Maybe I am dumb, as you say, but not as dumb as you'd like me to be.<quoted text>
George testified that the clothes found with Caylee's remains were NOT the same clothes Caylee had on when she left the house ALIVE at 1:00 on June 16, 2008.
The Anthony's made it clear that the shorts were well outgrown and no longer in use.
The Anthony's also testified that they weren't aware Caylee had a shirt SIMILAR TO the one found, until Linda Burdick showed it to them during their depositions.
Did the State suborn perjury or elicit impeachment material from their own witnesses?
You can't be this dumb. I know you can't.
Cindy Anthony, not both Anthonys, said the shorts were outgrown and she hadn't seen them in awhile.
Cindy Anthony, not both Anthonys, said she's never seen a shirt like the one Caylee was wearing in the pix sold to the Globe and PUBLISHED to the world, prior to Caylee's remains being discovered.
George Anthony testified at trial, when asked by the defense to describe what Caylee was wearing, that she was wearing jeans shorts. The State never asked George what Caylee was wearing.
LDB, in her opening statement, stated:
"George Anthony specifically recalls that at 12:50pm on June 16 2008, his daughter Casey left the residence on Hopespring Drive with Caylee Marie Anthony. Caylee was wearing a pink shirt,jean shorts, sunglasses and a backpack. And Jo Jo, George Anthony,kissed his granddaughter goodbye. And never saw her again."
George Anthony interview, August 4, 2008: I know she was dressed in her little, ah, blue jean SKIRT, the white tennis shoes, um.....
Question: Blue jean SKIRT?
George Anthony: Right.
So no, DAYS, the State didn't suborn perjury because they NEVER asked George during trial what Caylee was wearing.
And maybe this is just one of those BIG COINCIDENCES, but considering that I posted the link for this transcript with the page number (10) just a few hours ago on this very thread, it's really ODD that when I went back to same transcript, that page is SUDDENLY BLANK!