Details Emerge: Casey/Cindy Fight - Part 2

BondJamesBond said:

*snip*

From what you've read, Intermezzo, what is your opinion of the certainty of that being the true chain of the tale? IOW...Cindy being the source of Lee's information (vs. Casey). Is there room that Jesse assumed the events were told to Lee by Cindy? Or is he emphatic about it? Earlier IIRC, someone suggested that Lee may have become privy to the "choking" whilst he and Casey sat on the steps in the garage w/ the Pontiac 7/15. I haven't done the homework...so relying on the sleuthin' of others here.

It has always been easier for me to speculate that the Casey-the-victim-of-Cindy version of the story would've originated from Casey vs. Cindy.

Click to expand...

I reread Jessie's account of the alleged choking incident and it's confusing at best. This is what sometimes aggravates me a little about these interviews - so many times questions are left unanswered!! In the original question YM askes JG about the fact that JG had told him "something about Cindy being told by Lee of an incident involving Cindy and Casey...". What??? Did Yuri accidentaly say "Cindy" here? Did he start to say "about Cindy choking" but then back up to say "(you) being told by Lee of a incident involving Cindy and Casey"?? Or if this reads right and Yuri really did mean that Lee told Cindy that he knew about the fight, then it obviously had to come from Casey. As there were no other people involved. But if this is the case, according to Lee, Cindy "fessed up" and agreed with the account.

TallyHo said:

I reread Jessie's account of the alleged choking incident and it's confusing at best. This is what sometimes aggravates me a little about these interviews - so many times questions are left unanswered!! In the original question YM askes JG about the fact that JG had told him "something about Cindy being told by Lee of an incident involving Cindy and Casey...". What??? Did Yuri accidentaly say "Cindy" here? Did he start to say "about Cindy choking" but then back up to say "(you) being told by Lee of a incident involving Cindy and Casey"?? Or if this reads right and Yuri really did mean that Lee told Cindy that he knew about the fight, then it obviously had to come from Casey. As there were no other people involved. But if this is the case, according to Lee, Cindy "fessed up" and agreed with the account.

Click to expand...

Do not get me wrong about JG... good kid, bad situation. But really, why he is telling the police is hearsay about that fight. I am not so sure he should have even mentioned it since he was not there to witness it.
However, since he did.. you are correct that the question YM is confusing at best.

If Jesse got up on the stand and said.. So and so said there was a fight. Wouldn't that get an objection as hearsay?

ibyoungr said:

Do not get me wrong about JG... good kid, bad situation. But really, why he is telling the police is hearsay about that fight. I am not so sure he should have even mentioned it since he was not there to witness it.
However, since he did.. you are correct that the question YM is confusing at best.

If Jesse got up on the stand and said.. So and so said there was a fight. Wouldn't that get an objection as hearsay?

Click to expand...

I think so. I'm not a legal pro, and I get seriously muddled about 'hearsay' testimony, but I think that if the purpose of the testimony is to establish that a fight actually took place or to determine anything substantive about the fight then in general, within the arena of the court, that testimony would have to be in the form of ..."Yes. There was a fight. I was there and I saw it.", or ... "Yes. There was a fight. I was in it." Anything else would be 'hearsay'.

The concept appears to be riddled with exceptions, but that is my understanding of the gist of it.

fortytwo said:

I think so. I'm not a legal pro, and I get seriously muddled about 'hearsay' testimony, but I think that if the purpose of the testimony is to establish that a fight actually took place or to determine anything substantive about the fight then in general, within the arena of the court, that testimony would have to be in the form of ..."Yes. There was a fight. I was there and I saw it.", or ... "Yes. There was a fight. I was in it." Anything else would be 'hearsay'.

The concept appears to be riddled with exceptions, but that is my understanding of the gist of it.

Click to expand...

There are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule, but the important point here is that police officers are not required to limit their questions in an investigational interview to those that would be admissible in court. If Jesse tells LE "Lee told me that there was a fight on the night of June 15," then LE can go to Lee and say, "What do you know about this fight?" and so on down the chain until they either get to someone with direct knowledge or get to someone whose testimony fits within a hearsay exception. (For example, if Lee said, "Casey told me Cindy strangled her," then they could cross-examine Cindy on the stand about her direct knowledge of the fight and probably get Casey's statement in (through Lee's testimony) under the exception for admissions of a party.)

