* This post reflects a personal opinion and nothing more.

When I watched Amy speak in this video, the first thing that I found perplexing was Amy showed no signs of disgust when talking about the discovery of the mouse. She showed slight disgust when she talked about her grandchildren smelling the can, and if she would drink Pepsi again, but other than that, it was strangely absent. That surprised me. I would have expected her to be more disgusted, or show some form of displeasure at the discovery or when dealing with the can, but she didn’t. Instead, she was rather positive as she discussed a very disturbing experience. I find that odd. Most people would be feel some negativity, even if they had moments of lightheartedness.

Read moreThen Amy’s story seemed rather strange to me when she said”…so he [her husband] took the can and he started to pour it out… in the sink… and as he was pouring it out, this… slimy pink thing started coming out of hole in the can.” She says her husband shook the can and the contents would not come out. Yet a few minutes later, Amy says, “My husband didn’t want to look at it. He didn’t want to know what was in there. He was completely grossed out.”

Then why would her husband be shaking the can trying to either see it or get it out?? These two statements immediately caught my attention as inconsistent. If you are totally grossed out and don’t want to know what is in the can, you don’t shake it and try to get it out.

I also noticed that Amy said “kind of” when explaining something that should have been definitive. Amy said, “I put it on a paper plate and I tried to do the same thing, and the pink thing was stuck to it, it was like slimy and kind of attached, and so I tried, I didn’t touch it, but I tried to shake it and it, it would not come out…”

How can something be “kind of” attached? Does this make any sense? It either is attached or it is not (or you don’t know and don’t speak about it). Later she says, ” The pink thing did separate.”

Being suspicious, I searched online to see if there were any videos of the Amy’s husband talking about this, and I couldn’t find any, but in the process I did find both Fred and Amy’s statements to the FDA. I was immediately struck by how Amy’s husband’s statement diverges from what she tells us in the video.

At two separate times, Amy states that she was with her husband. The first time she says, “Thursday night, we were outside. My husband was grilling out back.” The second time, she says, “He took one gulp, he swallowed it and just made a face. I was sitting there when it happened.”

Yet in Fred’s written statement, he says after he discovered something was in the can “I took it inside to show my wife.” Fred never mentions his wife during the time he drank the soda, or discovered what he suspected “looked like a mouse.”

Yet Amy in her video interview talks about how, “He was at the sink, so I didn’t smell it from there, he was at the sink but, um, but I was watching him and as he was pouring it out, and all of the sudden–he was pouring it out because he was just going to throw the can away, and then all of the sudden THAT started coming out. “

In Amy’s version, her husband was just pouring it out when the mouse or mouse parts supposedly came out for the first time, in somewhat of a surprise. According to her husband, he discovered this outside without her. Not only do their locations not match, but neither do their discovery stories.

“I was cooking outside the evening of 7/23/09, and opened the can of diet pepsi and took a swallow. I noticed that it tasted bad, so I poured some of it out and noticed some of the liquid coming out was a lighter color that what diet pepsi is. I saw something slimy and mucous like that looked like a mouse. I shook it a little to try and get it out. It wouldn’t come out. I took it inside to show it to my wife when she looked in the can and she tried to pour it on a plate. I didn’t go to the doctor. I feel fine.”

Last, if we speculate that the mouse was planted, we must realize that parts of the story recollected would, in fact, be true, and we must not use these segments as a guide to determine truthfulness. Accounts of calling the poison control, the FDA, talking to the FDA and Pepsi as well as the visit by the FDA investigator would likely be truthful as would the accounts of taking the photos, etc. It’s the details of the discovery and what happened during the discovery that become paramount to focus on for honesty and consistency.

Interestingly, Amy’s FDA statement lacks any detail about the discovery or its location at all. We can only get that when she talks for nine minute to reporters. I can’t help but wonder if she was talking a big game here and really stuck her foot in her mouth. As for her husband, I’d need to see him speak to know what to believe!!