by Peter Hyatt
What follows is part one of Statement Analysis of Jose Baez' Opening Statement. Statement Analysis is in bold type. In this analysis we seek to learn:
1. Did Jose Baez lie to the jury?
2. Did Jose Baez simply repeat Casey Anthony's lie, or was it his own?
3. When did Baez settle on this 'accidental' theory defense? Was this something from 3 years ago, or does his words show that this was something more recent?
Statement Analysis gets to the truth.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
On behalf of the defense, I want to thank you for the sacrifice that you've made in your jury service, coming here and helping us seek justice.
We know it's no easy task.
Note that Baez is speaking for Casey Anthony as well as the other defense attorneys. It is therefore, appropriate for him to use the plural pronoun. Having said this, it now becomes important to see consistency.
When speaking for others, the "we" is the norm, so that when the first person singular enters, it should be considered an important sentence; and may be personal to the subject (Baez) speaking it.
And we intend, I'm sure both sides, on getting you home as quickly as possible once you have all the information that you need.
And not a moment before.
Statement Analysis teaches that people mean what they say. Baez spoke this statement freely, and chose his words in the free editing process. Here, Baez gives notice that he intends on making sure the jury stays later than they may have hoped. We saw a good example of this in his witness questioning of the bug doctor. On and on it went, with useless and pointless information, testing the Judge's patience and lulling the jury almost to sleep. It seemed to end just at the point that Judge Perry might have put a stop to it. Baez projects his thinking upon others and believes that others are deceptive as he is, and others are just as unprepared as he is, and that others, meaning the defense, will bring useless witnesses. He would spend the next few weeks learning that this was not the case.
We are here, and you had to leave your homes because of an onslaught of publicity that lasted three years.
"because" (as well as "since, so, therefore") shows sensitivity and should be noted as such. Here he blames the media for having a jury assembled. This is not truthful and is a lie.
The jury is there due to a murder.
The middle of sound bites and sensational media coverage, casey anthony stands trial for her life.
Note that Baez sought out media with relish, and the other attorneys and defense witnesses all came on unpaid: for the media attention, the soundbites, the clips. This is a highly sensitive issue to Baez, from the beginning. Later Baez would project this upon Judge Strictland who did not seek media attention. Baez' projection has been consistent and it is the mark of a highly deceptive person; one who is continually deceptive for the personal comfort and gain it brings. This is not a 'politely' deceptive person, as many are, he is a liar.
Now, what I would like to do, I've organized my opening statement into several different ways.
Statement Analysis listens; it does not interpret. Baez is telegraphing here, that his owning statement will have several different "ways" in which it can go. This is why deceptive people use the word "actually" in overabundance: "actually" is used when comparing two or more thoughts, in particular for deceptive people, comparing truth with a lie or more than one lie. This is why Baez did not stop at one opening statement, but gave several "ways" in which he could go, hoping that one lie would be believed by the jury. He is telling the jury now that he is going to lie to them.
I would like to cover with you what I'm going to go over with you first.
Note that he has now changed to first person singular. This is critical to him. My opinion on this use of First Person singular comes from watching the case for the past three years and not strictly from the words:
Jose Baez is using "I" because it is sensitive to him. My belief as to why it is sensitive is this:
Jose Baez, himself, invented this accident theory for Casey Anthony in his promise to her in which he said she would go free.
It is his lie.
First off, I would like to tell you what happened.
We sat through almost two hours.
There was day one, day two, day three, day four and so on and so on.
No one ever told you what happened.
Note the word "sat" is employed here. Whenever body posture enters a statement it is an indicator of an increase in tension. Baez should be considered as very tense while listening to the Prosecutions's chronological opening statement.
Note the wording "what happened" now changes:
But today you will be the first people to know exactly what happened to caylee marie anthony.
This is now noted as a change in language and "what happened" to Caylee is a topic that is sensitive to Baez. The reader/analyst should be on alert for deception to come, regarding "what happened" to Caylee Anthony.
I will also discuss with you mr Roy kronk.
Here is another indicator of deception.
Baez is to supply evidence about Mr. Roy Kronk, via witnesses. Instead, he will "discuss" Kronk. Since defense attorneys do not "discuss" anything with the jury, this should be flagged as deceptive.
That name was silent throughout the first two hours of this morning.
And I think you're going to find after I conclude that it's going to be shocking why that name wasn't mentioned to you previously. kronk will have in your evaluation of the evidence, I think that's very important, and I'm going to cover that.
Note that "I think" is weak, giving room for others to "think" differently. This weak assertion is then noted as sensitive since it is repeated.
Note that Baez will "conclude", rather than bring forth evidence, about Kronk.
Note that Baez will "cover that" rather than have witnesses testify to anything.
Conclusion: Jose Baez is lying to the jury about Roy Kronk, the meter reader who found Caylee's remains.
After that, I would like to talk to you about the investigation.
This investigation was extremely thorough when it comes to focusing in on casey.
This is not something a defense attorney should likely be saying to a jury.
03:55:40 Probably the most comprehensive investigation that you will ever come across and in the history of the state of florida.
Here, he makes it even worse. He is attempting to make it seem like a botched investigation, but his words are saying how thorough and comprehensive it was. This is not something a defense attorney should be saying about the police, against his own client. In particular, the word "comprehensive" suggests a wide scope to the jury, rather than a narrow scope which was too narrow to get Kronk. Liars often reveal truth, even when attempting to deceive. Baez literally compliments the work done.
03:55:50 It was directed at one person and one person only.
This contradicts "comprehensive"
03:55:55 Now, the problem with this investigation that you'll find is that it reached the level of desperation.
Note that he "sat" through day one, day two, day three and so on" and then states that investigators were "thorough" and "comprehensive" and now employs the word "desperation"
Note next that Statement Analysis recognizes that deceptive people want their words to be interpreted, rather than listened to. Statement Analysis listens.
Words are chosen in less than a micro-second and a person should be listened to specifically for what words are chosen:
03:56:03 And that's going to be covered throughout my opening statemen my opening remarks.
03:56:10 At what point do we stop speculating?
03:56:14 At what point do we stop guessing?
03:56:17 At what point do we stop being so desperate?
Note that Baez did not say that the investigators needed to stop guessing, speculating, or being desperate. He described them as thorough and comprehensive, perhaps the most comprehensive investigation in the history of Florida.
He makes his statement in the form of a question, which, in and of itself, is sensitive.
Note the pronoun, "we" is employed in sensitive questions:
Who is speculating? Who is guessing? Who is desperate?
Jose Baez, Casey Anthony, and the defense team, whom he addressed as "we".
Statement Analysis: Do not interpret.
Here, Baez owns that the defense team, including Casey, has been guessing, speculating and growing desperate for 3 years, which now explains many of the lies he has told to media about Caylee being alive, about good reason for Casey not reporting, and about producing evidence to prove Casey as innocent. As time passed, guessing and speculating led to desperation.
How desperate?
How about bringing in a man convicted of a felon 20 years ago, who dialed a wrong number?
How about getting a paid liar to attempt to testify to something he left out of his written report?
How about making up a story (note this word, "story") and then piling on more and more detail until it became utterly fantastical in the eyes of the public, rivaled only by the descriptions Casey and Cindy gave of "Zanaida"?
03:56:26 Now, after the investigation, i want to talk to you about suburban drive.
03:56:30 Suburban drive is the location which is right around the corner from the anthony and it is where caylee's remains were recovered.
The general profile of a domestic homicide where the body is hidden is usually in an area close to the home, and often in an area known previously to the killer, where the killer felt comfortable going to.
03:56:41 And there are numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding that location.
03:56:45 And I want to make sure it's brought to light to you.
Note that "it's brought to you" is passive. Passivity is used when responsibility is being withheld.
Example: "a gun went off" is passive as the subject does not want to say that it was he who caused the gun to go off by pulling its trigger.
03:56:49 I want to make sure that all understand what was there, who was there and for how long.
03:56:58 And then after that, I would like to discuss miss anthony's car.
03:57:06 Now, as you noticed from this morning, there was a significant amount of time that had to deal with this car.
03:57:15 And the evidence or the lack of evidence or the confusion of the evidence that surrounds this car will probably double, if not triple the length of this trial.
Note that the "evidence" is repeated three times indicating that the evidence related to the car is an issue of high sensitivity to Baez and will likely prove to be something that ties Casey Anthony to the murder.
03:57:28 And at the end of it, you may find yourselves, a yourselves after so much time, is that really relevant?
Note the qualifiers and repetition. Note the weakness of "you may", and not that "you will". Baez knows.
03:57:39 Does it answer the question?
03:57:42 Does it tell us how caylee died?
03:57:47 And that's why you're all here today.
Note that now he says the jury is here because they must find out if something tells them how Caylee died, and not because of the media and soundbites. The change is noted as a lie.
Note that he switched to "I" as to own the story, yet here, he reverts back to the "we", showing weakness:
03:57:49 We're not here to talk about day one, day two, day three, day four.
03:57:53 We're not here to talk about how inappropriate casey acted.
Statement Analysis principle: note as sensitive when someone tells us what didn't happen, what wasn't said, etc. Here he tells them why they are not here.
03:57:59 Her foolish actions.
03:58:02 We're here t talk about, and we're here to find out exactly how caylee died.
Note that now he says they are there to find out exactly how Caylee died, not to answer questions and not because of the media.
03:58:12 And that's the key issue throughout this entire case.
03:58:17 You may get distracted by emotion and you may get distracted by what some might say reaches the level of bizarre, but you cannot lose focus and you cannot forget thatyou're here on a first-degree murder case, a death penalty case where they want to take someone's life.
Note that "distraction" is sensitive as it is repeated. Note that Judge Perry has had to admonish Jose Baez many times for this very issue: not being able to follow an argument; not being able to follow the court's directions: being distracted. Note that Jeff Ashton reported to the judge the inappropriate behavior of texting during the trial.
03:58:41 And that's what we're here for.
After giving various reasons for being there, he now uses "that" which shows distances, instead of "this"
Note that he just told them that they were there for a first degree murder case.
03:58:43 And you're going to find that this is not a murder case.
This contradiction highlights a liar's use of deception, as deception is not logical.
03:58:46 This is not a manslaughter case.
03:58:48 This is not a case of aggravate ed child abuse.
Note the negation: sensitivity found within statements which tell us what it is "not"; rather than what is.
03:59:00 It is none of those things.
03:59:01 But you can't be distracted because we chose you because we all thought you were the best jurors to sit on this case, that you wouldn't be distracted and let the law guide you in your decision.
Note that they can't be distracted "because" "we" (Baez, Casey and Defense team) chose them as jurors. This highlights the high self opinion Baez holds regarding his own talents as a lawyer.
Note the negation above; note also again the sensitivity of "distract". The reader should be aware that the defense strategy may be to "distract" jurors away from the truth of "what happened" and that the car evidence is particularly worrisome to the defense.
END OF PART ONE
No comments:
Post a Comment