Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Jose Baez: New Denials Examined
Jose Baez, attorney for Casey Anthony, has been indicated for deception many times over the years. When Kimberly Gilfoyle had asked him about having sex with Casey Anthony, his client, he indicated sensitivity to the question; refusing to answer it.
This came in the wake of repeated jailhouse corrections to have no contact with her, which he refused to comply with, and that she spent 6 hours per day at his small office.
He now has called the source, "a complete and total moron" showing the need to ridicule the subject of the statement, rather than deny the statement.
To this, it was added that a drug dealer helped pay Casey's bill. Baez said:
"One, 'El Chapo' did not finance Casey Anthony’s defense. Two, I did not have an inappropriate relationship with Casey. Three, drug traffickers did not kidnap Caylee and take her to Colombia. Four, she never told me that she murdered her child and where the body was. And five, the post office is not involved in Caylee Anthony's disappearance."
By beginning with a numeric, it is an indication of successive thought, which is why we seek subsequent numerics.
"El Chapo did not finance Casey Anthony's defense" is a strong denial. However, we would need to explore what "finance" means, since the allegation is not that he financed it, that is, paid for it in its entirety, but he assisted with it. This is likely true: the drug dealer El Chapo did not finance her defense.
"Two, I did not have an inappropriate relationship with Casey" is not a reliable denial since the accusation is sexual.
Baez' moral standards, as seen in his defense of Casey and his many statements, may be such that he does not consider the relationship he had with Casey to be "inappropriate."
In his denials, he has not said, "I didn't have sexual contact with Casey" and at this point, with constant press coverage, a denial that is technically reliable may be parroted, and not freely given, as it should have been if innocent, years ago.
This is to admit a relationship (other than professional, given the context) but to deny that this personal relationship was "inappropriate." As to his personal subjective understanding of what is appropriate, this is likely true, but it does not mean that he did not engage in sexual activity with her.
The third is interesting for its clarity:
"Three, drug traffickers did not kidnap Caylee and take her to Colombia. "
Here we find his strongest statement of denial and is likely to be reliable on its form. This is no stretch given that Caylee was dumped in the woods near her home, as both Casey and Cindy indicated in their own statements.
This next one is useful for the pattern which is now broken:
"Four, she never told me that she murdered her child and where the body was."
In the first three, he used the stronger "did not" which is now ejected (the pattern is easiest to follow and it takes an effort to break this pattern) with the vague and unreliable "never" instead of "did not."
Lance Armstrong "never" took PEDS.
Many criminals "never" did their crimes, and used the vague "never" (which will not address a specific time period) whereas they were unable to say "I did not..."
This change of pattern is to be taken along with the ejection of the reliable verb "did not" together. Not only is "never" unreliable, but it is deliberately taken out of his patterned vocabulary within the same statement. This takes an act of deliberation (strong awareness) to do so, and it represents a change in reality.
I do not understand this next one, in the present tense:
And five, the post office is not involved in Caylee Anthony's disappearance."
It may be an attempt at humor, but it is deflection and since Caylee Anthony is not missing, it should be viewed as such: deflection from that which preceded it:
Jose Baez does not deny having sexual contact with Casey Anthony, nor does he issue a reliable denial about knowing that she killed (note "murdered") Caylee and where she dumped the child's remains.
In the article, he says he hopes that a prosecutor does not "see" the transcripts of the private investigator who could then face criminal charges, but does not answer why Baez, himself, does not seek to alert a prosecutor to file criminal charges.
The article claims that Baez is still going to pursue legal action against the PI.
For Jose Baez: Deception Indicated is the norm since this case first broke.