Casey thanked Cindy for calling 911 after first call

[Woe.be.gone]

I'm noting here that CA first reported the date of June 7, as the date she last saw Caylee during the 3rd 911 call.

She stated, with assurance, that she had not seen Caylee since June 7.
I never realized the date had been tossed out during the 911 call.
I thought it was determined later when the police were at the house.
CA seemed to know the exact date she last saw Caylee (but later enter the pics dated July 15).

During the same call KC stated, "I have not seen my daughter in 31 days." Her statement would conclude a different date.
Nobody bothered to question the conflict in dates prior to putting out flyers, etc.

We know KC has lied about just about everything but, if the pictures were proven to of been taken on the 15th,
then KC is telling the truth regarding the last date for Caylee.

Why would CA not know the date she last saw Caylee? I cannot reconcile this in my brain.
She had, like she said, a month to think about it. She tells KC that she's given her a month but states a date that goes back five weeks. Why?
Why wouldn't she just state "I'll have to check the date, but its been about one month since I last saw my granddaughter."
Why be specific about a date that turns out to be wrong?

CA's error makes me think she had a purpose in stating the wrong date.
I cannot accept it was a simple mistake considering all the drammmma that had been going on between KC and CA.

Thank you CA for bringing this to my attention once again.

 

[gardenhart]

Oh maybe you are right, but I didn;t see it as trying to appease KC, but rather CA modifying her own behavior in an attempt to get KC to modify her's.
I have always pictured KC and CA's general relationship as argumentative,hostile, stressful, loud and troublesome. I never pictured CA as having the wherewithal to stay calm when being faced with irrational behavior and accusations which, imo is an essential element in dealing with dysfunctional adult children. I ASSUMED that this was more of a new method that CA was trying to use. JMHO as always.

I understand - that's what I mean by appease. I thought all of this at first, although I don't think any therapist would give anyone detailed instructions on what to say. More like, "Have you tried speaking calmly when she's angry?" Now I think Cindy probably has always vacillated between appeasing and screaming threats. Casey sure did come by her anger and her sarcasm honestly.

 

[JBean]

Interesting thoughts JBean (post #178). I would just like to ask you.... Do you think Cindy followed the intructions on how to ask KC to leave her home, laying out reasons, rules, etc without the psychotic screaming behavior she's shown to have in her?

.

For starters, I think she was getting advice and guidance as opposed to instructions FWIW.
In a situation where you have a problematic,difficult adult child living at home and you are allowing them to do that, the appropriate course of action is, at a minimum, have ground rules and a contract for them to stay there.
Some of those contract items might be:
You have to care for your child
you have to work
you have to pay rent
you have to help around the house
You cannot rely on us to watch the child unless you are working and it is agreed upon ahead of time.
You can't steal from us(lol)
You can't do drugs
or whatever issues need to be addressed.

But from what we have seen, even if there was such an understanding, it was never honored.

The minute an adult child steals from you or does not live up to their end of the bargain they need to be shown the door. but it isn't easy for any parent to do that. It is easy for the person on the outside looking in, but it isn't for the parent. I have seen it many times and until the parent accepts that they are enabling their child ,digging their grave a little deeper and realize that what they are doing isn't working they will hesitate to show them the door. This is 100 times harder when they have a small child such as caylee. IMO, CA foolishly thinks she can help KC to change her ways even though she has been unsuccessful in the past. She keeps giving her chances as she says so in her 7/3 myspace.


I don't think CA does much of anything calmly, which is why it is so noticeable when she is very calm during the initial 911 calls and the jail calls.
People like KC like to turn the situation around and make it YOUR fault for whatever is going on. CA clearly rejects that in the jailhouse call and not only does she reject it in a calm way, she turns it right back around and gives Casey(rightly so) the blame. When KC says you don't know my involvement, she is PO'ed because Cindy is actually implying that she thinks KC may actually be involved. KC expected CA to say She was NOT INVOLVED AT ALL! and to yell it from the rooftops. but in this case, CA doesn't do that and maybe for the first time stops enabling her.By saying she doesn't know, she is implying that there COULD be some involvement. KC turns the conversation away from the involvement but makes it more about CA not being supportive. This is textbook stuff IMO.
When KC was questioned by her relatives she got mad at them for questioning her. They were the bad guys not her.It is a manipulation that apparently worked for a long long time.

 

[JBean]

I understand - that's what I mean by appease. I thought all of this at first, although I don't think any therapist would give anyone detailed instructions on what to say. More like, "Have you tried speaking calmly when she's angry?" Now I think Cindy probably has always vacillated between appeasing and screaming threats. Casey sure did come by her anger and her sarcasm honestly.

I don't think a therapist would literally put the words in anyone's mouth. I think through discussion be it with a therapist or your best gf, what needs to be done takes shape and a plan of action develops.
There is only one way to have any hope of changing another persons behavior. That way is to modify the only thing you can control and that is your own behavior when you respond and interact with that person. They can't get what they want from you if you don't give it.

ETA: to me appeasing KC in the jail call would have been CA sayng Honey I know you didn't so anything we just want to help get you out of there. But that is not at all what she said. She told her she was a liar.

 

[JBean]

I'm noting here that CA first reported the date of June 7, as the date she last saw Caylee during the 3rd 911 call.

She stated, with assurance, that she had not seen Caylee since June 7.
I never realized the date had been tossed out during the 911 call.
I thought it was determined later when the police were at the house.
CA seemed to know the exact date she last saw Caylee (but later enter the pics dated July 15).

During the same call KC stated, "I have not seen my daughter in 31 days." Her statement would conclude a different date.
Nobody bothered to question the conflict in dates prior to putting out flyers, etc.

We know KC has lied about just about everything but, if the pictures were proven to of been taken on the 15th,
then KC is telling the truth regarding the last date for Caylee.

Why would CA not know the date she last saw Caylee? I cannot reconcile this in my brain.
She had, like she said, a month to think about it. She tells KC that she's given her a month but states a date that goes back five weeks. Why?
Why wouldn't she just state "I'll have to check the date, but its been about one month since I last saw my granddaughter."
Why be specific about a date that turns out to be wrong?

CA's error makes me think she had a purpose in stating the wrong date.
I cannot accept it was a simple mistake considering all the drammmma that had been going on between KC and CA.

Thank you CA for bringing this to my attention once again.

It actually has been proven that the pictures were taken the 15th, so we can put that to bed. It's in the first doc dump.
Also CA said she goes to visit her father with Caylee regularly and as far as I know that has not been challenged. So the fact that it was Father's day didn't stick out in her mind because it wasn't "special". IMO, the date mistake was innocent and all the other people figured their dates on each others and that is how, imo, they arrived at the same conclusion.
What benefit could it possibly be to anyone to make it appear as though Caylee was missing even longer than she actually was, especially when there were half dozen people that saw her between the 9th and the 15th? Honest mistake IMO.
I think coming up with a date 30 days after the fact is difficult, unless you sit down go over the calendar fill in the blanks and press your memory. you said yourself the date came up in the initial report , before the severity of this whole thing had unfolded and before the players were pressed to recall what actually had transpired that month.
careless yes, dishonest no.
JMHO of course.

 

[Elley Mae]

I'm noting here that CA first reported the date of June 7, as the date she last saw Caylee during the 3rd 911 call.

She stated, with assurance, that she had not seen Caylee since June 7.
I never realized the date had been tossed out during the 911 call.
I thought it was determined later when the police were at the house.
CA seemed to know the exact date she last saw Caylee (but later enter the pics dated July 15).

During the same call KC stated, "I have not seen my daughter in 31 days." Her statement would conclude a different date.
Nobody bothered to question the conflict in dates prior to putting out flyers, etc.

We know KC has lied about just about everything but, if the pictures were proven to of been taken on the 15th,
then KC is telling the truth regarding the last date for Caylee.

Why would CA not know the date she last saw Caylee? I cannot reconcile this in my brain.
She had, like she said, a month to think about it. She tells KC that she's given her a month but states a date that goes back five weeks. Why?
Why wouldn't she just state "I'll have to check the date, but its been about one month since I last saw my granddaughter."
Why be specific about a date that turns out to be wrong?

CA's error makes me think she had a purpose in stating the wrong date.
I cannot accept it was a simple mistake considering all the drammmma that had been going on between KC and CA.

Thank you CA for bringing this to my attention once again.

