Dr. Phil w/George and Cindy Anthony Air Date 9/13 and 9/14 2011 Thead # 2

[strawberry]

So on Dr Phil CA tries to use the fact that Caylee was not where she was dumped, as an excuse as to why FCA could not reveal the 'accident' since LE would want to check but -- it begs the question, how did FCA know that Caylee was not where she was originally dumped and how does CA know this?

For TES and other lawsuits it validates that CA knew Caylee was dead long before she was discovered on Dec 11 and yet at the same time CA was on LKL driving the Caylee is Alive distraction. TES was searching at the same time CA knew where Caylee was dumped.

CA is digging a hole with her lies ... Oh what a terrible web we weave ...

BBM! That's what I said! She would not have known she couldn't tell unless someone had gone (to tamper) and not found her. And it would have been early on.

 

[jon_burrows]

I didn't see him as vile. I seen him as being frustrated with CA. She wouldn't listen to him. Stepped on his words while he was trying to talk. He was frustrated also because he said that she kept changing up the story. He was trying to do his job and she was trying to prevent him from doing it. A least that's how it appeared to me.

I don't want to speak for Tipstaff but I think she was referring to the 'ugly grandpa hates casey anthony' video on youtube. Warning, extremely vile language in the grandpa video.

As always, Yuri was the consummate professional.

IMO

 

[MissJames]

CA said on Dr. Phil she could have taken Caylee away from KC if she had wanted to. I'm guessing she is alluding to the total lack of voice grandparents have. Yes, children are their parents... I totally agree. But too many times the parent(s) is/are incompetent, and still the grandparent has no voice. I went through a similar thing. Child protective services was useless. When I went to court, the judge chided me. My voice, and numerous photos of abuse were laughed at. I was belittled by my daughter, son-in-law and the judge. They went on to have two more children. Years later when I got to see the four kids due to the son-in-law nearly killing my daughter, they had been horribly neglected and abused. Guess who is raising four damaged kids now! I am broker than I don't know what and deep in debt - and plain worn out. If the courts would have simply LOOKED at my photos and listened to me for a few minutes, there might have been just TWO well cared for kids. The HELL those kids went through makes me want to vomit. The judge even took away visitation previously given, saying it would disturb the family time, and leaving it up to my daughter, which was ZERO.

OK, I got on my soapbox, and now I am off. But CA probably does not want to SAY these things since she lauds FCA as a good mom... but maybe she found similar problems. She was helpless to help - like I was. I'm just saying MAYBE!

:hug:
The bureaucracy that surrounds child abuse cases is mind boggling. I could tell you horrific stories about grandparents that got custody children I was fostering,when they shouldn't have.
It seems like there is no common sense being used .It's political and decisions have more to do with clearing the stacks of paperwork than finding the best solution for the child.
There are some really good ,caring caseworkers ,judges and lawyers,but not enough of them to make a dent .
It's a National Tragedy and we see the horrific results right here at WS.

I'm right there with you Azcrabcakes. We adopted 4 of our foster children and I'm the grade school mom with gray hair and aching feet . My older children (34,31 and 27 ) have friends with kids in school with my kids. :crazy:

 

[LancelotLink]

What bothers me so much with CA's excuses is the fact that no matter how baseless her lies are, she seems to have one for every single hole in her story. This is not denial. This is someone who has had to think long and hard. You have to know what the lies are before you can cover them up and give some crazy excuse. She has done this from the get go. That video earlier with Yuri, she did exactly what she is doing to this day. If anyone calls her one any one of her ludicrous cover ups, she simply responds "That's how I see it. That's how it looks in my mind. That is from my perspective."
And you push again and you get the ever ready, "I've lost my grandchild," card.
:banghead:

 

[Tipstaff]

I didn't see him as vile. I seen him as being frustrated with CA. She wouldn't listen to him. Stepped on his words while he was trying to talk. He was frustrated also because he said that she kept changing up the story. He was trying to do his job and she was trying to prevent him from doing it. A least that's how it appeared to me.

Um I meant the youtube guy not Yuri or Dr. Phil.

 

[marge_rita]

all I know is I recall CA saying on the witness stand that she went to Universal because the felon told her Caylee was going to be at a breakfast with the Disney Characters somewhere there. CA said she thought she could see Caylee and join her for the breakfast. But when she got there, no breakfast, no Caylee.

IMO now it seems that was a little bit of a "mis-truth" :banghead: as she just went there to finally check to see if the felon actually worked at Universal??

there is so much b.s. and absolute blatant lying flying around all of this it is hard to keep things straight, which appears to be the plan.


IMO, MOO, etc.

bbm-lies lies and more lies. Never seen a family like it. It boggles the mind.

CA imo lied for 3 years to save her daughter from prison. Cindy said hasn't spoken to her daughter since she was found not guilty.........was the lying still worth it? That whole family confuses me. lol imo

 

[Tipstaff]

I don't want to speak for Tipstaff but I think she was referring to the 'ugly grandpa hates casey anthony' video on youtube. Warning, extremely vile language in the grandpa video.

As always, Yuri was the consummate professional.

IMO

Exactly!!! It amazes me how professional LE was in dealing with all the A's and their ever changing stories/lies/misrepresentations of events. Don't know how they kept their cool with the A's.

And yes I was referencing the youtube man!!!!

 

[MarthaM]

I just can't see their 'grandparents' rights' foundation ever getting off the ground. I think that when the public looks at a foundation and its founders, they think of people who have been through something that made them want to help others in similar situations. And really, the Anthonys' situation hasn't been one that will lead any grandparents to say 'I'm experiencing the same thing and need this foundation's help'. The Anthonys' situation wasn't about the rights that other grandparents might seek. There just isn't a good connection between the Anthonys and the issue. This foundation isn't going anywhere.

Now, if the Anthonys were to start up a foundation that becomes a support and resource for parents who have adult children like Casey (and there are plenty of them out there), then they'd have a better chance. I don't mean this with any of the snark or sarcasm that is generally aimed at them. But that's where their experience points. They certainly know what it's like to raise a daughter who thought it was her parents' job to provide for her even in adulthood and bail her out of all of her everyday difficulties, and they let her control them by doing everything she wanted over and over and over. Of course, it's Cindy more than anyone who needs the resources and help of such a foundation, but that's beside the point. There's no reason why someone who starts such an organization can't need its resources herself. At least with that kind of a purpose, people can identify its founders with its work. With their 'grandparents' rights' foundation, no one can.

 

[Well Done 99]

What bothers me so much with CA's excuses is the fact that no matter how baseless her lies are, she seems to have one for every single hole in her story. This is not denial. This is someone who has had to think long and hard. You have to know what the lies are before you can cover them up and give some crazy excuse. She has done this from the get go. That video earlier with Yuri, she did exactly what she is doing to this day. If anyone calls her one any one of her ludicrous cover ups, she simply responds "That's how I see it. That's how it looks in my mind. That is from my perspective."
And you push again and you get the ever ready, "I've lost my grandchild," card.
:banghead:

Cover, cover, cover. She doesn't even seem to care whether people actually believe her lies or not - if one fails or can be disputed, simply tell another one to cover it .
And, as seen in her Zenaida depo, when all else fails it becomes irrelevant. She's a piece-o-work.
Originally, I thought she'd derail herself at some stage but now it seems she's just going to keep going full tilt until there's no more to tell and she hits the big terminal bump-stops at the end of the line. ... sounds like someone else we know in the hallway at Universal
I'm waiting at the platform to see it.

 

[rotterdam]

ITA with you entire post.

BBM - That part that bothers me is Phil has quite a following and some people think everything he says is true - NOT. People like the Anthonys taint all charities because when one is a fraud, more people are reluctant to give to real charities.

IMO

That is the part that really burns me up. No doubt in my mind the Anthonys are doing PR damage to legit charities.
Personally I prefer my established small local ones. They are easy to check out plus you can actually see your donation working. I am weary of the very large national ones. Some have salaries for their top dogs in the high six figures .
I so hope Dr.Phil does not endorse their latest scam foundation in his Monday section of this trilogy of fairy tales. Or even allows them to talk about it.

 

[Aedrys]

I'm with you. CA said she and GA consulted an attorney about getting custody of Caylee long before any of this happened. She was told by the attorney that she would have to take KC to court and prove her unfit. CA didn't want to pay an attorney or go through the court process of getting custody. In the case of Caylee, there was no one else to oppose Cindy in gaining custody, no father in the picture to fight for custody. KC was the only one standing in her way.

I don't understand what kind of 'rights' CA is looking to gain. Even with 'rights' on the books, a court of law would still have to decide on custody and a judge is going to decide on what he/she deems best for the child regardless of 'rights'.

IMO, Cindy has been looking for ways to take Caylee away from KC since she was born and this is just one more avenue that CA was looking at that would have paved the way for her to get Caylee without a fight.

Which is why I think that's one of the main reason's KC killed Caylee, because CA and KC was having a 'tug of war' and Caylee was the 'prize'.

ITA. And I think the bigger problem is that even with grandparents rights, they'd still have to go to court and get on record that Casey was an unfit mother. Cindy just can't do that. She can't admit that Casey is not a good mother. She knows there has never been nor is there any proof of any medical or psychological problems with Casey. Her need to be seen as a good mother (which Cindy wouldn't be if Casey is unfit) trumped her love for Caylee. No grandparent's rights would have made Cindy call Casey unfit in a court of law. Caylee's Fund is a total fraud, IMO. Cindy would never risk airing any dirty laundry in public to save Caylee. She is full of chit.

 

[Justin Tyme]

I don't want to speak for Tipstaff but I think she was referring to the 'ugly grandpa hates casey anthony' video on youtube. Warning, extremely vile language in the grandpa video.

As always, Yuri was the consummate professional.

IMO

Actually I'm glad that you did. That's the second time that I've done that today. I needed to read the entire post. I went back and looked at that post. She said if one wanted to look at the vile video go to you tube and look up the angry grandfather. Then directly under that was a link to the CA video. Instead of continuing to read what she wrote I just clicked the link. I was like, well that's not the angry grandfather but I'll watch. So my response was to something other than what she was talking about. I'm not sure what's up with me today. I thank you for bringing that to my attention and my apologize to the original poster. I did go and watch that video of the angry grandfather. He was pretty vile. Can't really say that I blamed him, I just wouldn't have posted it up on youtube. My reaction wasn't a pretty site either, I imagine. It wasn't quiet like his. Mine involved a few choice words, that's after I came out of my daze of disbelief.

 

[NavySubMom]

I just can't see their 'grandparents' rights' foundation ever getting off the ground. I think that when the public looks at a foundation and its founders, they think of people who have been through something that made them want to help others in similar situations. And really, the Anthonys' situation hasn't been one that will lead any grandparents to say 'I'm experiencing the same thing and need this foundation's help'. The Anthonys' situation wasn't about the rights that other grandparents might seek. There just isn't a good connection between the Anthonys and the issue. This foundation isn't going anywhere.

Now, if the Anthonys were to start up a foundation that becomes a support and resource for parents who have adult children like Casey (and there are plenty of them out there), then they'd have a better chance. I don't mean this with any of the snark or sarcasm that is generally aimed at them. But that's where their experience points. They certainly know what it's like to raise a daughter who thought it was her parents' job to provide for her even in adulthood and bail her out of all of her everyday difficulties, and they let her control them by doing everything she wanted over and over and over. Of course, it's Cindy more than anyone who needs the resources and help of such a foundation, but that's beside the point. There's no reason why someone who starts such an organization can't need its resources herself. At least with that kind of a purpose, people can identify its founders with its work. With their 'grandparents' rights' foundation, no one can.

bbm: EXACTLY! I have been wanting to post something exactly along these lines, but I just figure what is the use at this point.....

IMO, for the A's to head-up a new foundation for "Grandparents' Rights", they would have had to have gone through the legal system, dealt with the current laws in FLA, gone to court, tried to get custody of Caylee, and failed for whatever reason. Or, intimately know someone else who went through such a fight and lost or failed. Then they could say "these are the current laws, this is how the laws don't work, this is where the laws and the system and child welfare, etc. failed us. And this is how we propose to change these laws. 'A' needs to happen,'B' needs to happen, "Current Law C" needs to be rewritten to say xxxxxxxx this,", etc. NONE of this applies to the A's. Nothing.

Their website for their foundation does NOT say what they plan to do, how they are going to fight for GP's rights, or how they will help others do so. It is a bogus farce, all of it,. Can you see CA sitting in front of a legislature or a FLA committee or governor's board (or whoever/wherever they would go) to be questioned about "their fight for their grandchild??" and how do they propose the laws would be changed?? who will help them write these "new" laws that are required???

Furthermore, CA believes the felon was a great mother and Caylee died because of an accidental drowning. What on God's Green Earth does that have to do with Grandparents' Rights?? Why is noone in the media questioning this?? Why did the good doctor Phil give a donation to this foundation?? CA is "too in denial" to deal with any of this per Phil.

This is why I firmly believe it is just a scam foundation for the A's to funnel $$ to themselves.

IMO, MOO. etc.

 

[pip]

The A's either scammed Dr. Phil about the foundation money not going into their own wallets, or he already knew they could and would, and went forward with the donation anyway to get the interview. I believe it was the latter. They will do it and Dr. Phil will say... well, they said they wouldn't right in the interview..(well knowing they would) Duh.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I just can't see their 'grandparents' rights' foundation ever getting off the ground. I think that when the public looks at a foundation and its founders, they think of people who have been through something that made them want to help others in similar situations. And really, the Anthonys' situation hasn't been one that will lead any grandparents to say 'I'm experiencing the same thing and need this foundation's help'. The Anthonys' situation wasn't about the rights that other grandparents might seek. There just isn't a good connection between the Anthonys and the issue. This foundation isn't going anywhere.

Now, if the Anthonys were to start up a foundation that becomes a support and resource for parents who have adult children like Casey (and there are plenty of them out there), then they'd have a better chance. I don't mean this with any of the snark or sarcasm that is generally aimed at them. But that's where their experience points. They certainly know what it's like to raise a daughter who thought it was her parents' job to provide for her even in adulthood and bail her out of all of her everyday difficulties, and they let her control them by doing everything she wanted over and over and over. Of course, it's Cindy more than anyone who needs the resources and help of such a foundation, but that's beside the point. There's no reason why someone who starts such an organization can't need its resources herself. At least with that kind of a purpose, people can identify its founders with its work. With their 'grandparents' rights' foundation, no one can.

Strikes me a bit like the pilot of the Hindenberg starting a foundation as a resource for people wanting to safely land a blimp.

 

[MissJames]

I'm not talking about that one pic, but any and all pics that show completely innocent people interacting with the cast members of this drama.

And the fact that a woman with one beer in her hand who didn't do anything to anybody is already being criticized proves my point. I don't think anybody deserves that.

She's being criticized for what she said , not about Caylee's death.
Parents drink beer at barbeques with their friends,etc,but it's not called a play date. And most play dates don't involve drinking alcohol . Yet another attempt to make Casey appear a good mother by embellishing the reality of the situation,IMO.


And let's just address the elephant in the room. Everyone that knew Casey was lying ,stealing ,bringing her daughter to parties (with drinking,loud music and smoking), has some culpability for not speaking up.
I bet they FEEL guilty. I know I would .
No one could imagine the lengths Casey would go to,but they knew what she was doing wasn't right.
Casey got away with a lot because no one would speak up.

Our opinions are formed from what we know. We can't know everything,but we can form opinions from what we DO know .
I've changed my mind about people in this case many times. I quit trying to figure out the Anthony's because every day reveals something new.
The reason I've changed my mind at times,is because of something another poster pointed out. Even in areas we agree on there are differences in the details .

A lot of posters often referred to Cindy's "cremation jewelry" ,which sounded like criticizing to me . I was sensitive to it so I explained in a post what I experienced after my child died and why I got an urn locket for his ashes . I think that may have given some food for thought,as we posted back and forth. We discussed the issue , which was Cindy's urn locket , and how we each felt about it.

The Mod's famous quote is "attack the post ,not the poster". If we disagree about what may have happened or what someone we are discussing was feeling,that's debating .
If we are posting about what other posters are doing that's attacking.
JMO as always.:innocent:

JMO

 

[Aedrys]

That could be because of tight finances. Cremating pets is more expensive than burying in the back yard.

What tight finances? Money is no object to these people, never has been. If they wanted to cremate their pets, they would have, IMO.

 

[MissJames]

Strikes me a bit like the pilot of the Hindenberg starting a foundation as a resource for people wanting to safely land a blimp.

They won't get much traction with the general public,but they seem to attract people with money and questionable histories.
I don't know anything about finance or money laundering so I'm not even sure a charity is useful for that type of thing,but the Anthony's and their lawyer are well aware that they are disliked and even hated by the general public. Surely they realize they won't have a popular foundation,so how do they expect to get donations?
Just more hinkiness in a long line of hink.
MOO

 

[pip]

It really gave me the sensation of chewing on tinfoil to see CA all dolled up for her cameo like she is a celeb or something. I really believe in her mind she thinks she is. Where are the signs of distress and turmoil, sadness and despair that you would think would be there on her face? She looks well rested and all glammed up. The only time I have ever seen CA apparently affected by all this was her doped up silent interview. Sociopaths are both frightening and mind numbing. She just keeps my jaw dropped.

 

[rotterdam]

bbm: EXACTLY! I have been wanting to post something exactly along these lines, but I just figure what is the use at this point.....

IMO, for the A's to head-up a new foundation for "Grandparents' Rights", they would have had to have gone through the legal system, dealt with the current laws in FLA, gone to court, tried to get custody of Caylee, and failed for whatever reason. Or, intimately know someone else who went through such a fight and lost or failed. Then they could say "these are the current laws, this is how the laws don't work, this is where the laws and the system and child welfare, etc. failed us. And this is how we propose to change these laws. 'A' needs to happen,'B' needs to happen, "Current Law C" needs to be rewritten to say xxxxxxxx this,", etc. NONE of this applies to the A's. Nothing.

Their website for their foundation does NOT say what they plan to do, how they are going to fight for GP's rights, or how they will help others do so. It is a bogus farce, all of it,. Can you see CA sitting in front of a legislature or a FLA committee or governor's board (or whoever/wherever they would go) to be questioned about "their fight for their grandchild??" and how do they propose the laws would be changed?? who will help them write these "new" laws that are required???

Furthermore, CA believes the felon was a great mother and Caylee died because of an accidental drowning. What on God's Green Earth does that have to do with Grandparents' Rights?? Why is noone in the media questioning this?? Why did the good doctor Phil give a donation to this foundation?? CA is "too in denial" to deal with any of this per Phil.

This is why I firmly believe it is just a scam foundation for the A's to funnel $$ to themselves.

IMO, MOO. etc.

I think the main reason for their latest foundation is to funnel the money from interviews, book deals and other media payments. Not necessarily anticipating lots of donations from the general public although that would be nice too.
Makes the media look better by not paying the Anthonys directly but using the "donation" vehicle . Plus the Anthonys can gradually withdraw money from it for themselves via expense account/salaries, whatever, in order to keep Fed income taxes low.
It is just all smoke and mirrors IMO with only one objective in mind: damage control for both the media and the Anthonys.. Grandparents rights is just the cloak they are using. Makes the whole blood money grubbing thing more digestible to the average person.