AZlawyer said:

There are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule, but the important point here is that police officers are not required to limit their questions in an investigational interview to those that would be admissible in court. If Jesse tells LE "Lee told me that there was a fight on the night of June 15," then LE can go to Lee and say, "What do you know about this fight?" and so on down the chain until they either get to someone with direct knowledge or get to someone whose testimony fits within a hearsay exception. (For example, if Lee said, "Casey told me Cindy strangled her," then they could cross-examine Cindy on the stand about her direct knowledge of the fight and probably get Casey's statement in (through Lee's testimony) under the exception for admissions of a party.)

Click to expand...

Thank you. This was my understanding, which is why I limited my statement to "within the arena of the court."

Did I get that part right?

ETA: I understand that asking Lee on a witness stand to testify that KC made a statement to him would not be hearsay if the purpose of the testimony was to establish that she had made such a statement. but it would be hearsay if the purpose of the testimony was to establish that there was indeed a fight.

This is where I start to get muddled, because I'm unsure if such niceties wouldn't be lost on the jury.

fortytwo said:

Thank you. This was my understanding, which is why I limited my statement to "within the arena of the court."

Did I get that part right?

ETA: I understand that asking Lee on a witness stand to testify that KC made a statement to him would not be hearsay if the purpose of the testimony was to establish that she had made such a statement. but it would be hearsay if the purpose of the testimony was to establish that there was indeed a fight.

This is where I start to get muddled, because I'm unsure if such niceties wouldn't be lost on the jury.

Click to expand...

Yes, you were right about the rule applying only within the arena of the court. Someone else above had asked why Jesse was supplying the information to LE as it was hearsay...and my point was that hearsay is extremely useful in the investigational stage.

About Lee testifying that KC told him there was a fight...if the point was just to prove she made the statement, it would NOT be hearsay but on the other hand might not be admissible because of the tendency to confuse the jury about what the point of the testimony was. If the point was to prove that there really was a fight, it WOULD be hearsay but I think still admissible under the hearsay exception for admissions of the defendant.

AZlawyer said:

Yes, you were right about the rule applying only within the arena of the court. Someone else above had asked why Jesse was supplying the information to LE as it was hearsay...and my point was that hearsay is extremely useful in the investigational stage.

About Lee testifying that KC told him there was a fight...if the point was just to prove she made the statement, it would NOT be hearsay but on the other hand might not be admissible because of the tendency to confuse the jury about what the point of the testimony was. If the point was to prove that there really was a fight, it WOULD be hearsay but I think still admissible under the hearsay exception for admissions of the defendant.

Click to expand...

Those darned exceptions.

My admittedly tenuous grasp of the concept promptly goes all to hell when I try to encompass the exceptions.

I suspect I may become equally confused because there seems to be a certain element of dispute about application even within any given trial setting. Almost as if I'm not the only one confused.

AZlawyer said:

There are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule, but the important point here is that police officers are not required to limit their questions in an investigational interview to those that would be admissible in court. If Jesse tells LE "Lee told me that there was a fight on the night of June 15," then LE can go to Lee and say, "What do you know about this fight?" and so on down the chain until they either get to someone with direct knowledge or get to someone whose testimony fits within a hearsay exception. (For example, if Lee said, "Casey told me Cindy strangled her," then they could cross-examine Cindy on the stand about her direct knowledge of the fight and probably get Casey's statement in (through Lee's testimony) under the exception for admissions of a party.)

Click to expand...

To me (don't know the legalities) if the hearsay came from the mouth of an uninvolved party, it might mean something and shed some light on the climate in that house. But, if it came from somebody with a hint towards self preservation, involvement, etc., I couldn't put stock into the hearsay as the source has something at stake.

AZlawyer said:

There are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule, but the important point here is that police officers are not required to limit their questions in an investigational interview to those that would be admissible in court. If Jesse tells LE "Lee told me that there was a fight on the night of June 15," then LE can go to Lee and say, "What do you know about this fight?" and so on down the chain until they either get to someone with direct knowledge or get to someone whose testimony fits within a hearsay exception. (For example, if Lee said, "Casey told me Cindy strangled her," then they could cross-examine Cindy on the stand about her direct knowledge of the fight and probably get Casey's statement in (through Lee's testimony) under the exception for admissions of a party.)

Click to expand...

Would this question come with an explanation to the jury (court) that the purpose is only to prove KC said there was a fight/assault? Or only if there was a hearsay objection?


I am asking this without going back and looking at all the hard work on the time line, pings etc (my bad and I apologize). Since the A's were originally basing their recollection on June 9th (or did I read somewhere, someone also said 6/6?) Does this add more support to the fight occurring June 8?

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Sorry O/T but curious; is it just me or is the A clan one of the most truthfully challenged group of "victims" in America? (Not including KC in my question)

Does LE always ask witnesses to raise their hands and swear they told the truth? What little experience I've had with LE as a witness I can't remember doing this.

My experience with LE is they are there to help, so I would have no reason to be anything but honestly forth coming. If I felt they were questioning me in such a way that I could accidentally falsely incriminate myself or my family, I would lawyer up, but not lie.

If I had a family member or friend "involved" in something, I would lawyer up, but still truthfully answer the questions to the best of my ability.

Cindy's LE interview, where at the end they reminded her she was under oath or asked her to raise her hand and she balked, sputtered and choked was just shocking to me. I actually screamed at my PC "hey idiot, they're trying to find your gbaby or have you forgotten!!"

Is this behavior the norm when interviewing witnesses? Not meaning criminals, but average people, put into a horrible situation....

Devon said:

Since I believe that Caylee died in the home on the afternoon of June 16, I just don't see how someone who had malicious hatred and evil intent in their mind could calmly sit doing things on the computer and having long phone chats with friends (including conversation about wanting to move out with Caylee) within minutes of either deliberately snuffing her little life out or of planning to do so! I know there are people who are capable of such immense evil, but I just don't think KC is one of them.

Click to expand...

*resp. snipped.
i find it even more unbelievable that someone could behave like this within minutes of a totally unexpected and fatal accident claiming the life of their child.

I am wondering if JM, in the deposition, asked Lee about this fight between Cindy and Casey ? I can't remember him asking the question and if he didn't,I wonder why not. Could it be because of hearsay rules or maybe he didn't know Lee told Jesse about this fight ?

"YM: Okay. So that being said, we went over a couple of things here that we had some questions about. First off was a comment that you made to me uh, last week when I called you on the phone and you said something about Cindy being told by Lee of an incident involving Cindy and Casey….
JG: Correct.
YM: …just before Caylee went missing.
JG: Right.
YM: And would you please just explain that incident for me and how you learned of it.
JG: Uh, Lee, shortly after my second interview with Orange County, confided in me that uhm, the reason that he thought, Cindy confided in him that the reason he thought, she felt that Casey ran off was there was a big fight between the two of them and the fight concerned Casey not being home a lot uhm, and uhm, not
Grund, Jesse.3/Case #08-69208/GG

bringing Caylee by. Uhm, it got into a very heated argument, which turned physical, and Cindy started choking Casey.
YM: Was there anyone else in the house when this happened?
JG: Uh, he didn’t actually expand upon that. As far as I understood, from what he told me, it was just Cindy and Casey.
YM: Uh-hum (affirmative). Where was Caylee?
JG: Uhm, I don’t know.
YM: This happen daytime, nighttime?
JG: Night time.
YM: Do you know if George might have been home?
JG: Uhm, I, I don’t know if he was home or not. Uh, again, what Lee told me, uhm, was very short, sweet, to the point. I didn’t ask a lot of questions in regards to it. Because again, I didn’t know how much of it was real and how much of it was fake. I didn’t know if again I was being fed something just to test to see where I was at in regards to retaining information that he’d give me.
YM: Did you have any reason to believe that Lee might have been tricking you at that point?
JG: I didn’t trust anybody in the family at that point. So uhm, I was on high alert in regards to anything that was being told to me.
YM: Did Casey ever mention this incident with her mom to you at all?
JG: Absolutely not. I mean she had been recently in a very much kind of a hatred state for her mother, but she had never mentioned anything in regards to being choked by her mom."


:crazy:OK sleuths, help me out!! Is this the only actual description we have of the choking incident?? I know LP talked about it on NG, having been told of it by JG, I believe. Have we seen anything at all official from Lee about it?? I think it's interesting that Jessie doesn't know whether to believe it or not. I think the story has an actual ring of truth to it, and if Jessie is telling it correctly, Cindy was the one who originally told it. Lee might have actually been playing sleuth at that point and trying to get info from Jessie that might have been relevant. If this is the case, Cindy had to be furious at Lee that he told this to Jessie. Do you think she's managed to "circle the wagons" now and convince Lee to now deny it happened? Because then it will be their word against Jessie's, and we all know what a mess that will be! I just have to say that the story has a real ring of truth to it. Somehow I doubt Jessie could make up the fact that Cindy was upset by that point by Casey not bringing Caylee by. I can see someone making up the fact that Cindy was upset at Casey's partying lifestyle and not taking care of her daughter. But I cannot imagine that Jessie could have made up the fact that, as we have theorized, Casey was playing the Caylee keep-away game from Cindy in that time frame. This could be another reason why CA wants to discredit Jessie so badly.

TallyHo said:

"YM: Okay. So that being said, we went over a couple of things here that we had some questions about. First off was a comment that you made to me uh, last week when I called you on the phone and you said something about Cindy being told by Lee of an incident involving Cindy and Casey….JG: Correct.
YM: …just before Caylee went missing.
JG: Right.
YM: And would you please just explain that incident for me and how you learned of it.
JG: Uh, Lee, shortly after my second interview with Orange County, confided in me that uhm, the reason that he thought, Cindy confided in him that the reason he thought, she felt that Casey ran off was there was a big fight between the two of them and the fight concerned Casey not being home a lot uhm, and uhm, not
Grund, Jesse.3/Case #08-69208/GG.

Click to expand...

*snipped and bolded by me for brevity*

Seems like Cindy confides in Lee about why she thought KC was staying away (CAs rationale for no real red flags).

Lee confides in JG to see if he knows about the 'fight'.

JG isn't aware of said fight.

(end result is - it's okay for Cindy to deny the fight since only the family really know of it).

IF there was no 'fight', there was no reason for KC to stay away from home with Caylee, so now Cindy will need another reason for why she didn't become concerned about them both much sooner.

NSS said:

*snipped and bolded by me for brevity*

Seems like Cindy confides in Lee about why she thought KC was staying away (CAs rationale for no real red flags).

Lee confides in JG to see if he knows about the 'fight'.

JG isn't aware of said fight.

(end result is - it's okay for Cindy to deny the fight since only the family really know of it).

IF there was no 'fight', there was no reason for KC to stay away from home with Caylee, so now Cindy will need another reason for why she didn't become concerned about them both much sooner.

Click to expand...

I agree that since the "fight" information was said to have originated with Cindy it probably happened.

The phone call records and Casey's actions support Casey and Cindy fighting over Casey not doing enough "mother duty".

Jolynna said:

I don't think Jesse was clear on who Lee heard about the fight from. Cindy wouldn't have told Lee she choked Casey unless it was fact. Casey would have. There are several instances of Casey throwing people under the bus to manipulate or get something.

I do think Jesse's statement is interesting because Jesse did have first hand knowledge that on June 15-16 Casey HATED Cindy more than before.

He talked to Casey on those days and if that was his impression, it does sound like something was going on. Other people's statements support the friction between Cindy and Casey over *Casey not being home with Caylee enough*.

Annie D. said Cindy regularly called Casey and made her come home to watch Caylee. Other old friends said Cindy thought Casey needed to be home more with Caylee and that Cindy and Casey fought about it.

As has been pointed out in this thread, June's cell phone records show a pattern of Cindy calling Casey over and over again and Casey not picking up, before Casey finally drug herself home.

Casey's myface, facebook and text messages are ALL about Casey's obsession to her new life as a real "event" planner. Casey also was telling people she was in "love" and had never fallen so hard.

Cindy's desires for Casey and Casey's newest obsessions were conflicting.

Click to expand...

While Jessie's statement is confusing (not as confusing as Yuri's question, IMO) the more I looked at it the clearer it became to me that the whole point of Lee's account is that this fight was in Cindy's (and Lee's) mind, THE reason that she ran off on June 16th. And obviously "mistruths" have come from both Casey and Cindy's mouths, and Casey certainly throws people under the bus to manipulate them, but to me this story just has a ring of truth to it. I think if Casey had made it up to make Cindy look bad, she would have come up with some reason for it happening other than through any fault of her own. There is a lot of evidence that there was loads of friction between Casey and Cindy over Caylee, and I'm guessing that there were almost daily skirmishes. But I do think this story about the choking incident might have some legs.

TallyHo said:

While Jessie's statement is confusing (not as confusing as Yuri's question, IMO) the more I looked at it the clearer it became to me that the whole point of Lee's account is that this fight was in Cindy's (and Lee's) mind, THE reason that she ran off on June 16th. And obviously "mistruths" have come from both Casey and Cindy's mouths, and Casey certainly throws people under the bus to manipulate them, but to me this story just has a ring of truth to it. I think if Casey had made it up to make Cindy look bad, she would have come up with some reason for it happening other than through any fault of her own. There is a lot of evidence that there was loads of friction between Casey and Cindy over Caylee, and I'm guessing that there were almost daily skirmishes. But I do think this story about the choking incident might have some legs.

Click to expand...

I reread everything and agree with you.

I even went back and deleted my comment. There's a lot of evidence pointing to friction between Casey and Cindy over "mother duties" but in June after Casey had been caught lying about the "no clothes" party, Cindy would have been edgier. MOST mothers wouldn't be thrilled about a daughter parading online in nothing but a flag. But worse, Casey lied and used her mom to do it.

Cindy was telling her co-workers she was going to work especially hard at bonding with her "girls". She was having hot flashes, had decided to stay in a bad marriage for the sake of her house and was facing financial ruin. Cindy was hormonal, stressed and looking to her daughter for support.

But, Casey had become wrapped up in "event" planning and a new man. BOTH Cindy and Caylee would have seemed needy and demanding to Casey.

Stolen moments with Tony would have been as enticing to Casey as a mistress to an aging married man whose wife constantly harped about chores and responsibilities. I think much of Tony's allure for Casey was what he represented.

ANYTHING and everything Cindy or Caylee did or needed would have seemed especially cumbersome and irritating while Casey was obsessing and aching to be with her lover.

IMO

TallyHo said:

While Jessie's statement is confusing (not as confusing as Yuri's question, IMO) the more I looked at it the clearer it became to me that the whole point of Lee's account is that this fight was in Cindy's (and Lee's) mind, THE reason that she ran off on June 16th. And obviously "mistruths" have come from both Casey and Cindy's mouths, and Casey certainly throws people under the bus to manipulate them, but to me this story just has a ring of truth to it. I think if Casey had made it up to make Cindy look bad, she would have come up with some reason for it happening other than through any fault of her own. There is a lot of evidence that there was loads of friction between Casey and Cindy over Caylee, and I'm guessing that there were almost daily skirmishes. But I do think this story about the choking incident might have some legs.

Click to expand...

Bold is mine

If Cindy attended her own brother's wedding, with a 7 month pregnant KC and blatantly denied she was with child, anything is possible. As many have uncovered here, public perception of her and her family is Paramount to her being. Your point is a good one concerning her confidence with Lee, and JG's statement has no ground, nothing for Cindy to worry about. JG is dismissed. Remember, Cindy's words, "Lying is not a crime"

Jolynna said:

I reread everything and agree with you.

I even went back and deleted my comment. There's a lot of evidence pointing to friction between Casey and Cindy over "mother duties" but in June after Casey had been caught lying about the "no clothes" party, Cindy would have been even edgier.

Cindy was telling her co-workers she was going to work especially hard at bonding with her "girls". She was having hot flashes, had decided to stay in a bad marriage for the sake of her house and was facing financial ruin. She washormonal, stressed and looking to her daughter for support.