IIRC in the first call to 911 Cindy told Casey in the car at the police station in the parking lot, "I have given you a month", Cindy said in the 3rd call "She's been missing for 30 days". In Casey's LE interview she said June 7th, and then somewhere June 9th came into play. It was at the bond hearing then it was brought to Cindy's attention that it was the 15th (father's day) as the last date that was confirmed that she was alive. George originally said the 8th, which would coincide with the 7th, and then changed it to the 16th as the last date that he "saw them leave like a "normal" day. So as far as I see it you are correct in the fact that they could not get their dates/days right as to when they had seen them last. Shirley (Cindy's mom) is the one that straightened it all out, she had it together with all the letters and emails, and the video of Caylee there on Father's day.

 

[reeseeva]

For starters, I think she was getting advice and guidance as opposed to instructions FWIW.
In a situation where you have a problematic,difficult adult child living at home and you are allowing them to do that, the appropriate course of action is, at a minimum, have ground rules and a contract for them to stay there.
Some of those contract items might be:
You have to care for your child
you have to work
you have to pay rent
you have to help around the house
You cannot rely on us to watch the child unless you are working and it is agreed upon ahead of time.
You can't steal from us(lol)
You can't do drugs
or whatever issues need to be addressed.

But from what we have seen, even if there was such an understanding, it was never honored.

The minute an adult child steals from you or does not live up to their end of the bargain they need to be shown the door. but it isn't easy for any parent to do that. It is easy for the person on the outside looking in, but it isn't for the parent. I have seen it many times and until the parent accepts that they are enabling their child ,digging their grave a little deeper and realize that what they are doing isn't working they will hesitate to show them the door. This is 100 times harder when they have a small child such as caylee. IMO, CA foolishly thinks she can help KC to change her ways even though she has been unsuccessful in the past. She keeps giving her chances as she says so in her 7/3 myspace.


I don't think CA does much of anything calmly, which is why it is so noticeable when she is very calm during the initial 911 calls and the jail calls.
People like KC like to turn the situation around and make it YOUR fault for whatever is going on. CA clearly rejects that in the jailhouse call and not only does she reject it in a calm way, she turns it right back around and gives Casey(rightly so) the blame. When KC says you don't know my involvement, she is PO'ed because Cindy is actually implying that she thinks KC may actually be involved. KC expected CA to say She was NOT INVOLVED AT ALL! and to yell it from the rooftops. but in this case, CA doesn't do that and maybe for the first time stops enabling her.By saying she doesn't know, she is implying that there COULD be some involvement. KC turns the conversation away from the involvement but makes it more about CA not being supportive. This is textbook stuff IMO.When KC was questioned by her relatives she got mad at them for questioning her. They were the bad guys not her.It is a manipulation that apparently worked for a long long time.

Bold mine......

Great & Wonderful Post JBean...........Worthy of repeating!

 

[mitzi]

Going back to what I posted here yesterday, I thought I was the only cynic who thought nothing added up about Cindy's behavior from the very beginning and that the coverup possibly went back a lot farther. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

That's an excellent point about the reporting it now comment, Blackwatch. It is pretty jarring the context of the call.

I had sort of assumed the Anthonys dragged their feet about responding to the letter about the towed car because they likely didn't have the money to pay it off. But it sure would fit in with an attempt to put off calling the police for as long as possible to make the evidence as old as possible.

Oh no, you two are not the only ones thinking about this scenario! Me too! :blowkiss:

 

[debs]

I think it was "staged" in the sense that she was doing what a therapist may have told her to do and how a therapist told her to do it.

I got the very distinct impression from Cindy's initial jail conversations with KC that she was "scripted" in the sense that a therapist had given her some stock responses and that she should stick to them when KC tried to manipulate CA.

Once all heck broke loose, i think CA decided the way she was being told to handle KC had completely backfired and if she had continued to deal with KC the way she always had then Caylee would still be alive.

Interesting concept, one that I hadn't thought of before. You could be 100% correct, Cindy WAS going by what the therapist told her. However, having smelt the decomp, I wonder about that. CA isn't one to go by what ANYONE, therapist, lawyer, PR person, whatever, tells her, especially after the first few minutes.

Before we found out all this information on this family and we heard the 911 and jail calls, I remember thinking how refreshing it was to have a parent that was actually going to call their child on the carpet and not be manipulated into believing their lies. But I also remember thinking, this lady is not doing this alone, this is clearly with theguidance and help of a professional, because she is staying calm and saying all the right things and stock answers. I was impressed with CA for the first few initial reports.

Then there was a distinct about face in attitude in CA and that has been ongoing topic in this forum ever since.

So, my explanation has always been that CA was trying to finally change the way she responded to KC with the help of a professional. I assume that professional told her to let KC go, kick her out,don't fight, don't do any of the things she had been doing, don't bail her out, don't argue with her, don't support her, etc. Undoubtedly she was told it would be hard, but KC would have to hit rock bottom, but CA had to stop enabling her. No matter what anyone says, kicking out your own dysfunctional child ( oe letting then leave under these conditions) has got to be incredbily difficult ESPECIALLY when they are a parent of a small child and I think it was the hardest thing CA had to do. Way, way, way out of her comfort zone.

So CA takes a shot at it. I wouldn't be surprised if a therapist suggested that CA not to even try and contact KC, but there is no way CA will be able to do that. She lets her go, she doesn't go overboard trying to find Caylee, because she does not think for one minute that Caylee has been murdered. I will never believe in a million years that CA knew Caylee was dead. I think CA was trying to apply her new approach to KC. But after a month and no contact from Caylee, CA just can't do it anymore and we know what happens after that.

But this is the kicker. CA finally does what she should, stops enabling her daughter and her worst fear comes true.
Her conclusion? She should have never stopped enabling her because what she got for her new attitude was a daughter in jail and dead granddaughter. hence, it is from there that CA has been operating for the rest of this saga. Enable, support, and deny because in her mind the alternative was a bust.
She is completely missing the bigger picture.

as always this is all my opinion.

where are you all getting that it is being suggested that a therapist told her to get custody from Blackwatch's post? It is going right over my head.

In answer to the question in red, JBean, refer to the quoted and bolded statements above to ascertain where I drew the conclusion that people were discussing Cindy having gone to a therapist who TOLD her to get custody.

 

[eddeva]

people were discussing Cindy having gone to a therapist who TOLD her to get custody.

*resp. snipped.
ok i'm confused now (yes again!) didn't cindy herself make a statement to someone saying that she was told by a therapist that she should get custody of caylee and kick casey out? this hasn't been discussed for a while and i may not be remembering correctly.

 

[JBean]

In answer to the question in red, JBean, refer to the quoted and bolded statements above to ascertain where I drew the conclusion that people were discussing Cindy having gone to a therapist who TOLD her to get custody.

I still don't see a single reference to custody in those quotes. sorry debs. Miy posts are very specifically referring to the 911 and jailhouse calls so I don't know how you would bring custody(??!!) into that.

As I said, I didn't even know it was actually substantiated that CA went to a therapist, I was just speculating and made that clear. This is the first time I have ever even heard it mentioned that a therapist was involved in CA's notion to get custody of Caylee.

 

[Phumi]

I'm noting here that CA first reported the date of June 7, as the date she last saw Caylee during the 3rd 911 call.

She stated, with assurance, that she had not seen Caylee since June 7.
I never realized the date had been tossed out during the 911 call.
I thought it was determined later when the police were at the house.
CA seemed to know the exact date she last saw Caylee (but later enter the pics dated July 15).

During the same call KC stated, "I have not seen my daughter in 31 days." Her statement would conclude a different date.
Nobody bothered to question the conflict in dates prior to putting out flyers, etc.

We know KC has lied about just about everything but, if the pictures were proven to of been taken on the 15th,
then KC is telling the truth regarding the last date for Caylee.

Why would CA not know the date she last saw Caylee? I cannot reconcile this in my brain.
She had, like she said, a month to think about it. She tells KC that she's given her a month but states a date that goes back five weeks. Why?
Why wouldn't she just state "I'll have to check the date, but its been about one month since I last saw my granddaughter."
Why be specific about a date that turns out to be wrong?

CA's error makes me think she had a purpose in stating the wrong date.
I cannot accept it was a simple mistake considering all the drammmma that had been going on between KC and CA.

Thank you CA for bringing this to my attention once again.

Some folks over on the CA/KC fight thread are theorizing (based on neighbor's recollections and ping maps) that there may have been 2 fights--one on the weekend of the 7th and one the following weekend and perhaps that's why CA confused the dates.

 

[Lexington]

*resp. snipped.
ok i'm confused now (yes again!) didn't cindy herself make a statement to someone saying that she was told by a therapist that she should get custody of caylee and kick casey out? this hasn't been discussed for a while and i may not be remembering correctly.

I remember this too. I think this statement might have been made by Cindy to Amy in the car on the way to TL's to get KC.

 

[TallyHo]

This is such bullsh!! from CA. Now who on God's green earth can imagine a tender moment between CA and KC, where KC says, ever so gently, "thank you, mom, for making that 911 call. I just couldn't do it." Then, fast forward to the jail conversations, "sweetheart you're lying to LE, you won't tell us where she's at...." "BECAUSE I DON'T FU**ING KNOW WHERE SHE'S AT, ARE YOU KIDDING ME??"

Wow, what happened to the luv??

:clap: I have said it before and I'll say it again - those jailhouse phone calls and interviews give clarity to the situation. I hope the jury gets to see them. This "Casey as Mother of the Year Campaign" is absolutely unbelievable. The "Casey as a Loving, Supportive Daughter Who Saved Her Mother From Suicidal Thoughts Campaign" that was also thrown out there in the CBS interview is just as bad. Not buying that either.

 

[Seebra]

Yeah, uh hum, sure, Cindy. You called the police because your daughter wouldn't produce your granddaughter, and your daughter thanks you for it, all the while telling you that baby Caylee is safe with the beautiful nanny who has nothing better to do with her time than to snatch your granddaughter to teach your daughter a lesson about being a mother - which is insane since KC is the best mother on the planet anyway.

Don't they know that every time they speak they seal their daughter's fate and steal more away from that little girl who loved them and trusted them?

KC thank anyone for anything? F#@$ no way. Never. Except maybe JB, in her own special way.:furious:

 

[DAWN TREADER]

When I think of Casey I think of a human parasite.

If she "thanked" Cindy (and I don't believe she did) it means nothing.

Caylee was already dead and disposed of.

Check.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

It actually has been proven that the pictures were taken the 15th, so we can put that to bed. It's in the first doc dump.
Also CA said she goes to visit her father with Caylee regularly and as far as I know that has not been challenged. So the fact that it was Father's day didn't stick out in her mind because it wasn't "special". IMO, the date mistake was innocent and all the other people figured their dates on each others and that is how, imo, they arrived at the same conclusion.
What benefit could it possibly be to anyone to make it appear as though Caylee was missing even longer than she actually was, especially when there were half dozen people that saw her between the 9th and the 15th? Honest mistake IMO.
I think coming up with a date 30 days after the fact is difficult, unless you sit down go over the calendar fill in the blanks and press your memory. you said yourself the date came up in the initial report , before the severity of this whole thing had unfolded and before the players were pressed to recall what actually had transpired that month.
careless yes, dishonest no.
JMHO of course.

I agree with everything you propose if the situation had found CA unconcerned in the weeks leading up to July 15. But, I'd bet my bottom dollar, CA was living and breathing her missing girls for weeks. Her concern escalated July 3. She knew July 3 when she last laid eyes on them to the day and thought about it consciously imo. I feel CA knew exactly what day to the hour she last saw her girls. She controls things. She would know.

If out of the blue I discover something that occurred last month, my mind will react exactly the way you described. If I have been engaged in a conflict or ongoing unsolved problem, I will already have processed much of the data up to that point. Do you see where I'm coming from? CA was taken by surprise (maybe) that Caylee was missing/missing but not that she had been missing/gone from CA's life. Does this make sense to anyone else?

Plus, you'd think someone in the A family would of sat down to fill in the blanks with a calendar prior to flyers, etc. and make sure there were no mistakes as to what they were reporting. Out of the bunch wouldn't someone have an inkling of the error prior to the time they were corrected by LE? I distrust them and cannot give any of them the benefit of doubt.

I'm curious, do we know if CA did visit Mt. Dora on June 7 as well as June 15? That would be an interesting fact. If she did (which I think she said they went to the beach w/o Caylee), then wouldn't she remember she went two weeks in a row? How can you be at the beach w/o Caylee and Mt. Dora with Caylee the same day? June 7 was two days past her 50 B-day. She knows what she did that weekend. It was either special or not. She would also remember if she had seen her girls beyond that weekend, which she obviously did per the pictures. Why did CA want LE to think the last time she saw Caylee was June 7? Who was the last one we know beyond any doubt was last with Caylee? I have to ask the questions that come up in my mind. I cannot ignore a nagging question and here it is -

Is it possible Caylee was last with CA? Would KC be willing to take the fall for her mother? Or, could KC not even know that is what she is doing?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

IIRC in the first call to 911 Cindy told Casey in the car at the police station in the parking lot, "I have given you a month", Cindy said in the 3rd call "She's been missing for 30 days". In Casey's LE interview she said June 7th, and then somewhere June 9th came into play. It was at the bond hearing then it was brought to Cindy's attention that it was the 15th (father's day) as the last date that was confirmed that she was alive. George originally said the 8th, which would coincide with the 7th, and then changed it to the 16th as the last date that he "saw them leave like a "normal" day. So as far as I see it you are correct in the fact that they could not get their dates/days right as to when they had seen them last. Shirley (Cindy's mom) is the one that straightened it all out, she had it together with all the letters and emails, and the video of Caylee there on Father's day.

one hooah wife was so kind to link the transcripts of the calls in this thread, post #68. :blowkiss:

cfnews lists the calls as first 911 call (from house) and second 911 call (from house).
As we know these are actually calls two and three. The first call took place from the car. So,

In the third 911 call (second call from house) the transcript reads:

Dispatch: How long has she been missing for?

Cindy: I have not seen her since the 7th of June.

This is what I'm going by.

 

[SoSueMe]

Hmmm..IIRC - In LEE's interview he did say KC did say she was thankful that the police were called because "maybe this should have happened a long time ago".. or something like that and I was like WHOAH - here we have a girl that was pushing her parents to the limit and finally wanted to get caught.

Can any other sleauthers remember this?

She kept telling LEE that she deserves the police getting called? That she was a terrible mother? Right before she confessed "the nanny took her" .

I always felt that she ALMOST told LEE the truth right before CA came back into her room to yell that she wanted Caylee HOME.

AM i losing my mind?

I think on some level KC knew she would eventually be caught. That was probably her reason for blowing it out prior to her arrest. She knew Amy would no longer be her friend once she discovered the check fraud, the tattoos, the partying non-stop. I also think she wanted to make it clear to her mother that SHE (CA) is the reason she (KC) killed Caylee. We're back to the "if I can't have her, you can't have her" and "what is given can be taken away."

Frankly, I think it may have surprised KC that anyone bought the nanny story. She probably thought, oh, okay, let's go with this for a while and see how much time it buys me.

She could have thanked her mother in the car and at the time Cindy didn't "get it." I'm sure KC tried to tell her mother all sorts of things over the years that Cindy refused to believe (like when KC thought she was having a nervous breakdown).

It's all one tragic mess. KC has serious problems and CA is refusing to believe it by creating scenarios that anyone finds hard to believe.

IF KC ever thanked her mother for calling the police, it had to have been after her first arrest, otherwise I'm not buying it.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Going back to what I posted here yesterday, I thought I was the only cynic who thought nothing added up about Cindy's behavior from the very beginning and that the coverup possibly went back a lot farther. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

That's an excellent point about the reporting it now comment, Blackwatch. It is pretty jarring the context of the call.

I had sort of assumed the Anthonys dragged their feet about responding to the letter about the towed car because they likely didn't have the money to pay it off. But it sure would fit in with an attempt to put off calling the police for as long as possible to make the evidence as old as possible.

OMG! What about CA's question to KC, Why didn't "she" pick up (come get) the car? She was asking KC why she never picked up the car at Amscot thus letting it go to the tow-yard. CA went to work because she was stalling, thinking of what to do next. This glitch was not in her script. Now she had to report the damn car stollen and the money from before. She was mad at KC for *advertiser censored****g up the script.

Who was supposed to come get the car? KC was. It was in the script. KC did not follow the script. KC was never supposed to abandon the car. The family wrote the script. CA is controlling the whole thing. Everyone has been right about her. She has shown us who she is and now I believe her!

LP knows (I just figured it out). He has known.

CA wrote the script - gave KC a month - CA closed the deal when SHE wanted to. Told RP her daughter is a Sociopath. Tries to pin it on JG.

KC was "petrified" of her mother so she obeyed the script. She took LE by that old peoples building near SG. Last person Caylee was with was CA at an old peoples' home.