Skip to content

June 23, 2011

41

cindy’s hand-sanitizer scare? true?

by Andrea O'Connell

The testimony of Cindy Anthony was not a bombshell, or a major development despite the news outlets using it as such.  It was simply a replay of the conniving Cindy Anthony we had previously come to know.

Cindy Anthony testifying today

I was very surprised at Cindy’s about-face today.  I think the State of Florida was, too.  But, there is no way that Cindy will get away with this for long – the state still has a rebuttal case to put on.

What Cindy Anthony fails to realize is that her testimony today can be verified.  She will continue to be impeached and this will only hurt her daughter, not help her!

Although Cindy’s work records verify she was at work the day of the computer searches, she said she remembers not working those days. Huh?    I don’t remember the days I take off of work, especially not three years ago!  Do you?

The State of Florida and Law Enforcement will be able to verify what Cindy said today; I have no doubt they will.

Cindy said she remembers searching the computer for a bunch of things. One reason she searched that particular day?  Because a colleague at work emailed her about dangerous issues resulting hand-sanitizers and children.

Cindy called it a “hand-sanitizer scare.”

I ran a quick search for “hand sanitizer scare” and found nothing about a scare in 2008.

Cindy also claimed she searched for Chlorophyll on the very day because of concern for her little Yorkie eating bamboo leaves. And she looked up “neck-breaking” because a friend was in a terrible car accident.

Do these kind of elaborate lies sound familiar?  The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, does it?

Cindy’s Hand-Sanitizer Scare

The issues with “hand-sanitizers” Cindy said was a “scare” in March 2008.  A New York Times article, on March 21, 2006, says otherwise. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/health/21cons.html

A Chicago Times article, on May 22, 2007, discusses the possibilities of getting “drunk” from them: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2007/05/getting_drunk_o.html

An ABC News article from May 23, 2006, discusses that hand-sanitizers are no subsitute for water: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1993859

ParentDish, on June 26, 2007, discusses how hand-sanitizers can poison children:  http://www.parentdish.com/2007/06/26/hand-sanitizer-can-poison-your-children/

Google Search for Hand Sanitizer Scare shows no news in 2008.  Click here

I truly don’t think that Cindy did anything to hurt the State’s case today.  In fact, I think her lies were helpful for a couple of reasons.

Cindy successfully….

  1. …Reminded the jury of additional details regarding computer searches, such as the “MySpace” hits which were interspersed with the “how to make chloroform” hits/searches.
  2. …Pointed out that she didn’t know about or use MySpace at that time.  But there were only seconds between the MySpace hits and the “how to make chloroform” hits/searches.
  3. …proved she is unreasonable.  No one could possibly remember their computer searches from three years ago, much less pinpoint those searches to a specific day!
  4. …Showed the jury she was stretching the truth when Linda Drane-Burdick impeached her, asking if her memory is better now that she’s changed medication.  We all know medication doesn’t IMPROVE your memory

On the stand today, Cindy was overly long-winded, indicating to me that she was exaggerating.  When cross examined, she was not nearly as clear and changed her testimony by referring to “possibilities,” while trying very hard to fill in details that were ridiculous, i.e. remembering the day and time of computer searches made three years ago.

This is beyond the boundary of reason

When Ms. Burdick asked, “Did you look up the word “inhalation?”  Cindy said, “Yes.”   And she went on to add other “household items like alcohol” and other toxic chemicals that she confirmed searching for.

Cindy is trying to save her daughter, but at the expense of justice for her beloved granddaughter.

Justice is only found via a search for the truth….

Today’s Testimony Notes

There were other wins for the State today. FBI Hair Specialist, Stephen Shaw, did a great job for the State of Florida in explaining how to recognize Post-Mortem Hair Banding on a strand of hair.

The defense dug their own grave by calling Stephen Shaw.  He was very strong for the State.  Even stronger today then when he originally testified for the State.

There were other witnesses, too.  Dr. Barry Logan, a forensic toxicologist (who is also a wanna-be analytic chemist), testified for the defense, though only allowed to testify about toxicology.

What Dr. Logan really wanted to do, however, was to disprove Dr. Arpad Vass’ findings.

Dr. Vass, you may remember, is the charismatic researcher from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory who testified about the compounds from the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car – decomposition; and the very high levels of chloroform.

In short, the defense would really like Dr. Vass’ testimony to go away, but Dr. Logan was not allowed to discuss the type of testing Dr. Vass does!

To tell you the truth, the defense appears to be in a cloud, or a fog.

They put on evidence that’s like a sling-shot, ricocheting back at them.   It’s bizarre!

They’re just prolonging the inevitable outcome of this case.

Advertisements
41 Comments Post a comment
  1. Brandon bob
    Jun 23 2011

    I believe this is exculpatory evidence. i have said all along they have the wrong person and today I believe we got to see the beginning of that proof. I expect more exculpatory evidence tomorrow

    Reply
    • Jun 23 2011

      Hi Brandon, Exculpatory? I don’t think it rises to that level! Cindy’s testimony is of a mother who is desperate to save her daughter’s skin. What Cindy said today is not proof of anything but a mother supporting her daughter unconditionally.

      Reply
      • Jun 23 2011

        I’ve never known unconditional love to be supportive of murder. No, its supportive despite murder. It does not lie for a murderer either. And Cindy knows that Casey murdered Caylee.

        Unconditional love does not pervert justice but seeks it and stands by the one who did the crime out of love and mercy.

        http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/06/cindy-anthony-perverts-justice-for.html

        Great sleuthing, Andrea! And, thanks for your common sense analysis, too.

      • dee
        Jun 24 2011

        Wow…I agree…

      • kathy mcferrin
        Jun 25 2011

        I agree..I simply can not understand how a person could support their daughter (or son) if they knew they had hurt or in this case, murdered..their child..I do not get this “unconditional love BS at all…I have 4 grandchildren and if my daughter hurt one of them I would NOT be able to support her..and i love my daughter…but not if she did something as evil as this..

      • dee
        Jun 24 2011

        Andrea, I think it proves that this is a family of crafty liars. Did you see how refreshed Casey and Cindy were today? They are a scary group. I think the Jury will see through her lies.

      • Brandon bob
        Jun 24 2011

        I think it rises to that level becuase it exulpates her of the pre-meditation elements of the crime since the computer searches where the only thing they had to hang their hat on for pre-mediation.

      • dee
        Jun 24 2011

        During pretrial hearings and presently, the Prosecution has asserted that the duct tape is the primary aggravating factor for the first degree/death penalty, more so than chloroform. And, I have faith that the State will be able to rebut Cindy’s lie all the way out the Court.

      • Brandon bob
        Jun 24 2011

        the duct tape goes to the murder not to the pre-meditation. The only evidence they have presented thus far on pre-mediation is the internet searches.

    • whistlersmother
      Jun 23 2011

      Who do you think is the “right” person?

      Reply
      • Brandon bob
        Jun 24 2011

        if that question is directed at me, I am not sure what you are asking. can you re-phrase?

      • whistlersmother
        Jun 24 2011

        You stated that you have thought that they had the “wrong person” all along, just wondering what your theory is?

      • Brandon bob
        Jun 24 2011

        I know I will be berated for this but….I have always stood strong that the defense theory makes more sense the the state’s case. But I am reserving ultimate judgement until the entire case has been presented by both sides.

      • dee
        Jun 24 2011

        Brandon, I actually like hearing from someone who has a different perspective, because there will be Jurors who feel the same as you. However, I must say, I do believe that this woman is a monster!!! The mere fact that she allegedly did not know the where abouts of her child for 31 days speak volumes as to her guilt when taken into consideration with all of the lies she told.

      • Brandon bob
        Jun 24 2011

        thanks dee. I just try and put myself in the shoes of the woman if the defense is true. now when all is said and done i dont feel like she is a woman who has been sexually abused then I might change my position. However, if for the sake of argument, we assume she was sexually abused then can you now imagine the 31 days? I have spoken to a few that have been abused and they all tell me the 31 days is logical if she was abused.

  2. whistlersmother
    Jun 23 2011

    I have commented on Cindy’s behavior before and I will still say that she is playing mama bear. She is a big fat liar just like her daughter but all of us mothers can understand what she is doing, now that does not mean I condone it or would I do it but I understand and hope that I will never be in her shoes. Cindy is definitely not as good of a liar as Casey. We all knew the exact parts of her testimony that were not true. And, the state will rip her a new one once the rebuttal comes around. My favorite part of the testimony was when she “remembers” the pop up of the neck breaking skateboarding you tube video! geez she does not remember if she was at work but she remembers that!

    Reply
    • Jun 23 2011

      You Tube doesn’t do pop-ups. Cindy tried…

      Reply
  3. Amanda
    Jun 23 2011

    Andrea I told you on Saturday that I felt sorry for Cindy Anthony………..I take it back.

    Reply
    • dee
      Jun 24 2011

      Me2…

      Reply
  4. Rob
    Jun 23 2011

    Hi Andrea, Cindy Anthony is one pathetic woman. It was so obvious she was lying. The Anthony family is so sick. No wonder Casey is such a basket case. I do hope the state will be able to retrieve Cindy’s work records and impeach her. The jury had to see through this charade.

    Reply
    • Jun 23 2011

      Baez made sure the jury knows what liars Casey’s parents are-not a good idea when wanting mama to lie for her daughter! And…why lie…? D’oh! Because everyone is out to get Casey! 🙄

      Reply
  5. offthecuff
    Jun 23 2011

    Is there something that scared Cindy into this testimony? Why did it take this long to get Cindy on the stand?

    Why try to disprove a stain using Huntington only to have Cindy say this is not a new stain, but it has been in there for years?

    Did the defense see writing on the wall—unless the Cindy-step was taken?

    And when the state refutes Cindy, who will sacrifice themselves next? Lee? George?

    Will they bite the bullet and claim incest, tyranny, and drowning?

    They are Casey’s only hope. Because Baez ain’t.

    Reply
    • dee
      Jun 24 2011

      Great perspective….I was wondering the same thing… I smell a deal here… Could it be that Cindy agreed to fall on the sword if Baez took the alleged “other woman” and Dad’s molestation off of the table?

      Reply
  6. Marcie
    Jun 23 2011

    Is it just me, or did the little back-n-forth question / answer session with Jose Baez & Cindy seem a little rehearsed? When he asked her about computer searches, and then acted like he was confused because her work records state she was at work ~ I’m sorry, but that little exchange was gone over several times before today…I’m convinced they discussed it, and practiced what each would say, either in person or on the phone within the last couple of days..

    Reply
    • dee
      Jun 24 2011

      I agree… It also seemed that Cindy’s attitude towards Baez, which was hostile during the prosecution case, has come full circle….and quite frankly she appeared as slimmy as he is…… My respect and empathy for Cindy just went out of the window!!

      Reply
  7. nan11
    Jun 23 2011

    Cindy even made a little slip during cross by mentioning Casey’s “arrest on the check charges.”

    I wonder if the jury made a note of that? 😆

    Reply
  8. dee
    Jun 24 2011

    I wonder what Cindy’s former employer was thinking about the misrepresentation on her timesheet ? This woman is looney!!!

    Reply
  9. Marie
    Jun 24 2011

    Cindy and George are drama queens. She is taking notes at the trial for the book and movie rights. They already are selling items on ebay. What a family.Both have not worked a day in years,they live off the caylee foundation money. Yesterdays she lied her butt off on the stand, anyone can see that. You tube does not do pop ups, I cant remember what i did 3 years ago,not many people can. This is a family of idiots and liars.I hope the jury see this, im sure they will. If I didnt see my grandson for a week id be looking for him quick. Cant stand Cindy or George. George has a bad temper.I hope that state proves Cinsy a liar.

    Reply
  10. Jun 24 2011

    What a waste of a day of Taxpayor’ money. Why did it seem as though Baez was unprepared for his lineup of the day’s defense strategy. How many times do you have to be told, “Sustained, InAdmissible!” In regarding Cindy Anthony, I hope the great state of Florida steps in at the end of this trial and slaps cuffs on her for UMPTEEN counts of perjury, impedeing an investigation, fraud, misuse of funds, and anything else worthy of her actions. BTW, Was she not A NURSE? Did not George testify when he met Cindy in Ohio, she was an E.R. nurse? When this trial is over I hope the Florida Supreme Court rescinds their 2005 decision and reinstate their previous 1997 barred admission/findings of Baez’s Character as, once again, weighed, measured, and found habitually unfit and uncharacteristic, forever.

    Reply
    • dee
      Jun 24 2011

      RahRah, there are interviews performed by Orlando’s local media on YouTube. In some of the local interviews, other Florida attorney’s speak about Baez. Let’s just say that, as far as ethics are concerned, he is not held in high regard. (Hmmmmm, I can’t imagine why????)

      Reply
  11. Jun 24 2011

    Dee, it would be interesting to learn how many of those opinions are of defense attorneys. From left field, I learned a little tidbit concerning the 31 days, and Cindy Anthony. She kicked her daughter and her granddaughter out of the house!

    Reply
    • dee
      Jun 24 2011

      RahRAh, Hmmmmm, OMG..you got me thinking… Let me just say, evidence of Cindy kicking Casey out of the house would flip this case on its ear…interesting perspective. Considering Cindy’s behavior throughout this entire ordeal, I would not be shocked if that were true… Now allow me to expand on that notion….Suppose Cindy kicked Casey out, but told her to leave Caylee at the house…Now that would be even more interesting…I am still playing this over in my mind!

      Reply
  12. Jun 24 2011

    It’s my understanding that the time it took to tear off the strips of duct tape and place them on Caylee’s face is enough time to support premeditation under the law in FL.

    Reply
  13. colleen
    Jun 24 2011

    Though I do believe that Cindy helped the defence in that she proved how dsyfunctional the Anthony family really is. When the prosecution was questioning her, she was distraught, crying her head off! Now, with the defence she seemed quite strong willed. Definitely a strange family.

    Reply
  14. Kitt
    Jun 24 2011

    If the prosecution subpeonas Cindy’s work records, I think they should also inquire as to who Cindy’s friend is who was in a “terrible accident.” Ah, wouldn’t matter anyway, as it’s just another lie. IMO.

    Reply
  15. Jun 24 2011

    Dee, I watched the taped interview(s) questioining of J. Grund, and he tells the detectives that Casey had told him that. Then when I was googiing Cindy’s employment in Ohio, I ran across a link/website referencing “Cindy’s brother” (i think it was a blog from a “Rick”. I will have to retrace the search). As I reading the blog, he was almost anonymous in who he was, but the indications of inside knowlege was there. References were of him, Cindy, Cindy’s mom, Casey. What I read was Casey had stolen Cindy’s credit cards (testified/confirmed today by the young officer who placed Casey in handcuffs “for two minutes”. Casey racked up $25k. Cindy was furious (she got her statements and had shown the officer) At that time George and Cindy Were divorcing, think I read George had moved out as well, not positive I read that there. He also said Cindy intended to take Caley away from Casey. Oop! There it is!

    Reply
    • dee
      Jun 25 2011

      Wow…amazing. I read the e-mails between Cindy and her brother. It appears that he saw this coming years ago, b/c of how entitled Casey was treated.

      Reply
  16. Jun 24 2011

    I found the link, “Cindy Anthony’ Brother Speaks”, dated Oct. 20, 2008. My cell phone cut the end of the URL which i believe may read, show thread. The first part I have, http://boards.library.truetv.com/showtr.

    Reply
  17. sophie
    Jun 25 2011

    Here’s where I see Cindy coming from: first, she’s falling back on lifelong behavior…explain away and fib when it suits her agenda.
    Additionally, she’s got two problems with having to testify:
    1. She doesn’t want to contribute any testimony that will go towards her daughter receiving DP.
    2. What if by some miracle…Casey walks? She’d never speak to her mother again because of her testimony.

    Reply
  18. Jun 26 2011

    I have to retract my statement in referencing J. Grund as the person I listened to say that Casey had been kicked out of the house by Cindy on the police interviews. My apologies to the Grund family for my error. I am still retracing my steps because I did hear it (was told by Casey she was kicked out) in one of the many police interviews from youtube. Apparently I have invested way more time in this than necessary into this case of Charlotte’s Web. On another note, the judicial system is totally awesome, I have learned so much. And appreciate Andrea’s insightful daily blog, as well as the other faithful ones I have come to trust. Thank you!

    Reply

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: