Dr. Phil w/George and Cindy Anthony Air Date 9/13 and 9/14 2011 Thead # 2

[MissJames]

BBM: Thank You ! I was wondering WHO brought up Lee's name.

:waitasec: WHY in the world would Phil ask the Anthony's about the possibility of the "felon" babysitting for Lee -- IF and WHEN Lee were to have children ?

This is NOT a question for Cindy, or George to ANSWER ! Cindy and George should have told Phil that that is Lee's DECISION -- NOT their decision ...

Phil should KNOW better than to ask a question like that ...

MOO ...

I think he was just using the question as a barometer of how much they trusted Casey at this point ,not insinuating that it would be G and C's decision.
A similar question was asked of D. Sims . Kind of a ,put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Solace]

I am POSITIVE that meeting was called to see how much Cindy was willing to back up Casey's claims. I just know JB wanted her to say she suspected there was molestation or that there could have been molestation.
Maybe they even wanted her to throw George under the bus for the drowning scenario.
Cindy must not have been willing to go that far,but she ramped up her claims of the computer searches ,including parts that weren't even in her deposition. I bet she was the one who helped gather up those photos that were "proof" of a drowning.And didn't her dates about the ladder being up change?

Yup. absolutely agree. They wanted to see if they could get Cindy to back up the claims and they could not so they blasted away. Maybe Cindy did not let on that she would not back up the claims because KC did not get angry with Cindy until she saw her hug George in the courtroom after her initial testimony.

 

[MsMacGyver]

I am POSITIVE that meeting was called to see how much Cindy was willing to back up Casey's claims. I just know JB wanted her to say she suspected there was molestation or that there could have been molestation.
Maybe they even wanted her to throw George under the bus for the drowning scenario.
Cindy must not have been willing to go that far,but she ramped up her claims of the computer searches ,including parts that weren't even in her deposition. I bet she was the one who helped gather up those photos that were "proof" of a drowning.And didn't her dates about the ladder being up change?

I agree..What I thought was interesting is CA went alone. Then she went to Lee, and last but not least GA. Speaks volumes to me. It could tell me that Lee is the head of the household figure, might say GA has a temper and CA didn't want to tell him alone. I believe CA was told at this meeting what the defense OS was going to be.
Why did CA go to Lee first?

 

[MarthaM]

Oh I think they have had a long time now to sit back and reflect on what they 'thought' then and imo what they were hoodwinked into believing in the courtroom is not what they believe today. Will they ever admit they screwed up? I doubt it. Truth is brutal sometimes. Letting baby killers walk because they believed the smoke and mirrors is a hard thing to come to terms with.

I think most of them did watch the three day interview.

I sure hope they did.

IMO

It's hard to say whether the jurors would have watched or not. I would think most have stayed far away from anything trial-related; they lived and breathed the whole thing for weeks and probably have better things to do now than watch all the spin.

Regardless, I don't think they're seeing the same thing many viewers are when they watch, and I doubt they think they 'screwed up'. I thought they reached the right verdict in this trial, and I would have voted the same way had I been a juror, and I haven't changed my mind about that. The only thing I have more proof of now is that the Anthonys are one messed-up family, nothing else.

I have a question about this statement. I thought the DT can say what ever they want in their OS and not have to provide any evidence. If this is true then the state should have known there would be no evidence, yes?

Defense attorneys can't really say anything they want, but they can present possible scenarios that they say the evidence will fit. Sometimes neither side knows for sure whether it will or won't end up that way, since the trial unfolds gradually without knowing ahead of time exactly how the evidence will all come out.

I'm pretty sure the DT can't purposely state something in their OS that they know isn't true. I would think there is some sort of rule against purposely misleading the court but I'm not a lawyer. JA mentions they knew about the OS through discovery and perhaps even conversation with the DT.

I am not a lawyer, but I've heard this explained during other trials I've followed. As I understand it, the lawyers are allowed to set forth and argue any theory that is supported by the evidence. They have more leeway to propose a theory in their opening statement because the court doesn't know for sure how all the different evidence will come in and what the exact testimony will be, but less leeway to argue it again in their closing. If a defense attorney raises a possible scenario in his opening but it ends up that no evidence came in to support it after all, a judge might prevent him from arguing that again in his closing. I think cases based mostly on circumstantial evidence give more opportunities for alternate theories from the defense, just because there are more possible interpretations of the evidence than in a trial full of mostly direct evidence.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

IMO I think all lawyers (defense and state) will do anything and everything they can legally to make a witness look bad if it would support their case.

And that is part of what is wrong with our justice system imo.

Prosecutors are held to a much higher standard than defense attorneys so they know they can sling faux mud even though they have zilch to back it up. It should be a law that NO ONE can destroy another witness based on NO PROOF of the claims asserted. It is abhorrent behavior and those attorneys should be brought up on ethics charges.

If not more innocent people will continue to have their lives ruined just because the slimy defense team decides to put out lies against a star witness in order to get their guilty client off.

But thank goodness 99% of jurors know that allegations are just that and unless they are proved they are to be disregarded. This clueless jury threw away the meat of the case and kept the unsubstantiated garbage instead.

Until BOTH sides are held to the same high standard we will see more innocent lives destroyed.

IMO

 

[MsMacGyver]

I'm not sure about GA but I think it would be fair to say the felons target was her parents. I believe the felon staged the backyard, ladder on pool and back gate open. That set CA up to take the fall.
The squirrels under the car, my dad must have run over them meaning he was driving the car. The unique duct tape used on Caylee, SA missed this as a clear sign from the felon pointing to her dad as the killer. The molesation letters, minus her claims to JG. That was her trying to gain sympathy from Jesse so he would marry her + it's his baby when it wasn't.
Anyone believe the felon wouldn't have screamed molesation from the roof tops before all this took place. She wanted GA out because he didn't buy her stories, he was a threat.
I believe the felon convinced herself that her parents are the ones who truly killed Caylee, she was the one who did the deed but in her mind they forced her to do it by their actions.

Start thinking in terms of the felons mindset, premeditated, what clues did she leave for LE to implicate either GA or CA?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I agree..What I thought was interesting is CA went alone. Then she went to Lee, and last but not least GA. Speaks volumes to me. It could tell me that Lee is the head of the household figure, might say GA has a temper and CA didn't want to tell him alone. I believe CA was told at this meeting what the defense OS was going to be.
Why did CA go to Lee first?

Cindy knew without a shadow of a doubt George was not going to agree with what Baez was trying to sell Cindy. Yeah, she knew he would be madder than h8ll about it. She went to Lee so he could convince his dad that it was true, imo. It didnt work.

IMO

 

[IRule254]

well then, I guess since the body is merely a shell ...a shell that is ok to throw away like kitchen garbage...then Cindy will be more than happy to donate Caseys body to science when she dies so we can learn more about what is wrong with her brain ..maybe find that phantom tumor.

She is a loon.

 

[Solace]

Come on - we need the third day video - can anyone help. Pleeeeeeeeeese.

 

[MsMacGyver]

Is it possible the jurors saw these small clues left by the felon pointing towards GA & CA, is it possible she left enough evidence pointing away from her to cause the reasonable doubt, subconsciously?

The unique duct tape used on Caylee pointing towards.. GA
The staged scene in backyard, ladder up and back gate open..CA
The molesation..GA
The squirrels, my dad was driving the car..GA
Chloroform in trunk points towards the pool..CA..(never said the felon was smart)

 

[MsMacGyver]

Come on - we need the third day video - can anyone help. Pleeeeeeeeeese.

I've got it, what do you want to know?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Is it possible the jurors saw these small clues left by the felon pointing towards GA & CA, is it possible she left enough evidence pointing away from her to cause the reasonable doubt, subconsciously?

The unique duct tape used on Caylee pointing towards.. GA
The staged scene in backyard, ladder up and back gate open..CA
The molesation..GA
The squirrels, my dad was driving the car..GA
Chloroform in trunk points towards the pool..CA..(never said the felon was smart)

If they were arrested and charged with Caylee's death then maybe this is how she thought she would get their house. She would be rid of them and Caylee too.

IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Baez's statement today on The View - about who parties on a Monday night in Orlando - all FCA did was rent a video that night with Tony L.

That's right Baez - with a guy who did not want little Caylee in his adult oriented apartment - so FCA couldn't bring her.

Where exactly did TL say that he didn't want Caylee at his apartment?

 

[Solace]

I've got it, what do you want to know?

I want to see it. Youtube is now showing the entire first and second interviews. So I guess it takes about a week or so, but I am just dying to see number 3 - as you can see I am a masochist. Thank you for reply.

 

[JSR]

Where exactly did TL say that he didn't want Caylee at his apartment?

One of his statements. Not sure which one. He didn't feel the environment was appropriate for a child.

 

[JSR]

Guys we should remember that these two are both the victims of a dangerous psychopath.

IMO I'm not certain that one of these two isn't also a psychopath. Cindy is a replica of Casey just older and IMO almost more unbalanced than Casey. Would I be shocked at Cindy being diagnosed as being a psychopath? Absolutely not. These two make quite a pair. Absolutely diabolical.


I wouldn't trust either of them for as far as I could throw them, which isn't far.

 

[Solace]

One of his statements. Not sure which one. He didn't feel the environment was appropriate for a child.

I never heard that and I think I would remember it; however, he did tell KC that he did not want girl babies as they make for an ugly child - (meaning he grew up with three sisters (I think 3) and he had a hard time and he did not want girls for children. He told that to LE on his second interview and felt guilty about saying it.

 

[Nehemiah]

Yes LC, it was JB. I think CA was assuming since Caylee drown that somehow she didn't suffer. I've heard it is a very painful way to die and as a nurse she should know this.
When was she told this...when JB called and asked CA to come to his office but she gave no date.
GA's involvement..CA said that JB blamed GA because he had run out of people to blame. GA said he had an idea what the DT was going to say but was shocked when he heard the OS. Then CA said they knew 2 weeks before from the SA. That part is very confusing , they kept contradicting each other. I have to watch again and make notes.

I have thought from day one and continue to think that the A's, along with JB and Casey, concocted the whole sexual abuse story to get Casey off. I believe that they tried to get Lee involved as well; but, he became noticeably absent, making me think that he didn't go along with the fabrication as planned. The A's are continuing to play scripted roles--but their true selves peek out from time to time in these interviews.

JMO

 

[MsMacGyver]

I want to see it. Youtube is now showing the entire first and second interviews. So I guess it takes about a week or so, but I am just dying to see number 3 - as you can see I am a masochist. Thank you for reply.

If you were my neighbor I would give you my DVD to watch. I was going to see if I could make a copy and send to whomever wanted to see it, I'm not computer friendly otherwise I could upload it!

 

[What'sThatClue]

I have thought from day one and continue to think that the A's, along with JB and Casey, concocted the whole sexual abuse story to get Casey off. I believe that they tried to get Lee involved as well; but, he became noticeably absent, making me think that he didn't go along with the fabrication as planned. The A's are continuing to play scripted roles--but their true selves peek out from time to time in these interviews.

JMO

Didn't Lee change attorneys around the time of his testimony? I mean, dropping Mark Lippman? Not sure 'cause I can't find it now. TIA