2008.08.04 Cindy A. Interview "REVISITED"

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cindy is as much a stranger to reality as her daughter is! What a bunch of BS! She has friends in Homeland Security and KC's friends have the means to make people disappear? Puh Leeze!
 
Okay, I'm still near the start of it and reading...but umm...does anybody notice that she keeps talking about "George and I and Lee" as being frustrated or upset or whatever....Why never Casey?

Thanks for the link!
 
This is cringe inducing. Cindy claims that TonE, Ricardo, and Amy are all into drugs. Have connections to people with money, ways to make people disappear. Cindy says she is not bailing out Casey because of this, she is afraid for her safety. "I could have Casey out right now; the money is not an issue". Oh Cindy, Cindy, Cindy....

Poor, poor Cindy ..
"the money is not an issue"

Really???
Had me fooled ..
 
That was a classic Cindy read. She was all over the place and has trouble staying on point. Blame game from day 1. At no point does she acknowledge that the 31 days was a real issue, only that the OCSO LE wasn't moving fast enough for her.

Did anyone notice that when she was referring to having friends in Homeland Security, she not only implied that they could/would get her copies of the Orlando airport video tapes, but she'd call them herself to "see what their little deal is." I'm sure Homeland Security's 'little deal' would astound CA.

A real piece of work, this one. Another poster wrote that the apple doesn't fall from the tree and these interviews of Cindy and Casey prove that to be true.
No wonder KC talks to the detectives like she is "one of them". Cindy is trying to tell them how to do their job, and on and on....ad nauseum :puke:
 
Cindy is as much a stranger to reality as her daughter is! What a bunch of BS! She has friends in Homeland Security and KC's friends have the means to make people disappear? Puh Leeze!

This scenario has always made me laugh. KC was not that involved with drugs. Even in Vegas where some true drug lords were involved in the kidnapping of a young boy, as soon as it hit national news, they put that kid out on the street to be found. It's all about the drama with this family.
 
For Tony, Ricardo & Jesse et al... I think they spell it D E F A M A T I O N !

WOW, CA... this is not good 4u
 
This appears to be a continuation of the interview from earlier, the one where Cindy is talking about Zanny's accident, etc.

What blows me away is CA talks about Caylee being in Georgia, then a few days later being in PA. Doesn't that give her a clue that these tips are bogus. What child is in a different state every few days?

Only one of them needs to be true. Not that I'm defending The Goddess of denial...
 
Did anyone else catch CA trying to backpeddle there on page 11 / 12 regarding Jeff H ?

I had to laugh when she said (after asking if they were recording) again, no sleep, no food so trying to remember ... can't say for facts everything I say is 100% ...

The truth is always very easy to remember, IMO.

(bolding mine)

Respectfully, I'd have to kind of disagree with you on that. The truth is easy to remember about things that are significant enough to stand out or stick in your mind. But . . . if I had to try to reconstruct a similar timeline, about the last two months, for example, I'd probaby have some difficulty. One day or week could easily overlap or run together in my mind. A person doesn't pay attention to these types of things with no reason to do so. Cindy didn't know Caylee was missing during the time things she's trying to remember were taking place. In other parts of the interview, she is trying to relate what Casey has told her ocurred. It can be hard to make a mental picture of what someone else is telling you happened that you didn't witness personally and then recall it exactly. (I imagine it could be even more challenging if Casey is the one telling you). I'm not defending all of Cindy's action or statements. But, I can see why a person wouldn't want to say that what they've just stated is 100% accurate. JMHO
 
For Tony, Ricardo & Jesse et al... I think they spell it D E F A M A T I O N !

WOW, CA... this is not good 4u

Do you think that after the trial, Jesse and the rest will file civil suits against Cindy?

Blaise
 
(bolding mine)

Respectfully, I'd have to kind of disagree with you on that. The truth is easy to remember about things that are significant enough to stand out or stick in your mind. But . . . if I had to try to reconstruct a similar timeline, about the last two months, for example, I'd probaby have some difficulty. One day or week could easily overlap or run together in my mind. A person doesn't pay attention to these types of things with no reason to do so. Cindy didn't know Caylee was missing during the time things she's trying to remember were taking place. In other parts of the interview, she is trying to relate what Casey has told her ocurred. It can be hard to make a mental picture of what someone else is telling you happened that you didn't witness personally and then recall it exactly. (I imagine it could be even more challenging if Casey is the one telling you). I'm not defending all of Cindy's action or statements. But, I can see why a person wouldn't want to say that what they've just stated is 100% accurate. JMHO

I have to agree with you about the memory thing. I probably couldn't tell you what happened yesterday, let alone two months ago. I remember the GA interview when he was telling LE what Caylee and KC were wearing the last time he saw them and I was thinking "How can you remember that?" I couldn't tell you what my husband was wearing this morning, and probably couldn't tell you what I was wearing myself without looking down to see. Yep! The older you get, the foggier the memory is. Why I remember one time.......wait a minute.....what was I talking about?
 
Do you think that after the trial, Jesse and the rest will file civil suits against Cindy?

Blaise

I certainly would want to if I were them, but I'm not sure if the things that were told to LE in an active investigation can be claimed as defamation in court. They would have to be able to prove that the A's knowing lied about these things. IMO, they were only implying others may be involved to steer LE away from KC, but I'm not sure all of the poor people they so readily threw under the bus could prove that. Not sure how all of that works. Someone in the legal profession maybe could tell us if a civil suit by the people named by the A's might have grounds to sue?
 
SHE'S OFF HER CHUFFING NUT!​


not eloquent, but honest​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
3,074
Total visitors
3,147

Forum statistics

Threads
604,186
Messages
18,168,757
Members
232,123
Latest member
Donald Redfield
Back
Top