Anthony's admit to Conflicting Statements Seek Full Immunity

[impatientredhead]

There's a fine line between omitting when you're "voluntarily" making a statement (which is what I've read and heard was true in the recorded interviews) and being interrogated, especially with the FBI. The Anthonys knew that before speaking with them: the FBI came to their home to present information to them before those interviews took place.

Obviously Brad Conway and the grandparents are concerned about it - why doesn't he dismiss it out of hand if it's not relevant when answering those kinds of questions to the media/press? I'd love to hear what you think about that - myself, I can't see why he'd even discuss it if it weren't a worry they all have...

I think at least one of the Anthony's has accepted the truth in all its horror and has something to tell the police, something they want to tell them that will be in direct conflict with an earlier statement (ie it could be George admitting that he did not see them on the 16th and this is what really happened the night before, or the gas can story etc) and the attorney is doing his job by protecting his clients prior to them changing an official statement.

 

[SuziQ]

If the people who Couey stayed with during the time Jessica Lundsford was missing
didn’t get charges pressed against them then I do not think the Anthony’s should!
IMO the Anthony’s didn’t do anything NEAR as upsetting as the Couey clan!

Couey was staying with family. At that time the Law had an exclusion for family members being charged with OJ or Accessory. The law was changed so that family members are not excluded in a crime against the child under 18.

 

[JoAnn_W]

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

Nancy Grace started off tonight's show saying this very thing- that the Anthony's admitted to conflicting statements and are seeking full immunity.


JoAnn_W

 

[Chilly Willy]

I think at least one of the Anthony's has accepted the truth in all its horror and has something to tell the police, something they want to tell them that will be in direct conflict with an earlier statement (ie it could be George admitting that he did not see them on the 16th and this is what really happened the night before, or the gas can story etc) and the attorney is doing his job by protecting his clients prior to them changing an official statement.

That's what it sounds like to me from what is being said on NG tonight. The A's are seeking immunity from prosecution for things they have said, not things they have done.

 

[SuziQ]

There is an EXCELLENT thread started yesterday that has gotten neglected, and is highly relevant to this entire discussion. It includes the statutues, law in Florida, etc., and is discussed by cogent legal type folks.
I just bumped it up to the first page- it's called Obstruction of Justice, Accessories,... something like that. Sorry, I'm having some technical issues or I would post a link.
Please everyone, check it out. It's very enlightening.

Thank you sweetwater. Alot of arguments being made here are obviously mute when you read the laws. The same laws that demand we tell the truth no matter what. I think if more people read that thread, they would realize the seriousness of the A's situation, and not try to downplay it, or act as if this is a slap on the wrist type of offense.

 

[MysteryAddict]

I think at least one of the Anthony's has accepted the truth in all its horror and has something to tell the police, something they want to tell them that will be in direct conflict with an earlier statement (ie it could be George admitting that he did not see them on the 16th and this is what really happened the night before, or the gas can story etc) and the attorney is doing his job by protecting his clients prior to them changing an official statement.

You just stated what I was thinking ( why are we talking about immunity for
both A's if only one wants to come forward to LE with a new statement)?

I never believed George's story about the 16th either and think he has been
under the influence of Cindy to go along with her script.
Of the two, I think he is the one suffering guilt from the lies that have been
told and possible cover-up. I think he wants to come clean and tell what he
knows with or without immunity.

On the other hand, I think Cindy is as much a stranger to the truth as her
daughter is and will never be truthful!

 

[debs]

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.

Chilly, bless you for your continued search for the absolute. It is no longer alleged. They are asking for immunity. I am not screaming for their heads anywhere but upon their shoulders, the same place as I expect the responsibility for whatever actions they're asking to be protected from prosecution to sit.

I think it would be wonderful that they tell the entire truth now. However, history that they themselves have established shows that they have not done so. If there has ever been a moment of compassion given to them, review the moment in Cindy's tape with Yuri where he holds her hands and begs of her to trust him, to tell him the truth, to HEAR what he is saying, only to be shut down and locked out by Cindy's determination to hold onto the lies Casey has told and the lies she herself is telling in order to cover for Casey's lies. That more than anything tells me that having asked for truth, and having given allowances for reasons to lie will only get more of the same.

My heart breaks that this whole family has chosen to travel this path. But no one else has forced them, en masse to walk that path. They themselves have made that choice, and with choices, come consequences. With consequences, comes responsibility. I look for them to be responsible and accept the consequences for their actions. Their grief, their suffering, their obvious distress ........ I offer my compassion for them in that grief. But it is separate from the other.

Should LE allow again an opportunity for them to tell the truth, for LE's sake, I will hope they get it. I can no longer hope that the Anthony's can tell it. For Caylee's sake I pray they see the need for it.

 

[melissa311]

I am probably alone in thinking this, but here are my thoughts on this. If the A's have information to provide LE that will significantly help them build a solid case against KC (beyond the case they currently have, even with the discovery of the Caylee's body) then the immunity should be given. I really want to see justice for baby Caylee. I believe that justice, in the form of her mother going to prison for the rest of her life, might be reasonably brought about if KC gets life w/o parole. I suppose what I am saying is that if an immunity deal is provided then the A's need to tell LE something they don't already know and testify to their statements under oath in a court of law.

 

[McSev]

I think at least one of the Anthony's has accepted the truth in all its horror and has something to tell the police, something they want to tell them that will be in direct conflict with an earlier statement (ie it could be George admitting that he did not see them on the 16th and this is what really happened the night before, or the gas can story etc) and the attorney is doing his job by protecting his clients prior to them changing an official statement.

Therein lies the rub. One or the other of them must be afraid that something now will directly contradict what he or she originally stated to be true - officially. For example, both of the grandparents never mentioned the "night before", and in fact, the grandmother rejected anything ever happened when asked an open question about it during one of her OSCO or FBI interviews. Maybe you're right either way with what it is.

They volunteered to make statements: a lot of was made of this at the time (especially Yuri's/OSCO's) that they voluntarily went to those interviews. They cooperated. The grandparents made those statements of their own free will, and therefore now are bound by the integrity (or lack thereof, if appropriate) of them. If they hindered the investigation by not answering and offering information truthfully during their interviews and subsequent statements, unfortunately they (one or the other) put themselves at a severe disadvantage at this point.

I have to tell you, I don't care either way whether they are charged or not charged, as it makes no difference to me as long as we get to the truth. See the rant thread for details ( I just edited myself... I'm so PROUD!)

 

[SuziQ]

Obstruction of Justice;Accessory to a crime: Is there a case against the Anthony's #3

 

[JBean]

There is an EXCELLENT thread started yesterday that has gotten neglected, and is highly relevant to this entire discussion. It includes the statutues, law in Florida, etc., and is discussed by cogent legal type folks.
I just bumped it up to the first page- it's called Obstruction of Justice, Accessories,... something like that. Sorry, I'm having some technical issues or I would post a link.
Please everyone, check it out. It's very enlightening.

Here's the link:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76527

I pieced that thread together out of some really good posts and it has some great discussion on it.

 

[ketel0ne]

If the statements omitted were about replacing shower curtain, towels, bedspread or the like, those statements would be obstruction since those are questions that have been asked directly.

 

[faithhopelove]

I so agree with everything everyone is saying. CA is such a hardnosed control freak she would probly tell them the questions to ask. I do have a theory going around in my mind that what if KC told Baez of the As part in all this? They did have that meeting at the A's house with all the attys couple of days ago. Could they have the A's they better go for ammunity? I cant see CA agreeing to it if there wasnt a good reason.

 

[EasyGruuvin]

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 agree with you completly 100% .It seems to me if they really cared about little Caylee like they try to make it seem, imo they would not have lied to start with. I feel they should get down on knees and ask forgiveness to save their souls from he!! .

 

[zoey]

I am probably alone in thinking this, but here are my thoughts on this. If the A's have information to provide LE that will significantly help them build a solid case against KC (beyond the case they currently have, even with the discovery of the Caylee's body) then the immunity should be given. I really want to see justice for baby Caylee. I believe that justice, in the form of her mother going to prison for the rest of her life, might be reasonably brought about if KC gets life w/o parole. I suppose what I am saying is that if an immunity deal is provided then the A's need to tell LE something they don't already know and testify to their statements under oath in a court of law.

if they can't get beyond the "nanny" they really can't help anymore....

 

[blackopsglock]

Here is the thing,

The attorneys for the A's will have to present a proffer to the DA.In this proffer they are going to have to admit to everything that they have done that is illegal and misleading to this case.

Now the DA can look at it and say hey I believe you and want to hear what you have to say then they can still refuse the proffer if they feel like it.

The DA cannot use anything in the proffer against them should the DA choose to indict(sp) them.They cannot even metion the proffer in court unless the A's camp brings it up in open court or if they open the door by saying,"at no point did I ever mislead the authorities.Then the DA can bring out the proffer and say well on such and such date you presented this proffer to us and you said such and such.

Either way the A's could find themselves in a pickle.They better hope that they had no hand in the dissapearance or cover up of the remains.

 

[hannahsnana]

You just stated what I was thinking ( why are we talking about immunity for
both A's if only one wants to come forward to LE with a new statement)?

I never believed George's story about the 16th either and think he has been
under the influence of Cindy to go along with her script.
Of the two, I think he is the one suffering guilt from the lies that have been
told and possible cover-up. I think he wants to come clean and tell what he
knows with or without immunity.

On the other hand, I think Cindy is as much a stranger to the truth as her
daughter is and will never be truthful!

I completely agree with this. Let's say George can't live with not telling the whole truth. Cindy should NOT get a free pass of immunity unless she agrees to also tell the truth; I don't believe she will.

 

[future criminologist]

isn't immunity usually offered when the people being given it are key to the case? I don't see CA and GA as really "key". I think LE already has plenty to nail Casey, CA and GA know it, and they are desperate, and willing to sell Casey out to avoid charges themselves. to me, there's nothing redeemable left about them - it's too little, too late. they could have told "the truth" in the first place and saved the county hundreds of thousands of dollars, and four months of everyone's time, effort and caring. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

[SuziQ]

Here is the thing,

The attorneys for the A's will have to present a proffer to the DA.In this proffer they are going to have to admit to everything that they have done that is illegal and misleading to this case.

Now the DA can look at it and say hey I believe you and want to hear what you have to say then they can still refuse the proffer if they feel like it.

The DA cannot use anything in the proffer against them should the DA choose to indict(sp) them.They cannot even metion the proffer in court unless the A's camp brings it up in open court or if they open the door by saying,"at no point did I ever mislead the authorities.Then the DA can bring out the proffer and say well on such and such date you presented this proffer to us and you said such and such.

Either way the A's could find themselves in a pickle.They better hope that they had no hand in the dissapearance or cover up of the remains.

Not bringing it up in court is really hard to accomplish. DA's are pretty saavy about asking the right questions to get something like that mentioned.

 

[Lovejac]

Full immunity for the truth?

How we be assured it is the truth?

After all, they are still standing by the Nanny lie.