2011.06.23 Cindy's Testimony

[Amster]

No doubt in my mind that CA is communicating with ICA in court. Texting thru the lawyers? I think so.

 

[RR473]

Cindy's first testimony with her amazing recollection of Casey's stories those 31 days bolstered the DT case as far as I saw but at the same time it was good for the State too.

Todays testimony was all for the DT and she was not telling the truth according to her sworn testimony in the depositions.

Now what did you think about the search evidence and why did the computer forensic people have to have lawyers with them?

Internet searches should not be used against anyone because it's seeking knowledge. Comparing to many other people KC's searches were way harmless. Think what YOU have searched (or have not ) the internet for. If you now end up on the wrong side of the courtroom, is it fair to use your searches against you?

Now why I say KC's searches were harmless. She searched chloroform because of the picture her then boyfriend posted on myspace. She searched for neck breaking, well she had a myspace friend or band by the name of neckbreakers. etc. etc.

 

[doogiesgirl]

Weren't these searches found in a deleted internet history file containing alot of data. Would Cindy delete her internet history? And why was so much data retreivable in the unallocated space, unless someone did it nearer to the time the computer was forensically examined? :waitasec:

yes and why delete a "harmless" search (according to CA) that concerned what is and isn't harmless to dogs and small children? why is that deleted? geesh what a stupid lie.

MOO

 

[tsitra01]

One thing I am sure of- LDB will be revisiting this.

Oh I can't imagine LDB not coming back at her and I would bet they were on it before Cindy made it off the stand. Exactly ZsaZsax:great:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I am not worried about this testimony at all. It was more than apparent that she would say anything regardless of its absurdity to help the DT with this damning evidence. Like KC's lies, her testimony, to be believable, requires so many explanations and leaps in logic. I doubt this will be lost on the jury. The search was for "neck breaking" --1,000 pop up ads could have come up and the fact still remains that someone typed in at one time "neck breaking". There is no reason in the world that she would have to do a google search for chloroform. It's not in bamboo or hand sanitizer. Someone typed that specific word in and remained on the site for at least 3 minutes. Blah, blah, blah. I truly think this testimony showed the jury a lot--all good for the SA, jmho.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

What do you mean? It makes perfect sense. A yorkie is lethargic and eats bamboo leaves so she searches ' chlorophyll' and then of course, Chloroform.

I know when My German Shepherd ate a Hershey bar I googled 'Magnesium' immediately.

Good answer. The thing is...why didn't the prosecution highlight this HUGE jump in logic? On cross examination, the prosecution instead chose to harp on Cindy's prior statement that she searched "Chlorophyll" not "Chloroform". Why didn't the prosecution conclude with...."So Ms. Anthony....you are saying you were concerned about your dogs having eaten bamboo leaves so you went inside and googled "Chlorophyll"?" "Can you have a look at this list of searches and point to any search term that shows up for "dog ate leaves" or "dog bamboo leaves" or ANYTHING related to bamboo leaves (or dogs, for that matter)? I only got up to Baez's redirect so I assume the prosecution didn't grab the opportunity to ask these things?

 

[GiantPickle]

Ok but who visits a "how to make chloroform" website 84 times...IN ONE YEAR (and technically it would only be 3 months Jan 1- March 17)....its still a crazy number either way.

JB was showing that Bradley's software was flawed and/or that the 84 visits to the chloroform website was not actually visits to the website.

JB thinks that it was cumulative- each time that year (he used myspace as an example which opened the door for LDB to question on myspace being visited with 20 sec of the how to make chloroform site) that myspace had an 84 next to it and the day before it was 83.
Richard Hornsby was the best sleuther in this whole thing when he tweeted that march 17 could have been the 84th day of the year. I actually just looked it up and March 25 is the 84th day of the year.
I think this means that Bradley will take the stand to clarify what these numbers mean in his testimony.
For today, it "looked" to the jury and everyone watching that the SA and Bradley misinterpreted what 84 meant in his software. Could negate all testimony about how many times the chloroform search was done.

 

[deelytful1]

No doubt in my mind that CA is communicating with ICA in court. Texting thru the lawyers? I think so.

I agree

 

[gamom]

LDB- "Do you recall me aksing you about your computer searches?"

CA "I recalled this 3 years ago, you did not ask me about...I answered your questions pacifically"

When has CA ever just answered ONE question? She goes on and on with details....I would have let her keep talking and at the end thank her for asking my one question specifically.

 

[krisskross]

On a company intranet server, the likelihood that all her information (not directly pertaining to a Pt) has long since been overwritten on the HDD's. What reason would they have to retain any non-work product that she didn't already hand off to others when she left?

Payroll will even be hard to prove when she was actually there or not, I doubt the DT went into this without making sure they weren't exposing their flank.

I wouldnt be so sure. Seems Baez didn't check his client's computer activity on the day Caylee is said to have drowned.

 

[Just Jayla]

I vote for ICMA, but according the AZlawyer who just posted on the legal thread, she doesn't think this will happen.

I don't either, I think the state has to consider the financial ramifications and it may not be worth it to them.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

YEP - just thinking of IRS requirements!

Remember... she was salaried. My wife is salaried as a teacher, and if she doesn't go in, she still gets paid as if she did, and it doesn't list it as PTA/Sick or anything specific about it on the pay stubs, unless she has no PTO left. Three year old data may be gone, along with the computers they were using then... I'd bet a usb mouse they've replaced their system workstations since she worked there.

 

[~n/t~]

of all your choices #4 is the most interesting to me. The Prosecution is so thorough..certainly they would be prepared for this Chlorophyll/Chloroform hooey..and the FACT that CA & GA were at work had to be substantiated...didn't it???

To me, Linda Drane Burdick seemed outraged, but she also did not keep CA on the stand long. I hope they have a swat team getting those Gentiva emails right now (unless they already have and they are setting a trap for CA). It would be delicious if they would charge her with obstruction and perjury!

I was dumbfounded today. Now I can happily return to despising Cindy Anthony, she had me fooled for a couple of days

I never trusted the Anthonys and never will. I felt so bad for Linda. Not sure if any of you noticed but when Cindy walked up to the stand, Linda smiled at her. I don't think she was expecting this. Good God. This prosecution saved these lying creatures from being thrown under the bus by the defense and this is the thanks they get?

I knew the pros should never never have trusted them. Never. They should've just let them sink along with their daughter.

 

[Just Jayla]

[/B][/COLOR]

I wouldnt be so sure. Seems Baez didn't check his client's computer activity on the day Caylee is said to have drowned.

Does it seem like Baez is just waking up from his Kool-Aid nap and is so groggy that he is just punting it now?

 

[Softail]

Is there a thread for HLN shows tonight I can't find one and don't know how to create one?

:yes: Here is the link to it:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141473"]2011.06.23. HLN - 'In Session' News Coverage - Caylee Anthony Case - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[helenann2k]

Not sure if this is the right place to post it, but I am wondering if CA WAS searching because of her listless dog, because ICA was practicing on the dog. It has bothered me all along that the searches were several months before Caylee went missing. So perhaps ICA was finding information and trying things out on the dog. Horrible thought.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

[/B][/COLOR]

I wouldnt be so sure. Seems Baez didn't check his client's computer activity on the day Caylee is said to have drowned.

I wouldn't count on it... the DT did pretty darned good whacking the search evidence.

 

[Whaleshark]

So, here's the deal....

Following on this 'logic' trail - becomes illogical:

1) If we are to believe CA story today, which is to disprove SA theory, as she is covering up for ICA computer searches, car evidence, etc., then

2) She is saying that she believes in ICA innocence and supporting the DT opening statement;

3) If she is supposedly supporting the DT opening statement, then she is going along with what they said, including sexual abuse of ICA by GA.

BUT,

4) If she believes that -then she would not support GA - the man, her own husband, her child's own father, who was supposedly abusing/molesting her own daughter since a young age.

Everyone with me so far? Anyone? Everyone?

But then we have:

5) CA and GA in support of each other; CA not angry about that statement, nor surprised, nor anything that would seem she believes in any of that story. No revelation to her, and she sits with him in court every day, and goes home with him every night. (That's enough for me as a jury to not believe that. At least you would think the Anthonys would play that part and act like they hate each other after those skeletons came out dancing, right?...But everything looks fine to me)...Plus the fact that,

6) GA denies that accusation while on the stand anyway, so there's no need to pretend, right? That's not true.

Okay, so - logic reverse?:

7) If that's not true - that GA molested ICA, then.....what are the Anthonys saying? That they only believe PART of the DT story?

8) With CA going up and taking responsibility for the searches, possibly perjuring herself, 'remembering better' these days, stain was already there, yadda yadda....that part is true, but....so?

9) Some of what DT says is true and some is not, then?

10) Is a jury supposed to believe that George did NOT abuse ICA when he got up and said he did not, against the DT accusation, but yet they ARE supposed to believe the claims that CA made today in favor of the DT?

Then, there's the rest:

11) So, if we are supposed to believe GA, because he said it wasn't true, then we must remove that being the reason for ICA behavior after her daughter's 'accidental' death - with GA's involvement, mind you.

12) If we remove that reason for her behavior, and there's no other proven mental reason, and she already had knowledge of her death, that removes the excuse for her non-remorse.

13) If that is removed, then that statement by DT is also false.


When the Anthonys were witnesses for Prosecution, they acted in Prosecution favor. When they were witnesses for Defense, they acted in Defense favor.

Can't have both. The Anthonys' own statements and behavior seem to prove the DT opening statement as not true, or at least contradictory. And THEIR behavior is contradictory.

Either way someone loses credibility between them. Or all of them.

Playing both sides of the fence only shows the hypocrisy, lies, and the fact that something is being covered up. If something is being covered up, there is a reason.

Following the logic shows the illogical statements and behavior, and the fallacies become evident.
__
I see parallels with the JBR case and the Rs family covering for each other at all costs, to the detriment of their own little girl....

 

[Marple]

Cindy Anthony said she did not search "neck-breaking" but she remembers a pop-up ad containing the word. She also specifically said she did not search for "how to make chloroform."

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28330210/detail.html

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that one could remember a pop up ad from more than three years ago. Incidentally, in my experience, pop up ads appear based on your browsing history.

 

[jeepgirlva]

I feel like I've been punked. :sigh:

Listening to Mark Lippman, is really making me think that this BS today by CA was orchestrated a long time ago. He is making excuses for her performance by saying the state never asked her specific questions.

This leads me to believe that they (DT along with GA CA and ML) reviewed her depo in depth looking for specific things that were not asked. Kind of like the past few days of bringing in experts to say what wasn't present in the evidence. This seems to be the DT's newest theme.

uke:

What is that saying a lawyer should never ask a question they don't know what the answer will be they knew what she was going to say and the state got punked ! hopefully they can impeach her...