Cindy: "We could have found her a month ago"

I am re-listening to Lee Anthony's police interview. Never noticed this one sentence before.

This is where he is describing Casey and him in the bedroom, with Casey saying she has not seen her daughter for 31 days. Lee states that Cindy enters the room and sees Casey crying and asks "What have you done?" Why are you crying? What's going on? "

Casey then says Caylee was kidnapped and the nanny has her. Lee describes Cindy as pounding her fists on the bed and saying:

"We could have found her a month ago! Why did you wait?"

Now, how exactly did Cindy know that Caylee had been missing FOR A MONTH?

Or is Lee mixed up in the order of what was said?

Here is the audio file: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108933&page=4
Go to 4:30 for Lee's description of what was said that night.

I think it's because Cindy hasn't seen Caylee for a month. Casey has been lying and making excuses for Cindy not to see Caylee for all that time. Cindy knew at that point that 'something is wrong'..........she still (at that point) had no idea exactly what was wrong.

Cindy was probably hiding outside the bedroom door listening to every word that went out of both Casey and Lee's mouths ~ I would have been at this point.

Cindy knows how Casey lies all of the time ~ I would have been "lurking" all the time when Casey was on the phone, etc.

AlwaysShocked said:

I am re-listening to Lee Anthony's police interview. Never noticed this one sentence before.

This is where he is describing Casey and him in the bedroom, with Casey saying she has not seen her daughter for 31 days. Lee states that Cindy enters the room and sees Casey crying and asks "What have you done?" Why are you crying? What's going on? "

Casey then says Caylee was kidnapped and the nanny has her. Lee describes Cindy as pounding her fists on the bed and saying:

"We could have found her a month ago! Why did you wait?"

Now, how exactly did Cindy know that Caylee had been missing FOR A MONTH?

Or is Lee mixed up in the order of what was said?

Here is the audio file: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108933&page=4
Go to 4:30 for Lee's description of what was said that night.

Click to expand...

I think Cindy said something in one of her early interviews of overhearing what Casey said to Lee about not seeing Caylee for 31 days. She did go into Casey's room at that point and ask, "what have you done." Within minutes, Cindy makes the third and final 911 call.

I have just finished listening to the entirety of Lee's original police interview. While I thought there was WAY-Y-Y too much inappropriate laughter - and perhaps this is just nervousness on Lee's part - on the overall I feel that during this interview Lee was telling the truth to the best of his ability.


It will be interesting to see what he has to say while under oath during the hearing on Thursday.

I talk to my 3 grown kids...daily...by text, FB, phone, ect.... none of them live with me anymore, however, I know their basic daily activities. They might not tell me all sordid details...but I know they are safe and healthy.

When they lived with me...I knew their whereabouts, who they were dating, what doctors they were seeing and where they worked and if they were paying their taxes.

I still pretty much do, now...even though they are out of the house.

If I had a grown child that lived with me and I supported her and my innocent grandchild....I would know where they were, where my daughter worked, who took care of my grandchild, what they ate, what vaccinations my grandchild needed, if she needed diapers, the state of the car they drove and the car seat needed...etc...etc...

My kids and I... to this day...text all the time....so, supposedly did KC and CA...

I too, am a busy full time RN and I could not for the life of me, imagine not seeing my grandchild for 31 days...much less 1 day without a concern. I would never believe she was with "the nanny"...a person I have never met. I would never stand for my grandbaby sleeping in so many different beds other than her own crib with her own "bwankie." This to me is the crux of the whole case.

I hope that LE knows this too...

<Snipped for brevity>

"This is where he is describing Casey and him in the bedroom, with Casey saying she has not seen her daughter for 31 days. Lee states that Cindy enters the room and sees Casey crying and asks "What have you done?" Why are you crying? What's going on? "

"Casey then says Caylee was kidnapped and the nanny has her. Lee describes Cindy as pounding her fists on the bed and saying:

"We could have found her a month ago! Why did you wait?"

Now, how exactly did Cindy know that Caylee had been missing FOR A MONTH?"

AlwaysShocked, the link you have doesn't navigate to the audio so I couldn't listen. But I think Cindy was hearing for the first time that Casey hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days either. All along Cindy believed Casey was withholding Caylee from her (and in a sense, she was) but had no idea Casey hadn't seen Caylee either all that time. Cindy has stated that Casey was also "missing" during that time, but at other times, Cindy has stated that she and Casey spoke or texted daily during those 31 days (typical Cindy flip-flop.) Casey was feeding Cindy BS about being in Tampa and Caylee being with Zanny the Nanny, Jeff, etc. So it seems at this point when Lee was questioning Casey, for the first time Casey admitted that she herself had not seen Caylee in 31 days and the nanny kidnapped her. So I would think when Cindy heard that, she justifiably freaked out crying, pounding her fists on the bed and saying "We could have found her a month ago! Why did you wait?" because she knew that time was critical in finding Caylee, and with 31 days gone by, precious time was lost. Not sure if that is what you are asking?

