I was thinking about these interviews, and how utterly bat***** insane CA comes across in them with her ludicrous claims defending KC (based on what I've read, I have kept my word and not watched them), and how GA is bravely and defiantly pointing the finger at KC, and it occurs to me that maybe we are reading the Anthonys' motivations and the interviews the wrong way round, and maybe CA and GA secretly want her protestations of KC's innocence to be too ridiculous to be believed by anyone, and their aim is to strongly accuse KC of murder (via GA's responses and Dr Phil's assessments of the case) but weakly pretend to protect her (via CA's ludicrous claims). That would explain why GA is willing to speak for himself all of a sudden; he has CA's blessing to do so. When CA says, 'That's the first time in 3 years I've heard you say this...' it reeks of bad acting.
The whole thing could be another exercise in passive-aggression engineered by CA and designed to infuriate KC and convince the public she is definitely guilty. It's always seemed to me that CA has had dual conflicting aims throughout this case: she wanted to get KC off, and to make KC pay. Her behavior has been highly incongruent: clean the car and destroy evidence, then call the police and say the car smells of death. Vilify KC then defend her to the hilt. In court, she testified against her and for her. These are just a few examples, I've seen her do it over and over.
I have frequently noticed this same duality with my own narcissistic mother. For example, she would send us to bed early and not let us study before an important exam, and then expect us to get 100% and be angry when we didn't.
Anyway, just a few thoughts. I would absolutely love it if Aedrys' theory that maybe Dr Phil is going to turn everything back on them in the third episode turns out to be true. It would almost redeem him doing the interviews if he did. I guess we just have to wait and see what happens on Monday.
