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

I agree, Cindy should have been prosecuted. Exactly, how many lies did she tell on the stand?

StrayKat said:

I agree, Cindy should have been prosecuted. Exactly, how many lies did she tell on the stand?

Click to expand...

Dunno. At that point we had lost count. She had been lying to LE for three years already....

This morning I watched a repeat of E!'s True Hollywood Story: Casey Anthony. I won't say "I'd forgotten how rotten she was", but I will say that it impacted just as much today, four years later, as it did the first day I heard Cindy Anthony speak. I am STILL in as much shock over her behavior as I was then. I don't know that it'll ever go away.

NavySubMom said:

re: the bolded,

Now I'm certainly not sticking up for CA, but how do we know this? She may very well be under psychiatric care, many people see a therapist along with a psychiatrist for decades, and with good reason. Some things take a long time to work through.

Unless there is inside information on this? For all I'm angry with CA for, I would never judge or pretend to know her mental condition at any time during this whole debacle, including through today. And who knows, she may actually be trying to get help? wishful thinking maybe, but I really hope she is seeing a psychiatrist and a therapist and is seeking professional help. Not holding my breath, but ........

Whether or not she can work, if she is on disability, would be up to her doctors, and if she is on disability for mental health reasons, you do have to have that diagnosis from a Psychiatrist or Medical Doctor, not just a therapist. And you have to be current in your treatment to stay on the disability.

Now, I'm the first one to be harsh on CA for many of her actions, what she knew, when she knew it, etc., but I can only speculate on why she did what she did, but I couldn't begin to say for a fact what her real mental condition is or was at any time.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Click to expand...

JMO
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree and the way I see CA is a person who doesn't think she needs help, just like her lovely Daughter. :banghead: I would be shocked if CA were getting therapy or seeing a shrink.

But what really burns my behind is the fact they just received $600,000.00 from dear Dr Phil, but she can still collect disability??? Isn't there a law against that?

We can grouse all we want but it was Lawson Lamar, the Florida DA, who made that decision not to charge her with perjury - she could argue distress at losing her GD and fear her DD would get the death penalty blah blah blah.

I sure wish we could get confirmation the Ant's actually received the sum we talked about. Lippman managed to stash it away very well if they really did get that amount. I want to know where it is or what they have done with it. :maddening:

This will all hopefully come out in the ZG trial in January.lease:

logicalgirl said:

We can grouse all we want but it was Lawson Lamar, the Florida DA, who made that decision not to charge her with perjury - she could argue distress at losing her GD and fear her DD would get the death penalty blah blah blah.

I sure wish we could get confirmation the Ant's actually received the sum we talked about. Lippman managed to stash it away very well if they really did get that amount. I want to know where it is or what they have done with it. :maddening:

This will all hopefully come out in the ZG trial in January.lease:

Click to expand...

Me too. I suppose if I don't want to work for a living I can set up a charitable fund and hide all the monies from the people who donate, without having to answer to anyone as to how I spent it.....?

MaryAnn said:

JMO
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree and the way I see CA is a person who doesn't think she needs help, just like her lovely Daughter. :banghead: I would be shocked if CA were getting therapy or seeing a shrink.

But what really burns my behind is the fact they just received $600,000.00 from dear Dr Phil, but she can still collect disability??? Isn't there a law against that?

Click to expand...

My whole point was the first poster indicated CA was not working and many think she is on disability for mental health issues, or definitely was at some point. Then it was stated she was not seeing a psychiatrist.

My point is simply that if she IS on disability for any kind of mental health issue, and at first I believe she did go on Short Term Disability which morphed into Long Term Disability from Gentiva, she HAD to be seeing a psychiatrist to give her the diagnosis, the Long Term Disability Insurance Company REQUIRES an MD to fill out the paperwork for the insurance company. Then, you HAVE to be current with your doctor/psychiatrist visits, you HAVE to stay under the care of a treating psychiatrist. For some LTD companies, you can only stay on a Mental Health Disability for 3 years, which would have since expired for CA. During that time, written records are requested from your doctor/psychiatrist every 3-6 or so months. Even if she then went on to government Social Security Disability, you HAVE to be seeing a psychiatrist. That is all I am stating. I know this for a fact.

You can't simply say, "I'm not able to come to work anymore for a mental health issue, so I want to go on Short Term/Long Term Disability." you also can't just say "I'm clinically depressed so I think I'm going to get on Social Security Disability." You HAVE to be seeing a psychiatrist who has to fill out gobs of paperwork, and you are required to continue to see a psychiatrist for the length of the disability. Some also require that you see a therapist in conjunction with the psychiatrist.

I was and am still responding to nothing more than the statement "CA is NOT..... or ...I doubt CA is seeing a Psychiatrist." If she is on any kind of disability, she IS seeing one.

IMO, MOO, etc.

ExpectingUnicorns said:

I must disagree that, IMO, Cindy's lies were not small, were many and had a huge impact on this shallow, lazy jury. IMO, the few credits given in this post for Cindy's actions is that they were all too little and too late! Not only do I find many of her actions suspicious but I question her motives as well.

Click to expand...

Ok what lies did Cindy tell that were so hugh that the jury found Casey innocent? I disagree that the jury was shallow and lazy. They had no proof of what caused Caylees death, they had no evidence that Casey was at the scene. What actions did Cindy do that were suspicious?

ZsaZsa said:

Dunno. At that point we had lost count. She had been lying to LE for three years already....

Click to expand...

The only lie I know of was the chloroform chlorophyll. Which made no sense to me because they would say it was because there was a decomposing body in the trunk and then next they would say Casey would use it to knock Caylee out so which one was it?

MaryAnn said:

JMO
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree and the way I see CA is a person who doesn't think she needs help, just like her lovely Daughter. :banghead: I would be shocked if CA were getting therapy or seeing a shrink.

But what really burns my behind is the fact they just received $600,000.00 from dear Dr Phil, but she can still collect disability??? Isn't there a law against that?

Click to expand...

So long as she reports it, it is not against the law. There are thousands of rich people getting Social Security do you think they should not get their benefits that they paid into the system?

legalmania said:

Ok what lies did Cindy tell that were so hugh that the jury found Casey innocent? I disagree that the jury was shallow and lazy. They had no proof of what caused Caylees death, they had no evidence that Casey was at the scene. What actions did Cindy do that were suspicious?

Click to expand...

First of all, Casey was not found "innocent." She was acquitted as being found not guilty. There's a big difference!

Cynthia Anthony swore before God and the court that she was the personal who searched those websites for chloroform. She did not. It was physically impossible for her to be at home using that computer as verified by her timecards, coworkers and computer activity at work. This is a lie, no possible way around it. And it's certainly a big one.

Her blatant lie opened the door for inattentive jurors to shift responsibility away from Casey.

The jury asked questions about their own comfort issues but never had any requests for clarification of complicated court issues or reviewed any of the extensive evidence that was at their disposal.

No evidence that Casey was at the scene? Not sure which scene you're referring to ~ the defense's fabricated pool drowning scene or the prosecution's discovery that Casey was the last person to be seen with Caylee. It doesn't really matter because in either case Casey, as Caylee's mother, was the primary caregiver for Caylee and responsible for her well being.

I thought it was wantonly suspicious when Cindy admitted that she purposefully gave LE the wrong hairbrush and that, had she thought about it, she should have given them the dogs' toothbrushes, too, instead of Caylee's.

I know the saying Blood is thicker than water is very true, at least in my own personal experience with others. However, both Casey and Caylee were blood to Cindy, with one big difference. Caylee was an innocent baby that Cindy was raising, where Casey was an evil, spiteful, thief, liar and baby killer.

At first I thought Cindy was just lying for Casey to save face because of all the attacks Cindy herself was getting, but later on it became clear to ME that Cindy wanted to see Casey get away with killing Caylee. I saw that smirk on Cindy's face after the verdict. I wanted to slap it right off her face too.

Casey is evil and so is Cindy, because Cindy helped make her that way by lying for her and making excuses for her. Cindy knew Casey was pregnant at her brother's wedding, but she was having fun trying to make people look like fools by denying it to their faces. Of course, Cindy only made herself look stupid, but in her mind, she and Casey had a secret that they could have some fun with at other people's expense. Cindy has known about Casey's problems with lying and thieving for a very long time and did nothing but make excuses for her.

I will never forget Cindy saying "Well, she only did it once" when talking about Casey stealing from Amy. So, apparently in Cindy's mind, it is ok to steal from someone as long as she only steal from them once?

legalmania said:

Ok what lies did Cindy tell that were so hugh that the jury found Casey innocent? I disagree that the jury was shallow and lazy. They had no proof of what caused Caylees death, they had no evidence that Casey was at the scene. What actions did Cindy do that were suspicious?

Click to expand...

BBM - sure they did. Caylee's dead body.

ExpectingUnicorns said:

First of all, Casey was not found "innocent." She was acquitted as being found not guilty. There's a big difference!

Cynthia Anthony swore before God and the court that she was the personal who searched those websites for chloroform. She did not. It was physically impossible for her to be at home using that computer as verified by her timecards, coworkers and computer activity at work. This is a lie, no possible way around it. And it's certainly a big one.

Her blatant lie opened the door for inattentive jurors to shift responsibility away from Casey.

The jury asked questions about their own comfort issues but never had any requests for clarification of complicated court issues or reviewed any of the extensive evidence that was at their disposal.

No evidence that Casey was at the scene? Not sure which scene you're referring to ~ the defense's fabricated pool drowning scene or the prosecution's discovery that Casey was the last person to be seen with Caylee. It doesn't really matter because in either case Casey, as Caylee's mother, was the primary caregiver for Caylee and responsible for her well being.

I thought it was wantonly suspicious when Cindy admitted that she purposefully gave LE the wrong hairbrush and that, had she thought about it, she should have given them the dogs' toothbrushes, too, instead of Caylee's.

Click to expand...

There really isn't that big of a difference between acquittal and innocent they both mean without guilt.

innocent
adj. without guilt (not guilty). Usually the plea which an accuse...acquittal
n. what an accused criminal defendant receives if he/she is found not guilty. It is a verdict (a judgment in a criminal case) of not guilty.

acquittal
n. what an accused criminal defendant receives if he/she is found not guilty. It is a verdict (a judgment in a criminal case) of not guilty.


The reality of it all is that the prosecution didn't feel it was a big enough lie or worth the money to go after Cindy for perjury.

Gnatcatcher said:

BBM - sure they did. Caylee's dead body.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately you need more than just a dead body. You need evidence putting Casey at the scene where Caylee was found, and there was none.
No dna or fingerprints on the duct tape.No toxic chemicals in her hair. She won her case but is living a very lonely a sheltered life. She will live the rest of her life in fear and will never have a moments peace. So even though she was found not guilty she is still in a so to speak jail.

Respectfully, as has been pointed out, acquittal does not mean the defendant is innocent. It means that the defendant was found NOT GUILTY; in other words, it means the charge against the defendant was not proven.

Acquittal
A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/acquittal-term.html

#1: The defendant is charged with a crime.

#2: The defendant enters a plea, either GUILTY, NOT GUILTY, or NOLO CONTENDERE ("no contest").
There is no plea of "Innocent."

#3: If the case proceeds to trial, it is the burden of the prosecution to use the allowable evidence and arguments to prove the charge to the deciding judge or jury. Note that some evidence is not allowed to be heard. Some questions are not allowed to be asked.

#4: If the prosecution succeeds in convincing the judge/jury, the defendant is found GUILTY. If they fail, the verdict is "NOT GUILTY." Defendants are not "found Innocent."
There is no "Innocent" verdict in our court system.


