Analysis of Cindy Anthonys 911 call

Cindy Anthony is due to testify about the 911 call.

From the Orlando Sentinel:

"Brad Conway, Cindy Anthony's lawyer, confirmed today that she and her son Lee were served with subpoenas in late June to be available for testimony for a critical hearing next week.Part of the hearing, scheduled for Thursday, July 15, will focus on whether 911 calls Cindy Anthony made two years ago should be admitted during trial.

"She's going to tell the truth," Conway said today. "She made the phone calls. It's factual. She's going to testify truthfully.""

The statement speaks volumes about his client, and about public expectations.

The statement raises the question about Conway's belief in his client:

Why would an attorney feel the need to tell the public that his client is going to testify "truthfully"? This is a humiliation of Cindy Anthony by her own attorney.

"She's going to tell the truth"

This shows intention. In a sense, it gives the feel of a "negation" because the expectation is in presuppositional thinking:

testifying in court is under oath.

Why offer that she will testify in truth if there wasn't an issue of lying? This is offered information to us, and it is, therefore, sensitive. Had a journalist said, "Is she going to lie?", it would in response; and not a "negation", but here, it appears to be offered and presupposes that Cindy Anthony has not been truthful, perhaps under oath, but certainly in the context of the 911 call.

Brad Conway is telling us that he recognizes that Cindy Anthony may have not told the truth under oath.

"She made the phone calls. It's factual. She's going to testify truthfully"

Since he is responding to the fact that she is going to be testifying about the 911 calls, he says:
"she made the phone calls."

The 911 calls were made public long ago. That the voice was Cindy Anthony's has not be in dispute. Why the need to press something that is not challeng
Since it is not in dispute that she made the phone calls to 911, this is sensitive information to Conway. What makes it sensitive?

We know that Cindy Anthony recently made another appearance on Television where she was askedd about the odor of decomposition in the car. Media reminded that she is a registered nurse who would be familiar with the unique odor. Cindy told the national audience that she was not truthful with the 911 operator, but only reported the smell to make them hurry. This is likely a source, but perhaps not THE source of sensitivity to Brad Conway.

Why not?

Because Cindy Anthony was not under oath when she said that she told 911 a lie just to hurry them along. She was not under oath when she said that "maybe" somebody placed a body in Casey's car; or that it was "rotting pizza" that she needed to scrub out of the car fabric and out of the fabric of clothing.

Yet, "truth" (and its expanded "truthfully") repeated in such a short statement shows a high level of sensitivity in the issue of truth, in particular, sensitivity increased because:

there were no legal ramifications for the "pizza" or "another dead body in the trunk" type statements to media.

When an oath is taken, there may be consequences that CONCERN Brad Conway, as an attorney responsible for his client. ed?


"she made the phone calls"

Since this states what is already known, it would appear to be unnecessary and unimportant information; therefore, in Statement Analysis, it is "doubly important".

This appears to be in the form of an "admission" by Brad Conway, "admitting" that Cindy made the calls. Why would it need to be an "admission", which suggests a "concession" of sorts?

the answer lies in the calls themselves, as prosecutors carefully showed:

The calls show a progression by Casey Anthony, to float excuses to her mother, which her mother did not accept. When Casey made excuses why Cindy could not see Caylee, Casey increased the drama and importance, each time, until finally telling her mother that "she has been taken" with the infamous phantom nanny story.

We learned that Cindy smelled the odor of decomposition in the car; an unmistakable odor, which requires no training to discern, yet,

Cindy called the police to have Casey arrested for theft.

Cindy had been conducting her own "investigation" with her son, Lee Anthony, prior to the call, searching for Caylee. Did Cindy think that having Casey arrested for theft would cause her to give up the withheld information about Caylee? Cindy may face some tough questions, July 15.

"It's factual."

"it", pronoun, likely refers to the fact that "she made" the phone calls. Yet, why the need to repeat that it was, indeed, Cindy who made the calls?

1. It is her voice on the tapes
2. She has acknowledged making the calls
3. It has not been disputed that she made the calls.

Yet, not only does Conway state the obvious "she made the calls" but then revisits it (showing high level of sensivity) with the, again, obvious, "it is factual".

This buttresses the fact that these 911 calls are going to do damage to Casey, and Brad Conway recognizes that Cindy is now forced into a position where "factually" she did make the calls and DID report the odor. Cindy is now faced with her very public lie:

What will she say?

Conway says that she will tell the truth.

In reviewing the many statments of Cindy Anthony and analyzing them (prior analysis is found here),

the issue of whether Cindy Anthony will testify truthfully is in doubt. I know this as fact because Brad Conway told us:
"She's going to testify truthfully" is repeated twice in one short statement.

This is a weakened assertion by Brad Conway, showing his own doubt. "Me thinks thou doest protest too much" is a common theme in Statement Analysis.

Had there been no doubts in Conway's mind, he would not have had to make this statement at all.

Had there been but small doubt, he would only have said it once.

The doubt that Conway has is strong; therefore, his repetition, at least to him, is necessary.

If a person's own attorney has concerns about a client's veracity, we would do well to do the same.
source:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cindy is just like KC...They think that because they say something, that makes it the truth...They are pathological LIARS!!

Cindy has to be very careful. Does she really think she can commit perjury and get away with it. Her co-workers at Gentiva will testify, if called, that she told them the car smelled like a dead body. She's going to have to get up and tell the truth on the stand and know that Casey will be shooting her daggers - no more mouthing I love you after this testimoney I'd bet!

She is not going to deny making the statement about the smell in the car...She is just going to say that she said it just to get the police there quicker...She doesn't think that her motivation can be proven or disproved...But with all the other evidence about that night and what was going on (hence Lee's testimony), anybody with any sense (and Judge Perry has some!) knows that she was very distraught and this was definitely an excited utterance...Therefore, it is admissible and the 911 call will be played in court, Cindy!!

The issue isnt going to be her denying she made the statement - its been taped. The issue is she is going to backtrack and say she only said that because she wanted LE out there faster as she now has been saying publicly. I would assume then the prosecution would then have to ask her if she did or did not believe that the car smelled like a dead body.
If she says no she didnt think so, then she will be lying which can be supported by her two co-workers at Gentiva who can testify that she stated that the car DID smell like a dead body. If she says yes, it did smell like a dead body, then I believe that is an excited utterance and Judge Perry will allow it. I cannot wait to hear her on the stand!

Also, George (an ex-detective) had to drive the car in the Florida heat with the windows rolled down while it was raining it smelled so bad. He actually had to pull over a few times and vomit. He is on tape telling both LE and the FBI that once you smell that smell - you never forget it. So, between the 3 Ant's...this will most definitely be allowed in court.

I just cannot see how Cindy can get out of saying that she believed the smell was that of a dead body. Her brother in his deposition said she was previously a surgical nurse. After all, there WAS a dead body in the car at one time.

I think this time they have Cindy. What day is this taking place. I would love to watch Cindy on the stand. I wonder if she will behave in front of Judge Perry like she did with Mr. Morgan.

I don't think Judge Perry has to put up with the likes of that one.

The question I am asking myself right now is this. Will Cindy perjure herself to save Casey?

The hearing is this coming Thursday July 15th at I believe 1:30 pm Eastern but I have to check the time
again - I will be glued to my computer! Lee also will testify. I just do not see how she can lie and say she didnt think it smelled like a dead body. Will Cindy commit perjury for Casey? Maybe, but I do not believe
George or Lee will lie, and Casey knows it - thats why she threw them under the bus IMO.

Ironic...July 15...Two years to the day that she made the call...