2011.06.23 Cindy's Testimony

[cyberborg]

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:

I agree. It is as if ML is playing the same game as the former attorney BC ... only better. He is walking a fine line of making his clients look good while also enabling them to save ICA and coordinate with the Defense. Only clever.

The interplay between CA and JB was too slick today, very well rehearsed. They had role played this, knew the script and possible questions and were ready to execute ... unlike everything else the DT has done.

 

[Chilly Willy]

CA retold on the stand today almost verbatim what she said in that depo. Didn't see anything about the poor guy with the broken neck on the skateboard though. Why didn't the SA remember this? I'm confused here. I thought that she lied back then and she's just going with the same lie IMO.

I don't understand why the DA, knowing back then that Cindy claimed to have searched the two chloro's, didn't have the computer people search chlorophyll as a keyword to see if or how those searches corresponded to the chloroform searches. I think it's very possible Cindy did do exactly what she testified to today, but not on the date in question. I think that was all Casey and that Cindy, once again, has her date wrong.

 

[Mama-cita]

I am sure that this has been addressed because there are several smarties on here. But for WHOMEVER is floating the theory that it the 84 times may have been in reference to the fact that is the 84th day of the year, well , the math doesn't add up. Even with a LEAP YEAR, March 17th is the 77th day of the year. The subsequent search on 3/23 would the 83rd day of the year IF THERE WAS a leap year and the 82nd if it was not. Hope that helps put that to rest.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I wonder why LDB did not address that at that moment. I hope she had a reason other than just being so angry it sliiped past her. I pray she is saving it for the big bang rebuttal

Not mentioning it was very good lawyering on her part. Here, you have a witness that will say the darndest things--a true "loose canon" as we in the field refer to them. Therefore, you only want to ask them questions that are absolutely necessary. That's exactly what LDB did today. LDB only needed CA to confirm that she did not have a myspace or FB account at the time in question. The computer searches (all of them) are already in evidence and the records pertaining to them were already testified to by the experts. Therefore, LDB will NOT raise this in rebuttal because she doesn't have to. All she has to do is argue the facts she has already established in closing argument (that CA did not have a myspace or fb account; and that the searches were done in between posting on a myspace and fb account.)

 

[tvjunkie]

Please don't shoot me, but I've just done a quick review of the relevant testimony from the deposition (about the chloroform/chlorophyll) and I do not see an inconsistency between what she said today in court and what is in the deposition.

Did she lie about something else?

 

[Z-sleuth]

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.

I agree. I actually think this will work to the State's advantage, ultimately. CA was clearly lying and we have to trust the jury to see it. The State will rebut this testimony, effectively. The person who typed "How to Make Chloroform" was ICA. When the jury knows they were lied to, they will punish the defendant.

 

[RR473]

That is untrue, Cindy has hardly ever been praised for her testimony, when she came to court sat on Caylee's side and told the truth about her daughters lies, we thought she had some sort of an epiphany. Her testimony has been impeached once already don't forget!

People here are generous souls and we really thought she was grieving, she put on a very good show, it fooled me.

Cindy was playing us though and we are unhappy about being deceived when we shouldn't have given her the benefit of the doubt. This was a dirty trick orchestrated by the defense and signed off on by Cindy. It was a tactic that will backfire. We still have rebuttal and Cindy needs to feel very afraid.

If Cindy had a behind-the-scene deal with DT she wouldn't say that she didn't forget to remove the stairs from the pool. Would she?

 

[Tulessa]

Why is a statement a lie if it weakens State's case but true if it strengthens State's case? Even if those statements are made by the same witness?

When I learnt about Internet searches I could feel it's a dirty trick, it smelled fishy. Then as I researched as more it became obvious that it indeed is a dirty trick.

Guess what, it backfired.

Furthermore we were all so furious to see Baez treat witnesses with disrespect. I think we should all be furious at Linda and Jeff for doing the exact same thing now.

If you read here enough you will see that the people here at WS has sleuthed enough to prove these are lies. And I have NO DOUBT that the SA will prove it as well.

 

[Scamperoo]

Cindy never loved Caylee. I expressed this opinion earlier this week and found it was best if I "take it back" by the responses I received to my opinion. I'll bite again and see if the coast has cleared...I am a little worried that Cindy could decide to cry again. :dunno:

IMHO: Cindy is as bad as her daughter. Cindy helped to create Casey. Neither Cindy nor Casey EVER LOVED Caylee.

(note: my idea of love is not what has been expressed by this family for Caylee. This is my opinion only. )

:cow:

I admit I was duped....I have no excuse...should have known better....

 

[gitana1]

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?

I haven't seen it either. Listening to the TH's on JVM, they say that the state didn't have CA's depo out at all, never crossed her on chlorophyll, seemed unprepared and gobsmacked. Obviously, they often lie or do not know what they are talking about so I'd like to know: Did the state do a thorough, good job on cross or not? What did LDB ask?

 

[tctara]

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.

This is a good point...very possible. Yorkies are small dogs though, she said they where puppies, so probably less than 5 lbs at that time. I don't know.

I do know that I am sick about this. I cannot believe she would do this.

Surely, SURELY, there was someone at CA work that day that will remember if she was there...are there patient charts they could look at? Nurses log EVERYTHING...maybe they can review charts to see if she assisted with a patient at those times. That would be more fool proof than time cards for a salaried worker.

 

[Scamperoo]

I had to turn it off also. I could not stand listening to the TH's saying this was a big win for the defense. Whaaaaaat? She LIED! How is that a big win?

How is that justice? It's sickening!

If you could call it a win (doubtful) it's the first and will be that last unless they get George to confess to molestation.

 

[~n/t~]

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.

It is a horrible thought but very plausible. Cindy admitted that her dog was showing symptoms of tiredness and she looked up chlorofyl. She thought it was the bamboo. Why was her dog exhibiting these symptoms is what I'd like to know. Why didn't she look up bamboo? You know what? After today's testimony, I would not be surprised if this family knew way back exactly what happened to Caylee and how she died.

 

[MasonJunior]

<<< .... were getting ill by eating bamboo leaves, wouldn't there be a number of searches like "bamboo leaves" and "dog sick eat leaves" or "is bamboo poisonous" leading up to the search about Chloroform? >>>


~ ~ Exactly ~ ~
Always the lead in. Cindy's nursing profession is based on research starting way back to nursing school.

 

[tennisgirlsc]

I don't think there will be a mistrial but I do believe that she is FULLY aware that this is information that is "tricky" in nature. She threw it out there along with all the other "helpful" information that she has provided thus far.

 

[Nature Girl]

will someone explain "rebuttal" to me. When will we see it and what does it consist of?:waitasec:

 

[4realtho]

I am so disappointed and angry. I had to force myself to remain calm at work. My heart dropped to my feet as Cindy did what she did on the stand. I am sorry I EVER defended her. I feel like I need a never-ending shower to wash off hoe dirty I feel. God, she is just as much a sociopath as her daughter is. I feel like such a gullible fool.

If GA or LA continue this charade on the stand I will freaking LOSE IT. God would not allow this to come so far just to have the devil set Casey free. I have to keep believing this. I am truly shaken right now. Those jurors don't know this family like we do. I am scared how this testimony is going to impact their decision, even if the lying was fairly obvious. Thank GOD there are two IT people on the jury, though. I think the two of them will help the rest to see through Cindy's lies.

I just have to keep the faith. I' m thankful I have you guys to help me do that. I am DONE with this family, especially Cindy. She can burn in hell next to her daughter.

Don't feel bad because you are a honest and caring person that looks for the good in all people. The important thing is that you have put your glasses back on and can see the Anthony's for what they truly are. We are all here for Caylee and to hell with the rest of them! Everyone please, keep your glasses dangling from your neck because in this case, you never know when you made need them to see through the BS.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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?

She did not ask because a good lawyer never asks a question he/she doesn't know the answer to! That's exactly what she did today. She didn't need that testimony either--that's what closing argument is for!

 

[GiantPickle]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139884&page=3

Does anyone still think that CA was scratching her nose? Ugh Ugh

I do - honestly. I think if she were making a signal, she'd keep watching to make sure it was absorbed. She doesnt look back ICA's way from what we can see.

 

[RR473]

If you read here enough you will see that the people here at WS has sleuthed enough to prove these are lies. And I have NO DOUBT that the SA will prove it as well.

Thank you, your reply was helpful. It made me change my mind instantly.