"Mistatements" and/or Lies by Cindy & George

[RubyB]

I think they both are "Get Smart" fans, and they really want to start every sentence with the phrase, "Would you believe!@"

Or like JL's compulsive liar on SNL - "...yeah.. yeah... that's the ticket!" after everything they say.:winko:

 

[carrie]

And if the Anthony's thought for one moment that those addresses and/or phone numbers were viable they would have hounded LE to their death to make sure they followed up with them and the A's would know the outcome.

You make a good point and could be right on with that observation. We haven't seen any evidence to the effect that they hounded LE, therefore, it may even be likely, from what we've seen, or haven't seen, combined with what we do know about the A's, that they didn't. However well thought out, this is still speculation.

My point is this: We need to make a distinction between opinion/speculation and actual fact. Speculation, however well informed or based on what is actually known, is still speculation. Facts and logical proof are only valuable if we don't confuse them with speculation i.e. opinion. Likewise, speculation can be quite valuable at getting to the truth, but not if we confuse it with fact/truth.

So in this instance, we don't know whether the A's did or did not, in fact, hound LE about the addresses. CA has complained that LE has not followed up on things. Again, we know she said this, we don't know whether or not it is true. Nor do we actually know what the A's or LE would or wouldn't do, we can only speculate.

As I said in another post, I'm not trying to defend the A's, or to paint them as truthful, untruthful, or to paint them at all. There may very well be lies/misstatements in CA deposition and I believe we should look closely to see if we can find them. However, if we are going to state this or that is a lie, we have to be able to show or prove logically, that it is.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with educated guessing, having gut feelings, suspecting, speculating, etc. as long as we are clear on which we are actually doing. . . . I'll get off my soapbox now - lol.

ETA: I'm just using your post as an example. I'm not implying you meant to state a fact, I can see you were giving your opinion

 

[carrie]

Carrie. I appreciate your views on the examples I had posted. Its exactly what I was hoping to do with this thread, post my own personal examples and get others' feedback on them. Thanks for your honesty and candid approach.

Thank you as well, you're quite gracious. Isn't it great when we can agree to disagree.

Wow, I feel so grown up, don't you? LOL

 

[whiteangora]

Alright, I finally, after much hunting found the part of the doc cump when Cindy states to the detectives searching her home that she had "her people walk the area, and there was nothing there" The link to that info is
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-02/45125794.pdf
I found it on page 7.

It is DIRECT disagreement with her statement in the depo

6 There came a point in time -- and we're into
7 the December time period now that police executed a
8 search warrant on your house. They came looking for
9 certain materials. Do you remember that in December?
10 A There's two search warrants in December, so
11 which one we talking about?
12 Q One or both. I just want to direct you to the
13 December time period to get your mind and memory there.
14 The police came and they executed -- they were looking
15 for certain materials and I don't know what but they came
16 and they executed the search warrant.
17 Did you ever tell one of the police officers
18 who executed the search warrant that you had sent someone
Page 110
CAnthony-rough.txt
19 to look in the woods around Suburban Drive --
20 A No, I did not.
21 Q -- back in -- let me get the question out
22 because I know you want to answer this.
23 Did you ever tell one of the investigators
24 that you had sent someone to look in the woods around
25 Suburban Drive back in November?
>Rough Draft - 132
1 A No, I did not.
2 Q That did not happen?
3 A That did not happen.
4 Q So if that's somewhere in one of the police
5 report, would you have issue with that?
6 A I would have huge issue with that.
7 Q And you would say that would be a falsity?
8 A That would be a bold faced lie.

bold,me
There ya go......those darn 'ol Police are lying again.....right Cindy?

 

[MAMABEAR]

If may be shocking to us (gum chewing) but I imagine this law firm is used to many low-lifes in their line of work.

You know--------this is very true. I'm sure that the law firm does, but I don't think the point of them chewing gum is really the point.

The parents are throwing off the wrong vibes to the world. E-thang they do is out there and they have put themselves in this position. If they wanted to appear as the "Parents of the Year", they need to show respect of others and the law. I have seen nothing of this from them. They are to good for the laws of the land.

I would have felt more compassion for them if they would clean up their act and abide by the rules. All of it together paints a picture. The gum chewing in a Court of Law---the looks on their faces say "kiss my azz"---the snide remarks, they think are so cute---the "Holier then Thou" attitude---the disrespect they have shown for their beautiful dead baby Caylee and all others involved. I could go on and on. This is not a game they are playing here.

Sometimes in life we have to cut our losses and move on. I don't think the memorial they had for "Caylee" was for Caylee at all. They wanted it to came more like "Look at us--we are showing our grief for this baby girl". But what it looked like was a big ugly mess. CA gave the world what she perceived as her being the "grand mother and mother of the year". She was still in "cover up" mode and she still is.

With this depo mess they did nothing but make themselves look worse. I felt that LA did a much better job then they did. It is all really sad. OK----rambling here. Sorry

 

[LancelotLink]

Too funny!! I was looking for it as well. I found it here-http://www.wftv.com/_blank/18740699/detail.html
Page 9 para 2 & 3! I was way off....LOL. Friday, if I led you on a wild goose chase, I apologize.

Good work, mims!!

Alright, I finally, after much hunting found the part of the doc cump when Cindy states to the detectives searching her home that she had "her people walk the area, and there was nothing there" The link to that info is
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-02/45125794.pdf
I found it on page 7.

It is DIRECT disagreement with her statement in the depo

6 There came a point in time -- and we're into
7 the December time period now that police executed a
8 search warrant on your house. They came looking for
9 certain materials. Do you remember that in December?
10 A There's two search warrants in December, so
11 which one we talking about?
12 Q One or both. I just want to direct you to the
13 December time period to get your mind and memory there.
14 The police came and they executed -- they were looking
15 for certain materials and I don't know what but they came
16 and they executed the search warrant.
17 Did you ever tell one of the police officers
18 who executed the search warrant that you had sent someone
Page 110
CAnthony-rough.txt
19 to look in the woods around Suburban Drive --
20 A No, I did not.
21 Q -- back in -- let me get the question out
22 because I know you want to answer this.
23 Did you ever tell one of the investigators
24 that you had sent someone to look in the woods around
25 Suburban Drive back in November?
>Rough Draft - 132
1 A No, I did not.
2 Q That did not happen?
3 A That did not happen.
4 Q So if that's somewhere in one of the police
5 report, would you have issue with that?
6 A I would have huge issue with that.
7 Q And you would say that would be a falsity?
8 A That would be a bold faced lie.

and yes, Cindy, that would be a bold faced lie.

 

[beach]

Alright, I finally, after much hunting found the part of the doc cump when Cindy states to the detectives searching her home that she had "her people walk the area, and there was nothing there" The link to that info is
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-02/45125794.pdf
I found it on page 7.

It is DIRECT disagreement with her statement in the depo

6 There came a point in time -- and we're into
7 the December time period now that police executed a
8 search warrant on your house. They came looking for
9 certain materials. Do you remember that in December?
10 A There's two search warrants in December, so
11 which one we talking about?
12 Q One or both. I just want to direct you to the
13 December time period to get your mind and memory there.
14 The police came and they executed -- they were looking
15 for certain materials and I don't know what but they came
16 and they executed the search warrant.
17 Did you ever tell one of the police officers
18 who executed the search warrant that you had sent someone
Page 110
CAnthony-rough.txt
19 to look in the woods around Suburban Drive --
20 A No, I did not.
21 Q -- back in -- let me get the question out
22 because I know you want to answer this.
23 Did you ever tell one of the investigators
24 that you had sent someone to look in the woods around
25 Suburban Drive back in November?
>Rough Draft - 132
1 A No, I did not.
2 Q That did not happen?
3 A That did not happen.
4 Q So if that's somewhere in one of the police
5 report, would you have issue with that?
6 A I would have huge issue with that.
7 Q And you would say that would be a falsity?
8 A That would be a bold faced lie.

Page 7 (of 16) for those wanting to read the OCSO report.

sheesh... by the time the trial begins, I'm not gonna be able to distinguish CA from KC. ugh

 

[LambChop]

It occured to me that if George and Cindy are positive this is the wrong (you're not a 10) Zanny the Nanny, they must then know who the real one is. Why then, don't they point LE in that direction. Certainly that would be a step to help prove Casey is telling the truth.
However, the parents mission seems to be to prove everyone else wrong. If they wanted to help their daughter they would have kept out of the spotlight and kept quiet once this entire mess started in mid July 2008.
George and Cindy made complete fools of themselves in their deposition. I can only imagine how they will handle an examination in court. Certainly, I'm predicting a contemp of court charge at least on Cindy's part.
During the depositon, their hostility stems from them being caught in a lie. This is the type of behavior you'd expect from a 12 year old trying to lie their way out of trouble.
George and Cindy both need a good spankie.

The question at the depo to Cindy was: "Do you have a picture of the Nanny?" and CA said "No, but I have a picture of her in my mind." This could be why LE is having so much trouble finding the ImagiNanny. Goes along with the imagined job, perfect boy friend, oh and yes, let's not forget the squirrels, we can't forget the squirrels.

 

[Devon]

Alright, I finally, after much hunting found the part of the doc cump when Cindy states to the detectives searching her home that she had "her people walk the area, and there was nothing there" The link to that info is
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-02/45125794.pdf
I found it on page 7.

It is DIRECT disagreement with her statement in the depo

6 There came a point in time -- and we're into
7 the December time period now that police executed a
8 search warrant on your house. They came looking for
9 certain materials. Do you remember that in December?
10 A There's two search warrants in December, so
11 which one we talking about?
12 Q One or both. I just want to direct you to the
13 December time period to get your mind and memory there.
14 The police came and they executed -- they were looking
15 for certain materials and I don't know what but they came
16 and they executed the search warrant.
17 Did you ever tell one of the police officers
18 who executed the search warrant that you had sent someone
Page 110
CAnthony-rough.txt
19 to look in the woods around Suburban Drive --
20 A No, I did not.
21 Q -- back in -- let me get the question out
22 because I know you want to answer this.
23 Did you ever tell one of the investigators
24 that you had sent someone to look in the woods around
25 Suburban Drive back in November?
>Rough Draft - 132
1 A No, I did not.
2 Q That did not happen?
3 A That did not happen.
4 Q So if that's somewhere in one of the police
5 report, would you have issue with that?
6 A I would have huge issue with that.
7 Q And you would say that would be a falsity?
8 A That would be a bold faced lie.

When she stated in this depo that she had not told LE that she had 'sent' someone to look in the woods in November she was telling the truth. What she actually stated to LE is that they (the A's) 'had' someone look in the woods in November, which does not necessarily imply that at the time the search occurred that it was either with their prior knowledge or approval. Both DC and JH stated in their statements to LE that the A's were informed of the search after the event, and CA stated in her depo on Thursday (in the presence of her attorney BC) that she first learnt of that search whilst in BC's office in December. IMO, what she meant by the remark 'had someone search' was simply that someone who happens to be in her employ searched there in November.

 

[lin]

A few people have mentioned that they think George was paranoid for thinking he was being given the finger.

I respectfully disagree. I think it was just part of his plan to always make it look like he is a victim. He was hoping he'd convince us the lawyer wasn't being nice to him and that we'd feel sorry for him. Just like he told LE he lost the family money in a Nigerian scam, cause he thought he'd look like a victim and he likes playing that role.

ITA Excellent observation. Well done. In fact, it may make an interesting thread to compile a list of how many times the pity card has been played and how many privileges were requested to compensate 'extra special grief.'

 

[nyvictoria]

The question at the depo to Cindy was: "Do you have a picture of the Nanny?" and CA said "No, but I have a picture of her in my mind." This could be why LE is having so much trouble finding the ImagiNanny. Goes along with the imagined job, perfect boy friend, oh and yes, let's not forget the squirrels, we can't forget the squirrels.

Imagine how scary it would be if LE could access Cindy's mind. WOW! They may get trapped and never find their way out of the darkness.

 

[lin]

I can maybe pick apart your post - too tired to beat the horse - but one thing is for sure. If there was a JH and Zachary who Casey was dating (this is what she told her mother) he would have come forward easily and would have been found easily, through her phone records and online relationships.

There was no job, there was no JH, there was no Zachary, No Jennifer, no Victor, no Isable, no Samantha, no Juliette, NO flipping NANNY.

There is a pattern of lies the fact that her parents refuse to even admit that at least some of what Casey says was lie is beyond ridiculous.

I'm with you on this. Coming late to this thread so I guess it's already been done, the rebuttal, I mean. As if Cindy has a pic of these people but hasn't released it... As if Cindy had contact info for the imaginanny but didn't blast it on her media tours. As if GA wasn't terrified that it was Casey and/or Caylee in the trunk and that CA didn't repeatedly refer to Casey also being missing, including in her 911 call: "I finally found her..." And on and on and on.

As I've said before, Devil's Advocate is a good thing. I do it myself and have had some very interesting and entertaining discussions with other posters with whom I strongly disagreed. However, their logic was sound and points well made so that made it a discussion and entertaining, as well as enlightening at times.

 

[nyvictoria]

When she stated in this depo that she had not told LE that she had 'sent' someone to look in the woods in November she was telling the truth. What she actually stated to LE is that they (the A's) 'had' someone look in the woods in November, which does not necessarily imply that at the time the search occurred that it was either with their prior knowledge or approval. Both DC and JH stated in their statements to LE that the A's were informed of the search after the event, and CA stated in her depo on Thursday (in the presence of her attorney BC) that she first learnt of that search whilst in BC's office in December. IMO, what she meant by the remark 'had someone search' was simply that someone who happens to be in her employ searched there in November.

I think "had someone search" implies Cindy sent someone or was a party to the instruction to look. If she did not initiate that walk in the woods, she would have simply stated "I'm aware", "I heard" or "so and so looked". The fact that she employed the person who looked means he did so on her behalf. Even if she gave a broad directive to look everywhere and anywhere, it was still at her request.

 

[Theonly1]

One minute it's "kids lie all the time"

The next it's something like - she's an adult. she can spend the night anywhere she wants.

Sure she can spend the night anywhere she wants but if Caylee wasn't at home it appears Cindy would call her to come home (if one is to believe all the statements from Casey's friends about Cindy calling...even at 3 a.m).

 

[shgrbkr]

What about GA saying he and his wife "talk daily about our daughter," yet he claims he never heard the JBP story. Then later, CA claimed she "gave KC money all the time," yet GA claimed to know NOTHING about whether or not CA gave KC any money at all ever. HUH? I thought they talked all the time....

What about CA saying that is was ok with her that KC used her credit card without her permission. Yes..I believe that this controlling woman had NO problem with KC doing that!

OMG...EVERY family member compartmentalizes the information/answers they give, thinking it makes perfect sense, when in reality, they just don't see the big picture and how contradictory things are from one question to the next. CAGA were just ridiculous.

 

[shgrbkr]

Sure she can spend the night anywhere she wants but if Caylee wasn't at home it appears Cindy would call her to come home (if one is to believe all the statements from Casey's friends about Cindy calling...even at 3 a.m).

CA didn't stop to think how this completely shoots down KC claim that Cindy called her in the middle of the night to tell her to bring Caylee home from Ricardo's. I was expecting that she'd do a 180 and suddenly "remember" that she did in fact do that when previoulsy she told LE that she had not.

 

[JaJo]

15 A Actually, I had phone numbers for Zanny at
16 different times and I had addresses at different times.
17 Q Why don't you tell me the phone number.
18 A I don't have it now.
19 Q Where is it?
20 A I -- I don't have it now.
21 Q Where would it have been?
22 A Would have been in an address book, something
23 that Casey had or I had.
24 Q So when you say you had -- let me get this
25 straight. You had addresses and phone numbers of Zanny,
>Rough Draft - 23
1 and Zanny is -- your understanding -- when you're saying
2 Zanny, I want to make sure, Zanny is the person that you
3 were saying was watching --
4 A Casey always gave me a phone number, yes.
5 Q And these phone numbers, you're saying they
6 are in existence and you've written them down somewhere
7 in an address book and they're out there somewhere to be
8 found; is that right?
9 A I gave all that to the sheriff's department.
10 Q So then the sheriff's department will have all
11 that?
12 A I gave it all to the sheriff's department.
13 Q That will include the address of Zanny, of
14 this person?

Bold faced lie, because I can guarantee that LE would have been looking for ZFG at those locations instead of Kissimmee!

[/COLOR]

I've not read the whole thread, so somebody may have already picked up on this, but didn't Cindy go on toward the end of her depo to say she handed all this info over to Baez and not the sheriff's department?

 

[BeenaBobba]

The problem I have with this report I've read multiple times is they had to concentrate the sample to get a reading of most of the chemicals, they don't have carbon tetrachloride on the chart on pg 9 which leaves me with the question, do pigs put off carbon tet during decomp?

Do decomposing pigs give off carbon tetrachloride? According to that report and others that I've read, the answer is no. Page 4 of Dr. Vass' report states that carbon tetrachloride is "not seen in select animal remains." On page 9, he goes on to write that "carbon tetrachloride was also detected and is a specific human marker with these animal sets," and the animal sets in question were dogs, pigs, and deer (see page 8).

From what you've posted so far, my impression is that you believe that decomposing ham from either deli meat or pizza toppings caused the smell in the trunk and the presence of markers associated with a decompositional event. In my opinion, there are problems with this theory. For one, is it a fact that pizza with ham toppings was removed from the bag in the vehicle? From what I remember, the pizza box was empty. Secondly, has it been confirmed that there was ham deli meat in the trunk? I've yet to see that confirmed. But most importantly, page 9 of Dr. Vass' report states that "compounds that have been detected in these select animal animal remains and not in humans were not detected." Apparently, these compounds are 1-heptanol, acetamide, n-dimethyl, etc. If there were decomposing ham in the trunk, then why weren't these chemicals present?

Then the other question is, do other cars in that area show carbon tet due to it being manufactured in the past not far from there?

Well, do you know where '98 Pontiac Sunfires are manufactured? Are they manufactured in the Orlando area?

According to my research it was, and not only that it is found in a lot of water samples all around.

Interesting, especially considering the fact that carbon tetrachloride is a carcinogen. Could you please post your research and how you came about finding that information?

That is why the report says, there "MAY" have been a human decomp event, I'm sure.

Keep in mind that page 10 states that "these results still do not rule out the remote possibility that an unusual variety of products or materials [...] may have had some contribution to the overall chemical signature." Emphasis is mine, of course.

This may be one of the "junk science" items that come up at trial.

Junk science as opposed to what?

 

[BeenaBobba]

Are you sure they won't hit on blood from a finger cut or a feminine pad, etc? I'm sure it would decompose and it is human. I think that is what the dog hit on in the yard. And that still doesn't address why they would hit on the right side of the trunk and not in the center where the stains were. Delayed reaction?

From what I've read, cadaver dogs do train with human blood, so it is possible that they could alert to that. But were used sanitary napkins and/or human blood found in the trunk? I don't recall having read that.

As for "delayed reaction," if the smell permeated the entire trunk area, then it hardly matters where the dogs hit.

 

[skygirl]

When she stated in this depo that she had not told LE that she had 'sent' someone to look in the woods in November she was telling the truth. What she actually stated to LE is that they (the A's) 'had' someone look in the woods in November, which does not necessarily imply that at the time the search occurred that it was either with their prior knowledge or approval. Both DC and JH stated in their statements to LE that the A's were informed of the search after the event, and CA stated in her depo on Thursday (in the presence of her attorney BC) that she first learnt of that search whilst in BC's office in December. IMO, what she meant by the remark 'had someone search' was simply that someone who happens to be in her employ searched there in November.

I agree with what you are describing, But, considering CA's behavior during the depo. especially when this exchange was occouring, I doubt CA was 'meaning' a "had" and "sent". I say this based on a couple of reasons. She was so dead-set to put the depo lawyers in their place that she would have been yelling this point exactly. I suspect she would have jumped out of her chair and on the table to say "NO! You huttbole, I said someone had gone there! I DID NOT send anyone you dumbazz!" And maybe would have referenced the above article imo