Will Cindy be prosecuted for perjury?

[ZsaZsa]

How can the public stand for this? CA lied on the stand to free a child murderer. Whatever ICA does in the future is partially on CA's hands. This is an outrage. Let ICA move in nextdoor to whoever made this disgraceful, weak decision.

You can let Pam Bondi, Florida AG know how you feel.
I just did.

 

[ZsaZsa]

BBM

I can see that IN GENERAL perjury would be hard to prove, because the person could say that it's what they believed to be true at the time, or that the word they used didn't quite mean what it sounded like, or they were referring to something different. But this case is SO CLEAR. She said straight out that she did certain things on certain days, and there is detailed proof that she did not and could not have done those things.

All her lies were told to benefit ICA.. if she was just stating what she thought at the time wouldn't you think that just every now and again there would be one thing that didn't?

 

[logicalgirl]

Heh heh - so ....the next time Baez comes up in front of a trial judge in a murder case - how do you think that's going to go for him?

Think they will do much hand holding and educating him next time? :innocent:

 

[legalmania]

I keep hearing that and I find it so hard to believe! I mean I believe it but wow - just wow! He was pretentious, he kept posing, losing track of himself, was crass, a buffoon - and I spent a lot of time laughing at him during the trial he just looked and sounded foolish. I'm just not sure what trial the jurors were watching...

Well I had or have no love loss for Baez and with him constantly getting overruled would lead me to believe he wasn't that sharp. I don't know why or how they liked him. The line of the trial to me was during closing statements when he said (paraphrasing) and depending on who's asking the question whether it was that laughing man right there or objection.

 

[logicalgirl]

You can let Pam Bondi, Florida AG know how you feel.
I just did.

Oh to be a fly on the wall if and when Pam and Belvin discuss this case over a drink one day.......

 

[The Farm]

I keep hearing that and I find it so hard to believe! I mean I believe it but wow - just wow! He was pretentious, he kept posing, losing track of himself, was crass, a buffoon - and I spent a lot of time laughing at him during the trial he just looked and sounded foolish. I'm just not sure what trial the jurors were watching...

I know, I thought the same exact thing. Amazing huh???

 

[The Farm]

Oh to be a fly on the wall if and when Pam and Belvin discuss this case over a drink one day.......

Or a dessert from The Dessert Lady.

 

[logicalgirl]

Well I had or have no love loss for Baez and with him constantly getting overruled would lead me to believe he wasn't that sharp. I don't know why or how they liked him. The line of the trial to me was during closing statements when he said (paraphrasing) and depending on who's asking the question whether it was that laughing man right there or objection.

He was overruled because he kept knowingly overstepping the boundaries of what he could and could not try to stop the SA from saying or asking. All that those many objections were about was showing how little he actually knew about the trial process. Lawyers watching that trial though they were watching SLN whenever Baez spoke.

Now he's going to flooded with dead guilty folks wanting him to represent them because he got clearly guilty ICA off so they want him to do the same for them. Good times, Baez...Good times.

 

[ZsaZsa]

JVM just asked Richard Grund re CA's perjury - he says it sets a disturbing precedent. :rocker:

 

[legalmania]

He was overruled because he kept knowingly overstepping the boundaries of what he could and could not try to stop the SA from saying or asking. All that those many objections were about was showing how little he actually knew about the trial process. Lawyers watching that trial though they were watching SLN whenever Baez spoke.

Now he's going to flooded with dead guilty folks wanting him to represent them because he got clearly guilty ICA off so they want him to do the same for them. Good times, Baez...Good times.

Baez was also trying his darnest to get a mistrial. I wish Judge Perry would have granted one now, but can't go back. I do think Judge Perry will give her the maximum fines he can knowing that she mislead the investigation and she has the potential to make lots of money.

 

[Schu7]

What do you think will make the history books President Bill Clinton lying under oath to Congress and getting impeached or Cindy Anthony lying under oath to save the life of her daughter?

Of course history will remember a President lying, and ignore a common ordinary person's murder case. But that is not what I said here. It is about influencing the young people now. The young people care very little over a President lying. But this court case has caught main stream public interest like no other case of out time's. And is a now shown lying for the ordinary people in court is excepted behaviour. The young people have noticed this case. And the fact they can lie in court without a penalty.

