Anthony's admit to Conflicting Statements Seek Full Immunity

[jennyb]

They have to sign a book/movie deal. They have a pricey defense team. They don't have a red cent to their name. Unfortunately there is no loving next of kin family member that has the grounds to file a wrongful death civil suit against them. That would take care of any profits from this trajedy.

Maybe the "dead" father will come out of hiding now and help us all out...

The father would be the only heir with standing to file such a suit. The A's know who he is, and he wasn't killed in a car accident.

Ha, with the way things are going I wouldn't be a bit surprised. I can handle one more miracle!

 

[impatientredhead]

I'm sure no one would be surprised if I say I agree.

I am not sure I believe it, but I think it is possible, and if it is what is happening than I would guess Cindy will be coming round the corner from denial right into anger, and if that anger is directed at Casey I think her statements could be useful to the prosecution.

The prosecutors will know whether they want to provide immunity in exchange for their new statement. Immunity exists for a reason and it is a tool that is solely approved by the prosecution side of the table. Based on what I have seen the only thing the attorney is asking for is immunity relevant to statements made, the misdemeanor penalty is so small they are never going to prosecute them under that statute anyway.

 

[sweetwater]

If we don't know what it is that they've allegedly done wrong, how can we be screaming for their heads on a platter?

I think it's a good thing that they are willing to tell the entire truth now, isn't that what everyone has wanted all along? Their lawyer would not be doing his job if he didn't ask for immunity considering the conflicting statements they've given all along.

Oh, come on. There's more than a few statements and actions that have taken to distort and conceal the truth and vital evidence that are clearly punishable, if the will exists.
To say that "they" are willing to tell the truth now, based on all "they" have subjected the world to, is a huge stretch of imagination.
Officially, they aren't even grieving.
They're evaluating and I would imagine, without a stretch, that they're also calculating money and time.

 

[Pedrosmom]

I am not sure I believe it, but I think it is possible, and if it is what is happening than I would guess Cindy will be coming round the corner from denial right into anger, and if that anger is directed at Casey I think her statements could be useful to the prosecution.

The prosecutors will know whether they want to provide immunity in exchange for their new statement. Immunity exists for a reason and it is a tool that is solely approved by the prosecution side of the table. Based on what I have seen the only thing the attorney is asking for is immunity relevant to statements made, the misdemeanor penalty is so small they are never going to prosecute them under that statute anyway.

What about the evidence tampering? Washing the items from the Pontiac? Capital Murder? That's huge. They could stand to do some serious time, particularly CA.

 

[indicat]

Why on earth would anyone file a wrongful death suit against George and Cindy?

Speaking of money I remember some documents where GA said his sister and her husband were very well to do. I have been thinking that they are getting much financial help from them, I know we dont hear anything about it but that does not surprise me, it seems they really did not want to get involved but that does not mean they would not help them out financially.

 

[ThoughtElf]

I could easily be wrong, but I had the impression the A's getting their new attorney was more a part of an overall plan that was set in motion behind the scenes earlier, and came to fruition at the time of the hearing when the new attorneys for Casey were revealed. Casey's new team appeared, and the A's got someone new who could work with the defense team with less restrictions than MN had, and get a grip on their statements and activities. It was fortuitous that the remains were discovered at virtually the same time. If he gives them wise counsel, all the better.

I know a number of people think that what, if anything, the A's did was caused by grief, shock, etc. and that it should be overlooked. If that is someone's opinion, I'm fine with that -- they're entitled. At the same time, the law in theory does not excuse the commission of crimes (if any) on that basis, and it isn't heartless or evil to discuss it, or have a contrary opinion.

I agree with both points in your post.

 

[MD MOMMY]

I also think they have everything they need without the A's which is one reason I don't think the A's will be charged. Nothing the A's have done has successfully interfered with the investigation. What would be the purpose of charging them? To prevent them lying the next time one of their children commit murder?

Then why bother having this law IF it is to be looked at in that regard..for that matter why have any laws at all. So if someone holds up a bank employee but doesn't take any money or doesn't hurt anyone, we should just let that go because nobody got hurt and no money was taken?

I do think they should be charged of course. If they are not, it sets a precidence for others to follow in the same footsteps that the A's have. Why should anyone not be charged with a crime they committed? Is it really okay that the A's lied, witheld information, and purposely provided incorrect evidence? BUT because they didn't REALLY interfere we should just say okay guys give us what you have now and we won't charge you?:bang:

JMHO.

 

[KatrinaLee73]

The "grieving grandparents" only goes so far. It doesn't extend to lying to LE. I certainly hope that LE doesn't buy this immunity request. I don't think the Anthony's have anything to offer LE that LE doesn't already know. It's my opinion they're just trying to save themselves from future charges. MOO

I am kind of on the fence with this one...but leaning more toward them not buying the immunity request. I mean look at what KC did after LP agreed to bail her out if she agreed to talk?! :bang:

 

[Chilly Willy]

Oh, come on. There's more than a few statements and actions that have taken to distort and conceal the truth and vital evidence that are clearly punishable, if the will exists.
To say that "they" are willing to tell the truth now, based on all "they" have subjected the world to, is a huge stretch of imagination.
Officially, they aren't even grieving.
They're evaluating and I would imagine, without a stretch, that they're also calculating money and time.

Obviously they have distorted the truth and outright lied. That appears to be why they're asking for immunity. To what have they subjected "the world?"


I was not aware that a person could grieve "officially".

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

I also think they have everything they need without the A's which is one reason I don't think the A's will be charged. Nothing the A's have done has successfully interfered with the investigation. What would be the purpose of charging them? To prevent them lying the next time one of their children commit murder?

Well for one thing, they are guilty. The crime doesn't have to be successful to be a crime.

And for another, it would be a good example. They changed the law in Florida over the Couey's and I don't believe they have prosecuted anyone yet.

 

[sweetwater]

Hi sweetwater! What a day...

Heh there Jennyb-
Whoa! No kidding. :Banane37:

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

I'm curious about that. If they were convicted of obstruction, why would that prevent them from writing a book about the murder? Wouldn't it only keep them from writing about their crime, not Casey's?

Not if they charge them properly, IMHO. It could be argued that it isn't just obstruction, which if I recall is misd. They could charge them as part of a conspiracy on the covering up the murder, and then they couldn't profit from any element of that.

 

[eve314]

I haven't read all the responses, but the first few pages indicate that there is an assumption here that given FULL IMMUNITY George and Cindy Anthony will tell the "truth".

When Brad Conway stated that there will not be conflicts in CA and GA's interviews - the comment does not necessarily mean that the Anthony's will in fact admit that the car smelled of human decomposition and that ZFG does not exist. It is highly probable that Cindy and George will state as FACT that they both smelled a PIZZA decomposing in that car.

They have had months rehearsing their lines in the media.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Well for one thing, they are guilty. The crime doesn't have to be successful to be a crime.
And for another, it would be a good example. They changed the law in Florida over the Couey's and I don't believe they have prosecuted anyone yet.

EXACTLY..and who are we to assume that they didn't interfere with the investigation anyway..we don't know that yet! LE might just have a differing opinion in that regard, we will have to wait and see!

 

[Drivenon]

IMO, the bottom line is this:

If either GA or CA has in fact, by word or deed, obstructed justice in this case, there is zero incentive for the prosecution to agree to immunity unless it enhances the prosecution case against Casey. IMO, unless they feel any statements they made weakens the case against Casey, they wont go after them for simply lying, it has to make a material difference in the case.

I feel the areas where they absolutely face potential charges are:
GA lying about seeing KC and Caylee on the 16th
Cindy lying to the Feds/LE about KC access to her car
GA account of seeing KC on 6/24
Anything they have done on their computer they are intent to blame others in the house for during the time KC was on house arrest or other.
AND
whatever Le knows that we dont
CA/GA possible tampering with evidence with regard to the car.

 

[JBean]

Then why bother having this law IF it is to be looked at in that regard..for that matter why have any laws at all. So if someone holds up a bank employee but doesn't take any money or doesn't hurt anyone, we should just let that go because nobody got hurt and no money was taken?

I do think they should be charged of course. If they are not, it sets a precidence for others to follow in the same footsteps that the A's have. Why should anyone not be charged with a crime they committed? Is it really okay that the A's lied, witheld information, and purposely provided incorrect evidence? BUT because they didn't REALLY interfere we should just say okay guys give us what you have now and we won't charge you?:bang:

JMHO.

Look at OJ's buddies. deals are struck all day long. Right or wrong, good or bad it is an integral part of our justice system. the cost to get something that the prosecutors need may be worth the price. Whether it applies in this case or not, i do not know. Daily occurence to not press charges in exchange for information. IN this case it would seem almost more likely because one can *almost* understand the conflict facing the Anthony's. (accent on *almost*)

 

[Chilly Willy]

I haven't read all the responses, but the first few pages indicate that there is an assumption here that given FULL IMMUNITY George and Cindy Anthony will tell the "truth".

When Brad Conway stated that there will not be conflicts in CA and GA's interviews - the comment does not necessarily mean that the Anthony's will in fact admit that the car smelled of human decomposition and that ZFG does not exist. It is highly probable that Cindy and George will state as FACT that they both smelled a PIZZA decomposing in that car.

They have had months rehearsing their lines in the media.

Telling the truth about the facts does not require them to draw a conclusion from those facts. A person can not be prosecuted for believing a smell was rotten pizza when it wasn't or that an invisible nanny named Zanny exists somewhere on the planet.

 

[Drivenon]

Not if they charge them properly, IMHO. It could be argued that it isn't just obstruction, which if I recall is misd. They could charge them as part of a conspiracy on the covering up the murder, and then they couldn't profit from any element of that.

I agree and I think that is the issue. Are we talking accesory after the fact or obstruction- those are 2 entirely different scenarios. I would be willing to bet that whichever it is, it is directly related to the crime scene evidence from where her remains were found.

 

[Chilly Willy]

EXACTLY..and who are we to assume that they didn't interfere with the investigation anyway..we don't know that yet! LE might just have a differing opinion in that regard, we will have to wait and see!

And LE may be wondering why Bradley is even thinking about requesting immunity when they have no intentions of bringing charges. We don't know that yet.

 

[amethyst221]

If we don't know what it is that they've allegedly done wrong, how can we be screaming for their heads on a platter?

I think it's a good thing that they are willing to tell the entire truth now, isn't that what everyone has wanted all along? Their lawyer would not be doing his job if he didn't ask for immunity considering the conflicting statements they've given.

First, you can't really get immunity from the state for prior "conflicting" or inconsistent statements, or just erase them, whether they were made under oath or not. They are going to stick around and haunt you and be used to impeach your credibility when you testify. That ship has sailed. Immunity is to protect from prosecution for a criminal activity, such as perjury, obstruction of justice or acting as an accessory after the fact, for example. The A's attorney raised the matter, so I don't know what he was specifically referring to or thinking of. I'll say the same thing I said when there were discussions of the "female bounty hunter." It is NOT routine for every witness in a criminal case to seek or be granted immunity. It does sort of presuppose you may have broken the law and need protection. If you do get immunity, though, you would be expected like everyone to make a proffer of what you would say, and a grant of immunity would be conditioned on full disclosure and absolute truth-telling. I'm not calling for anyone's head, and can't know what may be of concern to the A's or their attorney.

After reading the statutes posted, I think the accessory after the fact provisions, dealing with a crime to a minor, could be of theoretical concern. A conviction of that would be a sort of participation in the underlying crime, and surely that could disqualify you from profiting from book deals, etc. in the future. Unless you got immunity.