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

[JBean]

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:

or maybe they are seriously looking to see if there was anything done improperly. But your point about how they may have been harmed is the real question,imo.

 

[elementary]

I just realised. This is a great way to take the focus off the Felon and back onto Cindy.

 

[JBean]

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.

Like you, I don't usually mention I am going to sue someone,I let the complaint do my talking for me. No point in showing my hand before I have to.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Guess this computer dude with Gentiva's denial of Cindy being the one home searching for chloroform are a combo in order to fight her possible law suit with Gentiva? Yes, It sounds Cindy to me. Beware food, street vendors in Orlando! xoxo

 

[3doglady]

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?

No one was implying that anyone other than KC made the searches so I think this is more garbage put out to the media. Lippman knows they have no basis. CA was the one trying to take credit for the searches which was proven to be a lie. It reminds me of Lippman telling the media that the A's were going to sue Brad C. BC was on HLN after that was announced and said he had heard about it through the news. BC represented the A's for a long time with little pay. You would think that Lippman would have had the professional courtesy to call him and say my clients aren't happy that you are talking to the media. Typical Anthony bull.

 

[Aedrys]

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!!!

EXACTLY!!!! God, I can hear it now, "Well, I wouldn't have had to per-I mean cover for Casey on the stand if that programmer hadn't lied about those searches!" How the heck else do they expect to win? She would HAVE to admit to lying on the stand because of this programmer to win anything. I don't even know any other basis they would have for suing. *headdesk*

Liars suing someone else for lying because it caused one of them to lie to save a liar. You can't make this stuff up! You just can't!

 

[Salem]

or maybe they are seriously looking to see if there was anything done improperly. But your point about how they may have been harmed is the real question,imo.

Even if something was done improperly, and given that SB appears to have retracted his statement because he had his dates wrong, it did not harm CA or GA. Even if the state acted improperly - it has nothing to do with G&C.

Interesting that their lawyer would say this... there has to be something, right?

 

[JBean]

Even if something was done improperly, and given that SB appears to have retracted his statement because he had his dates wrong, it did not harm CA or GA. Even if the state acted improperly - it has nothing to do with G&C.

Interesting that their lawyer would say this... there has to be something, right?

Most likely just blowing smoke. I don't think this is about the state acting improperly though?

 

[Salem]

Okay - it is time to look for more links to see if anyone else has more to add to this story

Salem

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

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 don't know about witnesses. I know JB can't be sued for his OS. The lawyers can pretty much say whatever they want in laying out a theory. JA said that in theory and ethically they are supposed to have evidence to back it up, but cases do change during trial so they are not required or held to showing evidence of a theory they put out.

 

[Salem]

Most likely just blowing smoke. I don't think this is about the state acting improperly though?

I don't think so. That has pretty much been laid to rest I believe.

 

[JBean]

Wait, CA didn't say she made 84 searches did she? Seems that whomever the searcher was it wouldn't really have much bearing on this proceeding would it; except the obvious being they didn't make 84 searches.

 

[JBean]

I am googling around and will link what I find regarding this topic in general, so not sure of the relevance just noting what I find:
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/ieee/ieee33.htm

 

[Etiana]

Oh good grief! :banghead: As Judge Perry would say "enough is enough". I'm actually sick of hearing about everyone suing everyone, especially the Anthony's suing this person and that person! I don't believe for a minute it's about clearing her name, it's about money!

 

[JBean]

Witness Immunity

Private parties must bring lawsuits under tort law or under specific statutes that provide remedies for the underlying harm. The leading United States Supreme Court case on witness immunity, Briscoe v. LaHue,[2] arose from a private action for deprivation of civil rights under a federal law.


from the link I provided

 

[KarmaGet'em]

Liars suing someone else for lying because it caused one of them to lie to save a liar. You can't make this stuff up! You just can't!

Well said - makes my head spin but I totally agree. :hypno::hoppingmad::hypno:

 

[Kat]

Have they filed suit yet?

IMHO CA (GA might be too but I think this is probably CA don't ask me why..i just do) likes to threaten lawsuits. Threaten haven't seen her follow though yet.

 

[Salem]

I found this: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/07/casey-anthony-george-cindy-and-wftv-send-messages.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+entertainment%2Ftv%2Ftvguy+%28TV+Guy%29

It says G&C will send messages to FCA through the media if she won't talk to them.

It may or may not be off topic. Do you think C&G are trying to send a message that FCA could potentially sue BS for the invalid search attempts?

 

[KarmaGet'em]

I am googling around and will link what I find regarding this topic in general, so not sure of the relevance just noting what I find:
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/ieee/ieee33.htm

Thank you for this.
The article says:

There are two parties concerned with the performance of experts: the party that hires the expert to testify and the opposing party. Their goals are at odds. The hiring party wants effective testimony as measured by a beneficial effect on the judge and jury, while the opposing party wants the expert discredited and the testimony stricken. Dissatisfaction by either party, without more, is not evidence of malpractice. As in other malpractice actions, it must be found that the expert performed below the standard for the profession he/she represents, and that this substandard behavior caused the party's injuries. Thus the party claiming malpractice must show both the standard for such experts and that, but for the expert's deviation from the standard, the party would have won. However, unlike other malpracticing professionals, the expert witness occupies a privileged place in the legal system.

I don't see anything in here that gives Cindy or George a right to sue. They are not either of the parties and they have not been injured. What a waste. Huge waste.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I just realised. This is a great way to take the focus off the Felon and back onto Cindy.

:rocker: I agree. Yep ... "jealousy" may be rearing its "ugly head" again ...

:waitasec: I really wish HLN would NOT give Mr. Lippmann any more air time.

Mr. Lippman has become the Anthony's "PR <modsnip>" -- and <modsnip> but there really is NO other word to describe what the A's have Mr. Lippman doing for them ... I hope he "wakes up" to their "shenanigans" !

It is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS to even "consider" suing the SA's computer "expert".

As usual ... it is just another "threat" from the "Don't Mess With the Anthony's" ... :loser:

:maddening::banghead::maddening: