Anthony's admit to Conflicting Statements Seek Full Immunity

[debs]

It is not bashing to hold people accountable for what they do wrong. Asking for immunity is equal to saying "we have done something for which we want to avoid punishment." In the instance of the disappearance and likely death of a child, there is NO defense that suggests that people should be able to do whatever they feel they need to in order to protect themselves or someone else. When in the course of human events, a person or persons determine that "the baby is likely dead and so we're going to do whatever we have to" whatever it is they feel they need immunity from, in order to protect whatever or whomever they feel they need to protect, they have walked on the dark side of justice and no amount of compassion in me suggests they should avoid the consequences of their actions.

Everyone seems universal in having Casey face the consequences of her actions. Why for the love of all that is holy does there appear to be a sliding scale for the elder Anthony's? Is not consequence for wrong behavior meant to be handled the same? Shouldn't all who do what they want regardless of the law be held accountable?

To imagine that no one can speak of the grief the Anthony's may suffer is to be disingenuous. To assume that most parents would do what they have done is grotesque. To feel as though they have suffered enough is to ignore the fact that their suffering is SEPARATE from their actions in need of immunity. To assume that those who wish for the Anthony's to be held accountable for their actions which appear to have crossed over the line into illegality are gloating and wishing ill upon them is to misrepresent and blur the line between feeling sympathy for them and feeling they are making such horrific choices that the Anthony's would find themselves in the position that in fact, it appears by their own lawyer's words, they have found themselves.

You cannot continue to wring the sympathies of compassionate people and continue to behave in a fashion that will get you into legal trouble.

 

[Anais]

It is not bashing to hold people accountable for what they do wrong. Asking for immunity is equal to saying "we have done something for which we want to avoid punishment." In the instance of the disappearance and likely death of a child, there is NO defense that suggests that people should be able to do whatever they feel they need to in order to protect themselves or someone else. When in the course of human events, a person or persons determine that "the baby is likely dead and so we're going to do whatever we have to" whatever it is they feel they need immunity from, in order to protect whatever or whomever they feel they need to protect, they have walked on the dark side of justice and no amount of compassion in me suggests they should avoid the consequences of their actions.

Everyone seems universal in having Casey face the consequences of her actions. Why for the love of all that is holy does there appear to be a sliding scale for the elder Anthony's? Is not consequence for wrong behavior meant to be handled the same? Shouldn't all who do what they want regardless of the law be held accountable?

To imagine that no one can speak of the grief the Anthony's may suffer is to be disingenuous. To assume that most parents would do what they have done is grotesque. To feel as though they have suffered enough is to ignore the fact that their suffering is SEPARATE from their actions in need of immunity. To assume that those who wish for the Anthony's to be held accountable for their actions which appear to have crossed over the line into illegality are gloating and wishing ill upon them is to misrepresent and blur the line between feeling sympathy for them and feeling they are making such horrific choices that the Anthony's would find themselves in the position that in fact, it appears by their own lawyer's words, they have found themselves.

You cannot continue to wring the sympathies of compassionate people and continue to behave in a fashion that will get you into legal trouble.

Debs thank you so much for the most eloquently stated post on this matter!!! :clap:You nailed it.

 

[leophoenix]

Don't give them anything. They have made this whole thing a mockery. I doubt once the remains are studied there would be any use of their blessed information.

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

I haven't seen a single post from anyone admitting to similar circumstances. You're right though, it doesn't mean they might not be reading here. And you're also correct that there are those that have had the strength to discuss their missing loved ones cases that have never been found or have been found dead.

If there are those here that found themselves in similar circumstances I would trust their opinion the most and would encourage them to speak up (if they so desire).

I'm looking for the truth and some understanding. We all may be here for different reasons.

i've posted this before in another thread... or maybe it was this one?

anyway,
GA and CA believe from the very beginning that caylee was dead and KC had something to do with it. if you remember from the 911 calls, i forget which one this was but i remember hearing it over and over again on nancy grace-- CA said "i have someone here you need to arrest" then she goes on to tell the operator that she hasn't seen her daughter or grand daughter in 31 days and caylee has been missing for that amount of time, and the car smells like theres been a dead body in it. i'm not sure if she said " theres someone here you need to arrest" because of the car being stolen or because of KC not reporting her missing for so long. i'll have to go and look up transcripts... but my point is: judging from 911 calls, interviews with LE, CA and GA KNEW something was not right from day 1 (day 31) but after hearing all the lies spew forth from KC, they were confused and wanted to hang on to that teeny tiny glimmer of hope that maybe caylee WAS kidnapped and KC didn't report it because she didn't want to put the family or caylee at risk. then denial sets in... they don't WANT to BELIEVE that their precious KC could have possibly KILLED their grand daughter.
when they retrieved the car from impound and smelled the decomposition in the trunk they KNEW what the smell was and what the source of the smell was... but they didn't want to come to terms and actually believe it. this is why *I* think CA washed the pants from the trunk and attempted to clean the smell out of the car, as well as destroy other evidence.. i don't necessarily think it was to "cover" for KC, i *think* that maybe she did this because in her mind she thought that if she made the evidence disappear, then she would make the whole possibility of caylee being murdered disappear. do you get what i'm saying? if there is no stains or smells coming from the car, then there could not have been a murder.. this was their way of being able to hold on to the possibility of caylee still being alive and with the nanny.
KC is a very good manipulator.. she manipulated her parents into covering up the murder because they didn't want to believe that their daughter was capable of committing such crime, or that they would never see their grand daughter alive again.

if it was MY child, i don't know WHAT i would do. it would push me over the edge.. actually no... it wouldn't happen..
if i KNEW my child had a past history of being a douchebag and pawned their child off every chance they got and lied about as much as KC did, there would be no way i would allow them to leave with my grandchild, or take him/her anywhere alone. i would have custody quicker than anything.
if my daughter came home and told me she was pregnant and told me that she did not wish to keep the baby, i would respect her choice and take the child myself. get custody of him/her before they even got discharged from the hospital. i would raise that child as if it were my own and would not expect anything from my daughter. i would not force her to keep the child and force responsibility on her that she isn't ready for, or that she doesn't want. i guess in CA's mind she felt that if KC was old enough to do "adult" things, then she should be old enough and responsible enough to take responsibility for her actions... KC's friend Kio even said that CA was all hell bent on KC doing the "right" thing. but what is right and wrong these days? i am a firm believer that people should NOT bring babies into this world that they can not take care of (for whatever reason) YES, she should have been more responsible (not having unprotected sex, or NOT using condoms/birth control) but the damage is already done.. IMO, the "right" thing would not be to force her to have and keep a child that she does not want, or can not take care of. she should have either taken custody from day 1, or let her give the baby up for adoption.
i'm not saying this is CA's fault for making KC keep caylee when she was born, but she should have seen something horrible coming.. when none of KC's friends would watch caylee anymore because KC always lied about her whereabouts, that should have been a huge red flag. when KC lied to her about the jobs and whatever else, THAT should've been a huge red flag.. there were so many red flags, but they chose to ignore them because they did not want to believe that their daughter was immoral.

i have a sister who is VERY much like KC. she is a drug addict and has never taken care of her children. my parents MADE her keep the babies, but would not do anything to help (until she up and left) they told her that she had a responsibility to stay at home with her sons.. so they would not watch them.
so then she would take them with her on drug runs in the city where they could've easily been shot... left alone in the car while she ran into crack houses where they could've easily been kidnapped, left them with questionable people where they could've been beaten or molested. and when she wanted to go out to the bar on a saturday night and nobody would watch her kids, she would DRUG THEM WITH BENADRYL OR TYLENOL PM so they'd sleep thru the night and she could leave them home alone.

now what if one of these times would have ended in an overdose.. i can totally see her trying to stage some kind of ... something.. and my parents being in denial and covering up for her. my parents remind me so much of CA and GA... it's disgusting. i could not take much more of it so i had to leave and move 40 miles away to get away from the drama..

and yes, i have tried to intervene dozens of times... calling CPS, who investigated and left right away because my parents talk a good talk.. but there is nothing i can do if THEY do not want to believe there is a problem int he first place. there is no kind of help for these kinds of people... and unfortunately, it takes a horrible tragedy in order for them to wake up.

 

[curiositycat]

It is not bashing to hold people accountable for what they do wrong. Asking for immunity is equal to saying "we have done something for which we want to avoid punishment." In the instance of the disappearance and likely death of a child, there is NO defense that suggests that people should be able to do whatever they feel they need to in order to protect themselves or someone else. When in the course of human events, a person or persons determine that "the baby is likely dead and so we're going to do whatever we have to" whatever it is they feel they need immunity from, in order to protect whatever or whomever they feel they need to protect, they have walked on the dark side of justice and no amount of compassion in me suggests they should avoid the consequences of their actions.

Everyone seems universal in having Casey face the consequences of her actions. Why for the love of all that is holy does there appear to be a sliding scale for the elder Anthony's? Is not consequence for wrong behavior meant to be handled the same? Shouldn't all who do what they want regardless of the law be held accountable?

To imagine that no one can speak of the grief the Anthony's may suffer is to be disingenuous. To assume that most parents would do what they have done is grotesque. To feel as though they have suffered enough is to ignore the fact that their suffering is SEPARATE from their actions in need of immunity. To assume that those who wish for the Anthony's to be held accountable for their actions which appear to have crossed over the line into illegality are gloating and wishing ill upon them is to misrepresent and blur the line between feeling sympathy for them and feeling they are making such horrific choices that the Anthony's would find themselves in the position that in fact, it appears by their own lawyer's words, they have found themselves.

You cannot continue to wring the sympathies of compassionate people and continue to behave in a fashion that will get you into legal trouble.

Great Post!! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Friday]

Today, B Conway said he'd first gotten involved with the Anthony's case last Thursday (conincidentally the same day the Anthonys got word Caylee's remains were likely discovered).

Am I the last one here to realize that the discovery of Caylee's remains caused the Ants. to quickly hire an attorney to represent them? Odd timing, isn't it?

 

[BonKai]

It is not bashing to hold people accountable for what they do wrong. Asking for immunity is equal to saying "we have done something for which we want to avoid punishment." In the instance of the disappearance and likely death of a child, there is NO defense that suggests that people should be able to do whatever they feel they need to in order to protect themselves or someone else. When in the course of human events, a person or persons determine that "the baby is likely dead and so we're going to do whatever we have to" whatever it is they feel they need immunity from, in order to protect whatever or whomever they feel they need to protect, they have walked on the dark side of justice and no amount of compassion in me suggests they should avoid the consequences of their actions.

Everyone seems universal in having Casey face the consequences of her actions. Why for the love of all that is holy does there appear to be a sliding scale for the elder Anthony's? Is not consequence for wrong behavior meant to be handled the same? Shouldn't all who do what they want regardless of the law be held accountable?

To imagine that no one can speak of the grief the Anthony's may suffer is to be disingenuous. To assume that most parents would do what they have done is grotesque. To feel as though they have suffered enough is to ignore the fact that their suffering is SEPARATE from their actions in need of immunity. To assume that those who wish for the Anthony's to be held accountable for their actions which appear to have crossed over the line into illegality are gloating and wishing ill upon them is to misrepresent and blur the line between feeling sympathy for them and feeling they are making such horrific choices that the Anthony's would find themselves in the position that in fact, it appears by their own lawyer's words, they have found themselves.

You cannot continue to wring the sympathies of compassionate people and continue to behave in a fashion that will get you into legal trouble.

BRAVO! :clap:
ENCORE! :clap:

 

[RR0004]

The Anthony's lawyer admits they have made conflicting statements in the past. He seeks full immunity for them.

Article here:
http://www.wftv.com/news/18282120/detail.html


JoAnn_W

Anyone else would not be allowed a do-over...so why should they? They had plenty of time (6 months) to get their stories "straight". I'm wondering what legal beagle advised them to lie or "stretch the truth", or did they decide to do that all by themselves? The only way I'd want LE to give them immunity is if they're willing to testify...which they won't be.

 

[elfie]

It is not bashing to hold people accountable for what they do wrong. Asking for immunity is equal to saying "we have done something for which we want to avoid punishment." In the instance of the disappearance and likely death of a child, there is NO defense that suggests that people should be able to do whatever they feel they need to in order to protect themselves or someone else. When in the course of human events, a person or persons determine that "the baby is likely dead and so we're going to do whatever we have to" whatever it is they feel they need immunity from, in order to protect whatever or whomever they feel they need to protect, they have walked on the dark side of justice and no amount of compassion in me suggests they should avoid the consequences of their actions.

Everyone seems universal in having Casey face the consequences of her actions. Why for the love of all that is holy does there appear to be a sliding scale for the elder Anthony's? Is not consequence for wrong behavior meant to be handled the same? Shouldn't all who do what they want regardless of the law be held accountable?

To imagine that no one can speak of the grief the Anthony's may suffer is to be disingenuous. To assume that most parents would do what they have done is grotesque. To feel as though they have suffered enough is to ignore the fact that their suffering is SEPARATE from their actions in need of immunity. To assume that those who wish for the Anthony's to be held accountable for their actions which appear to have crossed over the line into illegality are gloating and wishing ill upon them is to misrepresent and blur the line between feeling sympathy for them and feeling they are making such horrific choices that the Anthony's would find themselves in the position that in fact, it appears by their own lawyer's words, they have found themselves.

You cannot continue to wring the sympathies of compassionate people and continue to behave in a fashion that will get you into legal trouble.

Like it or not the Anthonys are victims in this whole tragedy and will continue to be irregardless of our opinions. Calling for their prosecution is about as far from compassion as could reasonably be imagined. Posturing that your compassion can only go so far is equally disingenuous. There either is compassion or there isn't. Compassion is demonstrated, not alluded to.

 

[cocowiley]

I haven't read the entire 20 pages of Anthony bashing so excuse me please if this has already been said.

I think this is a win/win situation for LE and I think they will agree to the immunity.
First, I don't believe LE has any intention of bringing charges against George and Cindy, and second, they want to know the truth. They'll lose nothing by granting immunity and gain everything. I believe they'll do it.

i should probably just play it safe and ignore this so as not to get a time out but if you had read through the first 20 pages you'd see that most comments were merely opinions..i've seen some nasty threads on here in regards to "bashing" the Anthony's, i think this thread has been one of the more civil ones so far.

 

[tangerinemoon]

It is not bashing to hold people accountable for what they do wrong. Asking for immunity is equal to saying "we have done something for which we want to avoid punishment." In the instance of the disappearance and likely death of a child, there is NO defense that suggests that people should be able to do whatever they feel they need to in order to protect themselves or someone else. When in the course of human events, a person or persons determine that "the baby is likely dead and so we're going to do whatever we have to" whatever it is they feel they need immunity from, in order to protect whatever or whomever they feel they need to protect, they have walked on the dark side of justice and no amount of compassion in me suggests they should avoid the consequences of their actions.

Everyone seems universal in having Casey face the consequences of her actions. Why for the love of all that is holy does there appear to be a sliding scale for the elder Anthony's? Is not consequence for wrong behavior meant to be handled the same? Shouldn't all who do what they want regardless of the law be held accountable?

To imagine that no one can speak of the grief the Anthony's may suffer is to be disingenuous. To assume that most parents would do what they have done is grotesque. To feel as though they have suffered enough is to ignore the fact that their suffering is SEPARATE from their actions in need of immunity. To assume that those who wish for the Anthony's to be held accountable for their actions which appear to have crossed over the line into illegality are gloating and wishing ill upon them is to misrepresent and blur the line between feeling sympathy for them and feeling they are making such horrific choices that the Anthony's would find themselves in the position that in fact, it appears by their own lawyer's words, they have found themselves.

You cannot continue to wring the sympathies of compassionate people and continue to behave in a fashion that will get you into legal trouble.

Awesome post.:woohoo:

 

[jennyb]

It is not bashing to hold people accountable for what they do wrong. Asking for immunity is equal to saying "we have done something for which we want to avoid punishment." In the instance of the disappearance and likely death of a child, there is NO defense that suggests that people should be able to do whatever they feel they need to in order to protect themselves or someone else. When in the course of human events, a person or persons determine that "the baby is likely dead and so we're going to do whatever we have to" whatever it is they feel they need immunity from, in order to protect whatever or whomever they feel they need to protect, they have walked on the dark side of justice and no amount of compassion in me suggests they should avoid the consequences of their actions.

Everyone seems universal in having Casey face the consequences of her actions. Why for the love of all that is holy does there appear to be a sliding scale for the elder Anthony's? Is not consequence for wrong behavior meant to be handled the same? Shouldn't all who do what they want regardless of the law be held accountable?

To imagine that no one can speak of the grief the Anthony's may suffer is to be disingenuous. To assume that most parents would do what they have done is grotesque. To feel as though they have suffered enough is to ignore the fact that their suffering is SEPARATE from their actions in need of immunity. To assume that those who wish for the Anthony's to be held accountable for their actions which appear to have crossed over the line into illegality are gloating and wishing ill upon them is to misrepresent and blur the line between feeling sympathy for them and feeling they are making such horrific choices that the Anthony's would find themselves in the position that in fact, it appears by their own lawyer's words, they have found themselves.

You cannot continue to wring the sympathies of compassionate people and continue to behave in a fashion that will get you into legal trouble.

Most excellent post, Debs. I have compassion for little Caylee and that's where it ends. I don't have sympathy for criminals. NONE. I suppose some might call me a *hater* and a heartless person. I call that attack manipulative to the highest degree. I stand firm as a caring person who has complete disregard and disdain for HEARTLESS LIARS AND SELF SERVING COWARDS. I have no apology for that.

 

[RR0004]

I am sure there are people on WS who have lost grandchildren and/or have had missing family members. We don't KNOW there isn't ONE AMONG US HERE. And there are many many examples of people out there who have gone through what the Anthonys are going through and they haven't acted like them. Bad behavior is bad behavior period.

Worse yet, bad behavior aired nationally. Truth always wins out (or at least I'd like to think so)...so what did they expect would happen? That we'd forget all their "inconsistencies'? I'm sure LE has a very long memory.

 

[Capri]

It is not bashing to hold people accountable for what they do wrong. Asking for immunity is equal to saying "we have done something for which we want to avoid punishment." In the instance of the disappearance and likely death of a child, there is NO defense that suggests that people should be able to do whatever they feel they need to in order to protect themselves or someone else. When in the course of human events, a person or persons determine that "the baby is likely dead and so we're going to do whatever we have to" whatever it is they feel they need immunity from, in order to protect whatever or whomever they feel they need to protect, they have walked on the dark side of justice and no amount of compassion in me suggests they should avoid the consequences of their actions.

Everyone seems universal in having Casey face the consequences of her actions. Why for the love of all that is holy does there appear to be a sliding scale for the elder Anthony's? Is not consequence for wrong behavior meant to be handled the same? Shouldn't all who do what they want regardless of the law be held accountable?

To imagine that no one can speak of the grief the Anthony's may suffer is to be disingenuous. To assume that most parents would do what they have done is grotesque. To feel as though they have suffered enough is to ignore the fact that their suffering is SEPARATE from their actions in need of immunity. To assume that those who wish for the Anthony's to be held accountable for their actions which appear to have crossed over the line into illegality are gloating and wishing ill upon them is to misrepresent and blur the line between feeling sympathy for them and feeling they are making such horrific choices that the Anthony's would find themselves in the position that in fact, it appears by their own lawyer's words, they have found themselves.

You cannot continue to wring the sympathies of compassionate people and continue to behave in a fashion that will get you into legal trouble.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
Thank you! I am so tired of hearing we don't know what we'd do if we were in thier shoes. If you are a normal truth-valuing individual, we do know what you would do- the right thing. It may cause you anguish and pain, knowing that a loved one is mixed up in it, but I have no doubt that most of us would do the right thing.

 

[maur33]

It is not bashing to hold people accountable for what they do wrong. Asking for immunity is equal to saying "we have done something for which we want to avoid punishment." In the instance of the disappearance and likely death of a child, there is NO defense that suggests that people should be able to do whatever they feel they need to in order to protect themselves or someone else. When in the course of human events, a person or persons determine that "the baby is likely dead and so we're going to do whatever we have to" whatever it is they feel they need immunity from, in order to protect whatever or whomever they feel they need to protect, they have walked on the dark side of justice and no amount of compassion in me suggests they should avoid the consequences of their actions.

Everyone seems universal in having Casey face the consequences of her actions. Why for the love of all that is holy does there appear to be a sliding scale for the elder Anthony's? Is not consequence for wrong behavior meant to be handled the same? Shouldn't all who do what they want regardless of the law be held accountable?

To imagine that no one can speak of the grief the Anthony's may suffer is to be disingenuous. To assume that most parents would do what they have done is grotesque. To feel as though they have suffered enough is to ignore the fact that their suffering is SEPARATE from their actions in need of immunity. To assume that those who wish for the Anthony's to be held accountable for their actions which appear to have crossed over the line into illegality are gloating and wishing ill upon them is to misrepresent and blur the line between feeling sympathy for them and feeling they are making such horrific choices that the Anthony's would find themselves in the position that in fact, it appears by their own lawyer's words, they have found themselves.

You cannot continue to wring the sympathies of compassionate people and continue to behave in a fashion that will get you into legal trouble.

I couldn't agree more. The very idea that somehow the anthony's should be given immunity against any charges that might be coming there way is beyond insulting.

For what reason should they be held to a different standard than the rest of society?

I don't need to have a family member lose their child and during the course of the investigation require the use of a "playbook" to know that covering up for their crime is unlawful. The anthony's in their attempt to put the lid back on the family cookie jar have gone beyond the boundaries of support and love for their daughter and are now in the land of accomplices after the fact.

 

[RR0004]

Like it or not the Anthonys are victims in this whole tragedy and will continue to be irregardless of our opinions. Calling for their prosecution is about as far from compassion as could reasonably be imagined. Posturing that your compassion can only go so far is equally disingenuous. There either is compassion or there isn't. Compassion is demonstrated, not alluded to.

IMO no one should be above the law. I imagine that's the gist of this "poll".

 

[Amil]

From what I read, Cindy did threaten this many times, and her therapist did also recommend this.

Do you think LE will subppena the therapist's records and do you think they are an important part of the puzzle revealing perhaps what frame of mind CA was in and how KC had been behaving according to CA.

 

[Faenorwyn]

I said yes they should be granted immunity. Whatever conflicting statements they have made in the past IMO were probably the result of confusion, grief, anxiety and the stress of having their granddaughter missing and their daughter incarcerated and the #1 suspect. I do not think criminal charges should be put against them in any way, shape or form. I have alot of sympathy for that family, although I realize alot of people don't.

 

[curiositycat]

Today, B Conway said he'd first gotten involved with the Anthony's case last Thursday (conincidentally the same day the Anthonys got word Caylee's remains were likely discovered).

Am I the last one here to realize that the discovery of Caylee's remains caused the Ants. to quickly hire an attorney to represent them? Odd timing, isn't it?

I mentioned that earlier! I bet it was arranged by someone for them while they were on the way back from LA. I think they were met by LE and asked some questions. JMO

 

[amethyst]

I say no to immunity.

I seriously doubt that the truth will ever truly be known. Let the chips fall where they may.