But, Casey had become wrapped up in "event" planning and a new man that lived a lifestyle that both Casey and the boyfriend thought was "unfit" for Caylee to be in overnight. BOTH Cindy and Caylee would have seemed like needy leeches to Casey.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. And I went back yesterday and read one of Lee's earliest interviews with LE and he told them that Cindy brought up the fact that Caylee was a mistake (exact word) to Casey all of the time. It did seem like she was having a tug of war between forcing Casey to grow up and be responsible with Caylee (probably those times that Jessie called "times of hatred) vs. the times she spent trying to be Casey's friend and get that support she was looking for (probably those were the times that Jessie refers to as when Casey wanted to be just like her mother).

reeseeva said:

Bold is mine

If Cindy attended her own brother's wedding, with a 7 month pregnant KC and blatantly denied she was with child, anything is possible. As many have uncovered here, public perception of her and her family is Paramount to her being. Your point is a good one concerning her confidence with Lee, and JG's statement has no ground, nothing for Cindy to worry about. JG is dismissed. Remember, Cindy's words, "Lying is not a crime"

Click to expand...

I really do wonder about this. If she knows now that Lee will not testify to this account now, then she can scream to high heaven (which she did in court) that there was no fight. Lord knows Casey will never admit to it either!! Too close to "motive"!!

TallyHo said:

"YM: Okay. So that being said, we went over a couple of things here that we had some questions about. First off was a comment that you made to me uh, last week when I called you on the phone and you said something about Cindy being told by Lee of an incident involving Cindy and Casey….
JG: Correct.

YM: …just before Caylee went missing.

JG: Right.

YM: And would you please just explain that incident for me and how you learned of it.

JG: Uh, Lee, shortly after my second interview with Orange County, confided in me that uhm, the reason that he thought, Cindy confided in him that the reason he thought, she felt that Casey ran off was there was a big fight between the two of them and the fight concerned Casey not being home a lot uhm, and uhm, not bringing Caylee by. Uhm, it got into a very heated argument, which turned physical, and Cindy started choking Casey.

YM: Was there anyone else in the house when this happened?

JG: Uh, he didn’t actually expand upon that. As far as I understood, from what he told me, it was just Cindy and Casey.

YM: Uh-hum (affirmative). Where was Caylee?

JG: Uhm, I don’t know.

YM: This happen daytime, nighttime?

JG: Night time.

YM: Do you know if George might have been home?

JG: Uhm, I, I don’t know if he was home or not. Uh, again, what Lee told me, uhm, was very short, sweet, to the point. I didn’t ask a lot of questions in regards to it. Because again, I didn’t know how much of it was real and how much of it was fake. I didn’t know if again I was being fed something just to test to see where I was at in regards to retaining information that he’d give me.

YM: Did you have any reason to believe that Lee might have been tricking you at that point?

JG: I didn’t trust anybody in the family at that point. So uhm, I was on high alert in regards to anything that was being told to me.

YM: Did Casey ever mention this incident with her mom to you at all?

JG: Absolutely not. I mean she had been recently in a very much kind of a hatred state for her mother, but she had never mentioned anything in regards to being choked by her mom."

Click to expand...

*snipped & bold by me*

Updating recap to-date & attempting to summarize to incorporate info from Jesse's interview provided by TallyHo, w/ special thanks to IBY and Devon for some terrific work (much, much more detail provided esp. by IBY if you read back through this thread regarding other potential arguments, FYI) :highfive:.

Sleuthed as best candidate-dates & times, IMHO, for the Jean C. accounted Casey-Cindy incidents and THE Lee=>Jesse-described "fight":


The Sunday evening timing is a period of cell inactivity on Casey's phone that, IMHO, would've likely had:

• Caylee in bed after her swim w/ Cindy & long day @ Mt. Dora
• George still @ work
• the argument happening @ night
• the argument on the heels of Casey's all-day-@-Tony's and delayed return home behavior (added to several priors) w/ Caylee in Cindy's care
• the intensity of the argument escalating as it may have simply picked up where the argument of the morning left off...with tensions not truly fading through the course of the day

I tried to examine if the "choking" fight could've happened post-6/15. I can line up a very good opportunity...except...Casey wasn't 'round G&C's @ night post-6/15.