Would you lie in court to save your child? CLOSED FOR REVIEW

[kushka]

Seriously, is that fair to dump at Cindy's door? EVERYONE lies...yes, even those that have faith in God. :banghead:

Yes, it is fair. I also believe everyone lies, but not all lies are equal. Some lies can even be positive, like telling a friend that just got a hair cut that she looks lovely.

I would lie to save my child from death - but unlike Cindy I would not throw other peoples children under a bus to save my own child (especially not when my child was so clearly guilty). Remember Cindy tried to implicate JG and AH in Caylee's death? It seemed she would have been perfectly happy to see them tried and convicted if only her own daughter was set free. It is that type of behavior that puts her at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to morality.

 

[Jack]

Hi Jack! Yes, I assumed you did not mean she drowned, matter of fact I had started to put some options in the reply but was trying to keep it more black and white.

If Caylee died from ICA overdosing her with chloroform, that is such an overt act of child abuse IMO it should totally negate any reduction in sentence. Seriously who uses chloroform (or any illegal drugs) on their 2 year old then cries "But it was an accident!" If this is what happened, why should ICA be let off the hook?

Putting Caylee in the trunk with or without drugs would IMO be the same, ICA was not a 12 yr old who didn't know better. Cars plus the Florida heat kills kids!

So what kind of accident could it be, where ICA didn't intentionally kill Caylee but she is willing to sit in jail for three years charged with murder rather than admitting the truth? Willing to risk the DP?

Does ICA telling Lee that "Maybe I am a spiteful b!tch" say anything about her frame mind?

If "Bob" drinks a 12 pack of beer, then gets in his car and plows down a child in a crosswalk, he can claim it was a horrible accident but he knew the chance he was taking when he got behind the wheel. Does the fact that it was a horrible accident make him any less responsible for that child's death?

Hi LCM. No, it doesn't. And you could argue, as I have done before, that it isn't an accident if you chose to do what caused the 'accident'. I guess my thinking here is that there is something very different from the people who are predators and cause terror and pain to their victims prior to killing them with purpose, and the people who commit selfish acts that although they do cause death wasn't intended to. Which one deserves to be put to death for their actions? In some places the law says both, but I'm not 100% comfortable with that. If my kid was part of the latter group I would do what I could to keep that from happening. Right or wrong. Put me on the receiving end of the pain and I would probably feel differently. The Anthony family has the unfortunate circumstances of being closely related to both perpetrator and victim. I imagine their pain is so great they just can't stomach the thought of losing another loved one to this horrible situation even if that person is the one who caused it in the first place. I do have some sympathy and understanding for what CA did today.

Casey made her bed when she decided to hide her actions. After that point it wouldn't make a differece if she admitted to it or not, she would still go to prison. And I do think her angle is to get herself out of prison. I don't think she has a great grasp of what the DP means for her, just as she didn't grasp that putting her baby in the trunk would certainly eventually lead to her death. Of course she knew it was possible but the draw of the prize (partying) overweighed the risk. She now sees the real prize as getting to go back to 'bella vita'. Anything other than that is probably all the same to her and worth the risk.

 

[Kelroy]

As much as I loved that baby at my breast, if she grew up into a monster, I would consider it better she be dead than alive as she is.

See, that's the thing: I don't think the Anthonys think Casey is a monster. I'm pretty sure they now know she had something to do with Caylee's death, but I don't think they're ready to believe it was first-degree murder. I could be wrong; obviously I don't know any better than anyone else what they're thinking. But there are reasonable people on this board who have doubts as to whether it was murder (as opposed to some sort of accident), so I have no problem believing that the Anthonys are grasping at any straw they can in order to avoid believing Casey is a monster.

So I think that's key, in my opinion anyway: would you lie in order to protect your child if you're not convinced your child is guilty of what she's charged with? I think a lot of mothers would, at least the mothers I know.

I don't have kids, but I can't imagine my husband or parents are capable of first-degree murder. If they were ever charged with such a crime, I can't say I'd be eager to help the prosecution. If they were facing the death penalty, I really think I might lie to save them. I don't know, though, because I hope to never be put in the agonizing position Cindy Anthony is in.

