Prosecution Strategy

[What'sThatClue]

I also thought CA's attitude was pretty much as it was during the Morgan depo...attitude was, imo, challenging, is that the word I'm looking for?

 

[Ricki]

I also thought CA's attitude was pretty much as it was during the Morgan depo...attitude was, imo, challenging, is that the word I'm looking for?

Sorry to say but Me thinks CA will have to double up on those meds soon.

 

[bananarama]

Mods, I wasn't sure where to put this, if you have a better thread, please merge!


After going back many, many times watching and listening very intently to the testimony of Cindy, I am asking myself 2 questions.

1. Did Cindy Anthony lie?
2. Did LDB Brilliantly establish that Casey was the only one who did the "bad" searches?

I have come to the conclusion with the help of jschaudt, and mendz, that Cindy Anthony did not lie on the stand today.

In order to see this as I am seeing this, you would have to rewatch the testimony today, and pay close attention to the questions being asked by LDB. We all were very worked up today as was LDB, but I believe she was worked up to catch everyone off guard including the entire defense team and possibly Cindy Anthony.

Work records prove that on March 17, 2008 Cindy Anthony was working. Records indicate that George Anthony was NOT working.
The searches that were done on the 17th could be considered those that are comparable to Cindy's testimony today.
Where we were caught off guard is the FACT that LDB never asked Cindy if she did the incriminating searches on the 21st of March. She did ask her if she had ever completed those searches, in which Cindy did say NO to. Cindy and George were both recorded as working on the 21st which established that Casey was the only one who could have done the searches on the 21st.
Did LDB brilliantly throw us all off today?
Allow me to refer you to the following posts:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CA's Testimony 6/23/11

CA's Testimony 6/23/11 - Page 32 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

And:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CA's Testimony 6/23/11

I sure do hope you're right. I know the SA are saving allot for rebuttal. No way these poor jurors are going home for July 4th!

 

[Marple]

Pfft ... so how can Cindy be certain of her ACTUAL work hours on June 17, 2008?

See, there's this new magical medication with a new side effect; clear recollection of random events from three years ago! It's so phenomenal that you will even recall pop-ups that appeared on your browser window!

 

[jschaudt]

What is most important to me is that Cindy didn't perjure herself under oath. Little white lies or not, it is the same story from her deposition and such. She gave JB a smile, and has set the jury to thinking that there is a reasonable doubt. You know it is true because so many readers here were already angry with CA's testimony 6-23-11.

Now, the DT can hope to discredit/impeach CA, but there is nothing they can do. She did not change her story to include the "intent to kill" themed searches.

Pros will have so much fun getting the last rebuttal in on this trial. They know there is STILL no evidence toward the innocence of ICA.

Bren942 researched the depo and says some good points here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6748941&postcount=916"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.06.23 Cindy's Testimony[/ame]

 

[monique]

They are allowing Baez to tell this jury that if Cindy did the searches on the 17th then she could have done them on the 21st. They are trying to place reasonable doubt that Casey did not do these searches (premeditated).

In rebuttal, the state will prove that Cindy and George was working on the 21st, and that Cindy Anthony admitted to the searches she was responsible for. They will establish that Casey was the only one who could have done these searches on the 21st and it was done with the intent of committing premeditated murder. I do believe that somehow the user accounts on this computer will fit into the rebuttal and prove that Casey was the only one who used her own profile that was password protected.

I believe that they will also show that on the 21st the person on the computer was on Facebook and/or MySpace.

 

[downport]

Idk what labor laws & the Labor Dept in Fl is like. In NY it's powerful as heck. The scenerio's painted by the defendants mother yesterday would have set off a huge investigation by the Labor Dept here in NY.

What I'm thinking is this; Gentiva has lawyers, lots of them I'm sure. The SA are not the only ones who launched an investigation of CA's time card allegations yesterday, I'm sure a small army of Gentiva lawyers have burst into action to disprove these serious claims of labor fraud. It is quite possible the defendants mother has brought a LOAD of trouble upon herself as these outside lawyers from her former employers seek to discredit EACH & EVERY claim she made about the company & the actions of the company's supervisors.

Surely 3 year old records still exist in abundance in a health care facility. I want the SA to take no prisoners in attempting to impeach the credibility of the defendants mother.

 

[DIXIECAT]

Yes, but how much she worked per day isn't the issue employers wanting employees to do that.

Its how much OT is tallied for the week, or pay period. If Cindy was saying she worked more on a particular day because she needed to put it in to that pay period because it would in the preceeding one it put her over 40 hrs.

IIRC I would accurately report the week and then fudge it if necessary when I saw how many hours I fudged. It was also because our pay periods did not necessarily end at the end of everyother week.

Can't remember what caused that and how much it happened. But it made it tricked because we would be scheduled for two weeks, we needed to do report 80 hours for that period. It was weird to look at how many hours I had for a week when it wasn't looking at a week as monday to sunday.

Also you had to careful because you wanted to work only 40 hours per week so you could get payed for the hours, just not payed overtime. I'd look over my final time sheet and check it, make adjustments, and check those.

I don't think that there was a particular way that all of us reported that we did not have overtime, we just had to make sure there was no overtime.

Who knows what was going on at Cindy's job. At first I thought that her employer would not be able to confirm this stuff because doing it violates something. But Dr D stated he has done it on national tv and how hard would it be to get his employment history?

No matter what, it proves that it would be difficult for Cindy to prove how long she worked, so like alot of people are wondering how would she know that for certain?

I made this comment in another thread, but I think its important: Any time Medicare, Medicaid, HIPPA, and/or JCOH is involved, such as with an "inpatient" facility like Gentiva, there is an accurate, signed time record kept of all staff, ESPECIALLY SUPERVISORY and/or RNs and other direct patient care personnel. This is due to liability and accountability requirements. I have been a salaried RN at several of these types of facilities. It is extremely important for there to be a record of who was there at such and such a time. Salaried personnel must record the actual hours they were on the premises (at work), and usually comp time is given for any time in excess of 40 hours per week. :twocents:

 

[Charleyann]

BBM

Yes that grin was so reminiscent of her demeanor with Morgan, and gave me a chill!

OMG, yes it gave me the chills too ! As the Judge said " This is not a game" and they have all made it a game to protect Casey and in the process are forgetting sweet little Caylee .....IT is so sad. Makes my heart hurt that her family doesn't care......

Charleyann

 

[Mare10]

The only thing about CA's testimony that baffled me was JB. I did not believe for one second that the SA forgot about CA's deposition. Did JB really believe that was the case here after the SA has been mopping the floor with him and his witnesses? Even I could see that the SA has a strategy and was allowing this all to come in.

 

[TxLady2]

I'm confused, so forgive me if this sounds stupid. We have a desktop computer and both my husband and I use it, and up until a few months ago my son used it too. We each have our own log in to the browser itself and it does not have a password. The ONLY things that are password protected are our email accounts. So, I could log in to his account and do anything I wanted to and it would look like he was on the computer. Same goes for him logging in to mine. We do have internet by satellite, not broadband, so not sure if that makes a difference.
Most people don't bother with passwords just to browse, unless they have some files they want to keep hidden from other family, right? So how are they going to prove that Cindy was not the one who did these searches? She could have used Casey's log in.
The analysis that was done by JWG everyone refers to states that Casey is the one who used the owner account and Cindy and George used Casey's account, which makes no sense to me why this could have been detected. How can a technician really know WHO is logged in to the browser? Even if it's password protected, some people are good at digging up passwords as long as they know where to look.
As to whether she was at work or at home... many people in management positions are allowed to do certain work from home, she could have been doing timesheets or care plans or any number of other things from her home computer. I had a supervisor several years ago who worked more from home than she did from the office.
Btw, I thought LDB was a little harsh yesterday. My husband walked in about the time she was hammering Cindy and said, "Geez, Lady, lighten up!!" I'm surprised Cindy didn't bark back at her a few times.

 

[fridaybaker]

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to put this question; if not, kindly delete or put where it belongs.

My question is this: During the Closing Argument (or statement, whichever it is) will the State walk the jurors through the evidence in a way that connects the dots? The reason I ask is that I served as a juror in a murder trial in NY a couple of years ago. I was amazed that when the DA gave the closing argument, he more or less just "summed things up" and tried to arouse emotion in the jurors. There had been a copious amount of technical evidence admitted and discussed as well as a dates and times that weren't all in chronological order, of course, because various things were being testified to by various people, so many things were "backtracked" as I would expect in any trial. As a result, the way that the evidence was presented, it was often quite disjointed. I really expected that the DA would then walk us through everything and answer any defense claims. "Remember that so and so testified that this, which means this..... All of the evidence was left entirely to us to "put together".

In this case, I'd hope that the State would connect the computer searches to the fact that the files appeared to have been dumped right near the time of police involvement, etc. Connect the evidence and put the picture together for them is what I mean.

