Kiomarie and other issues

[Rlaub44]

I have been reading this thread with interest, but there is one factor I am still unclear about. Could one of the posters who has doubts about Kio's testimony help me understand where that doubt leads you?

I mean, if we distrust Kio's motives for turning on her "friend" so quickly, then what do we suspect that means? Are some of you considering that Kio may be involved somehow?

Please don't take these questions in the wrong way. I am not trying to be argumentative; I'm hoping to understand the importance of this. With so much early evidence alerting all of us public nobodies that KC's story didn't wash, what is the significance of the timing or inconsistencies in Kio's interviews?

Thanks in advance; I really want to follow where others may be going with this. I'm not seeing anything myself, but I always appreciate a look from another perspective.

 

[Balthazar]

Whose? About what? Thanks, honey!

"A lack of uncertainty" describes the overall tone of Kiomarie's interview.

 

[Brini]

"A lack of uncertainty" describes the overall tone of Kiomarie's interview.

Can you give us a couple specifics, Princess?

Thanks!

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

When I first transcribed the interview for myself, months ago-I was very struck that Keo had changed her story re: which 'Casey' had called her. None of that made me think she was guilty of harming Caylee or involved in any way but I got bothered just because I wish people would get their facts straight. And, when things "don't add up" I am a pit bull who finds it difficult to "let it go" till I feel satisfied. Now there are so many other things that do not add up and I personally am tired of the game the defense is playing. I very much do want a fair trial for Casey, and for the record I am not for the DP(although I would not protest/do not protest this practice-it is a personal opinion on the subject) and it is a good thing I have the mind I do because:

my crazy heart/soul still will not believe anyone has ever murdered anyone. Does that make sense? No it does not, but no matter the evidence I can still never ever really see the act happening. I have to remind myself-"there is a body, someone killed that person, someone did." Then because it is too incredible that someone walking around acting like a "normal" person had to have done this, I have to see if I can understand why? Why? I don't know.

A WS used a term that is great: I am not compelled. I believe that is lawyer speak but it works well for my purposes also. So, I was not compelled re: Keo and what she had said, not because of anyone else's opinion but my own. That is why I have the interview with the Dicken's transcribed. When all of this was happening, I had not gotten to all the other docs, threads and posts I have here on WS. I soon realized that if I was going to focus on people's inconsistencies, I had a long list of people to look into...and Keo had done the least.

I was able to let the Keo thing go when I found that JG had said he spoke to Casey and could hear Caylee in the background, that was the 24th of June. But he later said that he had been mistaken. I realized that if I followed any inconsistency pertaining to anyone else but Casey: it still led back to Casey being "not innocent." These people remain in my "inconsistent" column but they have only one strike against them, while I have many notebooks that contain all the inconsistencies of Cindy, George, and Casey. I think in LE jargon that is called "overwhelming evidence."

I understand wanting to look into everything. That is what I am trying to do, its just I did this part and had to move on. I appreciate this thread and selfishly enjoy debate, that is why I am a member of WS. Just relaying that to keep it all mellow. :angel: Keep up the good work WSers. It is the combo of all the people who post here plus the mods, and Tricia that make WS the fantastic forum that it is. Thank you all.

:cow:

 

[Brini]

Hello WS

When I first transcribed the interview for myself, months ago-I was very struck that Keo had changed her story re: which 'Casey' had called her. None of that made me think she was guilty of harming Caylee or involved in any way but I got bothered just because I wish people would get their facts straight. And, when things "don't add up" I am a pit bull who finds it difficult to "let it go" till I feel satisfied. Now there are so many other things that do not add up and I personally am tired of the game the defense is playing. I very much do want a fair trial for Casey, and for the record I am not for the DP(although I would not protest/do not protest this practice-it is a personal opinion on the subject) and it is a good thing I have the mind I do because:

my crazy heart/soul still will not believe anyone has ever murdered anyone. Does that make sense? No it does not, but no matter the evidence I can still never ever really see the act happening. I have to remind myself-"there is a body, someone killed that person, someone did." Then because it is too incredible that someone walking around acting like a "normal" person had to have done this, I have to see if I can understand why? Why? I don't know.

A WS used a term that is great: I am not compelled. I believe that is lawyer speak but it works well for my purposes also. So, I was not compelled re: Keo and what she had said, not because of anyone else's opinion but my own. That is why I have the interview with the Bailey's transcribed. When all of this was happening, I had not gotten to all the other docs, threads and posts I have here on WS. I soon realized that if I was going to focus on people's inconsistencies, I had a long list of people to look into...and Keo had done the least.

I was able to let the Keo thing go when I found that JG had said he spoke to Casey and could hear Caylee in the background, that was the 24th of June. But he later said that he had been mistaken. I realized that if I followed any inconsistency pertaining to anyone else but Casey: it still led back to Casey being "not innocent." These people remain in my "inconsistent" column but they have only one strike against them, while I have many notebooks that contain all the inconsistencies of Cindy, George, and Casey. I think in LE jargon that is called "overwhelming evidence."

I understand wanting to look into everything. That is what I am trying to do, its just I did this part and had to move on. I appreciate this thread and selfishly enjoy debate, that is why I am a member of WS. Just relaying that to keep it all mellow. :angel: Keep up the good work WSers. It is the combo of all the people who post here plus the mods, and Tricia that make WS the fantastic forum that it is. Thank you all.

:cow:

Well, as LE has sometimes said, there are often inconsisentcies in testimony. The question is: 1) Are they material? 2) Are the deliberate?

A lot of it is due to people rethinking or misremembering. Or, due to "Roshomon Syndrome."

 

[lawlady84]

Kio is about as believable as almost every other person who comes forward during a huge, important, televised case: eehhh at best. Most people want to think they can help, start talking, and then realize they honestly aren't going to contribute much that will be helpful.

Many people embellish, and then at some point realize the police really are going to follow up with everything they say, so they backtrack. "We were great friends." "Did you talk on the phone recently?" *crap, I haven't spoken to her in years* "Umm well we used to be good friends, but no, I haven't spoken to her."

Also: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ comes into play. Tabloids aren't going to pay for a plain-jane story. I don't necessarily blame Kio for making the most out of this- most people aren't above it.

Bottom line, even if she's talking out of her behind now, she didn't hinder the investigation and I'm sure something she said told LE something new.

 

[Balthazar]

edited with respect...

I think what bothers many here is when very peripheral, ancillary people are put under the same spotlight as someone who, due to the convening of a grand jury, has been indicted for murder. These people are not accused of a crime (although even just knowing KC must feel like it to some these days with all the public scrutiny) or are they running for public office. They aren't perfect in any way. They do, however, collectively show a pattern of perception to the accused and her behavior, which is important. The scary thing for me is that many of them may be used as scapegoats for that very fact.

KMTC chose to involve herself in this case. LE didn't contact her. She contacted LE. She chose to place herself in a position where she could only expect to be scrutinized.

 

[lawlady84]

A completely consistent, relevant, useful witness is about as common as walking in on a perp holding the bloody knife. Only happens on TV

 

[Brini]

KMTC chose to involve herself in this case. LE didn't contact her. She contacted LE. She chose to place herself in a position where she could only expect to be scrutinized.

So? Most of us would've done the same thing, in the same circumstance.

Clearly, Kio felt that it was worth it, for the baby's sake.

 

[Balthazar]

Brini - throughout the whole conversation and then beyond it too? I mean, I've initially, for a brief moment, not known exactly who a caller was but once the conversation got underway something always clued me in and I adjusted.

It is far fetched imo to think that someone could agree to loan someone else money and not know who it is - are their voices identical?

I agree, not only is it far fetched to believe that KMTC didn't know who she was talking to, but the reason for wanting to borrow said money from doesn't fit in any way, shape or form with thinking the caller was Casey A. According to KMTC, Casey W. wanted to borrow money to move back to where her mom lived in another state so she could escape an abusive boyfriend. In NO WAY would that request make any sense whatsoever if KMTC was talking to Casey A. KMTC knows where Cindy lives and she knows that Casey lives WITH her. She knows that Cindy lives on Hopespring and that Casey A would not need to move to another state to move in with her mom. See page 2:

http://cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Cruz Kiomarie phone call-0812.pdf

There is NO WAY, IMO, that KMTC could have mistaken such a request from Casey M. as being from Casey A.

 

[whiteangora]

I agree, not only is it far fetched to believe that KMTC didn't know who she was talking to, but the reason for wanting to borrow said money from doesn't fit in any way, shape or form with thinking the caller was Casey A. According to KMTC, Casey W. wanted to borrow money to move back to where her mom lived in another state so she could escape an abusive boyfriend. In NO WAY would that request make any sense whatsoever if KMTC was talking to Casey A. KMTC knows where Cindy lives and she knows that Casey lives WITH her. She knows that Cindy lives on Hopespring and that Casey A would not need to move to another state to move in with her mom. See page 2:

http://cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Cruz Kiomarie phone call-0812.pdf

There is NO WAY, IMO, that KMTC could have mistaken such a request from Casey M. as being from Casey A.

Now I am wondering too about this woman. Is there any chance that she is not healthy mentally?

 

[Muzikman]

I agree, not only is it far fetched to believe that KMTC didn't know who she was talking to, but the reason for wanting to borrow said money from doesn't fit in any way, shape or form with thinking the caller was Casey A. According to KMTC, Casey W. wanted to borrow money to move back to where her mom lived in another state so she could escape an abusive boyfriend. In NO WAY would that request make any sense whatsoever if KMTC was talking to Casey A. KMTC knows where Cindy lives and she knows that Casey lives WITH her. She knows that Cindy lives on Hopespring and that Casey A would not need to move to another state to move in with her mom. See page 2:

http://cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Cruz Kiomarie phone call-0812.pdf

There is NO WAY, IMO, that KMTC could have mistaken such a request from Casey M. as being from Casey A.

The phone conversation between the two was what, a couple weeks before the interview?

I know that I have trouble recalling exact conversations from 2 weeks ago. Sometimes I can't remember who told me what, and have to sit down and really think about it.

Some people's memories are better than others.

 

[Brini]

Now I am wondering too about this woman. Is there any chance that she is not healthy mentally?

If she is mentally unhealthy, so am I.

I have two Elizabeths who call me.

They go by Elizabeth the First, and Elizabeth the Second. Otherwise, I have trouble keeping the conversations straight.

And, I'm NOT the only one in our group who occasionally confuses them (which is why they named themselves after two queens).

 

[Muzikman]

I just wanted to bring this line forward from the Joyce and Bailey interview. I think it says a lot, it's about 3/4 of the way down Chiquita's transcript:

BD: But Keo is, I would believe anything she says she's credible, we have known her since she was a little girl.


And compare that with what they have to say about Casey & the Anthony's.

.

 

[whiteangora]

If she is mentally unhealthy, so am I.

I have two Elizabeths who call me.

They go by Elizabeth the First, and Elizabeth the Second. Otherwise, I have trouble keeping the conversations straight.

And, I'm NOT the only one in our group who occasionally confuses them (which is why they named themselves after two queens).

The reason I asked was because I remember seeing her speak on one of the gossip sites, Radar, or OK Magazine and she came across as a little squirrley.(sp?)

 

[Brini]

The reason I asked was because I remember seeing her speak on one of the gossip sites, Radar, or OK Magazine and she came across as a little squirrley.(sp?)

That could be, too.

I was squirrely. in my 20s.

But, not mentally ill. Yet. ;-)

 

[Balthazar]

The phone conversation between the two was what, a couple weeks before the interview?

I know that I have trouble recalling exact conversations from 2 weeks ago. Sometimes I can't remember who told me what, and have to sit down and really think about it.

Some people's memories are better than others.

The conversation took place on July 9, 2008. KMTC reported it to LE on July 19, 2008.

 

[Balthazar]

Now I am wondering too about this woman. Is there any chance that she is not healthy mentally?

Another aspect of this is that KMTC's own Stepmother was disapproving of her giving an interview to the National Enquirer. So, unlike what has been stated her by others, there are some people who disapprove of her actions.

I honestly don't know what to make of her as a witness, but I do think that she's going to have one tough go of it, if and when she takes the stand at Casey's trial.

 

[Muzikman]

The conversation took place on July 9, 2008. KMTC reported it to LE on July 19, 2008.

Thanks you Princess! There goes my memory again... :crazy:

I will go even further and say that i have trouble remembering conversations from a week ago!

Not as bad as 2 weeks, but you get my point.

 

[Muzikman]

Another aspect of this is that KMTC's own Stepmother was disapproving of her giving an interview to the National Enquirer. So, unlike what has been stated her by others, there are some people who disapprove of her actions.

I honestly don't know what to make of her as a witness, but I do think that she's going to have one tough go of it, if and when she takes the stand at Casey's trial.

I agree with you Princess, I don't think she'll be particularly effective on the stand. But there are many others that will be. Her testimony is but a drop in the bucket.

And then we have Casey's own actions and words, that is what will be most effective. IMO