Casey Anthony's Written Statement

[doogiesgirl]

Casey's statement:

"Caylee will be 3 years-old on August 9, 2008. She was born on August 9, 2005."

The statement is actually a lie. Casey knew that Caylee was deceased and would never turn three. I think her wording would have sent up a red flag with statement analyzers.

This is the statement that MOST jumped out at me. Don't get me wrong, the whole thing sounded like BS. But when I read GA's witness statement and saw the same sentence, it really bothered me. Why would KC even write that in her incident report? Why would GA write it in his witness statement? "Caylee will be three years old on August 9, 2008". They both wrote the exact same sentence. Why? Caylee's birthday has nothing to do with her being taken. I always felt like GA instructed KC to write this b/c he knew the way LE viewed past tense verbs = this was a way to bring Caylee to the present and future in a written statement IMO. Caylee's upcoming birthday is something that would come up as an after thought, but not during the initial reporting of Caylee missing IMO. It just bothers me - ALOT. JMHO

 

[DAWN TREADER]

Cindy could/should have given the phone/address book with Zanny's phone numbers and addresses to LE when they first came to the Anthony home to investigate the disappearance of Caylee Marie.

I'd like to know for certain whether she did or did not give LE this phone/address book at any point during the investigation, prior to Caylee's remains being found.

 

[erinsn77]

Ok so Casey says that she was 5' 7" and 140 lbs I thought George said on the stand that she was 5' 8" 120 lbs and a 10???? Geez this family needs to get there stories straight!!!

 

[aafromaa]

This is the statement that MOST jumped out at me. Don't get me wrong, the whole thing sounded like BS. But when I read GA's witness statement and saw the same sentence, it really bothered me. Why would KC even write that in her incident report? Why would GA write it in his witness statement? "Caylee will be three years old on August 9, 2008". They both wrote the exact same sentence. Why? Caylee's birthday has nothing to do with her being taken. I always felt like GA instructed KC to write this b/c he knew the way LE viewed past tense verbs = this was a way to bring Caylee to the present and future in a written statement IMO. Caylee's upcoming birthday is something that would come up as an after thought, but not during the initial reporting of Caylee missing IMO. It just bothers me - ALOT. JMHO

Respectfully, I disagree with your conclusion here. While I don't have children myself, I have noticed that many of my own family and friends do this when referring to the age of their younger children and grandchildren - usually under about age 5. If the child is closer to 2 than 2 1/2 they will just say "she's 2" and if closer to 2 1/2 they will say "she's 2 1/2" and if closer to 3 they will say "she'll be 3 on such and such" or something along those lines. I think it's because there is so much difference in the physical and mental development of a 2 year old (24 months) and an almost 3 year old (in this case 34 months). I have a great niece who is now the age Caylee was - it is 2 months before her 3rd birthday. If she was ever missing or anything and I was being interviewed, I could see myself saying something like she'll be 3 on June 12th because I would want to make sure that they knew they weren't looking for a 24 month old toddler but for a pretty smart pre-schooler.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[miimaa]

Cindy could/should have given the phone/address book with Zanny's phone numbers and addresses to LE when they first came to the Anthony home to investigate the disappearance of Caylee Marie.

I'd like to know for certain whether she did or did not give LE this phone/address book at any point during the investigation, prior to Caylee's remains being found.

I don't believe she ever had ZFG phone/address but I would like to know IF she gave LE an address book as she claimed in the depo.

 

[zoey]

I don't believe she ever had ZFG phone/address but I would like to know IF she gave LE an address book as she claimed in the depo.

she also claimed to give it to jb....she did go both ways.....:doh:

 

[DAWN TREADER]

I don't believe she ever had ZFG phone/address but I would like to know IF she gave LE an address book as she claimed in the depo.

Ditto! On a believablility scale of 10 being the highest, I would have to give CA a 0 (Zero). I say this for a couple of reasons one being if Cindy ever had a phone number for ZFG, it stands to reason she would most probably have used it to get in touch with Casey or talk to Caylee at some point over the past few years. Has Cindy claimed that she ever spoke to ZFG, in person or on the phone?

Nope. Didn't think so.

Moo

DT

 

[chefmom]

Ditto! On a believablility scale of 10 being the highest, I would have to give CA a 0 (Zero). I say this for a couple of reasons one being if Cindy ever had a phone number for ZFG, it stands to reason she would most probably have used it to get in touch with Casey or talk to Caylee at some point over the past few years. Has Cindy claimed that she ever spoke to ZFG, in person or on the phone?

Nope. Didn't think so.

Moo

DT

You know, your post just made me think of something. Suppose that KC had given CA a phone number for ZFG, but it was the number to someone else or a disconnected number or something. We know ZFG is a figment of KC's imagination, so any number given would have been just that, any number. CA may have been trying to call it to reach KC and/or Caylee during the 31 days they were gone, and kept getting a wrong number or a disconnect message. IF this is the case, it would lend some more credence to the fact that CA knew that KC was lying about ZFG the whole time. I remember that LA had dialed a number that KC had said belonged to Juliet or someone, and kept getting one of her other friends. Of course, CA may just be lying about having the number and address of ZFG, but if she had one that she got from KC, we all know that it was just pretend.

 

[Nore]

You know, your post just made me think of something. Suppose that KC had given CA a phone number for ZFG, but it was the number to someone else or a disconnected number or something. We know ZFG is a figment of KC's imagination, so any number given would have been just that, any number. CA may have been trying to call it to reach KC and/or Caylee during the 31 days they were gone, and kept getting a wrong number or a disconnect message. IF this is the case, it would lend some more credence to the fact that CA knew that KC was lying about ZFG the whole time. I remember that LA had dialed a number that KC had said belonged to Juliet or someone, and kept getting one of her other friends. Of course, CA may just be lying about having the number and address of ZFG, but if she had one that she got from KC, we all know that it was just pretend.

---------
I seem to remember CA. saying she did not have a phone no. or address for Zanny.This was stated in the beginning of the investigation,probably in July.It stuck with me as I was shocked by it.I know I had not only a phone no. for Gr.daughters babysitter but had been to her house.I wish I could find the page.

 

[chefmom]

---------
I seem to remember CA. saying she did not have a phone no. or address for Zanny.This was stated in the beginning of the investigation,probably in July.It stuck with me as I was shocked by it.I know I had not only a phone no. for Gr.daughters babysitter but had been to her house.I wish I could find the page.

Yes. IIRC, she DID state that at the very beginning, but at some point changed to having a number and address for her. It struck me as odd as well that she wouldn't have contact info for the babysitter. Not the norm.

 

[Searchfortruth]

This is the statement that MOST jumped out at me. Don't get me wrong, the whole thing sounded like BS. But when I read GA's witness statement and saw the same sentence, it really bothered me. Why would KC even write that in her incident report? Why would GA write it in his witness statement? "Caylee will be three years old on August 9, 2008". They both wrote the exact same sentence. Why? Caylee's birthday has nothing to do with her being taken. I always felt like GA instructed KC to write this b/c he knew the way LE viewed past tense verbs = this was a way to bring Caylee to the present and future in a written statement IMO. Caylee's upcoming birthday is something that would come up as an after thought, but not during the initial reporting of Caylee missing IMO. It just bothers me - ALOT. JMHO

That IS interesting. Also interesting, to me, is the outfit Casey describes as the one Caylee was wearing when last seen (written statement). It's the same exact outfit George describes as the outfit she was wearing on the 16th...when he was watching the "food channel" show.

 

[robotdog]

the idea that CA and GA never ever ever ever ever actually met the "nanny"
never ever ever ever saw a picture of her
never ever ever had an emergency phone number for her


for goodness sakes they raised the baby for the most part and the baby lived in their house and supposedly KC was off at all
these weird times of the day and night supposedly doing these "events"

hogwash

i think one of the dirty little secrets among the family was they all agreed and knew and when i say all of them i am specifically referring to KC, CA and GA they all were in on the same secret that there was no nanny, never was a nanny but they had to put on this big sham so they would appear to helping their great, mother of the year, hard working, strong willed, heroic daughter raise their grandaughter..:waitasec:

the alternative was they would be known as the parents that raised a loser
the mooched and stole from her own family


i think its clear as day which way they chose.....

crazy ?


yep

 

[doogiesgirl]

Respectfully, I disagree with your conclusion here. While I don't have children myself, I have noticed that many of my own family and friends do this when referring to the age of their younger children and grandchildren - usually under about age 5. If the child is closer to 2 than 2 1/2 they will just say "she's 2" and if closer to 2 1/2 they will say "she's 2 1/2" and if closer to 3 they will say "she'll be 3 on such and such" or something along those lines. I think it's because there is so much difference in the physical and mental development of a 2 year old (24 months) and an almost 3 year old (in this case 34 months). I have a great niece who is now the age Caylee was - it is 2 months before her 3rd birthday. If she was ever missing or anything and I was being interviewed, I could see myself saying something like she'll be 3 on June 12th because I would want to make sure that they knew they weren't looking for a 24 month old toddler but for a pretty smart pre-schooler.

Just my opinion, of course.

I understand what you are saying. In general conversation I too would probably round up. Thats not what bugs me. If your child or grandchild came up missing and the police ask you to write out your statement of the events leading up to the time she went missing, would you include in it "my XXXXX will be X on XXXXXX"? Remember they are not asking you for a description at this time, they are wanting you to tell them the events of the day that lead up to the moment you realized she was gone. Thats what seems strange to me, that it is included in the incident report AND that KC and GA wrote the exact same sentence. This would be info you might include when police ask you for a description of your daughter/grand daughter, but thats not what this report is. Smells to me. JMO

 

[doogiesgirl]

That IS interesting. Also interesting, to me, is the outfit Casey describes as the one Caylee was wearing when last seen (written statement). It's the same exact outfit George describes as the outfit she was wearing on the 16th...when he was watching the "food channel" show.

Oh wow, that I hadn't caught.....that is alittle hinky on top of the same sentences being written isn't it? Hmmmm jmo

 

[MomofBoys]

Remember they are not asking you for a description at this time, they are wanting you to tell them the events of the day that lead up to the moment you realized she was gone. Thats what seems strange to me, that it is included in the incident report AND that KC and GA wrote the exact same sentence. This would be info you might include when police ask you for a description of your daughter/grand daughter, but thats not what this report is. Smells to me. JMO

I see what you're saying, but in the context that this is in, it makes sense. She's describing Caylee--whether it's a missing person report or not. Describes the color of her hair, her clothes, etc. People ask me how old my youngest is, and I say "He'll be eight months on the 2nd." Do they need that detail? It's just habit. People tend to overshare about their kids.

What bothers me is that the outfit descibed is not the outfit in which she was found. I think it was intentional, as Caylee would be expected to change in 31 days. KC couldn't describe the real outfit she was wearing; how coincidental would it be to find a body wearing that same outfit? It would place Caylee's death on the day she dropped her off at the apartment. Yet the outfit in the statement matches that of GA's description. IF GA is telling the truth, was Caylee killed and redressed? Changed and then murdered? When was the last time CA saw the outfit in which she was found? I guess it was probably in the bag of clothes KC carried around. It's these little things that bother me. Mundane details that really humanize this case. It makes me so sad to think of Caylee innocently living another day, eating breakfast, getting dressed...gah.

Another thing that bugs me: 9-1? Care to narrow that down, KC? For someone who had a job and seemed to create a schedule out of her computer use and cell phone, she can't be a little more specific? Was it right after Caylee woke up, or after she ate freaking lunch? If I've been searching for my son for 31 days, I'd sure think about what time of day it was. I'd remember what the last thing he said to me was. If he smiled, or if he seemed happy to go play that day. Little things. It's Florida, in summer. Was it unbearably hot or just stifling? Stifling? Okay, it was earlier in the morning.

Why was she dropping her daughter off if she had nowhere to go at a specific time? Did she roll out of bed without looking at a clock? Did she not look at the clock in her car? How did Zanny know when to meet her, if there wasn't a time arranged? Am I missing something obvious here? I am a mother of two with a part-time job, and I'm constantly aware of the time. They wake up around the same time. We eat lunch at the same time. Nap around the same time. If I go to work that way, I drop them off at grandma's the same time.

KC makes me crazy.

 

[Chiquita71]

Cindy could/should have given the phone/address book with Zanny's phone numbers and addresses to LE when they first came to the Anthony home to investigate the disappearance of Caylee Marie.

I'd like to know for certain whether she did or did not give LE this phone/address book at any point during the investigation, prior to Caylee's remains being found.

Thank you DAWN TREADER for bringing this up, thank you for it's use.

IIRC(I finally understand what that means!) in the depo for ZG, Cindy stated that any addresses or phone numbers, contact information regarding ZG(the nanny) would be in her(Cindy's)address book(s). When she is asked to produce this information for purposes of the deposition she states these have been turned over to LE.

Q: Can the Lawyers for ZG request those/that address book to be seen or the information given to Mr. Morgan so they could see any of the information? Will LE allow that information to be released for the depo/civil suit of ZG on Casey? Is it possible, through the civil suit to prove/disprove there is an address book with information about "ZG, Z(F)G, Nanny, Zanny, etc."?

And: wouldn't LE know if they had an address book from Cindy that held information about who Casey says kiddnapped Caylee?

So, I saw that I was asking the same basic question as DAWN TREADER: wanting to know if there is a way of confirming or if any one plans to or it is protocol, etc. for this information to be cross checked.

Thank you to everyone for all the work.

...JMO.....:waitasec:

 

[hornswoggled]

On Thursday, July 15, 2008 around 12pm, I received a phone call from my daughter, Caylee. Today was the first day I have heard her voice in over 4 weeks. I’m afraid of what Caylee is going through after 31 days, I know that the only thing that matters is getting my daughter back.

When Casey was questioned by LE about how Caylee sounded, Casey said she sounded fine and was talking about a book she was reading and some shoes. She was specifically asked by LE if Caylee was upset at hearing her voice and Casey said she was not upset at all. Why was she then "afraid of what Caylee is going through after 31 days" if Caylee sounded just fine. These two statements don't jive. If she wasn't concerned about what Caylee was going through on July 15, why was she concerned in her written statement? Balderdash!!

 

[Mendara]

<<I have been and still am afraid of what has , or may happen to Caylee>>

I think this sentence alone says alot.

Considering in the very same statement she claims to speaking with Caylee earlier that day and says Caylee was going on and on about a book and seemed perfectly fine. So no contact with ZFg about why she took Caylee, but also spoke to Caylee and Caylee did not seem to be in danger.

She is evil and her lies cancel each other out. Will we ever know the truth?

 

[Mendara]

I think Casey is just nuts. After reading her interview with my jaw on the floor, I decide she is a100% wingnut.
She is more than a sociopath IMO. She is delusional and a danger.

Yes there is NO emotion in her voice, not even when she is caught in various lie by the detectives. More importantly NO FEAR at all. She walked through that office at Universal with no fear.

THAT is VERY SCARY. So when someone says they can't believe she could hurt her child or that she would do something like this, it amazes me, because this girl is very cold and to me she is capable of a lot worse.

 

[kageykaren]

Looking back to the day she was arrested for the first time It appeared to me that KC had the same smug smiley face as CA at the depos. They almost had a look of being superior and nothing was going to phase them.