Caylee Marie Anthony MURDER TRIAL- DAY 28- 6/25- 6/26/11

[Puzzler]

From all I read, impeaching Cindy would do nothing.  She would not go to jail.  She would just say she was mistaken. 

Also, the picture would do nothing if proven to be fake, cept maybe cause a mistrial. 

I don't think the picture is fake, but that is just me.   

George being upset is bothering me today though.  Cindy looked all happy, but George was all upset.  If it were about him admitting some lie about sexual abuse, would she be all chatty sitting next to him? 

I am gonna go nuts, but I bet monday comes and they start as per usual. 

Cindy lied about a lot. Searching chlorphorm < that's a biggy imo. That's what killed Caylee.
The computer searches prove it wasn't her.
Lied about baby shower date.. not a big deal
Lied about not knowing Casey was pregnant..
What else did she lie about?

I think George knows Casey is goin down. But dumby Cindy is in another world.
She thinks their going to get her off. Or hopes.

Looking up chloroform is one thing.  But...lookin up "how to make chloroform" is a horse of a different color.  I want to know "who" keyed in the words and looked for the recipe.

[Puzzler]

Does anyone remember off the top of their head the "date" the gas cans were stolen?

6/24/08

Thank you.  I was thinking that maybe the gate was left open by KC and Tony when they broke into the shed and stole the gas cans.  Guess not.  Thanks, again.

[StarMonkey]

Flying by to drop this off. Evening, all!  Here's a pic that clearly shows the child-proof door knobs were indeed on the inside of Caylee's room http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10004686-51.html?tag=page;next Pic #51, look at the back of her door. Why would you do that????

WOW...........that is illegal - The Dept. of Children's services would have a fit over that. My guess is they left the baby in that room, closed the door and she could not get out. I can see KC doing that so she :: culd it  on the computer and text.

Wow that's scary, and yes is illegal!!!! And Cindy allowed it too.

[ccndixie]

Out of everything I have read and heard today, I believe the Motion for Disqualification is exactly the situation which arose this morning.  Not sure how it will play out....we may go right back to business on Monday morning and never know exactly what occurred, but I sure hope some kind of information is forthcoming.  The custodian of records from Gentiva should have some interesting information  regarding Cindy's work hours and internet access, at least.  Of course her memory is still not quite right, right?

[cheeky monkey]

Night Monkeys! I think court will go back to normal monday, well as normal as it can get with the defense. 

[StarMonkey]

From all I read, impeaching Cindy would do nothing.  She would not go to jail.  She would just say she was mistaken. 

Also, the picture would do nothing if proven to be fake, cept maybe cause a mistrial. 

I don't think the picture is fake, but that is just me.   

George being upset is bothering me today though.  Cindy looked all happy, but George was all upset.  If it were about him admitting some lie about sexual abuse, would she be all chatty sitting next to him? 

I am gonna go nuts, but I bet monday comes and they start as per usual. 

Cindy lied about a lot. Searching chlorphorm < that's a biggy imo. That's what killed Caylee.
The computer searches prove it wasn't her.
Lied about baby shower date.. not a big deal
Lied about not knowing Casey was pregnant..
What else did she lie about?

I think George knows Casey is goin down. But dumby Cindy is in another world.
She thinks their going to get her off. Or hopes.

Looking up chloroform is one thing.  But...lookin up "how to make chloroform" is a horse of a different color.  I want to know "who" keyed in the words and looked for the recipe.

Well they already proved it was Casey. Her password was used to log on and she went back and forth to MySpace. Cindy didn't have a MySpace, and she wouldn't need to look it up she's a head nurse. If she was worried about bamboo she would hav looked that up. I still don't know why they never called James Thompson that saw Caylee at 4pm on the 16th, did he die?

[espresso lover]

I do not know how to highlight or get the part of this posted so will post the link to this doc and hope maybe some smart Monkey can get it....It is the Computer Forensic Report....under the summary #1 3rd paragraph that starts with: "An MSWord document entitled "diary of days.doc "

Here it the link

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:FcVm2ZTmUgYJ:blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/casey_anthony_computer_report.pdf+casey+anthony+computer+searches&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjxHSuFXzW52qSiYfWRGuathKSP3_YPbaGsS16UeDCTkTB8F0UBGLe5sQU9wFQ5yp64CD-OiciUUCQGqY2Bn1ejE9DDJqnM6zx161_oFIyPrai2859NkWtuZUdinYYzgpLRwKRc&sig=AHIEtbQYDiSXwYSuLmIVrcDIpl_NTHEciQ

[islandmonkey]

Flying by to drop this off. Evening, all!  Here's a pic that clearly shows the child-proof door knobs were indeed on the inside of Caylee's room http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10004686-51.html?tag=page;next Pic #51, look at the back of her door. Why would you do that????

WOW...........that is illegal - The Dept. of Children's services would have a fit over that. My guess is they left the baby in that room, closed the door and she could not get out. I can see KC doing that so she could sit on the computer and text.

I doubt that, I had to use them on my son's door when he was almost 2. He could get out of his crib and anywhere he wanted, I actually had them on every door leading outside the house too after I woke up and found a 2yr old in a diaper and t-shirt in the back yard on a pile of wood trying .....I would have just put them on the doors leading outside but since he could get out and went thru a time when he would get out in the middle of the night and turn on the tv in the living room I was worried he might climb the bar stools and fall off the counter, well frankly I worried about all types of disasters since he ws a very curious toddler. Those were the exact spinny type covers I used......and since DCS did visit my home after my son was molested , they walked thru the home and looked in his room as we talked and they never said a word about them and I also think it was probably Cindy who put them on since she seemed to be safety conscious as opposed to her slore of a non-mom.

[Red]

Out of everything I have read and heard today, I believe the Motion for Disqualification is exactly the situation which arose this morning.  Not sure how it will play out....we may go right back to business on Monday morning and never know exactly what occurred, but I sure hope some kind of information is forthcoming.  The custodian of records from Gentiva should have some interesting information regarding Cindy's work hours and internet access, at least.  Of course her memory is still not quite right, right?

Cindy will be torn apart in the rebuttal phase by the prosecution. The State has down a masterful job since the outset, I see no reason why that would not continue. Some talking heads say they dropped the ball with Cindy on cross when she testified about searches and work. I say just the opposite. I think the State gave her rope and she hung herself.

The State had her work records and I am sure they are in contact with Gentiva and know all the ins and outs what an employee can and cannot do. That being said, it is probably more effective to show she lied in rebuttal that in cross. This way they can dot all the I's and cross the T's.


As for the searches, how is Cindy going to explain she searched one word and not another when they were searched in sequential order?

I think the State knew that Cindy would do this, a leopard does not change its spots, neither does and Anthony.

She is finished in rebuttal.

[TURBOTHINK]

I think when Ashton and the court reporter went back there, it was over this witness who wanted to use a powerpoint presentation of new things bozo had not given to the prosecution. If you remember HJP questioned Rodriquez at length about if bozo had informed him of the need to make a written report and was highly hacked over the answers when Rod told him bozo just told him to use that information that day or the day before.

Mumbles will probably ask for a mistrial again and again. That is normal behavior for him, but there is no reason for HJP to grant it.

but both mason and JP said that this had to do with a completley seperate issue than the witness and the powerpoint. JP even said it was a legal matter.  i could be wrong but one of the reasons i initially considered it could be a motion for disqualification was b/c i heard some talking heads saying how biased the judge seemed against the defense and for the state. One of those people was Judge Napolitano on fox news.  We all know who else works there and is friends with Baez.  I don't know, I may be totally off but I have seen this defense throw everything out there and this is one of those timely motions that if they were gonna try they had to do relatively quickly (reasonable time but not more than 10 days). in that link i gave a ways back, it also touches on  judges finding atty's in the trial in contempt and the effect that would have on the motion to disqualify.  I don't think JP ever said anything about such things in front of the jury but there is SO  much they could at least put in a motion to disqualify and I think JP and Ashton's body language are consistent with them hearing that is what happened.

