Cindy Anthony subpoenaed to appear in court

[Riley1833]

Originally Posted by Amil

You are absolutely correct and I will not say anything to anyone. I guess I was just thinking out loud.

I agree...you would simply put a target on your back...but I would try to sit as close as possible and see if I could eavesdrop. I was also wondering if you ever do a drive by on Hopespring??

[Boots-OK]

Originally Posted by nyvictoria

Cindy will get on the stand and play the poor bereaved grandmother in an act worthy of an academy award. She'll probably throw in a little giggling and eyelash-batting at HHJP for good measure.

OR

She'll be tranquilized and barely conscious.

Either way, I predict Casey will have a hard time holding back the hatred for her mother. The officers may want to consider keeping the handcuffs on her that day.

JMO

BBM
I agree, NYV - also wondering if we may get to see a repeat of KC's previous tearful plea:

"Make them stop"
"Make them stop"

[joypath]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I think Ca is going to speak from experience. Her husband is former Le and when they are not responding, you need only apply pressure to get them to respond. IMO She is prolly going to say she said it to get them to respond and that is going to be the end of it. IMO The Judge will prolly rule for the state just the same and let the Jury listen to Ca's testimony. IMO The Judge will prolly let the jury decide whether Ca is being truthful or not. IMO Easy out for a Judge, but a huge responsibility for the state. IMO The jury may find Ca believable. IMO

Okay, I CAN'T let this post go unanswered on so many levels.
Cindy Anthony's experience as WHAT...the wife of a member of LE? Speaking as one such creature (mine is retired State homicide, highly decorated), extrapolating FACTS aka "Anthony mistruths" to "only apply pressure to get them to respond" to ANY division of LE is dancing on the edge of, if not falling into, illegal behavior, providing a false police report or as ICA is well aware, lying to LEO! Guess she never helped him study for promotional exams, you DO learn so much!
Now, if you're talking about CA's wifely experience vs actions toward HER husband, the "only apply pressure to get them to respond" just MIGHT be the only tool in her toolshed but not a universal axiom!
IF she makes the inane statement UNDER OATH that she was using the odor of a corpse to emphasize a need to Code 3, there will be some explaining to follow that better sound more rational than "hurry because I smell icky stuff" vs "hey you guys & gals with families and committed by oath to protect and serve, there's a missing, possibly kidnapped innocent almost 3 year old child in imminent danger"
Heck NO! Just 'cause CA says something, that isn't the end of it!

The jury should find CA very believable as a very upset, spontaneous utterer of the truth during that 911 call and may sit with mouths collectively catching flies as CA attempts to modify her extemporaneous 911 call with semi-scripted courtroom banter.

[LambChop]

Well said, Joypath. I have a question. If CA lies on the stand and SA catches her will they just use CA's deposition and present that to the jury. CA can't help KC now unless she does tell the truth. It must be hard for JB to think about presenting a case when he does not know how CA will respond to questions from SA. JB can't very well tell her to "Zip it" in court. jmo

[Mamabear1963]

Originally Posted by joypath

Okay, I CAN'T let this post go unanswered on so many levels.
Cindy Anthony's experience as WHAT...the wife of a member of LE? Speaking as one such creature (mine is retired State homicide, highly decorated), extrapolating FACTS aka "Anthony mistruths" to "only apply pressure to get them to respond" to ANY division of LE is dancing on the edge of, if not falling into, illegal behavior, providing a false police report or as ICA is well aware, lying to LEO! Guess she never helped him study for promotional exams, you DO learn so much!
Now, if you're talking about CA's wifely experience vs actions toward HER husband, the "only apply pressure to get them to respond" just MIGHT be the only tool in her toolshed but not a universal axiom!
IF she makes the inane statement UNDER OATH that she was using the odor of a corpse to emphasize a need to Code 3, there will be some explaining to follow that better sound more rational than "hurry because I smell icky stuff" vs "hey you guys & gals with families and committed by oath to protect and serve, there's a missing, possibly kidnapped innocent almost 3 year old child in imminent danger"
Heck NO! Just 'cause CA says something, that isn't the end of it!

The jury should find CA very believable as a very upset, spontaneous utterer of the truth during that 911 call and may sit with mouths collectively catching flies as CA attempts to modify her extemporaneous 911 call with semi-scripted courtroom banter.

BBM

First, I just wanted to say thank you Joypath!!! Thank you, Thank you!!!

I had another thought...I don't think CA in her panic could have thought about saying anything about a dead body in the car...just to get LE there...and if she wasn't panicked...then she has the issue of lying to LE as others have said.

Kudos to those who have listened to the tapes and videos again...I don't think I could.

5 more days...fa la la la

[ziggy]

I fell asleep last night during the third one BUT that second one is interesting. It is so impossible for Cindy to let anyone get a word in without her jumping in to confuse the issues. She's got personality disorders for sure.

I am very well acquainted with a sociopath who does the same thing - our therapist called it "crazy making". They just insert useless confusing information to keep everyone from actually getting down to the brass tacks.

When confronted with all the lies and people who DO NOT EXIST information (after many attempts to get her to just shut up and listen) she does not react with any shock, sorrow, nothing. In fact - she attempts to jump in and explain at times. She is just not right.

Thank you for posting these interveiws again. Cindy is in for a frustrating fight. She has painted herself into a corner by starting out with "maybe that's why Casey fabricated this story" and then changing her story as the LEO tries to point out. She even admits there is no nanny, and her main suspect is Jesse. When confronted with the fact that Jesse does not have Caylee, she insists he knows who does. Cindy is as much a pathological liar as her daughter imo. She can't be wrong - (borderline personality); she sticks with a story to absurdity and then has no qualms about changing it and then sticking with that one.

When I come into contact with these types of people I RUN the other way and shut them out. She will continue to be a handful. Getting her to submit to making a point or answering a question in a straightforward manner will be next to impossible I don't care how skilled the prosecutors are.

Also, duh - just telling LE that your 2 year old was kidnapped is enough to get them there pronto. There was no need for her to elaborate about the car. Regardless, the state has many levels of getting the 911 introduced and excited utterance is only one arrow in their quiver. It will come in. Can't wait until Thursday...but my gut says it's not going to happen. Something will come up.

[Amil]

Originally Posted by Riley1833

I agree...you would simply put a target on your back...but I would try to sit as close as possible and see if I could eavesdrop. I was also wondering if you ever do a drive by on Hopespring??

Once. I was visiting the Memorial site and drove by the house. Lee's black car was in the driveway. I felt like vomiting. This was back in 2009 when the memorial site was highly decorated.

[Mamabear1963]

Originally Posted by ziggy

Also, duh - just telling LE that your 2 year old was kidnapped is enough to get them there pronto. There was no need for her to elaborate about the car. Regardless, the state has many levels of getting the 911 introduced and excited utterance is only one arrow in their quiver. It will come in. Can't wait until Thursday...but my gut says it's not going to happen. Something will come up.

respectfully snipped and BBM

no kidding

CA had NO idea the nationwide coverage she would end up having nor how that would impact her life.

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by essies

I agree with ohiogirl-but, man that would have to be one of the toughest gigs around right now!! Imagine being so close and not saying what was on your mind!! Or at least making some kind of remark about KC and her "boys"!! I admire your self control!!

You're so right. I don't think I could contain myself.

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by joypath

Okay, I CAN'T let this post go unanswered on so many levels.
Cindy Anthony's experience as WHAT...the wife of a member of LE? Speaking as one such creature (mine is retired State homicide, highly decorated), extrapolating FACTS aka "Anthony mistruths" to "only apply pressure to get them to respond" to ANY division of LE is dancing on the edge of, if not falling into, illegal behavior, providing a false police report or as ICA is well aware, lying to LEO! Guess she never helped him study for promotional exams, you DO learn so much!
Now, if you're talking about CA's wifely experience vs actions toward HER husband, the "only apply pressure to get them to respond" just MIGHT be the only tool in her toolshed but not a universal axiom!
IF she makes the inane statement UNDER OATH that she was using the odor of a corpse to emphasize a need to Code 3, there will be some explaining to follow that better sound more rational than "hurry because I smell icky stuff" vs "hey you guys & gals with families and committed by oath to protect and serve, there's a missing, possibly kidnapped innocent almost 3 year old child in imminent danger"
Heck NO! Just 'cause CA says something, that isn't the end of it!

The jury should find CA very believable as a very upset, spontaneous utterer of the truth during that 911 call and may sit with mouths collectively catching flies as CA attempts to modify her extemporaneous 911 call with semi-scripted courtroom banter.

Brilliant...simply brilliant!

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I think Ca is going to speak from experience. Her husband is former Le and when they are not responding, you need only apply pressure to get them to respond. IMO She is prolly going to say she said it to get them to respond and that is going to be the end of it. IMO The Judge will prolly rule for the state just the same and let the Jury listen to Ca's testimony. IMO The Judge will prolly let the jury decide whether Ca is being truthful or not. IMO Easy out for a Judge, but a huge responsibility for the state. IMO The jury may find Ca believable. IMO

Except in the third call...if I'm not mistaken...doesn't she say someone is there before the dead body comment? I'll have to go back and take another listen.

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by Amil

I am frequently close enough to say something to her at the hearings. I would like to say a few words that hit home, but have no idea what to say. Something to which there would be no reply. Not argumentative, just something true.Like "poor little Caylee".

"I'm here for Caylee."

[The World According]

Originally Posted by RR0004

"I'm here for Caylee."

Perfect.

[The World According]

Joypath, thank you for being here. I thoroughly enjoy your input.

[RainyGirl]

Originally Posted by joypath

Okay, I CAN'T let this post go unanswered on so many levels.
Cindy Anthony's experience as WHAT...the wife of a member of LE? Speaking as one such creature (mine is retired State homicide, highly decorated), extrapolating FACTS aka "Anthony mistruths" to "only apply pressure to get them to respond" to ANY division of LE is dancing on the edge of, if not falling into, illegal behavior, providing a false police report or as ICA is well aware, lying to LEO! Guess she never helped him study for promotional exams, you DO learn so much!
Now, if you're talking about CA's wifely experience vs actions toward HER husband, the "only apply pressure to get them to respond" just MIGHT be the only tool in her toolshed but not a universal axiom!
IF she makes the inane statement UNDER OATH that she was using the odor of a corpse to emphasize a need to Code 3, there will be some explaining to follow that better sound more rational than "hurry because I smell icky stuff" vs "hey you guys & gals with families and committed by oath to protect and serve, there's a missing, possibly kidnapped innocent almost 3 year old child in imminent danger"
Heck NO! Just 'cause CA says something, that isn't the end of it!

The jury should find CA very believable as a very upset, spontaneous utterer of the truth during that 911 call and may sit with mouths collectively catching flies as CA attempts to modify her extemporaneous 911 call with semi-scripted courtroom banter.

(((bump)))

I hope EVERYONE reads this!
Respectfully, NTS---this includes you, too.

[LolaMoon08]

Originally Posted by The World According

Perfect. All of you should wear your own t-shirts that say just exactly that in court.

That is a wonderful idea.

[miss plum]

'Justice for Caylee, not just ice.'

[LolaMoon08]

Originally Posted by miss plum

'Justice for Caylee, not just ice.'

How about "Justice for Caylee Marie: no mis-truths or half-truths included."

[Frigga]

Let me add to that LolaMoon... I'm here for Justice for Caylee and nothing but the truth, the WHOLE truth, no mistruths or halftruths will do- the whole truth- so help me God!!!!!

[Macushla]

A clarification if you please. I know Cindy being subpoenaed to testify on the 15th in regards to the 911 calls. But isn't this hearing also supposed to deal with the motions regarding TES and the searchers? I admit to being confused at this point about whether this hearing is going to cover both issues or is now just going to be about the 911 calls.

[beach]

Originally Posted by Macushla

A clarification if you please. I know Cindy being subpoenaed to testify on the 15th in regards to the 911 calls. But isn't this hearing also supposed to deal with the motions regarding TES and the searchers? I admit to being confused at this point about whether this hearing is going to cover both issues or is now just going to be about the 911 calls.

The hearing is set to cover both the admissibility of the 911 calls AND the motion to reconsider the TES ruling previously denied by Judge Strickland.

[Omachka]

Originally Posted by Macushla

A clarification if you please. I know Cindy being subpoenaed to testify on the 15th in regards to the 911 calls. But isn't this hearing also supposed to deal with the motions regarding TES and the searchers? I admit to being confused at this point about whether this hearing is going to cover both issues or is now just going to be about the 911 calls.

I could have totally misunderstood (happens way more than I like to admit) but I thought since Judge Perry took over they were going to have periodic hearings to cover any and all motions that came up since the last one. So, since both those motions came up since the last motion hearing, then they are both up on the 15th. If I'm wrong on that could someone please straighten me out? I hate being cornfused.

[beach]

Originally Posted by Omachka

I could have totally misunderstood (happens way more than I like to admit) but I thought since Judge Perry took over they were going to have periodic hearings to cover any and all motions that came up since the last one. So, since both those motions came up since the last motion hearing, then they are both up on the 15th. If I'm wrong on that could someone please straighten me out? I hate being cornfused.

July 15th was originally set to hear the TES motions. Later, the admissibility of the 911 calls was added to be heard on the 15th.

I would need to go review the exact times/dates when HHJP ordered these, but I post the entries on the calendar and I recall having to edit to add the admissibility of the 911 calls motion.


btw..an FYI - I have linked the calendar in my sig line for anyone who wants to check hearing dates/times and subject matter.

[ZsaZsa]

Originally Posted by RR0004

Except in the third call...if I'm not mistaken...doesn't she say someone is there before the dead body comment? I'll have to go back and take another listen.

No, the dispatcher is still talking to KC when someone says 'The officers are here'. CA reports the bad smell before they ever talk to a reluctant KC.

[beach]

This is what I have found so far -

Originally, TES was included in the defense's motion to reconsider the other prior rulings previously denied by Judge Strickland. However, Mark NeJame filed a Notice of Conflict. That motion was reset to be heard on July 15th, but I cannot find a link to the Order.

The defense filed a Reply to the SA's Response in re. the Admissibility of the 911 calls on 6/22. This all came up during the 6/21 status hearing and Cheney Mason spoke to the press after that hearing in re. the admissibility of the 911 calls. Anyway, IIRC, both the SA & defense agreed to add it to the motions hearing already scheduled for July 15th. Sorry, but I can't find a link to that Order either. I do recall HHJP ordering it that day (6/21) in open court, though.