Dr. Phil's Interview w/ George & Cindy Anthony - Thread #3

[bayouland]

You know what was scarey? Late morning/early afternoon on verdict day. Amy Singer, the jury consultant, was being interviewed live on one of the local stations or HLN. She told the interviewer straight out that Casey would be acquitted on all major changes. It was not false bravado or hopeful thinking. SHE KNEW. When asked how she knew this her reply was: I know the jury we've got. It was chilling when I heard that.

Yes, all those text messages that Baez was getting were apparently from her firm. Read this little gem of a story at this link.

http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/20...media-casey-anthony’s-jury-consultant-speaks/

 

[cityslick]

I so agree. It should be mandatory for jurors to take a test when they're selected for trial. It is of the utmost importance.


kc's trial is solid proof of what happens when a jury misunderstands.
Judge Perry should have called a mistrial. The jurors for this trial were a disgrace to the court system.

imo

No test in the world is going to guarantee the verdict you want under our current justice system. Everyone wants a test but nobody has any idea what would be on that test. Ask them if they understand the rules? Make the read volumes of law books?

Juries get verdicts wrong every day, not just in high profile cases. You are asking 12 strangers who a majority don't have a legal background to form opinions based on rules that are written out for them. On top of that you throw in words such as burden of proof and beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the phrase 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a subjective phrase based on a person's opinion.

This is mentioned in the sidebar thread but it bears repeating here. Juries usually get it right. I'd say over 90% of the time. Out of that 10%, a small fraction are high profile cases. Out of that fraction, how many times do juries get it wrong? Yes, I think most can agree who is responsible for Caylee's death. But sometimes you have to look at the big picture before we decide to revamp the entire justice system.

 

[2goldfish]

What I will never understand is how, even if the jurors accepted the theory that Caylee drowned on June 16th -- how the 31 days wasn't still a huge part of the evidence. That's not the behavior one would expect for the next 31 days from the mother of a child who accidentally drowned today.

that would be because mr foreman told them it wasnt evidence and they could not consider it.


eta the only link I could find without having to actually re-read it all :sick: http://www.legalinfo360.com/2011/07/casey-anthonys-party-didnt-factor-into-death-says-jury/

 

[Kimberlyd125]

But they really did get paid. They are collecting a salary from the foundation that Dr Phil just dropped 1/2 mil into. I guess Dr Phil thinks we are all stupid! He should have donated the money to Texas Equisearch or Klaas Foundation, not a Foundation that hasn't done one single thing for charity! Their Foundation doesn't even make sense! How are they going to help other Grandparents? CA is living on another planet and they both need help so bad themselves. How can they seriously help others when they are both so sick? GA still grieving and angry and CA in complete denial.

At least GA was somewhat honest but there aren't any words for CA.

1) The Anthony's told Dr. Phil they would not be paid from that fund. How is HE lying?
2) Where did you get the 1/2 million figure. From what I've read, no money at all has been deposited into the fund and will not be until the fund is up and running. And, no amount has been released. There was that examiner article that was full of mistruths that said they got $500,000 and a Jeep. That's not a good source at all if you ask me. I've not seen the amount anywhere else.
3) He didn't get to choose where the donation would go. The Anthonys requested, in order to do the interview, that the money be donated to Caylee's fund. Had he donated to TM or Klass Foundation, there would have been no interview.

Not sure how any of this means Dr. Phil thinks we are stupid.
From what I've read, he has been forthcoming in what was asked of him and what he would provide.
IMO he has not lied about anything.


JMO

 

[logicalgirl]

Responding to bolded: Respectfully disagreeing. I think there was plenty the A's didn't tell LE about that would have supplied much more motive than what was able to be presented at trial. And I think the jury did believe CA more than the SA. IMO they believed she made that phone call to GA about the pool ladder even though there is no record of it occurring. And most of all, to me, I do not care whether the A's obstructions were material or immaterial to the outcome of the trial. If you feel that their obstructions were ineffective that still does not erase their intent to hinder prosecution.

I agree - I was not arguing intent - I was arguing result. And I'm not sure what the Anthony's could have offered that would not have been heresay.
What would this jury have believed?

 

[LambChop]

We did know.
The ping records are a work of brilliance IMHO.
Hindsight and all that.

I think it would have been helpful if someone, an expert, had explained this to the jury. LDB said to use your common sense. Most of us already knew that about mothers who kill. This jury was led by a foreman who obviously was clueless except for the puppy eyes we see KC making to someone in the jury box vacinity. She was clearly making eye contact with someone in that area and I don't think it was someone from the SA's table. jmo

 

[cityslick]

I think it would have been helpful if someone, an expert, had explained this to the jury. LDB said to use your common sense. Most of us already knew that about mothers who kill. This jury was led by a foreman who obviously was clueless except for the puppy eyes we see KC making to someone in the jury box vacinity. She was clearly making eye contact with someone in that area and I don't think it was someone from the SA's table. jmo

Were the ping records ever brought up to the jury? I don't recall a cell phone expert testifying exactly where Casey was and was not based on cell phone records.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

snipped from : http://www.legalinfo360.com/2011/07/casey-anthonys-party-didnt-factor-into-death-says-jury/

"The jurist did compliment the prosecutors but said “at some times, I thought they made light of things that I didn’t … consider was in good taste.”

He also said attorney Jeff Ashton’s laughing during the defense’s closing argument and a comment about “pigs in the blanket” during the testimony of the defense’s expert used a pig carcass to study insects and decomposition."

MOO ...

BBM: WTH ? When you "compare" Mr. Ashton and the SA Team to JB and the DT, you could clearly see that Mr. Ashton, Linda and Frank were total "professionals and intelligent", while JB and the DT looked like a "side show".

It is quite evident from jury foreman's statement that he did NOT like Mr. Ashton and led the other 11 along ...

Despicable ... just despicable ... he -- foreman should be ashamed of himself !

MOO ...

 

[fifteen89]

You know what was scarey? Late morning/early afternoon on verdict day. Amy Singer, the jury consultant, was being interviewed live on one of the local stations or HLN. She told the interviewer straight out that Casey would be acquitted on all major changes. It was not false bravado or hopeful thinking. SHE KNEW. When asked how she knew this her reply was: I know the jury we've got. It was chilling when I heard that.

Yes, all those text messages that Baez was getting were apparently from her firm. Read this little gem of a story at this link.

http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/20...media-casey-anthony’s-jury-consultant-speaks/

Makes me think yet again that sites like WS should be members-only and hidden from the public. And it should be in the rules that if you're using WS for professional reasons, your identity needs to be known/proven. The site owner should at least have the option to not allow posters opinions to be used in that way.

 

[NavySubMom]

1) The Anthony's told Dr. Phil they would not be paid from that fund. How is HE lying?
2) Where did you get the 1/2 million figure. From what I've read, no money at all has been deposited into the fund and will not be until the fund is up and running. And, no amount has been released. There was that examiner article that was full of mistruths that said they got $500,000 and a Jeep. That's not a good source at all if you ask me. I've not seen the amount anywhere else.
3) He didn't get to choose where the donation would go. The Anthonys requested, in order to do the interview, that the money be donated to Caylee's fund. Had he donated to TM or Klass Foundation, there would have been no interview.

Not sure how any of this means Dr. Phil thinks we are stupid.
From what I've read, he has been forthcoming in what was asked of him and what he would provide.
IMO he has not lied about anything.


JMO

http://www.cayleesfund.org/donate.html

Is this not the fund?? It keeps being mentioned Phil will donate to the A's when the fund is set up. IMO the fund IS set up and able to take donations. The above website was operational and the DONATE button has been working since the day of their 2nd interview with Phil. We were discussing this on 9/14 in the Sidebar thread, that this fund all of a sudden was able to take donations. A few minor changes were made to the website based on discussions we were having here on WS, so someone saw our discussion and mentioned it to someone.

This is the fund regarding Grandparents Rights, their other fund was not about that. IMO this fund can take donations from people via this website, so why can't they take a donation from Phil? IMO the donation from Phil has been made by now.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[fifteen89]

that would be because mr foreman told them it wasnt evidence and they could not consider it.


eta the only link I could find without having to actually re-read it all :sick: http://www.legalinfo360.com/2011/07/casey-anthonys-party-didnt-factor-into-death-says-jury/

Yeah, and this brilliant jury foreman also thought the Prosecutions opening statement was 'pretty standard'. IMO there was nothing "standard" about any part of it.

Yes, most criminals lie but I've never seen a case where someone lied to the point of walking LE down the hall to show them her imaginary office. And there were 31 days of lies like that.

 

[LambChop]

http://www.cayleesfund.org/donate.html

Is this not the fund?? It keeps being mentioned Phil will donate to the A's when the fund is set up. IMO the fund IS set up and able to take donations. The above website was operational and the DONATE button has been working since the day of their 2nd interview with Phil. We were discussing this on 9/14 in the Sidebar thread, that this fund all of a sudden was able to take donations. A few minor changes were made to the website based on discussions we were having here on WS, so someone saw our discussion and mentioned it to someone.

This is the fund regarding Grandparents Rights, their other fund was not about that. IMO this fund can take donations from people via this website, so why can't they take a donation from Phil? IMO the donation from Phil has been made by now.

IMO, MOO, etc.

What would stop them from transferring funds from one foundation to another and taking a paycheck??? The older foundation isn't making any money at all so what would stop them from transferring the funds over and essentially they feel they are not lying but it would be deceiving. jmo

 

[dog.gone.cute]

http://www.cayleesfund.org/donate.html

Is this not the fund?? It keeps being mentioned Phil will donate to the A's when the fund is set up. IMO the fund IS set up and able to take donations. The above website was operational and the DONATE button has been working since the day of their 2nd interview with Phil. We were discussing this on 9/14 in the Sidebar thread, that this fund all of a sudden was able to take donations. A few minor changes were made to the website based on discussions we were having here on WS, so someone saw our discussion and mentioned it to someone.

This is the fund regarding Grandparents Rights, their other fund was not about that. IMO this fund can take donations from people via this website, so why can't they take a donation from Phil? IMO the donation from Phil has been made by now.

IMO, MOO, etc.

BBM: I agree that the $$$$$ is a "done deal".

All 3 interviews have been aired -- and -- the Anthony's brought their attorney with them to the taping IMO "obviously" to monitor the questions as well as to make sure they got their $$$$$ for their interviews.

MOO ...

 

[Shyla]

BBM: I agree that the $$$$$ is a "done deal".

All 3 interviews have been aired -- and -- the Anthony's brought their attorney with them to the taping IMO "obviously" to monitor the questions as well as to make sure they got their $$$$$ for their interviews.

MOO ...

Absolutely!!!

 

[NavySubMom]

What would stop them from transferring funds from one foundation to another and taking a paycheck??? The older foundation isn't making any money at all so what would stop them from transferring the funds over and essentially they feel they are not lying but it would be deceiving. jmo

probably nothing would stop them from using this money however they wish. Creative accounting with these foundations and charities goes a long way. :maddening:

if they are using the Hopespring Drive as their "office" and "headquarters" or satellite office, they could pay the utilities, they could pay phonebills with this, there is a myriad of ways they can use this $$ for themselves. We will see how much of an effort they make to actually do what they say their foundation will do.

http://www.cayleemarieanthonyfoundation.net/donations.html

Above is the link to the 2nd foundation, Caylee Marie Anthony Foundation, and funny how that DONATE button still works, even though the registration/licensing or whatever papers they file has not been updated since 2009 per sleuthers here on WS, it was discussed in posts here 9-14 -- 9/16.

So I guess if you were hellbent on donating after Phil's gracious support and blessing given he gave on his show to the A's and their Cayleesfund foundation about grandparent's rights, and you searched the internet and somehow came upon the -- 2nd foundation Caylee Marie Anthony, well then, surprise surprise, you could just donate to THAT foundation so the A's can be sure to get your $$, either way.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[natsound]

snipped from : http://www.legalinfo360.com/2011/07/casey-anthonys-party-didnt-factor-into-death-says-jury/

"The jurist did compliment the prosecutors but said “at some times, I thought they made light of things that I didn’t … consider was in good taste.”

snipped

Fine, but such observations are not supposed to affect the verdict they reach. The attorneys are not on trial. :banghead:

If they were, I'd say JB's comments and assumptions were in MUCH poorer taste.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

http://www.cayleesfund.org/donate.html

Is this not the fund?? It keeps being mentioned Phil will donate to the A's when the fund is set up. IMO the fund IS set up and able to take donations. The above website was operational and the DONATE button has been working since the day of their 2nd interview with Phil. We were discussing this on 9/14 in the Sidebar thread, that this fund all of a sudden was able to take donations. A few minor changes were made to the website based on discussions we were having here on WS, so someone saw our discussion and mentioned it to someone.

This is the fund regarding Grandparents Rights, their other fund was not about that. IMO this fund can take donations from people via this website, so why can't they take a donation from Phil? IMO the donation from Phil has been made by now.

IMO, MOO, etc.

We shall see. One day.

But as of right now, we don't KNOW.

ETA: I'd rather deal with facts when discussing someone's wrong doing.
JMO

When the facts are reported, then we will know.

 

[NavySubMom]

We shall see. One day.

But as of right now, we don't KNOW.

ETA: I'd rather deal with facts when discussing someone's wrong doing.
JMO

When the facts are reported, then we will know.

I was commenting on the statement that Phil's donation would not be made until the fund is up and running.

It is a fact that the fund IS up and running for donations, and has been since ~September 14.

I don't think either the A's or Phil are going to make an announcement or a press release: "hey, today we just received $__________ from Phil for our interview". or "hey, today I "donated" $_________ to the A's foundation for their interview."

and who said anyone is discussing "someone's wrongdoing". I don't get what you mean by that.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The last 14 pages is what I meant by that.

People are assuming (and they have the right to do so) that the Anthony's will misuse or get rich off of the donation made by Dr. Phil.
People have assumed (and they have the right to do so) that they recieved the money a long time ago.

False info has come out and reported by a shady "news" source.

All I am saying is that we do NOT know anything yet.

Until we have factual reporting, we will not know.

I said I would rather deal with facts.

JMO

 

[dog.gone.cute]

snipped

Fine, but such observations are not supposed to affect the verdict they reach. The attorneys are not on trial. :banghead:

If they were, I'd say JB's comments and assumptions were in MUCH poorer taste.

WHO DAT !

BBM: I agree.

And didn't Judge Perry say that -- that the attorneys were not on trial ?