Baez team announces new attorneys
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:47AM 
The Baez Law Firm announced last week that Dorothy Clay Sims, an attorney specializing in cross-examining medical expert witnesses, had joined Casey Anthony’s defense team pro bono. She specializes in debunking junk science and cross-examining medical experts. She is a founding partner of the law firm Sims & Stakenborg in Ocala, Florida and was the first woman chair of the Worker’s Compensation Section of the Florida Bar. Orlando attorney William Jay, who represents Anthony Lazzaro, said that she has been known to anger forensic experts.
At a press conference this morning, Sims said she hasn’t owned a television in more than ten years and has kept herself up-to-date with the case through the Internet.
Also at this morning’s press conference, Jose Baez announced the addition of two new pro bono attorneys, one to handle her civil case, and the other to help challenge the state’s demand for the death penalty.
Civil attorney Charles M. Greene, of The Law Offices of Charles M. Greene, P.A. replaces Jonathan Kasen, who had been representing Casey in the civil lawsuit filed by Zenaida Gonzalez through attorney John Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan. Greene specializes in a variety of civil and criminal legal areas, including criminal defense, civil litigation, trial practice and product liability.
Ann E. Finnell graduated from Duke University and the University of Florida School of Law. According to her Web site, she “has handled homicide and death penalty cases since 1981. She specializes in complex homicide litigation including death penalty mitigation. In addition, she has tried serious felony cases including second degree murder and manslaughter cases, capital sexual battery, and other sexual battery cases, kidnapping, armed robbery, armed burglary and violent personal crimes.”
She was featured in a 2002 documentary that won an Oscar. The film, Murder on a Sunday Morning, chronicled the successful defense of young man falsely charged of murder. She is very experienced. Baez noted that she will serve as the defense team’s death penalty expert. “Her experience is second to none,” he noted this morning.
Casey Anthony’s defense is filling up with distinguished attorneys. No matter how dumb anyone thinks Jose Baez and Cheney Mason are, they know how to surround themselves with smart lawyers who specialize in areas where they need the most help. I wouldn’t call those stupid moves. Not in the least.
Dave Knechel | tagged Roy Black | in Andrea D. Lyon, Ann E. Finnell, Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, Charles M. Greene, Cheney Mason, Dave Knechel, Death Penalty, Dorothy Clay Sims, Human Interest, Jeff Ashton, John Morgan, Jose Baez, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave’s Caylee Anthony Posts, Morgan & Morgan, Zenaida Gonzalez | Share Article 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (88)
To many cooks spoil the broth. Mind you I think Baezs idea of cooking is salad or steak tartare.Thanks Dave great post.
Oh by the way Dave Bobo the imageinary Monkey site has added you to his blog roll list..
Thanks, ecossie possie It's definitely a hodgepodge of ingredients on the defense team now. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't more thrown in later on.
Bobo commented on my last post about Mike Baldwin. I'm going to add his site to my blogroll, too. I like his style, and thanks for introducing us to his blog.
Hi Dave: Do you think maybe Mason is about to jump ship? Maybe the new attorneys are going to replace him.
Casey deserves a fair trial just as anyone does. Jose can get anyone to help but the big problem is his client did not help herself with all the lies. Anyone sitting on a jury will question why she looked for her daughter at a bar and a tattoo parlor. They will question why it took 31 days for someone other than Caylee's mommy to report her missing and they will question why Casey wanted just one more day when the call was finally made. Bring on all the intelligent lawyers but imo it does not change any of the facts. Casey did not care that her nanny snatched her daughter, Casey moved on quickly.
I don't care if the Casey Team gets 100 publicity seeking attorneys , give her all the help she can get, but they are going to have prove beyond a reasonable doubt she is innocent. What makes Jose thinks this is newsworthy? It is free advertising for his team and not really about the case against Anthony at all, who cares who joins his team? Not me.
How many more attorneys do you think they will add? It seems with the addition of these last three that they should have just about everything covered. I am glad that Judge Perry put a deadline on when the motions can last be filed, because with this new attorney they might go on forever. This will be an interesting trial, but I still think that the SAO has a very good case against her and they are good at their job. They also have good expert witnesses. What I hope and wish is that some of these high profile lawyers are doing some pro bono work for the non high profile cases with defendants that can't afford to have them. I hope Casey realizes how lucky she is to have who she has.
Hello Dave, Just checking in---good post and thanks for updating us. Wow, how does someone like Casey rate so many "free" lawyers? Too bad that Florida has to pick up any of the tab. I dont really have anything to say that is deep thought. I have just come to the point that we shall see what we shall see next May--as we still have a great judge there for Caylee. I have kind of run out of whys and wherefores with this case as we are bombarded every time we turn around with a new twist. It makes my brain hurt just thinking about it--haha. Hope everyone is having a great day.
This news conference just irks me. Hypocrites. They keep putting down the media and everyone else for putting this circus in the media, yet here they are bringing all this attention to themselves, and possible jurors. This should not have been televised as a press conference.
Sims will just belittle and dispute all of the experts on the prosecution side, but will say nothing when the defense experts are making a joke out of the truth, especially Dr. Lee.
Thank you Dave.
Hi, Carol - No, I have it on good authority that Mason will hang tough. Knowing his reputation throughout the years, he does not have a reputation as a quitter. If anything, he probably had a lot to do with orchestrating this dance we saw today. Besides, he loves a good challenge.
That's a very keen observation, Laura, and strong points no one can deny. If anything, the defense will try to confuse the jury and show them opposing possibilities. The state has a lot going in their direction, but the defense will attempt to create lots of forks in the road.
I guess all I can say, debwagstongue, is to compare it to the nutcase preacher in Gainesville. Had the press not shown up, it wouldn't have made the news. I saw lots of media microphones attached to the podium at Jose Baez's law firm. Of course, we were glued to the TV to watch it, too. I do, however, agree that proving reasonable doubt will be a tough sell.
In the end, it proves how much draw this case still has in the public mind.
Mary Jo - I don't think there will be any more games of musical chairs, as attorneys come and go, but it wouldn't surprise me, as the trial nears, to see more attorneys add weight to some degree.
All attorneys do pro bono work. According to ABA Model Rule 6.1 Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service, every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.
Hi, Martha - I think a lot of attorneys like being in the limelight, but more importantly, they like the challenge this case provides. That's why some want to work on it pro bono. As for billing the state, JAC is very experienced, and no wool will be pulled over their eyes.
Sure, OldCarGal. I still think it was up to the media to decide whether they would air the press conference or not, but remember, the ratings are what pay the media, and this press conference garnered top ratings today. When the trial comes, we will get down to the meat and potatoes. Until then, we've got to put up with a few vegetables we hate to eat.
Hello everyone!
I watched the press conference today and once again, Mr. Chaney let down the entire defense team with his usual bs attitude. Mr. Baez started to sound reasonable until Chaney opened mouth and inserted his left foot AGAIN. Of course he can't remember saying anything negative about Casey before he joined this team...it was all the news media making it up. Gesh! Doesn't he realize that his denials make him and his team look like a bunch two-faced liars? He can't stand to even look at Kathi because he knows how smart she is and she doesn't back down from him. Chaney's inability to hold back from being outwardly disrespectful towards people will come back to bite the team in the arse. Also, when he and Baez laughed at not having to prove their client's innocence because they "don't have to", turns people off. Instead of laughing at the question and refusing to educate, they should have said something like, "Casey's innocence will be proven during trial". I think they forget that the jury is not going to be made up of a bunch of top notch lawyers that know how to play the game. The jury does need just reasonable doubt ...however, deep down inside they want to know how she couldn't have done it as well.
As for Ms. Sims joining the team...She has an impressive background and I get the feeling that she will be attempting to "debunk the junk" science with the air samples for the most part. They really need to discredit the testing here because if they don't, they will have a hard time explaining why a dead body, Caylee's or not, was in the trunk of their client's car. I was kind of a bit leery when Ms Sims stated that she hasn't watched tv since what? ... 1981? Hmmm... like Baez said, if you only hear one side of the story, how do you make a decision...so....if she only heard Casey's team side of the story, how can she make an informed decision to join the team and be so sure that she believes in the "cause". (note that she did not say innocence). It is surprising to me how people take on causes only to further their careers and not because they actually believe in someone's innocence or guilt.
Hi, IceMistress - One of the prominent things I've noticed is the public's desire to see Ms. Anthony sit in prison for the rest of her life, and that she shouldn't necessarily get the death penalty. If we look at the information before us from a strictly prosecutorial perspective, she would surely be executed. Certainly, she deserves a proper defense like everyone else in her position, regardless of what the public thinks. Without it, like I said, she would die. It is my opinion that, with the addition of each new team member, the defense might just save her from death row, if nothing else, so it comes right back to what a lot of people feel anyway - that life in prison is good enough.
Why the defense said this morning that they don't have to prove her innocence is quite clear. Under this system of justice, the burden of proof, in this case guilty of murder, is on the state, not the defense. The strategy is to debunk the junk. I will agree that Baez could have verbalized the strategy with less confidence and smugness, but what he said was correct. He doesn't have to prove anything. The state does.
Also, remember that some of those attorneys, no matter what case they represent, don't always further their careers. Sometimes, something bites back.
I do not think the defense is trying to bring attention to themselves, it is more like they are trying to bring attention that the State does not have enough to warrant the death penalty. The evidence the State has may only prove that Caylee is dead. They can not prove that Caylee died of suffocation from the duct tape or suggest that Casey applied the duct tape to Caylee without Casey's fingerprint on those strips of tape. I can lie until the sky falls in but my lifetime of lying does not prove i killed. Good choice for the defense, one to argue the weakness of the evidence and the other to argue the death penalty inappropriate. Will Lyon pop back in? Didn't she say she would be available?
I don't really think so, either, New Puppy. These aren't the first attorneys to ever call a press conference and they won't be the last. They also knew going into it that they would be getting flak from some of the reporters, Kathi Belich in particular. They did. I think this way is better than having new attorneys show up at a hearing. The media got questions answered. Look at the news that was generated when Mason joined the team. These are the facts and I still say if the press wasn't interested, they wouldn't have shown up. To think otherwise is to shut the mind to reality.
As for evidence, it will be very interesting in the end. Attorneys do what attorneys do and in order to change that, the system must change. Vote in November.
Thanks for the post Dave..I could have watched the press conference today but I cannot stand looking at Baez with "the cat that ate the canary" look on his face no more than necessary. Must say I was surprised that they called the press for somthing so simple..I agree this will be one of the most convoluted trials in years but that is just what the defense wants..I am getting on in years and just hope I make it long enough to see this trial finished. Right now I have my doubts..
You will definitely see an end to this case, Glenda. I look at this press conference like I do press releases. A restaurant writes that it's added a new item to the menu. It's up to the media to decide whether to announce it or not. If it's a popular restaurant, my guess is that they will because a lot of people like to eat there. If no one ate at the place, the media would pass it on by.
~Dave~
I agree that most people want to see her serve LWOP over the death penalty but that is not solely because they do not believe in the death penalty, but because they feel that LWOP is more of a punishment then being put to sleep for the rest of your life.
I also agree that she deserves a proper defense. However, we are once again faced with the problem that all people are NOT treated equally amongst the law. How many people have stood trial on a DP case with less than what she has been given from the Florida taxpayers? Not every person standing trial for a murder case have been given the same "quality" type of legal team. Not every murder/DP case has been given the benefits that she has received. Instead of being arrogant and smug to the people that are paying for her defense, you'd think they'd be a little more tolerant, polite and at the very least, thankful. Not that I think that celebrities should be given more than the average joe citizen just because of the amount of money they have, but she is far from a celebrity.
As for the burden of proof ... I understand quite well that the defense does not have the burden of proving her innocence. However, once again, they do not have to laugh at it or be totally disrespectful of the idea that someone would want to know why she is not guilty of the crime that she is charged with. Not only that, but coming out and practically joking that they just have to poke holes at the prosecution to free their client is totally unacceptable behavior in the people's eyes. The law is the law, but no need to provoke hard feelings when the taxpayers are dishing out caviar to a hotdog lifestyle. Their defense team has criticized the people for "assuming" her guilt, but they are the ones who are angering people with their high demands, requesting additional rights and holding press conferences to publicly laugh at the people and flaunt their "free" experts. Pro Bono is a term for "free for now but you will get paid in a different way later". Whether it be in proceeds from future gains, etc or an advancement/acknowledgement in their career(s). Every lawyer is required to do some type of pro bono work each year no? It is not their belief in their client's innocence that provokes most of them. Although I will note that there have been some lawyers that have actually fought for what they believe in. All in all, they are no different or better than any other profession...they all start out with good intentions... they just get paid a hell of a lot more to misconstrue the truth. Could you imagine what would happen if they had to hand over all of their evidence, good or bad to the prosecution? What would happen if they had to tell the truth? It's all in the play (war of words)....hope they don't come to this trial unarmed.
When this whole thing started, their client lied through her teeth and did everything she could (admitted) to not help find her daughter...when she got caught in her lies, she told more lies to try to cover for the first ones that she told....then her lawyer tells her to shut up because every time she opens her mouth, a new lie comes out. So, now she sits, closed lipped and even secluded herself from her own family who, I might add, she throws dirt at from behind her own jail cell. IMO, if you knew you were innocent and wanted the support from the people, you would have told the truth from the very start whether it appeared to be in your favor or not. No amount/quality of experts can take back the lies and give reason to not reporting your own child missing for over 31 days. If they can, who is the real liar?
Thank you Dave for posting on the news conference. Incredible writing as always, you never disappoint.
To be honerst, I am glad you put this post up as I had the news conference on but paid little attention to it. I find Biaz such a foolish person that whatever he has to say is not something I need to listen to. But then I did not really listen to what Dorthy Clay said either except that Biaz said she won an Academy Award. Yes, I thought that is a perfect reason to want her on his team. I am sure I will listen to what he has to say when the trial actually starts as I sure do not want to miss any of that.
Thanks again for putting this up Dave, you make it sound so much better.
Dave,
Your right about the press, it just makes me sick they give Baez so much attention. He does take advantage of everything open to him and I don't blame him, it is his job, but I just wish he would wipe that smirky/smile off his face when he is talking. I notice he always has an air of amusement on his face. Maybe it is just his normal facial expressions, but it makes him look like he is entertained by every motion, news conferences, and especially when he is in court before the judge.
I did just read that the Florida State Attorneys Office has 150 people employed. Something I did not know, but makes me think with that many people at their disposal surely they can be very well prepared for anything that comes their way during the trial.
I just hope it's a fair trial and not like the OJ circus that left so many people disillusioned about the court system.
We don't know that there are not any prints on the duct tape. There could very well be. They don't have to release evidence that would compromise the jury until right before the trial. That is my understanding, so if I am wrong please let me know. Compromise may not be the right word I am thinking of.
IceMistress - I think what I was trying to say is that although the public and Casey's defense will never see eye to eye, the end result (wish for LWOP) could b the same. One side wants to spare her life and the other wants to keep her alive to suffer longer. If you look at any trial, criminal or civil, people with money get more and better counsel than poor people, so if there's an injustice, that's where my complaint would go. Casey just happens to be one of those criminal defense attorney's dreams. What you may look at as a nightmare is a robust challenge to them and that's why they take cases like that on. Initially, did Baez know it would blow up to the size it is today? No, I don't think so, although he probably did think about his ticket to the big time, but what's wrong with that? Everybody wants to excel at what they do, so who can blame him for that? Just like it being my business who I talk to regarding this case, I will do whatever I can to get answers.
Yes, there is an air of arrogance at times, but I have been there up close and personal at some of those press conferences and reporters can be very intimidating. I'm not excusing anyone's behavior, I just know what it's like. You'd be surprised how clustered reporters and camra personnel are outside the courthouse doors while waiting for the defense team to walk out those doors. Then, it's may the best person win when it comes to wedging closer and closer to the attorneys.
I understand exactly where you're coming from, but at the same time, I have to try to be as neutral as possible or I wouldn't be very fair.
Thanks, Peggy. I think that one of the reasons why Baez sounded so confident today was to show the prosecution that they are turning into a formidable foe. Sims is a top-notch attorney and so is Finnell. I guess that makes them fit as a Finnell.
And, debwagstongue, in that respect, it might be good to complain to the media, although I seriously doubt they would listen. It's all about ratings, and until this case is over, that's what it will continue to be. You know, one thing many of us forget is that the Baez Law Firm tries other cases as we speak. So does Cheney Mason. And for the SAO, they try tons of cases at any given moment. This is but one case on the docket. By being big news, it's still tried like any other capital murder case. It's not the court that sensationalizes it, it's the media.
Mary Jo - The judge laid out strict guidelines regarding release of evidence because he hates surprises and if anything comes in late, he said he may not include it. Clearly, that was a nudge to the prosecution. At the latest, nothing will be entered within 45 days of the trial date unless it's something of great magnitude.
Dave, I know he set a gudieline for the evidence release, but I thought it was also a set rule that if there is something that is so incriminating against Casey that would make it hard to get a jury, for example Judge Strickland sealing that video of the day the remains were found, that it would not be released until within a few weeks or even days of the trial. Both sides would already know what the evidence was, it just would not be released to the public. Does that make sense? I may not be wording things right.
I am going to have to go with Ecossie Possie, "too many cooks spoil the broth" In this case it is like , "if at first you can't succeed." No matter how many scrubbers and cleaning products you try, you still cannot get the stain off the pot. It is very disappointing when you know that pot is going to end up in the garbage heap. In this case, it will be Casey Anthony.
What better way to get free advertising than to join a high profile defense team. They may realize lots of business by showing off their expertise but, as Dave said, it may come back to bite them.
I can understand why they would welcome Ann E Finnell. Ann has a good background in mitigating circumstances and sexual assault/ abuse/ battery. I believe she may be the only saving grace for Casey not getting the lethal injection. I haven't noticed Mason filng more motions to try and get the DP removed. It looks like the DP will be still on the table come May, next year. Let's see what Ann can do now.
I doubt if the new civil attorney that replaces Kasen will be overworked. I have a feeling that the Zenaida vs Casey case will eventually become moot.
Dave, thanks for keeping us abreast of what is going on.
I don't really have a solid answer for you, Mary Jo, but the judge set a date of 45 days for witnesses to keep the trial by ambush at bay. My guess would be that it extends to all discovery. But don't quote me on it.
Hey! My pleasure, Snoopy. I am still reminded of OJ, though. He had a lot of attorneys and he walked. It's a shame, but he did.
Dave~~I am afraid that I do not give OJ's attorneys credit for getting him off. When you combine an adored Football Star, a mixed jury and Mark Furhman, you get a not guilty verdict.
Dave~~ did Judge Perry set the 45 days for the discovery regarding the 'expert' witnesses or all the discovery, period?? I still maintain that the prosecution can withhold evidence UNLESS that evidence can help the defendant, up to 2 weeks to 30 days before the commencement of the trial. Maybe the laws have changed since I read them so I stand to be corrected.
Snoopy - One of the things that Jerry Lyons told me was about a conversation he had with one of OJ's defense attorneys. During the trial, the lawyer "quietly" whispered loud enough for the state to hear. "Gee, I sure hope the prosecution doesn't ask OJ to try on the glove." The rest is history. That was a case of the prosecution's bumbling of evidence and witnesses, not just that his defense team was all that good, but they were! They had the state doing damage control and that's what a good defense does. They worked in tandem, and that's what this team will try to do. As long as they gel, it may work. I doubt it, but that's why I'd bet that Mason is in it to stay. He's an integral part of the equation that will make it a team effort.
I really don't know about the discovery deadlines. All I know is that Perry's not going to let things wait until the last minute and he will prompt all parties to be diligent.
I still say that Mark Furhman was the downfall of that case. He lied on the witness stand about using the N word. He was proven to not be credible and therefore must have planted that glove. to frame OJ.
If you have a leather glove that has absorbed blood, you get shrinkage after it dries. I don't think Johnny Cochran asked OJ to try on a wet glove. Anyone could see OJ doubling up his fist so it looked like he had to struggle to try and get that glove on Johnny had the gift of gab and knew how to utilize it at the right time. I will give him that much credit but that is all. The jury based their decision on emotions rather than the facts. Judge Ito was also a nut case....he loved the media attention and should be in the Guiness Book of records for the most sidebars. JMO
Jerry Lyons is a smoothe operator. I would not believe a word he says. I don't like him with good reason. I would love to see him try and sell me a new vac. He would be wearing the hose when he left here. LOL I had to add that.
Actually, Snoopy, it was not Cochran who asked him to try on the glove, it was Deputy District Attorney Christopher A. Darden. From Wikipedia: On June 15, 1995, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran goaded assistant prosecutor Christopher Darden into asking Simpson to put on the leather glove that was found at the scene of the crime. The prosecution had earlier decided against asking Simpson to try on the gloves because the glove had been soaked in blood (according to prosecutors) from Simpson, Brown and Goldman),[12] and frozen and unfrozen several times. Darden was advised by Clark and other prosecutors not to ask Simpson to try on the glove, but to argue through experts that in better condition, the glove would fit. Instead, Darden decided to have Simpson try on the glove.
I don't believe it was any one thing, it was a combination of actions taken by both sides. The defense took the jury to OJ's house. Originally, his walls were adorned with photos of white friends. They were replaced by pictures of his family and black friends to show how humble he was toward his African-American roots. He was a real family man, in other words.
One other thing about discovery. By the time this case goes to trial, it will be exactly 1 month shy of the date Caylee disappeared. Only it will be 3 years later. Most cases are tried long before this one and in my opinion, all investigations will be long closed. That's one of the reasons why the judge made a big deal about the witnesses. No more surprises. Both sides have had plenty of time to get their ducks in a row.
Dave~~ I would have taken your word that Darden asked OJ to try on the glove. You didn't have to bring me half of Wikipedia. If Johnny was goading Darden to get OJ to try on the glove, in a backwards sort of way, Cochrane was instrumental in having OJ try on the glove. Now how's that for me still coming out smelling like a rose, after my little, minute faux pas?
I stand by my saying that the prosecution can withhold certain evidence. Nice try tho Dave.
Dave~~this reminds me of the olden days. Anything you wanna know, you just ask the Snoop. You may have the gift of searching for the wisdom but I have mastered the gift of gab.
Roses are out of season, aren't they?
I know that in most cases, the prosecution can withhold certain evidence until weeks prior to the trial, and that by LE keeping investigations open, they can get away with it, but in this case, all investigations will be long over by the time we near the trial date, and Judge Perry is well aware of that. I think he wants it to be clear that he has no patience for last minute theatrics when the investigation went into the bag a long time earlier.
Am I mistaken, I never heard anyone say OJ's glove had been soaked in blood, or had a speck of blood on it. Enlighten me, it has been a while and since you all are already there just tell me and I will not have to go check it out and not find it.
Hi, New Puppy - One of OJ's gloves had gotten soaked in blood during the murder. The blood dried and shrunk the glove. There was no way it was going to fit and Cochran knew it.
~Dave~ Do you think that I am being unfair with my view of the situation? I have tried to be open minded from the very beginning with this case... I've researched as many "Casey is innocent" blogs/forums as I could find...With my career I have always had to weigh a lot of evidence before MAKING any decisions...I know that we have not heard the defenses side yet and that is what everyone is waiting for...but my GUT tells me that she is far from innocent. There is always 3 sides to every story...
I also understand that the media can create pressure cooker situations ... but then again, these lawyers are used to that. What disgusts me about this legal team is that they are doing most of the laughing right now. I for one, don't find this case funny. They are creating a circus environment...the next thing you know they will be clapping for themselves.
P.S. I have to agree with Snoopy on the Mark Furhman/OJ trial. What a mess that was. And, my gut still tells me that he was guilty too!
Just one more point... Just because a jury/judge states someone is guilty or innocent, doesn't make it just so... Our justice systems have freed more guilty people as it has to incarcerate innocent ones. We just aren't privy to those "mistakes" as much. But then again, that is a whole new topic.
IceMistress~~I like your way of thinking. You do not have tunnel vision which seems so apparent when some people look at this case. They gobble up the evidence that the prosecution offers but tend to keep a blind eye when it comes to the defense. We have no idea what the strategy of the defense may be although we get a sneak preview when Baez and Mason hold a press conference. Even then, what they say could be a ploy and divert us into thinking something totally opposite to what they have planned. Keeping an open mind is the best. Yes, although we will never know now, I have often wondered about Mark and that glove. I feel some of the jury felt the same way.
IceMistress, Mason did say that trying the case would be fun. A big mistake on his part as I do not think it won him any popularity contests.
Dave, thanks for agreeing with me about the blood on that glove. Ahhh, it feels so good when you agree with the Snoop. LOL
No, IceMistress, I don't think you're being unfair at all. The only thing to me is that this isn't the first defense to create a circus atmosphere and it still takes two to tango. If the public lost complete interest in the case, if even for a few months until trial, then the circus would leave town for awhile. That's not going to happen and we might as well get used to their shenanigans before they frustrate the hell out of us.
I agree with you, but Baez & Co. hold no license over attitudes. There are tons of smug attorneys out there and I don't let them anger me. Not too much, anyway. Cochran was a prime example, but he was a popular guy. Despite it all, I still believe OJ was guilty.
Then Cochrane got OJ away with murder, Anyone should know a glove that has been shrunk is not going to fit! The odd part is in watching OJ trying on the glove it did not look like it had been soaked in blood, you know leather, dried out and stiff from the blood. wouldn't that have been obvious to anyone viewing. Is there a video of that part today, somewhere? Maybe they used the one that was not soaked in blood therefore the manipulation of his hand became obvious.You think?
I am not for a murderer getting away with murder but I am interested in all sides. I think it is important that the laws we rely on work and are used advantageously both by the prosecution and the defense. If I just think or rely on my gut pointing to Casey deliberately killing Caylee, I will never feel comfortable unless that is proven to my satisfaction. and I like to think that if a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that it is exactly what it is. even though I know it can be a wit and outwit between attorneys. To think of an innocent Caylee being put to death, I can also recognize that if Casey really did not, i'll say deliberately, because there still could have been negligence associated and not premeditation at the time, kill Caylee, then we could have a repeat of putting innocence to death. I get the impression that many who believe Casey guilty want her to be found guilty because we like to feel right about things, For me that is not a satisfaction unless I can be assured that all has been processed to the fullest. on both sides. Also I like reading viewpoints and reasons for those viewpoints from others without being fully convinced to say Casey is guilty or not guilty. Some say it is an absolute already proven fact, Casey premeditated and killed Caylee and that is why the dp was even asked for. May be, but I tend to think the death penalty was quite hasty. Casey's fingerprints on the sticky side of the duct tape which was removed from Caylee's remains would say a lot to me. Just one fingerprint. Still, was the tape placed to smother or to seal. So far, it is our guess and only the experts can try and testify to prove one or the other.
There was a race circumstance in the OJ trial too. It was the opportunity for the black jurors to acquit a black man on behalf of all the misappropriations of justice that had been done to black men over the past 2 centuries. It was also the time of the LA riots and Rodney King.
Now if beautiful young white women had been persecuted for crimes they didn't commit for the past 200 years then I think Casey might stand a chance with the jury. Fortunately race will not be a factor in her trial.
Casey is lucky to get so many top notch attorneys going to bat for her. Baez says he doesn't have to prove her innocence but he does have a lot of strong circumstantial evidence that makes her look guilty to overcome. If he can overcome this evidence he will be proving her innocent no matter how he terms it. I think as long as Linda DB and Jeff A prepare their case well it's going to be difficult for the defense to overcome enough of the circumstantial evidence to get her acquitted. The jury will be smart. And if they are not.. Karma got OJ. It will get Casey too.
I say let's all meet in Orlando next May! I doubt if we could get into the trial but we could wear pins with Caylee's picture, meet for dinner and discuss the case. We could call ourselves something like 'Caylee's Bloggers for Justice'.