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

[Murphismo]

I'm still holding out hope that their names won't be published. I see no purpose to that anyway, but in this case especially I think it's very risky. And still a little too soon if they do end up being released. There's still a lot of anti-jury stuff out there, although it's gradually fading.



I think he has good reasons for not interviewing her, so I believe him. Her first interview will be with someone else.

I won't, for one second pretend to like anyone on this jury, nor do I agree with the verdict, ect.... But, I digress, I've beat this into the ground - I can't say enough how angry I am at them. However, I see no good coming from publishing the names. Nothing, NOTHING, can change the verdict. Here's what really sucks, THEY have no legal team protecting them, the felon does. Indeed, the irony is rich.......

 

[MsMacGyver]

From what I could remember CA paid off her card, maybe the one GA used and gave her the money. CA thought the card was paid off and somehow KC got the card (my guess is a new one came in the mail) and KC ran the charges up. I would think KC ran it up to the credit line fast because the card company tends to stop the card once you do not pay and CA admits she didn't know the card had a balance. That is a lot of money to put on a card with nothing to show for it. My guess is a lot of it was for cash. jmo

And thats alot of cash to go through. We know from the target video what she spends her money on. I'm not too worried even if FCA does get an interview, she will blow through the money like a wildfire in a drought. If she buys a home she will have to pay taxes on it, insurance, upkeep. If she marries he better be loaded, money wise I mean. I guess if he was drunk that would probably help also...:floorlaugh:

She can never be trusted with money or children. As my mother would say...she has made her bed, now she has to lie in it...

 

[logicalgirl]

IMO, there was definitely a big fight on June 15th. That would not have been heresay. Instead CA said they had a big cuddle party. She testified that Casey was a great mom, no problems. Everything was great according to CA. The foreman said there was no motive for the murder because the grandparents took care of Caylee whenever Casey wanted them to. He didn't think there was any friction over that. He didn't feel Casey had any motive. CA could have blown that belief sky-high with honest testimony. So I think CA may have had more influence on the verdict than many believe.

Maybe...sure there was a fight - after they watched the video most likely - but I think the problem was with the foreman, not CA. The jury knew she did not work and lied about work, CA was constantly contradicted when she was on the stand - who knows? Would the jury have believed the parents if they said she was a terrible parent? Would the parents have been able to provide proof of neglect? Don't think so ...

 

[MsMacGyver]

I wanted to Thank everyone for their thought provoking posts. I lay in bed at night and my mind will not shut off...I'm tired...(yawn)

I was watching an episode of CSI New York. They were talking about how so many things had to happen to bring everyone to a certain point in time. I couldn't help thinking about this case.
The Perfect Storm...I still can't except the cause of the verdict due to stupidity. The verdict was beyond wrong.
JA had introduced DNA for the first time and now he was going for number 2..the air samples. I understand that he stayed on to prosecute this case and I wonder if he behaved the way he did in all trials..giggling..most of us thought JB was a clown also but I don't think I would have been so obvious about it.
Maybe when the jurors names are released we will find some more insight into what the h*** they were thinking.
All I've heard today on HLN is this jury asking to see more evidence. Why did these people not ask for anything except lunch?
I still have to believe somewhere down the road some hot shot reporter will find some jury tampering. It just doesn't seem like justice caught a break..nor Caylee.

I have been watching HLN all day and they are commenting on jury selection and how the same mistakes are being made in the CM trial that were made in FCA trial. Big hurry to seat the jury.
I'll be very interested to see how JB performs in his new case, too bad it's in Aruba.

 

[MsMacGyver]

I wonder how many jurors walk out of deliberations crying, upset because they feel they couldn't convict. How many decide not to agree to an interview as a group then have the foreman show up on National TV doing a paid interview. Having a fellow juror going to Disneyland and speaking out in public. Was this room full of sheep.


Maybe the court system should consider having a paid consultant in the room with the jury to guide these people with their deliberations. One person educated in the law to guide the jurors on what they can and can not consider as evidence. Someone not worried about getting home or going on vacation. The court has a judge to guide the lawyers, why can't the jurors have a guide also?

I really believe the jury system is flawed and should..could be improved. Just because something has been a certain way, doesn't mean you never should make changes to improve. Keeping up with the times so to speak. We have now created future jurors who could be intimidated into making the wrong call because of public backlash. Rather than being responsible for electing a foreman, they could have a foreman appointed to them just to watch and guide.

 

[MaryAnn]

I wanted to Thank everyone for their thought provoking posts. I lay in bed at night and my mind will not shut off...I'm tired...(yawn)

I was watching an episode of CSI New York. They were talking about how so many things had to happen to bring everyone to a certain point in time. I couldn't help thinking about this case.
The Perfect Storm...I still can't except the cause of the verdict due to stupidity. The verdict was beyond wrong.
JA had introduced DNA for the first time and now he was going for number 2..the air samples. I understand that he stayed on to prosecute this case and I wonder if he behaved the way he did in all trials..giggling..most of us thought JB was a clown also but I don't think I would have been so obvious about it.
Maybe when the jurors names are released we will find some more insight into what the h*** they were thinking.
All I've heard today on HLN is this jury asking to see more evidence. Why did these people not ask for anything except lunch?
I still have to believe somewhere down the road some hot shot reporter will find some jury tampering. It just doesn't seem like justice caught a break..nor Caylee.

I have been watching HLN all day and they are commenting on jury selection and how the same mistakes are being made in the CM trial that were made in FCA trial. Big hurry to seat the jury.
I'll be very interested to see how JB performs in his new case, too bad it's in Aruba.

Don't worry, we'll hear all about it. He's already trying the case in the media. Same old Jose! More lies.... Trying to get another murderer off scott free. As far as I am concerned Gary is responsible for Robyn's dissappearance. Gary's track record is of an abusive disgusting Man. The fact that Gary was shopping for a date to take to Aruba not even caring if he new the person is really quite damming if you ask me.

 

[MarthaM]

No one should guide any jury in their deliberations once they've got the case. That's why they're juries.

One person can and does guide the jurors on what can be considered evidence and gives guidance on the law. That person is the judge.

And that's as it should be. Once you go beyond that, you lose the whole purpose for trial-by-jury. And that's something you don't want to lose.

Not sure what this has to do with the Dr Phil show, though. I would suggest a thread on this topic, as it's an interesting one, but since it's about the jury it probably wouldn't last long.

 

[RANCH]

No one should guide any jury in their deliberations once they've got the case. That's why they're juries.

One person can and does guide the jurors on what can be considered evidence and gives guidance on the law. That person is the judge.

And that's as it should be. Once you go beyond that, you lose the whole purpose for trial-by-jury. And that's something you don't want to lose.

Not sure what this has to do with the Dr Phil show, though. I would suggest a thread on this topic, as it's an interesting one, but since it's about the jury it probably wouldn't last long.

Maybe the sidebar thread could be used for posts like this. MOO.

 

[crimesnooper]

Well, not only was that the word Dr Phil used, IIRC, but if you google the keywords 'licensed 501c' you'll get hundreds of thousands of hits from organizations that use the same terminology on their sites. It's very common phraseology.

Regardless, there is no license.The 501(c) 3 is a "status." The 501 (c) 3 is simply the IRS section of the code that allows for exempted tax status. You can doante to any group, but until that status has been granted by the IRS, you can't deduct your contribution. Again, there is no such thing as a license on the fed level no matter what "Dr" Phil said.
And I did google it..if you look closely they do not use the term license except regarding what states require if you are a fundraiser(you may need a licesne).

 

[MsMacGyver]

That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. I think we will see some whitewashing of Casey so she can be interviewed - as a poor scared young woman who was acquitted - and I think the People magazine was just the beginning of the "New Show".

And can I add - I believe we'll be seeing her with "Babs" before Christmas...

IMO..I don't think there is enough whitewash sold in the country let alone the world that could coat FCA well enough that her true colors won't show through. I've heard comments on People magazine, could you give me an update on this LG..was it an interview or story? Do I need to turn this around if I spot it?

Depending on how FCA took the interview I suppose mommy wouldn't let her spend xmas alone..sure Santa will fill her stocking full of coal..

 

[crimesnooper]

http://www.wikihow.com/Start-a-501c3-Nonprofit-Organization

Fulfill charitable solicitation law requirements. If your organization’s plans include fundraising, be aware that many states and few local jurisdictions regulate organizations that solicit funds within that state, county, or city. Usually compliance involves obtaining a permit or license and then filing an annual report and financial statement. Contact the state Attorney General’s office, the state Department of Commerce, state and local Departments of Revenue and county or municipal clerk’s offices to get more information.

First this is "wikihow" and the infor in that statment ie filing an annual report ect is not acccurate. Second the permit or license it mentions is in regard to fundraising, not the charity as a whole.

 

[Murphismo]

IMO..I don't think there is enough whitewash sold in the country let alone the world that could coat FCA well enough that her true colors won't show through. I've heard comments on People magazine, could you give me an update on this LG..was it an interview or story? Do I need to turn this around if I spot it?

Depending on how FCA took the interview I suppose mommy wouldn't let her spend xmas alone..sure Santa will fill her stocking full of coal..

if you go back on this thread someone posted the article for you to read that does not link to people. Lemme look, hold on.....

 

[Kimberlyd125]

First this is "wikihow" and the infor in that statment ie filing an annual report ect is not acccurate. Second the permit or license it mentions is in regard to fundraising, not the charity as a whole.

Sorry you didn't like the link.

After I posted this, I made it clear that Dr. Phil may have used the word licensed because the Anthony's solicited a donation for the interview and maybe it had to do with the fundraising solicitation laws.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Dr-Phil-Casey-Anthony-Parents-1037054.aspx

TV Guide Magazine: You stress that your show didn't pay for the interview, that instead you're making a donation to their new foundation. Do you feel confident that that money will go to the right place?
Dr. Phil: They haven't gotten their authorization yet. They didn't make a demand, they made a request. And I asked when we sat down, "Let me be clear, you didn't ask to be paid for this. You asked that we make a donation to this 501c3 charitable organization. And you take no money from that, you get no salary, no fee, no reimbursement, nothing from the foundation." He said that is correct. I said, "You understand that this is federally licensed, and the IRS and the government monitors this." They said that is absolutely correct. So I moved on with that confidence in mind.

***Dr. Phil did say licensed.
???

Maybe this would fall under the charitable solicitation thingy??? Because the A's solicited a donation for the interview?

Here is where I cleared that up.

 

[crimesnooper]

Sorry you didn't like the link.

After I posted this, I made it clear that Dr. Phil may have used the word licensed because the Anthony's solicited a donation for the interview and maybe it had to do with the fundraising solicitation laws.

Actually I love the "wiki" links but they are not reliable. I think the confusion belongs on Dr. Phil; He simply should have said the A's charity will get a donation from him when they are granted their fed tax expemt status

 

[MarthaM]

Actually I love the "wiki" links but they are not reliable. I think the confusion belongs on Dr. Phil; He simply should have said the A's charity will get a donation from him when they are granted their fed tax expemt status

I think most people understood what he meant by 'licensed', that he would donate to it when its paperwork is all completed and given a stamp of approval by the government. When and if.

 

[Murphismo]

I can't find the link to the People article about FCA's contacts wha wha whaing about her life, anyone have it?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Actually I love the "wiki" links but they are not reliable. I think the confusion belongs on Dr. Phil; He simply should have said the A's charity will get a donation from him when they are granted their fed tax expemt status

Actually his comment about the license was not about when they would get the money. It was posed in a question he asked about whether they would receive any of the money.

The link is quoted in post #414.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

He wanted to make sure they understood that the fund is monitored.

 

[crimesnooper]

I think most people understood what he meant by 'licensed', that he would donate to it when its paperwork is all completed and given a stamp of approval by the government. When and if.

I think you are right..but leave it to him to cloud things up. lol. I am not a big fan.