Search results

Making inconsistent statements to LE during the course of an investigation, so as to interfere with that investigation, is covered under the Perjury statutes of Florida :wink: I chose no immunity and charges under this section of perjury (which wasn't a choice), for the poll...:blowkiss:

It's okay.... Under the "INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS GIVEN TO LE portion of the perjury statute which I think may apply here, it does not undo the crime if you try to "clear things up." It would be like unrobbing a bank. Telling the truth at a later date does not prevent criminal prosecution...

I vote NO NO NO. I cannot believe their lawyer actually said this. How much experience does he have, anyway? I am still catching up on so much, I do not know his background. I did not choose the NO, with an obstruction charge because: MY full answer would be No, I believe it...

It in fact is, but that loophole is closed to them as well. :hug: You might regret saying that when you see my latest post :blush::blowkiss: You know I will do my best to answer these questions. Right now, I'm reading through the thread and worshipping :bow: this--->:coffee::coffee...

OOH OOH I got it :wave: :D The correct answer is Yes, and also No. The material fact issue comes into play in the perjury statutes of Florida. If the proceeding in which the perjury is committed is an unoffical proceeding,then the lie must be about a material fact in order for the...

You are very welcome.:blowkiss: That is what I wanted to say, but you said it better!:) We sure agree.

I am bumping to tomorrow. I do know that the year of Jessica's law was not the same year that the Statute changed to expand its lack of exclusions for family members. :sleep:Nitey Nite:blowkiss:

I really think it's a possibility and yes, it's , ummmmm, could we say something like savvy instead of sneaky? But yes, it is a real attention-getter when pulled off. :D:blowkiss: And also sneaky. DIdn't Baez say he wanted to play hardball. That's what it is.

I am in that circle.:Banane45: Okay, Couey or no Couey, they are very vulnerable legally. Let me think on the rest. You know I'm a stickler for leaving no statute unturned. I won't let you down.:blowkiss: We're gonna figure out the legislative background. Now I'm curious anyway. :blowkiss:

It is definitely possible that one or more can be charged . No law stops that. I doubt with the steady stream of non-cooperation, outright bashing, and their morals and honesty assailed, that politics will play a factor in charging the A's. I think we are deep in the middle of :"What goes...

The orange which I screwed up as I thought it was red is 2008 law. Please, I am just understanding the "multi-quote" thing.:blush: Those family exclusions to avoid prosecution are limited to crimes much less serious than those we are dealing with. Good Bye loophole.:blowkiss:

Again, you do a great job, Kimmer and reading the statutes is a big task:blowkiss: The portion of the statute which applies to the Anthony version of obstruction is 843.102. As Impatient Redhead previously pointed out, In examining Obstruction vs Accessory, in this case, we have a...

LE has plenty of time. These are major felony charges, keeping in tune with their daughter's severity of crime. The penalties in this instance, feed off the seriousness of the original perp's crime. Thus it could not be any worse for the Anthony's. They can charge them when they want...