2008.07.28 Discuss Lee Interview

[ThoughtElf]

I agree...I think this phone was used for her "universal" activities. I think Lee knows all about whatever "universal" meant, and he is covering for her.

I'm not married either way to the second phone at all, but I do think if she had one, it was pre-paid. The lie about the phone can swing either way.

 

[ThoughtElf]

There is NO other phone. This is lie to cover up not having the numbers to her fake characters. The phone is just as real as ZG, Samantha, Gloria, Victor, Annabel, Raquel, Zachary, Mike cozak, Jennifer, Julieete Lewis...

I mean how can the Anthony's see the names above and believe that ALL of them are just not easy to find? What are the chances of a person knowing ten people and the FBI nor the actual person have anything ot prove they exist?

Hold up here a second. Are you also implying that Santa isn't real? Get outta here!

 

[ThoughtElf]

Why would Casey make up a story about having a Black Jack and losing it when she could just as easily have said she had a prepaid phone and lost it?

Cuz she is stooopid?

 

[ThoughtElf]

Ok, I do have a problem with this. I don't believe they are talking in code, I really don't. I don't believe this is nearly as complicated as a lot of people seem to be making it out to be, either.
But this is my opinion. I don't see how you can consider an alternate viewpoint as faulty assumptions. Maybe they are talking in code, I don't personally see it, but I could be wrong, and so could you.
Lanie

Hey, sorry Lanie. I certainly wasn't implying that alternate viewpoints are faulty. And I'll have to go back and check, because I really thought I was responding to and quoting GardenHart's post, not one of yours. And ITA, I am sure I am wrong more often than not with this case.

:blowkiss:

 

[Chilly Willy]

My head hurts from trying to figure out why there are no records of calls she didn't make to the nanny she didn't have on the phone she didn't own that was given to her by the company she didn't work for.

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

My head hurts from trying to figure out there are no records of calls she didn't make to the nanny she didn't have on the phone she didn't own that was given to her by the company she didn't work for.

Outstanding. Well said!

 

[Lanie]

Here is what is known regarding the second phone.

Perp claims she had and lost a Black Jack.

Perp stole $354 from her grandparents and spent it at an AT&T store.

Perp, when caught about the $354 theft, tells Grandma she had to buy a phone for work at Universal because everyone needed new phones (whatever) and Universal couldn't afford to buy them (whatever) and Universal was going to reimburse the money to them.

Uncle Rick in an email to Cindy states Grandma has documentation showing the theft of $354.

The speculation comes in on whether this money was used to actually buy a phone or was used to pay her existing phone bill. I have not read every post in every thread on this case, so could have missed it, but I have not seen the resolution to what this money was actually used for, a new phone or the phone bill, just know it is a fact the money went to AT&T.

Since Uncle Rick implies Grandma has documentation of stolen money going to AT&T, I feel it is a safe assumption perp wrote the check directly to AT&T, which means paper trail, which means LE knows if there is another phone only vs. another phone with new number.

Lanie

 

[indicat]

Here is what is known regarding the second phone.

Perp claims she had and lost a Black Jack.

Perp stole $354 from her grandparents and spent it at an AT&T store.

Perp, when caught about the $354 theft, tells Grandma she had to buy a phone for work at Universal because everyone needed new phones (whatever) and Universal couldn't afford to buy them (whatever) and Universal was going to reimburse the money to them.

Uncle Rick in an email to Cindy states Grandma has documentation showing the theft of $354.

The speculation comes in on whether this money was used to actually buy a phone or was used to pay her existing phone bill. I have not read every post in every thread on this case, so could have missed it, but I have not seen the resolution to what this money was actually used for, a new phone or the phone bill, just know it is a fact the money went to AT&T.

Since Uncle Rick implies Grandma has documentation of stolen money going to AT&T, I feel it is a safe assumption perp wrote the check directly to AT&T, which means paper trail, which means LE knows if there is another phone only vs. another phone with new number.

Lanie

And for me this puts to rest any questions regarding cell phone...thanks!

 

[indicat]

My head hurts from trying to figure out why there are no records of calls she didn't make to the nanny she didn't have on the phone she didn't own that was given to her by the company she didn't work for.

Oh and this too.....

 

[snowme]

I would like to publicly state at this time that I have most definitely given my utmost attention to this potentially damaging video. Specifically, I have possibly experienced a change in attitude. Obviously, it has made me a not-so-nice person. On another level, it has actually made me feel like reaching out and placing my hand through an innocent device near to the situation. I feel in my gut, I may do great harm, seriously, I must control myself. In my head, I feel that it is close and , I have a gut feeling, that I would hurt my greatest, possibly, my most dearly cherished possession. This is one of the components I know I can trust for sure.

Exactly, why I feel like doing this is beyond me. In my head, I know it is close but I must literally stop myself from reaching out.. I, absolutely, do not want, and never have had such a strong urge to do harm. Seriously, I regrettably, am not able to control the urge to destroy the video screen.

I will let you know if I get a gut feeling and get any new information that leads me down a different path, I will notify you immediately, absolutely.

Please relate this to the media ASAP and tell them "If any of you have any ideas, please come forward, without haste".

I Love you guys, honestly.

ROFLOL!! Thank you, thank you, thank you! The mega laughter I got from that will take the place of several sets of crunches today!!! Laughter, good medicine AND good exercise! Too funny!

 

[Lanie]

Hey, sorry Lanie. I certainly wasn't implying that alternate viewpoints are faulty. And I'll have to go back and check, because I really thought I was responding to and quoting GardenHart's post, not one of yours. And ITA, I am sure I am wrong more often than not with this case.

:blowkiss:

You were quoting GardenHart's, and I was responding to both you and GardenHart, though I was too lazy to multiquote and so just quoted you.
I agree with both of you (and a few others) there is no code, this isn't all that complicated, etc. I would love to discuss this viewpoint further, but not (and this is where my problem comes in) by saying everyone else in here who thinks there is codespeak is operating on faulty reasoning.
I am actually thrilled to see several people who seem to be on the same page I am, I was beginning to feel alone here, lol.
:blowkiss:
Lanie

 

[Kimster]

My head hurts from trying to figure out why there are no records of calls she didn't make to the nanny she didn't have on the phone she didn't own that was given to her by the company she didn't work for.

This is making me very dizzy.....!!!

:help:

 

[KellioPSL]

since everyone loved discussing phones so much, did la buy a secret phone and jose sneak it into the jail, heard some references from la and ca and ga about making calls and want to know do they search attorney's ? are they allowed phones in with them ?

 

[gardenhart]

And if YOU assume they are not talking in code and they are, you are making a faulty assumption. Which would make everything after that based on a faulty premise.

What is your proof they are not talking in code?
FWIW, I do agree with you on that, but in order to be something other than opinion, which is the point I am trying to make, you need something to back it up.
Lanie

No I don't because I'm not trying to jump down a rabbit hole - not trying to find clues from that assumption. You really should go back and read what I originally wrote, the point of which was if your base premise is wrong, everything that comes from that premise is wrong. In other words, before you start from a premise, you need something to assert that it's true. You don't just assume it's true.

What I have to back that up is a few thousand years of knowledge of basic logic. And Sherlock Holmes. LOL

 

[allure]

LA wants to know how he can find the phone, aside from searching for the "physical phone itself." Um, what does he want? If he needs to know how he can find it besides actually searching for that plastic and rubber and electronic bit of equipment, is he wanting a hologram of the phone? A ghostly phone apparition?
Geez...

I absolutely feel like there could possibly be something up with him. It's my, I guess, gut feeling, that he truly could have the potential to know a lot more than he is openly conveying. If only we had some more small communications or large communications between the person that is the owner of the missing phone (oh, and child) and the person that is biologically related to, but the mother or father of, the previously mentioned person to dissect.

Hilarious!! (bold)

 

[gardenhart]

You were quoting GardenHart's, and I was responding to both you and GardenHart, though I was too lazy to multiquote and so just quoted you.
I agree with both of you (and a few others) there is no code, this isn't all that complicated, etc. I would love to discuss this viewpoint further, but not (and this is where my problem comes in) by saying everyone else in here who thinks there is codespeak is operating on faulty reasoning.
I am actually thrilled to see several people who seem to be on the same page I am, I was beginning to feel alone here, lol.
:blowkiss:
Lanie

The faulty reasoning is starting from a premise that you don't know is true. You don't assume. Do you see the difference? There's really no reason to believe anything other than that Casey doesn't tell the truth about anything.

 

[essies]

My head hurts from trying to figure out why there are no records of calls she didn't make to the nanny she didn't have on the phone she didn't own that was given to her by the company she didn't work for.

:laugh::floorlaugh:GOOD ONE!! My head hurts too!!

 

[passionflower]

Here is what is known regarding the second phone.

Perp claims she had and lost a Black Jack.

Perp stole $354 from her grandparents and spent it at an AT&T store.

Perp, when caught about the $354 theft, tells Grandma she had to buy a phone for work at Universal because everyone needed new phones (whatever) and Universal couldn't afford to buy them (whatever) and Universal was going to reimburse the money to them.

Uncle Rick in an email to Cindy states Grandma has documentation showing the theft of $354.

The speculation comes in on whether this money was used to actually buy a phone or was used to pay her existing phone bill. I have not read every post in every thread on this case, so could have missed it, but I have not seen the resolution to what this money was actually used for, a new phone or the phone bill, just know it is a fact the money went to AT&T.

Since Uncle Rick implies Grandma has documentation of stolen money going to AT&T, I feel it is a safe assumption perp wrote the check directly to AT&T, which means paper trail, which means LE knows if there is another phone only vs. another phone with new number.

Lanie

did anyone hear KC tell CA she stole because KC was DESPERATE?
so she steals from grandma for a blackberry and from Amy for beer, hoodie and bras................:boohoo:huh desparate

 

[passionflower]

I forgot famous white sunglasses............

 

[snowme]

I have to say that when watching the tapes I got a completely different sense from Casey's giggles. She seemed really, really nervous. Too quick to smile, laugh, and agree with him. Trying too hard to look like she's "on the same page" with him and really trying to be helpful. She seemes to pounce on any little thing he says that makes it sound like he's buying her story. I am (at this point) still willing to consider that he may have been trying to trick her into trusting him so she might cough up some relevant information. I am also willing to admit that I may be wrong - time will tell!

You know, I kind of had a similar feeling. Like she waffled back and forth between thinking 'uhoh, he's on to me' and 'alright, he's for me'. Sadly, by the end of watching both vids I was left thinking that Casey is the smarter of the two because... if Lee truely believes the work Heather confirmed there being a Juliet he's duped himself. I believe there was more thorough and accurate investigating that took place to point out that no Juliet worked with Casey, wasn't there?

So yeah... either way, the end result is still the same... not sure who was more unproductive... Lee with the visits and 007 code talking or me for watching them! LOL