Backdate: August of 2008. Looking back at the case of Casey Anthony, did she seek immunity? Did Casey Anthony, through her attorney, Jose Baez, seek immunity? Let's look at his denial, and what he claims for knowledge back almost 3 years ago.
With all that is known now, it is not challenging to know what was deceptive and what was truthful, yet the examples highlight principles of Statement Analysis.
Aug 4, 2008 WESH News,
ORLANDO, Fla. -- The State Attorney's Office confirmed Monday afternoon that someone asked about immunity for Casey Anthony, the mother of missing toddler Caylee Anthony.
They will neither confirm nor deny that the inquiry came from her attorney, Jose Baez.
State Attorney spokesman Randy Means released the following statement: "We are not entertaining immunity for anyone involved in this case."
The prosecution had little to say. Note the contrary for Baez
Baez denies asking for immunity for Casey Anthony.
"We're not asking for immunity on anything because she doesn't know anything. She doesn't know where the child is, so we're not saying, 'Give me immunity first and then we'll talk.' That's what's been reported and that's certainly not what's the case here," Baez said.
Note that Baez uses "we", as he speaks for himself and Casey (and perhaps other attorneys) This is to be expected. If he changes to "I" anywhere, it should be considered highly personal and important. Note "on anything" as unnecessary, further weakening the statement.
Note that "immunity" is repeated; therefore, it should be considered sensitive to Baez.
Note that Casey "doesn't know anything" with "anything" clarified:
She doesn't know where the child is. Note this compared to his opening statement where he said that Caylee drowned but George dumped the body.
Note what is presented in the negative: "we're not saying" (present tense) "give me immunity" rather than "we did not ask for immunity"
Note that he says "that's certainly not what's the case here" is not the same as saying "I did not seek immunity for Casey" nor is it "we did not ask for immunity.
This is an indication that Jose Baez lied about immunity for Casey.
Question: Why did he seek to deceive the press?
Answer: It may have been part of the 'machismo' behavior we have seen out of him for 3 years, the silly boasting, poker bluffing, and refusal to defend his client. He had to be admonished repeatedly by the judge just to finish depositions. This is a deceptive response from a deceptive individual.
Question: Are there indications that he is deceptive here?
Answer: yes
Note that "we" changes to "me" and it is embedded in a first person singular statement: "give me immunity". This coupled with the present tense makes for a weak denial.
Notice the incongruity: give me immunity and "we'll" talk
WESH 2 reporter Gail Paschall-Brown said to Baez, "Wait. You're saying she doesn't know where Caylee is even though it sounds like she's telling her father that she does know?"
Well, when you have all the facts, you'll pretty much understand that. When you have all the facts, it will come out," Baez said.
Note the avoidance of a direct response to: "She doesn't know where Caylee is?" This deceptive response is an indication that Jose Baez knew that his client knew where the child was. Note:
1. Avoidance. To avoid a question is a signal that the question is sensitive to the subject.
2. Note that only "pretty much" will cause Gail to "understand" but "all the facts" will come out.
Because of the multitude of words, it may sound like a good answer, but it is deceptive via avoidance.
Baez said blaming Casey Anthony does a disservice to Caylee.
"Until this little girl is found, no matter what the circumstances, she's still a missing child and she deserves for everybody to be looking out for her because she's all of our child. She's a child that belongs to all of us," Baez said.
The question has been the same: Does Casey know where Caylee is? Baez is deceptive by avoiding answering the question instead attempts to appeal to emotions by calling her "our" child. Note that rather than discussing a "kidnapped" child, Baez adds "no matter what the circumstances" indicating that he is withholding knowledge on what caused her to go missing.
Baez is deceptive.
He did want to go before the Florida Supreme Court this week to get his client's bond lowered, but he has to produce a written opinion in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals before he can do that.
We will continue to look at past statements of Jose Baez which will show that not only given what is known now that he was lying, but by Statement Analysis of his media responses, the principles employed will show:
He knew and has always known, yet has lied anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment