Cindy's Coworkers @ Gentiva

[spqr]

I think it is different now with the internet. A witness can look up their interview and read exactly what it is that they said at the time. I don't know a lot about witness practice, but do they practice with their witness before they go on the stand? I mean in particular this Charles C, will the state practice with him?

BBM...no more so than the defense will "practice" with their witnesses. That is just how the game is played. Neither side wants to be surprised at an answer to a question posed by the respective council.

Doesn't mean the witness will be persuaded to change an answer, but follow up questions or preemptive questions may need to be addressed to clarify a known answer.

 

[lauriej]

I think it is different now with the internet. A witness can look up their interview and read exactly what it is that they said at the time. I don't know a lot about witness practice, but do they practice with their witness before they go on the stand? I mean in particular this Charles C, will the state practice with him?

...why would a witness need "to practise"?

..you may not say the exact same thing years later--------but it's still going to be the truth, that's not going to change.

 

[lauriej]

marspiter:

"That is why I always thought the defenses biggest blunder in this entire thing was to not activate ICA's speedy trial rights. It takes time to build and investigate a case properly. A speedy trial is a huge advantage to the defense and could have also forced the SA to consider significantly lesser charges. Now imho ICA is looking at a choice between life and the needle because of that mistake. Which to me was brought on by ego and greed. "

...i always thought the same. and if the defense was REALLY on her side, they would have taken that plea deal back in ( sept. '08? ) ( i believe richard hornsby heard "talk" that it was for 8 years..)

..at the rate this is dragging out---------it may BE 8 years before it finally gets to trial!

..of course, with the plea--------she would have had to give up the body...( and there was that "darn duct tape over the face" that she would have had to explain.....( couldn't do that.)

..but, back to your point----------yep-------they should've done the "speedy trial" ( but that would have meant Baez would have had to actually BE working on the case--------as opposed to "working the camera".)

..now that the Judge has set the monthly 'status hearings'-----where baez and co. have to actually PROVE ...how far along they are...( and beg for $$'s for their indigent client whenever they run out..)

..oh baez--------i bet he smacks himself daily for not going with the "speedy trial" option.

 

[LinasK]

Oh I agree! I'm not saying that it's all speculation, but I do think that the way some felt has to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to evidence. For example the comments made about her believing Casey lies and what they thought about it, etc.

As for not leaving that day, I can see both sides to that. If she didn't think it was as serious as it was, then why would she just leave for the day? I know with some jobs you can't just leave and without knowing her history at work (maybe she called out a lot, or had a huge project, or her boss has been on her), she might have felt there was nothing she could do at the time and decided to just work. I'm sure if she knew how this was going to turn out, she wouldn't have gone back to work. I know my boss wouldn't just let some employees go home just because of an issue with the car. Again, JMO.

And again as I pointed out, a Home Health Agency is the kind of job you can just get up and leave. They often go out to patients homes and are NOT in the office. She was a Nurse Case Manager, she didn't have "projects".

Bessie- this sums it all up for me. The who knew what at the office is all subjective, b/c it came mostly through Cindy, she could present her home situation any way she wanted. The interesting parts of the coworkers statements are some of the facts you stated- CA did return to work. Coworkers did also see and speak to KC on days when she dropped Caylee off so KC could "go to work", KC was wearing a lanyard (like a work badge), yet we know she had no job.

Hearsay is irrelevant. The work situation is also irrelevant if someone wanted to fabricate something. The relevant testimony from the co-workers will be that Cindy told them the car smelled like a dead body!

 

[Leila]

marspiter:

"That is why I always thought the defenses biggest blunder in this entire thing was to not activate ICA's speedy trial rights. It takes time to build and investigate a case properly. A speedy trial is a huge advantage to the defense and could have also forced the SA to consider significantly lesser charges. Now imho ICA is looking at a choice between life and the needle because of that mistake. Which to me was brought on by ego and greed. "

...i always thought the same. and if the defense was REALLY on her side, they would have taken that plea deal back in ( sept. '08? ) ( i believe richard hornsby heard "talk" that it was for 8 years..)

..at the rate this is dragging out---------it may BE 8 years before it finally gets to trial!

..of course, with the plea--------she would have had to give up the body...( and there was that "darn duct tape over the face" that she would have had to explain.....( couldn't do that.)

..but, back to your point----------yep-------they should've done the "speedy trial" ( but that would have meant Baez would have had to actually BE working on the case--------as opposed to "working the camera".)

..now that the Judge has set the monthly 'status hearings'-----where baez and co. have to actually PROVE ...how far along they are...( and beg for $$'s for their indigent client whenever they run out..)

..oh baez--------i bet he smacks himself daily for not going with the "speedy trial" option.

This is one case in which the right to a speedy trial would have been a benefit to the defendant. If the rumor of a plea deal of 8 years is accurate, how can the defense weigh the difference between an 8-year prison term vs the death penalty?

I think JB has bungled this case from the beginning all because of his own self-interest. He wanted to be in the national media spotlight and thought this was going to be the case to build his career on. In the end, it may have just the opposite affect.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

This is one case in which the right to a speedy trial would have been a benefit to the defendant. If the rumor of a plea deal of 8 years is accurate, how can the defense weigh the difference between an 8-year prison term vs the death penalty?

I think JB has bungled this case from the beginning all because of his own self-interest. He wanted to be in the national media spotlight and thought this was going to be the case to build his career on. In the end, it may have just the opposite affect.

I agree. I think it will be interesting to watch the fall-out post trial and conviction here. Cindy is going to lash out in anger at everyone involved, and she's going to start spilling some very awkward details IMO.

 

[notthatsmart]

Could you be a little more detailed by what you refer to as "practice with their witness?"

Are you asking whether the prosecutor engages in mock testimony questions and answers with the intent on assisting the witness to state facts with particular wording? Not sure I am understanding what would need to be "practiced" when answering questions truthfully?

Unless you are referring to that "Raise your right hand" segment...when I have testified in court, no practice was necessary.

I got it right on the first try..... all three times!!! :woohoo:

Yeah I am not sure. I have only seen movies. lol I guess I mean to practice with them so they are prepared for cross. That does not mean to coach them in any way, but just so they know what they are up against. I think. lol

 

[notthatsmart]

Os is saying that Debbie P and Charles C were told by Ca that Ga told her it smelled like a dead body. IMO That is much different than what they said in their interviews.IMO I wonder if that was actually in the deposition or if The OS just made that up.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Os is saying that Debbie P and Charles C were told by Ca that Ga told her it smelled like a dead body. That is much different than what they said in their interviews. I wonder if that was actually in the deposition or if The OS just made that up.

I wonder about what their official depositions say, too. But in any case Cindy shouldn't have to rely on what George told her. After all, remember her famous comment she made in the elevator (that was actually cut short and didn't give an honest representation of what she said) that she was a "nurse of decomposition?" Nonetheless, she was in that comment trying to establish her own creditability about recognizing the smell of human decomposition. She would have no reason to rely on George's interpretation.

 

[notthatsmart]

Is Charles C recanting his statement of Ca telling him that the car smelled like a dead body was in it? Is he now saying that Ca told him that Ga said that? and is that now considered hearsay?

"Cindy Anthony discussed the smell of the car with both Debbie Polisano and Charles Crittenden and told them that George Anthony had said that the car smelled like a dead body had been in it," according to court records.

Polisano told Cindy Anthony to go home and suggested going to the police, but Cindy Anthony returned to her desk, according to the testimony. She was later ordered to leave work

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-911-calls-argument-20100618,0,1646148.story

According to this story, Ca tried to stay at work, supporting my theory that she never did take the smell of the car seriously, or it was consistent with kitchen garbage. IMO

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Is Charles C recanting his statement of Ca telling him that the car smelled like a dead body was in it? Is he now saying that Ca told him that Ga said that? and is that now considered hearsay?

"Cindy Anthony discussed the smell of the car with both Debbie Polisano and Charles Crittenden and told them that George Anthony had said that the car smelled like a dead body had been in it," according to court records.

Polisano told Cindy Anthony to go home and suggested going to the police, but Cindy Anthony returned to her desk, according to the testimony. She was later ordered to leave work

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-911-calls-argument-20100618,0,1646148.story

According to this story, Ca tried to stay at work, supporting my theory that she never did take the smell of the car seriously, or it was consistent with kitchen garbage. IMO

What reason would she have to tell the police the car smelled like a dead body? To make them come faster does not make any sense. She is in cover up mode.

 

[Insomnia Momma]

I recently had a VERY traumatic event occur in my family, I found out fast that how I should have reacted to the situation and how I did react didn't mesh well. Apparently I went into shock and did laundry and cleaned my house upon learning that my husband molested our daughter. I stayed in that state of shock for 36 hours before filing a police report and a protection order. People don't always react how you think you would. I know I didn't react how I thought I would have being in that situation.

I blame shock for CA returning to work, I think she was in shock and denial for the first couple of days and those are the times she was the most honest with investigators and everyone else. Since then it's been cover up mode IMO.

 

[The World According]

For Insomnia Momma:
. God bless you. We stand with you. We will pray for you. Get your best friend to come live with you for a while or your mom or sibling. All of our love and hugs...Julia
raying:raying:raying:
Jesus will carry you through this. He will carry your daughter through this too. Only He can help.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y4G0_sotB4[/ame]

 

[SkeeterWI]

I called my Postmaster and asked about this. He said any notice about registered or certified mail will be left in the mailbox. On the first day of delivery attempt of such mail, the mailman will come to your door and attempt to give you said mail and get your signature. If you do not answer your door the notice goes in the mailbox.

I've had delivery notices left on my door (sorry you were out when we tried to deliver this pkg, etc), but any notices from the mail go in the mailbox.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is Charles C recanting his statement of Ca telling him that the car smelled like a dead body was in it? Is he now saying that Ca told him that Ga said that? and is that now considered hearsay?

"Cindy Anthony discussed the smell of the car with both Debbie Polisano and Charles Crittenden and told them that George Anthony had said that the car smelled like a dead body had been in it," according to court records.

Polisano told Cindy Anthony to go home and suggested going to the police, but Cindy Anthony returned to her desk, according to the testimony. She was later ordered to leave work

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-911-calls-argument-20100618,0,1646148.story

According to this story, Ca tried to stay at work, supporting my theory that she never did take the smell of the car seriously, or it was consistent with kitchen garbage. IMO

I will wait for transcripts to see what the coworkers actually said in these depos. The OS has been wrong more times than I care to remember. :banghead: The coworkers could have said that CA told them the car smelled like a dead body AND that GA agreed with her...who knows...we need the transcripts.

The story about CA trying to stay at work has never changed--the coworkers said that in their LE interviews. IMO she was in a state of semi-shock in which she knew in the back of her head something horrible had happened but wanted to protect herself from actually learning what it was so she could delay her inevitable emotional breakdown.

As for the hearsay question:

Example 1--Charles C/Debbie P are testifying at trial. Can they say "Cindy told me at Gentiva that the car smelled like a dead body?" This is an out-of-court statement by Cindy and is being offered to prove the truth of the statement (i.e., that the car really did smell like a dead body). So it is inadmissible hearsay unless it falls within an exclusion or exception. One exclusion that would apply is if Cindy had already testified that the car DIDN'T smell like a dead body. Then the statement could come in to impeach her testimony.

Example 2--Charles C/Debbie P are testifying at trial. Can they say, "Cindy told me at Gentiva that George said that the car smelled like a dead body?" This is much more difficult to get in. Technically, if George testified that the car DIDN'T smell like a dead body, and then Cindy is asked "Didn't George tell you the car smelled like a dead body?" in an attempt to impeach GEORGE, and then Cindy is asked, "Well, didn't you tell your coworkers he said that?" in an attempt to impeach HER, then the coworkers' statements could come in. But I think the judge would not allow the hearsay/impeachment trail to go this far. There are other evidentiary rules he could use to cut things off before the jury loses track of what anyone is trying to prove. This is especially likely because the SA has a much much easier way to impeach George if he says the car didn't smell like a dead body--they can just play the prior statements he made to the contrary.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Is Charles C recanting his statement of Ca telling him that the car smelled like a dead body was in it? Is he now saying that Ca told him that Ga said that? and is that now considered hearsay?

"Cindy Anthony discussed the smell of the car with both Debbie Polisano and Charles Crittenden and told them that George Anthony had said that the car smelled like a dead body had been in it," according to court records.

Polisano told Cindy Anthony to go home and suggested going to the police, but Cindy Anthony returned to her desk, according to the testimony. She was later ordered to leave work

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-911-calls-argument-20100618,0,1646148.story

According to this story, Ca tried to stay at work, supporting my theory that she never did take the smell of the car seriously, or it was consistent with kitchen garbage. IMO

Of course, there is also that third option to consider as well.....

That Cindy simply chose to IGNORE the smell, as if it never existed and carry on...

You know, kinda like she approached Casey's pregnancy.....

Even though the "evidence" of a 7 month fetus was staring her in the face, and family members were commenting on Casey's impending motherhood, Cindy simply chose to IGNORE and then deny, deny deny....

After returning to work, commenting to co-workers who suggested she call LE, it appears she decided that if she just disregarded (IGNORE) what she smelt, it never existed....

In my opinion, Cindy is of the frame of mind that if she chooses to IGNORE, it no longer EXISTS.....

But whereas that "ignored" 7 month fetus eventually became a beautiful child, this smell will eventually become a conviction.

 

[RR0004]

Is Charles C recanting his statement of Ca telling him that the car smelled like a dead body was in it? Is he now saying that Ca told him that Ga said that? and is that now considered hearsay?

"Cindy Anthony discussed the smell of the car with both Debbie Polisano and Charles Crittenden and told them that George Anthony had said that the car smelled like a dead body had been in it," according to court records.

Polisano told Cindy Anthony to go home and suggested going to the police, but Cindy Anthony returned to her desk, according to the testimony. She was later ordered to leave work

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-911-calls-argument-20100618,0,1646148.story

According to this story, Ca tried to stay at work, supporting my theory that she never did take the smell of the car seriously, or it was consistent with kitchen garbage. IMO

Even I don't think...and pray...that Cindy would ever testify that it was garbage in the trunk of the car. She might as well stick the needle herself into Casey's arm. She'll lose all sympathy with the jury IMO.

 

[chefmom]

I will wait for transcripts to see what the coworkers actually said in these depos. The OS has been wrong more times than I care to remember. :banghead: The coworkers could have said that CA told them the car smelled like a dead body AND that GA agreed with her...who knows...we need the transcripts.

The story about CA trying to stay at work has never changed--the coworkers said that in their LE interviews. IMO she was in a state of semi-shock in which she knew in the back of her head something horrible had happened but wanted to protect herself from actually learning what it was so she could delay her inevitable emotional breakdown.

As for the hearsay question:

Example 1--Charles C/Debbie P are testifying at trial. Can they say "Cindy told me at Gentiva that the car smelled like a dead body?" This is an out-of-court statement by Cindy and is being offered to prove the truth of the statement (i.e., that the car really did smell like a dead body). So it is inadmissible hearsay unless it falls within an exclusion or exception. One exclusion that would apply is if Cindy had already testified that the car DIDN'T smell like a dead body. Then the statement could come in to impeach her testimony.

Example 2--Charles C/Debbie P are testifying at trial. Can they say, "Cindy told me at Gentiva that George said that the car smelled like a dead body?" This is much more difficult to get in. Technically, if George testified that the car DIDN'T smell like a dead body, and then Cindy is asked "Didn't George tell you the car smelled like a dead body?" in an attempt to impeach GEORGE, and then Cindy is asked, "Well, didn't you tell your coworkers he said that?" in an attempt to impeach HER, then the coworkers' statements could come in. But I think the judge would not allow the hearsay/impeachment trail to go this far. There are other evidentiary rules he could use to cut things off before the jury loses track of what anyone is trying to prove. This is especially likely because the SA has a much much easier way to impeach George if he says the car didn't smell like a dead body--they can just play the prior statements he made to the contrary.

I had to testify in a court case once. A family that we saw frequently due to our children playing sports together, daughters spending the night together, etc. The mother had told me about incidents of physical abuse after I had questioned her version of a broken ankle. The story she told made it seem like a playful event, but the truth was an angry temper taken out on her. I asked if he ever went after the children and she emphatically said no, she would kill him, etc., etc.. My children were no longer allowed over there after that, and about 4 months later I was receiving a visit from a LEO who was investigating the claims that this man had molested his daughters. The only info I had was what the wife told me about the physical abuse towards her, and my testimony was allowed at trial. (This "mother" was siding with the father against the girls. :sick I know that the defence attorney fought to keep me from testifying, saying it was hearsay, but I was allowed to. Do not know why, but was glad I could. He went to prison.

 

[notthatsmart]

Even I don't think...and pray...that Cindy would ever testify that it was garbage in the trunk of the car. She might as well stick the needle herself into Casey's arm. She'll lose all sympathy with the jury IMO.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion here. I think she will indeed say it was the garbage. IMO Afterall, they found garbage, they did not find a body. IMO
Makes sense to me and it had to be a horrible horrible smell with magots all over it. IMO Ever smelled a real rotten egg? I ran the frying pan out back and threw it as far as I could, then threw up several times. It was very very bad. IMO And so yes, garbage can be unbearable. IMO

See to me, the fact that there was a kitchen garbage bag full in that trunk is strong evidence that the smell came from that bag. I can see it, so therefore it is likely that it is that. IMO

With further review of the trunk evidence, there is only trace evidence found and that trace evidence is questionable. IMO There is no body found, so I come to the conclusion that it is the garbage that smelled horrific. IMO

Also, with further review, it appears to me that only one coworker claims that Ca said it smelled like a dead body, the other coworkers did not. IMO It got legs as a story, but once the docs come out and we actually read them, Ca did not tell a bunch of other people about it. She allegedly told one. IMO

I can't wait to see these new depositions to see if anyone changed their story. thanks

 

[Nore]

A dead body does NOT smell like garbage.Garbage does NOT smell like a dead body.I do not remember garbage being listed as in the bag.Trash yes.Trash is not garbage.The guy had a garbage disposal.:banghead:



Ps. phone a Funeral Director or a garbage collector.Who better to know.