Baez - Just Lost The Trial

[yolorado]

If this was the story, how the heck did the defense take this over three years expending countless taxpayer dollars and public resources? Why not just tell the police from the beginning? Why not advise one's client to come clean while the accidental drowning could be proven by autopsy? Why was a bail bondsman needed to be told that the client would help him search for her MISSING, KIDNAPPED child to get her out of jail when the "truth" would have worked even better? Can Baez be prosecuted or disbarred or sued for taking money to defend a death penalty 1st degree murder case he knew from the beginning was an accident, information he never shared with the police? Couldn't people say he, himself was guilty of some kind of scam or fraud.

I despair of our judicial system which, way, way too often, heaps the presumption of innocence on the guilty while, as I believe was done in Baez's opening statement, it allows, even encourages, the innocent to be blamed of crimes without proof, without the same presumption of innocence, in order to set the guilty free.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Yes, I see what you mean.

When I say murder to cover an accident, I mean once they found Caylee's body with duct tape, it did look like murder and while it was never spoken outright, it was implied that Zanny was the murderer. Of course Jose was going to explain all of this to us at the trial and then we'd all understand. Ya right.

So technically, she is saying she tried to cover an accidental drowning with a kidnapping, you are right on that, but either way to cover an accident, which happens all the time and is totally believable to a nanny kidnapped and murdered the child (once Caylee was found we were supposed to believe that the nanny did it).

It's just bass akwards, KWIM?? It's sooo out there for a person to do that, never mind two seemly normal people to do it together. The odds of that are just too improbable. Especailly when there was no good reason to hide an accident. Were the two of them that scared of Cindy that they would go through all of this rather than say an accident happened.

Was their fear of Cindy that much greater than their love for Caylee? I don't think so, at least not for George.

They most certainly are now claiming that they used a murder to cover up an accident! While KC was in jail her conversations with Lee were to the effect that she couldn't tell anyone anything because the entire family was in danger because of the big bad kidnappers! That she was keeping quiet to protect the safety of her entire family. Just because the dt skipped 'splaining this in opening doesn't mean it's not going to come out at trial. It is. Count on it.

 

[trafficsUP66]

In all reality, JB is doing what every defense attorney does, throwing stuff out there to shed doubt on the states evidence. Thats really all he has to do, he doesnt have to "prove" someone else did it, he only has to cast doubt that his client did it. I hate to say, when you view the case so far without emotion and just as a viewer, he may succeed. The defense wont have to "explain" everything, only cast doubt on what the state brings in.

What Baez says however, is not "factual evidence"!

Defense lawyers can say anything--but there needs to be some truth proffered in order to show this pathological liar isn't lying yet AGAIN and just saying what she needs too to get out of a murder conviction.

The state will continue to plod along with the truth, with witnesses and physical evidence to prove the real facts in this case. (notice when Baez is objected to and the SA says "facts not in evidence" the judge rules for the SA?) There is not one fact that shows what she says happened ever happened. There's mountains of facts the state will prove with evidence rather tan just the word of a known liar.

What lawyer's say is not 'evidence'.

Doubt has to be reasonable. A story that makes no sense and doesn't add up with everything that took place isn't a reasonable doubt. Also, being abused does not give anyone the right to kill anyone, not even your own child! So, even IF the jury were to believe such a thing occurred, that is not reasonable doubt. It has nothing to do with what SHE did!

And, who waits 3 years to tell the truth? Even the police gave her the 'accident' out. That tape at Universal will come in and shows she's totally sticking with the kidnap story. Even after admitting to her lies!

No 911 until the grand mother calls, hiding and sneaking in and out of the home when the parent's were not there, (she even called to be sure!) the smelly car being dumped..........and on and on........Facts.

 

[strawberry]

ITA that the opening statement had all the hallmarks of an ICA story.

We all know verison 1.0 Version 2.0 had her at the park with Zanny and Co. when she was "pushed down". They grabbed Caylee and said "I'm going to teach you a lesson."

One of the IM records show that as she is pretending to be at work, she starts giving a play by play of the funny things that are happening...her boss can't believe she's here so early right after vacation!

She stole money "in a time of desperation" and took LE to Universal in hopes that someone might have seen Caylee.

