"Mistatements" and/or Lies by Cindy & George

[LambChop]

Or the old tried and true, "the dog ate it."

Yes, along with the ham sandwich that everyone thinks was in KC's trunk. You don't think it was one of the cadaver dogs ate it, do you? Nah!!!

 

[karenmamo]

yes she did!! You win the extra special 2 answers to the same question in 1 depo prize!! :gift:

And they didn't call her on it!! :bang:

I don't think the attys can call her on much of anything in a depo.

 

[whiteangora]

Also, in RG's statement to LE on 9/5/08, he said that there was a barbecue to introduce the families, presumably because of JG and Casey's engagement. I can't believe that the A's never had Jesse's phone number prior to 7/15/08.

They were all in the delivery room together! I Remember the photo album of Caylee's birth! Cindy, George, the Rev and his wife, and of course Jesse. Of course they had the phone number.
Cindy can lie but she can't hide

 

[Oakley]

In part I of Cindy's depo, she states that she was the primary caregiver of Caylee. Yet later she states that Casey watched Caylee more often than she (Cindy) or George. So which one is it?

 

[whiteangora]

Re my bold--Sorry to disagree, Devon, but there is no difference between the meaning of the phrase, "I sent my people to walk that area," and "I had my people walk that area." Both sentences indicate that you instructed your people to do something." The second sentence is simply a more colloquial version.

There's no way for CA wiggle out of this problem with semantics. She will not only have to lie, she will also have to point the finger at LE and accuse them of lying. I fear she won't hesitate to do this. It's all so revolting.

I had to re-read that particular post several times trying to decipher where the actual difference was........there is no difference as you have just said.

 

[Steely Dan]

All I can say is...those addresses would have come in mighty handy when she instructed the public to get off their a$$es and go look for her!!

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

So if the Jeff M. H with the son Zack who KC said worked at Universal and Universal Studios is stating there is no JMH who has worked for them just the Jeff H that KC went to school with, does that mean Universal Studios is also part of this big hide the Nanny conspiracy???? How can CA believe this one?

If they put CA on the stand at KC trial I think the first thing SA should ask her is, do you love your daughter? The answer would be yes. Would you do anything for her, simple yes or no answer, please? She has to answer yes. Now catch her in a lie and CA is toast.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I have not read through this entire thread and don't know if this has been brought up but in Cindy's deposition on page 129...talking about DC in the woods...

A That would be an ongoing investigation.
2 Q But just a hypothetical then --
3 A I don't do hypotheticals, sir. You can ask me
4 a question that I can actually answer and I'll answer.
5 Q The question is if it wasn't the psychic --
6 A He didn't find Caylee that day so obviously,


Does this mean he found her on one of the other days???

IMO, no. Kronk never would have found the body if he did.

Or the old tried and true, "the dog ate it."

Or the nanny ate it. She was a 10 so she must have been model thin and you know how hungry they are all the time.

 

[lin]

While it is possible that CA was lying, and , if that is your opinion, you are certainly entitled to it. However, my point is that what you've shown is not proof of a lie.

If LE had determined that they were fake addresses/numbers given by KC to CA, they would probably have stopped there because KC has apparently lied about so many things, why would this lie be significant? Why would it stand out as requiring further investigation?

That said, whether they would or wouldn't have investigated further is a moot point, because we do not know everything LE has investigated. Therefore, we cannot know whether CA gave them any addresses/phone numbers or not. Therefore, we cannot know, or logically conclude from the example you give, that CA is lying in this instance.

IOW - - Just because we believe LE only went to the address of the Zenaida that has filed the defamation suit (though I do not believe we know that for sure), that does not prove CA was lying when she said she had addresses and numbers KC had given her and that she, in turn, handed them over to LE.

IF KC had given CA any of this information that she claimed, don't you think KC would have referenced it when asked by LE? Isn't it logical to at least infer, if not conclude, that rather than the missing blackjack fable, a more reasonable alternative would have been, 'I gave that info to my mom and you can get it from her.' This would have a more credible follow-up lie, 'I don't know why they don't work, my mom must have messed up the info I gave her and wrote the wrong name or number down.'

LE has stated, iirc, and it is commonly reported that KC was not able to provide any contact info for ZG. IF CA had this information at any time, isn't it reasonable to conclude that she would have mentioned it during her media tour? I mean, really, c'mon here. CA was asking KC what she should say on TV and the response was something along the lines of, 'We forgive her.' Why not, 'Hey, mom, get that address book and broadcast all the contact info. And while you're at it, put out that pic of Jeff and Zach.' It's not like KC didn't have plenty of time on her hands to think of things like this.

And please don't forget that this contact info that CA claims she had was not available due to it being given either to LE or JB and that it was written down in CA's address book. Whoops, I mean CA or KC's address book. Either CA had the info or she didn't. Either it was in CA's book or it was in KC's book. These are clearly lies.

