Lippman says Cindy & George may sue John Bradley re 84 searches

[Schu7]

We here knew full well the State of Florida should have charged Cindy with perjury. Maybe, just maybe there is still time for a perjury change. IF this case comes to court here.

HERE IS HOPING!!!

 

[JBean]

We here knew full well the State of Florida should have charged Cindy with perjury. Maybe, just maybe there is still time for a perjury change. IF this case comes to court here.

HERE IS HOPING!!!

Trying to follow. Are you thinking that if the case materializes then it could cause CA to ultimately get charged with perjury? I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Schu7]

Trying to follow. Are you thinking that if the case materializes then it could cause CA to ultimately get charged with perjury? I am not sure what you mean.

The validity of Cindy making the searches as a wronged party is the issue here. Thus her lying would have to be brought out in a court proceeding. And then a perjury charge could be brought against Cindy at last!!!

 

[KarmaGet'em]

Wow. Just wow. They are thinking about suing Mr. Bradley about 84 visits vs 1 visit? It doesn't change the fact that Cindy perjured herself on the witness stand. It doesn't change the fact the their daughter searched "how to make chloroform" on the computer. Cindy should just STFU and lay low and be glad the state has decided not to charge her for perjury. Is it too late for them to change their mind?
Sorry, I am fuming mad. Oh, and they have nothing to go on with this lawsuit. What exactly are they victims of?
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[grandmaj]

Someone help me here. I thought there was protection for testifying in court. Or is it only for the Attorneys? I don't think a case like this can go anywhere.

 

[Caligram]

CA should be happy, she's got Caylee Marie all to herself now. She can keep her with her every minute of every day, around her neck. She failed to keep Caylee Marie safe from spitefulness. She failed Caylee Marie completely by not speaking the truth long ago. Even after it was too late to rescue this baby from the swamp critters, CA covered up for FCA. Is there gold running through their veins rather than blood. How can these people continue to squeeze every drop of blood money they can out of this tragedy. I hope the state of Florida begins investigating non-profit orgs with any ties to these people. All of them: CA, GA, LA and FCA. How low can one go?

 

[JBean]

Someone help me here. I thought there was protection for testifying in court. Or is it only for the Attorneys? I don't think a case like this can go anywhere.

I am wondering about this too grandma. If he is specifically testifying as an expert of sorts and he knew what he was saying was incorrect that could be problematic, but don;t think that was the case, do you?

 

[grandmaj]

It would be interesting to see exactly what Atty. Lippman would charge them with. I believe as Expert Witnesses they are protected by giving their opinion. We need a lawyer to weigh in. But I've never heard of a witness being sued for testimony before.

Has anyone else heard of this type of civil suit? Thanks.

 

[JBean]

The validity of Cindy making the searches as a wronged party is the issue here. Thus her lying would have to be brought out in a court proceeding. And then a perjury charge could be brought against Cindy at last!!!

That is an interesting angle. I am not sure I can get to a perjury charge being generated from this lawsuit, but certainly food for thought.

 

[Salem]

Wow - you guys move quick

I have not read the article yet - but my first thought is where do GA & CA get standing to sue the computer guy? They had nothing to do with the computer searches and it did not harm them. So where do they get "standing" to bring the suit?

Salem

 

[grandmaj]

I am wondering about this too grandma. If he is specifically testifying as an expert of sorts and he knew what he was saying was incorrect that could be problematic, but don;t think that was the case, do you?

No Bean. I don't think he did. I think there was a flaw in the program and he did the right thing by rerunning the report after tuning the program in. It is not good that it happened but I believe it was a technical glich.

 

[Schu7]

That is an interesting angle. I am not sure I can get to a perjury charge being generated from this lawsuit, but certainly food for thought.

Well if you get the State prosecutors office angry enough, I think the laws are there to make this happen. It would be a new judge, just for starters. And it is way past time for the laws to work for the people here, not just the Anthony's.

 

[MAMABEAR]

ONE WOULD THINK THAT THE LAWYERS IN ORLANDO WERE GITTIN RICH BUT FROM WHAT I KNOW AND HAVE SEEN NUN OVEM R GITTIN PAID FOR ALL THE TIME THEY BABYSIT WITH THE As---I WISHED IT WOULD ALL CALM DOWN SO THEY CAN ALL COME OUT OF HIDIN SO WE CAN SEE SOME REAL GOODIES. THEM HIDIN AINT NO SHOW.

IF THE MEDIA WOULD NOT SAY THEIR NAMES THEN THEY WOULD MARCH UP AND DOWN THE STREET LOOKIN FER ATTENTION.

 

[grandmaj]

Wow - you guys move quick

I have not read the article yet - but my first thought is where do GA & CA get standing to sue the computer guy? They had nothing to do with the computer searches and it did not harm them. So where do they get "standing" to bring the suit?

Salem

Excellent point. They were not on trial. Now I can understand that Cindy may be upset for being impeached about the computer search. But that was her making and not that of Bradly. So you make a good point. How were they damaged?

 

[beach]

No Bean. I don't think he did. I think there was a flaw in the program and he did the right thing by rerunning the report after tuning the program in. It is not good that it happened but I believe it was a technical glich.

This is exactly what the basis for their lawsuit has to be, because that is what it was. What I don't understand at all is how George or Cindy think they have standing to sue...:waitasec: They weren't harmed by this technical glitch in anyway. The whole thing is silly and it won't go anywhere, IMO.

 

[EmMomma]

I don't get this. At all. :banghead:

If this thing goes ANYWHERE, I'm afraid my already shaken faith in America's justice system will be nil.

I could understand better, I think, if she had been convicted.

 

[beach]

Wow - you guys move quick

I have not read the article yet - but my first thought is where do GA & CA get standing to sue the computer guy? They had nothing to do with the computer searches and it did not harm them. So where do they get "standing" to bring the suit?

Salem

GMTA!

:highfive:

 

[Just Jayla]

How is Cindy going to sue, when Mr. Bradley never indicated who was using the computer and the state indicated (and tried to get Cindy to indicate) that it was Casey using the computer, not Cindy?
And why do the Anthonys keep saying they are going to sue people and then they don't? I "sue" people at least once a month in my line of work, and when I say I'm going to, I do.

 

[Salem]

This is exactly what the basis for their lawsuit has to be, because that is what it was. What I don't understand at all is how George or Cindy think they have standing to sue...:waitasec: They weren't harmed by this technical glitch in anyway. The whole thing is silly and it won't go anywhere, IMO.

I agree - so why do you think Lippman is putting that out there? Just to keep the noise level up about how the "state" wronged FCA?

Oh my but these people are devious!!!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[com n sense]

Casey must be getting more attention then Cindy these days ( rolls eyes)
Watch it Anthonys, all these seeds you are planting are going to grow up & strangle you all.