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

[cityslick]

The last 14 pages is what I meant by that.

People are assuming (and they have the right to do so) that the Anthony's will misuse or get rich off of the donation made by Dr. Phil.
People have assumed (and they have the right to do so) that they recieved the money a long time ago.

False info has come out and reported by a shady "news" source.

All I am saying is that we do NOT know anything yet.

Until we have factual reporting, we will not know.

I said I would rather deal with facts.

JMO

This is the same thing of before the interview there were leaks (from which a whole thread was dedicated to) and then once the interview came the leak wasn't completely accurate.

 

[sleutherontheside]

The Foundation IRS form 990 from 2010

http://www.irs.gov/app/ePostcard/displayEPostcard.do;jsessionid=9WpkTybp1FyyRKbyFh51fvWqd7QsPjTxTB8CQckrXPW8zHv6H1Ms!2018834583?dispatchMethod=displayInfo&ePostcardId=1166052&ein=264418560&isDescending=false&ein1=&dispatchMethod=search&ein2=&state=All...&country=US&city=&nameSearchTypeAll=false&indexOfFirstRow=0&sortColumn=orgName&resultsPerPage=10&names=Caylee&nameSearchTypeStarts=false

And the one from 2009.

http://www.irs.gov/app/ePostcard/displayEPostcard.do;jsessionid=nrSNT8pcLNylvSk1LL2v1K1tRj2DsScnnySNjJkwTy54qFnT44b9!2018834583?dispatchMethod=displayInfo&ePostcardId=740082&ein=264418560&isDescending=false&ein1=&ein=264418560&ePostcardId=1166052&dispatchMethod=displayInfo&state=All...&ein2=&country=US&city=&nameSearchTypeAll=false&indexOfFirstRow=0&sortColumn=orgName&resultsPerPage=10&names=Caylee&nameSearchTypeStarts=false

Note the increase in revenue "no more than".

 

[NavySubMom]

The Foundation IRS form 990 from 2010

http://www.irs.gov/app/ePostcard/displayEPostcard.do;jsessionid=9WpkTybp1FyyRKbyFh51fvWqd7QsPjTxTB8CQckrXPW8zHv6H1Ms!2018834583?dispatchMethod=displayInfo&ePostcardId=1166052&ein=264418560&isDescending=false&ein1=&dispatchMethod=search&ein2=&state=All...&country=US&city=&nameSearchTypeAll=false&indexOfFirstRow=0&sortColumn=orgName&resultsPerPage=10&names=Caylee&nameSearchTypeStarts=false

And the one from 2009.

http://www.irs.gov/app/ePostcard/displayEPostcard.do;jsessionid=nrSNT8pcLNylvSk1LL2v1K1tRj2DsScnnySNjJkwTy54qFnT44b9!2018834583?dispatchMethod=displayInfo&ePostcardId=740082&ein=264418560&isDescending=false&ein1=&ein=264418560&ePostcardId=1166052&dispatchMethod=displayInfo&state=All...&ein2=&country=US&city=&nameSearchTypeAll=false&indexOfFirstRow=0&sortColumn=orgName&resultsPerPage=10&names=Caylee&nameSearchTypeStarts=false

Note the increase in revenue "no more than".

Great. Thanks. So not more than $25000 2009, not more than $50000 2010, that is a lot of money for not really doing anything, especially in 2010.

Wonder if there are specific $$ increments you have to use when reporting, or can you choose to use, say, not more than $500, not more than $1000, $10000, $45000, etc. That says alot IF you can choose your own $$ "not more than" increment.

I know they bought some bears to give to LE to give out to children, but what actual foundation WORK did they do to account for the rest of the $$ from this fund??

This is why I am skeptical (to say the least) about their new grandparents rights foundation (their 3rd foundation), this Caylee Marie Anthony foundation this was the 2nd one, there was another foundation, also). MOO.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[NavySubMom]

This is the same thing of before the interview there were leaks (from which a whole thread was dedicated to) and then once the interview came the leak wasn't completely accurate.

I have not based my assumption the A's have been paid on that article that said they received $500000 and a jeep.

My assumption the A's have received the "donation" from Phil is based on
(a) Phil said on Monday's interview he would be making a donation to the A's foundation when it was ready.
(b) On tuesday 9/14 I personally went to the cayleesfund website and saw that the DONATION button was working, and the foundation could accept donations on 9/14.
(c) Since Phil was making a donation when the foundation was ready for donations, and I personally saw the foundation was accepting donations, and the final interview aired this past Monday 9/19, I deduced the A's have been paid by now.

I have no idea if they have or have not been paid, and I don't think we will ever know until a financial reporting is made by their cayleesfund foundation.

kind of like circumstantial evidence, IMO.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I have not based my assumption the A's have been paid on that article that said they received $500000 and a jeep.

My assumption the A's have received the "donation" from Phil is based on
(a) Phil said on Monday's interview he would be making a donation to the A's foundation when it was ready.
(b) On tuesday 9/14 I personally went to the cayleesfund website and saw that the DONATION button was working, and the foundation could accept donations on 9/14.
(c) Since Phil was making a donation when the foundation was ready for donations, and I personally saw the foundation was accepting donations, and the final interview aired this past Monday 9/19, I deduced the A's have been paid by now.

I have no idea if they have or have not been paid, and I don't think we will ever know until a financial reporting is made by their cayleesfund foundation.

kind of like circumstantial evidence, IMO.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Some have said that Dr Phil has no reason to lie about this "donation" to Cayleesfund. So if we assume he is a man of his word, the "donation" has taken place by now. I could care less about the amount of this "donation". Anything over a token $1.00 is a disgrace to me. MOO.

 

[MarthaM]

First of all, The Examiner is not a reliable news source. It's like The Enquirer; once in a while they get something right, but more often it's just rumor and inuendo. So if that link is where the $500K figure is coming from, or info that a donation has already been made, I'd consider the source.

According to my notes, Dr Phil didn't say he was making a donation to the foundation when it was up and running or ready for donations. He said that he would be making a donation when it is licensed.

Is it licensed?

Just because there's a website and a 'donate' button doesn't equal 'licensed'.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

First of all, The Examiner is not a reliable news source. It's like The Enquirer; once in a while they get something right, but more often it's just rumor and inuendo. So if that link is where the $500K figure is coming from, or info that a donation has already been made, I'd consider the source.

According to my notes, Dr Phil didn't say he was making a donation to the foundation when it was up and running or ready for donations. He said that he would be making a donation when it is licensed.

Is it licensed?

Just because there's a website and a 'donate' button doesn't equal 'licensed'.

Good question. Can an unlicensed non-profit foundation accept donations?

 

[MarthaM]

Good question. Can an unlicensed non-profit foundation accept donations?

I don't know much about that part of it. When I looked at the Caylee's Fund site the other day, I didn't see the usual statement about it being a licensed 501(c) that you see on the sites of reputable charities. I think anybody can put a 'donate' button on a site, but that doesn't mean it's a licensed charity.

I think it was on the first thread about these interviews where I said that I thought Dr Phil specifically said he'd donate when it was licensed for a reason. He's not going to donate money, especially BIG money (if it even ends up being that) unless everything official is in place. He would have too much to lose otherwise.

 

[logicalgirl]

So how come we are still talking about the Anthony's and wasting our time with :waitasec: - when we could be talking about the Ethics Panel coming up (sidebar) or the new expenses hearing on the 28th with HHJP?

Wouldn't it at least be more interesting than :banghead: ?

 

[MarthaM]

So how come we are still talking about the Anthony's and wasting our time with :waitasec: - when we could be talking about the Ethics Panel coming up (sidebar) or the new expenses hearing on the 28th with HHJP?

Wouldn't it at least be more interesting than :banghead: ?

Probably because this is a thread about the Anthonys.

I think a thread about what was ethical/unethical in the handling and trying of this case (on all sides) would be interesting. I haven't paid any attention to the expenses/reimbursement thing, because I don't find that particularly interesting.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I don't know much about that part of it. When I looked at the Caylee's Fund site the other day, I didn't see the usual statement about it being a licensed 501(c) that you see on the sites of reputable charities. I think anybody can put a 'donate' button on a site, but that doesn't mean it's a licensed charity.

I think it was on the first thread about these interviews where I said that I thought Dr Phil specifically said he'd donate when it was licensed for a reason. He's not going to donate money, especially BIG money (if it even ends up being that) unless everything official is in place. He would have too much to lose otherwise.

So if Dr Phil donates big money to an unlicensed charity he could have much to lose, but if I donate a small amount I have nothing to lose? That doesn't seem fair.

 

[jon_burrows]

Great. Thanks. So not more than $25000 2009, not more than $50000 2010, that is a lot of money for not really doing anything, especially in 2010.

Wonder if there are specific $$ increments you have to use when reporting, or can you choose to use, say, not more than $500, not more than $1000, $10000, $45000, etc. That says alot IF you can choose your own $$ "not more than" increment.

I know they bought some bears to give to LE to give out to children, but what actual foundation WORK did they do to account for the rest of the $$ from this fund??

This is why I am skeptical (to say the least) about their new grandparents rights foundation (their 3rd foundation), this Caylee Marie Anthony foundation this was the 2nd one, there was another foundation, also). MOO.

IMO, MOO, etc.

BBM - I think the teddy bears were a promotional gimmick. There is no need to put the name of a murdered child along with their charity address unless they want more donations. It's creepy at best. Also, the teddy bear promotion site used to have more teddy bears.

Caylee Bear:
http://www.cayleemarieanthonyfounda.../.pond/P5100162.JPG.w560h800.jpg&target=_self

Promotional Bears:
http://www.ameripromo.com/-c-411_412...acacf30ed5b0c1

MOO

 

[MsMacGyver]

My observations from the interviews was there was a format. Certain subjects addressed such as the charges against GA. My general impression was that Dr. P was sympathetic towards the A's as grandparents that have experienced a great loss. I didn't get the impression that Dr. P was sympathic towards CA. I saw him trying to gently manipulate her into giving honest answers which she avoided. He at times would cut her off to turn to GA for the next question. He made a comment at one point about this question not deserving of an essay answer.

Dr. P..."Throughout the interview I have repeatdly called CA out on her seemingly endless string of excuses, denials and what I consider to be a polyanna perspective".

Dr. P..GA has been beat up in this thing something terrible, has it been hard to stand by him through this or have you done it because you've had no doubts about him?

CA...I've had no doubts about him. It's been difficult to watch him for the last 3 years, from being a strong man to a broken man overnight and still fighting everyday to keep him healthy and to keep our marriage together.

IMO...CA seems to think she is a martyr. GA is a grown man, her partner, but she always refers to him more like a child. They were both in this situation together but she only points out that she has taken care of GA and their marriage.

Dr. P..Do you think KC was the illness for generating some of these attacks, arguments against him, she had to at least be involved, right...with the lawyers & defense team.

CA...Yes and I think Joses original intent was to go after both LA & GA during the trial and I believe with all my heart that KC put a stop to him going after her brother. I think that watching KC during some of what JB was stating about her father, you could either take it that she was crying because it actually happened to her or you could take it that she was crying because she had to do this to her dad or her defense had to do this to her father.

IMO...this statement from CA goes right into JB is responsible for attacking GA and LA. FCA is responsible for putting a stop to LA's attach. CA also gives us an option that maybe this did happen to FCA. I thought CA knew this claim against GA was false but yet now says it could have happened?

I saw Dr. P choosing his words carefully so as to get an answer out of CA. I saw Dr. P allowing GA to speak his mind in a safe place ,at times cutting CA off to give GA a chance to speak for himself.

I don't know much about how the entertainment world works. Does Dr. P own his show and pedals it to networks or does the network own his show? Why are some speaking as if Dr. P donated his "own" money, did he or did the network actually make the donation?
I look at Dr. P as doing his job to support the lifestyle he and his family has grown used to. Tell me who wouldn't make concessions to keep their job? If your boss added cleaning toilets to your list of responsibilitys or lose your position, would you agree or quit?
I learned from these interviews from GA's body language that GA was open, his hands were often in the steeple position, his feet on the floor, his knees open. I could see his eyebrows raise in the center. CA, on the other hand was leaning towards GA, her legs crossed or her ankles crossed, one arm going across her body, one hand ontop of the other, her palms down. In the interview with her and Dr. P only, CA seemed red in the face, having to put a stop to her telling smile when asked if she perjured herself. When asked if FCA needs to take responsibility for what was done to GA & LA during the trial, she automatically goes to JB as the one who masterminded and executed the defense
as if FCA had no say in her own defense, no choice but to sit and let JB do his job...HOGWASH!
The A's foundations are public which means they are open to our watching eyes and I for one will be watching.
Listening to GA's speach, he comes off to me as a bit uneducated or not quite able to express his thoughts verbally very well. I can't see him as some mastermind. Dr. Drew at one point claimed to talk to GA's ex-wife who said, GA lied and wanted to quit LE, move to Florida and work for Disney as a character but said also he was a good person. That tells me GA might lie about things he does that he knows is wrong..ie: gambling, internet scams, being at Rivers house when he is suppose to be looking for a job, talking to River because she was listening, not interrupting or telling him what he should say or should feel. Basically a good guy, just immature, lazy, hen pecked, no backbone. Not someone that would have the guts to molest anyone or help dispose of his grandaughters body.
None of the people in this family lies well, they are all pretty transparent. They all lie, just in different degrees and for different reasons. I don't see any masterminds here!

 

[NavySubMom]

BBM - I think the teddy bears were a promotional gimmick. There is no need to put the name of a murdered child along with their charity address unless they want more donations. It's creepy at best. Also, the teddy bear promotion site used to have more teddy bears.

Caylee Bear:
http://www.cayleemarieanthonyfounda.../.pond/P5100162.JPG.w560h800.jpg&target=_self

Promotional Bears:
http://www.ameripromo.com/-c-411_412...acacf30ed5b0c1

MOO

thanks, don't remember seeing the actual Caylee bear.

So, the Caylee bear is a regular brown teddy bear with a Caylee t-shirt listing the foundation name??? WOW!! That took a lot of thought, don't you think?? quite original also, NOT...... what a waste of an idea, huge waste.....

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[MarthaM]

So if Dr Phil donates big money to an unlicensed charity he could have much to lose, but if I donate a small amount I have nothing to lose? That doesn't seem fair.

I don't know where you got that from what I said. Anybody has the potential to lose when they donate to an unlicensed 'charity' (or even a licensed one, for that matter); I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But if an average ordinary person donates a few bucks to such a place, not only is it unlikely anybody would know about it or care, but their career isn't going to be on the line.

 

[crimesnooper]

First of all, The Examiner is not a reliable news source. It's like The Enquirer; once in a while they get something right, but more often it's just rumor and inuendo. So if that link is where the $500K figure is coming from, or info that a donation has already been made, I'd consider the source.

According to my notes, Dr Phil didn't say he was making a donation to the foundation when it was up and running or ready for donations. He said that he would be making a donation when it is licensed.

Is it licensed?

Just because there's a website and a 'donate' button doesn't equal 'licensed'.

Non profits do not get "licensed". They recieve ( or don't) aprroval as a 501(c)3 as a charity from the federal government, paving the way for donations to be tax deductible.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

thanks, don't remember seeing the actual Caylee bear.

So, the Caylee bear is a regular brown teddy bear with a Caylee t-shirt listing the foundation name??? WOW!! That took a lot of thought, don't you think?? quite original also, NOT...... what a waste of an idea, huge waste.....

IMO, MOO, etc.

If it helps give children a little comfort during a traumatic time I think it is anything BUT a waste. Huge or otherwise.

 

[MarthaM]

Non profits do not get "licensed". They recieve ( or don't) aprroval as a 501(c)3 as a charity from the federal government, paving the way for donations to be tax deductible.

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.

 

[MsMacGyver]

We can see by whats going on with the Conrad Murray jury selection now. Forms sent out to the potential jurors. Today they will bring 27 jurors in at one time and they have 20 minutes to question theses people and determine who will be selected. The judge more concerned about staying on scedule than taking time to get a good jury. Looking for jurers with "common sense". The jury is only as good as the people involved with choosing them, the time taken to choose them, the care taken for their comfort during the trial, the quality of the prosecution and defense, the characters of the jury, their reasoning skills, if they possess the ability to read people and evidence, understand evidence. The jury IS the last line of defense for the truth and justice but yet the judge is more concerned with staying on scedule....sound familiar?

 

[MsMacGyver]

I woke up this morning fully expecting this thread to be closed. We were warned if we persist on beating dead horses, this thread will be closed...I'm just sayin...