I appreciate you trying to look for alternate explanations. The OP asked for just such discussion. However, on this particular lie, I respectfully disagree with the explanation you offered. This is one of the clear lies, imo.

 

[LambChop]

GA became very upset when the atty mentioned the word "remains" in the depo regarding finding his granddaughter who was found in an area that had previously been underwater. But has no problem going out on a boat named after his granddaughter that's supposed purpose is to locate missing children whose "remains" may be underwater. So was that reaction to the word "remains" at the depo just for show???

 

[whiteangora]

(bolding mine) Did Cindy state that she had a picture of any of these people?

Given her track record so far, would it really matter?

 

[lin]

Aquarian Essence, I respect your opinions very much and even agree with some, but for Pete's Sake, everyone who has ever actually smelled a decaying body states emphatically, and with knowledge and authority, that the foul odor is unforgettable and unmistakeable and unlike any other. GA and CA both fall into this category of "experienced" people, and they both identified the odor instantly and CORRECTLY--even under their extreme stress.

For the life of me, I cannot understand what dead pigs have to do with the smell in KC's trunk. Unless, of course, a pig was reported missing around that time and in that vicinity. If so, I suppose there's reason to think KC stole it, too, but how would she lift it into her trunk? I'm a city girl, but aren't pigs really big and really, really heavy? With Caylee already dead, as she surely was, would Casey have had room in her trunk for a pig, too? :waitasec: :blowkiss:

Amazing, insightful, amazing, hysterical and amazing post. And amazing. You do have a gift with words and making clear pictures with them. So, where is your next appearance, Friday? Forensics lecture or comedy club? NM, probably sold out way in advance.

 

[lin]

This never works. It is pure childish fantasy...I know, I've tried. Too many walls.:blowkiss:

So that's what I've been doing wrong...

 

[Sunshine52]

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



:clap: :clap: :clap:



IMO, no. Kronk never would have found the body if he did.



Or the nanny ate it. She was a 10 so she must have been model thin and you know how hungry they are all the time.

My point being...that he found her on one of his other trips to the woods and left her there per JB wishes and did not report her found and then along comes Kronk. If he did find her on one of his trips to the woods...did he leave her there undisturbed or try to hide the remains better...

IMHO when Cindy answered that question she added unnecessary words to her sentence...If it would have been me I would have just said...Well he didn't find her did he...I would have never added the words..."that day".

 

[Steely Dan]

GA became very upset when the atty mentioned the word "remains" in the depo regarding finding his granddaughter who was found in an area that had previously been underwater. But has no problem going out on a boat named after his granddaughter that's supposed purpose is to locate missing children whose "remains" may be underwater. So was that reaction to the word "remains" at the depo just for show???

I'd be dollars to donuts it was.

Amazing, insightful, amazing, hysterical and amazing post. And amazing. You do have a gift with words and making clear pictures with them. So, where is your next appearance, Friday? Forensics lecture or comedy club? NM, probably sold out way in advance.

She's going to be on a Forensic Files episode, on Comedy Central.

 

[lin]

You make a good point and could be right on with that observation. We haven't seen any evidence to the effect that they hounded LE, therefore, it may even be likely, from what we've seen, or haven't seen, combined with what we do know about the A's, that they didn't. However well thought out, this is still speculation.

My point is this: We need to make a distinction between opinion/speculation and actual fact. Speculation, however well informed or based on what is actually known, is still speculation. Facts and logical proof are only valuable if we don't confuse them with speculation i.e. opinion. Likewise, speculation can be quite valuable at getting to the truth, but not if we confuse it with fact/truth.

So in this instance, we don't know whether the A's did or did not, in fact, hound LE about the addresses. CA has complained that LE has not followed up on things. Again, we know she said this, we don't know whether or not it is true. Nor do we actually know what the A's or LE would or wouldn't do, we can only speculate.

As I said in another post, I'm not trying to defend the A's, or to paint them as truthful, untruthful, or to paint them at all. There may very well be lies/misstatements in CA deposition and I believe we should look closely to see if we can find them. However, if we are going to state this or that is a lie, we have to be able to show or prove logically, that it is.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with educated guessing, having gut feelings, suspecting, speculating, etc. as long as we are clear on which we are actually doing. . . . I'll get off my soapbox now - lol.

ETA: I'm just using your post as an example. I'm not implying you meant to state a fact, I can see you were giving your opinion

ITA but would add that one can make logical inferences based on the evidence presented and expect the jury will be instructed to do so.

 

[Steely Dan]

My point being...that he found her on one of his other trips to the woods and left her there per JB wishes and did not report her found and then along comes Kronk. If he did find her on one of his trips to the woods...did he leave her there undisturbed or try to hide the remains better...

IMHO when Cindy answered that question she added unnecessary words to her sentence...If it would have been me I would have just said...Well he didn't find her did he...I would have never added the words..."that day".

I have a couple of theories on that. One is that he planned to move the body to the house formerly owned by some Gonzalez family. The other is that he intended to plant some evidence making it look like someone else did it. :waitasec:

 

[lin]

You know--------this is very true. I'm sure that the law firm does, but I don't think the point of them chewing gum is really the point.

The parents are throwing off the wrong vibes to the world. E-thang they do is out there and they have put themselves in this position. If they wanted to appear as the "Parents of the Year", they need to show respect of others and the law. I have seen nothing of this from them. They are to good for the laws of the land.

I would have felt more compassion for them if they would clean up their act and abide by the rules. All of it together paints a picture. The gum chewing in a Court of Law---the looks on their faces say "kiss my azz"---the snide remarks, they think are so cute---the "Holier then Thou" attitude---the disrespect they have shown for their beautiful dead baby Caylee and all others involved. I could go on and on. This is not a game they are playing here.

Sometimes in life we have to cut our losses and move on. I don't think the memorial they had for "Caylee" was for Caylee at all. They wanted it to came more like "Look at us--we are showing our grief for this baby girl". But what it looked like was a big ugly mess. CA gave the world what she perceived as her being the "grand mother and mother of the year". She was still in "cover up" mode and she still is.

With this depo mess they did nothing but make themselves look worse. I felt that LA did a much better job then they did. It is all really sad. OK----rambling here. Sorry

(emphasis added)

Excellent and insightful post. I just wish you had went on and on because you were certainly nailing them and their actions perfectly.

 

[Sunshine52]

I have a couple of theories on that. One is that he planned to move the body to the house formerly owned by some Gonzalez family. The other is that he intended to plant some evidence making it look like someone else did it. :waitasec:

Interesting...Thanks for your insight Dan!!!

 

[lin]

Do decomposing pigs give off carbon tetrachloride? According to that report and others that I've read, the answer is no. Page 4 of Dr. Vass' report states that carbon tetrachloride is "not seen in select animal remains." On page 9, he goes on to write that "carbon tetrachloride was also detected and is a specific human marker with these animal sets," and the animal sets in question were dogs, pigs, and deer (see page 8).

From what you've posted so far, my impression is that you believe that decomposing ham from either deli meat or pizza toppings caused the smell in the trunk and the presence of markers associated with a decompositional event. In my opinion, there are problems with this theory. For one, is it a fact that pizza with ham toppings was removed from the bag in the vehicle? From what I remember, the pizza box was empty. Secondly, has it been confirmed that there was ham deli meat in the trunk? I've yet to see that confirmed. But most importantly, page 9 of Dr. Vass' report states that "compounds that have been detected in these select animal animal remains and not in humans were not detected." Apparently, these compounds are 1-heptanol, acetamide, n-dimethyl, etc. If there were decomposing ham in the trunk, then why weren't these chemicals present?



Well, do you know where '98 Pontiac Sunfires are manufactured? Are they manufactured in the Orlando area?



Interesting, especially considering the fact that carbon tetrachloride is a carcinogen. Could you please post your research and how you came about finding that information?



Keep in mind that page 10 states that "these results still do not rule out the remote possibility that an unusual variety of products or materials [...] may have had some contribution to the overall chemical signature." Emphasis is mine, of course.



Junk science as opposed to what?

 

[jeane]

A few people have mentioned that they think George was paranoid for thinking he was being given the finger.

I respectfully disagree. I think it was just part of his plan to always make it look like he is a victim. He was hoping he'd convince us the lawyer wasn't being nice to him and that we'd feel sorry for him. Just like he told LE he lost the family money in a Nigerian scam, cause he thought he'd look like a victim and he likes playing that role.

---
And he says in his depo that 'he is on the ball'? yeh, right! I don't know about the rest of the people out there, but I hope GA and CA also get charged with something for trying to impede the investigation.

 

[Tiki]

I have a couple of theories on that. One is that he planned to move the body to the house formerly owned by some Gonzalez family. The other is that he intended to plant some evidence making it look like someone else did it. :waitasec:

Steely - help me out here, buddy . . .

I asked this before so if someone answered, I'm sorry I missed it.

From pg 130 of Cindy's transcript about PI DC searching:

11 Q The question is if it wasn't the psychic --
12 A He didn't find Caylee that day so obviously,
13 you though --
14 Q He never found Caylee?
15 A No, he didn't, and neither the psychic had a
16 premonition prior to her being found. Now, we did work
17 with the psychic before that up until November believed
18 that Caylee was indeed alive.

Lie? Mistatement? Does it mean they thought Caylee was alive "up until November"?
:waitasec:


.