MissJames
a yellowflutterby changed my life : )
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 6,658
- Reaction score
- 1,304
Ok I am still catching up on listening to the deposition and reading these posts, but one thing just struck me...
When CA is talking about the car chase between GA and KC, CA states GA had the dates wrong. She says she talked to him about it and between the two of them, they put together that GA actually left the house to chase KC in April. She states that she reminded him that that night, Caylee was with CA coloring. However, when pressed for WHY GA took off after her, CA states she didn't find out about him leaving to chase her until later.
How on earth could she help pin down the date of the chase months later if she didn't even know at the time it was happening? So she and Caylee are coloring, KC leaves, GA leaves saying nothing out of the ordinary, returns and does not mention the chase, never brings it up again, and then months later CA is able to remind him that it happened that particular night? How is that even logical?
:waitasec:
I am sure someone else probably has caught this already and if so just ignore me. I just couldn't let this one slide.
Oh yeah,I caught that ,too . She sounded like an 8 year old trying to get out of a lie.Just didn't make any sense.I'm sure ALL the lawyers are pouring over the transcript and highlighting away.
If Cindy and George had come in ,acted calm and answered "yes" or "no" to most questions,answered truthfully and succinctly to the other question,they would have looked rational and the lawyers would have looked heavy handed.But no,they had to be combative and look like they were covering up.Why can't they see how they damage their own case by their behavior?