Now, I'm not going to register an opinion here, not yet, as to her guilt. The problem therein lies in the roots of the jury's decision. Hint: We don't know what she did.Just wanted to make a comment on the defense. Now, ask any cop and you'll probably recieve a negative opinion in reference to Defense Lawyers. (Why does California have so many lawyers and New Jersey have so many toxic waste dumps ? New Jersey got first choice.) But I would have to say, Baez is making me question my opinion.
The wife and I followed the trial quite avidly for different reasons. At first, like many others, I saw Baez as a slimy little maggot, spouting lies in his opening statement and appearing to have no real and valid defense. In fact, several times during those first few weeks I thought he was history, his defense of Anthony a joke at best and he incompetent.
But as things went, around the second week I saw an intellect. My theory was that he would create room for so many appeals, Incompetent Council being one, that Anthony would eventually be offered a plea bargain. But there are Judicial checks and balances for such tactics and for Baez to weave such a string of venues without getting censured by the Bar, it would take an intelligence that most did not realize and give him credit for. Yet there he was doing it. Yes, His Honor had to reel both sides in a few times but for the most part Baez colored outside the lines without being obvious.
I still think that was part of his plan, but it took two more weeks to see the real genius behind his faux stupidity. What most Americans don't realize is the Defense Lawyer's task in a case such as this is not to prove the innocence of his client, its not his job to prove anything. Its his job to create questions. Unanswered questions carry the most weight but conflicting questions answered incompletely will also serve the purpose. And thats exactly what Baez did.
Once again I wrote this and forgot to publish it. Guess I'll just throw it out there and move on to a different topic.