"Mistatements" and/or Lies by Cindy & George

[easttexas]

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:

I keep thinking of a Friends episode where Phoebe shows a picture of her birth dad and it is the picture that comes inside a frame or wallet. Everyone sees that this man isn't her father just what is typically in a frame or wallet but phoebe CAN"T see it....she doesn't want to. Wouldn't it be just like KC to use one of those cheesy filler photos and more like Cindy to buy into it!!!!

LOL!

 

[TURBOTHINK]

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.

I will be waiting for you to put that up. I have been befuzzled from the beginning about this Jeffery Hopkins. KC told she went to school with him; that he had a son named Zack who ZG babysat with along with Caylee;that he dated ZG; that he paid ZG for Caylee's care in addition to his son's;that he moved to Jacksonville (which the real one did) and that she stayed with him there (which she didn't).

The next thing we are told is the one she went to school with was NOT the same one who knew ZG, but it was another one.

 

[LancelotLink]

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....

Thanks for that. I'll go back and read those interviews. For some reason, my mind was focusing on these get-togethers being planned during the "time" Casey was supposed to be with him in Jacksonville in 08.

I think the reason they never "thought" to say Father's Day is because they wanted to steer the investigation away from that day and the events that I feel "in my gut" transpired at Casa De Anthony.

 

[daisy7]

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/George Anthony Deposition.pdf Page 34
(Morning Deposition of George)

George: You'll have to ask sheriff's department about that.
MR. MORGAN: No, your investigators, what reports did you
get back?
MR. CONWAY: That's privileged information. It's privileged information.
MR. MORGAN: Why is it privileged
MR. CONWAY: Because he hired them. They worked for him. Everything that was given to them
is work product.
MR. MORGAN: That isn't work.
MR. CONWAY: It had everything to do with the fact they were being investigated by the sheriff's office. They were obstructions of --
MR. MORGAN: You're taking the privilege based on no pending lawsuit.
MR. CONWAY: I'm talking about the lawsuit based on pending criminal charges at the time.
MR. MORGAN: Against the Anthonys?
MR. CONWAY: Yes, sir.
MR. MORGAN: George and Cindy?
MR. CONWAY: According to the sheriff's office, they're being investigated and could be charged with obstruction charges.
MR. MORGAN: Not now or still?
MR. CONWAY: At this point, no, absolutely not.
MR. MORGAN: Then you have no privilege.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/Cindy Anthony Deposition April 9.pdf Page 113-114
(Afternoon Deposition of Cindy)

MR. CONWAY: I'm going to object to work product, privilege.
MR. DILL: I want to make sure for your objection, these private citizens have retained a private attorney to work for them and you're --
MR. MITNIK: Private investigator Mr. Dill
MR. DILL: private investigator and you're taking the position that there is a privilege that applies that makes it not discoverable in a civil lawsuit about the substance of any conversations or anything else?
MR. CONWAY: The conversations between them, correct.
MR. DILL: What is the basis for that.
MR. CONWAY: Product, work product.
MR. DILL: You understand -- I'm not trying to -- hold on. I'm not trying to argue here but I want to be clear. Work product means that there is something in pending litigation that's made in anticipation of -- in existing or pending litigation. Is there existing or pending litigation against these individuals, the answer that I'm not aware of O.K.
MR. CONWAY: There may be.
MR. DILL: I want to know or not.

In this morning session with George, Conway is attempting to excuse George from testifying about his relationship and communication with DC. He objects by using "work product". Eventually he admits that there is no current investigation or litigation, at least by the State. (Actually, he is rather adamant about it).
In the afternoon session with Cindy, once again Conway attempts to claim "work product" to keep Cindy from having to disclose her relationship with DC. This time he claims that there may be "existing or pending litigation".
This seems contradictory to me, but it may be that I am to naive to understand why it is not a contradiction by Conway. I hesitate to use the word "lie" here, but to me there is an apparent inconsistancy by Conway. This disturbs me. I realize that Conway is not under oath, but he is an officer of the court being recorded in a deposition. Either GA/CA have been served notice of possible court proceedings by the State or a private party, or they have not.
Maybe the differences in Conways statements can be explained?