I'm not familiar with trials in general so I'm wondering what to expect here.

 

[Anais]

I'm confused, so forgive me if this sounds stupid. We have a desktop computer and both my husband and I use it, and up until a few months ago my son used it too. We each have our own log in to the browser itself and it does not have a password. The ONLY things that are password protected are our email accounts. So, I could log in to his account and do anything I wanted to and it would look like he was on the computer. Same goes for him logging in to mine. We do have internet by satellite, not broadband, so not sure if that makes a difference.
Most people don't bother with passwords just to browse, unless they have some files they want to keep hidden from other family, right? So how are they going to prove that Cindy was not the one who did these searches? She could have used Casey's log in.
The analysis that was done by JWG everyone refers to states that Casey is the one who used the owner account and Cindy and George used Casey's account, which makes no sense to me why this could have been detected. How can a technician really know WHO is logged in to the browser? Even if it's password protected, some people are good at digging up passwords as long as they know where to look.
As to whether she was at work or at home... many people in management positions are allowed to do certain work from home, she could have been doing timesheets or care plans or any number of other things from her home computer. I had a supervisor several years ago who worked more from home than she did from the office.
Btw, I thought LDB was a little harsh yesterday. My husband walked in about the time she was hammering Cindy and said, "Geez, Lady, lighten up!!" I'm surprised Cindy didn't bark back at her a few times.

BBM

Txlady,

Once those pages are put into the history files they will go into specific areas on the hard drive where windows stores them, and furthermore they will be stored under the current user. Also ICA was the only person who used the Firefox browser while surfing the internet. Firefox and IE don't store or share histories etc.

 

[Anais]

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to put this question; if not, kindly delete or put where it belongs.

My question is this: During the Closing Argument (or statement, whichever it is) will the State walk the jurors through the evidence in a way that connects the dots? The reason I ask is that I served as a juror in a murder trial in NY a couple of years ago. I was amazed that when the DA gave the closing argument, he more or less just "summed things up" and tried to arouse emotion in the jurors. There had been a copious amount of technical evidence admitted and discussed as well as a dates and times that weren't all in chronological order, of course, because various things were being testified to by various people, so many things were "backtracked" as I would expect in any trial. As a result, the way that the evidence was presented, it was often quite disjointed. I really expected that the DA would then walk us through everything and answer any defense claims. "Remember that so and so testified that this, which means this..... All of the evidence was left entirely to us to "put together".

In this case, I'd hope that the State would connect the computer searches to the fact that the files appeared to have been dumped right near the time of police involvement, etc. Connect the evidence and put the picture together for them is what I mean.

I'm not familiar with trials in general so I'm wondering what to expect here.

Fridaybaker,

I am absolutely certain that JA will be giving the closing arguments/statement and he is a world class master when it pertains to the forensics and trials. Between JA and LDB as they did with the OS I am 100% certain that they will go back through chronologically and lay it all out for the jurors!

 

[ladylurker]

so to clarify... here is what i think you mean, tell me if i am right.

cindy testified today to doing the searches on march 17 for the following: google search for "chloraform" "alcohol" "acetone" "peroxide"
wikipedia search for "inhalation" "chloroform" "alcohol" "acetone" "peroxide" "hydrogen peroxide" and "death"

however, in cross after being asked about specific terms by LDB basically testified that she did NOT do the searches on march 21st for the following:
google searches for "shovel" "neck breaking" "household weapons" "self defense" "how to make chloroform" and Wikipedia search for "shovel"; also searches on blogspot.com, sci-spot.com, druglibrary.org and instructables.com for "making weapons out of household products," "chloroform habit," "chloroform" "how to make chloroform" and "chloro2"

we know from records that george was proven to be at work that day. and cindy said she did not search "how to make chloroform" but rather just "chloroform". and she did not cop to searching for "neck breaking" either, just mentions seeing it - but someone on the computer searched for it, if not cindy. so cindy didn't search for any of the march 21st items, and george was at work. so, logic would extend that casey is the one to do the searches on march 21st. and THOSE searches are the ones that tie into premeditation (she wasn't just researching chloroform, she was researching HOW TO MAKE chloroform, plus all those other SUPER HINKY searches).

did i get it right? if so... i feel much better about all this! thanks for making this point!!! this really cheered me up! :rocker:

quoting my own post from the other thread because i think it belongs over here instead! sorry for any repeat info!