Cindy's Coworkers @ Gentiva

[Nedthan Johns]

Or afraid to learn the truth.

The number 1 reason why IMO this child would have never of lived a safe life in the care of either Casey or Cindy.

 

[notthatsmart]

bumpity bumpity bump

 

[scrabble]

bumpity bumpity bump

What does this mean?

 

[notthatsmart]

Haven't read this whole thread, but I find it very odd that these interviews with CA's co-workers didn't happen until Nov. 24th, more than 4 months after Caylee was reported "missing."

???

Yeah I agree, this makes no sense to me. IMO Anyone have any idea why they would wait so long?

 

[notthatsmart]

What does this mean?

Probably should have just said bump, but I am trying to write a poem. LOL

 

[faefrost]

Also interesting that by Nov. when the co-workers were interviewed, Yuri simply took notes....

So, I'm thinking their statements won't be brought up a trial, & really arn't too important.

I don't think their statements really can be brought up at trial? Except possibly to impeach Cindy's testimony? Most of what they have to say would be considered hearsay.

LE was just slowly going through the list of anyone with contact with the family spanning out further looking for leads. I can easily see where it would take them quite a few weeks to get far enough down the list to reach Cindy's office co-workers for any interviews or information beyond simply verifying CA's employment and schedule.

They would not have gone digging into people who had direct contact with Cindy until they had pretty well exhausted all of those they could find that had contact with KC.

 

[notthatsmart]

I don't think their statements really can be brought up at trial? Except possibly to impeach Cindy's testimony? Most of what they have to say would be considered hearsay.

LE was just slowly going through the list of anyone with contact with the family spanning out further looking for leads. I can easily see where it would take them quite a few weeks to get far enough down the list to reach Cindy's office co-workers for any interviews or information beyond simply verifying CA's employment and schedule.

They would not have gone digging into people who had direct contact with Cindy until they had pretty well exhausted all of those they could find that had contact with KC.

See where I can't help but think they had exhausted physical evidence and it was not panning out, so they were back to the drawing board looking for witness evidence about the dead body in the car. IMO So, it is a matter of interpretation, but I guess it doesn't matter much since a jury will prolly never see these types of details. IMO

 

[LindseyLou]

What blows me out is that a woman like Cindy, described here as contolling among other things, would have allowed Caylee to be with a babysitter that she had never met, never nothing about. Makes no sense to me.

I was thinking the same exact thing when I heard the deposition of Cindy Anthony. And...why would she not question how Casey is paying for the babysitters - how many people will actually continuously babysit your child for free? common sense!

 

[Cayleefan]

It's almost like Cindy and Casey were competing with each other. They seemed to bicker and bash each other like two siblings that don't get along, rather than a mother and daughter.

 

[strawberry]

Probably should have just said bump, but I am trying to write a poem. LOL

I liked the bumpity bump bump.:dance:

 

[marspiter]

See where I can't help but think they had exhausted physical evidence and it was not panning out, so they were back to the drawing board looking for witness evidence about the dead body in the car. IMO So, it is a matter of interpretation, but I guess it doesn't matter much since a jury will prolly never see these types of details. IMO

It's all just part of a routine investigation. Interviewing CA's co-workers is no indication that LE had nothing else. They were interviewing anyone with contact to the family which is SOP. LE already had a lot of evidence in it's possession and some they were waiting on from the FBI.

As an aside I truly believe many in our society have the CSI effect. You can not solve a crime in an 8 hour shift and not all cases come to LE wrapped in nice neat packages with weapon, body, motive, and "smoking gun" evidence. It's like trying to solve a 100,000 piece puzzle with out the picture on the box. Where you only have maybe a handful of pieces, but as you lay some pieces down you find others and so on until the picture on the puzzle because clearer. You may not find every single piece but hopefully you find enough that the picture on the puzzle is clear to anyone that sees it.

That is why I always thought the defenses biggest blunder in this entire thing was to not activate ICA's speedy trial rights. It takes time to build and investigate a case properly. A speedy trial is a huge advantage to the defense and could have also forced the SA to consider significantly lesser charges. Now imho ICA is looking at a choice between life and the needle because of that mistake. Which to me was brought on by ego and greed.

 

[steadychick]

I don't think their statements really can be brought up at trial? Except possibly to impeach Cindy's testimony? Most of what they have to say would be considered hearsay.

Cindy has claimed more than once that she only referred to the smell as that of a dead body because she was desperate to get help that night. The most recent was during the GMA interview a few days ago. IMO she will be grilled about this statement at trial and again she will make the same claim as to why she said it. HOWEVER, see her co-workers LE interview here http://www.wftv.com/blank/18974314/detail.html
Charles states that, when she returned to Gentiva the day the car was retrieved, Cindy stated the car smelled like a dead body. Clearly she already had come to that conclusion hours before the 911 calls.

 

[notthatsmart]

I think it is different now with the internet. A witness can look up their interview and read exactly what it is that they said at the time. I don't know a lot about witness practice, but do they practice with their witness before they go on the stand? I mean in particular this Charles C, will the state practice with him?

 

[notthatsmart]

Cindy has claimed more than once that she only referred to the smell as that of a dead body because she was desperate to get help that night. The most recent was during the GMA interview a few days ago. IMO she will be grilled about this statement at trial and again she will make the same claim as to why she said it. HOWEVER, see her co-workers LE interview here http://www.wftv.com/blank/18974314/detail.html
Charles states that, when she returned to Gentiva the day the car was retrieved, Cindy stated the car smelled like a dead body. Clearly she already had come to that conclusion hours before the 911 calls.

But, Charles C coworkers do not back up that claim. IMO And I do not understand why. If they were standing by the door and she said it, why would they not all say the same thing? I wonder who else was standing by the door that day.

 

[steadychick]

But, Charles C coworkers do not back up that claim. IMO And I do not understand why. If they were standing by the door and she said it, why would they not all say the same thing? I wonder who else was standing by the door that day.

Guess we'll have to wait and see. But Charles seemed pretty adamant that Cindy said the car smelled like a dead body.

 

[marspiter]

I think it is different now with the internet. A witness can look up their interview and read exactly what it is that they said at the time. I don't know a lot about witness practice, but do they practice with their witness before they go on the stand? I mean in particular this Charles C, will the state practice with him?

Yeah for Florida that is kind of true but not all states have such liberal public info laws. That and if you notice even in Florida releases aren't "instant". I can't really comment on "prepping" witnesses. Although I've been told that women jurors tend to be more critical of female witnesses. No idea how true that is though.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Yeah I agree, this makes no sense to me. IMO Anyone have any idea why they would wait so long?

What conclusion can be drawn from that?

 

[spqr]

Yeah I agree, this makes no sense to me. IMO Anyone have any idea why they would wait so long?

Well when you start an investigation, the Detective will start at the "center" of the circle with the primary subjects.(not necessarily suspects) Those closest to the persons involved. (Mom, dad, bro, sis, neighbor, etc...) then you keep working your way out of the center to those with the perceived least(if any) involvement.

Those closest to the center usually have the most information and then onto "secondary" people with maybe an insight to behavior but without direct knowledge.

In this case...Caylee was "missing"...it would make no sense(as a primary objective) to go to CA's work place and say hey have you seen caylee? You start with whom and where she was last seen.

I don't think they "waited so long". An investigation takes time. Many man hours went into this. They didn't wait on purpose. Mearly following leads in their course of action.

Not to make lite of this situation but a similar idea..."Hey i lost my(ring/watch/phone) help me find it. Sure, WHERE WAS THE LAST PLACE YOU SAW IT? If the last place was your house, you don't start looking at the supermarket or your neighbors house.

 

[Nore]

But, Charles C coworkers do not back up that claim. IMO And I do not understand why. If they were standing by the door and she said it, why would they not all say the same thing? I wonder who else was standing by the door that day.

-----------------------------------------
:boohoo: Once the jury hears that 911 call they will know the truth! She is lacking a brain to think she will get away with anything otherwise.Jurors do not fall out of trees.CA. said it and she herself made it a fact.:banghead:

 

[Kentjbkent]

I think it is different now with the internet. A witness can look up their interview and read exactly what it is that they said at the time. I don't know a lot about witness practice, but do they practice with their witness before they go on the stand? I mean in particular this Charles C, will the state practice with him?

Could you be a little more detailed by what you refer to as "practice with their witness?"

Are you asking whether the prosecutor engages in mock testimony questions and answers with the intent on assisting the witness to state facts with particular wording? Not sure I am understanding what would need to be "practiced" when answering questions truthfully?

Unless you are referring to that "Raise your right hand" segment...when I have testified in court, no practice was necessary.

I got it right on the first try..... all three times!!! :woohoo: