So, here's the deal....
Following on this 'logic' trail - becomes illogical:
1) If we are to believe CA story today, which is to disprove SA theory, as she is covering up for ICA computer searches, car evidence, etc., then
2) She is saying that she believes in ICA innocence and supporting the DT opening statement;
3) If she is supposedly supporting the DT opening statement, then she is going along with what they said, including sexual abuse of ICA by GA.
BUT,
4) If she believes that -then she would not support GA - the man, her own husband, her child's own father, who was supposedly abusing/molesting her own daughter since a young age.
Everyone with me so far? Anyone? Everyone?
But then we have:
5) CA and GA in support of each other; CA not angry about that statement, nor surprised, nor anything that would seem she believes in any of that story. No revelation to her, and she sits with him in court every day, and goes home with him every night. (That's enough for me as a jury to not believe that. At least you would think the Anthonys would play that part and act like they hate each other after those skeletons came out dancing, right?...But everything looks fine to me)...Plus the fact that,
6) GA denies that accusation while on the stand anyway, so there's no need to pretend, right? That's not true.
Okay, so - logic reverse?:
7) If that's not true - that GA molested ICA, then.....what are the Anthonys saying? That they only believe PART of the DT story?
8) With CA going up and taking responsibility for the searches, possibly perjuring herself, 'remembering better' these days, stain was already there, yadda yadda....that part is true, but....so?
9) Some of what DT says is true and some is not, then?
10) Is a jury supposed to believe that George did NOT abuse ICA when he got up and said he did not, against the DT accusation, but yet they ARE supposed to believe the claims that CA made today in favor of the DT?
Then, there's the rest:
11) So, if we are supposed to believe GA, because he said it wasn't true, then we must remove that being the reason for ICA behavior after her daughter's 'accidental' death - with GA's involvement, mind you.
12) If we remove that reason for her behavior, and there's no other proven mental reason, and she already had knowledge of her death, that removes the excuse for her non-remorse.
13) If that is removed, then that statement by DT is also false.
When the Anthonys were witnesses for Prosecution, they acted in Prosecution favor. When they were witnesses for Defense, they acted in Defense favor.
Can't have both. The Anthonys' own statements and behavior seem to prove the DT opening statement as not true, or at least contradictory. And THEIR behavior is contradictory.
Either way someone loses credibility between them. Or all of them.
Playing both sides of the fence only shows the hypocrisy, lies, and the fact that something is being covered up. If something is being covered up, there is a reason.
Following the logic shows the illogical statements and behavior, and the fallacies become evident.
__
I see parallels with the JBR case and the Rs family covering for each other at all costs, to the detriment of their own little girl....
