This from a recent report in MSM: Casey Anthony paid attorney Jose Baez in sex.
Kimberly Gilfoyle, for Fox News, asked Jose Baez about it. She asked him if he was having an inappropriate relationship with his client, Casey Anthony.
Baez answered her:
"I’m not going to dignify that with an answer. I am not going to even dignify that with an answer.”
We learn that the question, itself, is sensitive to him. Had it come from 'left field' a sensitivity to it might have come from being caught off guard, but the jail had stated that Baez refused to heed warnings.
Some questions can be so bizarre that one may refuse to answer simply because they do not wish to dignify the question with an answer.
Is this question one such?
1. Jose Baez was 'sanctioned' by the jail for repeated failure to follow policy and keep his hands off of Casey. No amount of correction or warning would cause him to stop touching her.
2. Jose Baez was regularly photographed cuddling with Casey Anthony. In spite of these very public displays of affection making the news, he refused to stop.
3. Then, the public learned that Casey Anthony was spending up to 6 hours a day in his small office. She arrived in the late morning and left in the late afternoon, day after day.
This puts his refusal to answer in context.
The first point of sensitivity is the refusal to answer the question. The question, itself, is 'sensitive', that is, important to him. In his refusal to answer, we find:
The second point of sensitivity: repetition.
Thirdly, in the repetition, he sought more emphasis, by adding the word, "even" though it not necessary. This repetition showed further consideration given to the question. This is a need to persuade, or a 'need to call in reinforcements' verbally, to his refusal to answer.
The word "dignity" is repeated. Thus news stories of his personal life followed including possible divorce and foreclosure. His court room technique of obfuscation was anything but dignified.
As to the question, he refused to say "no" and it is in context that one may draw the conclusion that the question, itself, was not inappropriate.
Casey Anthony, herself, said friends asked if "she was gonna hit it"; her reference to sex with Baez.
Analysis Conclusion: From the photographs and length of time they spent alone at his office, as well as her reputation for promiscuity, many people thought they were involved. Baez' statement strengthens the assertion that is now made by the private investigator who has brought this public.
update: Baez issues denial:
"I unequivocally and categorically deny exchanging sex for my legal services with Ms. Anthony. I further unequivocally and categorically deny having any sexual relationship with Ms. Anthony whatsoever.I have always conducted my practice consistent with the high ethical standards required of members of the Florida Bar. My representation of Ms. Anthony was no exception. Legal action is forthcoming,"
Besides being unreliable as a denial he should not have based his denial on his practice. It is interesting to note how many times he was publicly inconsistent with the high ethical standards required of the Florida Bar.
To "deny" is to refuse acceptance. It is not the same as saying "I didn't" but it is a refusal to accept the allegation. It is a way of avoiding a denial, by a form of 'describing' a denial.
The additional wording is unnecessary and further weakens any attempt at denial. It is interesting that he feels the need to first deny the use of sex as currency, and then to deny (unnecessarily?) sex with Casey Anthony.
The Casey Anthony jury has likely had impact on many cases since its verdict came in and shocked the nation.
The judge took no steps to combat the perjury by Cindy Anthony, further emboldening criminal behavior and contempt for authority in general. This further emboldened defense attorneys to use the technique of 'confusion' and 'overload' to juror with ever decreasing educational standards and attention spans.
It does not speak well for justice in cases we have covered which could have been prosecuted.