Did Cindy Anthony Prove That Blood Is Thicker Than Chloroform?

Did Cindy Anthony Prove That Blood Is Thicker Than Chloroform?


Just when I thought the Casey Anthony murder trial had hit the top limits of the Bizarrometer, Cindy Anthony’s testimony on Thursday added a new dimension to the amount of weird we’ve seen to date. This case has me wondering what sort of response a writer would receive from an agent or editor if they submitted a tale as wacky as this one. I’m thinking an editor would possibly find the story unbelievable and send it back for revisions, if they didn’t totally reject the book. And that’s exactly what I hope the jury in this case will do, reject most of the nonsense we’ve heard from the defense in this case. But that nonsense might be a stroke of genius. After all, if you throw enough crap against the wall, eventually some of it will stick. And so far, Jose Baez is crap-tossing like a crazed monkey.

Apparently, Cindy Anthony was on some sort of medication in 2009 that conveniently wiped her selective memory clean. Sure, she could remember Casey’s exact movements and words during that time, but was unable to recall, during depositions, that she herself had Googled the word chloroform over 80 times from her home computer. At the time, she’d also Googled terms like chest injury and internal bleeding. But she hadn’t remembered searching for those words either. I’m a little curious, though, why a nurse would need to Google the injury terms. Aren’t those subjects covered in nursing school?

And all this brings us to Cindy’s Thursday testimony, which was a bit of a jaw-dropper. The mom of the accused murderer said that her memory was better now since she switched medication, and that she now clearly recalls using the computer in her home to look up chloroform and those injuries she knew nothing about during her sworn testimony at deposition. And, suddenly, she recalled stains on the carpet in the trunk of Casey’s car. Stains that were already present when they purchased the car. Conveniently, these are the stains examined by experts who testified were caused by human decomposition. Chloroform was also present in that section of carpet.

But remember, class. Dr. Wise testified that chloroform evaporates quite rapidly. Yet, it was the number 1 chemical found in the carpet. And there’s a snowball’s chance in…well, you know where, that chloroform would still be present in that car after all this time (since they purchased it). Nope, the chemical most likely contacted that carpet AFTER the Anthonys bought the car. Why it was there…who knows for sure?

Where Ms. Anthony’s story really begins to bug me is when the prosecution asked how she could have been using her home computer when her work record indicates that she was in her office working, not at home, during the time of the internet searches. The Anthony matriarch blew that one off by saying it was common for her supervisor to fill out her time cards incorrectly. Why does everyone in this family blame others for their actions? Are they all psychopaths? Or, are they each really good actors? OR…is the truth really this convoluted and disorderly?

But, when the rubber hits the road, I sort of blame the judge for this entire mess. He never should have allowed Casey’s parents to sit in the courtroom during the trial. They should have been made to wait outside like all witnesses. Now, they can (I’m not saying they are) sway their story and testimony in a direction that would help their daughter avoid the death penalty and maybe even help set her free. And it would be an easy task since they’ve heard every single bit of evidence presented so far.

I’m really hoping the jury is watching and listening to this display of selective memory. And I hope they’re watching closely, with popcorn, peanuts, and Crackerjacks in hand. Because this is becoming one hell of a circus.

*     *     *

Yes, the posting of this article means there are no officer deaths to report this week. Stay safe, guys. And wear your vests. There’s someone who needs to be tucked in when you get home.





position: absolute; opacity: 1; z-index: 8675309; display: none; cursor: pointer; top: 236px; left: 20px;”>Save

17 replies
  1. Pete Morin
    Pete Morin says:

    Pat – in many jurisdictions, sequestering a witness is at the discretion of the judge. The prosecution or defense makes the motion to sequester, the judge rules. I take it from Lee that the judge denied the prosecution’s request.

  2. Pat Brown
    Pat Brown says:

    I’m confused. I thought people who were going to be put on the stand weren’t allowed to sit in at the trial for that very reason. How could anyone trust a word out of their mouths when they got to see and hear what came before?

    This a mockery of justice. I just hope it doesn’t end up like the Simpson trial. That child needs justice at the very least. It sounds like a dysfunctional family of monsters.

  3. SZ
    SZ says:

    The best part of this post is no officer fatalities. Party time !

    How the press plucks an innocent childs murder out and creates the circus this has become is beyond me. Children are sadly murdered too often. Just this week, one was microwaved. The sensationalization of trials only seems to hinder the outcomes. There should be no “court tv” and then maybe justice can do its proper job.

  4. Beth Anderson
    Beth Anderson says:

    The Anthonys seem to be a family full of secrets and denial. I’m not buying Cindy’s sudden memory recall because these were all such important points she’d have to be completely drugged not to realize that the first time around. I said this a while back–I think the whole family lies. A LOT. And sooner or later, their lies are going to bring them all down. Here’s a for instance. I watched the testimony about Cindy seeing the open fence and the pool steps being out. She called her husband, she says, and he didn’t know anything about it. So, did she then call Casey? I would think so. Or was she just burying her head again, as she seems to have been doing all along? Of course she knew Casey was pregnant, but she didn’t want to face it. She doesn’t want to face what happened to her little granddaughter, who is gone now because nobody would stand up to Casey all those years, with all those lies. Frankly, I don’t feel sorry for any of them except poor little Caylee, who had to pay with her life because those parents still can not face what their own daughter is.

  5. JJ
    JJ says:

    We’ve all seen the pictures by now and I keep going back to that.
    Any nurse worth her salt could look at that girl and know she was pregnant. Yet Cindy testified she thought it was bloat. As an RN myself, she lost me right there. I think these people are in an awful dilemma, justice for their granddaughter versus death for their daughter, but c’mon!

  6. Pat Marinelli
    Pat Marinelli says:

    Glad to hear this all you had to post this Friday.

    As to the Anthony trial, I’m just waiting to hear the verdict, but must admit I like reading your comments rather than reading about the trial itself.

    Can’t give that Anthony woman my time, she isn’t worth it.
    Can you see I have issues with people who abuse, mistreat, or kill their children? It’s personal. Hubby and I had kids because we wanted them and we respect people who don’t want to have kids, but people who have them and then don’t want them and harm them—makes me cringe.

  7. MLBarton
    MLBarton says:

    Wow, you bring up some interesting points, Lee. I hadn’t thought about how the Anthonys presence in the courtroom made them privy to info that might help them get their daughter off. What concerns me most is the stories one hears about the inattention of the jury. Have they really heard and understood the implications of every person’s testimony? And will they remember what all those prosecution witnesses said after so many weeks of this circus?

  8. Sylvia
    Sylvia says:

    And yet – just to play devil’s advocate! If a suspect’s story is TOO consistent, it’s memorized, or so we’re told. An ordinary person in telling the same story over and over will use slightly different words sometimes, I know I do. I have not watched any of the Anthony trial. I do wish ‘truth and justice’ would prevail, but have my doubts. So much time and stupidity gone by.

  9. PWhittle
    PWhittle says:

    Consistency in statements — whether oral, written — matter. I wouldn’t “buy” this court room tactic ( if you want to call it such) in a heartbeat.

  10. Julie D.
    Julie D. says:

    I find the judge’s actions, or rather INactions in this case frustrating. Reminds me of the OJ debacle, watching a star-struck and clearly out-of-his-league Judge Ito allowing…well, ALL that he allowed. Meanwhile, a child is dead at the hands of her mother. Hard to reconcile.

    Beyond happy, as well, that this is all you got this week, Lee. It’s good enough for us. Lets hope for many more weeks like this. 🙂

  11. Patricia Reiss Brooks
    Patricia Reiss Brooks says:

    How come nobody is asking why Cindy performed those searches? How did she plan on using choloform? What/who was she planning to harm as a result of the other searches? I suppose she could resort to the thought that performing these searches is today’s answer to “kicking the dog” or “punching a ball” to vent anger. If so, what was she angry about?

  12. Stacy Allen
    Stacy Allen says:

    Personally, I don’t think she thought this out very well. I expect at some point truth will prevail and she is going to be slammed with a perjury charge. I think she is just making matters much worse for the whole lot of them.

  13. Lee Lofland
    Lee Lofland says:

    JD – I’m only speaking for myself here, but I was fine with Cindy Anthony when she was consistent. And that’s my rule for all witnesses for either side, that they all stick to their stories come hell or high water. Once the story starts to grow convoluted, with more twists and turns than you see in a Jeff Deaver novel, well, their credibility diminishes rapidly.

    I’ve been in the courtroom countless times over the years and I’ve heard thousands of testimonies. And one of my strong-suits as an investigator was interview and interrogation. I even taught the subject at the academy. And I’m fairly well-versed in Kinesics. So it is not with an inexperienced eye and ear that I’ve reached my “opinion” about witnesses in this case, or any other.

    Had Ms. Anthony’s fact-relating been all in her daughter’s favor from the beginning, and consistent, and truthful, I’d say she was a fine witness. And that’s how she came across in earlier testimony. Not yesterday, though.

  14. J.D.
    J.D. says:

    Everyone was fine with Cindy’s presence and her testimony when they supposed it would all be in the prosecution’s favor.

Comments are closed.