Skip to content

March 31, 2010

4

if this is a sticking point for Baez, it’s awl washed up

by Andrea O'Connell

This post is in regards to the recent Motion to Modify the previous motion for Texas EquuSearch (TES) documents regarding persons who searched in and around the area where Caylee Anthony’s remains were ultimately found.

Now I am not a lawyer, but even I am aware of the numerous flaws in this motion.  I will attempt to provide some clarity around an otherwise unclear motion.

First and foremost, the motion cites two people who claim they were at the site where Caylee was found, but were not included in the 32 witnesses disclosed by TES. These two individuals, whose statements are included with the motion, are 1). Joe Jordon, and 2) Laura Buchanan.

The defense points out the above two volunteers were not among the 32 individuals who were named as searchers in the area in which Caylee’s remains were found.  Therefore, claims Baez, since these two searchers were not included, and since they admittedly did not see Caylee IN THE SPOT SHE WAS FOUND, then TES must be playing fast and loose with the truth.

There are a more than a few instances in the motion that clearly speaks to the veracity of TES.  The motion does not go so far as to say TES was untruthful, but the reader comes away thinking that is exactly what is meant.

Because Baez and Company were able to find the two persons named above (Jordon and Buchanan), and because the two were NOT divulged by TES, there must be MORE searchers who were present but not among the 32 witnesses identified.  Baez is certain these phantom searchers will turn up if he is given freedom to investigate and interview ALL the TES volunteers.

There are many flaws in this motion, in my opinion.

Flaw #1: Baez insinuates since TES asserted the following: “none of the thousand of searchers, who volunteered with TES, were ever at the exact spot where Caylee’s remains were found,” that there are probably more than 32 searchers, since on their own, the defense found two searchers, as well as a dog-handler/searcher who also was not among the 32.

Problems with Flaw #1 are as follows:

  • How would these searchers, Jordon, Buchanan, or the dog handler KNOW they were or were not in the spot where Caylee was found?  Not only are these not professional searchers, who took them to the spot where Caylee’s remains were found so they’d know they were there and never saw her?
  • How could a non-professional searcher search a woodsy, wet, infested swamp on September 1st or 3rd, and remember in mid December the exact location where they searched?  Not possible.
  • How could ANYONE have moved, let alone LOOKED closely in the area where the remains were found when the area was under water from Tropical Storm Fay?

Flaw # 2: Mr. Baez is asking for the records (names and phone numbers) of ALL the searchers with TES.  Privacy is taken very seriously in this country and I cannot imagine Judge Strickland allowing the defense to invade the lives of perfectly private individuals!  Baez cites a case in his motion in which AIDs patients privacy concerns are protected due to the nature of the stigma of having AIDs (sexual orientation, illness, etc.), but he argues that regular individuals should not be concerned about their own privacy simply because Casey Anthony wants to know more about them, thank you very much.

Problems with Flaw #2 are as follows:

  • Baez expects Orlando law abiding persons to put Casey Anthony’s’ needs above their own and compromise their identity because Casey Anthony has rights???  Casey Anthony is accused of a serious crime, her rights do not come before law abiding citizens.  If so, I’m moving to Canada.
  • There are countless people in this country who want their 15 minutes of fame and will do anything to insert them selves into this case, to be a part of the action, their names in print, etc.  This is always a problem with high profile cases or situations.
  • The two individuals who have given statements to the defense are volunteers and not professional searchers, and yet they try to render professional opinion such as: “We searched the area by the stockade fence along the south side of Suburban Street near Hope Springs Street, ” writes Joe Jordan.  That’s fine that he remembers this, but how was he to see anything in that area if it was under water?  Was he outfitted with special shoes for wading in deep swamp water?  Was he supplied with rubber waders to protect his skin and legs from insects or snakes in the area?  These questions are not discussed.
  • The statement provided by Laura Buchanan provides the following:  “I personally searched near the privacy fence an worked my way towards and then beyond the spot where the body was found.” Okay, but this person lives in New Jersey!  How does she know where the body was found?  Through pictures?  How did she see through the water?  This same person states the following: “I did not notice a strange smell, I noticed no buzzards, nor unusual animal or insect activity.”  This tells me she was paying more attention to the wildlife and may have been afraid of seeing creepy crawly snakes or rats or whatever. She must have been more concerned with being in the heavily soaked terrain with all its flora and fauna then really focused on a child.

Flaw #3: This is just a statement in the document that I found wholly profound in its stupidity.  I will leave you with this quote and urge you to read this motion and see for yourself all the straws that the defense is hungrily grasping. This quote is related to an argument that the defense is making regarding people who volunteer for TES would normally expect to become part of a larger investigation, and probably a criminal trial down the road, in other words, these searchers should fully expect their identity to be released since they’d become part of the case.

When a person volunteers to search for TES, they don’t volunteer on the condition that they are assigned only to areas that will ultimately be irrelevant to a future criminal case. TES is obviously unable to make such a guarantee and if they could state ahead of time, which areas were and were not important, they wouldn’t need searchers in the first place, as they would already know where the missing person was.

Advertisements
4 Comments Post a comment
  1. Apr 1 2010

    Right *Andrea

    Great post.

    And you are right….they are soooo grasping. If I was a volunteer searcher, found nothing and my privacy was suddenly invaded by a media hungry attorney, I would be furious.

    This just goes to show how low the defense will stoop, knowing if the motion is granted, how this would deter kind hearted volunteers from ever helping with missing children again. They just don’t care, and just add these people to the list of people who Casey Anthony has touched in a negative way.

    Reply
    • Andrea
      Apr 1 2010

      YES!! That’s exactly the point I was trying to make, Diana! Phew, I was worried that folks might not understand the points I was trying to make as the post is a bit long…LOL!

      But, seriously, the Judge gave them some of what they wanted before, and I think that’s all they’re gonna get now because their arguments are so darn weak, imo. And, Casey Anthony does not deserve to pry into other people’s lives. All it’s going to do, imo, is titillate some and purely offend others, and there is no room for that in a courtroom, I believe. I mean, I want casey to have a vigorous opportunity to challenge the state, but she doesn’t deserve to pry into the public domain… Anyway, thank you again for your comments! I’m so happy that you’ve visited and sure hope you’ll come back often! 🙂

      Reply
  2. Boston
    Apr 5 2010

    Andrea-Four days later nothing much has changed. I do not think that what they said in the interviews will be taken at face value (i.e. Jordan and Buchanan, et al) as they will have to be tested against scientific/meteorlogical analysis (water levels, etc). Mr Baez’s defense for the expressed intent of possibly finding more people like them (Jordan, et al) was not adequately discussed while in court. Had he said we found these two names 15 months after the fact, possibly there are more.

    Judge Strickland was either bored or annoyed with him through most of it. Did he think that just because a heavy hitter with gads of experience would be able to defend work product that was shabby or simply nonexistent?

    Like Eiglarsh and Beth Karas said, all that really was needed to resolve this issue was the opportunity and the willingness to go over the documents in NeJame’s office for a couple of weeks. Maybe they would have found that “pearl” in which to frame reasonable doubt.

    Reply
    • Andrea
      Apr 5 2010

      Hi Boston!

      Yes, I completely agree with you. They will have proof that the area was under water. I saw just a bit of the trial video…. Mr. Mason didn’t really have much to offer today, did he? I did hear Baez talk about “reasonable doubt” and I was floored….I sincerely think the defense is falling apart. Baez flailed around today like a fish out of water…. it was embarrassing.

      Reply

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: