Is Casey the real Zenaida?

[MADJGNLAW]

Something that keeps creeping up in my brain is the entire A family appear to not want Caylee in the system, to collect all kinds of benefits many of us recieved when we had are children. It seems the A's were trying to stay off the radar since conception when it applied to Caylee. To date GA and CA have learned how to network into owning a foundation, why didn't they use the same type of gusto in acquiring the benefits awarded to a child when a parent dies. CA stated she began the paper work at her attorneys, which we know she blantanly did not follow through with this according to FBI interview. Now we know how GA is meticulous with his cars, yard and seems to pride himself with being consistent and thorough. CA has notebooks prepaired for LE interviews at a time when most would have a difficult time writing and don't forget about her drug dealer spreadsheet. The A's have tried to divert attention towards an entity called, The Nanny, Zani, Zeneda, Zenida ect..... to include any of KC friends she may have hung out with. No Nanny[/B is my vote because of all the energy going into establishing one. Because of kC seasoned attitude while forging checks I feel there is an ID out there. As thorough parents the A's should have voiced there concern over kC not having proper ID and the negative outcomes that may occur while driving all over Florida if in accident, especially if Caylee was in the car. Following pings and such again no nanny. Now we are still left with the why ZG's name was chosen when Kc referred to a specific last name. I feel we know kC can take the most mundane and elaborate on it, like a made for TV add. Criminal minds can be very innovative as we've seen. Sociopaths will sometimes confess to a lessor crime while being accused of a horrendous crime. When KC made the comment, (I probably will misquote), "I'm guilty of dropping my daughter off and trusting ect.... and was stupid for thinking I could find her myself" That was my first ringy, dingy, of ,"Whoa, she's telling a mistruth!"

I'd like to know what the paperwork said, that was said to be started about CA claiming that she had filed with an attorney about Caylee's father's denial of rights. If that was so, then the paper work would have Caylee's father's name on it and Cindy is caught in a lie again because she would have to know who the father is if she was to have this paper work started "IMO".

 

[kageykaren]

Cecebeans, "don'y worry, I haven't said anything," was directed to both parents with a brushed off type of demeanor. Something is definatly "A Family Affair" taht they are trying to keep, "All in the family". The way all the A's downplayed a father role being involved in Caylee's life was way to matter of fact everytime they were asked. Notice GA's silence in discussing KC pregnancy and birth of a grandaughter. GA loved those beautiful girls so much he embezzeled from his family? Off topic with my gA reference but I stated that to show things were upside down in the home. Do any of you feel like "Alice "trying to navigate through " I Wonder? Land" I can't say to fact but I feel many of the imaginary friends co-workers seem to have there own 3-6 drgrees to KC and that may ring true for this ZG. I'v oftened wondered if ZG that KC referenced came about from a 3 degrees scenario. KC had a friend who had a friend who had a friend that babysat, hence all the names KC blurted out about how she found her to watch Caylee. Since we know KC didn't leave the area could these made up names of ZG's sister, mom, acutually really be someone of a whole other name that may have looked after Caylee while KC was braking the law, doing whatever, therefore not comming forward so as not to be implicated in this crime or a secondary crime. I'm getting alittle out there so I better stop. The case to me reeks of Rico crimes, drugs, and ????? The silence comming from KC's friends is unatural for that age group. In the beginning everyone was eager to do their own timeline, some appeared to help minimally in the investigation and them everyone became silent. Off for a swim, to clear my brain for it just keeps rehashing the same old, same sluething. More docs please?

 

[Meemom]

I'd like to know what the paperwork said, that was said to be started about CA claiming that she had filed with an attorney about Caylee's father's denial of rights. If that was so, then the paper work would have Caylee's father's name on it and Cindy is caught in a lie again because she would have to know who the father is if she was to have this paper work started "IMO".

IIRC, way back in the earlier docs. LE interviewed the lawyer, who stated he had no such file for the A's. Appears to be another of CA's flights of fancy, something she thought to do, but never did in reality.

 

[kageykaren]

IIRC, way back in the earlier docs. LE interviewed the lawyer, who stated he had no such file for the A's. Appears to be another of CA's flights of fancy, something she thought to do, but never did in reality.

:yes::shakehead::abnormal:

 

[BondJamesBond]

BJB -

In the original transcript, KC does not indicate she has seen her Universal ID, but that may not be the only place this is mentioned (and I'm wracking my brain now to think if either CA or LA or someone corroborated her story by confirming KC had actually seen the ID).

the transcript below is from KC's interview with YM and JA at the conference room at Universal. I think this is from page 81.

Q: Where did Zenaida. Does she have another job besides watching children?

A: She has a seasonal ID for Universal. However, the only job that I know that she's had for the last few years she's been a nanny.

Q: So, seasonal employee at Universal?

A: Uh-huh (Affirmative).

Q: When was the last time she worked at Universal do you know?

A: I have no idea.

Later on, in the same interview (p. 104) at Universal with J Allen and Y Mellich, Mellich asks her:

Q: Zani's never worked here. How do you explain that?

A: She has an I.D. She has an I.D. with her name on it.

Q: Just like you have...

A: I've seen it.

Q: ...just like you have an I.D.?

A: I do have an I.D. Somewhere in my house. Both my parents have seen it. Both my parents know..

*snipped*

That's it, CB. Thanks.

 

[doobiedoo52]

I had previously read the info concerning the ZG22 ticket on Blink's site awhile and found it quite interesting. My only question is if they have the fingerprint from the citation, and it matches KC's, why didn't they confront her with it right away? They hit her with all the other lies she told in an attempt to get her to reveal what happened. Why not this one? That confuses me. Not to mention it could have put an end to the ZG speculation early and prevented a frivolous lawsuit.

My only other comment is on the ID of the picture by the Sawgrass employee. I'm sure they were KC's pics at that point in time, but the question he was asked was---are any of these people familiar to you. He was not asked if any of them were the ZG he took thru the apartment that day. KC could very well have been a half way familiar face as she had a friend that worked there and Fusion connections there. I don't think he was saying she was the lady he took thru there. From what I have read, it seems like the police assumed that KC was the ZG who visited the apartment that day. That is why I blame LE for creating this civil suit. The info on that card was actually given by the ZG who admitted to being there & looking. KC did not provide any of that info. She said ZG was 24 and single from the statements I have seen. I really doubt that she knew anything at all about the lawsuit ZG.
And NO I do NOT think she is innocent, but I think she is being blamed for something that she didn't do in the civil lawsuit portion. As always, MOO

 

[BondJamesBond]

I had previously read the info concerning the ZG22 ticket on Blink's site awhile and found it quite interesting. My only question is if they have the fingerprint from the citation, and it matches KC's, why didn't they confront her with it right away? They hit her with all the other lies she told in an attempt to get her to reveal what happened. Why not this one? That confuses me. Not to mention it could have put an end to the ZG speculation early and prevented a frivolous lawsuit.

My only other comment is on the ID of the picture by the Sawgrass employee. I'm sure they were KC's pics at that point in time, but the question he was asked was---are any of these people familiar to you. He was not asked if any of them were the ZG he took thru the apartment that day. KC could very well have been a half way familiar face as she had a friend that worked there and Fusion connections there. I don't think he was saying she was the lady he took thru there. From what I have read, it seems like the police assumed that KC was the ZG who visited the apartment that day. That is why I blame LE for creating this civil suit. The info on that card was actually given by the ZG who admitted to being there & looking. KC did not provide any of that info. She said ZG was 24 and single from the statements I have seen. I really doubt that she knew anything at all about the lawsuit ZG.
And NO I do NOT think she is innocent, but I think she is being blamed for something that she didn't do in the civil lawsuit portion. As always, MOO

FWIW, a couple of thoughts here...

1) Timing. On released docs page 781 in the interview w/ Jamie R. (shotgirl) Jamie gives the account of Casey not being able to hang w/ her is attributed to Casey having to go deal w/ a speeding ticket. Jamie recalls it was probably mid-June. Yuri questions the timing a couple of times. This interview was done on August 19th. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4823998/Casey-Anthony-Jamie-Realander-interview

Cell records indicate Jamie & Casey didn't develop a relationship until ~7/2. And the cell records reflect the exchange that would fit what Jamie explains in her interview of this ticket-day on 7/15. So, Jamie's mid-month was almost certainly mid-July...not mid-June as she stated in her interview.

That Yuri focused in on the timing Jamie gave suggests to me that LE had the ZG22 thing in their pocket by 8/19. I dunno how much sooner, but, by 8/19. So, the timing of when LE had made the ZG22 connection, IMHO, played some role in their thinking about how best to use the information. IOW...even if it had been almost immediate (say, if the item recovered from Casey's wallet was a ZG ID) LE may have wanted to use this as a future litmus test to determine how reliable information from other witnesses might be. IF it turned out to be a bogus lead and LE ran with it...then they would pay a huge price for trying to "frame" Casey...handing the defense something to leverage.

2) Purpose. IMHO, the civil suit has served SA/LE well. IOW...they've been the beneficiary of getting testimony from George, Cindy, Lee and Annie (others) on subjects relating to Casey that would otherwise be unavailable to them. So, while I understand why this might seem to be a "frivolous" suit to many, IMHO, it is serving a very valuable purpose...justice for Caylee.

 

[Just Jayla]

FWIW, a couple of thoughts here...

1) Timing. On released docs page 781 in the interview w/ Jamie R. (shotgirl) Jamie gives the account of Casey not being able to hang w/ her is attributed to Casey having to go deal w/ a speeding ticket. Jamie recalls it was probably mid-June. Yuri questions the timing a couple of times. This interview was done on August 19th. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4823998/Casey-Anthony-Jamie-Realander-interview

Cell records indicate Jamie & Casey didn't develop a relationship until ~7/2. And the cell records reflect the exchange that would fit what Jamie explains in her interview of this ticket-day on 7/15. So, Jamie's mid-month was almost certainly mid-July...not mid-June as she stated in her interview.

That Yuri focused in on the timing Jamie gave suggests to me that LE had the ZG22 thing in their pocket by 8/19. I dunno how much sooner, but, by 8/19. So, the timing of when LE had made the ZG22 connection, IMHO, played some role in their thinking about how best to use the information. IOW...even if it had been almost immediate (say, if the item recovered from Casey's wallet was a ZG ID) LE may have wanted to use this as a future litmus test to determine how reliable information from other witnesses might be. IF it turned out to be a bogus lead and LE ran with it...then they would pay a huge price for trying to "frame" Casey...handing the defense something to leverage.

2) Purpose. IMHO, the civil suit has served SA/LE well. IOW...they've been the beneficiary of getting testimony from George, Cindy, Lee and Annie (others) on subjects relating to Casey that would otherwise be unavailable to them. So, while I understand why this might seem to be a "frivolous" suit to many, IMHO, it is serving a very valuable purpose...justice for Caylee.

Thank you for summing that up so well, I have always been interested in the ID/ticket angle, it would be sionara for KC should it come out that she possessed a ZG ID as early as May.....That has a "borrowed" address and SSN on it (ie, no real Zenaida).

As to the civil case, if nothing else, a win for ZG will act like a shield for her...I think that any ZG that was questioned/investigated in this case ought to go to the fullest extent to cover their hineys, whether in a civil or a criminal court, or at the very least by keeping alibi receipts/phone records in their nightstand drawers just in case.....you never know when/if/how the defense may bring out the ZG card later.
Kissimmee ZG will not be used as a tool by KC to get away with a murder.

 

[AZlawyer]

FWIW, a couple of thoughts here...

1) Timing. On released docs page 781 in the interview w/ Jamie R. (shotgirl) Jamie gives the account of Casey not being able to hang w/ her is attributed to Casey having to go deal w/ a speeding ticket. Jamie recalls it was probably mid-June. Yuri questions the timing a couple of times. This interview was done on August 19th. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4823998/Casey-Anthony-Jamie-Realander-interview

Cell records indicate Jamie & Casey didn't develop a relationship until ~7/2. And the cell records reflect the exchange that would fit what Jamie explains in her interview of this ticket-day on 7/15. So, Jamie's mid-month was almost certainly mid-July...not mid-June as she stated in her interview.

That Yuri focused in on the timing Jamie gave suggests to me that LE had the ZG22 thing in their pocket by 8/19. I dunno how much sooner, but, by 8/19. So, the timing of when LE had made the ZG22 connection, IMHO, played some role in their thinking about how best to use the information. IOW...even if it had been almost immediate (say, if the item recovered from Casey's wallet was a ZG ID) LE may have wanted to use this as a future litmus test to determine how reliable information from other witnesses might be. IF it turned out to be a bogus lead and LE ran with it...then they would pay a huge price for trying to "frame" Casey...handing the defense something to leverage.

2) Purpose. IMHO, the civil suit has served SA/LE well. IOW...they've been the beneficiary of getting testimony from George, Cindy, Lee and Annie (others) on subjects relating to Casey that would otherwise be unavailable to them. So, while I understand why this might seem to be a "frivolous" suit to many, IMHO, it is serving a very valuable purpose...justice for Caylee.

The way I read her interview, Jamie is saying that the speeding ticket incident happened sometime in the middle of the time she knew Casey--i.e., between May 23 and July 15--not sometime in the middle of the month. It's YM who offers the suggestion that the middle of that time period would be the middle of June. I really think if this conversation happened on the very last day Jamie spoke with Casey--the day before Casey was arrested--she would have remembered that.

In the computer forensics report (http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/21%20Computer%20Forensics%20Report.pdf, p. 19) there is an unallocated cluster with Facebook messages between Jamie and Casey--looks like this is not the speeding ticket incident, but Jamie doesn't say in her interview that there were two similar incidents.... :waitasec:

July 8 8:53 pm Jamie: hey girl
July 8 8:54 pm Casey: hey! how are ya?
July 8 8:55 pm Jamie: Im good, did i ever see you thursday?
July 8 8:55 pm Casey: i didn't get to come out. i had to take a friend home, before we even got downtown, and ended up getting sick along with her. i think it was our dinner. don't eat at houlihan's how was it?
July 8 8:56 pm Jamie: Wasted!!! It was a horrible night for me and jenna
July 8 8:57 pm Casey: haha nice!
July 8 8:57 pm Jamie: me mostly
July 8 8:57 pm Casey: why is that?

 

[BondJamesBond]

The way I read her interview, Jamie is saying that the speeding ticket incident happened sometime in the middle of the time she knew Casey--i.e., between May 23 and July 15--not sometime in the middle of the month. It's YM who offers the suggestion that the middle of that time period would be the middle of June. I really think if this conversation happened on the very last day Jamie spoke with Casey--the day before Casey was arrested--she would have remembered that.

In the computer forensics report (http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/21%20Computer%20Forensics%20Report.pdf, p. 19) there is an unallocated cluster with Facebook messages between Jamie and Casey--looks like this is not the speeding ticket incident, but Jamie doesn't say in her interview that there were two similar incidents.... :waitasec:

July 8 8:53 pm Jamie: hey girl
July 8 8:54 pm Casey: hey! how are ya?
July 8 8:55 pm Jamie: Im good, did i ever see you thursday?
July 8 8:55 pm Casey: i didn't get to come out. i had to take a friend home, before we even got downtown, and ended up getting sick along with her. i think it was our dinner. don't eat at houlihan's how was it?
July 8 8:56 pm Jamie: Wasted!!! It was a horrible night for me and jenna
July 8 8:57 pm Casey: haha nice!
July 8 8:57 pm Jamie: me mostly
July 8 8:57 pm Casey: why is that?

IMHO...since the interview didn't happen until August 19th...just over a month after the arrest, I'm not sure how keen Jamie's recollection of the timing was IYKWIM. Just offering it up FWIW.

Also, FWIW, in the 7/8 exchange they are referencing the prior Thursday night, 7/3, which was the night Casey, Amy, et.al. went downtown and Casey got the helloutta Dodge when Lee came looking for her. Not quite the story she told Jamie now, was it?

 

[TallyHo]

BJB -

In the original transcript, KC does not indicate she has seen her Universal ID, but that may not be the only place this is mentioned (and I'm wracking my brain now to think if either CA or LA or someone corroborated her story by confirming KC had actually seen the ID).

the transcript below is from KC's interview with YM and JA at the conference room at Universal. I think this is from page 81.

Q: Where did Zenaida. Does she have another job besides watching children?

A: She has a seasonal ID for Universal. However, the only job that I know that she's had for the last few years she's been a nanny.

Q: So, seasonal employee at Universal?

A: Uh-huh (Affirmative).

Q: When was the last time she worked at Universal do you know?

A: I have no idea.

Later on, in the same interview (p. 104) at Universal with J Allen and Y Mellich, Mellich asks her:

Q: Zani's never worked here. How do you explain that?

A: She has an I.D. She has an I.D. with her name on it.

Q: Just like you have...

A: I've seen it.

Q: ...just like you have an I.D.?

A: I do have an I.D. Somewhere in my house. Both my parents have seen it. Both my parents know..

Q. Just like you have an office.

A. ...that I worked here. That I used to have an office.

Q: Now just like you have an office?

A: No, I don't have an office now.

Q: Okay.

Please excuse - any punctuation or typos are mine; I couldn't get this version of PDF to copy or screen shot for some reason.

WHO'S ON FIRST??? :bang: Just reading these verbal gymnastics makes my head hurt, but Yuri absolutely nailed it - "just like YOU have an ID" etc. Casey could have been describing herself when she is giving them the description of Zanny here. Has an ID for universal but does nothing but watch kid(s) for the last few years. Some of the other details about Zanny are uncannily similar to herself as well. Somehow I suspect that's how Zanny became a "10". Most likely this is how Casey sees herself.

 

[cecybeans]

I had previously read the info concerning the ZG22 ticket on Blink's site awhile and found it quite interesting. My only question is if they have the fingerprint from the citation, and it matches KC's, why didn't they confront her with it right away? They hit her with all the other lies she told in an attempt to get her to reveal what happened. Why not this one? That confuses me. Not to mention it could have put an end to the ZG speculation early and prevented a frivolous lawsuit.

My only other comment is on the ID of the picture by the Sawgrass employee. I'm sure they were KC's pics at that point in time, but the question he was asked was---are any of these people familiar to you. He was not asked if any of them were the ZG he took thru the apartment that day. KC could very well have been a half way familiar face as she had a friend that worked there and Fusion connections there. I don't think he was saying she was the lady he took thru there. From what I have read, it seems like the police assumed that KC was the ZG who visited the apartment that day. That is why I blame LE for creating this civil suit. The info on that card was actually given by the ZG who admitted to being there & looking. KC did not provide any of that info. She said ZG was 24 and single from the statements I have seen. I really doubt that she knew anything at all about the lawsuit ZG.
And NO I do NOT think she is innocent, but I think she is being blamed for something that she didn't do in the civil lawsuit portion. As always, MOO

KC stopped talking to LE after wasting their time half the first night driving by fake Zanny residences and culminating in her bogus tour of her Universal office. That's when they realized she was completely wasting their time sending them on a wild goose chase for her own entertainment and it was of no further value to speak with her directly until she chose to start telling the truth. After that, it was her own choice (and most certainly her attorney's) to refuse to talk with them (I don't count the little foray on the day of her indictment with the FBI as being indicative of cooperation either). Whether or not any fake ZG22 ID, or fingerprinted citation had been able to be thoroughly researched at that juncture is unlikely - it seems to have unfolded as the investigation proceded. The first few days were about trying to find a missing child amongst the convoluted garbage that her mother and her grandparents were trying to obfuscate the truth with to protect themselves and cast suspicion on any convenient target.

If there had never been a ZG at Sawgrass Apts, driving a Ford Focus with NY plates on or near the time KC said she dropped off Caylee, you might consider this a frivolous lawsuit. But let's remember - she did and this is the only woman who fit a description that came anything close to something true or verifiable that KC told LE that day. Not to mention this woman could still technically be considered a murder suspect seeing as how KC has countersued and refuses to answer questions. I was in town at the time and saw how the local news was treating her and also how mixed public opinion was as to whether she was involved. If someone you never met gave LE an accurate enough description of your name and your vehicle and specifically placed you at what was considered to be a crime scene, I'm sure you would not think a civil suit was frivolous, regardless of whether or not you lost income or suffered invasion of privacy or received death threats. Particularly if they and their attorney refused to publicly clear you after you filed a civil suit and if, in the meantime, their family was eager enough to continue the fabrication to spread it all over the media.

As far as LE showing pics of KC to Sawgrass employees - I applaud them. They are not required to use completely transparent or simplistic investigation methods to get at the facts. If I had suspected KC may have either been involved, or known someone involved at Sawgrass I would have wanted to know if she was a familiar face as well or if she was connected to others - in other words to simply see exactly how familiar she was to anyone living there who may have also been involved.

KC most certainly is responsible for the civil suit. She identified her "nanny" as a very real person (her "10" description came much later) with a very real and identifiable vehicle who was at a very specific place at or around the time of a crime she accused this person of committing. It doesn't get much more specific than that without a NannyCam.

 

[~ Amy ~]

According to one of GA's interviews ...KC referred to herself as a "nanny" in a resume he says he found. I'd like to know who , what and where that resume was planned for. Was it ever looked into what kind of job she was seeking? Was she trying to find a real "nanny" position , or was she possibly making a paper trail , so the chips might fall into someone elses lap?

 

[Seebra]

OK, Here's one for the KC is ZFG - On June 11, 2008, it states according to the docket that the defendant, one ZFG appeared before a judge.

Does this match with anything we have for KC on June 11, 2008?

I am trying to find records of everything for KC on 6/11/08 - but if she pings in the courthouse area - isn't this a BINGO?

http://www.myorangeclerk.com/mycler...70-8e38-4d4b-93a0-92d7082eb25b&CaseID=5898474

 

[Seebra]

When comparing the cell pings for June 11 and the fact that defendant ZFG appeared in court also on this day, it seems absolutely probable that KC did appear as ZFG on June 11. All cell pings were to the east for much of the day - except when looking at cell ping #15 and #16 - they are right within the area of the traffic courthouse. Interesting... now the question is, did the ZFG defendant appear in late afternoon at the court - say between 5-6PM?

 

[OneLostGrl]

OK, Here's one for the KC is ZFG - On June 11, 2008, it states according to the docket that the defendant, one ZFG appeared before a judge.

Does this match with anything we have for KC on June 11, 2008?

I am trying to find records of everything for KC on 6/11/08 - but if she pings in the courthouse area - isn't this a BINGO?

http://www.myorangeclerk.com/mycler...70-8e38-4d4b-93a0-92d7082eb25b&CaseID=5898474

IIRC JWG and BJB looked into all of this when Blink's info came out. You may want to check with one of them, they may be able to point you toward what you are looking for.

 

[cecybeans]

IIRC JWG and BJB looked into all of this when Blink's info came out. You may want to check with one of them, they may be able to point you toward what you are looking for.

And IIRC, a lot of it is available on earlier posts on this thread or the other Zanny thread (plus lots of great additional info added by Valhall).

 

[Valhall]

Just remember when looking at the ping data that "ZG22" appeared in the OCOEE traffic court, not the Orlando downtown court.

475 W. Story Road
Ocoee, FL 34761


Some comments were made by, I believe, JWG and BJB on this issue earlier in the thread and I think, if I recall correctly, they didn't think she could have been in that area???

Guys, am I recalling correctly?

 

[Valhall]

Okay, yes, she could have made the traffic docket at the Ocoee branch of the Orange county court system on the 11th.

Here is the ping map for June 11th:

Ping Map June 11th

Note that the first cell ping KC has after 4:39 am is at 9:40 am. The general location where her cell phone pings is approximately a 20 minute drive from the Ocoee court house.

From here we find that check-in time for arraignment on a criminal traffic offense (which ZG22's was) is at 7:30 am on Wednesdays. (The 11th was a Wednesday.)

http://orangeclerk.onetgov.net/traffic/criminal.shtml

Note that it says if you aren't there at 7:30 am, you won't be allowed to attend court. So ZG22 was there at 7:30 am. Now, no telling how long it took to be heard, but 7:30 to 9:40 is over 2 hours, so there is a possibility KC could have been at traffic court in Ocoee on the morning of June 11th.

 

[Valhall]

I'd like to point something else out here that may or may not end up being relevant to the discussion (we can all tend to interpret things with bias, and I fully realize that). I've been working on a graphical timeline of KC's activities from June 15th through July 15th just to wrap my mind around her habits. I have found a very consistent behavior for KC concerning a daily phone habit:

1. Her first phone activity is usually very brief. She appears to turn her phone on and either gets a myspace alert, a text message from some one, or (more usually) checks her voicemail. This is typically around 8 a.m., but can be as late as 11 a.m.

2. She then would typically have a period of no activity on the phone that could extend up to 3 hours after the initial brief activity.

3. I found no instance of KC's first phone activity being at a location other than where she slept...i.e. if she spent the night at the Anthony home, the first activity was at the Anthony home; likewise if she was at TL's, the first activity was at TL's.

4. Irrespective of where KC spent the night, she didn't seem to ever leave that location very much before noon.

With that stated, on the morning of the 11th, she had no initial activity at the location she had spent the night (i.e. the Anthony home). This is out of character. This means she left the Anthony home before ever turning her phone on (i.e. it didn't receive any calls, text messages, alerts and she didn't check her voicemail) before 9:40 a.m. and that was at a different location than the Anthony home. This is out of character.

This also means she was up and out of bed and away from the place she slept before 9:40 a.m (without talking on the phone)....again, out of character.

Now, why would she have her phone off until 9:40 a.m. when she has left the house sometime between 4:39 and 9:40 a.m.? Maybe because she had to go some where she couldn't answer the phone, or didn't want to explain where she was, because leaving as early as she had to (7:00 a.m. or earlier) would have raised suspicion with CA. (She would have gotten a phone call asking "Where are you?")