"Mistatements" and/or Lies by Cindy & George

[Whisperer]

Q. Did you ever discuss with kc her "moving out"?
A. NO.

Approximately, July 17th, G & A appeared on Greta (pretty sure it was her) and Cindy stated that she and kc had been recently discussing when would be the proper time for her and Caylee to move out.

 

[Whisperer]

So far it looks like they are calling George back to ask more questions and for him to answer the ones they already asked.

Cindy.....not so much....wonder if they are going straight to the contempt charge...lol

 

[texaslb218]

So far it looks like they are calling George back to ask more questions and for him to answer the ones they already asked.

Cindy.....not so much....wonder if they are going straight to the contempt charge...lol

They would probably rather stick pins in their eyes than call her back for another round.

 

[Pink Panther]

They should all be in the pokey. I understand why LE hasn't done anything yet (bigger fish - aka KC - to fry) but I am so disgusted by these people and their blatant disregard for the law that I really wish that LE would get going!

KC's trial will be a long way off...In the meantime, these lowlife's are getting away with all manner of disrespect and law-breaking!

MOO

 

[Pink Panther]

They would probably rather stick pins in their eyes than call her back for another round.

HAhahaHa. You're right about that. The smirk and wink she threw at BC was really beyond belief!

I hope that someone catches that and puts it to muzik!

MOO

 

[LancelotLink]

Q. Did you ever discuss with kc her "moving out"?
A. NO.

Approximately, July 17th, G & A appeared on Greta (pretty sure it was her) and Cindy stated that she and kc had been recently discussing when would be the proper time for her and Caylee to move out.

Do you know of a link for this? I would like to see this. I think I need to go back to the beginning and start all over again. I may have to put an advertisement in the local paper for a volunteer personal assistant...

 

[BeanE]

I'm sure at the trial they will mention way more than "remains", so Georgy better wear his big boy drawers and get ready for it.

Most people, I think, would have simply said "That term is very painful for me to hear. Could I ask that use a different one?". We'd realize the person speaking had no way of reading our mind and knowing a certain word bothered us.

But I'm seeing an awful lot of paranoia and perceived persecution in George. To him, everything, even the attorney adjusting his glasses, is a deliberate, malicious act targetting him personally.

Why does George think everyone is 'out to get him'?

 

[LambChop]

Most people, I think, would have simply said "That term is very painful for me to hear. Could I ask that use a different one?". We'd realize the person speaking had no way of reading our mind and knowing a certain word bothered us.

But I'm seeing an awful lot of paranoia and perceived persecution in George. To him, everything, even the attorney adjusting his glasses, is a deliberate, malicious act targetting him personally.

Why does George think everyone is 'out to get him'?

Could it be because he is married to Cindy? What would you call it, conditioning?

 

[Steely Dan]

So far it looks like they are calling George back to ask more questions and for him to answer the ones they already asked.

Cindy.....not so much....wonder if they are going straight to the contempt charge...lol

Does anyone know what her legal requirements were at the deposition? Can she really decide when to leave?

Most people, I think, would have simply said "That term is very painful for me to hear. Could I ask that use a different one?". We'd realize the person speaking had no way of reading our mind and knowing a certain word bothered us.

But I'm seeing an awful lot of paranoia and perceived persecution in George. To him, everything, even the attorney adjusting his glasses, is a deliberate, malicious act targetting him personally.

Why does George think everyone is 'out to get him'?

Could it be because he is married to Cindy? What would you call it, conditioning?

Seriously I think it's because he was instructed to be combative on the witness stand by his lawyer. Just a guess. :cow:

 

[Valhall]

Just wanted to supply some info that goes toward a statement CA made in her deposition.

In the 07/30/08 interview of CA with the FBI she states that SHE was the one that provided the "last known address" she had for Zani. It was the 232 Glenwood Avenue address. She states she had it written on a sticky note in her address book, and she went into the kitchen, pulled the sticky note out of her book and provided it to OCSO.

http://www.wftv.com/video/18035442/index.html

These statements begin at approximately 1 minute into the tape. So, we can conclude that CA is pushing a lie (because NOW she knows there is no validity to that address as far as Zani is concerned) by stating she always had addresses supplied by KC (even though she knows the information provided by KC was bogus). So, on this particular issue...CA's not lying, she's just pimping KC's lies.

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

If they make statements contradictory to this depo during the KC trial they can use this depo to refute the KC trial statements. I hope they can use the video of it! What a :cow: she is.



LINK



IIRC, contracts for privilege don't cover illegal actions. If they knew where the body was and yet didn't tell LE then privilege is thrown out the window. If a psychiatrist knows an illegal act is going to be committed by a patient he can break the privilege. So I'm not sure that privilege would be covered here.

I hope they throw their butts in the pokey!!

What I still don't get on this, one does not have privilege with a private investigator hired by regular people (ie not attorneys) I have always believed that the attorney who hires the PI can have privilege with the PI (and then of course his clients). But just clients of a PI, no. Am I wrong on this?

 

[Steely Dan]

What I still don't get on this, one does not have privilege with a private investigator hired by regular people (ie not attorneys) I have always believed that the attorney who hires the PI can have privilege with the PI (and then of course his clients). But just clients of a PI, no. Am I wrong on this?

I think as long as no crime is committed. If an attorney knows the PI is going to break into somebody's house that doesn't cover the privilege and I also think that any evidence they find has to be turned over to the prosecution just as the prosecution has to turn over evidence to the defense.

I'm not sure. Hopefully somebody much more familiar with the law than I am will join this conversation.

 

[RR0004]

What I still don't get on this, one does not have privilege with a private investigator hired by regular people (ie not attorneys) I have always believed that the attorney who hires the PI can have privilege with the PI (and then of course his clients). But just clients of a PI, no. Am I wrong on this?

I thought this as well...JM seemed befuddled by the call. Hopefully, the judge will educate BC.

 

[RR0004]

In a word: "Absolutely."

As was most of their performance, referred to as a tv show or something similar by none other than martyrmom herself.

ITA...their behavior was just another means to deflect getting at the truth IMO.

 

[RR0004]

In part I of Cindy's depo, she states that she was the primary caregiver of Caylee. Yet later she states that Casey watched Caylee more often than she (Cindy) or George. So which one is it?

Seems to me if CA really wanted to "prep" for the depos she would have been better off studying all of HER videotaped statements.

 

[carrie]

pg 25 cindy anthony depo 4/9

first met Jeff, she was working for -- I believe she was
>Rough Draft - 30
1 still working for Colorvision or Kodak, one of them, I
2 don't know when they changed hands, and Jeffrey was a IT
3 tech at Universal.
4 Q Okay.
5 A And that's when I saw his picture and
6 Zachary's picture.
7 Q Now, where is Jeffrey Hopkins today?
8 A I have no idea.
9 Q Now, the information that Zanny was the
10 ex-girlfriend or girlfriend of Jeffrey Hopkins came you
11 to by Jeffrey Hopkins?
12 A No, I never met him.
13 Q How did you get that information --
14 A From Casey.

Thanks a bunch. Thanks to you too, Americka.

It seems to me that she isn't saying she has a picture, but that she saw one back when KC supposedly worked for Kodak, which I think was over a year ago.

I wonder if KC showed her a picture of God knows who, and claimed it was Jeff and Zachary? I think we're all pretty sure there is no Jeff H. or son Zachary, so it's doubtful he worked anywhere - lol. :crazy: :crazy:

 

[LCoastMom]

JH and his "son."

Actually I went back and double checked that remark. Cindy said she saw the picture of Jeff & Zack at Universal (when KC was working for someone other than Universal but on their lot I suppose)

Since she is so hung up on how things are worded, I thought I'd throw this out there

pg. 25 http://www.forthepeople.com/CAnthony-Depo.pdf

3 tech at Universal.
4 Q Okay.
5 A And that's when I saw his picture and
6 Zachary's picture.

 

[carrie]

In the last LE interview I read one of Cindy's coworkers said they had a bbq planned, a dessert get together thingy planned and a couple of other things planned over a couple of mos, that Jeff had to back out of last minute, each time. (Can you imagine?!!) Then their romance hit the skids and no more talk about Jeff. This was winter 2007-08 IIRC.

The second time my daughter's new beau backs out of a get together (if he wasn't knowledgeable enough to do so the first) I would have him on the phone to politely ask WTHeck. Just common courtesy to apologize to the host/hostess, that so many kids don't even think about anymore.

If he didn't want to speak to me on the phone, safe enough to figure something was up and I wouldn't be making anymore plans for this one!!!

NOT Cindy..... Gotta wonder how many thingy's she would put together for this person to no-show, before she realized he was NEVER gonna show!?

That Father's Day problem, if it was just a date mix up I would understand. But to forget Father's Day? Did that "day" mean so little to them? I don't understand that either....

Wouldn't this indicate that Cindy did believe there was a Jeff, at least at that point in time?

Why else would she be telling her co-workers about having plans for him to come to various events and his subsequently failing to show? I can't think of sufficient reason for her to go to the trouble. Why bother to mislead/trick people at work into thinking there was a Jeff that KC was seeing who did not show to various get togethers?

Think about it, in order for the co-worker to have said what he/she did, Cindy would have to have talked about it on several occasions over an extended period of time (a month or two?). IMO, that's quite a bit of effort to put into maintaining such a farce with no (apparent) reason. I can't think of a sufficient reason for her to do so. Can anyone else?

In my view, this shows that Cindy must have believed there was a Jeff that KC worked with at, least at that point in time.

Ideas or thoughts on this anyone?

 

[LCoastMom]

Thanks a bunch. Thanks to you too, Americka.

It seems to me that she isn't saying she has a picture, but that she saw one back when KC supposedly worked for Kodak, which I think was over a year ago.

I wonder if KC showed her a picture of God knows who, and claimed it was Jeff and Zachary? I think we're all pretty sure there is no Jeff H. or son Zachary, so it's doubtful he worked anywhere - lol. :crazy: :crazy:

You're welcome, yeah I noticed the discrepancy when I looked this up for you and went back and edited my original post.

Didn't turn quite enough pages before posted it again for Lin!!. Oh well!

No telling who really was in that picture!

 

[LCoastMom]

Wouldn't this indicate that Cindy did believe there was a Jeff, at least at that point in time?

Why else would she be telling her co-workers about having plans for him to come to various events and his subsequently failing to show? I can't think of sufficient reason for her to go to the trouble. Why bother to mislead/trick people at work into thinking there was a Jeff that KC was seeing who did not show to various get togethers?

Think about it, in order for the co-worker to have said what he/she did, Cindy would have to have talked about it on several occasions over an extended period of time (a month or two?). IMO, that's quite a bit of effort to put into maintaining such a farce with no (apparent) reason. I can't think of a sufficient reason for her to do so. Can anyone else?

In my view, this shows that Cindy must have believed there was a Jeff that KC worked with at, least at that point in time.

Ideas or thoughts on this anyone?

Yes she totally believed over and over that she was being stood up!! And she just let them go with it.

I have a theory on Jeff, it'll take a while to type out and I am going to have dinner now. I'll come back and do it after I eat.