KC's attorney, could they not issue an investigative subpoena regarding any contact? What did KC say, how did she act?
What if KC HAD visited Baez office for consultation in June (but did not retain him until July), could an employee of Baez Law Firm "sell out" a story to the tabloids that KC had in fact consulted an attorney within days of Caylee's demise? There have been quite a few who have come and gone since this case began...not a lot of loyalty to the firm....
By backing up the retainer date to June 16th, Baez and any and all employees of the Baez Law Firm are now protected by privilege, thus protecting KC's story of "31 days".....they don't even need to give an explanation as to why she sought out an atty on June 16th now....could just offer explanation that KC sought legal advice on how to handle Nanny stealing her child, and NO ONE can question them on it!
I think Baez was expecting that question in court that day, and knew the minute he spoke those words, no one could question him on it. He was covering BOTH their .........!:furious:
EDITED TO ADD:
This whole line of thinking was sparked off while recalling how Baez was so desperately trying to "fudge" the time period of his supposed contract with Dominic Casey in order to claim "privilege"