2008.11.06 Nancy Grace

[DotsEyes]

As far as the dress goes, NG asked TM something like "and wouldn't a child Caylee's age wear a size 6 dress???" TM said he didn't know. NG said "yes, they would."

Now really, NG knows better.

 

[RR0004]

I don't think the Anthonys (as much as they would like to believe it) are that important. George works at Disney - they have an outlet store which sells those dresses by the thousands. Who is to say?

I will never do Disney again!

 

[nancy botwin]

Whoa! I'm confused by the dress business! I have a big tendency to ask Turbo to back it up and provide evidence for asserted facts. I don't see where TURBOTHINK stated as fact that Cindy bought the dress??? I think TURBOTHINK was just giving an opinion and sharing what she thought might be going on??

She seemed to have a number of different sizes in the Disney outfits. That may not have been the ONLY one she had like that. Or CA may have gone out and bought one to take on the show. We don't know what she was dressed in when she was killed YET...........

I thought the same thing when I saw that. I thought "that does not fit", she has just bought that dress on her way.

When she showed Caylee's closet there were NO store hangers. Think about it.

I'm going to be bold and say that none of us probably knows the origin of the dress, unless we are stalking Cindy Anthony. No one knows. It's a mystery, so we talk about it.

 

[Chilly Willy]

The dress found by searchers has not, as this point, been connected to Caylee. Tim, whom everyone claims to respect, said he doesn't believe it is. There's no reason for all these wild stories about Cindy buying a new dress. Why don't we wait for the lab results before creating stories about what Cindy may have done wrong?

 

[gracie1656]

IMO he started it when he said NG made more money off this than the A's , he was out of line to say that , in my book , that got NG started . So I respectfully do not agree with you .

I am absolutely amazed that you are all arguing about a tabloid TV queen. Nancy Grace is not a reporter or a news woman. She is entertainment. Nothing more. She talks without allowing anyone else to. She interrupts her guests if they aren't agreeing with her and she uses innuendo to sway the audience. I thought that most Americans were smart enough to take her show with several grains of salt, since it's so blatantly obvious that she is a tabloid TV giant. It just stuns me that you would argue over her shows. :waitasec:

 

[magic-cat]

You most certainly did state that Cindy purchased the dress. As far as your line, "I am very good at what I do" - I very much disagree seeing as how you deny your own words just a few posts back.

Turbo said "obviously purchased" and you said "apparently called". These mean almost exactly the same thing. If a thing is obvious, then it is apparent, and an apparent thing is also obvious. So why is it ok for you to make YOUR statement using this terminolgy, for which you also have not offered the "proof", but not someone with a differing opinion?

Again-what does this profit us?:waitasec:

 

[Chezhire]

well, I know what I know, but, from your posts tonight on this thread regarding the scope of the representation Nejame agreed to in regards to Cindy and George, I think you know more than I might know about the "truths" in this case, BlueEyedSpy.

bumping.

 

[Pondering Mind]

Um, seems BlueEyedSpy is upset so many other WSers think Nejame did not do his job and/or did it rather, er, unprofessionally.
Did I get that right everyone?

That does seem to be the issue...tonight.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

You most certainly did state that Cindy purchased the dress. As far as your line, "I am very good at what I do" - I very much disagree seeing as how you deny your own words just a few posts back.

Well, if you read it that way..........okay. I am not going to argue over some stupid dress presented as the ORIGINAL dress which Caylee wore.

I am more interested in finding Caylee and if that was her dress they found, we will know soon enough. And whether or not that was the original dress, if the one they found had Caylee's or KC's DNA on it then we will know if there were more than one dresses.

My point in all of this was it was very foolish of CA to go on national TV waving around that dress on a store hanger and expecting to believe a word she said. She is destroying any case KC's attorney has of getting her a good deal with all this foolishness and turning the public against all of the family.

Where is LEE?

 

[gracie1656]

The dress found by searchers has not, as this point, been connected to Caylee. Tim, whom everyone claims to respect, said he doesn't believe it is. There's no reason for all these wild stories about Cindy buying a new dress. Why don't we wait for the lab results before creating stories about what Cindy may have done wrong?

I agree. I don't think that rushing to judge Cindy is helpful to finding Caylee.

 

[magic-cat]

The dress found by searchers has not, as this point, been connected to Caylee. Tim, whom everyone claims to respect, said he doesn't believe it is. There's no reason for all these wild stories about Cindy buying a new dress. Why don't we wait for the lab results before creating stories about what Cindy may have done wrong?

Turbo has explained their "expertise" in photography and the noticeable differences in the dresses which they "picked up on". It is not a "wild story" to them.

 

[BlueEyedSpy]

This is not a blogging forum, this is a sleuthing forum, theories are tossed around.

It was stated, that Cindy bought another dress and lied to the public, - not theorized.

 

[irishbosoxfan]

It's about discussing with TRUTH, what factual truths we do know in this case, and Cindy purchasing an identical dress and lying to the public as Turbo stated is not factual known truth in this case - by anyone.

Neither is it factual known truth that CA had Caylees real dress on tv--unless you'd like to share something!

And do you honestly think that CA would be able to go and BUY an identical dress without someone reporting it? These poor people can't FART without it going to press.

Who's to say that Caylee didn't own a MM dress in her current size--my daughter loves Aurora and we have more Sleeping Beauty crap in this house than Disney World has in one store so it's plausible---just as it's possible that CA caught NGs show and called GA at work and said "hey before you leave grab a size *** MM dress,,I need to go on national tv tomorrow"

2-3 yr olds don't wear size 6. Kindergarten aged children do. That dress is not Caylee's. To assume so is ridiculous.

My daughter was 3 and wore a size 4/6 so it's not so ridiculous unless I'm alone in breeding them sturdy (she's 6 now and wears a size 10/12)

 

[magic-cat]

I agree. I don't think that rushing to judge Cindy is helpful to finding Caylee.

And rushing to defend her is? For that matter how is this whole thing, which is getting to be a habit, profitable to finding Caylee again? because I am not seeing it...

 

[gracie1656]

As far as the dress goes, NG asked TM something like "and wouldn't a child Caylee's age wear a size 6 dress???" TM said he didn't know. NG said "yes, they would."

Now really, NG knows better.

Of course she does, but making innuendo is what tabloid TV is all about.

 

[Chezhire]

:clap:

SNIPPED: "... My point in all of this was it was very foolish of CA to go on national TV waving around that dress on a store hanger and expecting to believe a word she said. She is destroying any case KC's attorney has of getting her a good deal with all this foolishness and turning the public against all of the family.

Where is LEE?

 

[magic-cat]

It was stated, that Cindy bought another dress and lied to the public, - not theorized.

And you STATED that it was a PLANT. hello????

 

[BlueEyedSpy]

snip

Well, if you read it that way..........okay.

I read it exactly the way that you typed it as a statement of fact.

I see that you have since retracted it as fact and stated it as only your opinion - good idea.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Turbo said "obviously purchased" and you said "apparently called". These mean almost exactly the same thing. If a thing is obvious, then it is apparent, and an apparent thing is also obvious. So why is it ok for you to make YOUR statement using this terminolgy, for which you also have not offered the "proof", but not someone with a differing opinion?

Again-what does this profit us?:waitasec:

:applause::applause:

And if anyone wants to get "seriously" technically complex about this - I did not say NEWLY PURCHASED, and ALL dresses are "obviously purchased" at SOME TIME. Geeshhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Pondering Mind]

Me thinks the 'snarkiness' might have occurred when a specific NJ fan first slighted NG's Husband earlier in this thread, quite without provocation.

It was not in keeping with the case discussion in context.

or in any context that would matter to anyone here. Where did that even come from and what was the point? nevermind, I know...