Pattymarie said:

I talk to my 3 grown kids...daily...by text, FB, phone, ect.... none of them live with me anymore, however, I know their basic daily activities. They might not tell me all sordid details...but I know they are safe and healthy.

When they lived with me...I knew there whereabouts, who they were dating, what doctors they were seeing and where they worked and if they were paying their taxes.

I still pretty much do, now...even though they are out of the house.

If I had a grown child that lived with me and I supported her and my innocent grandchild....I would know where they were, where my daughter worked, who took care of my grandchild, what they ate, what vaccinations my grandchild needed, if she needed diapers, the state of the car they drove and the car seat needed...etc...etc...

My kids and I... to this day...text all the time....so, supposedly did KC and CA...

I too, am a busy full time RN and I could not for the life of me, imagine not seeing my grandchild for 31 days...much less 1 day without a concern. I would never believe she was with "the nanny". I person I have never met. I would never stand for my grandbaby sleeping in so many different beds other than her own crib with her own "bwankie." This to me is the crux of the whole case.

I hope that LE knows this too...

Click to expand...

BBM

Oh, I bet they do! Most rational people do! The contrived explanations that CA would have everyone just accept without question stretch credulity, and will not be believed by anyone who has children, IMO.

I went in and re-listened to George's interview with the FBI and also watched the video of an early jailhouse video of him with Casey (he was alone, no Cindy).

In the video of his visit with Casey he is urging her to talk to a man named "Scott". He tells her she can talk to "Scott" either with or without Jose Baez present. He tells Casey he thinks she will relate well to "Scott". He vaguely describes "Scott" as being in a position of authority.

Then, at the beginning of his FBI interview he speaks with the FBI agent about having talked with "Scott S---------" the day before. So "Scott" was an FBI agent?

Perhaps I never watched this full interview before, but I now understand a few things I have not understood before. George tells the FBI agent about the "money issues" as one of the reasons for the split between him and Cindy.

He tells the agent that he fell for the Nigerian money scam and that he maxed out a joint credit card for $10,000. He also tells the agent that he has lied to Cindy and told her that he lost the money on gambling. And that he has never corrected the lie to Cindy.

He also tells the FBI agent that the Orlando police found over 1200 photos of Casey "in compromising positions" on one of the home computers - the tower computer I think. He states that he has not "shared this information" with Cindy.

I think it is amazing that if such photos exist that none have found their way to the internet - yet. Makes me wonder if police found a TOTAL of 1200 photos were found and only SOME of them were "compromising". We've seen a few photos that could be considered to be "risque" but nothing like any out-and-out *advertiser censored* that has been definitively determined to be Casey. (And yes, I did see "that one". It didn't look like her nose to me.)

Within this interview he states that he has "thought for almost two years that she (Casey) is not working". That she had accessed Cindy's bank accounts online and that she was paying her phone bills out of her mother's account. Amounts were $300 -$400 at a time. (If monthly, that's some phone bill!)
He talks of Casey "liking to stop at Walmart" and using her mother's money (presumably credit cards) for her Walmart shopping.

Also in this interview he states that he LOOKED INTO THE TRUNK OF THE CAR and SAW THE GAS CANS SITTING IN THE PLASTIC "CUBE" CONTAINER.

What are the measurements of those collapsible cube contianers? What is the diameter of those older "round" gasoline containers? What are the measurements of the second gas container - a smaller one, George stated?
I think those older round containers are fairly big. I wonder if BOTH containers would have fit into one of those collapsible plastic cubes.

I also think that within other interviews George says he never really looked INTO the trunk of Casey's car that day. In this interview, he CLEARLY states that he looked into the trunk and saw the gas cans sitting in the plastic cube container.

Hmmmmm....

Pattymarie said:

I talk to my 3 grown kids...daily...by text, FB, phone, ect.... none of them live with me anymore, however, I know their basic daily activities. They might not tell me all sordid details...but I know they are safe and healthy.

When they lived with me...I knew their whereabouts, who they were dating, what doctors they were seeing and where they worked and if they were paying their taxes.

I still pretty much do, now...even though they are out of the house.

If I had a grown child that lived with me and I supported her and my innocent grandchild....I would know where they were, where my daughter worked, who took care of my grandchild, what they ate, what vaccinations my grandchild needed, if she needed diapers, the state of the car they drove and the car seat needed...etc...etc...

My kids and I... to this day...text all the time....so, supposedly did KC and CA...

I too, am a busy full time RN and I could not for the life of me, imagine not seeing my grandchild for 31 days...much less 1 day without a concern. I would never believe she was with "the nanny"...a person I have never met. I would never stand for my grandbaby sleeping in so many different beds other than her own crib with her own "bwankie." This to me is the crux of the whole case.

I hope that LE knows this too...

Click to expand...

you brought some questions to my mind. Things I hadn't thought of.. who took Caylee to the doctors for her physicals? who took her to the dentist? if Cindy did those things, how could she not know the nanny?

Leila said:

I think Cindy said something in one of her early interviews of overhearing what Casey said to Lee about not seeing Caylee for 31 days. She did go into Casey's room at that point and ask, "what have you done." Within minutes, Cindy makes the third and final 911 call.

Click to expand...

bbm

That excited utterance is just as damning as the "dead body in the damned car" 911 call. But, I believe because Lee is stating what Cindy said it's hearsay and can't come in at trial and Cindy will never admit to saying it.

nyvictoria said:

bbm

That excited utterance is just as damning as the "dead body in the damned car" 911 call. But, I believe because Lee is stating what Cindy said it's hearsay and can't come in at trial and Cindy will never admit to saying it.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is double hearsay, but it might still come in.

1st layer of hearsay: Cindy's out of court statement "What have you done?" to Casey.

2nd layer of hearsay: Lee's out of court statement about Cindy saying, "What have you done?" to Casey.

Dealing with the 1st layer of hearsay, if Cindy's statement falls into a legal exception to hearsay then it becomes "non-hearsay." If it is a "spontaneous statement" or an "excited utterance" or "a statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation ... offered to: ... 2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant" or if it provides context to a subsequent "party admission" by Casey, then it is potentially admissible non-hearsay per Florida Statutes 90.803.

Dealing with the 2nd layer of hearsay, Lee can be placed under oath at trial and asked about Cindy's statement thus no need for Lee's prior out-of-court statement about Cindy's statement. If at trial Lee has insufficient recollection to enable him to testify about Cindy's statement, then his prior unsworn "recorded recollections" and/or sworn "former testimony" become potentially admissible non-hearsay per Florida Statutes 90.803 and 90.804.

The thing that might keep it out is its relevance or lack thereof. If somebody asks, "What have you done?" that question in and of itself is not evidence of guilt. It is Casey's response to this question (creating the elaborate web of lies about Caylee being kidnapped by the imagi-nanny) which is primarily relevant. However, if Cindy tries to testify about how Casey was such a wonderful Mother of the Year that she could not have done anything to Caylee, then Cindy's prior inconsistent statement gains additional relevance as impeachment evidence.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Katprint said:

Yes, it is double hearsay, but it might still come in.

1st layer of hearsay: Cindy's out of court statement "What have you done?" to Casey.

2nd layer of hearsay: Lee's out of court statement about Cindy saying, "What have you done?" to Casey.

Dealing with the 1st layer of hearsay, if Cindy's statement falls into a legal exception to hearsay then it becomes "non-hearsay." If it is a "spontaneous statement" or an "excited utterance" or "a statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation ... offered to: ... 2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant" or if it provides context to a subsequent "party admission" by Casey, then it is potentially admissible non-hearsay per Florida Statutes 90.803.

Dealing with the 2nd layer of hearsay, Lee can be placed under oath at trial and asked about Cindy's statement thus no need for Lee's prior out-of-court statement about Cindy's statement. If at trial Lee has insufficient recollection to enable him to testify about Cindy's statement, then his prior unsworn "recorded recollections" and/or sworn "former testimony" become potentially admissible non-hearsay per Florida Statutes 90.803 and 90.804.

The thing that might keep it out is its relevance or lack thereof. If somebody asks, "What have you done?" that question in and of itself is not evidence of guilt. It is Casey's response to this question (creating the elaborate web of lies about Caylee being kidnapped by the imagi-nanny) which is primarily relevant. However, if Cindy tries to testify about how Casey was such a wonderful Mother of the Year that she could not have done anything to Caylee, then Cindy's prior inconsistent statement gains additional relevance as impeachment evidence.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Click to expand...

I agree re: the relevance issue. Also, IMO "what have you done" is non-hearsay because it is not being offered into evidence to prove "the truth of the matter asserted." "What have you done" is not a statement that can be true or false, so it cannot be inadmissible hearsay.

Hello Websleuths. Bumping for interest/information.

:bump: