Larry King 8/5 Cindy's Question

[AZRiverRat]

It'll all come out in the wash. *pun intended*

Im waiting for the trial.

 

[lin]

I'll have to separate your question into two.

If we accept Lee's sworn testimony at the bond hearing as truth, then we know for a fact that Lee would know Caylee was missing. Cindy had been in the other room, and it was only after 45 minutes of the three of them being there, and then Cindy going to another room, and Lee telling Casey that Cindy couldn't hear her, that Casey changed her story from 'Caylee's fine, I know where she is, and I'll take you to her in the morning' to 'I haven't seen my daughter for 31 days'.

Cindy unexpectedly walked into the room, and accidentally heard that Caylee was missing. It's then that she made the 3rd 911 call.

Lee tried to get Cindy *not* to call the police, or *not* to call the police *yet*. He thought a few more minutes, and he'd be able to get out of Casey what had happened that she hadn't seen Caylee for 31 days.

George was on his way home. Would they have told him? I don't know. I think so.

Had Cindy not been the one to pick up the phone, would Lee? Would George? I don't know. I think so.

But in that 3rd call, Cindy wasn't asking for Casey to be arrested in regards to Caylee (nor was she in the first 2 911 calls). She was asking for help in finding Caylee. I don't think she expected Casey to be arrested in regards to Caylee. I don't think she wanted Casey to be arrested in regards to Caylee. Everything speaks to the contrary.

It's not because of Cindy that Casey is in jail. It was LE's decision based on Casey's lies.

What it comes down to is happenstance that led to LE finally deciding to arrest Casey, and a judge deciding there was reason to keep her there under a very high bail.

Cindy did not take any deliberate action in hopes that Casey would be arrested and put in jail in regards to Caylee.

You brought up something interesting --- Cindy walked in on Casey telling Lee that she hadn't see Caylee in 31 days. Wonder if she was just telling him that or if they were rehearsing what they were going to tell Cindy?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Frankly, I am not buying into anything the A family is selling. I don't think that conversation happened either.

 

[Pollywog]

The thing is KC would still have been arrested even if CA had not called 911 that day. There was the issue with her stealing from Amy and I am sure Amy was not going to let that slide the way CA always did. CA may think she will not be convicted of murder if there is no body, but she will be convicted for the other things in my opinion.

I would hope Caylee is still alive and is with someone who loves her, but we all pretty much know that is not the case.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I knew that would happen!! GRRR! Was this quote from the same LKL show as the one they moved the thread to or now will it be lost?!?! (I begged to leave it in it's own thread.)

 

[Talison]

I do not believe that Cindy's question about the hair banding and the quote about why they want to find Caylee come from the same Larry King Live show.

The quote is from this episode of LKL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHum58uVsIg (July 29)

And IIRC, Cindy was not a guest on the show when she asked the question about the hair banding. She called in that night from home, didn't she?

 

[Talison]

Looks like the question about the hair was from August 5th, based on the original post in this thread. So since the quote is from the July 29th show, definitely not the same show.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I completely agree. Cindy is so wrapped up in "There is no evidence"....blah blah blah. She did this at the bond hearing and in other interviews. Seems she's into the "no evidence" which leads me to believe she's defending her daughter--that's her first priority, not finding Caylee.

And at that bond hearing Cindy was over the top and very transparent when she was staring at Casey stating, "There is no evidence." Is that merely because she washed Casey's pants? I wonder what else Cindy may have been talking about? Maybe something we know nothing of yet?

That car probably had a wealth of information/evidence that no longer exists or so Cindy and George thinks.

 

[Oakley]

And at that bond hearing Cindy was over the top and very transparent when she was staring at Casey stating, "There is no evidence." Is that merely because she washed Casey's pants? I wonder what else Cindy may have been talking about? Maybe something we know nothing of yet?

That car probably had a wealth of information/evidence that no longer exists or so Cindy and George thinks.

I LOVE your posts!

 

[Sammiejam]

I've thought all along that Cindy was deliberately denying that Caylee could be dead. Not "in denial", the emotional thing, or the stage of grief, but that it seemed a very conscious and proactive and deliberate denial.

What this transcript is telling me, quite clearly, is Cindy's reason for what I perceive as this deliberate denial.

In keeping with that thought, Cindy can not search for a 'dead' Caylee, or give any public indication that Caylee is, or even may be, dead. To do so would endanger Casey's exoneration of charges.

Lots of things of making sense to me now. Her refusal to provide TES with a piece of Caylee's clothing. Her scathing email about Tim M and L Padillo. Her washing the clothes and knife from the car. Her searching the backyard before the police could get there and search. And on and on.

We've all been thinking and saying how nuts, how senseless it is that Cindy won't search for Caylee. This statement makes it make sense. (Hope I'm making sense lol.)

I could not agree with you more. Now all the pieces have slotted into place for me. I think there is a mixture of deliberate denial (in the face of the media) and subconcious denial in that the horror of this situation is too much for her to bare. I think she has gone totally wackadoo, nutbag crazy. She is a loose cannon and will do ANYTHING to protect her DAUGHTER. I think if she allowed one shred of TRUTH to permeate her skull - she would probably kill Casey in her sleep. Hence the total and absolute denial on every level.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Looks like the question about the hair was from August 5th, based on the original post in this thread. So since the quote is from the July 29th show, definitely not the same show.

Thanks, Talison! Too bad really...because I think it is one of Cindy's most telling quotes.

 

[BeanE]

And at that bond hearing Cindy was over the top and very transparent when she was staring at Casey stating, "There is no evidence." Is that merely because she washed Casey's pants? I wonder what else Cindy may have been talking about? Maybe something we know nothing of yet?

That car probably had a wealth of information/evidence that no longer exists or so Cindy and George thinks.

I wish it was more clear who Cindy was looking at during her testimony, Casey or Jose. She was almost constantly looking in that direction when cross-examined. I would REALLY like to see a tape from a viewpoint behind Casey and Jose.

Sometimes it was clear who she was looking at, but most of the time not. In any case, it was bizarre. Sometimes her head was turned to the prosecute, but her eyes were practically coming out of their sockets she was looking so hard over to the defense side. Just bizarre.

Why would anyone just answering questions and telling the truth need to do that? I've just never seen anything like that before.

 

[BeanE]

Here is a link to the transcript the quote is from. I'm sorry. Just realized I hadn't linked it in:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/29/lkl.01.html


Nothing about hair banding in the transcript.

 

[Dr. Pennypacker]

Frankly, I am not buying into anything the A family is selling. I don't think that conversation happened either.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[MarleneM]

when I read that quote backwards it says "I know my daughter killed my grandaughter but thats done now, so I'll do anything to protect her. She can have another kid, but not if she's in jail"

:spit:

 

[Amster]

I think the nanny story was cooked up by Lee and KC.

 

[Just Jayla]

August 5th CA was asking questions on national television about the death band? I missed this one, too.
As a similar thread notes, CA is unbelievable. THIS call in should be pointed out to her the next time she tries to say she never thought Caylee was dead. Bull-oney.

 

[Chiquita71]

KING: With us on the phone is the grandmother, Cindy Anthony. The obvious question, Cindy, everyone asks, why won't your daughter talk?

CINDY ANTHONY, GRANDMOTHER OF CAYLEE ANTHONY: Well, Casey's maintained that she's protecting Caylee, and she's also protecting the family from physical harm. We believe that 100 percent. The reason I called in, I spoke to Nancy, is I had a question for Doctor Kobilinsky. He made a comment -- because I'm kind of intrigued when asking the authorities about what constitutes decomposition, things like that. He talked about check and see if the hair samples postmortem. I just want to know how can you determine a hair that's fallen off of someone's head, is it postmortem or is it just a hair that's fallen off on a normal thing, maybe shedded on clothes, and will sit there and decompose?

KING: Good question. Dr. Kobilinsky has left, but Stacy Honowitz might be able to answer it. Is there a difference?

HONOWITZ: Well, you know, hair transfers all the time, but I guess the forensics person would really be able to tell you whether or not there is a difference. Obviously, if he made that distinction early on, there is an ability for them to analyze it. He would not have said it if it wasn't the truth. They're able to make a distinction as to whether or not it's a transfer or --

GERAGOS: I'll tell you, my experience with the hairs and with this postmortem, there's a lot of courts that believe that's junk science. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in that. ANTHONY: Thank you. That's kind of what I'm wondering. We were also told that, you know, sweat cells, old blood, urine, those can also be used for DNA purposes. But my question is, how long, you know, is that something, because I know that car has had lots of hairs from all of our family. That's been a family car for at least seven or eight years.

KING: Hold it, Cindy, he's going to answer you.

GERAGOS: Cindy, actually the one thing they can do with hair with some degree of certainty is what's called mitochondrial DNA, which goes through the maternal line. They can take a sample of your hair and they could then --

ANTHONY: That just proves that its Caylee's hair, or Casey's hair or my hair or my son's hair, whoever's hair. But does that prove that that hair follicle fell off an article of clothing that was placed in the trunk, or did that fall off of a body that was placed in the trunk?

GERAGOS: They're never going to be able to prove, even if they find a hair that's in there.

ANTHONY: Then that's circumstantial evidence.

GERAGOS: That's all it is.

KING: Cindy, do you have any doubt? Are you convinced your granddaughter is alive?

ANTHONY: I'm absolutely 100 percent convinced she's alive or at least was alive when Casey gave her to the person she gave her to.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/05/lkl.01.html

August 5th CA was asking questions on national television about the death band? I missed this one, too.
As a similar thread notes, CA is unbelievable. THIS call in should be pointed out to her the next time she tries to say she never thought Caylee was dead. Bull-oney.

RespectfullyQuoted chicoliving and Just Jayla
BBM

I had never before today, read this quote by Cindy. She is asked if she thinks Caylee is alive and she says "or at least was alive when Casey gave her to the person she gave her to." There we have it. Cindy was not in denial and is not in denial now. She was able to entertain the idea of Caylee's death, but only at the hands of someone other than Casey. It is always someone else.

There is another quote from Cindy from early on(paraphrase)"Lee and I have had a chance to get used to the idea that Caylee is gone" she was speaking about George, giving an excuse for something asked about George. I have the quote in my notes and I will find it. But the one above really says it all-I just cannot see a person in denial when she can say that and accuse others of the murder of her granddaughter. There is no need to accuse people of something that did not happen.

:twocents:

 

[strawberry]

Thank you, JustJayla, for bumping these threads. I've never heard of this incident. I've been reading through transcripts and old threads to refresh my memory but this one takes the cake!!