So there I was, researching something on Google about the Casey Anthony case and I came across this wonderful quote that a certain legal commentator for WFTV (ABC’s local affiliate) made regarding my criticism of his objectivity and the objectivity of the reporter he works with.
“As your readers have seen over the past several days, one way to obfuscate the truth and shift focus from damning facts is to create a straw man upon whom to lodge false allegations. It is an unfortunate, but sometimes effective, way of creating a diversion orchestrated to cause confusion and to divert attention from the core issues.” Orlando Sentinel, November 24, 2009: Casey Anthony: WFTV’s Bill Sheaffer answers latest criticism from TV analyst.
And is it not just so ironic that the upcoming indigence hearing would ultimately reveal ABC (or as Jose Baez likes to mumble, the American Broadcasting Company) paid an accused child killer’s defense team $200,000.00 for photos and video of the child the defendant was accused of murdering.
Yet, the local ABC affiliate, WFTV, instead releases a series of “Jaw Dropping” reports that captures the public’s attention and completely divert the media focus from that same indigence hearing (i.e. The Real Story).
And to top it off, that same ABC affiliate pushed the “jaw dropping” mistress story right until the very last desperate minute by tantalizing the public with the prospect that one of those reports would be “of the other shoe dropping…” (Spoiler Alert: It never did.)
- March 12: Casey Anthony: George Anthony had affair, said Caylee’s death was ‘an accident,’ WFTV reports
- March 12: Casey Anthony: WFTV says source on George Anthony affair is ‘highly credible’ and ‘other shoe is about to drop’
- March 13: Casey Anthony: George’s alleged affair hurts Casey Anthony’s case, WFTV analyst says
- March 15: Casey Anthony: WFTV reveals more about ‘other woman’ in George Anthony’s life
- March 16: Casey Anthony: What could mistress report mean to George Anthony’s future, Casey Anthony’s case?
- March 17: Casey Anthony: Nancy Grace’s guests (WFTV-Channel 9’s Kathi Belich and WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer) don’t agree on whether George’s alleged mistress can be believed
- March 18: Casey Anthony: WKMG supplies details about sisters alleging George said Caylee’s death was an accident
And then, from none other than Tony Pipitone (whom the Baez camp seems to leak their information to first nowadays), a story comes out the day after the financial boondoggle hearing revealing the “jaw dropping” news that the Mistress’ affair can’t be substantiated by anyone (talk about the other shoe dropping).
Better yet, it was revealed that even if the affair was true, George Anthony only told her exactly what he has told everyone else from the very beginning:
“And I turned my head and he grabbed my hands, and he said, ‘It was an accident that snowballed out of control.’” However, she said she couldn’t say why George Anthony thought it was an accident. She admitted that there wasn’t any other proof of what he told her that night. WKMG: Woman In Alleged Anthony Affair Reveals Details.
We call such hypothesis on the part of lay witnesses speculation – and speculation is inadmissible in a criminal courtroom. So basically all of this River Cruz mistress hoopla (to which the the TV Guy played a willing pawn) was a bunch of baloney.
Well maybe it wasn’t, I mean as one learned legal commentator has told us:
The one way to obfuscate the truth and shift focus from damning facts is to create a straw man (George Anthony) upon whom to lodge false allegations (an affair). It is an unfortunate, but sometimes effective, way of creating a diversion orchestrated to cause confusion and to divert attention from the core issues (The Indigence Hearing where it could be revealed ABC paid an accused murderer $200K).
ROFL! And I thought Jose Baez had a conflict of interest brokering the deal in the first place (Casey, ABC has offered to pay $200K, but only if you keep me as an attorney and I get most of the money – please sign here)!
If you can’t trust your own local news stations to give it to you straight – who can you trust?
53 responses to “This Made Me Laugh, Oh the Irony!”
Richard, so glad to see you back and writing on this case. Your local, legal perspective is invaluable and more than that, I like your style!!
I noticed on your previous blog entry – “Please Read Florida Statute 27.52(7) Regarding Determination of Indigent Status” several folks asked your opinion on the consequences to Baez for having allegedly brokered this ABC deal. You don’t seem to be committing to an answer.
Care to comment further? Can he be disbarred for this in Florida?
Thanks, Richard. I hope that we can read you plenty in the coming days.
The question on whether Baez “Brokered the deal” boils down to whether brokering that deal created a conflict of interest between him and Casey.
If he Brokered the deal that benefited him over Casey, or that placed Casey in an unfair bargaining position – there is an ethical dilemma that is created.
Also, the fact he was not candid with the court when he (1) filed the Affidavit of Attorney’s Fees with the Motion for Indigency and (2) when he was answering questions in court. In both instances, it appears he was trying to protect either himself or ABC, by not fully disclosing Casey Anthony’s financial picture.
And it would not escape the bar that while Casey Anthony is technically the one who swore to the Attorney’s Fee Affidavits; it was Jose Baez who “counseled” her on whether they were sufficient – he knew better.
As I have stated in the past, our legal system doesn’t bring out the truth.
It’s all about who’s version you are most likely to believe, and the story teller’s skill at spinning that version.
Mr. Mason believes he has the skills to weave that version into an acquittal.
So we’ll have to wait to see if there is no joy in Muddville after casey’s new counsel goes to bat
So now that she has been declared indigent, will the Fl Bar give Baez a pass on all these ethics questions? Or do they not even pay attention unless someone files a complaint?
Thanks for your response Richard. Judge Strickland has apparently granted the defendants motion for indigency after having made, “a thorough review of all items submitted including the cost ledger of Defense Counsel.
Do you think this issue will end here?
For now, but if Casey Anthony is convicted. Baez will always be looking over his shoulder waiting to see when she spills the beans. Baez better hope Mason delivers.
Shame all of this will be overlooked unless a citizen (even Casey Anthony) is harmed by a conviction and sings like a bird. What about other people who might hire Baez as attorney in the interim? Do they have to be hurt too, before anyone considers looking into his practices? It doesn’t boost confidence in the bar, now does it?
“WHEN” being the operative word in your last post 🙂
This was my exactly my theory in re. why one particular reporter wasn’t all over Baez with mic in face demanding a statement in re. the (prior to yesterday) rumored $200K exchange for pics and videos. Let’s face it, that reporter would’ve been chomping at the bit to scoop that story and, had she been successful, would have been eating it up with a silver spoon.
That said, I have a question in re. Judge Strickland’s granting of indigency status after reviewing Baez & Co.’s expeditures. He was crystal clear at the hearing that the public had a right to know and denied the defense request for an ‘in camera’ review. (I have no idea what they planned to present for his review since Baez failed to bring the obvious documents to account for the monies he had already received. ) He grants Baez another day. When will the PUBLIC get to see how the hundreds of thousands of dollars has been spent? Certainly he will release those accountings, as he indicated in open court on Thursday, CORRECT?
They will not be released, as they were not filed with the court.
I’m trying to understand — Judge Strickland was so adamant at the hearing that he felt the citizens of FL had a right to know how the LARGE amount of money received to date had been spent, since the defense was asking those same taxpayers to pick up the rest of the tab covering costs. After all defense counsel testified under oath, there was still over a $100,000 (and I am being conservative with that figure) for which they could not account. I have the utmost respect for Judge Strickland, so I am baffled by his decision to not release the rest that would justify it was not spent frivilously or unethically. The only thing I can think of, is maybe a large chunk of the ABC funds were given to GA/CA and he made that decision based on their right to privacy…then the accounting would make more sense. Can you share any insight on why he may have agreed to keep the remaining funds in question sealed?
Can he?
What odds are you giving?
Thanks, Richard. Looks like Jose yet again escaped unscathed, at least for the moment!!
“Richard said: And it would not escape the bar that while Casey Anthony is technically the one who swore to the Attorney’s Fee Affidavits….~~
Richard, what are the chances that the bar would take this matter up of their own initiative?
I have re-read the motion for indigency and noticed that an assertion was made in the supporting affidavit to wit, “the $22,5OO paid to Ms. Lyon has been used directly to cover those costs outlined by subsection 29.006 such as transcripts, travel,and investigation.”
However, the affidavit contained no such information. The money was simply listed as an attorney fee. Isn’t it about time the bar at least disciplined Baez for being an “IDIOT”. He’s really grating on my last nerve!!
One last thing, are affiants in Florida required to make the affidavit in their own hand…or is it just that Baez et al are too busy to type the darn thing up for her signature?
I think he is a horrible defense attorney the most nonprofessional attorney I have seen. There is no telling how many backroom deals he may have brokered.
I’m willing to bet Casey Anthony’s is the only one.
how about representing pro bono the “alleged” mistress so she doesn’t get ruined by this whole mess?????????
WOOT, WOOT!!! Mr. Hornsby!!
Mr Hornsby:
Thanks for omitting the legalese vernacular, and composing straightforward lay terms.
You answered many questions re: the Broker Deal. Are you familiar with Poynter Institute? Seems they are coming out quite vocal on the tabloid unethical journalistic hypocrisy…lol
It is my fervent desire that BAEZ et al receive the necessary punishment …asap! Consensus among many ~will happen once Casey is convicted, I happen to agree.
Wonder if more tawdry little details will continue to emerge[yep]….the only shoe to drop will be a promissory note from Baez…rotfl
Take a memo… 🙂
Thanks for the blog…glad you are back.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/19/dan-gainor-abc-news-casey-anthony-paid.html
Poynter Institute and more.
Great, not I would like to hear what he has to say about the “coincidence” in Belich chasing a red herring story in the week leading up to the revelation.
Mr. Hornsby:
Just read your commentary/quote on the note writing quandary….ha
“Cardinal Sin”! Hal mentions the ramblings [254+] pages of complaints ranging from food~ no mention of Caylee.
Now I wonder who/whom will this benefit? Will it be admitted into evidence?
If it is determined that a correctional officer was the catalyst of the letters/notes, I think there is a good chance that they may be suppressed.
Also, if the letters/notes are incriminating for what they don’t say – meaning Casey does not ever mention Caylee, etc. Then they would not be admissible because post-arrest silence is rarely admissible because there are to many reasons why a person would not talk about their case (i.e. my attorney told me not to).
I have a hunch that neither the alleged letters/notes nor the alleged affair will be proven to be true and, as such, will not even be admitted as evidence. If the public wants to be taken for a joy ride and to have their attention diverted from the core issues of this case by the local con artists that’s their prerogative. Thanks you for sharing your thoughts with us from your perspective.
If this is true, it would explain his quick appearance in the case after Casey was arrested.
Various articles that appear to be AP syndicated material are using a paragraph that says the Orlando Sentinel reports that Cathie Levine, spokesperson for ABC, indicated the licensing deal for a “library” of photos and videos was made through Jose Baez, although that fact does not directly appear in her quoted statement, but is still mentioned as her answer to the question.
A friend of mine familiar with looking up copyright and intellectual property says it appears a limited partnership may have been created, but does not see any Anthony family member, including Casey, listed or Jose Baez on any partnership agreement.
Obviously if JB brokered the deal, he may just be toast as you have mentioned, but I’m wondering if he might have signed over some of it to a third party (thinking Gil Cabot/Todd Black), could that person cash in on the rest of any promised return (say $700K) after the conviction? If that person was able to, by virtue of being a partner, could Jose then collect from them? I am just wondering if he is being extra sleazy by creating such a loophole. Is this something the JAC should be made aware of, or will they be doing a thorough investigation to substantiate Baez’ claims?
http://www.deathpenaltyblog.com/the-cost-of-a-life-representing-the-indigent-accused-of-crimes-in-florida-courts-today/
Your thoughts, quips… what ever.
this goes to Mason bringing in the public defender.
Lenamon is very vocal, what say you?
What is to say? I agree with Mr. Lenamon.
But it raises a good question. If Mr. Mason has such altruistic motives in taking on Casey’s case – why is she the first accused killer he has agreed to represent pro bono since his “1970s Gotha Murder trial in Federal Court?”
I mean, it just seems that there are many other, more deserving people out there who are wrongly accused of murder (or any serious crime for that matter) who have nothing more than an overworked public defender to assist them.
It seems any one of them would be more deserving of his pro bono services than Casey Anthony – an accused killer who already has at least four attorneys working for her pro bono, an entire law school clinic, and scores of famed forensic experts like Dr. Lee who have so graciously offered their services.
You’re right — there are so many defendants who are far more deserving of Mr. Mason’s pro bono services. But none of them have the media and public interest the Anthony case has. For an ego-driven attention whore, those other defendants couldn’t possibly be as “fun” to defend as Anthony.
I take it, based on Mason’s handling of the hearing yesterday and his comments about how “he” was going to try the case during his presser afterward, that he is actually new lead counsel? Do you think there’s something going on we may not know about, such as Baez’s contemplating (or perhaps being forced into) resigning from the case?
Don’t know if anyone else caught this, but during that presser, you can see Baez behind Mason chomping away on his gum the entire time — until Mason said it was going to be “fun” to try the case, at which point Jose abruptly stopped chewing the gum and appeared to be trying hard not to show his mortification over what the man had just said. Priceless!
Oh well, at least Mason is honest about his motives…he just wants to go out with a bang, with a challenging case that will be super fun to try in front of the millions who will be tuning in.
I totally agree. Many “deserving” people are out there twisting in the wind with no competent representation. How much pro bono work is required for an atty. (if any)???????
Richard, I really enjoyed your insight on your last Radio Interview despite Rozie Franko’s “non factual” information she just kept trying to interject, BUT, do you have any more scheduled, & if you do, will you please alert us to when they are, I don’t want to miss! I really appreciate “your honest approach” in explaining the aspects of this trial to us.”
I can answer that. Richard will be appearing on Step Watts radio show again
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/watts-up-with-this
Date / Time: 3/22/2010 10:00 AM
Category: Current Events
Call-in Number: (646) 721-9430
This is going to be one hell of a show if the last one is anything to go by.
The date Richard will be appearing on Blog Talk Radio is today, Sunday, March 21, 2010, and the time is 8:00 p.m. Click here, and
see for yourself:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/watts-up-with-this
I just want too thank you for sharing your knowledge and opinion.
btw…I won’t call you hornblower anymore and do apologize for doins such:)
Justice for Caylee!
Richard – you’re a hard man to keep up with sometimes… guess it’s being a newlywed. If you don’t mind, would you please address Katprint’s earlier question…. “What are your thoughts about Baez testifying that he was “retained on JUNE 17? (2008) about 2 days after Caylee was last seen alive and about 29 days before Cindy reported Caylee was “missing” on JULY 15, 2008?”
Many thanks from SC, although I think I have to move to a state less politically backwards… ahh other ways too. I was born and raised here so I’m allowed to day it.
Please keep up informed at Websleuths….. we look forward to your shedding light on the legal craziness of this case.
Richard has said that he believes Casey contacted JB before she was arrested. Here is a link to the info:
http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/12/attorney-of-record-in-record-time/
Mr. Hornsby, if I remember correctly, you posted your thoughts that Bill Sheaffer, would be fired or let go by WFTV. This was after he talked about the Death Penalty Conference and Ms. Lyon’s remarks. Why do you think he is still employed by them?
I indicated his membership with the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers would be terminated as a result of him violating the organizations rules regarding disseminating seminar materials without authorization and to the detriment of the organization.
And while he was not fired or let go by the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, it is my understanding that the organization has finished an inquiry where they were set to vote on his removal; however Mr. Sheaffer proposed a resolution that allowed him to save face by agreeing not to renew his membership in exchange for them not formally expelling him.
As a result, Mr. Sheaffer is no longer a member of the organization.
Very Interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Attorney Hornsby: This is in response to your remarks on this evening’s blog radio show.
It has already been established that Dominic Casey terminated his PI agreement with Jose Baez on October 1, 2008, and subsequent to that date he had an agreement to provide services tor Cindy and George Anthony. He did have a similar agreement with Cindy Anthony but stated he never performed any services for her on or after October 12, 2008. In other words, at the time he performed his three searches in the woods on Suburban Drive and the abandoned house nearby, he did so under contract to Cindy and George.
As ordered to do so by the court, Mr. Nejame has indicated that he provided Mr. Baez with the documentation applicable to the 32 searchers who searched on behalf of TES within 200 yards of the remains site. He further complied with the court order that he allow Mr. Baez to review the remainder of the 4,000 documents available in his office to determine if other searchers could possibly have searched within this same 200 yards. However, Mr. Baez has not as yet arranged to review said documents. In addition, Mr. Baez’s allegations that he had found two searchers (Joe Jordan and Laura Buchanan) who indicated that they had searched this exact same area under the auspices of TES are untrue since both of these searchers subsequently admitted that they searched this area on their own and/or with other people and did not do so under the auspices of TES. I assume Mr. Nejame is still amenable to Mr. Baez reviewing these 4,000 documents so they can be flagged and submitted to the court for consideration prior to copies being released to him.
For your convenience, the complete TES story dated 3/14/2010 (7 pages) can be accessed via
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08…
Is this just additional information for me?
Thanks Mary, I read the emails (or at least skimmed) and for the most part none of this hurts the prosecution or is even admissible.
Mr. H ~ Since C Mason has represented Dom Casey before wouldn’t he potentially be privy to facts relating to Casey’s case? If D Casey is called as a witness wouldn’t that be a conflict or at the very least, anything he was told in confidence, could alter the way Mason handles things? Thanks
I don’t believe that Mr. Dominic Casey and Ms. Anthony have adverse interests. Dominic does not want to be forced to testify and Ms. Anthony does not want him to be forced to testify – as they are both asserting Ms. Anthony’s attorney-client privilege (Dominic working for Baez makes him an extension of Baez, and thus falls under the Ms. Anthony’s privilege).
So while I would think that Mr. Mason should get Mr. Dominic Casey’s informed consent before taking on Ms. Anthony’s case; I am not sure it is required in this particular situation.
Thank you for the reply. The whole thing seems so messed up, Baez is the most incompetent person in the universe (IMO) and has steered this debacle into oblivion. His transparent desire to fulfill his grandiose claim of being “the first hispanic atty to handle a case of this magnitude” and his blatant money grab has been his goal since the first time he spoke to the media on the courthouse steps.
Maybe Mason can rescue the justice system’s reputation from the black eye Baez has given it. Possibly now somebody will actually do some legal work and maybe Baez can learn how to put a sentence together that makes sense.
Yes, this additional information is for you and for any bloggers interested in reading it. I fail to see how Mr. Casey is legally entitled to any privileges for services he performed at the behest of Cindy and George Anthony on and after October 1, 2008, the date on which he terminated his agreement with Attorney Baez. Your comments on Blog Talk Radio seemed to imply that he does have some kind of privilege. With all due respect, I was looking for clarification of this point.
He worked for – or claims to have worked for – Jose Baez. To the extent he worked for Jose Baez, and what he learned while working for Jose Baez, would fall under Casey Anthony’s attorney-client privilege. I would agree that everything he learned while working for Cindy and George would not deserve the same protection.
Stocirpa, in a MOTION, it was ruled that there was NO Privilege between the Anthony’s & D Case, “it was NOT considered work product as they are not attorney’s ,” after Oct. 1, 2008, DC no longer worked for Baez or KC. This has already been ruled on. There is ONLY Privilege when DC worked for Baez. This is another reason Judge Strickland ruled that D Casey WOULD do an “investigative deposition,” he has lost both with Judge Rodrigue & Judge S claiming “privilege” with the Anthony’s.
D Casey tried to LIE to Judge Rodrigue with Baez sitting in the Court Room listening to DC’s attorney make the argument that DC claimed he worked for KC/Baez/GA/CA at the same time. J Morgan trumped that, he filed a New Motion which D Casey in an interview with John Allen stated that DC terminated work for Baez after Oct 1, 2008. The RUB is that D Casey is going to have to disclose WHY he went to the “remains site, who sent him, who he was talking to on the phone.” He will also have to divulge, as Hoover already said, they never looked for “Zanny the Nanny,” even the Anthony’s didn’t believe the lie.
Okay another question…. since the deals with ABC was proffered very early in the timeline, a reasonable person would have to agree that they’re not going to be paying bank for an ‘ordinary’ kidnapped child. There must have been clear inferences that this story had blockbuster written all over it. The one person who knew that it was worth that was Baez, because his client told him that.
When the PI’s are sent looking for only “alive caylee”, grandparents are flying here and there checking up on sightings, is it not possible that Baez is guilty of creating reasonable doubt, I mean actually providing it or even paying for it?
Is that legal?
Baez has not handled himself competently enough for me to ever believe that he had enough foresight and cunning to plan the events out in such a way.
From a layman’s perspective, he is incapable as an atty but he is fully capable of perpetuating a scam that is to his benefit. He may not have personally instructed anyone to call in false leads but his personal gain would be directly affected by the amount of hysteria that would be whipped up by sightings. It taints him by association, he arranges a deal that benefits him and his client, publicly he promotes the idea that a deranged babysitter has stolen the child, when in fact he knows full well that the child is not with the sitter.
Right then and there, he decided to drag this out…for him..not in the best interest of his client, that’s how I see it. Guess pimping Caylee is not limited to her immediate family.
It’s difficult to keep track of the strawmen showing up. Not only from the media, but from the family, and defense.
Will any of the strawmen tossed out there have an affect on the outcome of all of this?
On a different note, can you comment on Morgans decision to include “any and all witnesses” from the capital case?
Thanx.
Technically, the “any and all witnesses” language is a catch-all so that the other side is on notice that ZG may call any witness who is known to have information on the case.
Personally, I think the language was included solely to harass the opposing side.
Would they have to depose the “any and all” in regard to the civil case or may they use the capital case depos to aid the line of questioning they intend to use? (I think I remember that they said they could use information in the capital depos to answer what the family refused to answer in their civil depo)
Does it appear to you (with the line of questioning they used with the family) that Morgans group wants the “aha” moment in the civil case?
Again, thanx
I am now satisfied that everyone appears to be on the same page concerning the date on which Domonic Casey terminated his agreement with Attorney Baez (10/1/08) so that Mr. Casey cannot claim any legal privileges for the services he performed on behalf of Cindy and George Anthony subsequent to that date, including his three famous searches of the woods on Suburban Drive and abandoned house on Brackenwood Drive.