2009.07.28 / 2009.07.29 Deposition Cindy Anthony Transcript parts 1 and 2

New Posts

luvthesleuths said:
Wowza! Finally finished all 3 deps. Cindy's was just so painfully looooong. Why isn't her lawyer telling her to answer yes or no, just yes or no. My lordy there is no reason for her to go on and on and on when asked simple yes/no questions. All these words are going to come back to haunt her.

By now someone must have mentioned to her that when one gives too much information they are usually not telling the truth. So don't blather on!

maybe they really are trying to get everything they have said thrown out cause it is all so confusing and confilcting, and then they won't have to testify against their daughter.

But after reading all 3 depos, the main story of what happened (well of what casey told them happened) hasn't completely changed. (except when they went on to the blanchard park story) Casey had them all seriously snowed!
Not just about what happened to caylee, but about her whole day to day existence and what she was doing with her time. They didn't even know Tony existed, they really knew nothing of her true self.
Click to expand...

Only because they ignored the obvious and many years worth of signs. For Cindy's sake.
 
lizzysf said:
True...and if LE took the cylindrical bag with the balls stored in it...was it LE that walked back and dumped the balls in the shed? haha!! NOT!! So if the balls were stored in this bag...Casey must have dumped the balls in the shed when she took the bag, or Cindy found them in the garage sans the bag and put them in the shed. Either way ya slice it up, Cindy knew the bag was gone when she either discovered the balls in the shed, or moved them there herself..
Click to expand...

Or Cindy made no mistake in her depo.. once again here we are with Cindy offering too much informatation about something she claims to have no knowledge of.

Maybe Cindy emptied the balls herself?
 
CarolinaMoon said:
I think I read most of the posts here, but I can't be sure. I hope this isn't a repeat!

I'm on PDF pages 343-348. IMHO, Cindy has officially put Casey under the bus.

Cindy had stated she wasn't reading the discovery and I think she really should have. We all know that Caylee's body had been placed in a cylindrical laundry bag after being double-sealed in plastic bags, and we have the evidence picture to prove it.

Well, Linda Drane Burdick shows her the picture of the garage and asks her what is kept in the plastic bags up on the shelves. Unlike George, Cindy knows exactly what's where. She tells Linda that around Caylee's second birthday she bought a square laundry hamper to store Caylee's stuffed animals.

After some discussion, she says she bought a round one to keep balls in (the kind kids jump in). They had bought a "hippopotamus" from the neighbors with the balls. When they took the hippo off the porch, Cindy stored the round hamper in a plastic bag.

She points out that LE must have taken the round one because the black plastic bag it had been stored it was torn. She says they must have taken it Dec. 11, or she would have noticed the bag was torn and would have fixed the situation. LE wouldn't have torn the bag to get to its contents, that's more of a desperate Casey thing.

She also points out that the square one was missing. (We know LE took it Dec. 11)

Well, we know LE took the square one and matched it to the cylindrical one Caylee was dumped in... both same maker, same brand. Cindy ID'd them both

BOMBSHELL!
Click to expand...

Great post!! I hadn't noticed any of this!! You r0ck!
 
As far as CA goes.....

I think that her history of "word salad" will bring her "just desserts".
 
Here is my thoughts on the depositions of all 3 of the A's this was a way for the SA to lock them into certain statements....But make no mistake when the trial happens and they are each on the stand the SA will not only have the comments that were made during this deposition but they will bring out all of the interview clips as well as the Morgan & Morgan deposition and at that point they will drop the hammer on them for all of the conflicting statements, this is the point where I think we will see some perjury charges come into play....With all of the lies that have been told there is no way the A's will be able to keep it all straight and it will be one heck of several days that they will spend on the witness stand...I would give anything to be in the courtroom during the days the A's are forced to testify against KC...

And if we all thought that these depositions were crap, just wait until JB gets them on the stand to do his depositions, at that point the SA will more than likely get a whole lot more ammunition to load for the cross examination of this family...

There will certainly be fireworks when this goes to trial and I do not think for a moment that the SA will be as nice to this family when they are on the stand during the trial...

Does anyone know if the items that are currently under seal by the courts will be shown to the general public during the trial, or do they make the poll camera point away from the exhibits when they are shown to the jury?
 
I wanted the SA to ask during the depositions why Jeffrey Michael Hopkins or Juliette Lewis haven't been located. Instead of asking if Mr. Casey had found the nanny, has he looked for Hopkins or Juliette Lewis? Since they aren't accused of kidnapping like the nanny is, why wouldn't they come forward, or someone that knows them. If anyone believes KC's story, wouldn't the logical investigator search for Jeff Hopkins since he introduced KC to the nanny. Surely he would have a number to contact her and maybe he didn't lose his phone (sarcasm intended)
 
jandkmom said:
I wanted the SA to ask during the depositions why Jeffrey Michael Hopkins or Juliette Lewis haven't been located. Instead of asking if Mr. Casey had found the nanny, has he looked for Hopkins or Juliette Lewis? Since they aren't accused of kidnapping like the nanny is, why wouldn't they come forward, or someone that knows them. If anyone believes KC's story, wouldn't the logical investigator search for Jeff Hopkins since he introduced KC to the nanny. Surely he would have a number to contact her and maybe he didn't lose his phone (sarcasm intended)
Click to expand...

I am sure that all of these questions will be asked during the trial, the SA wants to make sure to get certain questions answered and on the record for the depositions, but they also want to hold some of there thoughts close to the vest, so that they can catch the defense of guard...I certainly think the SA is so on top of this case, it will blow our minds when it gets to trial, and all of the A's will be made to look like fools when that happens.
 
i would like to see them all squirm on the witness stand

but it aint gonna happen imo


this will never get to trial..

what we have seen for evidence, is just the beginning

it all boils down to this

when you have no defense, welllll then you have no defense

life in prison... they will be begging for it with the state

adios KC
 
jandkmom said:
I wanted the SA to ask during the depositions why Jeffrey Michael Hopkins or Juliette Lewis haven't been located. Instead of asking if Mr. Casey had found the nanny, has he looked for Hopkins or Juliette Lewis? Since they aren't accused of kidnapping like the nanny is, why wouldn't they come forward, or someone that knows them. If anyone believes KC's story, wouldn't the logical investigator search for Jeff Hopkins since he introduced KC to the nanny. Surely he would have a number to contact her and maybe he didn't lose his phone (sarcasm intended)
Click to expand...

They touched on it briefly with LA, but when they asked him about Juliet Lewis, JB lauged and said "you mean the actress?"....entirely inappropriate, of course, because it's his stupid client that pulled the name out of her hat, so laugh at her, Bozo....
Anyway, I think with that silly statement, JB pretty much answered LA's question for him-There is no Juliet and using that name is ridiculous.
 
I am halfway though reading all the posts on this thread, so please excuse me if this has already been discussed..

In Cindy's depo, part 2, page 371- they are talking about the mass text via cellphone and my-space that Casey sent out to all her contacts on the morning of July 16 2008.

Cindy says that it was her idea to alert as many people as she could.

SA asks: When you came up with that idea, did Casey object?

Cindy says: No, Absolutely not!

SA asks: She wasn't afraid that that would somehow put anybody in danger?

Cindy says: NO

Ok, so I take this to mean that any defence that Casey may try to make saying she couldn't tell anyone that Casey was missing was because it would put her in danger - was just obliterated by Cindy!!
 
CA/GA are "trying" to save KC from a DP sentence. It's their right to try and save their child, IMO...but what should be happening, instead of placing yourself in harms way with all the mistruths, misleads, untruths, "lies", she should be begging KC to come clean. If KC would admit to what she's done, CA can then beg Judge Stickland for leniency and sentence her to life instead of imposing a death sentence. That would be the wise way to go but instead CA needs to be looked upon as "mother of the year", for she can't look like her home is in turmoil! No dysfunction that she knows of...I wish she would just get real...:banghead:

Then it would save the hurt of knowing what Caylee's last moments were. How confused she may have been at what KC, her mother was doing to her and why...

Then as I see it, the SA's are setting up the perfect scenario that one may not be able to dispute.

In my ears ring the words of Shirley Plesea, KC hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee....that is the bottom line and hoping the SA will end with that one little sentence...
 
seekingjustice** said:
I am halfway though reading all the posts on this thread, so please excuse me if this has already been discussed..

In Cindy's depo, part 2, page 371- they are talking about the mass text via cellphone and my-space that Casey sent out to all her contacts on the morning of July 16 2008.

Cindy says that it was her idea to alert as many people as she could.

SA asks: When you came up with that idea, did Casey object?

Cindy says: No, Absolutely not!

SA asks: She wasn't afraid that that would somehow put anybody in danger?

Cindy says: NO

Ok, so I take this to mean that any defence that Casey may try to make saying she couldn't tell anyone that Casey was missing was because it would put her in danger - was just obliterated by Cindy!!
Click to expand...

Good one...which means Baez' assertion of the compelling reasons why KC couldn't go to the authorities, was just blown right out of the water. One can't be that afraid if they are willing to put out a mass email in regards to Caylee's alleged abduction...so that 30 day script KC was to follow will show it didn't exist...:waitasec:

Let CA keep on talking, she will slowly tell the true tale and KC is on that loosing end of it...keep talking CA...
JMHO
 
LiveLaughLuv said:
CA/GA are "trying" to save KC from a DP sentence. It's their right to try and save their child, IMO...but what should be happening, instead of placing yourself in harms way with all the mistruths, misleads, untruths, "lies", she should be begging KC to come clean. If KC would admit to what she's done, CA can then beg Judge Stickland for leniency and sentence her to life instead of imposing a death sentence. That would be the wise way to go but instead CA needs to be looked upon as "mother of the year", for she can't look like her home is in turmoil! No dysfunction that she knows of...I wish she would just get real...:banghead:

Then it would save the hurt of knowing what Caylee's last moments were. How confused she may have been at what KC, her mother was doing to her and why...

Then as I see it, the SA's are setting up the perfect scenario that one may not be able to dispute.

In my ears ring the words of Shirley Plesea, KC hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee....that is the bottom line and hoping the SA will end with that one little sentence...
Click to expand...

That quote also stays with me. I want the question asked to CA...Before Caylee died, did you love Caylee or KC more? And if you feel like you showed more love to Caylee instead of KC, is that why you are willing to do whatever you can to get KC out of jail, no matter if you have to lie, steal, etc... Are you wanting a 2nd chance with KC?
 
jandkmom said:
That quote also stays with me. I want the question asked to CA...Before Caylee died, did you love Caylee or KC more? And if you feel like you showed more love to Caylee instead of KC, is that why you are willing to do whatever you can to get KC out of jail, no matter if you have to lie, steal, etc... Are you wanting a 2nd chance with KC?
Click to expand...

The quote from Shirley Pleasea, also stays with me, as does Cindy's words to LE in July, "I don't care about KC, all I want is Caylee"
 
seekingjustice** said:
I am halfway though reading all the posts on this thread, so please excuse me if this has already been discussed..

In Cindy's depo, part 2, page 371- they are talking about the mass text via cellphone and my-space that Casey sent out to all her contacts on the morning of July 16 2008.

Cindy says that it was her idea to alert as many people as she could.

SA asks: When you came up with that idea, did Casey object?

Cindy says: No, Absolutely not!

SA asks: She wasn't afraid that that would somehow put anybody in danger?

Cindy says: NO

Ok, so I take this to mean that any defence that Casey may try to make saying she couldn't tell anyone that Casey was missing was because it would put her in danger - was just obliterated by Cindy!!
Click to expand...

More than once Cindy has said she was not afraid of this. For example, I was watching her famous 'hammer' video the other day, and Cindy says emphatically she's not afraid for Casey or any of the family.

Cindy repeatedly pushes her daughter closer and closer to the death penalty.

Sometimes I think Cindy has caused more problems for the defense than her daughter has. I can't wait to see her on the stand.

Question: if, on the stand, Cindy keeps saying more than she is asked, and none of the attorneys can control her, and if the judge tells her several times to simply answer yes or no and she doesn't comply, then what happens? Is that grounds for contempt or something like that? Will the deputies drag her off? What happens?
 
reeseeva said:
The quote from Shirley Pleasea, also stays with me, as does Cindy's words to LE in July, "I don't care about KC, all I want is Caylee"
Click to expand...

I would like to see if Shirley Pleasea thinks that CA cares more aboaut KC now and having justice for Caylee though.
 
jandkmom said:
I would like to see if Shirley Pleasea thinks that CA cares more aboaut KC now and having justice for Caylee though.
Click to expand...

I think the answer to your question is SP's as well as the rest of CA's family is silence. They know and they know well enough to keep silent and not add fuel to CA's rants. Nor do they want to incur any more from CA. I don't doubt that SP emails CA and probably gives her advice to keep quiet.

CA is what CA is and nothing her family can say will change her. CA's own words and actions will defeat and bring her down.
 
I have read all 3 depositions now and it occurs to me that, having read LA last, LDB asks LA if he ever got rid of evidence or knew anyone who did? He answers no. pg 370 LA depo. But I do not recall (and I have gone back to look ) LDB asking either C or G that same question. It also made me wonder why they did not ask either one of them about whether or not they cleaned the car. Does anyone else remember that question being asked of them, about evidence tampering or car cleaning?
Thank you.
Hard to know which thread to put this into and I will move it if need be.
 
QB. said:
I have read all 3 depositions now and it occurs to me that, having read LA last, LDB asks LA if he ever got rid of evidence or knew anyone who did? He answers no. pg 370 LA depo. But I do not recall (and I have gone back to look ) LDB asking either C or G that same question. It also made me wonder why they did not ask either one of them about whether or not they cleaned the car. Does anyone else remember that question being asked of them, about evidence tampering or car cleaning?
Thank you.
Hard to know which thread to put this into and I will move it if need be.
Click to expand...

I asked this exact same question on another thread...or maybe this one and one of the legaleagles answered that it would be far better for the SA NOT to ask that specific question.....think about it. No one on record LYING about NOT cleaning the car, when it is so obvious it was detail cleaned. hmmm...what ex car salesman who LOVES to keep his cars meticulous do we know?
 
Do you think it will be asked at trial? Do you suppose that if they have evidence to support a claim of tampering that they would present it in front of a jury to counter the denial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 187 more.
Total: 2,647 (members: 188, guests: 2,459)

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
2,459
Total visitors
2,647
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,206
Messages
17,965,003
Members
228,715
Latest member
Autumn.Doe
Back
Top