2011.06.23 Cindy's Testimony

[Chilly Willy]

I would have to ask you to prove it. If the defense wants to raise reasonable doubt, they would have to show me. So far they haven't and I'll have to go with the testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution as true.

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant to ask is if you learned, in other words if it was proven to you, that there was only one search and not 84, what would you think?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

Please, please don't anyone who felt bad for Cindy and decided to trust her once again, feel gullible or foolish. You are trusting and have good hearts and I admire you (and may even be a bit jealous). It is good not to have a hardened heart!

Even though I never thought she changed, I was still crying right along with her through the replays of her 911 calls. She did love Caylee and will never recover from losing her. Even bad people can feel love and loss and true pain that come along with those. So, as I have said before, I feel very, very sorry for the pain of her loss, but I will never, ever trust her.

But you, Aedrys, (and all you others who chose to trust again) should feel proud, not foolish, that your hearts are still so pure that you are able to do that! Bless you all!

 

[GiantPickle]

LOL! Zoom in. She actually traces around her eyes with one of the legs from her frames. It's like she's telling her to cry.

I see it...I also see her craning her neck to see ICA before she does it but I don't think she gets ICAs attention - there's no eye contact before she does it, while she's doing it and no eye contact after. It sure is weird but I don't think it is communication with ICA.

 

[Sleuth5]

Interestingly, March 17th is St. Patrick's Day. Could be a day that would stand out in the mind of a Cindy co-worker.

Regarding the computer searches: Where the Prosecuters are going to trip Cindy up on those searches is the BROWSER they were made on. Remember, all of the suspicious searches were made on a Firefox Browser that was set up under a totally separate User Account on the desktop computer. And these files were then deleted at around 4:00am when Yuri Melich had just interviewed Casey at the home.

IIRC the computer forensics showed that neither George nor Cindy EVER used the Firefox Browser. Their usage was on Internet Explorer, located within a totally different user account.

This is why Cindy was asked today about when she got onto the desktop what did she have to do to use the internet? Her answer was that it was "just always on".

Cindy obviously doesn't know much about how computers are set up, doesn't know much about multiple users and multiple browsers.

Casey knew a little more. She went ahead and set up her own User Account on the hard drive, probably password protected it. She then downloaded the Firefox browser into THAT User Account. That way, no snoopy mom or dad could click onto "History" and see where she had been browsing.

Oh, and if there's an IT guy on the jury - he already knows this.

:goodpost: Thanks, great post this. I didn't remember the IT guy on the jury but I was counting on at least basically computer-literate folks (which is just about everyone anymore) who could see exactly where this was going. LDB was being clever with CA today, but when she gets hold of her next it won't be pretty.

 

[Kat]

so if i posted a new thread and it was Moved by a moderator, how do i find it? i've spent 5 minutes looking for it and i don't know where it went.

Anyone?

Click on your name in at the upper right hand of this screen. Where it says Welcome, Whaleshark.

Once on that page clilck on tab that says statistics.

On that page click on "find all posts by whaleshark"

It will list all of the posts you have made (last post will be first).

(I use this feature to follow up on many threads).

 

[reeseeva]

Did anyone hear JVM on HLN with Vinnie P., just before the end of his show, JVM said she observed Cindy and JB outside in a very chummy talk, and laughing???

I'm still worried about the "84" searches. That would be horrible for the State. if it has another explanation, and it really was only once!!

 

[~n/t~]

http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/

Keep this rose Going for Caylee ♥
_____/)___/)______./¯"""/')
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\)¯¯\)¯¯¯'\_„„„„\)
We love you babygirl!

 

[doogiesgirl]

When she was on the stand having her sobbing festival, I had to ask myself if this seemed real. Well I came to the conclusion that I did not trust her. Have watched and listened to her lies to LE and the public for way too long to be taken n by this meek whining, one Kleenex, sobbing show with the head dropping below the stand for better effect and so no one would see she had stopped crying , putting on the second feature of a dry breakdown, then wobbling off to put the icing on the cake.

I was so nervous to see her taking the stand, afraid of what was going to be said by her. Boy she even blindsided me. I was flabbergasted that she had the nerve to lie as she did on oath with such detail just like her daughter. Talk about the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Above BBM

I agree, I wasn't buying what she was selling that day so I just kept my mouth shut (and my fingers away from the keyboard). All I thought that day (as well as today) is that she is thinking of the hoped for movie and/or book deal. I see CA being as sick as KC after today. And to me it is more plausible than ever before, that CA helped to create KC. She wasn't just born "off". If you watch that footage of CA on the stand today, you can see her actually enjoy being deceitful. I want LDB to bury her.

moo

 

[Whisperer]

Cindy and Casey were dressed in their finest diggs today..coincidence?

 

[cyberborg]

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant to ask is if you learned, in other words if it was proven to you, that there was only one search and not 84, what would you think?

It only takes one search.... Good to see you back.

 

[roseofsharon]

and another thing, amazing how she didnt need any help on or off the stand today. remarkably she was sooooooo ok today. what a difference the change of cic makes??

I also noticed there was no yes maam, no maam, and some blatant smirking -- unbelievable -- pants on fire!!!

 

[Chilly Willy]

I think it is a mistake that this was not explored in cross.



I disagree. In cross, she should have asked: "So, Ms. Anthony, you state you looked up chloroform because you were looking up chlorophyll? And you were looking up chlorophyll because your dog ate bamboo? Yet you did not look up bamboo, correct? And you did not look up dogs? You did not look up bamboo poisoning? Or bamboo poisoning and dogs, right? In fact, you didn't look for anything related to a sick dog except for "chloroform" or "chlorophyll", right? You just swept right to chlorophyll? And that somehow lead to 84 searches for chloroform? For how to make chloroform?"

It would not matter what CA's answers would be. I just matters that the state is outlining the ridiculousness of what CA is stating. And in this case, we all know the answers to the questions LDB is asking. There were no searches for chlorophyll and there were no searches for anything related to dogs or ill dogs.

You'd end up with egg on your face because there are a number of searches related to dogs and fleas.

 

[whiteangora]

What medication is Cindy on I wonder?

She is obviously NOT on Sodium Pentathol.

 

[Z-sleuth]

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

Evidence is put on in three phases:

1. The State's Case-in-Chief
2. The Defense's Case-in-Chief
3. The State's Rebuttal Case

Since the State has the burden of proof, they get the last word. Their rebuttal will occur after the Defense closes. The same sequence will be repeated in closing arguments.

 

[whiteangora]

Cindy and Casey were dressed in their finest diggs today..coincidence?

Lots of makeup too since they both knew it was a "no cry day".

 

[barrysgirl]

Do we know for sure that she even searched chlorophyl ever? Can that be debunked? I'm with many sleuthers that think if she really thought her dogs were eating something they shouldn't, her search would have included "dog".

I'm still in shock over today.

 

[Softail]

I just googled the hand sanitizer scare - IT WAS MAY-JUNE 2007!

:liar: Cindy! :tsktsk:

I googled - hand sanitizer scare

So she lied about it coming out in March of 2008 as well! :liar:

 

[gitana1]

How do you know that "it would not matter what CA's answers would be"?? That's the whole point of never asking a question you don't know the answer to--especially of a hostile witness. The woman is capable of saying anything and opening up many a can of worms. Just ask the DT. In her ramblings today, she mentioned KC's arrest on check charges--negating many a hearing and side bar to keep that info out-and which, by the way, was in response to a simple question as to the date she met with YM about the computer searches. My point, exactly.

Not asking a question you don't know the answer to is quite different from not caring what a witnesses' answer will be. Witnesses change their answers or lie all the time. You know that. So no one can know what they will say. Knowing the truth, or what the real answer to the question is, is what is important.

And we know what those answers are. We know, because they went through it in testimony, everything that was searched around the time chloroform was searched. Bamboo was not searched. Dogs were not searched.

I have been trained not to care what the witness says in cross. I view cross examination as my statement of the facts punctuated by their yeses and nos. I control cross tightly and never ask an open ended question. It doesn't matter what the witnesses' answer is. The judge (or in this case the jury) here's what I want them to hear, based on my tone, the phrasing of my questions and the pattern of my cross.

 

[kjpaw]

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.

I work in education and all of our time out is very specifically noted (sick, personal, in-service) and documented on our paychecks every month regardless of the fact that we are salaried employees. We actually have to fill out a form EVERY time we are out for more than an hour...regardless of the reason...We get paid unless we go into "debt" with the amount of sick/personal days we have earned...but documentation is the most important aspect... As far as I know there are few large organizations that do not document time out during this day and age due to potential lawsuits and/or just simply for documentation purposes. On another note, due to a lawsuit against our system a couple of years ago I discovered that it is actually possible for our system to pull up emails from 5+ years ago if legally requested to do so. Our basic rule is that if you write it, consider it out there forever. Not sure of CA's system possibilities, but it's NOT out of the realm of possibilities that this information can be retrieved.

ETA: our system doesn't have any concern about whether your actual computer is still in existence, it works off employee ID logins to the intranet...

 

[azscr4mbl3r]

gee this has been asked a million times.. if the searches were so innocent why DELETE them? just specifically those searches and no others?