Colored by me.

In the GA depo, Conway mentions a potential lawsuit based on pending criminal charges and then says there are no criminal charges (though he doesn't say there is not a pending lawsuit). In the CA depo, Conway also mentions a potential lawsuit.

So, Conway says there are no potential criminal charges, but there could be a lawsuit. I don't see any discrepancy with this.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

(mybold)

Neither can I...it just pisses me off beyond belief when someone judges people or gives negative commentary about a person based on what their opinion is of one's looks. Don't judge a book by it's cover..look inside too.

Cindy accused the attorney doing her depo as being condesending...she has got to be one of the most condecending that I have seen.
IMO they fancy themselves as classy...they need to get out more. From what it seems, they don't have much of a social circle, or had anyway.

It has been my experience that people who act condescending in legal proceedings are terrified and very insecure of their testimony. They usually have a lot to hide and use the false pride behaviors to cover up their insecurities and lies.

Most people in depositions just answer the questions. They don't elaborate and they sure don't try to question or demean the attorney who called the deposition.

If you are called as just a witness, you just answer to the best of your ability and have no reason to see "something hidden" behind every question. The questions may be asked more than once in different ways to clarify the event, but attorneys in general are NOT there to trick anyone, but to just get the facts. If you testify to the facts, and are truthful there is no problem.

 

[Valhall]

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, I think she believed there was a Jeff. She probably still does. What is the relevance (to put in Cindy-terms)? It doesn't matter what she believes when she has decided to believe things that fly in the face of facts.

 

[easttexas]

Thanks for that. I'll go back and read those interviews. For some reason, my mind was focusing on these get-togethers being planned during the "time" Casey was supposed to be with him in Jacksonville in 08.

I think the reason they never "thought" to say Father's Day is because they wanted to steer the investigation away from that day and the events that I feel "in my gut" transpired at Casa De Anthony.

ITA From the beginning they wanted to steer the investigation away from Father's Day....something major happened that day and they want it hidden. No way they don't remember the EXACT last time down to the second when they last laid eyes on precious Caylee....I know this as someone who lost someone just recently.....I know the EXACT place, time, date and what he was wearing. It is what your brain does go to that time...the last time you saw that person. FOr me....it was 21 days since the last time I saw my nephew but I still know what day/date it was. There was no fight to signify but it was the day after Christmas....I call BS on the A's theory that they can't remember the exact date.

 

[Friday]

Okay after spending 45 minutes reading this thread, I have a comment and a question!

My comment is regarding the IP's. An IP can be changed quite easily. There are several free sites on the internet to change your IP number. There are also several servers that will give you a different IP every time you log on.

Now for the question.....it is late on the East coast so please forgive me. Where in the hell did this pig come from and was it bacon? Was it a live pig in the trunk that decomposed or was it bacon that decomposed?

Sputter...laugh...sputter. Silly trapshooter, doncha know that live pigs don't decompose?? First they have to become dead pigs. See?

Now if they're farm-raised pigs, (aka common "porkers") they decompose into bacon. If they're wild pigs (aka "free-range pigs") their decomposed remains are used to teach cadaver dogs the difference between the scent of human decomp and pig decomp. That is why trained cadaver dogs do not alert on pig decomp, regardless of whether it's from common porkers or from free-range pigs.

All the above can be reduced to this: The rumor that there was a pig in KC's car trunk was inadvertently started by me. I'm really sorry. :blowkiss:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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?

You are correct. There is no privilege between the Anthonys and DC, at all. Even if there might have been a potential civil suit against them or potential criminal charges against them. It's called the attorney-client privilege not the regular people-PI privilege!

 

[easttexas]

If a person were able to throw off an investigation by using dead squirrels and processed ham (pizza).. we wouldn't be hearing it for the first time. And I doubt that KC has ever had an original thought of her own...ever. MOO

 

[Friday]

Respectfully, I'd like to point out that this does not necessarily constitute a lie. Just because she gave them to Baez doesn't mean she couldn't have given them to LE too. She could have written them down for Baez before she gave them to LE.

She's saying that she had no need to give them to DC as he was working for Baez and she'd already given them to Baez.

So she didn't necessarily contradict herself. Don't know whether she's being truthful or not - - -just saying. JMHO

I just want to add my thanks to you for having the courage to stick your neck out in this thread with some unpopular (with me, at least ) observations and theories. I think you're giving us an intelligent preview of some likely arguments from KC's defense team and also from CA's defense, if CA is ever charged.

:blowkiss:

 

[Paladine]

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?

One has to live it to truly believe it, imo. My Hubby has a 20 yr old Child who had convinced him she worked for the Government and was attending School. She was doing neither, but he bought it all. After he started catching on, she even produced a fake work schedule, when he asked for proof, complete with government logo! And he bought it...until I suggested he call the office, himself, and ask, and that took him a couple of days...they'd never heard of her...He now knows, she hasn't a job, and she does not attend school.

He believed it, he raved on to many people about her 'new job'. ... I never bought it, I saw the fake schedule, I knew she was home during supposed work hours... I tried to tell him but he couldn't face it at first, he really wants to believe everything she says...it's much easier than facing the truth...I must admit, in a certain way, they do remind me of Cindy and Casey...except, since I explained to him he does his Daughter no favor by playing along with her 'pretend life', he has tried to get more honest with himself....to truly help his Daughter.

 

[Steely Dan]

Sputter...laugh...sputter. Silly trapshooter, doncha know that live pigs don't decompose?? First they have to become dead pigs. See?

Now if they're farm-raised pigs, (aka common "porkers") they decompose into bacon. If they're wild pigs (aka "free-range pigs") their decomposed remains are used to teach cadaver dogs the difference between the scent of human decomp and pig decomp. That is why trained cadaver dogs do not alert on pig decomp, regardless of whether it's from common porkers or from free-range pigs.

All the above can be reduced to this: The rumor that there was a pig in KC's car trunk was inadvertently started by me. I'm really sorry. :blowkiss:

That's why the Hollywood police were never able to locate Porky Pigs body.

 

[LancelotLink]

You are correct. There is no privilege between the Anthonys and DC, at all. Even if there might have been a potential civil suit against them or potential criminal charges against them. It's called the attorney-client privilege not the regular people-PI privilege!

I was curious (hopeful) to know if there are any charges pending. Of course, perhaps the question back concerning the pending charges should have been, "For the Anthony's or you, Brad?"

 

[mitzi]

Here's what jumped out to me about Cindy's deposition. She listed all these people that watched Caylee. Every single one of the people she mentioned she had at least seen- albeit, she did not have numbers or address for them. Then she gets to Zanny- hasn't seen her but has all these numbers for her. I think that information was very telling.

George's "ignorance" to what had happened in that house is just unbelievable. Including the new "kidnapping" story. He said he had NOT heard that story. What? It was in LA testimony. AND WHY didn't they ask Cindy that question? Or did they and I missed it?

I think George is basically, shall we say, lacking in the intelligence department...and so, when he forgot what Cindy told him to answer for certain questions, he would say "I don't know" or "I won't answer that".

Didn't I read that the A's got interogatories (questions to be asked) ahead of time?

 

[LCoastMom]

I will be waiting for you to put that up. I have been befuzzled from the beginning about this Jeffery Hopkins. KC told she went to school with him; that he had a son named Zack who ZG babysat with along with Caylee;that he dated ZG; that he paid ZG for Caylee's care in addition to his son's;that he moved to Jacksonville (which the real one did) and that she stayed with him there (which she didn't).

The next thing we are told is the one she went to school with was NOT the same one who knew ZG, but it was another one.

KC and Cindy are big on details, the more details they give, the better chance they have of convincing the listener they just heard or remembered wrong. Notice there was no explanation about Jeff being a different Jeff. Just details. Like science. Something for them to manipulate.

Here's my theory about Jeff, for what it's worth! :crazy:

If it is true that Cindy is all about appearance, as much as she loves Caylee, KC's unwed pregnancy was a blow to how Cindy wants her family viewed by the (her) world. Which is probably why Cindy was blind to the pregnancy while it was was completely obvious to everyone else.

Cindy's hatred for Jesse started when he insisted on the paternity test, it exploded in Cindy's head when it came back proving Jesse wasn't Caylee's father, their engagement didn't cool Cindy's anger in the least. Every time she saw him she saw the results of the paternity test that he insisted on taking, it was all his fault and till the end of time Jesse can never make up for the embarrassment to her family. Cindy had no problem with KC & Jes breaking their engagement, KC and Caylee deserve better. (In Cindy's mind)

KC could never have been honest with Cindy about her "dating" practices, in Cindy's mind KC didn't need to be dating, she had a toddler who needed her mommy. If a good husband dropped out of the sky to make a nice little family better yet. Enter Jeff and his son Zack. A young man raising his son alone was heaven sent. The long distance relationship was OK with Cindy, it slowed things down and kept Caylee home with Cindy where she belonged for that much longer, while KC and Jeff figured things out.

Having Jeff in Jville worked for KC because it gave her someplace "respectable" to go with or without Caylee that Cindy never questioned, anytime she wanted to spend a couple days with friends. Jeff's mom was a built in babysitter and Zack was a built in playmate for Caylee's enjoyment. In reality we know KC didn't worry about playmates or babysitters for Caylee, Caylee got dragged where mommy wanted to go. Caylee stayed where her mommy told her to stay.

Cindy probably gave KC more leeway to hang out with girlfriends while she and Jeff were "an item" too. Since KC had this nice respectable boyfriend, if she went out with the girls, there would be "nothing funny going on" for Cindy to worry about.

Eventually it became more effort for KC than it was worth, with Cindy setting up BBQ's, dessert nites and such, so she could get to know Jeff and Zack. After a few months KC told her it was over. My guess is KC still pulled Jeff out of mothballs occasionally, when KC wanted to do something without any hassles from Cindy.

Jeff was nothing more than an extension of Zany the nanny. He was a picture of how Cindy thought KC should live her life. While in reality he was the rose colored glasses KC gave to Cindy so she could go out and live the life she wanted. Any discrepancies in KC's stories are easily over looked by Cindy, who only see's what she wants to see anyway.

 

[lin]

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.

Thanks for the correction, especially as it seems to indicate martyrmom's remark was even more specious, imo. I don't really believe KC began this plan two years ago while at Kodak that she would claim JH is paying a sitter for his son and for Caylee, etc. etc., prior even to Caylee's birth. So if CA is only claiming she saw a pic two years ago, not more recently, such as when Caylee was with the imaginanny and with her imaginary playmate, Zach; in the home of KC's imaginary boyfriend; how much do you want to bet that KC never showed her any pics but instead, CA is adding detail to KC's lies?

Do I hear 14 cents and a steak sandwich?

PS: How old was Zach? Was he even born when CA was supposedly looking at his pic? I thought he and Caylee were the same age and KC didn't go back to Kodak after maternity leave.

 

[lin]

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...

Be sure to put in the ad it's about this case. You'll surely get a lot of calls from folks that 'just want to help' and will do so pro bono.

 

[LCoastMom]

ITA From the beginning they wanted to steer the investigation away from Father's Day....something major happened that day and they want it hidden. No way they don't remember the EXACT last time down to the second when they last laid eyes on precious Caylee....I know this as someone who lost someone just recently.....I know the EXACT place, time, date and what he was wearing. It is what your brain does go to that time...the last time you saw that person. FOr me....it was 21 days since the last time I saw my nephew but I still know what day/date it was. There was no fight to signify but it was the day after Christmas....I call BS on the A's theory that they can't remember the exact date.

I completely agree with you.

I was raising a precious little baby girl, from the time she was 23 mos until 3 mos shy of her 3rd BDay. When 1 day with no notice her birth mother picked her up, never to return. I remember what she was wearing, the last thing she said to me and the date/day of the week. She turned 5 in February. Still, I remember like yesterday. So does George, that's part of his pain. Not knowing. Not saving her.

 

[lin]

"George, Cindy whatever you do don't tell the truth on the stand!!"

I hope they print this out and tape it to the fridge to remind themselves that you're trying to push these poor, helpless, grieving, victims around and don't stand for it!!