Cindy Anthony's Time Card

[LambChop]

It's really not a question of if she was at work - the Jury will hear and compare work records to the days the computer searches were done and, as they say, that's all she wrote

Plus CA took time off the following week so the jury will presume CA was mistaken about the date and clearly was mistaken about her search. Or CA did perform these searches but not the ones from the home but did them at work because that is clearly were she was. jmo

 

[joypath]

The "paper trail" should be her "downfall" regarding where she was on 3/17 & 3/21 2008.

:twocents:In some positions, even the salaried employee :innocent: who is "on -call" has to prepare some sort of documentation to declare that he/she was "on the job" just in case, as another wise poster noted, an injury occurs or personal or company property damage occurs. Insurance companies are not "fond" of "just take my word for it" anecdotal declarations!:banghead:

 

[JBean]

FWIW, in some states overtime is anything over 8 hours per day. But in other states overtime is anything over 40 hours per week. So, one could work 4- 10 hour days and still be on regular time. This is a big problem in CA as we are on 8 hour days.

 

[mimmy03]

They can. Other WS'ers have proven that the searches were done on Firefox, not IE, the browser the rest of the family used. Firefox is exclusively used by ICA. They are flanked by social network site visitations (CA didn't have any accounts). Then the browser itself is deleted a few minutes after ICA downloads phone and email records to a flash drive for YM in the early a.m. of the 16th. CA wouldn't have known the significance of those searches for chloroform at that point to even delete them. And no other searches were deleted ever on the browser the family used. She's full of it and should never have lied. MN said that LDB is like a "machine" on rebuttal. She will plow over all the garbage (uh, trash) CA said. If CA had kept her mouth shut, she would never have fallen into the trap of lying that was laid to prove that her daughter is so guilty, she is in fact lying only to save her life.

so is the SA going to prove to the jury that she flat out lied?

 

[NavySubMom]

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.

 

[firefox62]

I believe she lied and if it can be proven would sincerely hope she is punished for it. Even if only probation at least there would be a consequence. I'm sure she, and probably most people, feel she has suffered enough. But I can't stand liars.

 

[Danemead]

:gasp: !!! You mean she wasn't entirely truthful? :wink:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[LambChop]

I am a salaried employee. I do not get paid for overtime, whether that is on Saturdays, Sundays, or Holidays doesn't matter. I do not get comp time when I am traveling and have to spend a weekend away from home.

However, there are never any deductions: If my car breaks down and I get to work 3 hours late, I get paid as if I was at work (this serves only as an example). I have a 45 minute lunch break (which is paid). If I have to go to the doctor, or have to leave early, I get paid anyway.

Of course it's a give/take arrangement. I never take advantage of it - but my employer does

If Gentiva operates like most large US companies, Cindy would have had to swipe her employee card, and the "system" would have added up the hours she worked. If she had to fill in a manual time card (does anyone still do that????), she would have had to log ALL hours she worked, whether she was salaried or not. IF she was salaried, it woudln't have mattered how many hours she worked per week, since she was salaried, it didn't matter whether she worked overtime or not.

There are two absence from work codes that usually are noted on your timecard for accuracy. Example: AWP = Absence with permission (in which you would be paid) and AWOP = Absence without permission (non paid). If you state you are working and you are not legally on company time, company business insurance companies will have some serious issues with your company. Plus...the Labor Board demands accurate timekeeping or the company may face some serious fines. Big time no no if you are on personal business and report on your card that you were sitting at your desk. jmo

 

[LambChop]

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.

Sometimes I think that JB's theory is that if he makes CA out to be a liar then it will strenghten their defense that KC was raised by a bunch of liars. As a juror all that would prove to me is that a child is dead, the child had duct tape across her face after drowning in the pool (which makes no sense so it must be a lie) and KC was just too happy to be free of any restrictions whatsoever regardless of what she said happened to her in the past. This only leads to one conclusion. Throw out everything that has been said by this family and look at what is left. A child KC had full responsibility for is dead and she lied about it. The End. jmo

 

[ynotdivein]

Just to clarify, the discussion about supposed "proof of perjury" on CA's part is coming from an unsubstantiated source that we don't quote at WS.

Our Verified Lawyers are indicating that it is highly unlikely that any Anthony will be brought up on perjury charges.

Until we have verifiable information please let us all refrain from speculating our way down this particular hallway.

We've had a rough weekend, everyone recognizes that. But I want to spend the coming week watching and pondering along with all of you!

:tyou:

 

[LambChop]

FWIW, in some states overtime is anything over 8 hours per day. But in other states overtime is anything over 40 hours per week. So, one could work 4- 10 hour days and still be on regular time. This is a big problem in CA as we are on 8 hour days.

Yes, this is true of people who work those 12 hour days, 4 days on, 4 days off.

 

[ariesgodofwar]

Not sure if Missouri (where I live is markedly different than other states) but as a salaried employee in Missouri, whether I worked 40 hours or 80 hours, as a salaried "exempt" employee, I do not get overtime. I assume Cindy was likely in the same position, meaning that there is no reason why Gentiva would encourage their employees to "falsify" timecards to show only 40 hours worked. If she were hourly, it would make sense, but not a salaried position. See: http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/g/exempt.htm

My guess about what went down Saturday was that information proving Cindy committed perjury was brought to JP and/or the DT by the SA, who said, "We can either do a plea now, or we prove your CA lied, arrest her for perjury, fashion a jury instruction advising them of the same and virtually ensure a conviction, while you risk the death penalty." Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I am not sure what else would have caused JP to cancel Saturday with 6+ witnesses in the hall.

 

[rabidstoat]

If you don't get paid for overtime, then you can work extra hours and not record them. That happened at a company I used to work at. This is to contrast with 'total time accounting' in my field, where you put down the total time that you worked, even if you don't get paid due to being salaried.

Where I work, it's even true that you might work 10 hours on Monday in one week, and 10 hours on Monday in another week, and only record 8 hours on the first week while recording 10 hours on the second week. The rules are that if you're not authorized overtime, you can stay extra if you want but no one is requiring it, and you don't put it on your timecard. But if you are required to do overtime, then you DO put it on your timecard, and you do get paid.

I think in short, companies can be run a lot of different ways, so long as things are documented, within the laws of the land, and consistently applied.

Though I have never heard of not working and putting hours on a timecard anyway, except in the instances where an employee is being dishonest. Everywhere I've worked has had various absence codes to note if an employee is taking personal leave, sick, vacation, jury duty, leave without pay, whatever.

 

[com n sense]

Sometimes I think that JB's theory is that if he makes CA out to be a liar then it will strenghten their defense that KC was raised by a bunch of liars. As a juror all that would prove to me is that a child is dead, the child had duct tape across her face after drowning in the pool (which makes no sense so it must be a lie) and KC was just too happy to be free of any restrictions whatsoever regardless of what she said happened to her in the past. This only leads to one conclusion. Throw out everything that has been said by this family and look at what is left. A child KC had full responsibility for is dead and she lied about it. The End. jmo

BINGO! Remember when JB asked CA on the stand if she was just like ICA.
He also said " you taught your daughter to tell the truth"?
I believe he's setting her up.

 

[amickeyfan]

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.

 

[Hayden]

I just noticed on a home video shown on Nancy Grace tonight that Caylee was about 2 years old and was wearing a "Kiss Me I'm Irish" t-shirt that looked rather new. I wonder if this was taken on the day in question, St. Patrick's day 2008, the day Cindy was supposed to be at work, but instead claimed she was on the computer looking up chloroform. Of course, the shirt may not have been put on for the first time in this video, but it could provoke Cindy's memory about St. Patrick's day and putting the shirt on Caylee that day.

 

[Gma Kat]

If this was posted elsewhere, I can't find it.

On the stand 6/24/2011, Cindy Anthony said "supervisors are not supposed to show overtime to corporate", and that they could only show 8 hours per day on their time card. Oddly, her time card almost always showed overtime. In fact, the day in question showed she clocked 10 hours.

See page 11:
http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/06.pdf

Exactly. Why would her timecard be "fudged" by a supervisor if CA worked LESS than her scheduled day??? It makes absolutely no sense at all. If anything they would want it to accurately reflect CA was NOT at work that day at that time.

 

[Gma Kat]

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.

BBM: Me too. JB stated that ICA learned to be who she is from her family, which would be best demonstrated by CA lying on the stand........which she has done............works for both the SA and the DT. The SA will use this to their advantage better than the DT can use it. IMHO.

 

[sparkysmom]

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.

 

[Gma Kat]

BINGO! Remember when JB asked CA on the stand if she was just like ICA.
He also said " you taught your daughter to tell the truth"?
I believe he's setting her up.

I get that feeling too.....