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

[missm]

I don't think JB has believed in her innocence since he heard the first LE tape. I think JB sold the ICA kool-aid and other DT members joined the team thinking she was innocent...at first but have long hit the road since. I think CM only joined for the noteriety and Simms well I think she believes everyone innocent of course until she hears video tape visitations!

JMHO

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?

 

[PGWodehouse]

Even Jose isn't that stupid.

 

[newuser]

He knows, but he studied long and hard to protect and defend the truly innocent people and help us all hold onto our precious rights and freedom. He has to do his job.

 

[Boytwnmom]

Even he isn't dense enough to think she's innocent. Honestly I don't think he cares either about the truth or about his client. In my opinion he is a publicity hound who seeks only to further his career regardless of the cost to anyone else. I also wonder how closely he has skirted the rules of professional responsibility in terms of stating known falsehoods to the court. I found, so far, that his opening statement was highly unethical as an attorney should not attempt to influence a jury through statements that will not be proven through evidence. The sexual abuse allegations have no foundation unless there is some testimony about it and that could only come from ICA who has no obligation to testify.

 

[QueenD]

My boss' nephew is a defense attorney (new/young). I have discused this case with him some. I ask does a defense attorney want to know what really happened. He said yes. They want to know everything. They don't care, they don't like to be blind sided with nothing.

My opinion (and his too) JB has some kind of deal down the road. ($$$$$$)
He (JB) knows she is guilty, he knows he cannot win.

 

[newuser]

I think he's got a deal winked and nodded win or lose. I mean, either way, he's going to be the most talked about lawyer in the country for a while.

By deal, I mean for himself for making money off all this, not a deal for his client.

 

[Softail]

Seriously, JB has forgotten so many of the lies. In the words of Judge Judy - When you tell the truth, you don't need a good memory!

SHEESH, Whenever JB get up at the podium, he forgets his own lies!
It is ridiculous.

 

[allycat1208]

JB knows she's guilty.
And, before CM was part of the DT, he was proclaiming just how guilty she was!

Is this true?

 

[Marple]

Everybody on on DT knows she is guilty and have known it from Day 1. (ETA - I mean day 31!)

 

[HRCODEPINK]

This is the thing that I just can't get my head around: a child could not be a more innocent victim of a crime. They truly are the most defenseless.

When you know what is right, and moral and just, how on earth could you aid a murderer to get away with such a thing, scot free? The murder of a helpless baby. A baby who had no hope of fighting back, a baby who had unconditional love and trust for the mother that killed her. It boggles my mind.

In order to be able to do his job, wouldn't JB have to believe on some level of the inmate's innocence? How can he possibly square it away in his heart, otherwise?

I will never understand how somebody can defend the indefensible.

No. They don't have to believe them at all. Some have to, but not all. When I worked with the IP, I could not work a case that I had not read all of the evidence and trial transcripts on myself and believed in their innocence 100% because I can't put my whole heart into something that I don't believe in and the stakes are too high to not work with your whole heart and there are always plenty more people out there that need help. But I worked with others who knew for certain that the person was guilty and would just work away trying to find that loophole or crazy piece of something that didn't fit.

I'm told they square it away in their heart by knowing that the Constitution (which everyone involved on either side should love and protect) guarantees this person the right to the most vigorous defense possible and being guilty does not strip them of their constitutional rights. And the few rights that they will lose are not lost until a jury of their peers has decided their fate. Until that time, they are doing the work that the framers of the Constitution wanted them to do, knowing that the founders believed that it was better for the guilty to go free than have an innocent suffer. Sometimes there are freaky cases. Sometimes there are false confessions. Someone has to be there for them. Even if they killed their daughter.

It's not always fair and it sucks a lot of the time. But I am not willing to see anything happen, even to her, that would violate anyone's Constitutional rights because under equal protection and because it sets precedent, they can violate my rights as well. Under no circumstances am I willing to give up any of my rights. Especially for her. I am glad she has an attorney and believe that it is her Karma that gives her the attorney she has.

 

[Mare10]

I think at the beginning he may have believed in her innocence (Zanni and all that). Then there was more and more hoopla around her and him. More and more media coverage for him. He was lovin it. Then came more and more evidence and then he knew. He was now in the company of heavy hitters and he was again lovin it. Now he is in way over his head but with the the Dream Team, he was still lovin it. He can't leave now, this is his job. Dream Team for the most part vanished. Bottom line, he knows and he's lovin it. Sorry, but I cannot stomach him.:loser:

 

[Ricki]

Is this true?

I don't think this would of been said if he thought she was innocent.

"You can pretty well predict there's going to be a life sentence, either a plea and get it over with or have a circus trial and then be convicted and get life," Mason said.

 

[missm]

He knows, but he studied long and hard to protect and defend the truly innocent people and help us all hold onto our precious rights and freedom. He has to do his job.

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.

 

[otto]

So ... he's waiting for her to be safely tucked away in jail and then he's going to cash in?

 

[missm]

No. They don't have to believe them at all. Some have to, but not all. When I worked with the IP, I could not work a case that I had not read all of the evidence and trial transcripts on myself and believed in their innocence 100% because I can't put my whole heart into something that I don't believe in and the stakes are too high to not work with your whole heart and there are always plenty more people out there that need help. But I worked with others who knew for certain that the person was guilty and would just work away trying to find that loophole or crazy piece of something that didn't fit.

I'm told they square it away in their heart by knowing that the Constitution (which everyone involved on either side should love and protect) guarantees this person the right to the most vigorous defense possible and being guilty does not strip them of their constitutional rights. And the few rights that they will lose are not lost until a jury of their peers has decided their fate. Until that time, they are doing the work that the framers of the Constitution wanted them to do, knowing that the founders believed that it was better for the guilty to go free than have an innocent suffer. Sometimes there are freaky cases. Sometimes there are false confessions. Someone has to be there for them. Even if they killed their daughter.

It's not always fair and it sucks a lot of the time. But I am not willing to see anything happen, even to her, that would violate anyone's Constitutional rights because under equal protection and because it sets precedent, they can violate my rights as well. Under no circumstances am I willing to give up any of my rights. Especially for her. I am glad she has an attorney and believe that it is her Karma that gives her the attorney she has.

Amazing answer. Thank you so much for sharing all of that. Everything that you said is so interesting, and it really does shed some light on all of those questions.

 

[Sleuth5]

While I understand that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense because that is how the justice system works, many of us are sincerely wondering how the DT can sleep at night with this case, with the monumental amount of evidence against the inmate.

Do you genuinely think that JB, CM etc truly believe that the inmate had nothing to do with Caylee's death?

Aside from any other reason for taking on this case (for fame, to become DP qualified, as a final swan song before retirement, for the potential income for book deals & interviews down the road, etc) do you really think in their hearts and guts she is innocent?

BBM

No. But a proviso is important.

I don't know when or how any of them came to their conclusions about the defendant's guilt, because I wasn't there and don't know any of them personally.

However, I do believe that CM and DCS are both committed to seeing that ICA gets a fair trial regardless of what they now believe. They are going to do their best to defend her because they are professionals and it is their job. I would certainly want the same thing if I needed defense.

As for JB, I think he genuinely believed the kidnapping story at first, because he wouldn't have had any reason not to. I think he quickly realized that she was a sociopath at some point later. I will reserve my comments regarding his failure to excuse himself from the case and urge ICA to seek better-qualified counsel.

The bottom line is that I feel confident that anyone who has completed law school and passed the Bar Exam (regardless of the fact that many seem to think JB's numerous failures indicate how little it means, it is still a significant feat worthy of respect -- try it yourself before you judge too harshly) is more than intelligent enough to see that she obviously had to have been involved to a much greater degree than she is willing to admit.

Indeed, her failure to involve herself in any meaningful way, given the facts at hand, would lead any rational person to conclude that she was simply not being truthful.

So, of course they don't believe she had nothing to do with it. But that does not mean they know exactly what her involvement was. I do not think ICA wlll ever tell anyone the "truth".

:cow:

 

[Sleuth5]

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.

Probably the same reason people become teachers. They want to make a difference. If you spare even one innocent person from an unjust conviction, I would think it would be a life well-spent.

 

[lynxofsd]

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.

 

[Sleuth5]

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.

Clear and exceptionally eloquent, Doctor.

 

[joyewils]

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.