12/20/09 .... 12/23

[ellegna]

Good morning :seeya:

New Day. New Thread

Casey Anthony Goes International

SYDNEY, Australia-- A play based on the arrest and court case involving Casey Anthony has opened in an Australian theater.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/12/19/casey_anthony_goes_international.html

[ellegna]

Forgot to add to my original post

Steven Soderbergh is donating his fees for Tot Mom to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the Sydney Theatre Company will make no profit from this production.

What a marvelous gesture to donate to such a worthy cause.

Ya think there are a few who may be miffed no $$$ will be going their way? :laugh:

[Scampi]

Morning Sweet Canada and thanks again for the ecard. I think it's great that Steven is donating all monies to the Center. The anthonys will be livid, imo.

Sure isn't going to be a "merry" Christmas for those that murder babies and those that defend them, imo.

[Explorer]

Wow Someone who REALLY cares about missing kids and isnt trying to make a buck off of them.

[snowflakes]

Wow Someone who REALLY cares about missing kids and isnt trying to make a buck off of them.

Unlike some other people we know.
I would love to be able to know what the Anthonys are thinking right about now.

[SandyO]

Unlike some other people we know.
I would love to be able to know what the Anthonys are thinking right about now.

I would love to know how they're making a living. I know what it costs my family to live for a month with mortgage, utilities, and all the other necessary expenses, and it isn't peanuts. Where is the Anthony's money coming from these days?

[AMS]

Forgot to add to my original post

Steven Soderbergh is donating his fees for Tot Mom to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the Sydney Theatre Company will make no profit from this production.

What a marvelous gesture to donate to such a worthy cause.

Ya think there are a few who may be miffed no $$$ will be going their way? :laugh:

And the theatre company has already extended the running of TOT MOM. More $$$ for missing kids :thumbsup:

Sydney Theatre Company Extends TOT MOM Through 2/7/2010

http://australia.broadwayworld.com/article/Sydney_Theatre_Company_Extends_TOT_MOM_Through_272 010_20091218


imo

[ellegna]

Unlike some other people we know.
I would love to be able to know what the Anthonys are thinking right about now.


Me too :laugh:
I read somewhere (no link right now) Casey and the A's can't lay claim on any of the money because it's out of the country. Steven definitely knew what he was doing. Gotta love him :wub:

[ellegna]

Morning Sweet Canada and thanks again for the ecard. I think it's great that Steven is donating all monies to the Center. The anthonys will be livid, imo.

Sure isn't going to be a "merry" Christmas for those that murder babies and those that defend them, imo.

Morning Scamp

I hope they are. I also hope this is a wake up call for them :angry:
The A's may have their handful of supporters in Orlando but Caylee's supporters extend around the globe. That's a hard act to follow

P S ...You are very welcome and ty for yours

[ellegna]

A thought just occurred to me.

Since Nancy Grace coined the phrase "Tot Mom" and the play has her as one of the main characters, is this the reason why she is not covering the case anymore? Conflict of interest?

[ladeebug565]

Forgot to add to my original post

Steven Soderbergh is donating his fees for Tot Mom to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the Sydney Theatre Company will make no profit from this production.

What a marvelous gesture to donate to such a worthy cause.

Ya think there are a few who may be miffed no $$$ will be going their way? :laugh:

BBM. I sure hope so.

[AMS]

A thought just occurred to me.

Since Nancy Grace coined the phrase "Tot Mom" and the play has her as one of the main characters, is this the reason why she is not covering the case anymore? Conflict of interest?

I was wondering the same thing... if the zero coverage of Tot Mom on NG recently was related to the play somehow.

Not sure why but the timing sure adds up. I still find it hard to believe that NG did not jump on the tape of Casey saying "make him stop".


imo

[ladeebug565]

I'm in the employee benefit business, specialty is disability plans.

In order for Cindy to receive disability through her employer's LTD plan she must be unable to do her regular occupation (i.e., that of an RN in any capacity, not specifically a nurse manager). She must also be under the regular care and treatment of a physician willing to certify her disabled on an on-going basis.

When Cindy claimed that she will get disability for 2 years, she is in fact stating the maximum time limit for a disability due to a mental/nervous disorder.

Group disability policies usually impose a time limit on disabilities that are subjective in nature (i.e., mental/nervous, drug/alcohol, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel, undiagnosed back pain). At the end of two years, if she is not in-patient, or not also physically disabled, her benefits will cease. The exception would be if the mental/nervous disorder was organic in nature such as schizophrenia or dementia.

During the benefit-paying period, there must be ongoing proof from her physician that she is being treated/seen. If at any point it is determined that she no longer meets the definition of disability, benefits would cease. During the two years, however, the insurance provider would be encouraging a return to work in a limited capacity and still pay benefits if the employer can accommodate the restrictions from the physician.

If the disability is expected to last more than a year (which it has at this point), the insurance company may force her to apply for Social Security Disability. It is a direct reduction to her employer-sponsored disability plan, but the right thing to do if disability is total and likely permanent.

Now, if I was managing her claim, I would question the validity on her ability to go on TV, provide a deposition (the pleasant one with the prosecution, not the nasty one with the civil attorney), manage her affairs, take appropriate medicine, recall events/dates. I would wonder if this is someone disabled for her occupation of nurse manager and she darn well better be seeing a therapist on a reasonable basis.

The stress that Cindy is experiencing is quite real; it would be for anyone in her situation. Much of it, however, is manufactured by Cindy. The lies, the obstruction, the potential for perjury charges and whatever dirty secrets Dominic Casey has to spill must be eating her alive.

[SandyO]

I'm in the employee benefit business, specialty is disability plans.


(Snipped simply for space)

Thank you, Ladeebug! That answers at least a few of my questions! Would you say Cindy's disability benefits are enough to support their necessities of life, even if not a cruise, etc.? I think we all know other money is coming from somewhere, probably the sales of photos and what-not, but does that have to be accounted for if Cindy is collecting disability payments or not?

[Barbara fl.]

Forgot to add to my original post

Steven Soderbergh is donating his fees for Tot Mom to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the Sydney Theatre Company will make no profit from this production.

What a marvelous gesture to donate to such a worthy cause.

Ya think there are a few who may be miffed no $$$ will be going their way? :laugh:


Ya "kid finders" and the Anthony's....

[Kathlb]

(Snipped simply for space)

Thank you, Ladeebug! That answers at least a few of my questions! Would you say Cindy's disability benefits are enough to support their necessities of life, even if not a cruise, etc.? I think we all know other money is coming from somewhere, probably the sales of photos and what-not, but does that have to be accounted for if Cindy is collecting disability payments or not?

Good Morning everyone!

I read a long time ago Sandy that someone from up east was sending them $5,000 a month every month also. I don't think the person or people have ever been identified. They must be pretty good to keep it a secret this long...or they are invisi-benefactors. I can't really imagine that happening. Even your relatives usually can't do that for another family member and we know Cindy has alienated not only friends, but strangers and family members also. MOO

[Barbara fl.]

I'm in the employee benefit business, specialty is disability plans.

In order for Cindy to receive disability through her employer's LTD plan she must be unable to do her regular occupation (i.e., that of an RN in any capacity, not specifically a nurse manager). She must also be under the regular care and treatment of a physician willing to certify her disabled on an on-going basis.

When Cindy claimed that she will get disability for 2 years, she is in fact stating the maximum time limit for a disability due to a mental/nervous disorder.

Group disability policies usually impose a time limit on disabilities that are subjective in nature (i.e., mental/nervous, drug/alcohol, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel, undiagnosed back pain). At the end of two years, if she is not in-patient, or not also physically disabled, her benefits will cease. The exception would be if the mental/nervous disorder was organic in nature such as schizophrenia or dementia.

During the benefit-paying period, there must be ongoing proof from her physician that she is being treated/seen. If at any point it is determined that she no longer meets the definition of disability, benefits would cease. During the two years, however, the insurance provider would be encouraging a return to work in a limited capacity and still pay benefits if the employer can accommodate the restrictions from the physician.

If the disability is expected to last more than a year (which it has at this point), the insurance company may force her to apply for Social Security Disability. It is a direct reduction to her employer-sponsored disability plan, but the right thing to do if disability is total and likely permanent.

Now, if I was managing her claim, I would question the validity on her ability to go on TV, provide a deposition (the pleasant one with the prosecution, not the nasty one with the civil attorney), manage her affairs, take appropriate medicine, recall events/dates. I would wonder if this is someone disabled for her occupation of nurse manager and she darn well better be seeing a therapist on a reasonable basis.

The stress that Cindy is experiencing is quite real; it would be for anyone in her situation. Much of it, however, is manufactured by Cindy. The lies, the obstruction, the potential for perjury charges and whatever dirty secrets Dominic Casey has to spill must be eating her alive.

Thanks for the info.....If it was determined that Cindy could return to work but her job wouln't take her back due to the puiblicity surrounding her, would that be considered a disability or would she have to go on unemployment..?

[SandyO]

Good Morning everyone!

I read a long time ago Sandy that someone from up east was sending them $5,000 a month every month also. I don't think the person or people have ever been identified. They must be pretty good to keep it a secret this long...or they are invisi-benefactors. I can't really imagine that happening. Even your relatives usually can't do that for another family member and we know Cindy has alienated not only friends, but strangers and family members also. MOO

I remember that ---- something about a wealthy family in Connecticut donating to Casey's defense (and to the Anthony's, too?) It DOES seem outlandish and unlikely ---- but the bucks are rolling in from somewhere to Cindy and George. I guess it has to be the media, the networks, buying pictures, etc., but I'm wondering if C & G can accept money from these sources and Cindy still collect disability benefits?

[Barbara fl.]

Good Morning everyone!

I read a long time ago Sandy that someone from up east was sending them $5,000 a month every month also. I don't think the person or people have ever been identified. They must be pretty good to keep it a secret this long...or they are invisi-benefactors. I can't really imagine that happening. Even your relatives usually can't do that for another family member and we know Cindy has alienated not only friends, but strangers and family members also. MOO


I also heard that somewhere...I wonder if it is still happening...one thig for sure, they are getting money from somewhere....I had also heard that George was working for kid finders and drawing a salary....

[SandyO]

I also heard that somewhere...I wonder if it is still happening...one thig for sure, they are getting money from somewhere....I had also heard that George was working for kid finders and drawing a salary....

Oh, Lord, them again. I can hardly imagine the Milstead's parting with any $ for George.

[Holden]

Me too :laugh:
I read somewhere (no link right now) Casey and the A's can't lay claim on any of the money because it's out of the country. Steven definitely knew what he was doing. Gotta love him :wub:

Wow, I didn't realize that's why Soderbergh was doing it out of the country but it makes sense. YOu know if the A's thought they could make $$$ on this, they'd be sending Conway out with his hat in his hand begging 'licensing fees'. I would love to get ahold of that screenplay to see how the Anthonys are being portrayed. Since it's basically a documentary, I wonder if they will show that hellish green creature who showed up at the ZFG hearings to shout, chew gum and zing her crazy eyes at everyone.:blink:

[pixiejoolz]

I was wondering the same thing... if the zero coverage of Tot Mom on NG recently was related to the play somehow.

Not sure why but the timing sure adds up. I still find it hard to believe that NG did not jump on the tape of Casey saying "make him stop".


imo

The timing is perfect, but I bet it's not because of the play (and kudos to Soderbergh for donating the money!). It may have to do with the earlier suit about Melinda Duckett, and just being lawsuit-shy, but whatever it is, NG is certainly no longer a victims advocate AFAIC.

She has become just another tabloid trasher, and might as well take a permanent spot on ET or TMZ. I was already sick to death of her screeching over guests who are talking and her endless I'm-so-blessed pix of the twins, but when she stopped covering the killing of the four Seattle policemen in favor of Tiger Woods, I was permanently done with her.

I'd like to see Mark Klaas take her time slot. He's a real victims advocate; she has turned out to be just another opportunist. jmo

[Elvish2]

The timing is perfect, but I bet it's not because of the play (and kudos to Soderbergh for donating the money!). It may have to do with the earlier suit about Melinda Duckett, and just being lawsuit-shy, but whatever it is, NG is certainly no longer a victims advocate AFAIC.

She has become just another tabloid trasher, and might as well take a permanent spot on ET or TMZ. I was already sick to death of her screeching over guests who are talking and her endless I'm-so-blessed pix of the twins, but when she stopped covering the killing of the four Seattle policemen in favor of Tiger Woods, I was permanently done with her.

I'd like to see Mark Klaas take her time slot. He's a real victims advocate; she has turned out to be just another opportunist. jmo

BBM

I have turned her and JVM both off as well as deleted Nancy from my FB. Enough screaming, ranting & rudeness from the 2 of them.:thumbdown:

[snowflakes]

BBM

I have turned her and JVM both off as well as deleted Nancy from my FB. Enough screaming, ranting & rudeness from the 2 of them.:thumbdown:

I've stopped watching both of them and I'm a much happier person.

I'm sure Cindy will figure out a way so that she and her loser husband will never have to work again.:cursing:

[Patty437]

Marinade Dave is reporting someone accessed the "Zenaida Facebook Page" on 12/19/09.

[Kathlb]

I've stopped watching both of them and I'm a much happier person.

I'm sure Cindy will figure out a way so that she and her loser husband will never have to work again.:cursing:

Truthfully, Mike Galanos (sp) is a good watch and he seems to cover most news of trials, arrests, etc. and is much more layed back. I actually started getting a headache from JVM's constant shouting. And Nancy stopping covering the Anthonys and Casey's case really bugged me. She didn't even give a clue as to why. :angry:

[Patty437]

Sorry....it's "myspace"

[Spots]

Good Morning everyone!

I read a long time ago Sandy that someone from up east was sending them $5,000 a month every month also. I don't think the person or people have ever been identified. They must be pretty good to keep it a secret this long...or they are invisi-benefactors. I can't really imagine that happening. Even your relatives usually can't do that for another family member and we know Cindy has alienated not only friends, but strangers and family members also. MOO

This was a rumor from a poster who had lunch with someone who knew someone. (Get the picture?) It has never been confirmed by any other source. Funny thing, that poster disappeared immediately after posting this and other "inside info."

[*MoonRider*]

BBM

I have turned her and JVM both off as well as deleted Nancy from my FB. Enough screaming, ranting & rudeness from the 2 of them.:thumbdown:

Not much of a case needs to be made for the success of CNN's sister-network, HLN. HLN will have its best year ever in 2009 with some of its most well known programs, "Nancy Grace," "Morning Express with Robin Meade," and "Showbiz Tonight," posting their best years yet. Year-to-year, HLN will be up 15% in Total Viewers and 12% in the demo in primetime.http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/ :confused:

[pixiejoolz]

Not much of a case needs to be made for the success of CNN's sister-network, HLN. HLN will have its best year ever in 2009 with some of its most well known programs, "Nancy Grace," "Morning Express with Robin Meade," and "Showbiz Tonight," posting their best years yet. Year-to-year, HLN will be up 15% in Total Viewers and 12% in the demo in primetime.http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/ :confused:

What can you say? I guess a lot of viewers like rudeness, screaming and celebrity stories. :shrug:

[BJames]

Good morning to all :smile:

I spent some time yesterday going back to the 'beginning' of this case, reading posts and articles and listening to jail visits.
What went thru my mind was how 'desensitized' I have become as this case has progressed, many of the things that I found 'shocking' at the beginning I have almost come to expect...especially when it involves the Anthony family as a unit.
I know Baez has said that he doesn't believe his client can get a fair trial because so many folks have followed this...if I were him I would almost be more concerned about jurors who haven't even heard a thing.
We have one son who doesn't really follow legal issues...so I spent some time yesterday giving him an account of what has transpired thus far regarding Casey Anthony and her family. Between the look on his face and his mouth hanging open..I realized how 'conditioned' I have become in following this 'saga'.
Imagine someone (a juror?) hearing this all from the beginning..no matter what, the lies told by Casey and her unit are jaw dropping...and at this point they will already know that baby Caylee is indeed deceased.
We have learned things gradually...for anyone who hasn't it is going to be an eye opening journey.
Yep...all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt. Even after a year and a half I can't even think of how they can even attempt that..and after hearing the case laid out? My son said short of an insanity defense..there isn't anything 'reasonable' to create doubt.
I suppose I am just past being shocked by anything 'Anthony'...

Just my opinion of course..

[Scampi]

Good Morning everyone!

I read a long time ago Sandy that someone from up east was sending them $5,000 a month every month also. I don't think the person or people have ever been identified. They must be pretty good to keep it a secret this long...or they are invisi-benefactors. I can't really imagine that happening. Even your relatives usually can't do that for another family member and we know Cindy has alienated not only friends, but strangers and family members also. MOO

I would love to know the tax implications of this montly $5,000. Should they be declaring this as income, or is it funneled thru their "foundation?"

[Spots]

I would love to know the tax implications of this montly $5,000. Should they be declaring this as income, or is it funneled thru their "foundation?"

Read it and weep:

"Cash gifts are never considered income to the person receiving them, so cash gifts do not need to be reported to the IRS. The person making the gift, however, must file a gift tax return and might have to pay a gift tax if the gift is large enough. Even for large gifts, though, there are certain exceptions to which the gift tax doesn't apply."

http://www.ehow.com/about_5468284_do-cash-gifts-reported-irs.html

HOWEVER: As I pointed out above, this is a RUMOR. I can't believe the Anthonys would make (invite?) Lee to move in with them if they didn't need his income. I prefer to think that they're in debt up to their eyeballs, and will be paying on their extravagances for decades to come.

[SandyO]

I would love to know the tax implications of this montly $5,000. Should they be declaring this as income, or is it funneled thru their "foundation?"

These are my questions, also, Scampi. If Cindy is collecting disability compensation (due to her fragile mental state), does she have to report income from other sources? It is more than obvious that the Anthonys are doing just fine financially, and I want to know how that comes about for a couple who don't have jobs.

[Scampi]

Read it and weep:

"Cash gifts are never considered income to the person receiving them, so cash gifts do not need to be reported to the IRS. The person making the gift, however, must file a gift tax return and might have to pay a gift tax if the gift is large enough. Even for large gifts, though, there are certain exceptions to which the gift tax doesn't apply."

http://www.ehow.com/about_5468284_do-cash-gifts-reported-irs.html

HOWEVER: As I pointed out above, this is a RUMOR. I can't believe the Anthonys would make (invite?) Lee to move in with them if they didn't need his income. I prefer to think that they're in debt up to their eyeballs, and will be paying on their extravagances for decades to come.

Hmm, this is interesting. Could the people up north be getting the proceeds from the "licensing fees" from all the photos and videos that were sold of Caylee and then they funnel those funds back to the anthonys thru "gifts" that no taxes are due on?

[SandyO]

I made the statement that it's more than obvious the Anthonys are doing just fine financially, and that was an error on my part. I can't possibly KNOW that, it just appears to me to be true. Most folks who are struggling financially don't go on cruises, get tats and bling.

[Spots]

These are my questions, also, Scampi. If Cindy is collecting disability compensation (due to her fragile mental state), does she have to report income from other sources? It is more than obvious that the Anthonys are doing just fine financially, and I want to know how that comes about for a couple who don't have jobs.

Regarding the taxability of this income:

"If you retired on disability, you must include in income any disability pension you receive under a plan that is paid for by your employer."

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p525/ar02.html#en_US_publink100098327 (Scroll down about halfway.)

[ladeebug565]

(Snipped simply for space)

Thank you, Ladeebug! That answers at least a few of my questions! Would you say Cindy's disability benefits are enough to support their necessities of life, even if not a cruise, etc.? I think we all know other money is coming from somewhere, probably the sales of photos and what-not, but does that have to be accounted for if Cindy is collecting disability payments or not?

Most group insurance plans pay 60% of the pre-disability pay, minus other sources of income (salary/wages, SSD, SSR, Workers' Comp). If the employer paid any portion of the premium, that portion of the benefit is considered taxable income. So, at best, she is receiving 60% of her pre-disability pay, gross, and will receive a W-2.

The sale of photos and memorabilia would not be consider another source of income that could be used to reduce the disability benefit.

[ladeebug565]

Thanks for the info.....If it was determined that Cindy could return to work but her job wouln't take her back due to the puiblicity surrounding her, would that be considered a disability or would she have to go on unemployment..?

Once it is determined that you are physically and/or mentally able to work at your regular occupation, benefits would cease whether there was a job waiting for you or not. The exception would be if there were no RN jobs within a reasonable distance. Not the case in Orange County, FL, I would assume.

[crimeq]

The timing is perfect, but I bet it's not because of the play (and kudos to Soderbergh for donating the money!). It may have to do with the earlier suit about Melinda Duckett, and just being lawsuit-shy, but whatever it is, NG is certainly no longer a victims advocate AFAIC.

She has become just another tabloid trasher, and might as well take a permanent spot on ET or TMZ. I was already sick to death of her screeching over guests who are talking and her endless I'm-so-blessed pix of the twins, but when she stopped covering the killing of the four Seattle policemen in favor of Tiger Woods, I was permanently done with her.

I'd like to see Mark Klaas take her time slot. He's a real victims advocate; she has turned out to be just another opportunist. jmo

Nancy dropped the Tot-Mom case when she abruptly canceled the one-hour special (the tell-all special) devoted to Cindy. If you recall, she was really hyping that super one-hour special and we were all waiting to see it (even though we knew it would probably just be re-hash of what we at IS already knew).

Well, the special got canceled. And AFAIK Nancy never had another show mentioning the Anthonys or Caylee.

I think she was threatened with a big-time lawsuit -- and this coming on top of the Duckett case made her step back.

I don't think the TotMom play in OZ has anything to do with her decision--I don't think the Anthonys could claim any monies from a creative work anyway--and I don't even think they could bring a lawsuit when the basis for the play came from LE reports and news.

ETA - good morning everybody :-) We're having a party this afternoon and I just got a black eye. I was pulling some more Christmas decorations off a top shelf and the box fell and the corner hit me right under my eye. I'm gonna have a black eye for Christmas :-( Have certainly never before had a black eye.

[ladeebug565]

These are my questions, also, Scampi. If Cindy is collecting disability compensation (due to her fragile mental state), does she have to report income from other sources? It is more than obvious that the Anthonys are doing just fine financially, and I want to know how that comes about for a couple who don't have jobs.

She absolutely does have to report other sources of income to the disability insurance carrier, but gifts wouldn't be a reduction to her benefits. The carrier is looking at governmental benefits (state disability/retirement, SSD, SSR), Workers' Compensation, working for wage/salary, dipping into an employer-sponsored retirement plan).

[BlueTurtle]

I've stopped watching both of them and I'm a much happier person. (NG JVM)



I am, too........

[Spots]

Hmm, this is interesting. Could the people up north be getting the proceeds from the "licensing fees" from all the photos and videos that were sold of Caylee and then they funnel those funds back to the anthonys thru "gifts" that no taxes are due on?

Possible, but the North People (who may or may not exist) would have to be dumb as rocks. The licensing fees would be taxable to them.

Suppose they got $200,000 and sent $60,000 (1 year) to the Anthonys. They would be liable for taxes on $200,000 less the maximum allowable gift amount of $26,000 (for 2 people), or $174,000. They would get nailed ~big time.~ And they'd still be supporting the Anthonys next year.

Of course, this is just an imaginary scenario, but I can't see anyone being willing to take this on. I also can't see the Anthonys allowing someone else to get the $200,000 while they get a lousy $60,000.

MOO

[crimeq]

What can you say? I guess a lot of viewers like rudeness, screaming and celebrity stories. :shrug:

Even Jerry Springer has an audience. Go figure. There's no accounting for peoples' taste.

[Spots]

Nancy dropped the Tot-Mom case when she abruptly canceled the one-hour special (the tell-all special) devoted to Cindy. If you recall, she was really hyping that super one-hour special and we were all waiting to see it (even though we knew it would probably just be re-hash of what we at IS already knew).

Well, the special got canceled. And AFAIK Nancy never had another show mentioning the Anthonys or Caylee.

I think she was threatened with a big-time lawsuit -- and this coming on top of the Duckett case made her step back.

I don't think the TotMom play in OZ has anything to do with her decision--I don't think the Anthonys could claim any monies from a creative work anyway--and I don't even think they could bring a lawsuit when the basis for the play came from LE reports and news.

ETA - good morning everybody :-) We're having a party this afternoon and I just got a black eye. I was pulling some more Christmas decorations off a top shelf and the box fell and the corner hit me right under my eye. I'm gonna have a black eye for Christmas :-( Have certainly never before had a black eye.

I also think HLN has a great amount of say in what she reports, just in terms of what story is "in" on a given day. I just read a Time Magazine list of the decade's greatest crime stories, and Casey wasn't even listed.

Look at the bright side: you won't have to write the date on any of your Christmas photos. :D

[crimeq]

I also think HLN has a great amount of say in what she reports, just in terms of what story is "in" on a given day. I just read a Time Magazine list of the decade's greatest crime stories, and Casey wasn't even listed.

Look at the bright side: you won't have to write the date on any of your Christmas photos. :D

Bold mine.

That's for sure. :cool::cool:

[crimeq]

I also think HLN has a great amount of say in what she reports, just in terms of what story is "in" on a given day. I just read a Time Magazine list of the decade's greatest crime stories, and Casey wasn't even listed.

Look at the bright side: you won't have to write the date on any of your Christmas photos. :D

Bold mine.

Okay --- now THIS amazes me :confused:

ETA - hasn't this case been called, informally, a "crime of the century"?

[sunstar]

Forgot to add to my original post

Steven Soderbergh is donating his fees for Tot Mom to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the Sydney Theatre Company will make no profit from this production.

What a marvelous gesture to donate to such a worthy cause.

Ya think there are a few who may be miffed no $$$ will be going their way? :laugh:

What a wonderful thing for them to do!! :thumbsup:

[Spots]

Bold mine.

Okay --- now THIS amazes me :confused:

My error. It's the Top Ten Crime Stories of 2009, not of the decade.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1943832_1943833,00.html

ETA: I missed the 2008 list. Perhaps she is listed there?

[sunstar]

I was wondering the same thing... if the zero coverage of Tot Mom on NG recently was related to the play somehow.

Not sure why but the timing sure adds up. I still find it hard to believe that NG did not jump on the tape of Casey saying "make him stop".


imo

I don't think it has anything to do with the play in Australia. There's other cases she hasn't followed up on too besides Casey and ever since Thanksgiving it's been nonstop TW. It seems she goes in cycles covering one case forever then will drop it and move on to something else. MOO

[crimeq]

What a wonderful thing for them to do!! :thumbsup:

This is Cate Blanchett's theater company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftB7xPwM3S4

I read some time back that Cate's college roommate is starring in the play.

[crimeq]

What a wonderful thing for them to do!! :thumbsup:

I find it very interesting that the funds are going to the US Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and not an Aussie center.

Now THIS will burn the Anthonys -- all that "Caylee" money going to a foundation other than theirs.

Since the run of the play has already been extended to February, this play is raking in some big bucks. Yippee for StevenS and everybody else involved with it.

I bet StevenS makes a movie of it after the trial, however, just like he did Erin Brockvich. He owns the rights to this play and he'll release it in a film venue when the time is right.

I think he'll wait until he knows the real "ending" (post-trial) to do that.

[sunstar]

I find it very interesting that the funds are going to the US Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and not an Aussie center.

Now THIS will burn the Anthonys -- all that "Caylee" money going to a foundation other than theirs.

Since the run of the play has already been extended to February, this play is raking in some big bucks. Yippee for StevenS and everybody else involved with it.

I bet StevenS makes a movie of it after the trial, however Just like he did Erin Brockvich. He owns the rights to this play and he'll release it in a film venue when the time is right.

I think he'll wait until he knows the real "ending" (post-trial) to do that.
And speaking of Casey's family, I wonder how they are portrayed in the play? I also hope he makes a movie after the trial. :thumbup:

[achristie]

Good morning to all :smile:

I spent some time yesterday going back to the 'beginning' of this case, reading posts and articles and listening to jail visits.
What went thru my mind was how 'desensitized' I have become as this case has progressed, many of the things that I found 'shocking' at the beginning I have almost come to expect...especially when it involves the Anthony family as a unit.
I know Baez has said that he doesn't believe his client can get a fair trial because so many folks have followed this...if I were him I would almost be more concerned about jurors who haven't even heard a thing.
We have one son who doesn't really follow legal issues...so I spent some time yesterday giving him an account of what has transpired thus far regarding Casey Anthony and her family. Between the look on his face and his mouth hanging open..I realized how 'conditioned' I have become in following this 'saga'.
Imagine someone (a juror?) hearing this all from the beginning..no matter what, the lies told by Casey and her unit are jaw dropping...and at this point they will already know that baby Caylee is indeed deceased.
We have learned things gradually...for anyone who hasn't it is going to be an eye opening journey.
Yep...all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt. Even after a year and a half I can't even think of how they can even attempt that..and after hearing the case laid out? My son said short of an insanity defense..there isn't anything 'reasonable' to create doubt.
I suppose I am just past being shocked by anything 'Anthony'...

Just my opinion of course..

Great post, and I agree, especially about becoming desensitized. Although I was just looking at party pics on another site and I still found them shocking. These girls , the way they dance, and the guys drooling? Talk about serving it up on a silver platter. Guess I'm old fashioned.

MOO Aggie

[AnnieKins]

Forgot to add to my original post

Steven Soderbergh is donating his fees for Tot Mom to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the Sydney Theatre Company will make no profit from this production.

What a marvelous gesture to donate to such a worthy cause.

Ya think there are a few who may be miffed no $$$ will be going their way? :laugh:

Wow, that is wonderful! I hope they make tons of money. What humanitarian gesture. :smile:

[AnnieKins]

Me too :laugh:
I read somewhere (no link right now) Casey and the A's can't lay claim on any of the money because it's out of the country. Steven definitely knew what he was doing. Gotta love him :wub:

He's obviously someone who knows their true colours! :smile:

[bugout]

Hey crimeq so sorry you bonked yourself in the eye! Well the box bonked you, anyway. Time to get out that bare essentials cover stick. :D

I had two black eyes once from dental work. I was so upset and so surprised that I about sent myself to the moon over it. I had to answer the door that way, get my cable line installed and deal with the mail man, ups, and wow was that ever scary.

:eek:

Use ice on it; it will help with the swelling some but that discoloration, good luck!

I hope that this week is the worst week in Casey A's life ever. We all know it will be for the A's but they brought much of this on themselves.
Sad to say but it's true. No way would CindA be drawing a SSI check and going on a cruise. If she is on SSI then someone needs to turn her in for fraud. If her son is living there to provide income that also needs to be reported by the person drawing the income.
Bug

[sunstar]

My error. It's the Top Ten Crime Stories of 2009, not of the decade.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1943832_1943833,00.html

ETA: I missed the 2008 list. Perhaps she is listed there?

I really don't remember if she was on that list last year, but with so many crimes occurring each year it must be a difficult job for them to pick the "top 10"; something has to be remarkable about the crime that separates it from others. Sadly little Caylee hasn't been the only child murdered. :sad: I think they made a good list this year. MOO

[AnnieKins]

I'm in the employee benefit business, specialty is disability plans.

In order for Cindy to receive disability through her employer's LTD plan she must be unable to do her regular occupation (i.e., that of an RN in any capacity, not specifically a nurse manager). She must also be under the regular care and treatment of a physician willing to certify her disabled on an on-going basis.

When Cindy claimed that she will get disability for 2 years, she is in fact stating the maximum time limit for a disability due to a mental/nervous disorder.

Group disability policies usually impose a time limit on disabilities that are subjective in nature (i.e., mental/nervous, drug/alcohol, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel, undiagnosed back pain). At the end of two years, if she is not in-patient, or not also physically disabled, her benefits will cease. The exception would be if the mental/nervous disorder was organic in nature such as schizophrenia or dementia.

During the benefit-paying period, there must be ongoing proof from her physician that she is being treated/seen. If at any point it is determined that she no longer meets the definition of disability, benefits would cease. During the two years, however, the insurance provider would be encouraging a return to work in a limited capacity and still pay benefits if the employer can accommodate the restrictions from the physician.

If the disability is expected to last more than a year (which it has at this point), the insurance company may force her to apply for Social Security Disability. It is a direct reduction to her employer-sponsored disability plan, but the right thing to do if disability is total and likely permanent.

Now, if I was managing her claim, I would question the validity on her ability to go on TV, provide a deposition (the pleasant one with the prosecution, not the nasty one with the civil attorney), manage her affairs, take appropriate medicine, recall events/dates. I would wonder if this is someone disabled for her occupation of nurse manager and she darn well better be seeing a therapist on a reasonable basis.

The stress that Cindy is experiencing is quite real; it would be for anyone in her situation. Much of it, however, is manufactured by Cindy. The lies, the obstruction, the potential for perjury charges and whatever dirty secrets Dominic Casey has to spill must be eating her alive.

That's what I think too... like hamburger sizzling on a grill.

[bugout]

And speaking of Casey's family, I wonder how they are portrayed in the play? I also hope he makes a movie after the trial. :thumbup:

Isn't betty broderick up for parole soon? She could play CindA to a "T".
:tonguewag:

[AnnieKins]

I also think HLN has a great amount of say in what she reports, just in terms of what story is "in" on a given day. I just read a Time Magazine list of the decade's greatest crime stories, and Casey wasn't even listed.
Look at the bright side: you won't have to write the date on any of your Christmas photos. :D

That is incredible! Really?! :scared:

[Scampi]

Possible, but the North People (who may or may not exist) would have to be dumb as rocks. The licensing fees would be taxable to them.

Suppose they got $200,000 and sent $60,000 (1 year) to the Anthonys. They would be liable for taxes on $200,000 less the maximum allowable gift amount of $26,000 (for 2 people), or $174,000. They would get nailed ~big time.~ And they'd still be supporting the Anthonys next year.

Of course, this is just an imaginary scenario, but I can't see anyone being willing to take this on. I also can't see the Anthonys allowing someone else to get the $200,000 while they get a lousy $60,000.

MOO

I can't either spottie, but in this imaginary scenario the taxes owed would be cheaper then actually gifting the anthonys the 60 grand a year I think.

At any rate, IMO the anthonys are involved in some money shenanigans and I hope it all catches up with them at tax time.

[Scampi]

Nancy dropped the Tot-Mom case when she abruptly canceled the one-hour special (the tell-all special) devoted to Cindy. If you recall, she was really hyping that super one-hour special and we were all waiting to see it (even though we knew it would probably just be re-hash of what we at IS already knew).

Well, the special got canceled. And AFAIK Nancy never had another show mentioning the Anthonys or Caylee.

I think she was threatened with a big-time lawsuit -- and this coming on top of the Duckett case made her step back.

I don't think the TotMom play in OZ has anything to do with her decision--I don't think the Anthonys could claim any monies from a creative work anyway--and I don't even think they could bring a lawsuit when the basis for the play came from LE reports and news.

ETA - good morning everybody :-) We're having a party this afternoon and I just got a black eye. I was pulling some more Christmas decorations off a top shelf and the box fell and the corner hit me right under my eye. I'm gonna have a black eye for Christmas :-( Have certainly never before had a black eye.

Ouchie!! Is it too late to get a fancy eyepatch???

[alanna]

The same link and article were posted here last night on the previous thread. :tongueside:
Is Caylee's murder that well know in Australia? :huh:

Casey Anthony Goes International

SYDNEY, Australia-- A play based on the arrest and court case involving Casey Anthony has opened in an Australian theater.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2...rnational.html

[alanna]

Article with the poll-
Would you go see this play? :biggrin:
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/2009/12/the_casey_anthony_play_entitle.html

[sunstar]

Article with the poll-
Would you go see this play? :biggrin:
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/2009/12/the_casey_anthony_play_entitle.html

Interesting there aren't many responses yet!

[Elvish2]

Interesting there aren't many responses yet!

It was posted earlier that a ticket for Tot Mom is $70.00! But I don't think she realized that the money was all non-profit and was going to a childrens charity.

ETA

Leanne Weich was the poster.

[LilGirl]

Good morning to all :smile:

I spent some time yesterday going back to the 'beginning' of this case, reading posts and articles and listening to jail visits.
What went thru my mind was how 'desensitized' I have become as this case has progressed, many of the things that I found 'shocking' at the beginning I have almost come to expect...especially when it involves the Anthony family as a unit.
I know Baez has said that he doesn't believe his client can get a fair trial because so many folks have followed this...if I were him I would almost be more concerned about jurors who haven't even heard a thing.
We have one son who doesn't really follow legal issues...so I spent some time yesterday giving him an account of what has transpired thus far regarding Casey Anthony and her family. Between the look on his face and his mouth hanging open..I realized how 'conditioned' I have become in following this 'saga'.
Imagine someone (a juror?) hearing this all from the beginning..no matter what, the lies told by Casey and her unit are jaw dropping...and at this point they will already know that baby Caylee is indeed deceased.
We have learned things gradually...for anyone who hasn't it is going to be an eye opening journey.
Yep...all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt. Even after a year and a half I can't even think of how they can even attempt that..and after hearing the case laid out? My son said short of an insanity defense..there isn't anything 'reasonable' to create doubt.
I suppose I am just past being shocked by anything 'Anthony'...

Just my opinion of course..

Yes, I too get caught up in the facts, evidence and awful things that the Anthony's have done. And then I see that little girl's big brown eyes and the horror of it will hit me....how on earth did Casey clean up her dead baby's body with paper towels, toss her in the woods, and go on living? It is beyond comprehension.

[Themis]

The timing is perfect, but I bet it's not because of the play (and kudos to Soderbergh for donating the money!). It may have to do with the earlier suit about Melinda Duckett, and just being lawsuit-shy, but whatever it is, NG is certainly no longer a victims advocate AFAIC.

She has become just another tabloid trasher, and might as well take a permanent spot on ET or TMZ. I was already sick to death of her screeching over guests who are talking and her endless I'm-so-blessed pix of the twins, but when she stopped covering the killing of the four Seattle policemen in favor of Tiger Woods, I was permanently done with her.

I'd like to see Mark Klaas take her time slot. He's a real victims advocate; she has turned out to be just another opportunist. jmo
I stopped watching her (and JVM) a long time ago for the same reasons you gave, Pixiejoolz.

What happened to being able to report news .. even that of a lurid nature .. in a conversational tone and manner?
What is with all the arm waving, exaggerated facial expressions and overly dramatic delivery by so many talking heads?
Even Vinnie Politan on InSession's trial coverage has adapted this over-the-top way of speaking. [JMO * Themis]

[LilGirl]

My error. It's the Top Ten Crime Stories of 2009, not of the decade.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1943832_1943833,00.html

ETA: I missed the 2008 list. Perhaps she is listed there?

Doesn't this make twice, Spots? That you were wrong, that is? :tonguewag: See... I pay attention.

[Spots]

Doesn't this make twice, Spots? That you were wrong, that is? :tonguewag: See... I pay attention.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen!!! <swoon>

I'm afraid the count is much higher than just 2. But don't tell anyone. :D

[Anakerie]

It was posted earlier that a ticket for Tot Mom is $70.00! But I don't think she realized that the money was all non-profit and was going to a childrens charity.

ETA

Leanne Weich was the poster.
I wonder if that $70.00 is in Australian or US currency... I have no clue what the exchange rate is between here and there....


ETA: Found a site that does the exchange rates:
1.00 USD = 1.12201 AUD

United States Dollars
1 USD = 1.12201 AUD

Australia Dollars
1 AUD = 0.891256 USD

http://www.xe.com/ucc/

[Elvish2]

I wonder if that $70.00 is in Australian or US currency... I have no clue what the exchange rate is between here and there....


ETA: Found a site that does the exchange rates:
1.00 USD = 1.12201 AUD

United States Dollars
1 USD = 1.12201 AUD

Australia Dollars
1 AUD = 0.891256 USD

http://www.xe.com/ucc/

So apprx $62 US

[Anakerie]

So apprx $62 US
Yep, thats the number I get when I fiddle with the calculator.. :thumbup:

And I would probably be one of the folks paying for a ticket to see the play... The funds go to a good cause.. A legitimate charity as opposed to the Anthony Fundation.

[sunstar]

So apprx $62 US

That's not cheap! The A's must be furious. :biggrin: MOO

[bugout]

I stopped watching her (and JVM) a long time ago for the same reasons you gave, Pixiejoolz.

What happened to being able to report news .. even that of a lurid nature .. in a conversational tone and manner?
What is with all the arm waving, exaggerated facial expressions and overly dramatic delivery by so many talking heads?
Even Vinnie Politan on InSession's trial coverage has adapted this over-the-top way of speaking. [JMO * Themis]

HI Themis! You nailed it here. when JVM realized that we were all complaining about her voice, I am CERTAIN that she started to take voice lessons on lowering her normal voice. When she did that, lowered it an octave it sounds ridiculous! I CANNOT listen to her for more than 1 minute and I turn her OFF. Some people should not be in journalism.
I totally agree with the dog with a bone type of reporting. Sometimes the TH looks as if they will jump over their table to get that bone.
We are not talking bone of contention here either.... lol

Then we have MG; who inserts his own opinions and his religion into his "reporting" and then I have to turn him off. His comments are short and sweet but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to show you he disagrees with the morals on most stories he is reporting....

Then back to this case: It's sad how many people have stopped reporting on the case. NG, she is all about self promotion and so is the rest of the current crew. How does one know this? They all hold up each otehrs books at the end of their segment....Something that in journalism, true journalism would NEVER have been tolerated by the masses. Now it's common place. Something has to happen to turn the tide.

NG's reporting on her "tot mom" was all about sensationalizing this horror story. Sad but true. IN a heartbeat she will turn around and SHOW YOU photos of her own twins! In the middle of reporting on a death of a child!

and america, eats it up! COME ON! I do not know the real reasons behind NG's refusal to speak of her Tot Mom but maybe someone else threatened to sue. That's what I'm thinking.....

Bug
:rose:

Poor Caylee, she didn't have a chance with this family.

[LilGirl]

oh, how the mighty have fallen!!! <swoon>

i'm afraid the count is much higher than just 2. But don't tell anyone. :d

ok. I promise! I won't tell anyone!!!

[LilGirl]

Oh, how the mighty have fallen!!! <swoon>

I'm afraid the count is much higher than just 2. But don't tell anyone. :D

oops. I didn't mean to make it THAT big! Sorry. :blushing:

So, would you pay to see the play? I'd pay double. :tonguewag:

[Themis]

<snipped with respect and to comment>

Then back to this case: It's sad how many people have stopped reporting on the case. NG, she is all about self promotion and so is the rest of the current crew. How does one know this? They all hold up each otehrs books at the end of their segment....Something that in journalism, true journalism would NEVER have been tolerated by the masses. Now it's common place. Something has to happen to turn the tide.

NG's reporting on her "tot mom" was all about sensationalizing this horror story. Sad but true. IN a heartbeat she will turn around and SHOW YOU photos of her own twins! In the middle of reporting on a death of a child!

and america, eats it up! COME ON! I do not know the real reasons behind NG's refusal to speak of her Tot Mom but maybe someone else threatened to sue. That's what I'm thinking.....

Bug
:rose:

Poor Caylee, she didn't have a chance with this family.
Yes, Bugout, it is sad that this case doesn't get as much coverage as it used to. But then, I look at the time that has elapsed since poor Caylee was reporting missing. First, I believe most people have a rather short attention span...there is always another *big* story to switch over to. Secondly, and more important, is that I think many people have been so turned off by Caylee's family, their obvious lies, their antics, etc. they have stopped following this case. Certainly, IMO, that applies to poor missing Haleigh Cummings. And, in both cases, all the peripheral characters (and there are SO many) have added to the ever growing baggage cart, IYKWIM.

As for the 2 shows on HLN we've been discussing, I don't consider them actual news shows by people trained in journalism. They may have wanted to appear that way but have evolved into nothing more than TV versions of The National Enquirer and that other one (Star?). I don't read those either -- LOL.

I surely agree with your views, Bugout. Especially when you typed:

"Poor Caylee, she didn't have a chance with this family."

[JMO * Themis]

[Kathlb]

This was a rumor from a poster who had lunch with someone who knew someone. (Get the picture?) It has never been confirmed by any other source. Funny thing, that poster disappeared immediately after posting this and other "inside info."

Thanks Spots,

Well it wouldn't be the first time in this case that info was put out by certain "individuals" wanting to create some nonsense to clutter the lawn.

[CrimeWarrior]

On blog talk radio tonight there is a show with the top stories of 2009, the Caylee Anthony case is one of them. It airs at 10 PM Eastern time and 9 central.

Here is the link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/levipage/2009/12/21/2009-year-in-review

[*MoonRider*]

New Blog post from Richard Hornsby

Will the Real Zenaida Gonzalez Please Stand Up!

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

[Spots]

ok. I promise! I won't tell anyone!!!

:lol:

Gee, thanks.

[bugout]

IT seems to me that RH is one of those whose crawled out from the wood work, intent on inserting himself into a case, for Publicity.

Doncha just hate that? Then again, this case seems to be full of people like that. From blogoshperes to twitter to you tube, people are seizing on the case to use it to get in front of the camera. Whether to further their own careers, but most certainly NOT for little Caylee Marie Anthony's cause. Even the A's themselves!
Can we all agree, they are now famous?

How Sad, is that? Even those that seemed to have their hearts and minds in the right places in the beginning seemed to have lost focus and ended up where LP did. Silent.
How about Cobra, and others? I think in many of these cases, the ambulance chasers have become Big Rig Ambulance chasers at best.

So for me, this guy goes into That file, in studying this case.
MO! Just sayin....

Bug

[Spots]

New Blog post from Richard Hornsby

Will the Real Zenaida Gonzalez Please Stand Up!

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/


Well, now we know he's only 6 months behind everyone else on this case.

He is at least entertaining, now that he's stopped bashing people.

[*MoonRider*]

Well, now we know he's only 6 months behind everyone else on this case.

He is at least entertaining, now that he's stopped bashing people.

ITA, I appreciate the humor :laugh:

[Pruddennce]

Good morning to all :smile:

I spent some time yesterday going back to the 'beginning' of this case, reading posts and articles and listening to jail visits.
What went thru my mind was how 'desensitized' I have become as this case has progressed, many of the things that I found 'shocking' at the beginning I have almost come to expect...especially when it involves the Anthony family as a unit.
I know Baez has said that he doesn't believe his client can get a fair trial because so many folks have followed this...if I were him I would almost be more concerned about jurors who haven't even heard a thing.
We have one son who doesn't really follow legal issues...so I spent some time yesterday giving him an account of what has transpired thus far regarding Casey Anthony and her family. Between the look on his face and his mouth hanging open..I realized how 'conditioned' I have become in following this 'saga'.
Imagine someone (a juror?) hearing this all from the beginning..no matter what, the lies told by Casey and her unit are jaw dropping...and at this point they will already know that baby Caylee is indeed deceased.
We have learned things gradually...for anyone who hasn't it is going to be an eye opening journey.
Yep...all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt. Even after a year and a half I can't even think of how they can even attempt that..and after hearing the case laid out? My son said short of an insanity defense..there isn't anything 'reasonable' to create doubt.
I suppose I am just past being shocked by anything 'Anthony'...

Just my opinion of course..

I agree with you wholeheartedly BJames....

a mother of a small child who has not committed the babysitter's telephone # to memory is a HUGE HURDLE for the defense to overcome.....secondly, to suddenly lose 'the phone', the only resource available to contact the babysitter is again, an incredulous claim.

Casey herself has stated in her LE interview that she would speak with the 'nanny' online sometimes and also thru email. there is no such evidence, there is no email address identified as belonging to ZFG on her laptop or the home computer. there are no 'recovered IM's'. a number for ZFG has never been identified on her cell phone records as incoming or outgoing.

there is no way the defense can PROVE that the sitter existed. there is not one piece of evidence 'independent of Casey's claims' that support her existence.

they can put Cindy on the stand to say: Yes, that was her hair straightener, yes, those were her videos, however, the state will cross her and ask: how did you know that? answer: Casey told me.

statements will be "Casey told me' from every single witness. the next step will be to substantiate what Casey told people. There will be no evidence presented...what will be presented are her lies....most notably, her employment which didnt exist.

take her non-existent employment and place a nanny in that scenario cancels out any need for a nanny or babysitter because the child care need doesnt exist.

all of this will probably occur prior to scientific evidence being presented. one small fact will be resolved: she lied: she didnt work for almost 2 years, thus, no need for child care.....coupled with her carefree behaviour which will surely have heads spinning....

IMO

best regards,
Pru

*waiting on maggot evidence....*

[sunstar]

Pru ~ to your post #88 ~ I totally agree! Nothing but "Casey's word for it" which we know means nothing. I also can't fathom not having such an important phone number memorized or at least written down just in case something happened to the phone. And who contacts their child-care provider online or via IM? And as you said, again, no proof! :sneaky: MOO

[moondance]

i have a question if someone would please answer -- we heard all about this big fight on father s day night where cindy was choking casey and all that right? in cindy- george and lee's depo there is no mention of a fight. were they all telling lies under oath???

[sunstar]

i have a question if someone would please answer -- we heard all about this big fight on father s day night where cindy was choking casey and all that right? in cindy- george and lee's depo there is no mention of a fight. were they all telling lies under oath???

Or did Casey make that up? :shrug:

[Sun]

I'm surprised that not more is being said about the approaching criminal check/fraud trial. Judge Strickland seemed to be holding to his earlier decision for a January 25, 2010 trial date. Will the defense try to get this pushed back?

[moondance]

SUN yes i guess she did i can t remember when she said it but she must have because no one else ever did but nancy grace sure did say it over and over.

[sunstar]

I'm surprised that not more is being said about the approaching criminal check/fraud trial. Judge Strickland seemed to be holding to his earlier decision for a January 25, 2010 trial date. Will the defense try to get this pushed back?

Oh they might try again, but I think they've reached the end of the Judge's patience with that! MOO

[Sun]

Oh they might try again, but I think they've reached the end of the Judge's patience with that! MOO

And Judge Strickland sure has shown an enormous amount of patience. :thumbup:

[Spots]

i have a question if someone would please answer -- we heard all about this big fight on father s day night where cindy was choking casey and all that right? in cindy- george and lee's depo there is no mention of a fight. were they all telling lies under oath???

Lee told somebody (Jesse?), IIRC. The neighbor reported a major fight sometime that weekend. Cindy has flat-out denied it. Casey never said a word about it.

Remember, all of the Anthonys lie.

Bottom line - we have no idea, although many suspect it is true.

[sunstar]

And Judge Strickland sure has shown an enormous amount of patience. :thumbup:

Most definitely an enormous amount!!

[ladeebug565]

Going back and listening to George's police interview. WOW, he was throwing Casey under the bus. He was already convinced she wasn't working. He knew she was making phony emails to try and show she was working. He knew she stole the gas because she had done it before. He talked about her thieving from family. He knew the smell in the car was decomposition.

[Sun]

Going back and listening to George's police interview. WOW, he was throwing Casey under the bus. He was already convinced she wasn't working. He knew she was making phony emails to try and show she was working. He knew she stole the gas because she had done it before. He talked about her thieving from family. He knew the smell in the car was decomposition.

IMO, he was trying to steer LE towards Casey and away from Cindy during those early interviews. He was also trying to manipulate LE into telling him things.

[*MoonRider*]

from the the hinky meter timeline I find it interesting that Casey bought one ticket to the movie"Hancock" She probably went to movies alone to kill time while she pretended to work. jmo http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?page_id=1024

[Sun]

from the the hinky meter timeline I find it interesting that Casey bought one ticket to the movie"Hancock" She probably went to movies alone to kill time while she pretended to work. jmo http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?page_id=1024

I've listened to Tony's interviews, and he flew back from NY on July 5th I believe. June 30th through July 5th are the dates of his trip to NY, right?

[girlspell]

A thought just occurred to me.

Since Nancy Grace coined the phrase "Tot Mom" and the play has her as one of the main characters, is this the reason why she is not covering the case anymore? Conflict of interest?

I wonder about that too. She no longer even mentions it anymore. It used to be nothing would be going on. All you had to do was tuned in and "BOMBSHELL Tongiht!!!" Now, when there is news to report on the case, nothing....

[*MoonRider*]

I've listened to Tony's interviews, and he flew back from NY on July 5th I believe. June 30th through July 5th are the dates of his trip to NY, right?

You are correct. I edited the post. Tony was home when she bought the ticket :shrug:

[AnnieKins]

Going back and listening to George's police interview. WOW, he was throwing Casey under the bus. He was already convinced she wasn't working. He knew she was making phony emails to try and show she was working. He knew she stole the gas because she had done it before. He talked about her thieving from family. He knew the smell in the car was decomposition.

I don't consider telling the truth about someone "throwing them under the bus"! :w00t:

[Dovey]

I don't consider telling the truth about someone "throwing them under the bus"! :w00t:

Who is telling the truth? Not Casey or her parents, who do you mean?

[AnnieKins]

Who is telling the truth? Not Casey or her parents, who do you mean?

Read back to post 99 - LadeeBug's post.

[Dovey]

read it
TY annie

[djmsmom]

I wonder about that too. She no longer even mentions it anymore. It used to be nothing would be going on. All you had to do was tuned in and "BOMBSHELL Tongiht!!!" Now, when there is news to report on the case, nothing....

I think there is a chance that NG got tired of feeding the anthonys egos. Seems once they started pushing their fraudation she quit giving them air time.

[AnnieKins]

Dr. Lillian Glass talks about the interviews of Kronk's ex-wives:

http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/

Very interesting. More about George and Cindy too.

[Chardonnay]

Good evening All :seeya:
So what are the odds that George, Cindy and Lee will
visit Casey on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day? For some
reason I think they will try and Casey won't accept their
visit..

[alanna]

:seeya:
I don't know which way it will go but Christmas day will either be the A's claiming that couldn't get in to see Casey or
Casey saying they didn't come to see her.
Whatever they say will probably be a lie. :tongueside:

[Chardonnay]

:seeya:
I don't know which way it will go but Christmas day will either be the A's claiming that couldn't get in to see Casey or
Casey saying they didn't come to see her.
Whatever they say will probably be a lie. :tongueside:

Surprise, Surprise.....:tonguewag:

[alanna]

Surprise, Surprise.....:tonguewag:

Didn't take much thought for me to come up with that did it? lolololol:laugh:

[Chardonnay]

Didn't take much thought for me to come up with that did it? lolololol:laugh:

Absolutely ! :sneaky:

[crimeq]

I also heard that somewhere...I wonder if it is still happening...one thig for sure, they are getting money from somewhere....I had also heard that George was working for kid finders and drawing a salary....

Barbara, IIRC Kidfinders was paying George $40K/year to be their spokesperson -- HOWEVER -- this was when Milsteads thought they had a new cash cow with the Anthonys. It didn't turn out to be quite as lucrative as they'd planned, I don't think.

Then Milsteads lost their home to foreclosure and lived with George and Cindy for a while. I have a feeling that George's job with Kidfinders probably went away somewhere around that time. JMO of course.

[Spots]

Barbara, IIRC Kidfinders was paying George $40K/year to be their spokesperson -- HOWEVER -- this was when Milsteads thought they had a new cash cow with the Anthonys. It didn't turn out to be quite as lucrative as they'd planned, I don't think.

Then Milsteads lost their home to foreclosure and lived with George and Cindy for a while. I have a feeling that George's job with Kidfinders probably went away somewhere around that time. JMO of course.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but this tidbit came from the same unreliable source as the one about the Anthonys getting $5000 per month from a mysterious family from Connecticut.

KidFinders has never had $40,000 to pay anyone, or the Milsteads would have appropriated the funds for their own use and saved their house from foreclosure.

The same unreliable source claimed that Jose and Casey were bumping uglies while she was spending days at his office, causing Jose's secretary to resign in disgust. Let's kill that one, too, before it goes any further.

It *may* be possible that these rumors will eventually be proven to be true. However, at this point in time, they are only rumors, and we have absolutely no hint of corroborating evidence.

R-U-M-O-R.

[crimeq]

IT seems to me that RH is one of those whose crawled out from the wood work, intent on inserting himself into a case, for Publicity.

Doncha just hate that? Then again, this case seems to be full of people like that. From blogoshperes to twitter to you tube, people are seizing on the case to use it to get in front of the camera. Whether to further their own careers, but most certainly NOT for little Caylee Marie Anthony's cause. Even the A's themselves!
Can we all agree, they are now famous?

How Sad, is that? Even those that seemed to have their hearts and minds in the right places in the beginning seemed to have lost focus and ended up where LP did. Silent.
How about Cobra, and others? I think in many of these cases, the ambulance chasers have become Big Rig Ambulance chasers at best.

So for me, this guy goes into That file, in studying this case.
MO! Just sayin....

Bug

I think Hornsby wants a TV lawyer Talking Head spot on Nancy Grace or one of the other shows .... and he may succeed.

[crimeq]

I hate to be a wet blanket, but this tidbit came from the same unreliable source as the one about the Anthonys getting $5000 per month from a mysterious family from Connecticut.

KidFinders has never had $40,000 to pay anyone, or the Milsteads would have appropriated the funds for their own use and saved their house from foreclosure.

The same unreliable source claimed that Jose and Casey were bumping uglies while she was spending days at his office, causing Jose's secretary to resign in disgust. Let's kill that one, too, before it goes any further.

It *may* be possible that these rumors will eventually be proven to be true. However, at this point in time, they are only rumors, and we have absolutely no hint of corroborating evidence.

R-U-M-O-R.

I thought the $40K was unlikely too, just looking at the Milsteads and learning about them. I couldn't see that they had $40K coming in from ANYWHERE to pay George or even themselves.

Of course there are all kinds of rumors and theories and everything else flying around about this case. Thanks for being able to track these particular rumors to one particular poster, Spots. :smile:

[Lexi]

I thought the $40K was unlikely too, just looking at the Milsteads and learning about them. I couldn't see that they had $40K coming in from ANYWHERE to pay George or even themselves.

Of course there are all kinds of rumors and theories and everything else flying around about this case. Thanks for being able to track these particular rumors to one particular poster, Spots. :smile:


I do remember that one day many months ago one of the stories posted said somthing about George and Cindy "could" each make up to 40,000 a piece for their work on their own non-profit. This was total speculation, even according to whoever reported it.

I don't think they are making near that much, unless their are bunches of crazy people in Florida willing to shell out bunches of money.

[Pruddennce]

Good evening All :seeya:
So what are the odds that George, Cindy and Lee will
visit Casey on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day? For some
reason I think they will try and Casey won't accept their
visit..

no. IMO, they wont be there. video, you know. and Casey is unable to keep herself in check. IMO, she would refuse a visit, just like she did long ago with her father and LE.

back then, it was all arranged, she had an opportunity to 'talk'. which leads me wondering what exactly did she tell the lawyer that was dispatched by Baez, who ultimately convinced her to SHUT UP and not meet with them.

would have been a perfect time for a 'new story' and IMO a plea. bungling baez and his desginee told her nah, dont talk a/k/a dont cooperate. baez was and still is in over his head.

simply because he got a LOUD LAWYER to sit with him and a DP lawyer who has quite a beasty attitude with her crusade and a knack for formulating poor motions......it isnt going to change the facts. heck, they dont even know how to manipulate the facts into case law...they just BLURT on paper, never connecting their case law to the case at hand.

xmas? not going to happen. they already cited their lament and their request to have the jail amend their policies for THEM. Cindy hates to lose. therefore, she will never visit because she didnt get 'her way'....

not so sure about GA....he forgets the script. heck, in 08, he asked LE not to tell Cindy he was being interviewed again by them. of course, GA was only there to play quid pro quo....and he lost. they didnt tell him anything.....

he might show up, but I tend to think she would refuse the visit.

Im still curious about Patrick and Frank Bourgeois and Mike Walker...no LE interviews?

IMO

best regards,
Pru

*waiting on maggot evidence.....*

[Dovey]

well this is a 1st for me to disagree with you.

I do think the A's will visit for a pity party now that the motion was denied, taping Casey with her visitors, G & C or L Anthony.

[FindAnswers]

Hi everyone.
I really don't think the Anthony's will visit unless they have a preplanned idea to make Casey seem emotional and portray her in a good light.

[Anakerie]

I'll join in with my opinion on George and Cindy going to visit Casey. IMO, they may try, but I have a hunch that Casey would turn them away just like she did the last time they tried to see her. If Casey really wanted to see her parents, she would have made some gesture towards them in court instead of marching out the door without even glancing in their direction. The only times I remember seeing her look behind her in their direction were the first couple of hearings, including the bail hearing. I think she was looking at them and smiling at them because she thought they were going to make the problem of a missing daughter "go away". It seems like Cindy and George did all they could to make the problem "go away", but they couldn't un-ring that bell that rang so loud when Cindy kept calling 911.

I don't think Casey has "forgiven" her mother for calling 911 instead of making the problem "go away". I also don't think Casey has any regard for her father. I don't think she and George got along very well, and I don't think she wanted him and Cindy to reconcile. I think she would have preferred George and Cindy stay separated or get divorced. I can't come up with a reason why she'd feel that way, other than perhaps she was hoping somehow she'd end up with the house..

I'm also pretty sure that Casey has some hard feelings towards her parents for all their travels while she "comforts herself" in her "dorm room". After all, George and Cindy have had all expense paid trips to New York City and Los Angeles while Casey sat in her "dorm room". Then George and Cindy took Lee and Mallory off on a lovely little weekend cruise while Casey sat in her "dorm room". Can you imagine a visit where George and Cindy sit there and tell Casey all about their lovely trips? I'm sure we'd see fisties again.

[BobbisAngel]

It's hard to tell what these people will end up doing. I think Cindy and George would go in a flash if Casey would let them in BUT I don't think that Casey wants anything to do with her parents. They are of no use to her now...she no longer needs them. If she really cared about her parents their eyes would be the first her eyes would meet when she walks into the courtroom each time. She would walk in looking to see where they are sitting.

Baez and company knew that the judge wouldn't change anything where videos in the jail are concerned. By him saying "no" they can blame him for Casey and her parnets not seeing each other. That was the whole purpose of that paperwork. The Anthonys will understand why Casey doesn't want them to come visit...they won't want to put her life at risk!!!! I'm being sarcastic! How in the world would their visiting put Casey's life at risk???????? Sounds like the defense is afraid that Casey will slip and say something that will benefit the Pros :thumbsup:

[FindAnswers]

Anarkerie. I agree with most of what you said. the one thing i can't get over is why Casey wanted to talk to her father in private and without a regular visit that one day? Was she going to convince him to change something he said or what?

I wonder how much bull Casey tells the defense that they actually believe and how much they know she is lying about?

[FindAnswers]

It's hard to tell what these people will end up doing. I think Cindy and George would go in a flash if Casey would let them in BUT I don't think that Casey wants anything to do with her parents. They are of no use to her now...she no longer needs them. If she really cared about her parents their eyes would be the first her eyes would meet when she walks into the courtroom each time. She would walk in looking to see where they are sitting.

Baez and company knew that the judge wouldn't change anything where videos in the jail are concerned. By him saying "no" they can blame him for Casey and her parnets not seeing each other. That was the whole purpose of that paperwork. The Anthonys will understand why Casey doesn't want them to come visit...they won't want to put her life at risk!!!! I'm being sarcastic! How in the world would their visiting put Casey's life at risk???????? Sounds like the defense is afraid that Casey will slip and say something that will benefit the Pros :thumbsup:

Hi. I think most of us are pretty much in agreement on what you said. If Casey really wanted to have support and have someone say I love you then Casey would be looking toward her parents like she did in the beginning. The defense would have for her own sake told her to at least look at them and smile or look at them to let them know you see them without a smile. It's obvious she wants nothing to do with her parents . They no longer benefit her. She cuts people off who don't suit her needs or wants. Just like she killed Caylee.

[Julie Dupree]

Dr. Lillian Glass talks about the interviews of Kronk's ex-wives:

http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/

Very interesting. More about George and Cindy too.

Thanks for posting this, Annie.
Some interesting observations but I would encourage Dr Glass to invest in a spell check. She is getting close to being as bad as me in uncorrected typos.

[kakax]

I wonder about that too. She no longer even mentions it anymore. It used to be nothing would be going on. All you had to do was tuned in and "BOMBSHELL Tongiht!!!" Now, when there is news to report on the case, nothing....

I'm obviously way late in reading the thread, but last week I read an article where the director (on my bb so I'm not going to search his name) gave a summary of what the play was about. It didn't seem to me to be very complimentary of Nancy like we thought it would. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed to be a derogatory look at how she covers crime cases.

[sydney]

Hi. I think most of us are pretty much in agreement on what you said. If Casey really wanted to have support and have someone say I love you then Casey would be looking toward her parents like she did in the beginning. The defense would have for her own sake told her to at least look at them and smile or look at them to let them know you see them without a smile. It's obvious she wants nothing to do with her parents . They no longer benefit her. She cuts people off who don't suit her needs or wants. Just like she killed Caylee.

perhaps she is afraid of meeting cindy's eyes so cindy can finally determine that kc is lying to her? (that's a joke, folks) remember, cindy, in her own words, is a good judge of character and can always tell if someone's lying to her by looking them in the eyes. i wonder what cindy sees when she looks in the mirror.....

[kakax]

perhaps she is afraid of meeting cindy's eyes so cindy can finally determine that kc is lying to her? (that's a joke, folks) remember, cindy, in her own words, is a good judge of character and can always tell if someone's lying to her by looking them in the eyes. i wonder what cindy sees when she looks in the mirror.....

Morning Syd! You think there would be a reflection to see?
Seriously, if they were to visit, I would imagine it would be VERY awkward between all of them. I'd LOVE to see it!
(Happy Birthday!!)

[sydney]

Morning Syd! You think there would be a reflection to see?
Seriously, if they were to visit, I would imagine it would be VERY awkward between all of them. I'd LOVE to see it!
(Happy Birthday!!)

(you little stinker! same to you!)

i imagine cindy would see nothing behind her eyes when she looks in the mirror. remember, the apple doesn't fall from the tree. her daughter prolly shares the same trait - a huge "space available" sign where their souls should be.

[BobbisAngel]

I have always belived that Casey murdered Caylee but I have to disagree with the doc's observation and reason for Casey bending over like she did when she heard that a child's body had been found. The doc said "when Casey found out that Caylee's body had been found" but at that time they didn't know for sure if it was Caylee but thought it was. Anyway, according to the doc Casey's bending over like that had to do with her getting caught and not of grief.

When the Chief of Police came to my home to tell me that my daughter was deseased I remember bending over too. I was standing up and I just doubled over like someone had hit me in the stomach. His news nearly took me to my knees. So I think the doc is wrong about Casey and the bending over like she did. We both reacted in the same way but for different reasons. I'm glad that no one thought I reacted that way for any reason but what it was! I guess there can be various reasons for a person to react in certain ways...not just one that covers everyone.

[trich]

It hs been mentioned that the Anthonys or/and the defense team reads this board and others that are so concentrated on poor Caylees murder and I was thinking the other day ....how much I believe that.
Remember how Cindy was going around chewing her gum so much and how we along with I am sure others commented on how awful she looked doing that ...not to mention disrespectful etc.
Well that seems to have stopped ...at least when I have seen videos and pictures of her lately.
Also if you remember when again we noticed how Casey never looked at her parents when she and they were at a hearing.
Then that one time she actually smiled at them.
I think Baez may have told her to ackowledge them .
But then that did not appear to work because nobody thought
she should be looking happy even if it was just to say hi to her parents.
Okay last hearing she did not do that but with Baez apparantly
whispering in her ear just before she decided to try and cry and look
upset when the prosecution talked about the duck tape accross Caylee's mouth etc. I think the defense is trying very hard to make
Casey likeable and appear as a grieving mother ...I think they are
observing all the things we say that we believe actually prove her guilt with her appearances at the hearings and they are trying to
change that conception of her.
Well I will be really interested in seeing what might be changed about her next time we see her in court.
Hopefully (Baez pay attention) you will see that Casey gets a different blouse/shirt to wear and that it is ironed LOL.
I really don't think at this stage of the game Casey could ever look
sincere or simpathetic.
Well I just thought I would post these observations of mine.
:tonguewag:

[kakax]

(you little stinker! same to you!)

i imagine cindy would see nothing behind her eyes when she looks in the mirror. remember, the apple doesn't fall from the tree. her daughter prolly shares the same trait - a huge "space available" sign where their souls should be.

"For Rent"!!

What a Christmas present that would be to see the awkwardness of an Anthony family visit! They haven't spoken in person in over a year. I honestly cannot imagine isolating myself like she has. Then again, I don't think she ever had a "real" relationship with anyone in her life so maybe it doesn't bother her.

[sydney]

i must say that kc's demeanor has never been normal since this began. she isn't "normal" in any sense of the word. neither are her parents. they all play act and try to convey in what they think is a convincing manner that they are grieving, innocent, concerned with the fate of others (i.e. missing children) - you name the invisi-emotion. that's all it is. invisi-emotion and we all know it.

they are all hollow inside and totally incapable of real emotion in any true sense of the word.

if, in the beginning, this family had acted differently, i would have had more empathy/compassion for them. as it stands now, their glaring lack of any true moral compass as had been demonstrated time and again as well as concern only for themselves and their image only leaves me with a feeling of disgust.

[pixiejoolz]

Thanks for posting this, Annie.
Some interesting observations but I would encourage Dr Glass to invest in a spell check. She is getting close to being as bad as me in uncorrected typos.

I don't think those are typos. I read it in disbelief that anyone could possibly get a Ph.D (or M.D., don't know which she has) and still write and spell so atrociously. She should be embarassed to let that be seen as her product - and IMO it really diminishes the impact of the interesting things she has to say about her observations. jmo

[Sun]

Good morning everyone! This is the first day of Winter and the ground is covered with snow. Roads are slick and hazardous, so it's a good day to stay home, bake, and maybe spend a little time visiting with nearby neighbors and family.

Inmates in the Orange County Jail have no worries about weather conditions, but I suspect that many do look forward to receiving visits from family and friends.

[SandyO]

Good morning everyone! This is the first day of Winter and the ground is covered with snow. Roads are slick and hazardous, so it's a good day to stay home, bake, and maybe spend a little time visiting with nearby neighbors and family.

Inmates in the Orange County Jail have no worries about weather conditions, but I suspect that many do look forward to receiving visits from family and friends.

I was thinking about that, too, Sun. All the wonderful sights and sounds and smells of Christmas we have to enjoy ----- and none of that will be found in the Orange County Jail. Good.

[mrsmcgoo]

I think whatever happens during the holidays with the Anthony's whether it be a refusal from Casey to see them, whatever..it is our fault... Or the media's...or Jesse's... or Leornard P.'s ....one thing for sure...IT AIN"T CASEY"S! :lol:

JMO

[Sun]

I was thinking about that, too, Sun. All the wonderful sights and sounds and smells of Christmas we have to enjoy ----- and none of that will be found in the Orange County Jail. Good.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/090123UPDATEDVisitation%20Log%20Anthony.pdf

Here is Casey's inmate visitor's log that shows who visited her in the jail last Christmas.

[hello its me]

Hi everyone.
I really don't think the Anthony's will visit unless they have a preplanned idea to make Casey seem emotional and portray her in a good light.

problem is... Casey just can't pull it off and they all know it. Which is why it just won't happen. The pity party will be on the Today show about how they can't visit her.

[mrsmcgoo]

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/090123UPDATEDVisitation%20Log%20Anthony.pdf

Here is Casey's inmate visitor's log that shows who visited her in the jail last Christmas.

Hi Sun..

Who is Dawn Murray and Williams Procknow? It says "Interview" beside their name.

:confused:

[spiritwolf46]

Anarkerie. I agree with most of what you said. the one thing i can't get over is why Casey wanted to talk to her father in private and without a regular visit that one day? Was she going to convince him to change something he said or what?

I wonder how much bull Casey tells the defense that they actually believe and how much they know she is lying about?

Bold Mine

ITA

I watched a special last night on Darren Mack. Now I know that this is not the same trial, but when he wanted his "do over" in court, he waived Attorney/Client privileges and his Attorneys sang like canaries on what they knew that he told them about killing his wife. I was absolutely SHOCKED! I am sure that her team knows or at least has an idea of what she did. Whether SHE sang like a canary or not, I think that they may have put things to her point blank and she may have told a version of HER side. That does't mean that it was the real version, but I do believe they have something.

Ok, who am I kidding. She will prolly take this with her till she dies by lethal injection.

[Sun]

problem is... Casey just can't pull it off and they all know it. Which is why it just won't happen. The pity party will be on the Today show about how they can't visit her.

Scheduling for visits are done the week prior to the visits, aren't they? It's been so long, I've forgotten little details like this.

[SandyO]

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/090123UPDATEDVisitation%20Log%20Anthony.pdf

Here is Casey's inmate visitor's log that shows who visited her in the jail last Christmas.

Ha! Thanks for that. Just think how different it could have been --- what it SHOULD have been --- Christmas morning with a happy little girl enjoying the things Santa brought her. How different it is now.......

[Sun]

Hi Sun..

Who is Dawn Murray and Williams Procknow? It says "Interview" beside their name.

:confused:

Those would be DCF (dept of children and families). Procknow's DCF report was included in the Discovery. I expect that he'll be called to testify at the trial.

[Lynx]

Inmates Opinion Of Casey


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdFtUsvvFSI&feature=related

[Barbara fl.]

Hi Sun..

Who is Dawn Murray and Williams Procknow? It says "Interview" beside their name.

:confused:


Is that list all of the visits because it seems that even her attornies stopped visiting her in January of 09....?

[mrsmcgoo]

Those would be DCF (dept of children and families). Procknow's DCF report was included in the Discovery. I expect that he'll be called to testify at the trial.

Thanks Sun...

I wonder why he would be visiting in January 2009? I might be out of touch, but I thought that once Caylee's body was found, the DCF's role in this would be done. Strange to me....was Casey obligated to speak to them? It's a wonder Baez would allow it if she wasn't obligated.

JMO

[Barbara fl.]

Ha! Thanks for that. Just think how different it could have been --- what it SHOULD have been --- Christmas morning with a happy little girl enjoying the things Santa brought her. How different it is now.......

I hope it's haunting her...if not for the loss of her child by her own hands but for the mere fact that she will be spending the rest of all her holidays behind bars.....

I'm sure she knows that her family WILL be moving on without her....I wish I could send her a Christmas card stating such....

[Sun]

Is that list all of the visits because it seems that even her attornies stopped visiting her in January of 09....?

The media quit publishing Casey's inmate visitor's list, and I think that the links that I do have only go up to January 26, 2009.

[spiritwolf46]

I hope it's haunting her...if not for the loss of her child by her own hands but for the mere fact that she will be spending the rest of all her holidays behind bars.....

I'm sure she knows that her family WILL be moving on without her....I wish I could send her a Christmas card stating such....

Wish that we could all send her a big old, online greeting card, because I would not waste the stamp. :laugh:

[SandyO]

Wish that we could all send her a big old, online greeting card, because I would not waste the stamp. :laugh:

I wonder what happens to Casey's mail anyway. Surely the jail screens it, but someone from the defense team must scrutinize it also, to remove the "hate mail". She no doubt receives only flattering and supportive mail.

[*MoonRider*]

Hello everyone. I just watched a Geraldo interview from 7/26th that I have not seen. Geraldo states that Jose won't take his calls. I wonder what happened to make them so chummy now?

http://www.youtube.com/user/bigjuicykungfu#p/u/259/1vLhUaYCetk

[snap4]

I have always belived that Casey murdered Caylee but I have to disagree with the doc's observation and reason for Casey bending over like she did when she heard that a child's body had been found. The doc said "when Casey found out that Caylee's body had been found" but at that time they didn't know for sure if it was Caylee but thought it was. Anyway, according to the doc Casey's bending over like that had to do with her getting caught and not of grief.

When the Chief of Police came to my home to tell me that my daughter was deseased I remember bending over too. I was standing up and I just doubled over like someone had hit me in the stomach. His news nearly took me to my knees. So I think the doc is wrong about Casey and the bending over like she did. We both reacted in the same way but for different reasons. I'm glad that no one thought I reacted that way for any reason but what it was! I guess there can be various reasons for a person to react in certain ways...not just one that covers everyone.

The difference here is she would have only known itwas her daughter if she was the actual person who put her there. Becuase at that point it was just reported that a childs body was found...so why would she react that way unless she knew it was her daughter? You on the other hand kne it was your child when they told you.

jmo

[kakax]

Spirit,
Where did you see the show on Darren Mack? I didn't realize his attys spoke out!

[hello its me]

Spirit,
Where did you see the show on Darren Mack? I didn't realize his attys spoke out!

I saw it live and hoooo boy was it fun to watch. Mr. Big Chin thought he was so smart. Life in prison. wish I had known about the special.

[summer]

Morning all. I'll weigh in on this "will they or won't they" discussion...

I feel that they won't - either because she won't see them or they don't really want to because they have nothing non-nefarious to say.

BUT -- if they do go you can bet it will be a highly calculated committee decision, agreed upon by all parties, FOR EFFECT ONLY. For appearance only. Just like Cindy's wink at the M&M depo it will be (they think) a *gotcha* visit.

"Mikey won't eat it... he hates everything!" (Mikey's little head spins around, picks up his spoon and defiantly gulps down the Wheaties...)

So either way it will be laughable. They have the maturity level of *Mikey*. We have their number. :smile:

[achristie]

I keep thinking they haven't had any communication at all. It just dawned on me, surely they must speak on the phone and write letters. I don't get what all the fuss is about. Aren't their visits on a video phone? It's not like they can meet and touch, right?

MOO Aggie

[Sun]

I am wondering if Casey and the defense will wait until the very last minute for change of plea on the criminal check/fraud charges.

[SandyO]

I am wondering if Casey and the defense will wait until the very last minute for change of plea on the criminal check/fraud charges.

I swear I don't see what else they can do! Casey is caught red-handed, but there's always the remote chance some "glitch" will happen and get the case thrown out of court. I suppose that's all they can hope for.

[Sun]

http://www.wftv.com/video/22008753/index.html

BILL SHEAFFER: Analysis Of Judge's Ruling On Death Penalty

[puzzler]

I am wondering if Casey and the defense will wait until the very last minute for change of plea on the criminal check/fraud charges.

Hey, Sun. I am wondering the same thing. It would seem prudent to plead to it, since they have her on tape. Someone had said, and forgive me, I don't remember where I read this...that if she pleads guilty, they can use it against her in the murder trial, but if she is found guilty by a jury they cannot. This really doesn't make sense to me. Don't know the laws in Florida, but I know in some other states, unless it relates to the crime, it cannot be brought into trial. So, I think it relates, because it shows that while her daughter is "missing", she is happily shopping on someone else's dime without a care in the world. Not only that, but she buys only for herself and not a single item for her daughter.

[snowflakes]

Are their phone calls monitored?

[Sun]

I swear I don't see what else they can do! Casey is caught red-handed, but there's always the remote chance some "glitch" will happen and get the case thrown out of court. I suppose that's all they can hope for.

Red-handed is right. The defense has to have informed Casey of this. Casey may very well think that the charges against her are unfair and that the State is picking on her. When they are indeed just upholding the law by making sure that Casey is being held accountable for breaking the law.

[puzzler]

Are their phone calls monitored?

They are recorded. Except when she is on the phone with her lawyers.

[Sun]

Are their phone calls monitored?

I would imagine so, unless they were calls to her attorneys.

[Sun]

Hey, Sun. I am wondering the same thing. It would seem prudent to plead to it, since they have her on tape. Someone had said, and forgive me, I don't remember where I read this...that if she pleads guilty, they can use it against her in the murder trial, but if she is found guilty by a jury they cannot. This really doesn't make sense to me. Don't know the laws in Florida, but I know in some other states, unless it relates to the crime, it cannot be brought into trial. So, I think it relates, because it shows that while her daughter is "missing", she is happily shopping on someone else's dime without a care in the world. Not only that, but she buys only for herself and not a single item for her daughter.

That doesn't make any sense to me either. A conviction should be a conviction, whether she's found guilty by a jury or whether she just changes her plea to guilty.

[Anakerie]

Hi Sun..

Who is Dawn Murray and Williams Procknow? It says "Interview" beside their name.

:confused:
I was wondering the same thing.. I googled and found a WESH page with a witness list (prosecution) that lists both of them as being from State Dept. Of Children & Families.

http://www.wesh.com/news/18565575/detail.html

[spiritwolf46]

Spirit,
Where did you see the show on Darren Mack? I didn't realize his attys spoke out!

I PM'd ya, sweetie! :seeya:

[spiritwolf46]

That doesn't make any sense to me either. A conviction should be a conviction, whether she's found guilty by a jury or whether she just changes her plea to guilty.

And isn't it possible for the OC to plea guilty with the exception that this is not to be used in the criminal trial? Don't they do that all the time?

This whole thing is crazy to me. I don't get it one bit.

[AnnieKins]

It hs been mentioned that the Anthonys or/and the defense team reads this board and others that are so concentrated on poor Caylees murder and I was thinking the other day ....how much I believe that.
Remember how Cindy was going around chewing her gum so much and how we along with I am sure others commented on how awful she looked doing that ...not to mention disrespectful etc.
Well that seems to have stopped ...at least when I have seen videos and pictures of her lately.
Also if you remember when again we noticed how Casey never looked at her parents when she and they were at a hearing.
Then that one time she actually smiled at them.
I think Baez may have told her to ackowledge them .
But then that did not appear to work because nobody thought
she should be looking happy even if it was just to say hi to her parents.
Okay last hearing she did not do that but with Baez apparantly
whispering in her ear just before she decided to try and cry and look
upset when the prosecution talked about the duck tape accross Caylee's mouth etc. I think the defense is trying very hard to make
Casey likeable and appear as a grieving mother ...I think they are
observing all the things we say that we believe actually prove her guilt with her appearances at the hearings and they are trying to
change that conception of her.
Well I will be really interested in seeing what might be changed about her next time we see her in court.
Hopefully (Baez pay attention) you will see that Casey gets a different blouse/shirt to wear and that it is ironed LOL.
I really don't think at this stage of the game Casey could ever look
sincere or simpathetic.
Well I just thought I would post these observations of mine.
:tonguewag:

We might see some changes, but I can guarantee you one thing: we won't see Casey shedding REAL tears. Big drippy ones that stream down her face and cause her to use a box of kleenex the way most of us cry. She will continue to press her eyes with the end of a tissue to pretend to cry, because she just doesn't have real tears in her for the precious baby she murdered.

[spiritwolf46]

We might see some changes, but I can guarantee you one thing: we won't see Casey shedding REAL tears. Big drippy ones that stream down her face and cause her to use a box of kleenex the way most of us cry. She will continue to press her eyes with the end of a tissue to pretend to cry, because she just doesn't have real tears in her for the precious baby she murdered.

That is SO true, Annie! SAD and TRUE! :crying:

[SandyO]

And isn't it possible for the OC to plea guilty with the exception that this is not to be used in the criminal trial? Don't they do that all the time?

This whole thing is crazy to me. I don't get it one bit.

My understanding is that the whole point is whether or not she has 'Prior Convictions' - (for the sentencing phase in the murder case). I can't see how it matters which road she took in getting there, a prior conviction is a prior conviction ---- whether she pled guilty or was found guilty by a jury. I HAVE read that those who make a plea deal get a lighter sentence than those that drag it all the way through a jury process, but it's a big gamble if one really is guilty.

[Sun]

RAW VIDEO: Casey Anthony Court Hearing 12/11/09 Pt. 1, 2, 3, 4
http://www.wftv.com/video/21930588/index.html
http://www.wftv.com/video/21930619/index.html
http://www.wftv.com/video/21931707/index.html
http://www.wftv.com/video/21932889/index.html

Does anyone know where Judge Strickland makes his comments on the criminal check/fraud case in the last hearing?

[Sun]

My understanding is that the whole point is whether or not she has 'Prior Convictions' - (for the sentencing phase in the murder case). I can't see how it matters which road she took in getting there, a prior conviction is a prior conviction ---- whether she pled guilty or was found guilty by a jury. I HAVE read that those who make a plea deal get a lighter sentence than those that drag it all the way through a jury process, but it's a big gamble if one really is guilty.

The whole point is that she is being held accountable for her criminal actions. The consequences are that her having a "felony record" could have some effect in her murder case.

[alanna]

From your mouth to Gods ear. :closedeyes:

[spiritwolf46]

My understanding is that the whole point is whether or not she has 'Prior Convictions' - (for the sentencing phase in the murder case). I can't see how it matters which road she took in getting there, a prior conviction is a prior conviction ---- whether she pled guilty or was found guilty by a jury. I HAVE read that those who make a plea deal get a lighter sentence than those that drag it all the way through a jury process, but it's a big gamble if one really is guilty.

I see. Thank you, Sandy! :seeya:

[Aunt]

We might see some changes, but I can guarantee you one thing: we won't see Casey shedding REAL tears. Big drippy ones that stream down her face and cause her to use a box of kleenex the way most of us cry. She will continue to press her eyes with the end of a tissue to pretend to cry, because she just doesn't have real tears in her for the precious baby she murdered.

That ONE folded tissue she kept poking in her eyes (under her hair) was BONE dry. She didn't blow her nose once.

She did not cry.

Even if she did, who cares. She killed Caylee.

[SandyO]

The whole point is that she is being held accountable for her criminal actions. The consequences are that her having a "felony record" could have some effect in her murder case.

Right! Sometimes it's hard to write what I want to say............. Good thing you'll do it for me!

[puzzler]

The whole point is that she is being held accountable for her criminal actions. The consequences are that her having a "felony record" could have some effect in her murder case.

ITA and isn't it about time she was held accountable! It just about made me sick when JB tried to claim that the money had been paid back, so what's the big deal. He was just taking a page from the Cindy way of dealing. It is high time she was made to pay for her dirty deeds.:angry:

[puzzler]

That ONE folded tissue she kept poking in her eyes (under her hair) was BONE dry. She didn't blow her nose once.

She did not cry.

Even if she did, who cares. She killed Caylee.

The real tears will come when she is found guilty of killing Caylee, but they will be tears for herself.

[Sun]

Right! Sometimes it's hard to write what I want to say............. Good thing you'll do it for me!

chuckles... just promise me that you'll help me out with saying what I mean at times. I frequently tend to forget that all the Anthonys tell lies, and sometimes find myself relying on what they've said as factual. :w00t:

[spiritwolf46]

chuckles... just promise me that you'll help me out with saying what I mean at times. I frequently tend to forget that all the Anthonys tell lies, and sometimes find myself relying on what they've said as factual. :w00t:

Thank you, both Sun and Sandy. :)

[Aunt]

The real tears will come when she is found guilty of killing Caylee, but they will be tears for herself.

I agree. No tears for Caylee. Lets wait and see if she can even muster any up for herself. I'm not sure she has any emotions.

I expect some tantrums from her family during the trial though.

[Scampi]

That ONE folded tissue she kept poking in her eyes (under her hair) was BONE dry. She didn't blow her nose once.

She did not cry.

Even if she did, who cares. She killed Caylee.

We've tagged that as the "Shamwow" tissue.*


*courtesy of Findanswers.


:laugh:

[Sun]

ITA and isn't it about time she was held accountable! It just about made me sick when JB tried to claim that the money had been paid back, so what's the big deal. He was just taking a page from the Cindy way of dealing. It is high time she was made to pay for her dirty deeds.:angry:

I think that the defense had a really bad day in the last court hearing. It sounded to me like they were told that the criminal check/fraud case would be handled (to trial on January 25, or by a plea) before the criminal murder case, and the defense was probably still trying to get it delayed.

[Tia]

That ONE folded tissue she kept poking in her eyes (under her hair) was BONE dry. She didn't blow her nose once.

She did not cry.

Even if she did, who cares. She killed Caylee.

Right.

If she is crying at all, its for herself. I think she has finally realized what she has done and how much trouble she is in.

She can't lie her way out of this one.

[Chardonnay]

I think that the defense had a really bad day in the last court hearing. It sounded to me like they were told that the criminal check/fraud case would be handled (to trial on January 25, or by a plea) before the criminal murder case, and the defense was probably still trying to get it delayed.

Now if she doesn't plead guilty and it goes to trial, she will
have to take the stand, right? If so, I hope she doesn't plead
guilty cuz I'd love to see her on the stand..!

[Tia]

Now if she doesn't plead guilty and it goes to trial, she will
have to take the stand, right? If so, I hope she doesn't plead
guilty cuz I'd love to see her on the stand..!

Playing with her hair and sleeves....yay.

[puzzler]

Now if she doesn't plead guilty and it goes to trial, she will
have to take the stand, right? If so, I hope she doesn't plead
guilty cuz I'd love to see her on the stand..!

A defendent never HAS to take the stand. I don't think she will, but I would love to see it if she did.

[Sun]

Now if she doesn't plead guilty and it goes to trial, she will
have to take the stand, right? If so, I hope she doesn't plead
guilty cuz I'd love to see her on the stand..!

She doesn't have to put up a defense. And, she can't be forced to take the stand. She can just sit at the defense table and hope that the State can't prove the charges to a jury.

[alanna]

That ONE folded tissue she kept poking in her eyes (under her hair) was BONE dry. She didn't blow her nose once.

She did not cry.

Even if she did, who cares. She killed Caylee.
Darn right! :thumbup:
(I swear, I'd like to use that as my sig line---------- but I won't. :laugh: )

[Chardonnay]

Thanks Puzzler and Sun.. For some reason I thought she'd have to defend herself in check/fraud case.. Now I feel stoopid asking...:blushing:

[spiritwolf46]

We've tagged that as the "Shamwow" tissue.*


*courtesy of Findanswers.


:laugh:

That is the BEST EVER! :lol:

[spiritwolf46]

Thanks Puzzler and Sun.. For some reason I thought she'd have to defend herself in check/fraud case.. Now I feel stoopid asking...:blushing:

No such thing as a stooopid question here, Chardonnay. Keep on asking!

[puzzler]

Thanks Puzzler and Sun.. For some reason I thought she'd have to defend herself in check/fraud case.. Now I feel stoopid asking...:blushing:

Only by asking questions do people learn. So, it's those that don't ask questions that become stupid people.

[SayWhen]

I have always belived that Casey murdered Caylee but I have to disagree with the doc's observation and reason for Casey bending over like she did when she heard that a child's body had been found. The doc said "when Casey found out that Caylee's body had been found" but at that time they didn't know for sure if it was Caylee but thought it was. Anyway, according to the doc Casey's bending over like that had to do with her getting caught and not of grief.

When the Chief of Police came to my home to tell me that my daughter was deseased I remember bending over too. I was standing up and I just doubled over like someone had hit me in the stomach. His news nearly took me to my knees. So I think the doc is wrong about Casey and the bending over like she did. We both reacted in the same way but for different reasons. I'm glad that no one thought I reacted that way for any reason but what it was! I guess there can be various reasons for a person to react in certain ways...not just one that covers everyone.

I'm so sorry for your loss, BobbisAngel. :rose:

And I agree with you about reading peoples' reactions. Many emotions translate simply as "stress" to our bodies, and the physical signs of stress, no matter the cause, are similar. I think it's pushing the limits of credibility to pin physical stress reactions to a specific cause, myself.

I like Dr. Glass well enough, but I definitely think she read forums like this one and a few others prior to or in the process of writing her blogs about Anthony family body language. There are a LOT of similarities, as in word-for-word, between her conclusions and those of FLABs far and wide, lol.

ITA with another poster up thread who mentioned all the typos in her blog articles as well.

[SayWhen]

Bold Mine

ITA

I watched a special last night on Darren Mack. Now I know that this is not the same trial, but when he wanted his "do over" in court, he waived Attorney/Client privileges and his Attorneys sang like canaries on what they knew that he told them about killing his wife. I was absolutely SHOCKED! I am sure that her team knows or at least has an idea of what she did. Whether SHE sang like a canary or not, I think that they may have put things to her point blank and she may have told a version of HER side. That does't mean that it was the real version, but I do believe they have something.

Ok, who am I kidding. She will prolly take this with her till she dies by lethal injection.

Spirit! I was in the courtroom the day Freeman and Chesnoff had to testify for the state against their former client, dear Darren Mack. It was quite a spectacle! :w00t:

[SayWhen]

Spirit,
Where did you see the show on Darren Mack? I didn't realize his attys spoke out!

It's a Dateline that runs on the ID channel, kakax (channel 285 on DirectTV).

Yes, they spoke out. I was there! David Chesnoff blew me away. Scott Freeman was much less comfortable revealing what he knew.

[5boxersmom]

Hello everyone. I just watched a Geraldo interview from 7/26th that I have not seen. Geraldo states that Jose won't take his calls. I wonder what happened to make them so chummy now?

http://www.youtube.com/user/bigjuicykungfu#p/u/259/1vLhUaYCetk

Was JB or any of the others on GR this weekend? I didn't even check.

[spiritwolf46]

Spirit! I was in the courtroom the day Freeman and Chesnoff had to testify for the state against their former client, dear Darren Mack. It was quite a spectacle! :w00t:

Oh WOW, SAY!!!! That is awesome!!!

[trich]

A defendent never HAS to take the stand. I don't think she will, but I would love to see it if she did.

If she was to plead guilty to the fraud charges she would have to stand up in court and admit to writing the bad checks etc would she not?
Also tell the judge she understands what she is pleading guilty to
and blah blah blah.....:shrug:

[Kathlb]

Hey, Sun. I am wondering the same thing. It would seem prudent to plead to it, since they have her on tape. Someone had said, and forgive me, I don't remember where I read this...that if she pleads guilty, they can use it against her in the murder trial, but if she is found guilty by a jury they cannot. This really doesn't make sense to me. Don't know the laws in Florida, but I know in some other states, unless it relates to the crime, it cannot be brought into trial. So, I think it relates, because it shows that while her daughter is "missing", she is happily shopping on someone else's dime without a care in the world. Not only that, but she buys only for herself and not a single item for her daughter.

Surely there is a time limit for them to do that and later than that after a jury is selected, etc.....too bad, so sad, you're too late??

[puzzler]

If she was to plead guilty to the fraud charges she would have to stand up in court and admit to writing the bad checks etc would she not?
Also tell the judge she understands what she is pleading guilty to
and blah blah blah.....:shrug:

Yes, I would think she would at least have to stand and say she was pleading guilty to the charges and that she understands the implications.

Sorry for being so late in answering. Life interrupted.::sad:

[puzzler]

Surely there is a time limit for them to do that and later than that after a jury is selected, etc.....too bad, so sad, you're too late??

Not necessarily. I have been chosen to serve on a jury only to be told the defendent plead out and we could all go home.

[Kathlb]

We might see some changes, but I can guarantee you one thing: we won't see Casey shedding REAL tears. Big drippy ones that stream down her face and cause her to use a box of kleenex the way most of us cry. She will continue to press her eyes with the end of a tissue to pretend to cry, because she just doesn't have real tears in her for the precious baby she murdered.


My hubby and I got into a shouting match over the weekend. No one was angry, we were each trying to make a point. No one won...well, maybe he did but he shouldn't have in a righteous world. :biggrin:

I have a horrible time with defense attys. For example, I'm sitting in the jury and AL spends hours telling me what happened and that Casey had no part in it but it could have been X, Y, and Z. since they were involved with Casey. For everything the state puts up, they put up more lies and misdirection. Trial ends and Casey is found guilty. (just like real life) :-) Next comes the penalty phase.

AL gets up again to give us an ongoing serial much longer than Hopalong Cassidy's matinees all put together end to end. She first says, "Ok, Casey is guilty, but do we really want to be killers and sentence her to death??"

Right there I am hollering loud and clear. "WAIT A MINUTE!!" You just spent a month and a half telling us how innocent she is and now you are saying 'disregard all of that, she's guilty after all.' Now I'm supposed to forget that you lied to me for 6 weeks and believe that now you really know what you're talking about and we should not kill her. I don't think so, she has a date with the black needle.

My hubby said they are doing their job and seeing that she gets a fair trial. I said fair means lying?? He said they do whatever they can to get her off, its their job.
Well, not in my book. You can make sure that someone gets a fair trial without spewing lies (sort of like the Anthonys do) Lie lie lie.... I haven't changed my mind, it seems to me that a few sociopathic liars slipped over to the defense table while no one was looking. I will never give any credit at all to one who does that so better keep me off the jurys. :cursing:

[BlueTurtle]

Hey, Sun. I am wondering the same thing. It would seem prudent to plead to it, since they have her on tape. Someone had said, and forgive me, I don't remember where I read this...that if she pleads guilty, they can use it against her in the murder trial, but if she is found guilty by a jury they cannot. This really doesn't make sense to me. Don't know the laws in Florida, but I know in some other states, unless it relates to the crime, it cannot be brought into trial. So, I think it relates, because it shows that while her daughter is "missing", she is happily shopping on someone else's dime without a care in the world. Not only that, but she buys only for herself and not a single item for her daughter.

Hornsby was speaking to that on his blog. It has to do with the timing of the sentencing by the judge since there needs to be a pre-sentencing evaluation. That could take it into the time of the trial. Convicted but not serving a sentence yet so technically the process is not complete and so it can not be used as having prior convictions.

Kind of like the head of Enron who was convicted but had not finished the presentencing evaluation before his death. The conviction had to be set aside. Whereas in Casey's case, can't say she is a felon until she is sentenced.

[crimeq]

Only by asking questions do people learn. So, it's those that don't ask questions that become stupid people.


right, the only stupid question is the unasked question ... :wink:

[Kathlb]

Not necessarily. I have been chosen to serve on a jury only to be told the defendent plead out and we could all go home.

Well darn!! There's just another thing for me to be angry about. It's not my week. :sneaky:

[puzzler]

Was JB or any of the others on GR this weekend? I didn't even check.

Hmmmm....you think Geraldo played up the hispanic thing and also told him he wouldn't ask the hardball questions?:confused:


OOPS. This was supposed to be in response to Moonrider's querry about Geraldo. Sorry.

[puzzler]

Hornsby was speaking to that on his blog. It has to do with the timing of the sentencing by the judge since there needs to be a pre-sentencing evaluation. That could take it into the time of the trial. Convicted but not serving a sentence yet so technically the process is not complete and so it can not be used as having prior convictions.

Kind of like the head of Enron who was convicted but had not finished the presentencing evaluation before his death. The conviction had to be set aside. Whereas in Casey's case, can't say she is a felon until she is sentenced.

Thanks....I did not know this.

[puzzler]

Well darn!! There's just another thing for me to be angry about. It's not my week. :sneaky:

I hope we are going to see some televised action on the fraud case in January. That should make up for it!:laugh:

[mrsmcgoo]

I am wondering if Casey and the defense will wait until the very last minute for change of plea on the criminal check/fraud charges.

I don't know why they wouldn't, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. Especially when she was trapesing around in that blue hoodie, plus is on video at the bank and at Target.

If they don't, it just says no matter what evidence they have, they will fight it. :thumbdown:

JMO

[puzzler]

I don't know why they wouldn't, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. Especially when she was trapesing around in that blue hoodie, plus is on video at the bank and at Target.

If they don't, it just says no matter what evidence they have, they will fight it. :thumbdown:

JMO

I am wondering if they want to see what kind of jurors there will be. I think Judge Strickland wants to see this too, so maybe that has something to do with them not pleading? This, too, could be a stupid question, but I have to ask.:rolleyes:

[AnnieKins]

My hubby and I got into a shouting match over the weekend. No one was angry, we were each trying to make a point. No one won...well, maybe he did but he shouldn't have in a righteous world. :biggrin:

I have a horrible time with defense attys. For example, I'm sitting in the jury and AL spends hours telling me what happened and that Casey had no part in it but it could have been X, Y, and Z. since they were involved with Casey. For everything the state puts up, they put up more lies and misdirection. Trial ends and Casey is found guilty. (just like real life) :-) Next comes the penalty phase.

AL gets up again to give us an ongoing serial much longer than Hopalong Cassidy's matinees all put together end to end. She first says, "Ok, Casey is guilty, but do we really want to be killers and sentence her to death??"

Right there I am hollering loud and clear. "WAIT A MINUTE!!" You just spent a month and a half telling us how innocent she is and now you are saying 'disregard all of that, she's guilty after all.' Now I'm supposed to forget that you lied to me for 6 weeks and believe that now you really know what you're talking about and we should not kill her. I don't think so, she has a date with the black needle.

My hubby said they are doing their job and seeing that she gets a fair trial. I said fair means lying?? He said they do whatever they can to get her off, its their job.
Well, not in my book. You can make sure that someone gets a fair trial without spewing lies (sort of like the Anthonys do) Lie lie lie.... I haven't changed my mind, it seems to me that a few sociopathic liars slipped over to the defense table while no one was looking. I will never give any credit at all to one who does that so better keep me off the jurys. :cursing:

You're not the only one who has gotten into an argument with your husband about this case. :rolleyes: LOL My hubs and I had just about the same argument that you had with yours. And of course I know that both you and I are right in our opinions.

One of the defendants that is on Nancy Grace all the time has a book out called, "How Can You Defend Those People" and I ordered that for myself. I just can't wrap my mind around lawyers who will "do their job" to get their clients off when they know darned well that they are guilty.

Obviously Baez and Lyon know that Casey is guilty.

[Kathlb]

You're not the only one who has gotten into an argument with your husband about this case. :rolleyes: LOL My hubs and I had just about the same argument that you had with yours. And of course I know that both you and I are right in our opinions.

One of the defendants that is on Nancy Grace all the time has a book out called, "How Can You Defend Those People" and I ordered that for myself. I just can't wrap my mind around lawyers who will "do their job" to get their clients off when they know darned well that they are guilty.

Obviously Baez and Lyon know that Casey is guilty.

Yep, I remember that book. Let me know if it's changed your mind when you are finished. Bet it doesn't. :-)

[AnnieKins]

Yep, I remember that book. Let me know if it's changed your mind when you are finished. Bet it doesn't. :-)

I'm sure it won't either! I just want to see what goes on inside the heads of people like Lyon and Baez. I will learn from it, but I don't want to become like them.

I am a proud FLaB who demands justice for Caylee.

[kakax]

It's a Dateline that runs on the ID channel, kakax (channel 285 on DirectTV).

Yes, they spoke out. I was there! David Chesnoff blew me away. Scott Freeman was much less comfortable revealing what he knew.

I had no idea you were there...did you post on Darrens thread all the inside scoop? I need to read all about that!
Still on my bb and its hard to navigate. Any news today? Hate to ask its just a pain to go back and look.

[kakax]

Annie,
I thought about getting that book as well. You should post a review in the books section here on IS.
Its by Mickey Sherman right? It would be a fascinating look at how much defendants. Have told him in the past and how they handle the worst of the worst like Casey!

[girlspell]

You're not the only one who has gotten into an argument with your husband about this case. :rolleyes: LOL My hubs and I had just about the same argument that you had with yours. And of course I know that both you and I are right in our opinions.

One of the defendants that is on Nancy Grace all the time has a book out called, "How Can You Defend Those People" and I ordered that for myself. I just can't wrap my mind around lawyers who will "do their job" to get their clients off when they know darned well that they are guilty.

Obviously Baez and Lyon know that Casey is guilty.

We (the US) is the only country that has you are innocent until proved guilty. Outside of the US, it's more like you are guilty until proved innocent. that line of thinking being if you fall under they eye of the police, well you must be guilty of something. Although our system is different, many Americans feel the other way. As in you have to prove yourself innocent. We have to have defense lawyers. Otherwise, we don't have a system. Nobody can argue about that. No system is perfect. We have guilty ones that get off scot-free and some wrongly convicted of something.

[BettyC]

I had no idea you were there...did you post on Darrens thread all the inside scoop? I need to read all about that!
Still on my bb and its hard to navigate. Any news today? Hate to ask its just a pain to go back and look.

That's really neat that someone was in that courtroom.


Happy Birthday kakax !

[SayWhen]

I had no idea you were there...did you post on Darrens thread all the inside scoop? I need to read all about that!
Still on my bb and its hard to navigate. Any news today? Hate to ask its just a pain to go back and look.

I sure did, kakax. I know you'll find this surprising, but I was wearing a different dress in those days. :rolleyes:

Happy Birthday!

[alanna]

Thanks Puzzler and Sun.. For some reason I thought she'd have to defend herself in check/fraud case.. Now I feel stoopid asking...:blushing:

Me dear Chardonnay,
Don't ever feel stoopid for asking a question. My gran told me-only feel stoopid if I DIDN"T ask. :wub:

[hello its me]

I sure did, kakax. I know you'll find this surprising, but I was wearing a different dress in those days. :rolleyes:

Happy Birthday!

it was a great dress and wonderful to hear the good inside stuff...I was wearing a different outfit, too.

I think Puzzler is right about the jury process. They want a trial run and possibly some ammunition for the murder trial change of venue motion.

[alanna]

We've tagged that as the "Shamwow" tissue.*


*courtesy of Findanswers.




llolololololol :laugh::tonguewag::laugh:

[kakax]

Thanks Say and Betty!
Looks like it has been a slow day in Anthony land!

[SayWhen]

it was a great dress and wonderful to hear the good inside stuff...I was wearing a different outfit, too.

I think Puzzler is right about the jury process. They want a trial run and possibly some ammunition for the murder trial change of venue motion.

Now you've got me soooo curious! :sneaky:

[seeing_eye]

Hello everyone. I just watched a Geraldo interview from 7/26th that I have not seen. Geraldo states that Jose won't take his calls. I wonder what happened to make them so chummy now?

http://www.youtube.com/user/bigjuicykungfu#p/u/259/1vLhUaYCetk

Money???? :scared:

[seeing_eye]

I have always belived that Casey murdered Caylee but I have to disagree with the doc's observation and reason for Casey bending over like she did when she heard that a child's body had been found. The doc said "when Casey found out that Caylee's body had been found" but at that time they didn't know for sure if it was Caylee but thought it was. Anyway, according to the doc Casey's bending over like that had to do with her getting caught and not of grief.

When the Chief of Police came to my home to tell me that my daughter was deseased I remember bending over too. I was standing up and I just doubled over like someone had hit me in the stomach. His news nearly took me to my knees. So I think the doc is wrong about Casey and the bending over like she did. We both reacted in the same way but for different reasons. I'm glad that no one thought I reacted that way for any reason but what it was! I guess there can be various reasons for a person to react in certain ways...not just one that covers everyone.

Many people would double up as though hit in the stomach when learning their child is dead. However, in Casey's situation, IMO, she had known for quite some time that her child was dead, so learning her child is dead would have been no surprise to her. So that only leaves one other thing that would make her double over in shock, and I believe that thing is the knowledge that she had been caught.

[seeing_eye]

From your mouth to Gods ear. :closedeyes:

You're not quoting anyone so I have no idea who or what you're addressing. :confused:

[Darcy]

We (the US) is the only country that has you are innocent until proved guilty. Outside of the US, it's more like you are guilty until proved innocent. that line of thinking being if you fall under they eye of the police, well you must be guilty of something. Although our system is different, many Americans feel the other way. As in you have to prove yourself innocent. We have to have defense lawyers. Otherwise, we don't have a system. Nobody can argue about that. No system is perfect. We have guilty ones that get off scot-free and some wrongly convicted of something.

girlspell, what makes you believe that the US is the only country where 'you are innocent until proven guilty'? US Law is primarily based on English Law. The passage below is taken from Article 48 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

[BettyC]

RAW VIDEO: Casey Anthony Court Hearing 12/11/09 Pt. 1, 2, 3, 4
http://www.wftv.com/video/21930588/index.html
http://www.wftv.com/video/21930619/index.html
http://www.wftv.com/video/21931707/index.html
http://www.wftv.com/video/21932889/index.html

Does anyone know where Judge Strickland makes his comments on the criminal check/fraud case in the last hearing?

Hi Sun - He starts discussing the check/fraud trial at 30:00 of Part 4.

[Freefall]

We (the US) is the only country that has you are innocent until proved guilty. Outside of the US, it's more like you are guilty until proved innocent. that line of thinking being if you fall under they eye of the police, well you must be guilty of something. Although our system is different, many Americans feel the other way. As in you have to prove yourself innocent. We have to have defense lawyers. Otherwise, we don't have a system. Nobody can argue about that. No system is perfect. We have guilty ones that get off scot-free and some wrongly convicted of something.

The presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).

[alanna]

You're not quoting anyone so I have no idea who or what you're addressing. :confused:
It's quite simple if you're reading the thread in numerical order. First came Sun's post #177 and I replied in post #178.v
Besides your name isn't addressed in either post. :rolleyes:

[Kathlb]

The presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).

Hi Freefall,
My problem has never been with the law saying everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but with the lying of the defense. To me that shows that they know their clients did it, and they have not a shred of truth on their side. I have a huge problem with the lies. I believe that you can defend someone, make sure that they don't get railroaded, all without lying. Just by following the law. Most defense lawyers, when they have not a smidgen of proof of innocence, they begin spewing lies, not other scenarios that could have happened, but outright LIES. This I have a HUGE problem with. MOO:thumbdown:

[Freefall]

Hi Freefall,
My problem has never been with the law saying everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but with the lying of the defense. To me that shows that they know their clients did it, and they have not a shred of truth on their side. I have a huge problem with the lies. I believe that you can defend someone, make sure that they don't get railroaded, all without lying. Just by following the law. Most defense lawyers, when they have not a smidgen of proof of innocence, they begin spewing lies, not other scenarios that could have happened, but outright LIES. This I have a HUGE problem with. MOO:thumbdown:

Hi Kathlb. I totally agree with you. This current defense crew disgusts me.

[Elvish2]

We (the US) is the only country that has you are innocent until proved guilty. Outside of the US, it's more like you are guilty until proved innocent. that line of thinking being if you fall under they eye of the police, well you must be guilty of something. Although our system is different, many Americans feel the other way. As in you have to prove yourself innocent. We have to have defense lawyers. Otherwise, we don't have a system. Nobody can argue about that. No system is perfect. We have guilty ones that get off scot-free and some wrongly convicted of something.

BBM

Canadian law is the same. About the only main difference is we have Crown Attorneys instead of State Attorneys. (and we don't televise trials; no death penalty)

[IM4Truth]

Many people would double up as though hit in the stomach when learning their child is dead. However, in Casey's situation, IMO, she had known for quite some time that her child was dead, so learning her child is dead would have been no surprise to her. So that only leaves one other thing that would make her double over in shock, and I believe that thing is the knowledge that she had been caught.

Don't forget when there was all that chaos about finding something in the Little Econ River in J Blanchard Park. It was all being televised live and it was reported that Casey saw it on TV and just turned around and walked away with no emotion at all. Why? Because she knew that it was not where she dumped Caylee. When she saw the news that the body was found where Casey left her.....THAT caused her the grief, she knew she had been caught.

[kakax]

Hi Freefall,
My problem has never been with the law saying everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but with the lying of the defense. To me that shows that they know their clients did it, and they have not a shred of truth on their side. I have a huge problem with the lies. I believe that you can defend someone, make sure that they don't get railroaded, all without lying. Just by following the law. Most defense lawyers, when they have not a smidgen of proof of innocence, they begin spewing lies, not other scenarios that could have happened, but outright LIES. This I have a HUGE problem with. MOO:thumbdown:

I'm with you Kath. Zealously defend your client, but don't throw innocent people under the bus in the process. There is plenty of evidence in this case they can attack in a dignified way. Attack the science not innocent people. It is insulting and morally bankrupt, imo, to allow people you know aren't guilty to be slandered.

[Bette]

Hi Freefall,
My problem has never been with the law saying everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but with the lying of the defense. To me that shows that they know their clients did it, and they have not a shred of truth on their side. I have a huge problem with the lies. I believe that you can defend someone, make sure that they don't get railroaded, all without lying. Just by following the law. Most defense lawyers, when they have not a smidgen of proof of innocence, they begin spewing lies, not other scenarios that could have happened, but outright LIES. This I have a HUGE problem with. MOO:thumbdown:

It's especially heinous when they implicate other, totally innocent people as suspects! That REALLY gets to me. Sure, go ahead and present other scenarios --- maybe evil aliens from space came down and got Caylee --- but there really oughta be limits when it comes to accusing others --- and I don't think those folks can even sue over it.

[kakax]

Valhall has a new blog up about Judge Strickland. I think one of our posters had gathered some of what Val posted, but it was good to read in full again.
I don't think we will have to worry about Judge S's rulings being overturned on appeals. He seems to have a great reputation for being unbiased (I think we all knew this anyway)
And NG has turned into primetime tv dedicated to celebrities. Ugh. Why don't I learn not to turn her show on? Will we ever have a show dedicated to crime stories again? Greta has gone political and I cannot stomach JVM. Whatever you want to say about NG and her interviewing at least she used to cover cases we were interested in.
Sorry for the rant!!

[BettyC]

Valhall has a new blog up about Judge Strickland. I think one of our posters had gathered some of what Val posted, but it was good to read in full again.
I don't think we will have to worry about Judge S's rulings being overturned on appeals. He seems to have a great reputation for being unbiased (I think we all knew this anyway)
And NG has turned into primetime tv dedicated to celebrities. Ugh. Why don't I learn not to turn her show on? Will we ever have a show dedicated to crime stories again? Greta has gone political and I cannot stomach JVM. Whatever you want to say about NG and her interviewing at least she used to cover cases we were interested in.
Sorry for the rant!!

I agree with you on the NG show kakax. AND I'm getting burned out on all the christmas shows too !

[Spots]

Valhall has a new blog up about Judge Strickland. I think one of our posters had gathered some of what Val posted, but it was good to read in full again.
I don't think we will have to worry about Judge S's rulings being overturned on appeals. He seems to have a great reputation for being unbiased (I think we all knew this anyway)
And NG has turned into primetime tv dedicated to celebrities. Ugh. Why don't I learn not to turn her show on? Will we ever have a show dedicated to crime stories again? Greta has gone political and I cannot stomach JVM. Whatever you want to say about NG and her interviewing at least she used to cover cases we were interested in.
Sorry for the rant!!

Yes, HeadLine Entertainment...... er, HeadLine "News" may have increased their ratings, but they have also decreased the quality of their shows.

Happy Birthday, Kakax!!! 29 again???

[kakax]

I agree with you on the NG show kakax. AND I'm getting burned out on all the christmas shows too !

Yep, me too. Bah humbug!! Kidding (kind of). I'm ready for this check case to happen. Surely NG will cover that. I don't buy that she has been threatened with a lawsuit. I think she just goes where the ratings are.

[seeing_eye]

Valhall has a new blog up about Judge Strickland. I think one of our posters had gathered some of what Val posted, but it was good to read in full again.
I don't think we will have to worry about Judge S's rulings being overturned on appeals. He seems to have a great reputation for being unbiased (I think we all knew this anyway)
And NG has turned into primetime tv dedicated to celebrities. Ugh. Why don't I learn not to turn her show on? Will we ever have a show dedicated to crime stories again? Greta has gone political and I cannot stomach JVM. Whatever you want to say about NG and her interviewing at least she used to cover cases we were interested in.
Sorry for the rant!!

I agree with Valhall's assessment of Judge Strickland. I am so glad he's the judge in this case.

As for NG and JVM, I agree on everybody's assessment of their shows. Neither one is worth watching any more. And I am getting soooooooo tired of Tiger Woods! He's on every channel.

BTW, kakax, Happy Birthday!!!!!!!

[kakax]

Yes, HeadLine Entertainment...... er, HeadLine "News" may have increased their ratings, but they have also decreased the quality of their shows.

Happy Birthday, Kakax!!! 29 again???

Ha...thanks! Of course I'm only 29...




plus a decade.

What gets me is I really would have thought NG's ratings would have taken a huge hit. I guess there aren't as many crime fanatics as I thought!
I know a lot of us have sent letters. We must not be in the majority.
I thought it was pretty big news in the Casey case with all of the defense motions being denied. Guess not! We must discuss if Tiger is a sex addict nightly for a month! Ugh.

[kakax]

I agree with Valhall's assessment of Judge Strickland. I am so glad he's the judge in this case.

As for NG and JVM, I agree on everybody's assessment of their shows. Neither one is worth watching any more. And I am getting soooooooo tired of Tiger Woods! He's on every channel.

BTW, kakax, Happy Birthday!!!!!!!


thanks SE!!!!!!!

I'm happy with him too. I think we might end up being disappointed in some rulings about what evidence will be allowed in the trial, but at least we know he is fair.

I really want to see her reaction to finding Caylee's remains. Sounds like it was alot like what we see in court (rubbing of hands minus hyperventilating). I'm still nosey though and hope he will let that in.

[avalonfox]

QUESTION FOR ALL...GIVE YOUR OPINION AND WHY.
When Casey got arrested, there is no doubt she was going to follow completely through with the "nanny took Caylee" story. I think she actually thought she might get away with it, especially if Caylee's body was never found. For a social-loving-party-girl like Casey, jail at that time was unbearable...but...since then they found Caylee's body, and she realizes they can pretty much prove that Zanny the Nanny never existed.
Considering what you know about Casey's home life, character, personality, actions, etc....here is my question.
Now that she has been in jail long enough and realizes that she is not going to get out and may face the death penalty.....do you think that she is desperate and scared enough now to try and say that Caylee's death was an accident, she panicked, didn't know what to do, couldn't face her family, so she hid Caylee's body? Can you see Casey doing something this before trial?

[sunstar]

Don't forget when there was all that chaos about finding something in the Little Econ River in J Blanchard Park. It was all being televised live and it was reported that Casey saw it on TV and just turned around and walked away with no emotion at all. Why? Because she knew that it was not where she dumped Caylee. When she saw the news that the body was found where Casey left her.....THAT caused her the grief, she knew she had been caught.

I, for one, will never forget that! Her reaction was as good as admitting guilt, imo. MOO

[Spots]

thanks SE!!!!!!!

I'm happy with him too. I think we might end up being disappointed in some rulings about what evidence will be allowed in the trial, but at least we know he is fair.

I really want to see her reaction to finding Caylee's remains. Sounds like it was alot like what we see in court (rubbing of hands minus hyperventilating). I'm still nosey though and hope he will let that in.

It was probably hard for her to do fisties in full chains. Maybe that's why she was complaining they were too tight. :lol: