2011.03.02 Cindy Anthony's Testimony

[LambChop]

IMO the jury will probably divide their attention between the witness and the A's acting out in the peanut gallery. Witness to A's reaction. Witness to A's reaction. The A's will probably fascinate them. You just can't look away.

I so agree with you! Not in the best interests of Casey.

One thing I think could be in Casey's best interests is that if the A's are kept out of the courtroom for the duration they MIGHT have an impact when it comes to pleading for her life after the verdict. The jury might not be completely sick and disgusted by them (familiarity breeds contempt), might have forgotten their demeanor on the stand, and MIGHT vote to spare her life based on some sympathy for the family. I don't think this is a huge consideration because some crimes are so heinous (like this one) it doesn't matter what the family wants.

But there's a smidgen of a chance if they stay out of the jury's way, come penalty phase they might just prevail.

You make and excellent point. :rocker:

 

[LambChop]

Obviously when CA and GA went to do the papers for them to get custody of Caylee if something happened to KC they were faced with the dilemma of having the biological father sign the papers. Papers were never filed, ironically but the A's claim the father signed them but then died in an accident before they could file...(oopps, there goes that hinkey meter again).

ETD: Sorry I reread that article in the news thread and the A's were trying to get the father to sign over his parental rights to KC. He supposedly signed and then died in an accident. Still sounds hinky to me.

 

[jennyb]

Obviously when CA and GA went to do the papers for them to get custody of Caylee if something happened to KC they were faced with the dilemma of having the biological father sign the papers. Papers were never filed, ironically but the A's claim the father signed them but then died in an accident before they could file...(oopps, there goes that hinkey meter again).

How conveeeenient!

(I doubt they even went to an attorney... well, maybe an imaginary one...)

 

[LambChop]

How conveeeenient!

(I doubt they even went to an attorney... well, maybe an imaginary one...)

The news thread today said that their attorney, Kelly, stated this.

 

[jon_burrows]

I think the jury will see plenty of their character when they're on the stand. If they're allowed to sit in on the trial they'll be a real sideshow. Personally I think it's a bad idea.

The judge should keep them out. They are witnesses who are integrally involved in this case and most definitely could be subject to recall at any time. I guess there's nothing stopping them from watching the trial at home in the evening, but I doubt they'll be able to watch in the court hallway. That's something right there.

The judge can simply order that, as primary witnesses, they cannot be present. Nothing personal, just the law.

The A's know they're on thin ice. They had Conway way back asking the judge to let them be present during trial, on a day when nothing like this was being discussed. It seemed WAY premature and odd. And then when you read the motion from their new attorneys it had a defensive quality. It was also pretty lame.

Even though they probably knew their demeanor would be especially noticed in this last hearing they still couldn't keep it together. Both were antagonistic to LDB (in varying degrees), both addressed the judge directly, both were obvious and animated in their seats after they testified. And this was just a motions hearing.

They can't keep it together and they will be an unnecessary distraction from a trial that probably won't have a dull moment. They're not needed.

I don't even think they particularly want to be there for their daughter. Their own interests are paramount IMO. They, especially Cindy with her extreme control issues, need to be included. They want to know what is being said about THEM. They want to have their pictures and reactions splashed on HLN and the evening news. IMO they want to continue making money for a long time after this case is done and they need the exposure.

What would be worse then keeping them out right from the start would be if they are tossed in the middle of the trial for some courtroom hijinks. Then the jury will REALLY be wondering and distracted and maybe even pity them.

Also I'd like to know if the Judge can put a gag order on them, because they are witnesses, outside of the courtroom. I sure wouldn't want them to be "talking heads" throughout the trial across the street at "Camp Casey". Heck, I'm waiting for them to get press passes. Ptooey.

ITA with your entire post. The judge should keep them out because they are witnesses and they will be a distraction. I was watching/listening intently to every word YM said until the camera panned over to the As. I was so distracted by George's weird faces, shaking his head, mumbling what appeared to be 'unbelievable', etc. Cindy was also animated, telling George she didn't say that. Someone said she raised both hands to her head. To sum it up, total disregard for the rules of the court room.

While all the A antics were going on I lost track of what YM was saying. I had to rewind, cover GA/CA with another window then listen. The jury won't have that luxury. We only have to look at their behavior when the camera guy decides to zoom in on them. The poor jurors will have to put up with that during the whole trial unless JP applies the law and says they can't come when they're not testifying because they are witnesses -or- kicks them out for disrupting a court of law.

IMO

A case backs this up. the defense was playing fast and lose with Kathy's mother being a witness. Kathy only lived a 1/2 mile from home. She enjoyed a fourth of July picnic with her family eating crabs her last day on this earh. She didn't show up for work so the office called her sister. The sister called the apartment manager for the key and she went in with the first responders and saw what no person should ever see. I don't believe Kathy's mother was a witness because she didn't have anything to give them. A stranger stalked, killed, raped, and performed pererted acts on Kathy. The defense wanted the grieving mother out of the courtroom so the jury could not see tha pain their client caused. IMO

Barring Of Victim's Mother From Murder Trial Draws Fire


Advocate Group Calls Defense's Move An Unethical Act


April 07, 1991|By Jackie Powder | Jackie Powder,Staff writer
A county judge last week barred from a murder trial the mother of the victim, prompting victims rights advocates to charge that the step was unethical.
At the defense's request, Judge Raymond J. Kane Jr.barred Margaret Gouldin last Monday from attending the trial of Vernon Lee Clark, the 35-year old Elkridge laborer charged with the July 3, 1989 murder and sexual assault of Kathleen Gouldin.
Clark's public defender, Barbara Kreinar, requested that Gouldin be removed from the courtroom because the defense may call her as a witness. All witnesses in the trial are under a sequestration order.

IMO

 

[jennyb]

The news thread today said that their attorney, Kelly, stated this.

Haven't read the article yet but my recollection is that the A's went to Kelly for advice and he recommended someone, based on the story they told him and obit torn from the newspaper.

Admittedly my memory is hazy but I don't think Mr. Kelly knows if they followed through or not.

Again IIRC, the A's may have given LE an attorney's name (not PK's) but the attorney denied ever meeting with them.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Obviously when CA and GA went to do the papers for them to get custody of Caylee if something happened to KC they were faced with the dilemma of having the biological father sign the papers. Papers were never filed, ironically but the A's claim the father signed them but then died in an accident before they could file...(oopps, there goes that hinkey meter again).

ETD: Sorry I reread that article in the news thread and the A's were trying to get the father to sign over his parental rights to KC. He supposedly signed and then died in an accident. Still sounds hinky to me.

I was upset when I read that article because I thought I remembered that P Kelly had said he had nothing on this custody business. So I went searching and the best I can come up with right now is this: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2998942&postcount=527"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - New Docs Part 2[/ame]

Does anyone else remember this? I will see if I can find more. . .

 

[jennyb]

Well if they went to an attorney... what attorney?

Is there attorney-client privilege to the extent they can't even name his name?

I think it's bunk. PURE BUNK. With a capital "B".

ETA: Oh I see on another thread PK said HE drafted the docs for the father to sign. That's not the story I recall from way back. I thought he recommended a different attorney for the A's to consult. Whatev!!!!

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Here's what George originally had to say about their dealings with Paul Kelly:

"GA: As a matter of fact Paul Kelly, just to give you an insight on him. We’ve known him since 1990 I
believe. Somewhere around there. The only reason we know that because my wife used to work for
the Jewett Orthopedic Clinic. Paul came in with something on his foot. I don’t know if it was some kind
of infection or what. She got to know him. A few months after knowing him he shows up at our house
one night. I got a little jealous. I’ll admit that completely. But he was here to purchase one of our
Cocker Spaniels that we had a litter. That’s how the thing started with this guy. He’s helped me with
some worker’s comp things, I’ve got some knee issues and some other things that I’ve gotten injured.
Paul has been there for us. He’s been a confidant, a friend. But he’s never handled any other legal stuff
except worker’s comp for us; that’s it. My wife and I when we separated back in 2005 because of issues
with my daughter, some financial things we were going through. It was really tough. And I had to go
down to South Florida because I, I couldn’t take it no more. I said, “That’s it. I’m not running away but I
got to get out of here before something really stupid…"

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/interviews/ganthony072408.pdf

 

[cherishtoo]

I was upset when I read that article because I thought I remembered that P Kelly had said he had nothing on this custody business. So I went searching and the best I can come up with right now is this: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - New Docs Part 2

Does anyone else remember this? I will see if I can find more. . .

I found it. Thank you!!!!!!

see footnote at bottom of page

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photo...setone/1/lg/Anthony_pgs_2271-2320_Page_32.htm

I spoke with attorney Paul Kelly who claims he has no file created for this request and had no further information on who "Eric" was.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I found it. Thank you!!!!!!

see footnote at bottom of page

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photo...setone/1/lg/Anthony_pgs_2271-2320_Page_32.htm

Most excellent! Thanks.

 

[jennyb]

Here's what George originally had to say about their dealings with Paul Kelly:

"GA: As a matter of fact Paul Kelly, just to give you an insight on him. We’ve known him since 1990 I
believe. Somewhere around there. The only reason we know that because my wife used to work for
the Jewett Orthopedic Clinic. Paul came in with something on his foot. I don’t know if it was some kind
of infection or what. She got to know him. A few months after knowing him he shows up at our house
one night. I got a little jealous. I’ll admit that completely. But he was here to purchase one of our
Cocker Spaniels that we had a litter. That’s how the thing started with this guy. He’s helped me with
some worker’s comp things, I’ve got some knee issues and some other things that I’ve gotten injured.
Paul has been there for us. He’s been a confidant, a friend. But he’s never handled any other legal stuff
except worker’s comp for us; that’s it. My wife and I when we separated back in 2005 because of issues
with my daughter, some financial things we were going through. It was really tough. And I had to go
down to South Florida because I, I couldn’t take it no more. I said, “That’s it. I’m not running away but I
got to get out of here before something really stupid…"

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/interviews/ganthony072408.pdf

Exactly. Thank you.

And I love this example of TMI which the whole family does continually:

"Paul came in with something on his foot. I don’t know if it was some kind
of infection or what."

I mean, is this really necessary? Do we need to know he might've had an INFECTION on his foot? GMAB.

 

[jennyb]

Anyone remember those pics of Cindy and P Kelly gazing into each other's eyes like something right off a cheesy Harlequin novel cover? This could be a great time to take another look. Just sayin'.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Exactly. Thank you.

And I love this example of TMI which the whole family does continually:

"Paul came in with something on his foot. I don’t know if it was some kind
of infection or what."

I mean, is this really necessary? Do we need to know he might've had an INFECTION on his foot? GMAB.

LOL, . . . and that George was jealous! I hope we get to see him during the trial as my curiosity is certainly whetted.

 

[jennyb]

LOL, . . . and that George was jealous! I hope we get to see him during the trial as my curiosity is certainly whetted.

LOL GA was jealous because some guy with a foot infection came around to buy a dog?

 

[pip]

Anyone remember those pics of Cindy and P Kelly gazing into each other's eyes like something right off a cheesy Harlequin novel cover? This could be a great time to take another look. Just sayin'.

Yep...i saw it, YUK. Funny too that in an interview with the SA back in July she says an attorney that George knows drew up the legal papers for guardianship of Caylee (to eliminate the father from the picture.) Yet she says she doesn't know his name, has it at home, 'you'll have to ask George'...haha... they look pretty 'close' there if you ask me.. something tells me she knows his name LOL.

Added Link: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21310276/detail.html

it's towards the very end when JA jumps in to ask some questions.

 

[Leila]

When George was lying ad nauseum at the Morgan lawfirm during his deposition; FINALLY, his statements to LE were brought to his attention (towards the end of the depositon) and he admitted he had said certain things. This is why I want them there and they are going to be directly questioned and their prior testimony to detectives will be scrutinized.

LDB basically proves CA was lying regarding Yuri's questioning and his being "intimidating". LDB asks CA if she knew it was recorded and CA says no.

This is the kind of thing I want to see brought out -so I want them in the courtroom; On the stand they will have to tell the truth because LDB will make sure they do. She has the proof.

So far, in their interviews with LKL and all the rest, they have lied and were not brought to task because they stations all wanted the interviews. No so with LDB, she wants the truth.

In all the media interviews George and Cindy have done, they've lied and no one has confronted them on their lies. Geoge and Cindy smugly believe they've pulled the wool over the eyes of the public.

When it comes to the trial, both George and Cindy will be asked direct questions and won't be allowed to elaborate with a long story that goes far afield of the question asked. If they answer the question differently than they've answered the same question in depositions or LE interviews, that will be brought to their attention. The state will show a transcript of what they had previously stated and will be pinning them down to a truthful answer.

I have confidence that after LDB or JA are through examining George and Cindy, their lies will be confronted and the truth will be known.

 

[fbinAR]

Don't comment much, usually just read. This may be a dumb question but I'm curious if anyone knows. The people who are witnesses must stay out until they are called to testify. Are the witnesses segregated in Defense wits and Pros wits into rooms, or just on benches in the hall? Seems there would be some tenseness between witnesses and some intimidation tactics going on if they are all kept in one place. The only trial I have been involved in as a witness was a minor one and the witnesses just sat outside on a bench till called. I remember some tenseness and awkward moments. Just wondering if some of you have more insight than I do. TIA

 

[fbinAR]

Sorry if that question was off topic for this thread. But since we were talking about G&C staying out hope it was ok.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I just would like for everyone to think about this for one moment...

We need to remember that this trial is about Casey Marie Anthony murdering Caylee Marie Anthony. Not Cindy Anthony... Not George Anthony. I think it is extremely unfair to Caylee for a jury to be distracted by the Anthony's behavior... I believe 100% that the jury is going to know all they need to know about Cindy and George Anthony from their testimony on that stand. They don't need the added drama that the Anthony's bring to the courtroom as spectators. We don't need them to be distracted by the Anthony's during what could be important testimony by other witnesses. They also do not need to be unfairly influenced (negative or positive) by the Anthony's reaction to testimony given by other witnesses.

It is also extremely unfair to other witnesses. I watched George Anthony staring Yuri Melich down as he gave his testimony (day 2 I believe). I think he truely believed that his presense in that courtroom would be intimidating to Yuri Melich. Now, Yuri Melich is a seasoned detective... he isn't intimidated easily... but just look at that poor young deputy on the stand? He was a nervous wreck!! We all felt horrible for this young man... and he is a deputy!! Just imagine all of Casey's former friends? They are still all very young people in their early-mid 20's. Do you think that they could handle themselves as well as Yuri Melich on that stand as George's face gets red, Cindy throws her arms up in the air, both furiously shaking their heads? Think of that young deputy and then imagine how much harder it is going to be for Casey's former friends? They don't need to be distracted or intimidated by the Anthony's behavior while they are giving their testimony. They need to be calm and stay focused. I think that having George and Cindy in that courtroom will do nothing but make them nervous and unfocused. Questions to all of them about the parents of Casey Anthony are going to come up... it's a natural insitinct to look towards the people they are answering questions about. It will just be unfair.

I want the juries minds to be on Caylee. What Caylee went through. What Casey did to Caylee. Their focus needs to be on Casey in that courtroom. Her reactions, her behavior or non-behavior. Not Cindy's. Not George's.

Also, if you think that Cindy and George are going to sit in on the entire trial and listen to what Caylee went through... in the trunk of Casey's car... in the woods off Suburban Drive... I think you are going to be extremely disappointed. Cindy and George are not going to sit through any evidence that points directly to Casey murdering Caylee. They are not going to sit through evidence of what Caylee went through. They do not want to hear... they will not hear it... and they will again, turn their backs on Caylee by leaving that courtroom when the time comes for them to hear what happened to Caylee. They are not there for Caylee... they are not there to hear the truth about Caylee... they are there to cause distraction... to take the focus off of Caylee and put it on themselves. To take the focus off of Casey and put it on themselves.

It is my opinion that nothing good will come out of them being in that courtroom for the entire trial. Nothing.

Well I think they are woven into the whole mess and there's nothing that can be done about it. They are both criminals - that is a simple fact, verifiable by the various times they have lied under oath, threatened people, etc. As someone else pointed out, they are not just everyday parents. The jury should know enough about them to discount the lies in their testimony imo.