It's such a complex, complicated, horrible situation all around.

 

[LinasK]

No, it doesn't. And you could argue, as I have done before, that it isn't an accident if you chose to do what caused the 'accident'. I guess my thinking here is that there is something very different from the people who are predators and cause terror and pain to their victims prior to killing them with purpose, and the people who commit selfish acts that although they do cause death wasn't intended to. Which one deserves to be put to death for their actions? In some places the law says both, but I'm not 100% comfortable with that. If my kid was part of the latter group I would do what I could to keep that from happening. Right or wrong. Put me on the receiving end of the pain and I would probably feel differently. The Anthony family has the unfortunate circumstances of being closely related to both perpetrator and victim. I imagine their pain is so great they just can't stomach the thought of losing another loved one to this horrible situation even if that person is the one who caused it in the first place. I do have some sympathy and understanding for what CA did today.

Casey made her bed when she decided to hide her actions. After that point it woudn't make a differnece if she admitted to it or not, she would still go to prison. And I do think her angle is to get herself out of prison. I don't think she has a great grasp of what the DP means for her, just as she didn't grasp that putting her baby in the trunk would certainly eventually lead to her death. Of course she knew it was possible but the draw of the prize (partying) overweighed the risk. She now sees the real prize as getting to go back to 'bella vita'. Anything other than that is probably all the same to her and worth the risk.

I think what you've described in the second instance is manslaughter, and I believe the punishment for that is not death...maybe you should inquire on the lawyer thread...

 

[Jack]

I think what you've described in the second instance is manslaughter, and I believe the punishment for that is not death...maybe you should inquire on the lawyer thread...

In this case I believe it is aggravated child abuse that is punishable by death in Florida if it causes the death of child. Thats been made very clear.

 

[Whaleshark]

When it comes to whether your child might get the death penalty; anyone who says they wouldn't lie to save their child from the possibility of such a fate is lying - or doesn't have a child.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I am NOT lying and I DO have a child. If my son tortured, raped, murdered, and/or took away someone else's child, I would not make that child a victim all over again and stomp on that family's heart by lying for my son.

I would die inside that my son would do that to someone else, and I would hope that my son's receiving the death penalty would ease the suffering of the victim's family....

Loving your child does not mean covering up for the pain they cause others.

 

[sappysoul]

Understood, I still would lie to save my childs life. Does that mean to some I will burn in He** for all eternity? Maybe, but, it is my eternity. We don't all have to agree here. Everyone has different opinions and I respect them all.:cheerful:

I actually answered I don't know because there are situations I'd lie for my child and others I wouldn't. While I respect others opinions I could never respect the decision to save your own child if that put other innocent children at risk. :twocents:

 

[Wysteria]

Yes, if the penalty was death I would lie.

 

[Kelroy]

How do you know what the effect of the lie would be? The jury could always believe the lie created reasonable doubt and the person would be free. At this point Cindy is not saving Casey from the DP, she could possibly be setting her free. No one knows what will turn a jury or how.

I'm not so sure about the bolded. IMO, the chloroform searches were never the most damning evidence in this case. Cindy hasn't refuted on the stand, as far as I know, that Casey lied frequently and elaborately, that Casey was the last one seen with Caylee, that Casey didn't express any grief or remorse after Caylee was ostensibly missing. She can't refute all the others' testimony on the smell in the car. I'm one of those who think the chloroform is something of a red herring--I just can't imagine Casey making it, and there's no evidence that she procured it some other way--so Cindy's testimony doesn't raise doubts for me.

I also think the jury will probably consider, as I do, that a mother could easily lie to protect her daughter. I personally don't see this having a big impact on the verdict either way. JMO.

 

[sappysoul]

I'm not so sure about the bolded. IMO, the chloroform searches were never the most damning evidence in this case. Cindy hasn't refuted on the stand, as far as I know, that Casey lied frequently and elaborately, that Casey was the last one seen with Caylee, that Casey didn't express any grief or remorse after Caylee was ostensibly missing. She can't refute all the others' testimony on the smell in the car. I'm one of those who think the chloroform is something of a red herring--I just can't imagine Casey making it, and there's no evidence that she procured it some other way--so Cindy's testimony doesn't raise doubts for me.

I also think the jury will probably consider, as I do, that a mother could easily lie to protect her daughter. I personally don't see this having a big impact on the verdict either way. JMO.

I agree it isn't likely to result in an acquittal and may actually hurt the defense more than help but OTOH you just don't know that for sure. I wasn't assuming the question pertained to the facts in this case only. I was assuming people were saying they would lie to protect their child from the DP in any situation, not just this one.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Can someone tell me how one can take the stance that lying is wrong and be attacked? It is amazing to me there is so much compassion for Cindy but none for fellow WSers who find what Cindy is doing very wrong?

I do not understand.

:twocents:

In my very, very humble opinion because I can see where you are coming from...

It POSSIBLY it was thought by those that are likely to influence public opinion that the Anthony's would be less defensive if they felt people were not assuming the worst of them without considering what it would be like to be in their shoes.

When people are less defensive they may be more likely to tell the truth. At the end of the day this case is not about Cindy, George, Lee and even ICA. It is about ICA and getting to that truth is so much more important than the A's personal truths.

Not saying that the lies shouldn't be considered offensive in the extreme to Justice and Caylee. Its just that knowing the truth can be considered more important. Think about how much easier this would have been if they had told the truth.

LE walks a very fine line. I can't imagine what is like to weigh which is more important knowing what happened to ICA or nailing the A's for lying.

When all is said and done ICA is the one who is ultimately responsible for what has happened because she lied. Caset's lies resulted in Caylee's remains being seen in any kind of public forum, in this case the court and the jury. And that is the very, very tip of the iceberg.

The die was cast the very moment the A's lied in the face of the overwhelming evidence their daughter killed someone. It can be said that it makes people question any truth they tell after that. I can understand the A's being in denial initially much easier than I can understand them lying for so long, especially after Caylee was found.

It can be perceived that the A's are just lying about everything. They sure have a history (both confirmed and unconfirmed) of lying and the DT has capitalized on inferences that makes about what happened to Casey growing up.

But the jury is not going to see this pattern and I think that is something the prosecution is capitalizing on. The juror are going to see incidents of times that they lied, but that is a far cry from confirming that their lying is a pattern that PROVES that ICA acted the way she did and PROVES that GA and/or LA molested her.

The DT cannot PROVE any of their accusations that ICA was molested or that she disassociates, therefore those things have no business being brought out in this case of the trial.

It is a tragedy that molesters and other monsters are found "innocent" at times because the crime almost by definition is hidden so that it is their word against the victims.

I don't understand why in the sentencing phase proof is not needed for mitigating factors. Especially when it involves something as damaging to some one's character, like GA. Its like the DT is asking people to take their word for it even though the accused has not had their day in court, isn't that something the defense is all about: making sure their client is assumed innocent until proven guilty? Then they change their tune when they ask that someone like GA is guilty until proven innocent? Makes no sense to me.

 

[butwhatif?]

I would love to say absolutely not....but in all honesty, I just don't know.

I hope I am never in a position where I'd have to make a decision like this.

People may not approve, but I've always taught my kids that they will not be punished by me as long as they tell the truth. They still get a lecture, but I'm doing what I can to try to reinforce that honesty is always the best policy.

If you ask my kids, or my niece and nephews "what is the one thing that butwhatif? will not tolerate?"....I can guarantee that they will roll their eyes and say 'lying'.

 

[Melanie]

I cannot imagine the pure torture of having to make that choice. There is no doubt in my mind that I'd sacrifce my own life if it meant saving my son.... but on the other hand if he willingly participated in monsterous acts (such as this) I would want him to be accountable...

And there is also the consideration of which is the ultimate form of punishment - the daily agony of spending the rest of your life in prison or laying on a table and falling asleep forever.

Spending the rest of my life knowing that my son was being subjected to unspeakable acts that occur in prison might be a worse punishment for him and for me.

I've also warned him in advance (not that I really need to because his biggest fear is getting into trouble for anything by anyone) but it was "a good to know" for me growing up... If he ever gets arrested he is not to call me because I will make him sit there and think about what he did... so far it worked for me (clean slate here)!

Uugghh... way too heavy of a subject to think about before bed...

I hear ya. We disappeared for a bit tonight and went to grab a yogurt before the shop closed. We pull up, and there were 2 cops cars (egads). Do I go in or not -- clerk says it's okay, the cops are "dealing with it".

IT - turned out to be an old guy stealing some meat (yes, we really need 2 cop cars for an aged old man who obviously can't afford food by the looks of him).

I wanted SO bad to feel sorry for him (and in my heart I did), but I could not express that to my son. I just said "dang, he should have gone to the food bank down the street instead". He nodded in agreement.

Now this guy is gonna get 3 hots and a cot for stealing a pound of meat.

I really don't know what I'm getting at here, but at least my son saw the consequence of stealing and what could happen if he was eyeing a candy bar! If he did something like that, I'd let him take his punishment in kind.

MOO

Mel

 

[firefox62]

I think she committed perjury but am not certain. If the prosecution can prove she lied what should be done? Sorry to be so cold but I believe she should be punished. BTW, when does a chlorophyll search become a chloroform search? I might lie if it was my kid but I'd really have to be in the situation before I could answer fully.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I'm not so sure about the bolded. IMO, the chloroform searches were never the most damning evidence in this case. Cindy hasn't refuted on the stand, as far as I know, that Casey lied frequently and elaborately, that Casey was the last one seen with Caylee, that Casey didn't express any grief or remorse after Caylee was ostensibly missing. She can't refute all the others' testimony on the smell in the car. I'm one of those who think the chloroform is something of a red herring--I just can't imagine Casey making it, and there's no evidence that she procured it some other way--so Cindy's testimony doesn't raise doubts for me.

I also think the jury will probably consider, as I do, that a mother could easily lie to protect her daughter. I personally don't see this having a big impact on the verdict either way. JMO.

I'm leaning in that direction because someone pointed out some reasons I am still considering about the chloroform. Because ICA will lie her way to death, possibly quite literally. We never may know if/how chloroform was involved.

For awhile there I that it couldn't be involved because making it would be way too sophisticated for ICA to make it. She would have blown herself up. But then I considered that tweekers with messed up brains from tweeking seem to get it right at least some of the time.

If ICA did search for chloroform and neck breaking it doesn't mean that she was planning out the particulars of murdering Caylee and the rest of her family. But at the very least it proves that she was thinking about killing in general which is the first step and all that may be needed for someone disturbed to follow through with their next impulse to kill.

 

[Just Jayla]

I'm leaning in that direction because someone pointed out some reasons I am still considering about the chloroform. Because ICA will lie her way to death, possibly quite literally. We never may know if/how chloroform was involved.

For awhile there I that it couldn't be involved because making it would be way too sophisticated for ICA to make it. She would have blown herself up. But then I considered that tweekers with messed up brains from tweeking seem to get it right at least some of the time.

If ICA did search for chloroform and neck breaking it doesn't mean that she was planning out the particulars of murdering Caylee and the rest of her family. But at the very least it proves that she was thinking about killing in general which is the first step and all that may be needed for someone disturbed to follow through with their next impulse to kill.

I'll write why I think CA is lying in the 06/23 trial thread instead of here, but I know she had to be lying.

 

[laserdisc10]

I can afford to be completely honest here, because I don't have a long-standing Websleuths reputation to protect or consider. And my response to the question is to say that if I were in CA's shoes and my much-loved little grandchild had gone from my life forever -- had been murdered and horribly disposed of -- and if I suspected my own daughter was responsible ... I would very likely have taken my own life years ago, out of sheer grief and refusal to accept that any loving God could have allowed it

 

[Just Jayla]

I can afford to be completely honest here, because I don't have a long-standing Websleuths reputation to protect or consider. And my response to the question is to say that if I were in CA's shoes and my much-loved little grandchild had gone from my life forever -- had been murdered and horribly disposed of -- and if I suspected my own daughter was responsible ... I would very likely have taken my own life years ago, out of sheer grief and refusal to accept that any loving God could have allowed it

You will find that many of us hang it all out, we are not worried about being hammered by anyone because this is a safe place. No protecting the reps necessary, those that have good reputations earned them by being smarter than the other thousands of us

I don't doubt that the thought has crossed CA's mind, but she has a son to think about, and parents that her other siblings don't care for as she does. I think she is neglecting Lee by siding with the daughter that has accused him of awful things, and I certainly don't like her, but I think she knows Lee loves her and maybe that keeps her going.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I think she committed perjury but am not certain. If the prosecution can prove she lied what should be done? Sorry to be so cold but I believe she should be punished. BTW, when does a chlorophyll search become a chloroform search? I might lie if it was my kid but I'd really have to be in the situation before I could answer fully.

Cindy could possibly have known there was some relationship between eating a plant and chloroform, I think she is very intelligent. But is it realistic?

When I first got my dog my boyfriend was spazzing out because she was eating grass. I know a lot about dogs and various theories about why they do that, on top of that I read every thing I could about it when I got Mimi. On top of that I was a wizz in my botany class and lab. I have never heard of a relationship between chloroform and chlorophyll. Not saying that means Cindy wouldn't have know, just saying.

Does anyone know if the plants had just been planted by the A's? I think that bamboo is quite expensive. If the bamboo has been in the A's backyard for a long time I think there is a low probability that CA could CA connect the dog eating bamboo to the dog being sleepy. And then talking it a step further to link chloroform, something commonly found in plants, with chlorophyll?

Would it be more likely that she would at least begin her search by googling bamboo and sleepy dog.

Chlorophyll is something that makes plants green. Young little baby bamboo has a lot of chlorophyll, but the leaves on the older ones seems to be towards the top where you see the baby shoots. Did the dogs climb to the top to get at that? It therefor is even less probability that she would think the bamboo eating was causing sleepiness.

Beside that think of all the cows, goats, sheeps, etc. that would be drooping over stoned because the grass they eat is filled with chlorophyll. :crazy:

But Cindy is smart so who knows what she knows that I don't. When she was coming up as a nurse sexism was even worse than it is today, she probably worked her tail end off to be the best she could be. Maybe she ran into that somewhere and she remembered it because it was so weird.

Maybe the Prosecution should asked how she specifically made the link to sleepiness in the dogs and chloroform in bamboo. I mean aside from the two words sounding alike.

Since chloroform was once used as to knock people out for surgery Cindy would know why it is not used anymore, it could cause major damage to the respiratory system. So wouldn't the dogs who are tiny be more affected by a substance, so wouldn't the dog's symptoms be much more severe than sleeping a lot? Severe symptoms make it more likely that she would make an appointment with the vet ASAP instead of consulting the internet? Mimi has valley fever and in the beginning when I was becoming more familiar with it I called the vet with anything that even remotely looked like a symptom. Drove them nuts probably but they called me back quickly if I had to leave a message.

Did CA make an appointment with her vet? Did she call them about it? Did she talk to co-workers who like her know a lot about that stuff?

And didn't she say in one of her letters to ICA that she had just STARTED to leave the dogs out more or with less supervision. If she was out there with the dogs at the time she made the search she would be able to make sure they wouldn't gobble up the bamboo, so how did they eat enough of it to get droopy?

 

[yllek]

No.

If I knew my child did everything that Casey did (and I think the As know because she's blaming them and they know what they didn't do), I think it would be selfish to lie; thinking that my child's life was more valuable than the life they took. If it was my own grandchild that was murdered by my child, big NO, I would not lie. I would plea for life in prison without parole over death, but hope to have the strength to respect whatever the justice system and fate determined.

P.s. If I knew my child was innocent (which would require not falsely accusing the rest of the family or an admittedly fictitious perp), I would move heaven and earth to prove their innocence, but wouldn't lie. I don't think lying about life-critical matters is ever positive or effective, no matter how people rationalize it. JMO...