And don't forget, Casey Anthony is a CONVICTED FELON. She is not innocent, far from it. There is also IMO a great deal of solid and public proof that FCA has committed many other crimes for which she was never charged.

As for the charges related to Caylee's death, FCA has been judged "Not Guilty" in a court of law and cannot be retried for murder or the charges related to the murder. No court record states that Casey did not commit the crime(s). No court record indicates that she is "Innocent." And the vast majority (my estimate: over 90%) of people who have examined all of the discovery material in this case have come to the conclusion that she killed Caylee.

IMO, the acquittal means FCA got away with murdering her beautiful innocent daughter, with help from a number of people who have since benefited from the child's death and/or the case in some way, including her family, a whack jury, a smarmy attorney, and others who lack a moral compass or who placed their own political or personal agendas above justice for a murdered child. Period.

Back on topic>>> Yes, I do strongly believe there were clear grounds for charging Cindy with lying to LE and/or perjury on multiple occasions. IMO, it is clearly evident that she lied under oath to OCSO and FBI, lied in sworn depositions, and lied under oath on the stand. It's disgusting and unbearably sad; Grandma Cece turned her back on Caylee, IMO. This mama's lies began long, long ago, before we ever heard of the Anthonys. And no doubt the lies ("mistruths," whatever) continue to this day and will continue unabated for the foreseeable future. What a legacy.

JMO and apologies for responding to O/T bits.

legalmania said:

Unfortunately you need more than just a dead body. You need evidence putting Casey at the scene where Caylee was found, and there was none.
No dna or fingerprints on the duct tape.No toxic chemicals in her hair. She won her case but is living a very lonely a sheltered life. She will live the rest of her life in fear and will never have a moments peace. So even though she was found not guilty she is still in a so to speak jail.

Click to expand...

The DNA and fingerprints were washed away due to Caylee's dead body being swept under water for 6 months. How about the dead body in the back of Casey's abandoned car?
Oh man, why am I arguing this? It's beyond ridiculous.

Gnatcatcher;8186128]The DNA and fingerprints were washed away due to Caylee's dead body being swept under water for 6 months. How about the dead body in the back of Casey's abandoned car?
Oh man, why am I arguing this? It's beyond ridiculous.[/quote]

Especially because you don't have all your facts right. DNA was found however it did not belong to Casey. They found a dead body in the back of Casey' car? Or you mean a stain? Which also was found negative for blood.

Heather Seubert, who worked in the forensic DNA analysis unit at the FBI when she examined evidence in the case, testified that DNA on duct tape at the crime scene did not match Caylee or her mother or grandparents.

Brown and yellow areas were identified throughout as possible stains," Seubert said when speaking about testing done on stains from inside the trunk of Anthony's car. All stains tested were "negative for the presence of blood," Seubert told jurors.

legalmania said:

Unfortunately you need more than just a dead body. You need evidence putting Casey at the scene where Caylee was found, and there was none.
No dna or fingerprints on the duct tape.No toxic chemicals in her hair. She won her case but is living a very lonely a sheltered life. She will live the rest of her life in fear and will never have a moments peace. So even though she was found not guilty she is still in a so to speak jail.

Click to expand...

BBM
Her life isn't that different now than it was before she was arrested except now she doesn't have to take care of her precious little girl that she brutally murdered. FCA never worked and pretty much played on the computer all day and went out with Men. That's what she is doing now. Why do you feel bad for her?

I can't imagine the fear little Caylee felt while she was grasping for air trying to stay alive?

I can only HOPE that Casey is as miserable as you are saying, but I highly doubt it.

legalmania said:

So long as she reports it, it is not against the law. There are thousands of rich people getting Social Security do you think they should not get their benefits that they paid into the system?

Click to expand...

I was talking about SS Disability, not retirement money.

Why the change of heart? In your earlier posts while the trial was going on you seemed to think FCA was quilty? Just curious what made you change your mind?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6893612&postcount=244"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey[/ame]