The way KMTC changed her story to LE is obviously important in the case, as all witness statements are. One major reason it's important is because the change in her statement is about the date Caylee was last heard alive. (Without mentioning any people, speaking only of posts, I have to say the rudeness in some posts here is quite glaring, and completely unnecessary. Anyone who doesn't think this is a topic for discussion obviously doesn't need to discuss it here.)
It's obvious to me that Kio knew which Casey she was speaking with during the phone call, she wouldn't confuse the "two" Caseys. She told her neighbor that it was Casey A who called, and went so far as to call LE and tell them it was Casey A who had called. She said she heard Caylee in the background in the July 9th call. She said Casey referenced on the phone how they had run into each other in April at Walmart. She knows very well that Casey A's mother doesn't live out of state (another good point Princess Rose), so if the Casey on the phone had been discussing going to live with her mother out of state as Kio later claimed, Kio would have known that it wasn't Casey A on the phone.
So IMO, either Casey A did call on July 9 and Caylee was alive then,
or, KMTC had originally made up this story for some reason. What it is, I can only guess, but hopefully we'll see the phone record at trial to see what phone that really was that called KMT, and in turn the records for that phone.
What information do you have that apparently LE doesn't that indicates this change is "important in the case"? Do you have any evidence that Kio wasn't just mistaken, as she claimed and as was apparently accepted by LE? Do you have any evidence that the call was actually between KC and Kio, instead of CaseyW. and Kio or that any such call actually occurred at all?
These are just questions in furtherance of the discussion of Kio's statements to LE and aren't meant to be rude. But for these issues to be discussed intelligently, I think we need to have the same info on which you're basing your assertions, don't you agree? Otherwise, seems like random speculation at the expense of an innocent young girl who appears misguided, at worst, imo.
You still seem confused about what my assertions are. Again, I can only refer you back to this thread.
There has certainly been a lot of random speculation and accusations posted on this board at the expense of various parties who may be innocent, but not by me.
What I've been discussing here is this witness's official (public) statements to LE regarding the last date the victim was heard alive. I have never made any accusation toward this witness or any other witness in this case.
For clarity and context, above is the post you wrote and my
full response to which you replied in the final post quoted above.
I disagree that I am confused. I'm simply reading your posts. If your intent is different than what was written, that's something I can't know. I do however, suggest you've confused the wording in my response to you as I don't suggest you've
accused anyone. I wrote about your
assertions. For example, you assert that all witness statements and "especially" changes are important. So I asked what information you possess that LE apparently doesn't to indicate this witness, her statement and even the change is important to the case. (They don't appear interested in Kio at this time.) I also asked if you have any information that Kio wasn't just mistaken. These are assertions made in your post and my understanding of the rules here is that we're all entitled to ask for support of assertions made. In fact, admin has gone to great lengths recently to explain one shouldn't be offended when asked for corroboration. That way, we're all working with the same information and can come to reasonable conclusions based on it. If, as you asserted in the last post quoted above, I am truly misunderstanding what you wrote, please explain where I went wrong.
You also assert that the date of the alleged telephone call is the last date the victim was heard alive. I don't know of anything to support this contention other than Kio's retracted/corrected statement of her memory of that call. Do you have anything to support that assertion? It doesn't seem LE has put much faith in it but instead accepted her explanation of mistake. Have you any evidence to support your repeated assertions this was not a mistake whether honest or not? I mean, perhaps she initially embellished her account to make herself seem/feel more important but then later realized that was not the right thing and then recanted. This would not be an "honest mistake" imo. Or, maybe she really was confused and caught up in the moment but then upon reflection or discussion with others realized her error and cleared it up with LE. This, imo, would be an "honest mistake" such as the one made by JG.
Maybe I'm not explaining this very well so I'll try to summarize this way: You're making assertions which I assume are based on facts and/or logical theory which is fact based. I am unaware of the information used to reach your posted conclusions, nor am I clear on which part of your posts is presented as fact and which theory, if both are meant to be presented. If you provide the facts used, the transcripts, articles, whatever information used to come to your understanding of the facts then we can all discuss these facts and theories intelligently. Otherwise, I and I daresay others, are totally in the dark on where you're coming by the information you seem to assert as fact.
)