 

[Nova24]

Heh heh - so ....the next time Baez comes up in front of a trial judge in a murder case - how do you think that's going to go for him?

The next person could actually be innocent but I'd bet money found guilty as payback form this case. Not saying it's right but I think it happens.

JB isn't a vg lawyer. He really doesn't understand the law. He might in time but this win was more due to a jury that didn't understand their role than his brillance. I don't know if he would have the same luck with a different calibre of people.

 

[Etiana]

I don't how much more I can take!!! :banghead: It seems like with each passing day I feel worse instead of better. First it was the horrible blow of the verdict, then having to watch the DT gloat. Then the jury started talking and I've been nauseous ever since. :yuck: And now comes the latest blow that lying appears to be perfectly acceptable in a court of law!

THERE ARE NO WORDS TO PROPERLY EXPRESS THE LEVEL OF DISGUST THAT I FEEL!!!!! :maddening:

 

[Yellow Rose]

I had heard on HLN on Vinnie Polatan's show that they said today the CA will not be prosecuted for perjury. I haven't read this whole thread so I didn't know if anyone already said that.

 

[MarthaM]

I've seen cries of 'perjury!' after just about every big murder case I've followed. I think nothing ever comes of (most of) them because they're just too hard to prove and therefore not worth the effort and cost.

 

[Purple Iris]

I had heard on HLN on Vinnie Polatan's show that they said today the CA will not be prosecuted for perjury. I haven't read this whole thread so I didn't know if anyone already said that.

And, she will continue to lie, smirk and gloat.
This is as bad in my opinion as her daughter getting a free pass and taking a walk this Sunday and hopping onto a private plane.

 

[ZsaZsa]

He was overruled because he kept knowingly overstepping the boundaries of what he could and could not try to stop the SA from saying or asking. All that those many objections were about was showing how little he actually knew about the trial process. Lawyers watching that trial though they were watching SLN whenever Baez spoke.

Now he's going to flooded with dead guilty folks wanting him to represent them because he got clearly guilty ICA off so they want him to do the same for them. Good times, Baez...Good times.

Hopefully HHJP will be taking him to task before long over his offences.

 

[Itsy]

I've seen cries of 'perjury!' after just about every big murder case I've followed. I think nothing ever comes of (most of) them because they're just too hard to prove and therefore not worth the effort and cost.

Yeah, but this was Cindy in court, on tape, lying about the computer searches and then being proven to have lied by the higher ups in the company she worked for - again, all on tape during the trial. So I just don't get how she didn't get charged when it is NOT hard to prove.:banghead::waitasec::maddening:

 

[MarthaM]

Yeah, but this was Cindy in court, on tape, lying about the computer searches and then being proven to have lied by the higher ups in the company she worked for - again, all on tape during the trial. So I just don't get how she didn't get charged when it is NOT hard to prove.:banghead::waitasec::maddening:

Yes, and that's the same thing that happened in other trials I've seen. A witness comes on and testifies under oath about something that simply could not have happened. Other witnesses have testified or will testify to something completely opposite that disproves what the perjuring (?) witness is saying. Sometimes there will even be concrete documentation that shows the witness couldn't possibly have seen or done what s/he is testifying to, yet s/he still raises that right hand and swears that they are telling the truth. It happens fairly often, I think. They stick to their story and nobody prosecutes them for it because in the end it's just not worth it and it's too hard to prove, even with sworn testimony and all the refutation.

 

[Justin Tyme]

*A mother "ICA" can get away with the murder of her child in the state of Florida in a court of law.
*A mother/grandmother "CA" can get away with perjury in the state of Florida in a court of law.
*An attorney "JB", did the judge ever impose anything on him that he promised to after the case was done? Do you think that he will? I think not. Once again in the court of law in the state of Florida.
***But don't you dare shoot a bird with your middle finger in a court of law in the State of Florida. That WILL get you time.
I am ashamed of the injustice in the justice system. There is no justice in the justice system.