Cindy's Inconsistencies

[seeker78]

Taken from the August 11, 2008 interview with Greta Van Susteren, my analysis (only my opinion which is neither professional and probably not right), taken from http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache...one+records+for+July&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

My analysis is indented and bolded:​

According to "I Know You Are Lying" by Mark McClish, most people want to tell you the truth. They don't want to lie. So they phrase things in a way that they aren't lying. Let's take the interview below as an example. When someone is hiding something but they want you to assume they are being truthful when they're being deceptive, they'll use phrases like "you know":​

QUESTION: ... Emotional weekend. How are you guys holding up at this point?
CINDY ANTHONY: Actually, OK. I mean, Saturday was very therapeutic for us. You know, it's just a day.

So what does she want us to believe? Loving, caring grandparents think that Caylee's birthday (the day they're talking about) is just another day.​

CINDY ANTHONY: You know, it was her birthday.

Why would a statement like this need to be deceptive? It *was* her birthday? She's not being deceptive about the actual date. I think this is telltale and Cindy lets slip that this day *was* her birthday when she was alive. She could have easily said, "That Saturday is Caylee's birthday", but instead chooses the past tense.​

CINDY ANTHONY: It was a special day. But you know, we didn't celebrate her birthday last year on her actual day.

Why would she make a deceptive statement about not celebrating on Caylee's birthday?​

CINDY ANTHONY: I mean, we did a little bit.

Oh, that's why.​

QUESTION: If police had unlimited resources, you know, if they could call an army, what would you have them do? What would you like to see?
CINDY ANTHONY: Well, shoot, you know, I'd love to have a satellite from the sky, looking down, looking in every home, and you know, just zooming in on every child, but that's -- you know, we can't do that because, you know, there's...

I wonder why she would be deceptive about wishing she had a satellite so that she could zoom in on every child to find Caylee? We'll never know, because George interrupts her.​

GEORGE ANTHONY, MISSING TODDLER'S GRANDFATHER: Come on. We got to go drive that...
CINDY ANTHONY: But that would be awesome.
QUESTION: Hey, Cindy, did Caylee ever talk about Zenaida Gonzalez? Did she ever say the baby-sitter's name?
CINDY ANTHONY: She talked about her puppy all the time.

See anything deceptive about this answer? It's a simple yes or no. How does Cindy respond? With a statement that tries to divert attention from the original question.​

QUESTION: Did she ever say the baby-sitters name?
CINDY ANTHONY: I never asked her about the baby-sitter.

Again, a simple yes or no question answered with a deceptive shift in topic.​

CINDY ANTHONY: I mean, when I got her, it was all about her being home and getting love and playing and just doing stuff, so there was never a reason. She talked about her puppy all the time.

Again, a no would have answered the question. Overly explaining the answer without answering is a fairly clear indicator of deception. Notice how she tells us that "She talked about her puppy all the time." Repeating something like that typically means she's trying to convince whoever she's speaking to that it's true. There's no need to repeat it. Also, the word talked is past tense. If she believes Caylee is alive, she would have said, "She talks about her puppy all the time."
Analysis: While I can't say Cindy knows where Caylee is or what happened to her, she is clearly not telling Greta everything she knows in this interview. In fact, it's clear she's hiding things.​

 

[Charge Them All]

It is so obvious that she is trying to switch up the questions. Casey does the same things in alot of her answers. Wonder where she learned it from?

 

[seeker78]

Most definitely. This case is so interesting

 

[Pink Panther]

Interesting analysis seeker. LOTS of similar examples to be found given that she likes to talk so much! The whole family seems to be good at these types of "non-answers".

moo

 

[seeker78]

I hope law enforcement can see through the deception and back it up with evidence. If so, this case will be open and shut once they fill in all the holes.

 

[TxRose]

I feel like in some cases she didn't answer with a simple no because she felt like it wouldn't sound good - and she needed to explain why it wasn't bad. For example - when asked if Caylee ever mentioned the babysitter's name...she could have just said "no". But then everyone would have said - "AH HA! There was no babysitter since she never talked about it!". So instead Cindy immediately offers up a reason why she never spoke the babysitter's name...because she was never asked. So I think she tries to justify the answer rather than providing a simple response. In this case I think it is more defensive - rather than deceptive. But I have heard plenty of other statements she has made that I think are deceptive - or a twisting of the facts.

 

[TxLady2]

I don't find it odd that she said Sat. was Caylee's birthday... that day had passed, so she referred to it in the past tense, not the present tense. It's like someone asking me what I did on Weds. last week, I would say, "it was my birthday.. we went out to dinner."
Saying Caylee talked about the puppy all the time, well, obviously Caylee isn't around now to still be talking about it. So... why say it in the present tense?
Some people just have a tendency to be evasive when they are answering questions. I have a sister-n-law like that... it used to drive me crazy. It's just not that big a deal, once I got used to it. Sometimes I have to ask a different way to get a direct answer.

 

[Short_Stuff]

I dont think Cindy knew anything then, (maybe she does now, not sure) I think she was defending Casey by watching what she said that could affect Caseys guilt.

 

[GameTheory]

I dont think Cindy knew anything then, (maybe she does now, not sure) I think she was defending Casey by watching what she said that could affect Caseys guilt.

I agree with you about how the Anthony's behavior can be separated into to parts: Part A they believe Casey was hiding Caylee from them to punish them or whatever and Part B things escalate into a serious deathly situation.

Now something I have been thinking since the transcribed interviews with friends and boyfriends have been released. Remember that good friend of Casey's who said how Casey lied to Cindy about her employment, telling her she worked with this friend at a sports shop and Cindy found out, and a second situation where Casey was lying and Cindy found about it? (I don't remember what the second was but there was a second one).

Now my question is this: If you watch Cindy's statement on stand - when they were testifying for Casey's bond hearing - did Cindy lied to the court about Casey's employment? Because she was telling the court how she knew about Casey working to Universal these dates and these dates (and of course it was what her daughter was telling her so if it was a lie you can't blame Cindy)......but then these interviews come out that show Cindy was well aware that Casey was lying about her employment in several occassions.

 

[EastSideOfSaddness]

Most definitely. This case is so interesting

OOOo baby, I would love to hear your analysis on the bond hearing when Cindy got up on the stand

 

[seeker78]

I don't find it odd that she said Sat. was Caylee's birthday... that day had passed, so she referred to it in the past tense, not the present tense. It's like someone asking me what I did on Weds. last week, I would say, "it was my birthday.. we went out to dinner."

I would think that too, if there wasn't the deceptive "you know" in that sentence. She's asking us to believe her and take for granted what she's saying. I agree that this isn't a smoking gun deception, but it does fit in the larger mountain of deception outlined in the entire post. Notice how you didn't use the phrase "you know" when you told me you went out to dinner?

Saying Caylee talked about the puppy all the time, well, obviously Caylee isn't around now to still be talking about it. So... why say it in the present tense?
Some people just have a tendency to be evasive when they are answering questions. I have a sister-n-law like that... it used to drive me crazy. It's just not that big a deal, once I got used to it. Sometimes I have to ask a different way to get a direct answer.

Let's say I have a granddaughter that stays with me on the weekends, and her neighbor has a puppy. If someone asks me on Wednesday, "Does your granddaughter talk much about the neighbors?" and for whatever reason I decide to tell them about how my granddaughter goes on and on about a puppy instead of answering the question, even though she's not with me right that second, I wouldn't say, "She talked about the puppy all the time." I expect to see my granddaughter alive next weekend, talking about the puppy again. "She talks about the puppy all the time." By using past tense, we see that Cindy has already resigned to the fact that Caylee is either no longer living or never coming home way back on August 11. Her words betray her.

OOOo baby, I would love to hear your analysis on the bond hearing when Cindy got up on the stand

If you have a link to a transcript, I'd be happy to look over it! I'm by no means an expert, it's just really interesting to me!

 

[Oakley]

Good catch, Game Theory. Another lie exposed.

I agree with you about how the Anthony's behavior can be separated into to parts: Part A they believe Casey was hiding Caylee from them to punish them or whatever and Part B things escalate into a serious deathly situation.

Now something I have been thinking since the transcribed interviews with friends and boyfriends have been released. Remember that good friend of Casey's who said how Casey lied to Cindy about her employment, telling her she worked with this friend at a sports shop and Cindy found out, and a second situation where Casey was lying and Cindy found about it? (I don't remember what the second was but there was a second one).

Now my question is this: If you watch Cindy's statement on stand - when they were testifying for Casey's bond hearing - did Cindy lied to the court about Casey's employment? Because she was telling the court how she knew about Casey working to Universal these dates and these dates (and of course it was what her daughter was telling her so if it was a lie you can't blame Cindy)......but then these interviews come out that show Cindy was well aware that Casey was lying about her employment in several occassions.

 

[Oakley]

snipped>

My analysis is indented and bolded:​

According to "I Know You Are Lying" by Mark McClish, most people want to tell you the truth. They don't want to lie. So they phrase things in a way that they aren't lying. Let's take the interview below as an example. When someone is hiding something but they want you to assume they are being truthful when they're being deceptive, they'll use phrases like "you know":​

If you listen to the jailhouse call between KC and LA, it is full of "you know's" - something that struck me at the time as perhaps part of the code between them. This tells me it might mean something more.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

The A family knows all the pertinent dates and has from the beginning of this...IMO.

 

[RR0004]

Inconsistency or lie?

CA says that Casey and Caylee hung out at home on the evening of the 15th (June). Caylee went swimming, but Casey said it was too cold. When asked during the police interviews what she did the day before Caylee went missing (then thought to be June 9th) Casey told them that Caylee went to visit her ggp with Cindy (but couldn't pinpoint if that was Sat. or Sun...but knew the 9th was a Monday). She never mentioned Father's Day. She never mentioned that she was home hanging with the family. IMO, it doesn't sound as if she was around at all.

 

[dcorrigano]

how is CA not in jail for her lies in this?? Seems to me she is hindering and investigation every bit as much as KC

 

[krimekat]

how is CA not in jail for her lies in this?? Seems to me she is hindering and investigation every bit as much as KC

In due time all the As will be charged with something related to "missing" Caylee (IMHO)

 

[Anais]

how is CA not in jail for her lies in this?? Seems to me she is hindering and investigation every bit as much as KC

I so agree with you!

CA is as much a liar as is her daughter. I guess the saying "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" really rings true in this case. IMO the entire Anthony clan doesn't know how to be honest and live their lives as liars. Period! I cannot even stand to watch her, and after viewing the clip from the MJ show I was even more frustrated! Lies, lies and more twisted lies!

:rage:

 

[RR0004]

I so agree with you!

CA is as much a liar as is her daughter. I guess the saying "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" really rings true in this case. IMO the entire Anthony clan doesn't know how to be honest and live their lives as liars. Period! I cannot even stand to watch her, and after viewing the clip from the MJ show I was even more frustrated! Lies, lies and more twisted lies!

:rage:

MJ show? Link?

ETA: found it!

 

[MarleneM]

3. CA says the car was left and KC had ample opportunity to pick the car up. She doesn't believe KC knew where the car was at and she's not convinced that she was the last person who drove the car. She says why would a woman leave your purse

OH MY FLIPPING GOD! Is this woman for real? We know FOR A FACT that KC was the last person to drive the car. TonE picked her up from Amscot on June 27 at between 11am-1pm for crying out loud and 3 days later the car was towed. She left her purse in hopes that the car would get stolen.

In light of the MH phone calls, it's also occurred to me that KC left the car in the early morning at the AMSCOT parking lot with her purse inside so that CA would see it on her way to work (as CA eluded to in her Larry King interview). KC left her purse in her car because she planned to disappear from her parents, at least long enough to inject herself as a victim along with Caylee.

KC wanted CA to find the car with KC's purse in it so that CA, who didn't know where KC and Caylee had been staying by that point, would find the car on her way to/from work, fear the worst and report both KC and Caylee missing. KC figured she'd disappear to Cali with MH if she could talk him into a one-way ticket (for one).

KC left the car there with her purse (and never returned for it later) so that whether it was towed or CA found it - CA would think something had happened to KC. KC couldn't return home without explaining Caylee gone, so she thought she'd just never go home again until she could go back as a "victim who lost her kid". At the point KC abandoned the car is about the point it started to wreak and would have drawn attention, and about the point she was talking in-depth with MH out in Cali. KC wouldn't put the car in a lake because then everyone would think she was just living life with Caylee somewhere, and when she was eventually found she wouldn't have a plausible lie to tell about where Caylee was. But if she AND Caylee disappeared from her parents with their car abandoned, KC could make more excuses - in a backwards kind of way..