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

[MissJames]

But again, who wanted them to take lie detector tests in the first place? I do not recall the LE discussing them because I believe from the get go they were focused on FCA.

This is a source of debate for a long time but I cannot find where the subject of lie detector tests even came up. Usually IMO the police do not say okay I want you all to take lie detector tests. And there is no way George would initially agree to one, being ex LE. Why would the police suggest lie detector tests to frantic family members? It makes no sense to me which is why I think it is just one of those urban myths that just roll along in this case.

Granted ,the original source is LP,but he describes a situation he and others were observing and I can't a find a denial by the A's or by LE that he's lying.
These are both dated Sept 11,08
In the video the discussion starts around 2:50
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421561,00.html

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUh3SoeORX8"]anthony family refuse lie detector test ng 9/11 3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[MissJames]

Just want to add ,Lee hired Luka in December of '08 ,I believe after Caylee was found.

http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2008/december/78632/Lee-Anthony-Hires-Attorney

 

[logicalgirl]

Seems the FBI asked and they refused........ unlike those friends of FCA that Cindy tried to implicate early on. Imagine that. :waitasec:

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20224751/detail.html

Ah! Thank You!!!!:blowkiss::blowkiss:

Now I wonder how we can ask Mark NeJames whether or not he ever advised the Anthony's re lie detector tests...

 

[logicalgirl]

Thomas Luka?

Another big thank you! I could "see" his face and "hear" his voice but the name recall - stuck waaaay back there out of reach. Appreciate you taking the time to post it Intermezzo!:seeya: :crush:

 

[logicalgirl]

They were asked very early on in the case,when the lies were piling up ,long before Lee got a lawyer.
Lee may have been asked to comply again,when he was requesting immunity,but I'm referring to earlier than that.

I'm trying to decide if I would take a lie detector test - I'm not sure - but I guess it would depend on who was asking and why....

Did LE really suspect everyone of lying or were they just trying to flush things out? What was the purpose - I just don't recall paying any attention at all to this at the time....

 

[logicalgirl]

Granted ,the original source is LP,but he describes a situation he and others were observing and I can't a find a denial by the A's or by LE that he's lying.
These are both dated Sept 11,08
In the video the discussion starts around 2:50
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421561,00.html

anthony family refuse lie detector test ng 9/11 3 - YouTube

LOL - really appreciate you taking the time and trouble to post a youtube but please don't make me watch LP again unless it's an emergency and lights and sirens have been activated....

 

[krisskross]

Ah! Thank You!!!!:blowkiss::blowkiss:

Now I wonder how we can ask Mark NeJames whether or not he ever advised the Anthony's re lie detector tests...

Unfortunately because of that pesky ACP we will never know but I'm sure MN could tell us some tales. :wink:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Seems the FBI asked and they refused........ unlike those friends of FCA that Cindy tried to implicate early on. Imagine that. :waitasec:

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20224751/detail.html

:tyou::tyou: Thanks krisskross for this ...

I have a question -- which is probably a "dumb" ? but anyway, Isn't it usually "standard procedure" when a child goes missing for all the adults in a house to submit to a LD Test -- at a minimum to "clear" themselves so LE can move forward ?

This is something I have heard Marc Klaas say so many times ...

I know it is NOT mandatory and I know that many do NOT believe in LD Test and I can totally understand that ...

But if you have "nothing to hide" then why not submit to the test ? :waitasec: Never mind ... it's the Anthony's we're talking about ...

MOO ...

 

[sleutherontheside]

I'm trying to decide if I would take a lie detector test - I'm not sure - but I guess it would depend on who was asking and why....

Did LE really suspect everyone of lying or were they just trying to flush things out? What was the purpose - I just don't recall paying any attention at all to this at the time....

If my child or a member of my family were missing I would submit to a polygraph / voice analysis / or whatever else in order to help LE rule me out and move the investigation forward.

If I were asked to submit to a polygraph for any other reason, I would likely decline as every defense attorney I know advises against it. Would I be worried? Nope.....but why take a chance that it could result in a negative interpretation.

 

[krisskross]

I'm trying to decide if I would take a lie detector test - I'm not sure - but I guess it would depend on who was asking and why....

Did LE really suspect everyone of lying or were they just trying to flush things out? What was the purpose - I just don't recall paying any attention at all to this at the time....

I imagine they want to use their resources as efficiently as possible. So why not try and eliminate as many suspects as possible. Its just a tool. George Anthony as an ex cop should know family members are always looked at first and in this case ........for good reason.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think I'd just like to say at this point when we are discussing lie detectors in this thread and the interior of the car in the other thread is that as we've come to the end of the case in chief - I've really become aware of where my focus was during the trial.

Because I am asking these questions not as a challenging thing - because I disagree, but rather because I only have a "vague recollection" because the lie detector tests were not particularly important to me compared to other stuff that was going on at the time. The same with the actual interior of the car..if the LE didn't find anything that jumped out at them right away about the car interior, (not the trunk) then it wasn't something that held my interest.

One day, when I'm not feeling such battle fatigue, I'll have to go through a lot of the depo's and timelines and see just what it was I was keenest on following. I know I read everything I could get my hands on - my a bit of it was "duty" if that makes any sense - rather than "can't wait to get my hands on it".

Aside from the verdict - one of my biggest disappointments about the depos and the evidence is that Dom Casey turned out to be a :woohoo: rather than a player who had something meaty to offer in the case.

But to get back on topic - I think I decided early on that Cindy was misfiring on a few synapses and I guess it's kind of like when a spark plug goes in your car - once one goes the situation keeps just getting worse...

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

After hearing the following comment by JA in a fox news interview, I am looking forward to his book with even more anticipation.

The interviewer asked JA if he had any idea before JB's opening statement that LA and GA would be accused of sexual abuse. JA said "Yes, we knew that. We, we had known that through some discovery in the case, which was sealed from public view because of the, the gr, the, the uh, the nature of it. So we knew that, we expected him to say some of that in opening, we were surprised when none of it was actually proven in court."

In talking to dr. P, GA feels he has been dragged through the mud.

Somehow I missed, or misunderstood this discovery that JA was talking about that was sealed. <modsnip>

A question I have, although this discovery was sealed from the public because of the nature of it, <modsnip>.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[Eidetic]

If am not mistaken these pics were taken at the home in Oviedo where Amy was living at the time and was soon to move out of.

I'm going to have to do some digging around. Here it says the photos were taken at Lauren Coppel's house:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1694915/Casey-Anthony-BBQ-Party-Photos-January-2008

But, in Ricardo's interview he says he met Casey at a party at Amy's house June of 07'. He met Caylee at a BBQ in January at Troy Brown's house January 08'.
(Ricardo Morales 07/25/2008): EE: And you have two roommates right now. Their names? RM: John Phillip Chat and Amy Huizenga. EE: Okay, uhm, we're talking about Casey, uhm, and Caylee is why we're in here today. And you've known them for some time. When, when do you think you first met Casey? RM: I met Casey the first week of June 2007, uhm, at a party in Amy's house, or her previous house. Uhm, I met Caylee early January of this year, 2008, at a party at, or a barbecue at Troy's house. EE: Okay, and you say you started dating Casey when? RM: The beginning of February.

 

[wonders]

I am certain both the Anthony's lawyers and Lee's lawyer advised not to take a lie detector test. None of them were charged with a crime and no lawyer worth their salt would tell a client oh just go ahead - it won't hurt. Lie detectors don't stand up in court - there is no reason for someone not charged in a crime to take one - particularly just to satisfy an accusing public.

That is the only thing about the Anthony's that does NOT bother me. I'm pretty sure everything else does..:great: .

Here's why it bothers me...Mark Klaas said he wanted one as quickly as possible (and did take one) so that they could eliminate him and move forward to finding Polly's killer as quickly as possible. He also said that if you don't have anything to hide you will take one. Understand I'm parapharsing. IIRC LA was the one telling the Anthony's not to take one in the begining. Anyhoo, it's just my opinion and dosen't count to anyone.

 

[logicalgirl]

Here's why it bothers me...Mark Klaas said he wanted one as quickly as possible (and did take one) so that they could eliminate him and move forward to finding Polly's killer as quickly as possible. He also said that if you don't have anything to hide you will take one. Understand I'm parapharsing. IIRC LA was the one telling the Anthony's not to take one in the begining. Anyhoo, it's just my opinion and dosen't count to anyone.

Yes, if it was my child was missing I definitely would and as you say, as quickly as possible. And of course your opinion counts - it's yours!

I guess I meant in general...if I was a second or third level away from the family - like a friend or something...I guess my feeling is they are often used for intimidation.

 

[stilettos]

Yes, if it was my child was missing I definitely would and as you say, as quickly as possible. And of course your opinion counts - it's yours!

I guess I meant in general...if I was a second or third level away from the family - like a friend or something...I guess my feeling is they are often used for intimidation.

If my child were missing, yes...for any other reason no. Reliability. There is NO risk I would not take for my family...so even other relatives missing, I would take one. Otherwise, uh uh...I am strung tightly so I prob would fail...on my name and addy.:floorlaugh:

 

[logicalgirl]

If my child were missing, yes...for any other reason no. Reliability. There is NO risk I would not take for my family...so even other relatives missing, I would take one. Otherwise, uh uh...I am strung tightly so I prob would fail...on my name and addy.:floorlaugh:

Yes, me too - that's what I would be concerned about...:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:
I watched an I.D. channel show last night about a grandfather who babysat his grandchild. And out of the apparent "blue" his daughter started being really cold to him and then told him she didn't want him coming near the grand daughter anymore because she knew he'd been abusing her.
The guy went to a professional lie detector guy and had quite a sophisticated reading done - which said he was being truthful when he answered no, so the police ended up not charging him, but it didn't make any difference to the daughter. It was quite sad actually.

 

[BuzzieCat]

Would have been easier just to tell her to leave.

Sure would! I was just trying to hash out a scenario where she could have kept FCA (and therefore Caylee) around to make sure Caylee was safe while also perhaps gathering evidence to take to a custody hearing. It would have been a fine line to walk to gather proof against FCA's fitness as a mother since she probably would have gotten very angry and taken off with Caylee.

 

[LambChop]

Early on the A's were never suspects. KC was naming a nanny. What would be the purpose of the LD test? My guess is they would have asked questions about KC's lying and those are questions they did not want to answer.

As an ex-LE my husband always said don't take one if anyone should ask. Depending on how good the person reading the results is and the way they ask you questions it's better not to take one. And I'm not one to lie. But I understand what he meant. Someone could ask you if you have ever done anything you are ashamed of and you say yes about a cookie you stole when you were 5 years old. lol So he said you would never be required to take one and don't volunteer, ever.

And once they tell you you've failed it's too late. Some people you say "test" to them and they break out in a cold sweat. And if my child were missing I wouldn't have to take a test....they would know I was telling the truth, unlike KC who acted like she was being interviewed for a job. jmo

 

[LambChop]

I often wondered if this family ever had a family meeting where everyone sat down around the table and said we have a problem. Explained to KC you need to get a job because we know you don't have one. If you want to party and get it out of your system, go for it but leave Caylee with us. Move in with one of your friends and party all you want but Caylee stays here where you know she will be safe. Once you establish yourself with your own apartment and make enough to support both you and Caylee then we'll talk but for now you need to put Caylee first.

It's what you do when you 12 year old is not doing their homework, hanging with the wrong group, abusing privileges, etc. It's what parents have been doing for years to pull their kids back in line. You set down ground rules and make them stick to them. Given the choice KC would have left Caylee with them and taken off to be with her friends. I do not see her leaving with Caylee because she had a choice. Caylee is gone because KC felt she had no choice, IMO. jmo