Focusing Solely on Cindy's Inconsistencies

[OneLostGrl]

OMG -this women is crazy....

To say the least! :behindbar

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Soooooo true, SD, hard to believe ANYONE EVER listened seriously to this woman or gave her any credibility.

At least the report pointed out the inconsistencies of CA's claim. Sometimes, like on LK, the A's have been allowed to just talk with no real debate over what they say.
That burns me.

 

[metalcrystal]

At least the report pointed out the inconsistencies of CA's claim. Sometimes, like on LK, the A's have been allowed to just talk with no real debate over what they say.
That burns me.

I know, they were really workin' the public, weren't they.

 

[Pink Panther]

I know, they were really workin' the public, weren't they.

Yes they were...And thankfully, it's all PUBLIC RECORD! :bang:

 

[CuriousTwo]

"I changed my mind on that, I never changed my mind on that." :waitasec: I reiterate :waitasec: and add a WTF!!

Thanks Essies. I think that video is used in JB's class! :crazy:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[magic-cat]

I have found an interesting Cindy inconsistency in this statement:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-07/48369770.pdf
pg 94 of 115.
Cindy states:
"That's why I know she didn't go back out and take that lanyard and all that other stuff."

She is referencing the car...my question is all what other stuff Cindy? What other stuff was in the vehicle that someone removed but you do not feel it was Casey?

Also she states within this same document that the pants were in the bin in the tunk and not in the backseat as has been previously discussed. So she removed pants from the TRUNK and not from the backseat at all...

 

[Marina2]

I have found an interesting Cindy inconsistency in this statement:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-07/48369770.pdf
pg 94 of 115.
Cindy states:
"That's why I know she didn't go back out and take that lanyard and all that other stuff."

She is referencing the car...my question is all what other stuff Cindy? What other stuff was in the vehicle that someone removed but you do not feel it was Casey?

Also she states within this same document that the pants were in the bin in the tunk and not in the backseat as has been previously discussed. So she removed pants from the TRUNK and not from the backseat at all...

Well, we know from Lee's statement that she was in the garage for a period of time with him. So it's not clear that KC didn't have the opportunity to remove anything.

Also, in another statement, I remember CA saying that she got the pants, "from the trunk... I mean the back seat." Until I read what you posted, I thought it was possible that she just honestly started to say the wrong thing. Now, I wonder if she didn't find those pants in the trunk. I can see why she wouldn't reveal that they were there. It's much more incredible that she washed them for innocent reasons if they were found in the trunk.

 

[Gma Kat]

I went over the transcripts of CA and KC's interviews with LE, hundreds of pages just for CA, actually, hers were longer than KC's....that woman just goes on and on.... I pulled an old report from an FBI agent that was published on the web in 1996, the article discusses reviewing transcripts for inconsistencies and revealing/disqualifying statements. I started out using colored highlighters to mark where I found an inconsistency, sentences that had disqualifying words or statements (words used subconsciously when we are lying) and what one of our wise WS'ers named "word salad", actually word salad is not technical name, but it should be, sentences that contain unusual information that doesn't seem to fit, words in an order that make no sense, etc., which we know the A's are famous for. According to the FBI, when a person uses "word salad" it is an indication that something has changed (in their heads) about the story they are telling so they simply babble or make statements that don't fit with the conversation. (example statement: "I was going to the store to buy milk, I hate how hot it is so I never wear shoes, then I got home and put the milk in the refrigerater" this statement would indicate that something happened when the person telling the story went to the store that they do not want to discuss) So anyhow, I started out with my colored markers and gave up after 3 pages, because every single sentence out of both their mouths showed indications of deception and lies. By time the time I finished reading both transcripts and making my notes (as I did back in my trial prep days) I knew for certain that most any idiot could see through their lies. CA babbles and babbles saying absolutely nothing at times except spewing random words. I think her use of "red flags" has been the most obvious abuse of the truth so far. She uses that to suit her need, she sees them when it works for her and doesn't see them when it makes her look bad.

 

[LambChop]

"There were no red flags." But your granddaughter has lived with you since birth. You have provided food, clothing, shelter, medical, toys, A CAR, furniture for the babies room, etc. and shared your life with this child exclusively and there were no red flags. You meticulously maintained control over the live's of your daughter and granddaughter taking special pains to make sure everything matches and the best of the best for the child.....but fail to check to see if the child is being properly cared for by her mother. The car belonged to you and you never tried to use it as a weapon to get your granddaughter back into an environment where you knew she would be safe. But, again, no red flags here. Then you say you had no reason to believe anything was wrong because she was with her mother, who by-the-way did not see any problem with taking the child away from her home with no visable home of her own.....but, no red flags here. Then you expect everyone to believe that it was "just a normal day, like any other" no reasons for red flags here. We all know CA has no problem speaking up and getting her way but she did not force the issue because there were no red flags. Could the reason be the lack of flags on CA's part is because the fight on the 15th actually did happen and CA felt that KC was justified to run off with the baby because of the incident. It was never a normal day because a responsible person just does not move out with a small child without somewhere to go unless there is a threat.

 

[magic-cat]

Well, we know from Lee's statement that she was in the garage for a period of time with him. So it's not clear that KC didn't have the opportunity to remove anything.

Also, in another statement, I remember CA saying that she got the pants, "from the trunk... I mean the back seat." Until I read what you posted, I thought it was possible that she just honestly started to say the wrong thing. Now, I wonder if she didn't find those pants in the trunk. I can see why she wouldn't reveal that they were there. It's much more incredible that she washed them for innocent reasons if they were found in the trunk.

I knew she had said both but this is the first time I actually found the evidence in print on this subject anyhow.

 

[essies]

"There were no red flags." But your granddaughter has lived with you since birth. You have provided food, clothing, shelter, medical, toys, A CAR, furniture for the babies room, etc. and shared your life with this child exclusively and there were no red flags. You meticulously maintained control over the live's of your daughter and granddaughter taking special pains to make sure everything matches and the best of the best for the child.....but fail to check to see if the child is being properly cared for by her mother. The car belonged to you and you never tried to use it as a weapon to get your granddaughter back into an environment where you knew she would be safe. But, again, no red flags here. Then you say you had no reason to believe anything was wrong because she was with her mother, who by-the-way did not see any problem with taking the child away from her home with no visable home of her own.....but, no red flags here. Then you expect everyone to believe that it was "just a normal day, like any other" no reasons for red flags here. We all know CA has no problem speaking up and getting her way but she did not force the issue because there were no red flags. Could the reason be the lack of flags on CA's part is because the fight on the 15th actually did happen and CA felt that KC was justified to run off with the baby because of the incident. It was never a normal day because a responsible person just does not move out with a small child without somewhere to go unless there is a threat.

 

[Gma Kat]

"There were no red flags." But your granddaughter has lived with you since birth. You have provided food, clothing, shelter, medical, toys, A CAR, furniture for the babies room, etc. and shared your life with this child exclusively and there were no red flags. You meticulously maintained control over the live's of your daughter and granddaughter taking special pains to make sure everything matches and the best of the best for the child.....but fail to check to see if the child is being properly cared for by her mother. The car belonged to you and you never tried to use it as a weapon to get your granddaughter back into an environment where you knew she would be safe. But, again, no red flags here. Then you say you had no reason to believe anything was wrong because she was with her mother, who by-the-way did not see any problem with taking the child away from her home with no visable home of her own.....but, no red flags here. Then you expect everyone to believe that it was "just a normal day, like any other" no reasons for red flags here. We all know CA has no problem speaking up and getting her way but she did not force the issue because there were no red flags. Could the reason be the lack of flags on CA's part is because the fight on the 15th actually did happen and CA felt that KC was justified to run off with the baby because of the incident. It was never a normal day because a responsible person just does not move out with a small child without somewhere to go unless there is a threat.

bbm: EXACTLY!!!! It makes sense when you put it in that context!!! Another of CA's glaring inconsistencies is when she says that her and KC talk everyday on her way home from work. KC gets her through her day CA said...she looked forward to those little chats on her way home as a way to unwind......they were best friends.....these are all descriptions by CA. Yet she knew none of KC's new friends, had no idea who KC's boyfriend was, no clue her daughter was lying about her employment, had no clue who was watching her precious granddaughter...........all inconsistent with the relationship she is trying to get us all to buy.

 

[lin]

And then we have this little trip that was caught by an Orlando station!

YouTube - Another Contradiction In Today's Interview

Very interesting thread folks. It seems almost like we can just put the entire transcripts here, doesn't it?

 

[lin]

"There were no red flags." But your granddaughter has lived with you since birth. You have provided food, clothing, shelter, medical, toys, A CAR, furniture for the babies room, etc. and shared your life with this child exclusively and there were no red flags. You meticulously maintained control over the live's of your daughter and granddaughter taking special pains to make sure everything matches and the best of the best for the child.....but fail to check to see if the child is being properly cared for by her mother. The car belonged to you and you never tried to use it as a weapon to get your granddaughter back into an environment where you knew she would be safe. But, again, no red flags here. Then you say you had no reason to believe anything was wrong because she was with her mother, who by-the-way did not see any problem with taking the child away from her home with no visable home of her own.....but, no red flags here. Then you expect everyone to believe that it was "just a normal day, like any other" no reasons for red flags here. We all know CA has no problem speaking up and getting her way but she did not force the issue because there were no red flags. Could the reason be the lack of flags on CA's part is because the fight on the 15th actually did happen and CA felt that KC was justified to run off with the baby because of the incident. It was never a normal day because a responsible person just does not move out with a small child without somewhere to go unless there is a threat.

Yeah and here's a contradiction even to that, imo, as she admits "a lot of red flags" in 'retrospect':

 

[RR0004]

It appears from their short lived "reality tour" that they've learned to just STFU! Why their lawyer allowed them to keep talking is beyond my comprehension. I think it would be beyond a member of MENSA's comprehension!

Well more fodder for the trial when she takes the stand. :woohoo:

All around...I think Cindy singlehandedly called MORE attention to this case-positively and negatively-than anyone else. They don't need a change in venue...they just need to send her to a faraway planet.

 

[Intermezzo]

So---tell me---> Will CA ever be held accountable for her Inconsistencies? Will she go forward with the Inconsistencies if the new foundations? Will she ever go to jail for all she has done in this case?

I don't know Mama but I can't wait for her to take the stand during the trial.
There may be a whole lot of :argue: and :winko: then a :gavel: and ya never know there could even be a:behindbar

 

[RR0004]

bbm: EXACTLY!!!! It makes sense when you put it in that context!!! Another of CA's glaring inconsistencies is when she says that her and KC talk everyday on her way home from work. KC gets her through her day CA said...she looked forward to those little chats on her way home as a way to unwind......they were best friends.....these are all descriptions by CA. Yet she knew none of KC's new friends, had no idea who KC's boyfriend was, no clue her daughter was lying about her employment, had no clue who was watching her precious granddaughter...........all inconsistent with the relationship she is trying to get us all to buy.

...and, of course, some of those phone calls that she speaks of were never recorded by the phone company. Now, how does that happen? A particular inconsistency that boggles my mind is when she speaks of Casey going off to bond with her daughter...I wish I could remember where/when that first appeared because Cindy made it sound like they were on a mini-break...I don't think the "nanny" even figured into it during that time. Cindy has spent more time excusing away her own behavior than anything else if you ask me. Everyone was dumbfounded (media and regular folks alike) that she knew so little about her daughter's life.

 

[countzero]

...and, of course, some of those phone calls that she speaks of were never recorded by the phone company. Now, how does that happen? A particular inconsistency that boggles my mind is when she speaks of Casey going off to bond with her daughter...I wish I could remember where/when that first appeared because Cindy made it sound like they were on a mini-break...I don't think the "nanny" even figured into it during that time. Cindy has spent more time excusing away her own behavior than anything else if you ask me. Everyone was dumbfounded (media and regular folks alike) that she knew so little about her daughter's life.

CA wasn't dumbfounded but she sure did play act the part. She knew exactly what had been going on with KC for months and wasn't about to let anyone know she knew. She did and does have this image she feels she has to project and protect. Silly her.

 

[essies]

CA wasn't dumbfounded but she sure did play act the part. She knew exactly what had been going on with KC for months and wasn't about to let anyone know she knew. She did and does have this image she feels she has to project and protect. Silly her.

You are so right!! The IMAGE is everything to Cindy! If you listen to the interview with the neighbor Jean Couty he states that he heard and saw an argument probably late May where KC was screaming at Cindy-but Cindy did not retaliate! I'm sure Cindy saved her response to be heard behind closed doors!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8gOBrJSHdU"]YouTube - Jean Couty 9/15/08 (Anthony's Neighbor)[/ame]

 

[metalcrystal]

Yeah and here's a contradiction even to that, imo, as she admits "a lot of red flags" in 'retrospect':

A kids suite! Casey was the most spoiled and pampered person ever. Ummmm, most parents want to see their kids independant and on their own when they are in their twenties. So, when Cindy says Casey "moved out" that is completely out of character for her. She obviously wanted to keep her with her FOREVER.