While she did give more details regarding her version of the last she saw Lucas (the movie, taking a shower then seeing him sleeping, then taking a nap), I dont necessarily think that this means theres inconsistencies in what she said in the interview and what she told police originally. Just because the police didnt state all the other details to the public doesnt mean she didnt give those details to them. You can bet that investigators are closely reviewing the interview for inconsistencies though. Same thing regarding her description of the 2 people she states that she saw and the neighbors account of seeing her smoking with an unidentified man. Ive never seen reported anywhere any further description of the man she was smoking with. I believe all of these extra details were intentionally withheld by the police.
I found much of her interview very interesting, especially the part where she said she wants to tell her side of the story but shes not there yet. What side? Exactly what part of the story is she withholding...and WHY? And why isnt she there yet? What does that even mean??? The most revealing thing to me though was when she was asked if she hurt Lucas, she said I did not, I would never hurt my son. IMO, someone innocent of an accusation like that would answer that question with an immediate and resounding No!
All just MO