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

Okay, this may sound harsh, but where in her actions has Cindy shown she is a grieving grandmother? All I have seen is her lying and covering up for her daughter. Did I miss something??

She was so worried about the runaround ICA was giving her during those 31 days, she took steps to track her down through AH.

CA turned ICA in, was willing to have her charged with auto and credit card theft to get ICA to take her to Caylee.

CA told the truth that she did not do searches for neck breaking, household weapons, and a few others that made ICA look guilty.

CA wept on the stand over Caylee, said she slept with Caylee's bear during the 31 days she missed her so much.

I know I could come up with a lot more examples, but I hope this helps some.


Yes, I know just what the OP means. At first when I was furious that CA was lying and thought it was to protect her from the DP, but when I watched her testimony again, I really began to wonder if wasn't trying to send ICA a message that now she knew ICA had done something to their dogs too. CA knew they could prove she was at work the day of the chloroform searches, I'm really thinking she might have been trying to get all that information she gave out there. If JB just asked if she searched chloroform and she just said no, that would have been the end of that. Instead she gives the weird detailed story about the sleepy dogs. Granted, ICA puts too much detail into her lies too, but I think CA was doing it on purpose. She seemed to stress they used packing tape too, not duct tape, on their pets...JB was the one suprised by that one.

It seems to me like CA might have put alot of things together that we don't know about it, other incidents and different things that only she would know. I think she might realize the safest place...safest for other people... for ICA to be is prison.

I think CA wants ICA in prison too, she just didn't want her put to death.
 
This is a high profile case, if Cindy is not charged with perjury what message does that send? I believe that she should be charged, the sentence I have no idea but she should be charged.

If Cindy isn't charged it sends a message to anyone that ever takes the witness stand that the oath means nothing. Go ahead. Lie your fool head off. Let murderers, rapists, and thieves walk among the innocent? Nope. Cindy should be punished, but 15 years is too stiff IMO.
 
Thank you all for your insights Sleuthers. I've been ruminating about Cindy for days, months, years. She spawned a murderous daughter but she needs to be held accountable for her part, WHICH IS HUGE. She has coddled and enabled Casey for years, allowing her to "get away" with atrocious behavior that curtailed, might have prevented this tragedy.
HOW? I don't care if blood is thicker than water, Cindy knew what kind of a lying, cheating, deceitful con artist she bore and she did NOTHING to stop it.
Casey needed to have serious consequences early on and she had none(see the hundreds of checks she wrote out on her mother's accounts).
She was allowed to act the way she did without ever having to take responsibility for anything she ever did. Her family: Cindy, Lee and George created a safety net within which she was allowed to function.

And how pray tell, does a grandmother not worry herself silly when she doesn't see her granddaughter for 31 days? If one of my children told me that my grandchild was "with the Nanny", I would personally string her up by her toenails until she told me where she really was.

Cindy's saying "I love you" in the courtroom and calling ICA "sweetheart" in the jailhouse videos says it all.
Cindy must have to answer for her deceit, lies and purposeful attempt to obstruct due process.
HHBP makes a spectacle out of a kid who does something stupid,. but harmless.
Will he let this conniving woman get away with perjury because she is a "grieving grandmother and mother"? For the sake of all involved, I hope not.
 
I've heard the commentary that one reason Cindy won't be charged is because she might be needed in the future if there is a mistrial, appeal, etc. I am wondering, though, who in the heck could rely on her for any future truthful testimony? It is already a fact that she lied in court, charged or not, so who could afford to trust her as a witness? So I don't understand this argument. What is it that I'm missing? TIA
:hand: Not directed at you... but, I think that's a stupid reason not to charge her with anything because it could take years for an appeal or new trial, and at this point, we don't even know if there will be a mistrial. Not likely, at this point, since it's only days before the jury will get the case. The chances of a mistrial or Casey pleading out are getting very small...:twocents:
 
I have a feeling that Cindy on some level is well aware of her daughters capabilities and I believe also she is dropping hints that there is more here than meets the eye.

Who gave the detailed information about the first animal they ever buried? it was before Lee or KC was born so who told the DT?

Cindy knew the Gentiva dates would be investigated so the appearance of falling on her sword was calculated to have the effect it did.

I think there has never been room in KC's life for more than herself and her mother and anyone who interferes with that is in trouble be it George, the dogs or Caylee and I think this is Cindy's way out of that hell yet still be seemingly supportive.

Lastly, I don't blame her one bit I believe on some level Cindy was scared of what her daughter was capable of, and when I think of Lee mentioning "being like the last time" and we wondered what she had killed before (well I did) I'm going to make a guess, it was the dogs.

Excellent post and this is an awesome thread, IMO. This trial has really been an eye opener for me, particularly the last few days with the testimony about the dead pets. That has filled in a lot of the blanks for me!

One thing that CA testified to (although I don't know that it could be called a 'slip') was about the missing teddy bear. I had never heard about that before. But it really gave us a glimpse into the abject cruelty that ICA is capable of. Obviously, ICA knew that Caylee would not be coming home, ever, but felt the need to further punish her mother by taking away this object that gave her a small measure of comfort. Wow...hearing that just chilled me to the bone. She is SADISTIC. :mad:
 
Since CA seems to be the driver of all things at the A home her punishment should be driving the prison bus AND not be permitted to speak while driving the bus. Length of time for this sentence should be about 3 years. About as long as all the lying to the police, the public, and the court has gone on.
 
Thank you all for your insights Sleuthers. I've been ruminating about Cindy for days, months, years. She spawned a murderous daughter but she needs to be held accountable for her part, WHICH IS HUGE. She has coddled and enabled Casey for years, allowing her to "get away" with atrocious behavior that curtailed, might have prevented this tragedy.
HOW? I don't care if blood is thicker than water, Cindy knew what kind of a lying, cheating, deceitful con artist she bore and she did NOTHING to stop it.
Casey needed to have serious consequences early on and she had none(see the hundreds of checks she wrote out on her mother's accounts).
She was allowed to act the way she did without ever having to take responsibility for anything she ever did. Her family: Cindy, Lee and George created a safety net within which she was allowed to function.

And how pray tell, does a grandmother not worry herself silly when she doesn't see her granddaughter for 31 days? If one of my children told me that my grandchild was "with the Nanny", I would personally string her up by her toenails until she told me where she really was.

Cindy's saying "I love you" in the courtroom and calling ICA "sweetheart" in the jailhouse videos says it all.
Cindy must have to answer for her deceit, lies and purposeful attempt to obstruct due process.
HHBP makes a spectacle out of a kid who does something stupid,. but harmless.
Will he let this conniving woman get away with perjury because she is a "grieving grandmother and mother"? For the sake of all involved, I hope not.

May I ask what charges can be brought against Cindy for having given birth to a child that murdered her child? Please? TIA (am not baiting, I really want to know what charges can be brought forth and don't intend to argue the point, just curious).

May I ask what charges can be brought against Cindy anthony for what could be seen as bad parenting? (really asking).

My only comment is then should we go after the parents/primary caregivers of every single murderer that has been convicted for murder?

Do I think she lied on the stand? Sure she did.

Do I *emotionally* think she should face some consequences? Sure.

Do I *intellectually* think that charges can be brought against her and won? Won...I'm talking about a trial by jury for perjury---do I think intellectually it can be won? Probably not. JMHO
 
Speaking of the pervasive lying in that family, it may have started with something as simple as telling little Casey, "Just tell the teacher you didn't do your homework because you got sick last night," even though Casey just plain didn't want to complete it. Practice makes perfect, and 22 years of lying seemed to work for Casey. Think of all the times in our day when we could lie, but don't. I taught my kids that it's better to be honest and take your lumps rather than lie. Miss a homework assignment? Tell the truth. The worst that could happen is a zero for the assignment. It's not the end of the world. What puzzles me is that Casey elevated her lies to being invulnerable to examination. How could she think thoase detectives would not actually check up on her lies, such as place of employment, etc.

There was a media interview with Cindy early on in the case. When the interviewer (I think it was Greta Van Susteren, not sure) asked CA something about whether KC had told her what happened, CA said she believed that KC had told the truth of what happened "in her own way."

This "in her own way" leads me to believe that the lies go way back and CA has always covered and enabled. The whole family seems to have a version of the truth "in their own way."
 
She should be prosecuted immediately! Just because the murderer is her family member and the victim a family member that does not give her the license to be an accomplice in covering up a murder.

Those who are sympathetic toward CA should ask themselves this, if the defendant were a serial killer would it still be okay for them to help hide evidence and testify falsely to prevent justice from being served?

I can understand Hose-A trying to defend ICA because that is his job, but anyone else should face the music at the end.
 
Okay, this may sound harsh, but where in her actions has Cindy shown she is a grieving grandmother? All I have seen is her lying and covering up for her daughter. Did I miss something??

I've contemplated everything that has happened and I have always come to the conclusion that CA is a sociopath as much as KC. I have never seen her appear to be a grieving grandmother. What I have also seen is that elaborate lies flow as easily out of her mouth as they do her daughter's. If by some miracle KC were to get out of this I could see CA demanding another Caylee from KC. It also wouldn't surprise me that if a 2nd child is a girl if she would be named Caylee and they all pretend it is the same child.
 
She should be prosecuted immediately! Just because the murderer is her family member and the victim a family member that does not give her the license to be an accomplice in covering up a murder.

Those who are sympathetic toward CA should ask themselves this, if the defendant were a serial killer would it still be okay for them to help hide evidence and testify falsely to prevent justice from being served?
Excellent post!:goodpost::clap::clap::clap:
 
I have a feeling that Cindy on some level is well aware of her daughters capabilities and I believe also she is dropping hints that there is more here than meets the eye.

Who gave the detailed information about the first animal they ever buried? it was before Lee or KC was born so who told the DT?

Cindy knew the Gentiva dates would be investigated so the appearance of falling on her sword was calculated to have the effect it did.

I think there has never been room in KC's life for more than herself and her mother and anyone who interferes with that is in trouble be it George, the dogs or Caylee and I think this is Cindy's way out of that hell yet still be seemingly supportive.

Lastly, I don't blame her one bit I believe on some level Cindy was scared of what her daughter was capable of, and when I think of Lee mentioning "being like the last time" and we wondered what she had killed before (well I did) I'm going to make a guess, it was the dogs.

Fascinating post! She's like a double agent.
 
May I ask what charges can be brought against Cindy for having given birth to a child that murdered her child? Please? TIA (am not baiting, I really want to know what charges can be brought forth and don't intend to argue the point, just curious).

May I ask what charges can be brought against Cindy anthony for what could be seen as bad parenting? (really asking).

My only comment is then should we go after the parents/primary caregivers of every single murderer that has been convicted for murder?

Do I think she lied on the stand? Sure she did.

Do I *emotionally* think she should face some consequences? Sure.

Do I *intellectually* think that charges can be brought against her and won? Won...I'm talking about a trial by jury for perjury---do I think intellectually it can be won? Probably not. JMHO

May I ask what charges can be brought against Cindy anthony for what could be seen as bad parenting? (really asking).

Nothing but, it is insight into the mind of the parent.


My only comment is then should we go after the parents/primary caregivers of every single murderer that has been convicted for murder?

Of course not .

Do I *emotionally* think she should face some consequences? Sure.

Is perjury an emotional thing or is is a crime by law? If it is not really a crime it should be dropped from the books and witnesses should be able to say whatever they want on the stand.

Do I *intellectually* think that charges can be brought against her and won? Won...I'm talking about a trial by jury for perjury---do I think intellectually it can be won? Probably not. JMHO

Unlike the Caylee's murder this crime was captured on video in front of a judge. How hard would it be to prove? Either perjury is a crime or it should be stricken from the books and witnesses should be allowed to just say any story they want.
 
She committed outright perjury on the stand. She cost Florida taxpayers more dollars. No one should be able to swear to tell the truth on the bible and than wantonly lie. Prosecute her. Community service is fine with me. I'm just tired of this family thinking they are above the law.












she
 
I believe she should be prosecuted. Perjury was just the latest in a long list of crimes committed by her to save her daughter, which tells me she knew all along who killed Caylee and that Caylee was indeed dead. I think both CA and GA should be prosecuted.

I've been watching and listening to CA since this whole tragic murder was known. Watching CA on GVS, I knew immediately the toddler was dead and murdered by her mother. CA portrayed herself as a tireless, though wilting, steel magnolia. From the outset, she refused to answer questions about Casey, as did George early on, wanting only to say Caylee was MISSING.
I believe they knew when they toured the back yard what had happened and went into spin mode. The ladder, the gate...

Stonewalling the investigation under the guise that law enforcement was not doing their job, looking only at Casey, while they continued to stir the angry citizen pot with cries for Zenaida, without a care for what could have happened to the Zenaida (or her children) we saw or the countless others they practically pointed out to the press and what cities to look in.

GA went to LE and tried work a deal for Casey. He knew.
Cindy practically pee'd herself with glee as she turned over the wrong hairbrush to FBI. She knew.

They concocted the JBP story. They concocted the pool ladder story with the gate being open. They committed fraud on a sympathetic public, taking donations.

Both should be charged with perjury, misprision, tampering with evidence, witness tampering, lying to LE, fraud, whatever else you can throw at them that I am forgetting this morning.

:applause::applause::applause::goodpost: I couldn't agree with you more.
 
Well they can charge her but I don't see how it can be proven in a court of law.

I don't think the state's office wants to prosecute her to be honest. If they did they would have approached the situation differently rather than just calling experts back up to impeach her. Which they did.

My point was, by all means it appears she lied to the jury. Now, could they prosecute her for that? Sure they could. But, could they win a conviction. Nope. I don't think they could. I don't think they want to. JMHO
 
How can they NOT charge her with perjury? They supplied the evidence that proved it in court! :waitasec:
 
You know what? I gotta tell you:

During this trial there were many times when it seemed like the defense was in cohoots with the prosecution. There were times where I actually thought that JB detests ICA so much that he is going to help convict her. I guess I was sensing some serious passive-aggression from JB as well as Cindy when she perjured herself. Listening to the animal burials and the sleepy dogs certainly gave me the immediate impression that ICA buried the baby in the same fashion and probably was responsible for the death of most of the animals as well as why the other dogs appeared to be so lathargic.

I remember hearing that ICA dumped the baby that was a pet cemetery and that is where ICA used to bury her pets. Even then I thought that she was killing the animals. The killing of the family pets will certainly ring out loud in somebody's true crime book. Yep. Like someone here stated in this thread, a lot of unanswered questions have been satisfied for Cindy.

But anyway, initially I was confused with Cindy's testimony because it appeared that she was trying to save her one minute and then send her to the chair in the next minute.

Now I have so many other questions about her behavior:

Did she lie to save ICA because she loves her so much or did she lie because she has been trained by ICA to support her no matter what and that is what love is?

It has always been apparent to me that everybody in that family has always been afraid to confront ICA head on about anything. They always tip-toed around her and came through the back door to try to get the "truth" or information. So Cindy, who really wants ICA punished whether with life of death, is too afraid to be bold with her actions. So, she pretends in the eyes of ICA to be supporting her but passive-aggressively paints another picture for the jury at the same time which will lead to a conviction.

Anyway, getting back to JB passive-aggressively trying to send ICA to the chair, I kept dismissing that although it had weighed heavily in my mind.
I just don't believe what I see in this case because would a defense lawyer actually do something like that?

Then I think about Mark Geragos in the Scott Peterson trial. I believe that man knew Scott was a piece of something found in a sesspool and that is why MG was not in court standing next to Scott as a lawyer should at the time the verdict was read. Scott was left standing by himself. If there should be a time that one's lawyer should NOT miss court would be at the time of verdict.

I know somebody who dropped out of law school because they decided that they wanted to work in a respectable profession. I never understood that statement but now I'm starting to get the picture and I don't like what is appearing. Call me naive or in denial but lawyers can't be that dastardly...can they?
 
Hello; this is my first post here and, I must say, this is a fascinating forum!

I, like many others, don't understand Nancy Grace's reasoning (and the reasoning of a few others on this thread) that motherhood in and of itself is a mitigating circumstance for perjury. This makes it seem as though being a mother is a protected, almost holy status that makes it okay to lie for murderers, as long as you gave birth to one of those said murderers. Isn't it better to stand as a good example for your children--even if they're already on their way to Death Row--rather than unleashing their sociopathy upon society?

During the trial of Charles Manson and his associates, the parents of the Manson girls set what I consider to be examples of proper displays of love for their children. In prior interviews, they all said that they believed their daughters to have grown up as essentially good people, but they didn't attempt to create alibis for them. The young women's attorneys didn't call them to the stand during the trial proper (which was also a DP case) to make excuses and tell lies for their children. The parents only appeared during the penalty phase--appropriately--to plead for their daughters' lives and to talk about how they had been productive citizens prior to meeting Manson. That is the way to conduct yourself as a parent.

When I think of the cost to the state in flying in witnesses to rebut CA's lies and the wasted time and resources, it sickens me. Prosecutors all over the country are being laid off due to dwindling monies for courts, and yet CA thinks nothing of wasting money and creating an unnecessary fiasco through her selfish belief that ICA is a special snowflake who needs her mommy to cover for her.

I've been wondering...if there were a hung jury and ICA had to be retried (knocking on wood that doesn't happen!), could not the SA bring up CA's testimony in this trial, along with the rebuttals by Gentiva, etc. to add strength to the premeditation argument? In other words, couldn't they use all of this computer-related testimony from this trial for the next?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
1,643
Total visitors
1,826

Forum statistics

Threads
589,958
Messages
17,928,328
Members
228,017
Latest member
SashaRhea82
Back
Top