Who believes that Cindy should be prosecuted for perjury? Or is it just me...?

I think she should be prosecuted but she won't be. I think her lies have helped to convict her child.

I don't feel she should. I completely understand why others feel differently, I understand that she has had an impact on getting justice for Caylee, however, I believe she has been through enough.

As I've stated before, she realizes she can't bring Caylee back and now she is trying desperately to save Casey. I can't say I wouldn't do the same, even if my daughter killed my granddaughter (note: I don't have grandchildren, my children are young). Nothing that happens to Casey will bring Caylee back, it must kill Cindy inside either way, whether Casey is in prison or at home, but with these charges, she stands to lose her only daughter to death and that's what she's trying to avoid.

My heart breaks for all of the Anthony's.

pinup said:

Hello; this is my first post here and, I must say, this is a fascinating forum!

I, like many others, don't understand Nancy Grace's reasoning (and the reasoning of a few others on this thread) that motherhood in and of itself is a mitigating circumstance for perjury.

Click to expand...

Then why not siblings, fathers, best friends? Either perjury is a crime or it is not lol. I was always bonded to my dad more than mom but, she gets the get out of jail free card?

I would like to see her charged with perjury, but I don't think she needs the 15 year sentence to understand what she did. By not charging her, it does let people know that lying under oath is okay if there the person giving testimony is conflicted. In my opinion, the family wasted too much of the investigator's time by interfering with the investigation. Time was wasted this past week with investigators having to track down work history and put another couple of people on the stand. Not only was the brush incident an attempt to withhold evidence, but Cindy did not tell investigator's about the missing Winnie the Pooh blanket and laundry bag until after Caylee was found ... and the only reason she provided that information was because she was about to be questioned about it. I'm looking forward to hearing what the Judge will do with Baez for wasting time too.

Quiche said:

What do they need her for? Is any of her testimony imperative? If she chose to cite the 5th, the questions in and of themselves would be telling... idk, she was up there a lot, but what honest testimony did she give that couldn't be sacrificed? :waitasec:

Click to expand...

Maybe I should have said, benefit from. I think it did make an impact for the prosecution to have Cindy there to talk about all the lies that Casey told her when she couldn't produce Caylee during the 31 days. They could get the nanny story in through the detectives but something would be missing from the story IMO if we didn't hear that Caylee was supposedly happily at the beach with the kidnapper nanny and Casey took care of the kidnapper nanny at the hospital (and how does the nanny pay her generosity back?) and how her story changed when confronted by her mom. It painted the picture of a fluent liar trying to cover things up for a period of time. If it was just the detectives being lied to it would be just a point in time and the defense could argue that she was being pressured in the investigative situation and that's why she lied. But her mom established that Casey had been lying a lot even when she wasn't an unmirandized suspect in a missing child case

The 911 call testimony was IMO pretty powerful as well, and she could supply some details about the household, Caylee's clothing, the items that were found with Caylee's remains. I think the prosecution needs some of that testimony to tie the items back to the Anthony household, particularly if the defense keeps throwing in Roy Kronk as having planted the body there. I suppose they could get George to say he recognizes those things as theirs but since the defense chose to blame him for framing Casey Cindy would be the better witness for that sort of thing.

IDK, I haven't followed the case from the beginning and I feel like there would have been holes if Cindy had not been testifying but maybe the state could have filled them with some other person saying something else. She is a problematic witness though as I wasn't sure if I could trust everything she says even before she was impeached.

I also do not understand using Cindy's grieving as an excuse for criminal behavior. Millions of people have had just as horrible things happen in their life and they did not commit crimes because of it, lying for your child only causes you to lose your credibility-but anyone who would lie must not care about that, IMHO. Cindy is a grieving grandma and I'll have to remember to use things that have happened to me in my life to lie and steal from people, it seems many will forgive me anything...

I am sorry, but I can't imagine anyone being so generous toward Cindy if it was they who she had tried to blame for murder or it was their child she had thrown under the bus. It was only by the grace of god she didn't succeed, not for lack of trying. IMHO.

And, to hear that making Cindy responsible for lying after putting her hand up in an oath-will somehow set Casey free or cause her to get away with the murder of Caylee-either shows how messed up our system is-or shows you just how dangerous allowing people to lie about something as serious as murder is.

ETA: When I think of Tim Miller and that last interview he gave about this case, where he seemed so beat down because of Cindy, and all because he dared to care about the "grieving grandma"...and Richard Grund who Cindy told "too bad your son is stupid enough to raise a child that isn't his" when confronted with the LIE she told saying that Jesse was Caylee's father. (Should I go on? No, it won't do any good)

:cow:

I haven't read any of this thread yet and may change my mind after I read other opinions.I'm wishy washy that way.
I do think CA should be charged,but only if it doesn't jeopardize a new trial on the off chance ICA wins an appeal. I trust the SA's and HHJP to make the right decision.
If you don't charge someone with so much public exposure ,then the law is not worth anything anymore.
She may have fudged on the dates but not on what she searched for . I think her entire testimony about the computers is perjury and she should be charged.

Donjeta said:

Maybe I should have said, benefit from. I think it did make an impact for the prosecution to have Cindy there to talk about all the lies that Casey told her when she couldn't produce Caylee during the 31 days. They could get the nanny story in through the detectives but something would be missing from the story IMO if we didn't hear that Caylee was supposedly happily at the beach with the kidnapper nanny and Casey took care of the kidnapper nanny at the hospital (and how does the nanny pay her generosity back?) and how her story changed when confronted by her mom. It painted the picture of a fluent liar trying to cover things up for a period of time. If it was just the detectives being lied to it would be just a point in time and the defense could argue that she was being pressured in the investigative situation and that's why she lied. But her mom established that Casey had been lying a lot even when she wasn't an unmirandized suspect in a missing child case

The 911 call testimony was IMO pretty powerful as well, and she could supply some details about the household, Caylee's clothing, the items that were found with Caylee's remains. I think the prosecution needs some of that testimony to tie the items back to the Anthony household, particularly if the defense keeps throwing in Roy Kronk as having planted the body there. I suppose they could get George to say he recognizes those things as theirs but since the defense chose to blame him for framing Casey Cindy would be the better witness for that sort of thing.

Click to expand...

And if she realizes that she is immune to perjury what if she gets up on appeals and says ,"Caylee drowned in the pool. I saw her body the morning of the 16th!" or "I saw the sliding door was opened and pool ladder placed on the pool and didn't think anything of it." My head has cleared from these meds and I remember now.

I have to wonder how many, of those who have stated that they'd lie if it were their child facing the DP and/or understand Cindy doing so, would be so understanding if the victim had been their own child who was horrifically murdered and the mother of the alleged killer standing trial lied for her son/daughter on the stand? I think not. Why is it more understandable and/or acceptable in this case? Just because Caylee (the murdered victim) was Cindy's (the liar's) grandchild and Casey (the alleged murderer) is her daughter? I can't help but think of Jessica Lundsford and how Couey's family member(s) lied for him, thereby obstructing justice. Is that forgivable? I think not! Forget about Cindy's lying for the purpose of saving Casey from the DP, what if her lies got Casey acquitted and Casey went free only to kill again somewhere down the road and the next time the victim was someone in your family - would you be as understanding then? JMO~

nomoresorrow said:

I have to wonder how many, of those who have stated that they'd lie if it were their child facing the DP and/or understand Cindy doing so, would be so understanding if the victim had been their own child who was horrifically murdered and the mother of the alleged killer standing trial lied for her son/daughter on the stand? I think not. Why is it more understandable and/or acceptable in this case? Just because Caylee (the murdered victim) was Cindy's (the liar's) grandchild and Casey (the alleged murderer) is her daughter? I can't help but think of Jessica Lundsford and how Couey's family member(s) lied for him, thereby obstructing justice. Is that forgivable? I think not! Forget about Cindy's lying for the purpose of saving Casey from the DP, what if her lies got Casey acquitted and Casey went free only to kill again somewhere down the road and the next time the victim was someone in your family - would you be as understanding then? JMO~

Click to expand...

Beautiful

leophoenix said:

And if she realizes that she is immune to perjury what if she gets up on appeals and says ,"Caylee drowned in the pool. I saw her body the morning of the 16th!" My head has cleared from these meds and I remember now.

Click to expand...

I think she'd get laughed out of court if she did that. Not gonna fly so no reason to worry IMO. She could try fudge something else in a minor way or maybe not... She now knows that they're able and willing to expose her as a liar and might be advised to be more careful in the future. I think she might memorize her earlier responses and avoid answering anything that she doesn't have a memorized and lawyer-approved response to.

Chiquita71 said:

I also do not understand using Cindy's grieving as an excuse for criminal behavior. Millions of people have had just as horrible things happen in their life and they did not commit crimes because of it, lying for your child only causes you to lose your credibility-but anyone who would lie must not care about that, IMHO. Cindy is a grieving grandma and I'll have to remember to use things that have happened to me in my life to lie and steal from people, it seems many will forgive me anything...

I am sorry, but I can't imagine anyone being so generous toward Cindy if it was they who she had tried to blame for murder or it was their child she had thrown under the bus. It was only by the grace of god she didn't succeed. IMHO.

And, to hear that making Cindy responsible for lying after putting her hand up in an oath-will somehow set Casey free or cause her to get away with the murder of Caylee-either shows how messed up our system is-or shows you just how dangerous allowing people to lie about something as serious as murder is.

:cow:

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you! I don't understand this "Leave Cindy alone, she's been through enough" mentality. What Cindy's been through is largely of her own making, and she's been lying ever since she made the 911 calls! If she wants to plea for Casey's life- her chance is to do that is at sentencing. I thought she stood up for Caylee during the trial, until she started lying again for her murderer.:banghead: That's NOT "unconditional" love, nor should it be. As other posters have stated, why have perjury laws if you're not going to enforce them??? Just because Cindy is a "grieving grandma" doesn't mean she is above the law!!!:razz:

nomoresorrow said:

I have to wonder how many, of those who have stated that they'd lie if it were their child facing the DP and/or understand Cindy doing so, would be so understanding if the victim had been their own child who was horrifically murdered and the mother of the alleged killer standing trial lied for her son/daughter on the stand? I think not. Why is it more understandable and/or acceptable in this case? Just because Caylee (the murdered victim) was Cindy's (the liar's) grandchild and Casey (the alleged murderer) is her daughter? I can't help but think of Jessica Lundsford and how Couey's family member(s) lied for him, thereby obstructing justice. Is that forgivable? I think not! Forget about Cindy's lying for the purpose of saving Casey from the DP, what if her lies got Casey acquitted and Casey went free only to kill again somewhere down the road and the next time the victim was someone in your family - would you be as understanding then? JMO~

Click to expand...

Jebus! nomoresorrow! :tyou:

I am not trying to be rude but how can you "not be rude" when you are saying you do not understand how people can say they would lie for a person who has murdered an innocent person. I want to "respect" the opinions of others but I cannot respect a person who would lie about such a thing.

What would we tell a child about Cindy Anthony? Would we tell children that what she has done is acceptable and even understandable because of her hurt and loss? Lets give that a try. Lets teach children this type of thing in school. And in church.

Are there any parents who have an issue with that? Sorry, sorry. I want everyone to like me all of the time, I do. That is why I don't lie(plus it is just wrong), and I don't steal or try to cover up for murder-so I can say I am a good person but now I feel like saying that being a criminal and a liar is some kind of bad act-is wrong? What planet am I on? :waitasec:

ETA: Are we trying to be good people here or are we all just out for ourselves. I did not get the memo that said, every man for himself. I was taught to be a good person. I thought I was not always a good person but now I guess I am a saint. :innocent:

Why shouldn't Cindy and Casey feel they are special, obviously some feel they are too.

:cow:

UdbCrzy2 said:

She should be prosecuted immediately! Just because the murderer is her family member and the victim a family member that does not give her the license to be an accomplice in covering up a murder.

Those who are sympathetic toward CA should ask themselves this, if the defendant were a serial killer would it still be okay for them to help hide evidence and testify falsely to prevent justice from being served?

I can understand Hose-A trying to defend ICA because that is his job, but anyone else should face the music at the end.

Click to expand...

BBM
Hose-A :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

rookie said:

Someone said it should be between Cindy and God.

She and George sat in court with a Bible in their laps, swore an oath to tell
the truth and then lied!

I'm surprised that bible didn't catch on fire.

Click to expand...

BBM. And IMO, that was all for show, only. I can't stand people who fake it like that. JMO.

smartsass said:

I don't feel she should. I completely understand why others feel differently, I understand that she has had an impact on getting justice for Caylee, however, I believe she has been through enough.

As I've stated before, she realizes she can't bring Caylee back and now she is trying desperately to save Casey. I can't say I wouldn't do the same, even if my daughter killed my granddaughter (note: I don't have grandchildren, my children are young). Nothing that happens to Casey will bring Caylee back, it must kill Cindy inside either way, whether Casey is in prison or at home, but with these charges, she stands to lose her only daughter to death and that's what she's trying to avoid.

My heart breaks for all of the Anthony's.

Click to expand...

I don't care if she has been through enough already. Her granddaughter was murdered and she could have influenced the Jury and the outcome of the trial of her murderer. Caylee deserves justice more than ICA deserves yet another person to make excuses for her actions..

Sistah Sleuth said:

Yes, I know Cindy is grieving grandparent and is also grieving the inevitable loss of her daughter which she tried to prevent by lying on the witness stand. However, Cindy's behavior, in my opinion, is indicative of why Caylee is deceased, people are camping outside the courtroom, George was near suicide and all of here at WS can't tear ourselves away from this trial along with many others across the nation. Cindy has never allowed Casey to suffer any consequences for her behavior and actions for she has been forever coddled. Cindy was well aware that Casey killed the baby--the unthinkable--and yet Cindy still protects her as she risks her own freedom. Is that love? Is that truly a demonstration of a mother's love? No. That is the ultimate demonstration of co-dependency. I don't say that Cindy should turn her back on her. Allowing your child to take responsibility and deal with consequences is in now way turning your back but instead it builds positive character. Casey's character sucks and so does Cindy's and she needs to suffer the consequences for her behavior and actions in this matter as well. She knew she was lying to the court and breaking the law and it did not matter to her. She was willing to take a chance and face prosecution so that's what should happen--and I think she should get the maximum sentence too.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

yes and anyone who lied

Chili Fries said:

I guess it depends on how airtight the evidence actually is. I definitely think she perjured herself and a prosecution on the charge should be looked into, but I thought the testimony given by the Gentiva people may have provided a little wiggle room. I thought her boss's testimony was more to the way things should work than how they actually did. And the guy detailing the activity on her computer didn't really go into the detail that would probably be needed for a trial focused on a perjury charge. There is also the issue of drive time, about 20 minutes from her house to work. Maybe there is something I'm missing from Cindy's testimony though that really proves she lied, I can't remember exactly what she testified to about being at work that day.

There is also the possibility she would plead guilty for probation or something. I kind of wondered if she would admit it to the state's attorney before the rebuttal witnesses but I guess that's too much to ask from an Anthony.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think you must have missed something, because the testimony very clearly proved that she lied. The Gentiva guy told how things work, that's true... but he ALSO told how things actually worked on the days in question. Then, the computer experts from the sheriff's office proved that Cindy had NEVER looked up "chlorophyll" on the days in question, like she said she did.

Kat said:

Well they can charge her but I don't see how it can be proven in a court of law.

I don't think the state's office wants to prosecute her to be honest. If they did they would have approached the situation differently rather than just calling experts back up to impeach her. Which they did.

My point was, by all means it appears she lied to the jury. Now, could they prosecute her for that? Sure they could. But, could they win a conviction. Nope. I don't think they could. I don't think they want to. JMHO

Click to expand...

Exactly. The lawyers on their thread have already explained why perjury is nearly impossible to prove. CA was asked about computer searches from three years ago. She gave erroneous answers.

But proving those answers were deliberately false and not just lapses of memory is another matter entirely. I don't care how many posters here "know" in their gut that she "lied."

Moreover, whatever harm she did was cured by the State in its rebuttal.

And to my knowledge, there is no evidence that CA and GA felt anything but unconditional love for the granddaughter. Haven't they suffered enough?

<modsnip>, people can be cruel!

crucibelle said:

Yes, I think you must have missed something, because the testimony very clearly proved that she lied. The Gentiva guy told how things work, that's true... but he ALSO told how things actually worked on the days in question. Then, the computer experts from the sheriff's office proved that Cindy had NEVER looked up "chlorophyll" on the days in question, like she said she did.

Click to expand...

That doesn't prove that she doesn't honestly believe she made that search three years ago on the days in question. An error is not the same as a lie.

(Do I think she lied? Sure. But proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is something else entirely.)