The judge to me is biased against the prosecution. I think these talking heads see a few clips where HJP is chewing on bozo and have no idea what stupid and reckless shenanigans he has pulled throughout this trial. I was talking with my brother who is an attorney and he said if he ever pulled anything like bozo has tried to pull he would be sitting in jail for contempt of court. He feels this judge has gone way overboard trying to accommodate a clueless attorney who should never have been allowed to try this case to begin with. He said since Strickland allowed it, HJP had to pretty much go along, but it should never have happened. He has only watched bits and pieces of this trial.

[StarMonkey]

EmeraldEyes322 Ilene
@HLNTV I am an RN, worked at Gentiva, Cindy is lying about computer searches, how can i provide this info to prosecution?
2 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
 http://twitter.com/#!/EmeraldEyes322

I've let Blink and Red know

I wish this woman would contact OCSD, continue to contact Ashton....information like this really needs to go to the prosecution and/or LE, IMO.

EmeraldEyes322 Ilene
@@VinniePolitan Gentiva payroll was online, not time clock, not pen & paper. Cindy's supv did NOT enter her time without Cindy's password.

Well, Missy Cindy told us herself on the witness stand that no one else knew her password.

She's an idiot and I'm sure has it coming to her for lying. She already tried to fake out le and was hating on them, not helping, in denial, yada yada.  Anyone that comes forward is worth talking to. I would check with my employers policy first. Some witnesses are just no good.

[west941]

Flying by to drop this off. Evening, all!  Here's a pic that clearly shows the child-proof door knobs were indeed on the inside of Caylee's room http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10004686-51.html?tag=page;next Pic #51, look at the back of her door. Why would you do that????

WOW...........that is illegal - The Dept. of Children's services would have a fit over that. My guess is they left the baby in that room, closed the door and she could not get out. I can see KC doing that so she could sit on the computer and text.

I doubt that, I had to use them on my son's door when he was almost 2. He could get out of his crib and anywhere he wanted, I actually had them on every door leading outside the house too after I woke up and found a 2yr old in a diaper and t-shirt in the back yard on a pile of wood trying .....I would have just put them on the doors leading outside but since he could get out and went thru a time when he would get out in the middle of the night and turn on the tv in the living room I was worried he might climb the bar stools and fall off the counter, well frankly I worried about all types of disasters since he ws a very curious toddler. Those were the exact spinny type covers I used......and since DCS did visit my home after my son was molested , they walked thru the home and looked in his room as we talked and they never said a word about them and I also think it was probably Cindy who put them on since she seemed to be safety conscious as opposed to her slore of a non-mom.

Agreed,

  Prayers for your son

[StarMonkey]

Out of everything I have read and heard today, I believe the Motion for Disqualification is exactly the situation which arose this morning.  Not sure how it will play out....we may go right back to business on Monday morning and never know exactly what occurred, but I sure hope some kind of information is forthcoming.  The custodian of records from Gentiva should have some interesting information regarding Cindy's work hours and internet access, at least.  Of course her memory is still not quite right, right?

Cindy will be torn apart in the rebuttal phase by the prosecution. The State has down a masterful job since the outset, I see no reason why that would not continue. Some talking heads say they dropped the ball with Cindy on cross when she testified about searches and work. I say just the opposite. I think the State gave her rope and she hung herself.

The State had her work records and I am sure they are in contact with Gentiva and know all the ins and outs what an employee can and cannot do. That being said, it is probably more effective to show she lied in rebuttal that in cross. This way they can dot all the I's and cross the T's.


As for the searches, how is Cindy going to explain she searched one word and not another when they were searched in sequential order?

I think the State knew that Cindy would do this, a leopard does not change its spots, neither does and Anthony.

She is finished in rebuttal.

Excellent post, will we get to see the rebuttal? I'm guessing yes but just makin sure! I wouldn't want to miss it.

[StarMonkey]

Flying by to drop this off. Evening, all!  Here's a pic that clearly shows the child-proof door knobs were indeed on the inside of Caylee's room http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10004686-51.html?tag=page;next Pic #51, look at the back of her door. Why would you do that????

WOW...........that is illegal - The Dept. of Children's services would have a fit over that. My guess is they left the baby in that room, closed the door and she could not get out. I can see KC doing that so she could sit on the computer and text.

I doubt that, I had to use them on my son's door when he was almost 2. He could get out of his crib and anywhere he wanted, I actually had them on every door leading outside the house too after I woke up and found a 2yr old in a diaper and t-shirt in the back yard on a pile of wood trying .....I would have just put them on the doors leading outside but since he could get out and went thru a time when he would get out in the middle of the night and turn on the tv in the living room I was worried he might climb the bar stools and fall off the counter, well frankly I worried about all types of disasters since he ws a very curious toddler. Those were the exact spinny type covers I used......and since DCS did visit my home after my son was molested , they walked thru the home and looked in his room as we talked and they never said a word about them and I also think it was probably Cindy who put them on since she seemed to be safety conscious as opposed to her slore of a non-mom.

Agreed,

  Prayers for your son

Sorry about yur son hope he's doin ok now. I thought it was illegal re fire safety issues?

[TURBOTHINK]

Flying by to drop this off. Evening, all!  Here's a pic that clearly shows the child-proof door knobs were indeed on the inside of Caylee's room http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10004686-51.html?tag=page;next Pic #51, look at the back of her door. Why would you do that????

WOW...........that is illegal - The Dept. of Children's services would have a fit over that. My guess is they left the baby in that room, closed the door and she could not get out. I can see KC doing that so she could sit on the computer and text.

I doubt that, I had to use them on my son's door when he was almost 2. He could get out of his crib and anywhere he wanted, I actually had them on every door leading outside the house too after I woke up and found a 2yr old in a diaper and t-shirt in the back yard on a pile of wood trying .....I would have just put them on the doors leading outside but since he could get out and went thru a time when he would get out in the middle of the night and turn on the tv in the living room I was worried he might climb the bar stools and fall off the counter, well frankly I worried about all types of disasters since he ws a very curious toddler. Those were the exact spinny type covers I used......and since DCS did visit my home after my son was molested , they walked thru the home and looked in his room as we talked and they never said a word about them and I also think it was probably Cindy who put them on since she seemed to be safety conscious as opposed to her slore of a non-mom.

I can see where that would be necessary in your case, but it is not allowed in any state that I know of. They just had a case here less than a month ago where a mother had changed the lock on a door to make it lock from the outside because the child was ADD and she could not trust him at night. They put her in jail. They told her she could have put an alarm on the door, but you can't fix a door where a child could not exit that door in case of fire.

[islandmonkey]

Flying by to drop this off. Evening, all!  Here's a pic that clearly shows the child-proof door knobs were indeed on the inside of Caylee's room http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10004686-51.html?tag=page;next Pic #51, look at the back of her door. Why would you do that????

WOW...........that is illegal - The Dept. of Children's services would have a fit over that. My guess is they left the baby in that room, closed the door and she could not get out. I can see KC doing that so she :: culd it  on the computer and text.

Wow that's scary, and yes is illegal!!!! And Cindy allowed it too.

Not illegal, I had to use them too......I posted upthread why. I would never do it unless it was necessary and keeping my son from getting out of his crib and into anything and everything when he was going thru that phase was super important, he could have picked up something and choked, pulled a tv over on himself, climbed up on the counter and fallen off......many reasons when your child can get out of their crib, thankfully that phase didn't last long but I still kept the knob covers on all the doors that went outside until he was much older.

[islandmonkey]

Flying by to drop this off. Evening, all!  Here's a pic that clearly shows the child-proof door knobs were indeed on the inside of Caylee's room http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10004686-51.html?tag=page;next Pic #51, look at the back of her door. Why would you do that????

WOW...........that is illegal - The Dept. of Children's services would have a fit over that. My guess is they left the baby in that room, closed the door and she could not get out. I can see KC doing that so she could sit on the computer and text.

I doubt that, I had to use them on my son's door when he was almost 2. He could get out of his crib and anywhere he wanted, I actually had them on every door leading outside the house too after I woke up and found a 2yr old in a diaper and t-shirt in the back yard on a pile of wood trying .....I would have just put them on the doors leading outside but since he could get out and went thru a time when he would get out in the middle of the night and turn on the tv in the living room I was worried he might climb the bar stools and fall off the counter, well frankly I worried about all types of disasters since he ws a very curious toddler. Those were the exact spinny type covers I used......and since DCS did visit my home after my son was molested , they walked thru the home and looked in his room as we talked and they never said a word about them and I also think it was probably Cindy who put them on since she seemed to be safety conscious as opposed to her slore of a non-mom.

Agreed,

  Prayers for your son

Sorry about yur son hope he's doin ok now. I thought it was illegal re fire safety issues?

Thanks, he is doing great since we moved far away from where it happened and has had alot of therapy   It's not illegal wrt fire issues in TN, I'd have to check here but I am sure they would have some stipulation and frankly I would use them here anyway if they were illegal under the same circumstances because all the homes are built on stilts and my decks are almost 20 ft off the ground, so if he had been going thru that phase while we lived here I'd have been even more nervous.

[TURBOTHINK]

Flying by to drop this off. Evening, all!  Here's a pic that clearly shows the child-proof door knobs were indeed on the inside of Caylee's room http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10004686-51.html?tag=page;next Pic #51, look at the back of her door. Why would you do that????

WOW...........that is illegal - The Dept. of Children's services would have a fit over that. My guess is they left the baby in that room, closed the door and she could not get out. I can see KC doing that so she :: culd it  on the computer and text.

Wow that's scary, and yes is illegal!!!! And Cindy allowed it too.

Not illegal, I had to use them too......I posted upthread why. I would never do it unless it was necessary and keeping my son from getting out of his crib and into anything and everything when he was going thru that phase was super important, he could have picked up something and choked, pulled a tv over on himself, climbed up on the counter and fallen off......many reasons when your child can get out of their crib, thankfully that phase didn't last long but I still kept the knob covers on all the doors that went outside until he was much older.

It is illegal here - they charged the mother I posted about with reckless endangerment which I think is a felony over it. They said the "proper" (LOL) way was to put a motion alarm on the door so the parents would be aware if the child came out of the room.

[espresso lover]

The Metadata Analysis of the document "Diary of Days" reports the author as CMANTHON of the GENTIVA Corporation on July 2, 2008 at 10:42:08 am. The document was bookmarked and copied to the Evidence\Documents folder. The results of the Metadata Analysis were saved to the same folder.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:FcVm2ZTmUgYJ:blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/casey_anthony_computer_report.pdf+casey+anthony+computer+searches&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjxHSuFXzW52qSiYfWRGuathKSP3_YPbaGsS16UeDCTkTB8F0UBGLe5sQU9wFQ5yp64CD-OiciUUCQGqY2Bn1ejE9DDJqnM6zx161_oFIyPrai2859NkWtuZUdinYYzgpLRwKRc&sig=AHIEtbQYDiSXwYSuLmIVrcDIpl_NTHEciQ

Does this make any sense to anyone ???

[TURBOTHINK]

Well they already proved it was Casey. Her password was used to log on and she went back and forth to MySpace. Cindy didn't have a MySpace, and she wouldn't need to look it up she's a head nurse. If she was worried about bamboo she would hav looked that up. I still don't know why they never called James Thompson that saw Caylee at 4pm on the 16th, did he die?

I am not sure, but I thought I read he was mixed up on the date. I think at first he said the 16th and then he changed it to possibly the 12th or 14th  or something like that, so I guess they decided it might not be helpful.