The story was obviously straight from ICAs playbook. In fact perhaps that is what she was writing during the Frye hearings. Her telemundo soap opera story.

 

[Velouria]

Yes, Yes, Yes Casey the victim - that's all she has ever cried about.

The way I see it Caylee, Cindy, George, Lee and anyone else that has ever known Casey are victims. The world is a much better place with Casey behind bars.

BBM because this absolutely deserves repeating!

 

[Solace]

Jose Baez stated in his opening remarks that Caylee died due to a tragic accident - a drowning in the family pool. Baez goes on to give a touching story but is it rooted in reality?

I don't think so and I'll tell you why

This is what Baez stated in his opening remarks;

"Early morning hours the exact time is not known...it could have been early afternoon...early morning...actually it was the early morning hours. George Anthony approached Casey and started yelling at her - where's Caylee, where's Caylee? They began to search the house, they couldn't find her, they searched in the bedrooms, they searched under the beds, in the closets, in the garage, then they went outside. This is a mock up of the Anthony home where you'll see they both came outside. Casey came around to the left of the house, George went that way towards the pool, they have an above ground pool with a ladder, and we'll talk about the pool and the ladder in just a moment. What happened next is as soon as Casey came around this corner and went back she saw George Anthony holding Caylee in his arms."

Keeping in mind that opening statements are not evidence but if you present them to a jury you had better hope that you can back them up and this is where Baez scores a huge fail.

There is no way there is enough time for George to...

1 find Caylee in the pool
2 climb the ladder
3 get in the pool
4 grab Caylee
5 remove Caylee and himself from the pool
6 climb back down the ladder
7 walk back to the opposite corner of the house where Casey is just returning

The corridor at the side of the house that Casey is alleged to have gone to is a small and very narrow space with a locked shed at the end of the corridor with no where for Caylee to hide - it would probably only take about 20 seconds to walk there and back to the edge of the house - so no way no how is this going to fly with a jury.

LDB crafted a brilliantly clever and concise presentation and made very sure to do this step by careful step with Cindy, to lay out the dimensions of the house, the garden and the pool area - complete with photographic evidence of how small a space they are talking about. I've no doubt this was quickly put together by the state when they heard Baez's opening remarks.

Still don't believe me, well just to put the icing on the cake when Baez attempts to throw Cindy into the mix as a possible accomplice - Cindy refutes this utterly and completely believably by thwarting him with her testimony that she removed that pool ladder.

Casey's pool story is busted as a complete fabrication.

Baez just lost the trial in the 1.40 mins it took him to tell that story.

He says CAylee was found at 11:00 a.m. and at another point waffled and said 4:00 p.m. then went back to 11:00 .m. THE ONLY PROBLEM BAEZ IS THAT CASEY WAS DOWNLOADING PICTURES N THE FAMILY COMPUTER AT 11;47 A.M ALSO, ntice that Cindy said they stopped looking six weeks ago. Six weeks ago Lippman (their attorney) told them Baez intends to go the sexual abuse route. There is one thing to say it and it is another to listen to the absolutely vulgar presentation by Baez and if George is not good enough, we will throw in Lee. The outburst from Casey yesterday when her mother would not look at her and hugged George and this infurtiated the narcissistic Casey. Not only does she kill their grandchild, but she now wants them to back up her LIE about the drowning and also Cindy please back up that your husband was molesting your daughter in the worst way imaginable before school each morning. Just go alone okay. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. LWOP is waiting Absolutely no doubt about it. None.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

BBM.

Didn't sound like he thought the odor was evidence in and of itself. It was a sign that evidence might be there - but upon opening the trunk he saw no evidence of a dead body. Therefore allowed the car to drive away. My guess -he knew the scent of human decay, but he was not a forensics expert so didn't consider the scent to be evidence. Not many people would. Evidence to the average joe means a body, a severed hand, blood spatters, a hunk of hair, etc. To a forensics expert it means a lot of things that are invisible to the naked eye - including scents and chemical residue. So I don't think it follows that your average joe would necessarily call the police because of a smell in someone else's car. (Also, maybe he was in denial of the horrible truth and living in Simon-World to deal with it?)

He was not your average joe in regards to the odor of human decomposition. JB will use his actions later in the trial in regards to the odor in the trunk. My personal opinion is that SB allowing GA to drive the vehicle out of the lot will be a problem for the state later in this case. As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[krkrjx]

I am thinking Baez and Co. never expected KC could be acquitted. They tried to go there because it's their job to try, and I suppose they figured why not try even in the face of all evidence against their client. So, I can't say that I agree Baez has lost the trial since I do not think he expected to win an acquittal. I think he expected and still expects to keep his client off Death Row...and he just may win that.

I didn't hear CA's Saturday testimony but I read about her here on WS. I found CA credible, at least so far she is coming across as credible. Yes, it's hard to understand how a parent can fall for elaborate lies, but it happens. The info we have (and that CA now has of course) just shows how clear hindsight is. I do not think CA ever had any reason to think that KC would ever harm Caylee. IMO she had never seen KC be mean to the child, strike her, threaten her, etc. It's like all the witnesses have said, KC appeared to be a good mom and she and Caylee had a bond. This is the relationship that everyone saw between KC and Caylee; whether it was different when those two were alone is irrelevant because what was shown to others by KC is all they can testify to. And it's all anyone had to go on, including CA.

Biggest concern for me right now is the judge in this case. By all that I had read or heard about Judge Perry, he seemed a good judge, very knowledgeable of the law, fair and impartial, highly respected and just a good guy in general. But something troubles me, and it has been trying to gnaw at me since jury selection days. And now with the sustained objection to the MySpace evidence being entered, Judge Perry seems to be once again bending over backward in favor of the defense in this case. I cannot figure out why. It's not that I want him to favor the prosecution...not at all. I want him to favor neither side, to be only on the side of justice being served. Because that is his job. He owes that not only to Caylee but to all citizens of the state of Florida.

I do hope I am wrong in my concerns over some of Judge Perry's rulings. I hope all comes out in the wash and in the end we see true and full justice served. For now, though, I am concerned over the sentence KC will receive upon a guilty verdict. I have no reason to think she will not be found guilty, but I do have reason to think she will not get the death penalty. All along I didn't care if she got Life or Death, as long as she was never free in society again. But now, seeing all her damage and deliberate disregard for so many lives, I would be willing to inject KC myself. Sadly though, my present concerns over Judge Perry at this moment have me convinced that he will never pass a death sentence in this case. Not even if the jury recommends it. If that happens, JB and Co. will have won--they will have accomplished what they set out to do.

 

[trafficsUP66]

If this was the story, how the heck did the defense take this over three years expending countless taxpayer dollars and public resources? Why not just tell the police from the beginning? Why not advise one's client to come clean while the accidental drowning could be proven by autopsy? Why was a bail bondsman needed to be told that the client would help him search for her MISSING, KIDNAPPED child to get her out of jail when the "truth" would have worked even better? Can Baez be prosecuted or disbarred or sued for taking money to defend a death penalty 1st degree murder case he knew from the beginning was an accident, information he never shared with the police? Couldn't people say he, himself was guilty of some kind of scam or fraud.

I despair of our judicial system which, way, way too often, heaps the presumption of innocence on the guilty while, as I believe was done in Baez's opening statement, it allows, even encourages, the innocent to be blamed of crimes without proof, without the same presumption of innocence, in order to set the guilty free.

OMG--just want to thank you for this post.

This just feeds into the sick twisted minds of those who believe they can say and do just whatever they want no matter whose lives they obliterate!

And this one, well she ruins everyone she comes into contact over and over. One sick-o who actually believed that she could put forth such horrific lies to get away with murder and do so without a shred of remorse........she's angry at her mother for not throwing her father under the freight train for HER!

If this does work, look out world--there will be a serial killer in the making and if she got to go back home--C & G should lock their bedroom doors the rest of their lives! (if some angry protester doesn't knock her off first she'll be lucky!)

I pray this jury doesn't fall for her elaborate story that makes no sense.......

JUSTICE PLEASE for CAYLEE!!!

 

[Ada]

Regarding the sliding glass doors:

Remember that the Anthony's have lived in that house since the 80s. Glass doors were quite a bit thicker and heavier then than they are now. Don't think about Caylee trying to open a new glass door. Think of her trying to open a door that was built 30 years ago (? don't know when the house was built).

The house I grew up in had lots of sliding glass doors (one whole side was nearly all sliding glass doors) and I struggled to open them, even as a teenager.

(unless they have had their doors replaced. In that case, ignore me )

 

[Hisimage]

I don't know how and I don't know if I am allowed to start a new thread. But, I would like to see one titled: If I were a juror I would wonder:

Remember some people here know the facts inside and out, forward and backward. So when Cindy said she stopped looking for Zani 6 weeks ago most of us knew why. However, the jury doesn't so, what do you think they thought of that statement? I don't think she was questioned anymore than that. So try to be a juror and hear just what is being heard in real time, as they hear it. So this would be my statement.

If I were a juror I would wonder why CA stopped looking 6 weeks ago for a kidnapper. Why 6 weeks?

If a thread could be started I would love to see it with just questions, no answers just the questions a juror might have. Something that does not yet make sense.

 

[fifteen89]

I honestly don't see how he's going to accomplish that. If he had gone with the theory that Caylee accidentally drown and ICA freaked out and tried to hide the fact, I think he might have stood a slim chance. But JB was also forced with having to explain how ICA could go off and party like it's 1999 after her daughter drowns. Even if the DT could prove to me that ICA was molested...it wouldn't matter a bit in terms of how I view her behavior after the death of her daughter. Then we get to the part of the story where GA finds Caylee and helps ICA cover it up. I'm not buying that for one minute. There was a dead body in the trunk of ICA's car...the forensics are going to show that beyond a shadow of a doubt, imo. Is the DT going to try to argue that GA, a former detective, instructs ICA to stash the body in the trunk of her car and drive around with it until everybody and their brother notice the stench? Please. Then we come to the duct tape. How does THAT come to be over the nose and mouth of a drowned child? GA, former detective, decides it's a great idea to take duct tape from his own house, and put it over the nose and mouth of a dead child? For what purpose? And then we come to RK. Someone who knows neither ICA nor GA. He finds the body, takes the body and stashes it who knows where for several months, tampers with the body, then returns it to the place he found it? For money? Seriously?! WTH?! I mean, I could go on and on and on.

This entire theory, laid out, looks like it was written by a 3rd grader.

A 3rd grader or Casey or Casey + JB.
Listeners' choice.

ICAM with your entire post.

 

[ohiogirl]

Also, another question to ponder. Wouldn't the DT's "theory" make more sense if GA wasn't there? I could see it happening (for the sake of argument) when ICA was there alone - then she panics to hide the tragedy from CA and GA...but if GA was there, and CA was going to find out anyway...why hide the body? What would the point be of NOT calling 9-11??

Yes, it makes perfect sense, but then they wouldn't be able to blame someone else.

 

[Amster]

Having followed this case from the beginning.....it's hard for me to understand how anyone else who has followed this as closely could actually feel doubt regarding guilt based on the opening by JB via ICA. Color me astounded.

 

[suzihawk]

Jose Baez - "Anything Casey could do to protect her child she did, including living a lie, making up a nanny, making up a job."

How did living a lie protect her child?
How did making up a nanny protect her child?
How did making up a job protect her child?

This is just a small example of the ridiculous things Baez said in his opening statement. Will or can the SA go over Baez opening statement in their closing to point out all the illogical things he said? I'm afraid the jury may not have caught all this ridiculousness the first time around.

It would take the state all day to point out each and every inconsistency in JB's opening statement. :crazy:

The jury may not have caught all the ridiculousness in the opening statement, but they'll catch on in the long run. I'm betting on it.

 

[ohiogirl]

I am thinking Baez and Co. never expected KC could be acquitted. They tried to go there because it's their job to try, and I suppose they figured why not try even in the face of all evidence against their client. So, I can't say that I agree Baez has lost the trial since I do not think he expected to win an acquittal. I think he expected and still expects to keep his client off Death Row...and he just may win that.

I didn't hear CA's Saturday testimony but I read about her here on WS. I found CA credible, at least so far she is coming across as credible. Yes, it's hard to understand how a parent can fall for elaborate lies, but it happens. The info we have (and that CA now has of course) just shows how clear hindsight is. I do not think CA ever had any reason to think that KC would ever harm Caylee. IMO she had never seen KC be mean to the child, strike her, threaten her, etc. It's like all the witnesses have said, KC appeared to be a good mom and she and Caylee had a bond. This is the relationship that everyone saw between KC and Caylee; whether it was different when those two were alone is irrelevant because what was shown to others by KC is all they can testify to. And it's all anyone had to go on, including CA.

Biggest concern for me right now is the judge in this case. By all that I had read or heard about Judge Perry, he seemed a good judge, very knowledgeable of the law, fair and impartial, highly respected and just a good guy in general. But something troubles me, and it has been trying to gnaw at me since jury selection days. And now with the sustained objection to the MySpace evidence being entered, Judge Perry seems to be once again bending over backward in favor of the defense in this case. I cannot figure out why. It's not that I want him to favor the prosecution...not at all. I want him to favor neither side, to be only on the side of justice being served. Because that is his job. He owes that not only to Caylee but to all citizens of the state of Florida.

I do hope I am wrong in my concerns over some of Judge Perry's rulings. I hope all comes out in the wash and in the end we see true and full justice served. For now, though, I am concerned over the sentence KC will receive upon a guilty verdict. I have no reason to think she will not be found guilty, but I do have reason to think she will not get the death penalty. All along I didn't care if she got Life or Death, as long as she was never free in society again. But now, seeing all her damage and deliberate disregard for so many lives, I would be willing to inject KC myself. Sadly though, my present concerns over Judge Perry at this moment have me convinced that he will never pass a death sentence in this case. Not even if the jury recommends it. If that happens, JB and Co. will have won--they will have accomplished what they set out to do.

I think we are all disappointed that the Myspace posting didn't come in, but if you think about it, it really doesn't have a place. It wasn't written by KC and it doesn't further the case either way other than to show CA was missing Kaylee and she though that KC was keeping her away from them. It also is prejudicial to the defendant regarding the $$. I think the Judge didn't have a choice but to exclude it, imo.
I don't know if the Judge is going to allow any of the $$ stealing to come in, but CA already demonstrated that KC was lying and keeping the baby from them. I don't think the jury missed that. jmo and all that jazz

 

[fifteen89]

We've heard the opinion of many survivors here since JB did his opening statement and a lot of them have stated that they would never leave their child with their abuser and that they have never killed anyone as a result of being abused.

moo

^^^ That's the clincher for me. Casey would have gotten herself out of that house at the first opportunity. And I don't mean just sleeping over at her boyfriends house. She would NEVER have let Caylee alone with George. Ever. Period. For me that's the end of alleged sexual abuse lie.

Plus in all the tapes of George and Cindy visiting her in jail, to me she always seems to really dislike her mother and would rather talk to George. I'm especially remembering the time where she told George what a great Dad and Grandfather he is and the visit where she laughed at Cindy for crying. I saw tension between her and Cindy, not so much with George.

 

[fifteen89]

When I watch ICA, I see lots of tissues, touching her face as if wiping away her tears, eyes changing..but I never see real tears or the redness that usually goes with crying. Her face color always looks normal so quickly. Even her outlburst with CA leaving the stand yesterday... I saw anger but I saw calculation. She knows when to turn it on. IMO

I agree. I just wish she had 'turned it on' a bit sooner, you know, in time for the jury to see her little tantrum.

 

[fifteen89]

I bet you my bottom dollar the jury will get to see her in action. There are going to be many many more days in court when things don't go ICA's way. :innocent:

I sure hope so. It's such a waste, HUGE waste, if the jury never gets to witness it for themselves.

 

[nursebeeme]

I don't know how and I don't know if I am allowed to start a new thread. But, I would like to see one titled: If I were a juror I would wonder:

Remember some people here know the facts inside and out, forward and backward. So when Cindy said she stopped looking for Zani 6 weeks ago most of us knew why. However, the jury doesn't so, what do you think they thought of that statement? I don't think she was questioned anymore than that. So try to be a juror and hear just what is being heard in real time, as they hear it. So this would be my statement.

If I were a juror I would wonder why CA stopped looking 6 weeks ago for a kidnapper. Why 6 weeks?

If a thread could be started I would love to see it with just questions, no answers just the questions a juror might have. Something that does not yet make sense.

Hi Hisimage! here is a thread where you can discuss this!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6550522#post6550522"]Through a Juror's Eyes.../What do those who haven't followed the case believe? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

I have bumped it up to the top so you can find it easily as well:rocker: