Cindy Anthony's Time Card

[kaRN]

It makes sense that Cindy would have 10 hours on a Monday, as she has said that she usually worked later on Mondays. Cindy was at work that day and she knows it, no doubt in my mind.

I suspect that the SA will also be able to demonstrate to the jury that not only was she at work during her alleged computer searches, she was on the phone with RN x,y or z with the call start and end times recorded by the phone system itself. I don't remember if CA was asked but I'd be willing to bet that not only did she log into her email (I believe if CA was more computer literate she would understand she was logging into the computer system and it defaulted on opening to Outlook or whatever email program Gentiva uses), but she was also required to log into her phone.
In the healthcare world, documentation is vital and recorded right down to the minute. It's vital for patient care but also to protect the caregiver and their employer legally. I suspect that at Gentiva, which is a for profit corporation and accountable to their investors, documentation is also analyzed to assess profitability.
I don't imagine the other 'Supervisors' take kindly to having their case loads doubled while CA pops home to check on her lethargic dog and google chloroform. If one of her Home Care RNs needs a Doctors order it would be the 'Supervisors' job to obtain it STAT. If CA wasn't there, some other Supervisor would be tasked to get it done. Concerns over the family dog don't supersede responsibility to the patient.
I can't wait for the State to prove CA a liar through the IT person at Gentiva. It will be a thing of beauty to all of us who take our ethical and professional patient care responsibilities seriously. I suspect Gentiva will also want to set the record straight to all their investors who may be following the trial and heard first hand, CA discuss her work hours as though she had all the flexibility in the world.

 

[kimonomyhouse]

I think the jury knows that CA lied about those computer searches, but I don't think they care. I think they get that CA is doing whatever she can to try to save her daughter's life. They saw her break down when she was a witness for the state; they know she is hurting. IMHO, the actions of ICA after little Caylee "disappeared" are the most damning of all the circumstantial evidence. I mean, who DOES that???

 

[RANCH]

I live in FL and when my husband was a supervisor @ the company he use to work for, he was "salary". He worked as long as it took for all the work to get done, 40 hours or 50 hours, it didn't matter. He got the same salary. There was no OT and he was expected to be there. He was not allowed to "leave" early other days. That was his job. It never went under 40 either!

I don't get what CA was even saying, she is salary, she clocked in but was over her hours so they let her go home. No company is, or should let you go home if you are actually on a "time clock". If anything "legal" were to happen, then that company could be held liable because you were on their clock. Had she gotten killed in a car accident, she would have died on the clock and therefore the company would be paying out death benefits. I really don't think companies work that way. Now if you do not have a time clock, maybe, yes, they will let you go.. but not after you clocked in.. and did not clock out.. no way! Who was clocking out for her??? Personally, I think that line was a total lie.

I work on a time clock. When I leave to go to the doctor on my lunch time (which I am paid for), I do have to clock out because I am leaving the bldg. I clock back in when I come back. I do end up paid for my time, but due to the fact I have left the bldg, they are not going to be held liable for me while not on their property. How they put in for my lunch to pay me for that time, I don't know. I am not in their payroll, but they do it.

So what would happen if you forgot to clock out before you left to go to the doctor and you were injured or killed in an accident? Your saying that your employer is liable? Your still on the clock.I don't know if we will see if Cindy's time sheets really mean any thing unless some one from Gentiva can testify about time sheet details. I've worked enough jobs to know that each place has there own system and supervisors can have different time sheet requirements than rank and file.But Ca's time sheets don't reflect what she testified to so whats up with that?

 

[Sleuth5]

It amazes me that she would lie out not being at work during that time. All it will take is testimony from her former co-workers or supervisor, not to mention computer records, to prove that she was at work. You can't convince me that a hospital or major health care provider would not have some sort of computer backup. Even if they didn't, I would think the co-workers could provide proof she was there.

Obviously the apple does not fall far from the tree. can't wait to see LDB wipe the floor with her.

BBM

I wish I could say it amazed me.

 

[kaRN]

So what would happen if you forgot to clock out before you left to go to the doctor and you were injured or killed in an accident? Your saying that your employer is liable? Your still on the clock.I don't know if we will see if Cindy's time sheets really mean any thing unless some one from Gentiva can testify about time sheet details. I've worked enough jobs to know that each place has there own system and supervisors can have different time sheet requirements than rank and file.But Ca's time sheets don't reflect what she testified to so whats up with that?

In my Province, I'm considered to be at work from the minute I leave home to travel to work until the moment I get home from work regardless of my timecard. If I have an accident to or fro, I am eligible for Workers Compensation. I have no idea what would happen if I had an accident stopping at a bar on my way home but theoretically the work day includes travel to and from work.

 

[deelytful1]

There has been an IT guy from Gentiva on the State Witness list since before the trial has started. In addition to the lies on the timecard and the fact that there is no search for chlorophyll or and derivation of its spelling on the search history, he can positively prove that she was at work. If he was on the witness list, you can better believe he was asked to come up with records for CA before as well. When I saw this I felt bad for ever doubting the SA and thinking they were caught off guard. They have always been 2 steps ahead of JB and the A's.
Also, Click Orlando had an article where they found that she DID NOT call GA at all when she got home from work on the 16th of June from her phone records, which means it could not have been the 16th when she found the pool ladder down and called him, hence LDB's questions on which number CA called as well as if she left a VM.
Can you say perjury and impeachment?
There goes the two things JB actually did that people think poked holes in the SA theory added credence to their theory.
I love the SA .

Thank you so much!! I feel guilty now as well thinking LDB dropped the ball on this one while CA was on the stand! Oh, I can't wait!!

 

[RANCH]

In my Province, I'm considered to be at work from the minute I leave home to travel to work until the moment I get home from work regardless of my timecard. If I have an accident to or fro, I am eligible for Workers Compensation. I have no idea what would happen if I had an accident stopping at a bar on my way home but theoretically the work day includes travel to and from work.

Are you driving a company vehicle? It would be a little strange if not. But I don't know Canada that well even though my father was born in Regina SK and lived in Windsor till he was 14.

 

[Z-sleuth]

Couldn't they subpoena CA's cell phone records to prove that she was pinging from a tower near her work all day on March 17th and March 21st? There is more than one way to prove she's lying.

 

[Robinez]

You're right, the timecards absolutely contradict what Cindy said on the stand about only clocking 8 hours. If Cindy is lying about searching for "chloraform" from home then it is easily disproved. If she sent one email from work during the time she said she was at home, the defense looks very bad. However, if the state doesn't come up with an email trail from work, which would surprise me, then the defense earned a rare bonus point.

If, and it's a big If, the SA can't come up with any activity on her work computer while she claims that she was at home, they won't bring this up on rebuttle. Simple as that. No bonus points for the defense. The question will just hang in the air like so many other questions have in this case.

TC, Robin

 

[RANCH]

If, and it's a big If, the SA can't come up with any activity on her work computer while she claims that she was at home, they won't bring this up on rebuttle. Simple as that. No bonus points for the defense. The question will just hang in the air like so many other questions have in this case.

TC, Robin

Your exactly right. Unless the state can show that she wasn't at home and LIED about the computer searches, I don't think they should go there.

 

[Friday]

You're right, the timecards absolutely contradict what Cindy said on the stand about only clocking 8 hours. If Cindy is lying about searching for "chloraform" from home then it is easily disproved. If she sent one email from work during the time she said she was at home, the defense looks very bad. However, if the state doesn't come up with an email trail from work, which would surprise me, then the defense earned a rare bonus point.

RBBM: Even if they can't come up with an e-mail from that day, CA has finally told a big, bald-faced lie that she won't be able to evade or explain to the jury. Either she'll have to admit she was at work during the hours shown on her time card on the days of the chloroform searches, OR she will have to admit to falsly inflating her hours worked virtually every day on all her time cards.

Finally, this thoroughly dishonest, cunning woman has trapped herself once.

 

[Friday]

The Anthonys should have really thought that out before putting CA up there to take responsibility for the chloroform search. Yes, the chloroform search was surrounded by other searches. It was strange when LDB mentioned the "chloroformhabit" search and CA acted like it was the first time she'd heard about it. Does she just play dumb? I think so, when it's convenient. I understand a mom and dad wanting to save their daughter from the death penalty, but CA's claims can be disproven.

For three years, CA has lied her face off without a serious backlash, so it's no wonder that she's growing more and more bold. And what really gags me is that she tells these lies after swearing dramatically and piously, "So help me God, yes," instead of just saying "yes."

 

[RANCH]

For three years, CA has lied her face off without a serious backlash, so it's no wonder that she's growing more and more bold. And what really gags me is that she tells these lies after swearing dramatically and piously, "So help me God, yes," instead of just saying "yes."

Hi Friday. I agree with you about CA's swearing in. It grates my grain when I hear it.I think that the jury will see through CA lies about her computer searches for more than one reason.The time cards is just one of them.

 

[azwriter]

But did not JB & Co. know that CA's time cards were evidence documents that the State had and could use? DT would have got these documents in discovery, correct? For some reason, I just think CA does not care that she lied, that she would know that her lies were going to be discovered by the State. I just do not think they are that oblivious to the fact that both the State and they themselves have these times records and could prove CA was lying. Why would that be? Even if she is impeached in rebuttal, and the jury is told I believe in jury instructions they can ignore all statements by witnesses who are impeached, technically they can then ignore her statements she made when she originally testified for the State. BUT THERE IS NO WAY they will ignore the importance of the recorded 911 calls, and also the recorded statements she made when visiting ICA in jail, the statements about the media now saying Caylee is dead, she died in the pool, and "Surprise, Surprise" stated by ICA. I just somehow get the impression neither CA nor JB& Co. care that she will be shown to lie. anyone else feel this? Thanks.

NavySubMom, of course she didn't care about lying under oath. Like her daughter, Cindy believes she has a right to lie if it will help her. But it's not just the hours on her time card, or the searches on the computer, Cindy has lied throughout the investigation of her missing granddaughter : Pizza in the car that "stunk" so bad. Adding the line about it smelling like a dead body in the damn car, she claims she said in order to get law enforcement out to her house quicker; Casey isn't pregnant (at her brother's wedding). I could go on and on and so could others here at WS.
I doubt the State will bring out the proof of her lies to Cindy herself. I think those will be uncovered through testimony from her former employer's IT person.
I think we all know if Cindy had to face questioning about her lies, she would try to cover it with another lie. It runs in the family don't you know.
jmo

 

[Friday]

But did not JB & Co. know that CA's time cards were evidence documents that the State had and could use? DT would have got these documents in discovery, correct? For some reason, I just think CA does not care that she lied, that she would know that her lies were going to be discovered by the State. I just do not think they are that oblivious to the fact that both the State and they themselves have these times records and could prove CA was lying. Why would that be? Even if she is impeached in rebuttal, and the jury is told I believe in jury instructions they can ignore all statements by witnesses who are impeached, technically they can then ignore her statements she made when she originally testified for the State. BUT THERE IS NO WAY they will ignore the importance of the recorded 911 calls, and also the recorded statements she made when visiting ICA in jail, the statements about the media now saying Caylee is dead, she died in the pool, and "Surprise, Surprise" stated by ICA. I just somehow get the impression neither CA nor JB& Co. care that she will be shown to lie. anyone else feel this? Thanks.

I agree and I think the answer is that CA feels greatly emboldened/empowered by the swell of public sympathy she received when she sobbed on the stand. Also, no one including LDB has gotten nasty with her over her lies.

 

[DesSands]

We all knew she lied when she did it. However, many of the TH's out there I don't think believe she really lied.

I would love nothing more than to see ALL of them - HLN, TRUTV, JVM, NG, Today Show, Good Morning America, Dr. Drew, Geraldo - And any others I have missed - Invite Mr. Lippman on, and with this document in hand, ask him again why his client lied. Then when he says they are only interested in the truth and speak the truth, confront him with her records. :gavel:

It is just sickening - uke:

For sure, but nothing should ever surprise us with any of the A's. With all of this adding up, I'm going to go forward with the thread re: LA and TL. :maddening:

 

[azwriter]

Whether Cindy is salaried or an hourly employee, businesses cannot and should not ask employees to falsify a time card or whatever type of on the job time accounting is used.

I'm sure the company she was working for really appreciates what she said on the stand under oath about the time keeping measures there. With her testimony, she threw an entire company under the bus. Amazing!

jmo

 

[RANCH]

Whether Cindy is salaried or an hourly employee, businesses cannot and should not ask employees to falsify a time card or whatever type of on the job time accounting is used.

I'm sure the company she was working for really appreciates what she said on the stand under oath about the time keeping measures there. With her testimony, she threw an entire company under the bus. Amazing!

jmo

Your right. But I don't think she plans on going back to work there so she doesn't care if she's burning bridges.

 

[azwriter]

Your right. But I don't think she plans on going back to work there so she doesn't care if she's burning bridges.

You're right Ranch. However, if Cindy is collecting disability as one of the company's benefits, they may want to take a serious look at her work history when it comes to time worked. She may not be eligible for that disability if she presented false records. Maybe?

jmo

 

[RANCH]

You're right Ranch. However, if Cindy is collecting disability as one of the company's benefits, they may want to take a serious look at her work history when it comes to time worked. She may not be eligible for that disability if she presented false records. Maybe?

jmo

I think that for disability benefits it would matter if she had a work history of years not hours on a time card. Or at least a matter of months not days. Hey I'm not sure , but I don't think it will be a factor in this trial.