Anthony's Deceptions and Seeking Full Immunity#3 Poll Added

[SeriouslySearching]

I still don't know what these outright lies are that people say the Anthonys told LE. What I see are two people who were desperately trying to deal with a missing grandchild and LE blaming their daughter for something that they couldn't believe was possible. Is that so hard to understand? How many people would readily believe their own child could be a murderer? If they're guilty of anything, it's naivete and gullibility where KC is concerned. I think they have always recognized her failings such as being a liar and a thief, but just could not make their minds go to the thought of her killing Caylee.

I believe we have a thread on the lies here somewhere if you hit the search button and look for Cindy's discrepancies. It is a start as there are too many to list here. As Cindy said herself, "Lying isn't illegal!". Naive?! Gullible?! Surely you jest?!

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I still don't know what these outright lies are that people say the Anthonys told LE. What I see are two people who were desperately trying to deal with a missing grandchild and LE blaming their daughter for something that they couldn't believe was possible. Is that so hard to understand? How many people would readily believe their own child could be a murderer? If they're guilty of anything, it's naivete and gullibility where KC is concerned. I think they have always recognized her failings such as being a liar and a thief, but just could not make their minds go to the thought of her killing Caylee.

I believe we have a thread on the lies here somewhere if you hit the search button and look for Cindy's discrepancies. It is a start as there are too many to list here. As Cindy said herself, "Lying isn't illegal!". Naive?! Gullible?! Surely you jest?!

 

[kpalma715]

I voted not sure. Maybe the A's will suprise us with some truth. I say LE should agree to full immunity as long as the A's agree to a lie detector.

I honestly don't know what I would do if I ever was in their shoes.

 

[impatientredhead]

In regards to an immunity deal falling under the Son of Sam Law in Florida, it would not apply in an immunity situation. Keep in mind not everyone that takes an immunity deal is guilty, they very well may have won an aquittal had charges been filed and a trial held.


960.291 Definitions.--When used in this act, the term


(1) "Civil restitution lien" means a lien which exists in favor of crime victims, the state, its local subdivisions, or aggrieved party and which attaches against the real or personal property owned by a convicted offender.
(2) "Convicted offender" means a defendant who has a conviction as defined herein entered against the defendant in the courts of this state. (3) "Conviction" means a guilty verdict by a jury or judge, or a guilty or nolo contendere plea by a defendant, regardless of adjudication of guilt.

 

[TrY]

No, I don't think that George and Cindy would be entirely truthful if they would be offered immunity, I do think that they would be truthful to a certain degree if it would benefit Casey's defense at a trial, but I don't think that will be the case.

I have thought that since Casey was first arrested that the grandparents, especially Cindy have put Casey's interests above Caylee's.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Welcome to WS, TrY! I agree. Everyone seems to have put their own interests ahead of Caylee from Day 31 except for the OCSO (Orange County Sheriff's Office), the FBI, and the people who have spent countless hours searching for her. It gives me yet another chance to applaud them! Bravo for Caylee's real heros!!

 

[ThoughtFox]

I voted a big "NO."

I think the Anthonys have a pattern of lying and deceit that has reached full fruition in their daughter Casey. I think it's a way of life.

They have been "spinning" Casey's story as the gospel truth from day one even if they had doubts or knew things. So if they guessed or knew the real truth, they chose to be in denial, or to tell the media their own spin, or to possibly conceal the murder of their granddaughter.

Frankly, I don't want them to get full immunity. But if they are so fortunate that they receive it, they won't know what to do with it. I guarantee they will still waffle and sidestep and try to explain to the cops what a good mother Casey really was. Yeah, right. :furious:

 

[Steely Dan]

In regards to an immunity deal falling under the Son of Sam Law in Florida, it would not apply in an immunity situation. Keep in mind not everyone that takes an immunity deal is guilty, they very well may have won an aquittal had charges been filed and a trial held.


960.291 Definitions.--When used in this act, the term


(1) "Civil restitution lien" means a lien which exists in favor of crime victims, the state, its local subdivisions, or aggrieved party and which attaches against the real or personal property owned by a convicted offender.
(2) "Convicted offender" means a defendant who has a conviction as defined herein entered against the defendant in the courts of this state. (3) "Conviction" means a guilty verdict by a jury or judge, or a guilty or nolo contendere plea by a defendant, regardless of adjudication of guilt.

So what does this mean in English?

Thanks

 

[Whisperer]

Lee is almost as confused as his sister. He exhibits arrogance and entitlement. He lists his sister as his best friend....weird! His judgment is impaired....intellect questionable. His speech requires me to make too many adjustments to understand.:crazy:

Cindy is all over the place. She does it all. She is superwoman....holds a job, runs an efficient house, pays all the bills and is a parent to a toddler and a (22 who acts) fifteen year old..all at the age of 50.. she may be fun for awhile, if she dosn't talk too much.
KC:bigstick:....the princess child....raised with a sense of entitlement, can't hold a job, is a mother who has a child but thinks it is her sibling. kc resents her job as Nanny. She is glib, vague and believes she is very special. She mirrors conversations and is another adverb fan. She is unable to make her first impression last long and then her anger starts. She never shuts up.

 

[impatientredhead]

So what does this mean in English?

Thanks

The original Son of Sam laws were largely knocked down at the supreme court level based on them limiting free speech. The newer way to do, and it has held up, is through these statutes. Upon conviction you owe the state money for your court costs, prosecution etc, if there is a victim or victims family that can file for damages they file suit and the state files a lien on their behalf as well. The lien applies to any assets belonging to the convict which stops them from directly profiting from a book or movie deal.

It was asked earlier if immunity would restrict George, Cindy or Lee from profiting. It doesn't, unless you can show that Casey somehow benefits from it directly, but if she is in for life that will be difficult to show.

960.292 Enforcement of the civil restitution lien through civil restitution lien order



960.293 Determination of damages and losses.--
(1) In a civil suit for damages filed by a crime victim against a convicted offender, the crime victim is entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the actual damages award.
(2) Upon conviction, a convicted offender is liable to the state and its local subdivisions for damages and losses for incarceration costs and other correctional costs.
(a) If the conviction is for a capital or life felony, the convicted offender is liable for incarceration costs and other correctional costs in the liquidated damage amount of $250,000. (b) If the conviction is for an offense other than a capital or life felony, a liquidated damage amount of $50 per day of the convicted offender's sentence shall be assessed against the convicted offender and in favor of the state or its local subdivisions.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tm&StatuteYear=2008&Title=->2008->Chapter 960

http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0602a&L=aejmc&P=22286 interesting read on how the laws started and evolved

 

[VALee]

I have a theory about the A's. I am not sure whether they knew for sure (CA at least) that Caylee was dead. I think CA has been hanging on to hope that she was alive and couldn't face Caylee being dead at the hands of KC. I think the A's seem to have a mistrust of LE. Especially CA and LA. I don't know why. I think that from day one they had a mistrust of LE and thought they were out to get KC no matter what and that is why they were trying to cover KC's tracks. Not so much they knew she did it. They may have known in the back of their heads but CA just could not admit that to herself and wanted to believe Caylee alive at all costs and that KC was telling the truth about the nanny even tho none of it made sense.

Maybe, just maybe, now that they have found her dead the A's now believe that KC did it and want her to pay. But they want immunity now to tell LE all they did that may have obstructed things due to their distrust of LE and all they know about Casey and maybe they want to tell the truth so that KC gets her just reward.

I'll probably take one on the chin for this, and this is my first post ever though I am an avid fan/reader of WS and am hooked on this case, but here goes....After looking at every bit of information available to us, I agree that the GP's were in denial initially. Families fight, but when they have a common enemy, they band together. Look at brothers and sisters. So, it is my opinion that initially, the GP's felt as though KC was being crucified by law enforcement and media, up to and including Nancy G. Their instinct to protect their child and really consider a positive, non-KC explanation for Caylee's disappearance kicked in. I believe this is what lead them to make statements to try to really believe in and consider a non-KC explanation. Despite evidence to the contrary, I can understand that they could not come to grips with the fact that their own child could do this and that the worst possible outcome had happened to Caylee.

Now that Caylee has been found however, any explanations and hopes have eroded and they really have to look at the quagmire of facts and history that surround them. Their eyes, I am certain, are now wide open to the dismal truth. I think now, they have had some time to process, think back over everything that has occurred and are succombing to truth. Thus, no visits to KC during the holidays and they are agreeing to aid in the prosecution of their daughter if given immunity.

I believe the wrong-doing on the GP's part was inspired by instinct to protect their daughter, again from the 'quick draw' decision by law and media on KC's guilt. They wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. Given that, I have no problem voting yes in the poll, I believe that now they know Caylee is gone they want to move forward, up to and including doing the right thing, even though it means KC is essentially lost to them too.

The biggest crime here is what was done to Caylee, not anything that was said by the GP's. If it means giving them immunity to improve the prosecution's case, I say give it to them. I really don't believe they were involved or 9-1-1 would never have been called, they would not have made statements about the car to several different people, and CA would not have offered up all the evidence that she did, some of which was denied by law enforcement (this still blows my mind).

 

[CPP]

I simply don't believe they can be trusted. IMO, as suggested in the emails between CA and her brother, CA and the truth haven't been on speaking terms in years where KC is concerned. Giving the Anthonys immunity is like giving them a license to commit perjury at trial. Just on the basis of what's publicly known, I don't think Prosecutors are either that desperate or stupid and I sus[ect they've probably more than enough evidence to obtain a conviction against KC.

However, if the evidence exists to do so, I think the Prosecution should charge CA and/or GA with obstruction, or GJ perjury, and/or hindering prosecution. Once charged, they can negotiate a plea to drop criminal charges contingent on totally truthful testimony in KC's case at trial. The plea would ensure their honesty because false testimony would negate the deal and leave them open to prosecution themselves. :behindbar

 

[scrabble]

My heart truly aches and breaks for the Anthony Family -- I cannot imagine what Cindy and George are going thru nor would I wish this on anyone. I pray for them each and every day, and I believe that Little Caylee is now one of the brighest stars in Heaven and that she is being held safely in the palm of God's loving hands.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

I'll probably take one on the chin for this, and this is my first post ever though I am an avid fan/reader of WS and am hooked on this case, but here goes....After looking at every bit of information available to us, I agree that the GP's were in denial initially. Families fight, but when they have a common enemy, they band together. Look at brothers and sisters. So, it is my opinion that initially, the GP's felt as though KC was being crucified by law enforcement and media, up to and including Nancy G. Their instinct to protect their child and really consider a positive, non-KC explanation for Caylee's disappearance kicked in. I believe this is what lead them to make statements to try to really believe in and consider a non-KC explanation. Despite evidence to the contrary, I can understand that they could not come to grips with the fact that their own child could do this and that the worst possible outcome had happened to Caylee.

Now that Caylee has been found however, any explanations and hopes have eroded and they really have to look at the quagmire of facts and history that surround them. Their eyes, I am certain, are now wide open to the dismal truth. I think now, they have had some time to process, think back over everything that has occurred and are succombing to truth. Thus, no visits to KC during the holidays and they are agreeing to aid in the prosecution of their daughter if given immunity.

I believe the wrong-doing on the GP's part was inspired by instinct to protect their daughter, again from the 'quick draw' decision by law and media on KC's guilt. They wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. Given that, I have no problem voting yes in the poll, I believe that now they know Caylee is gone they want to move forward, up to and including doing the right thing, even though it means KC is essentially lost to them too.

The biggest crime here is what was done to Caylee, not anything that was said by the GP's. If it means giving them immunity to improve the prosecution's case, I say give it to them. I really don't believe they were involved or 9-1-1 would never have been called, they would not have made statements about the car to several different people, and CA would not have offered up all the evidence that she did, some of which was denied by law enforcement (this still blows my mind).

I am going out on a limb here, but I believe LE has more than enough to prosecute KC and I don't believe there will be any immunity deal. They don't need the Anthonys now, like they did in the beginning when they could not get their cooperation. I believe they will take a hard line and go for the prosecution with what they have and the Anthonys will be prosecuted to keep them from profiting off the death of the baby.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

My heart truly aches and breaks for the Anthony Family -- I cannot imagine what Cindy and George are going thru nor would I wish this on anyone. I pray for them each and every day, and I believe that Little Caylee is now one of the brighest stars in Heaven and that she is being held safely in the palm of God's loving hands.

I have no sympathy at all for any of the Anthony family. To lie and try to deceive LE is way past the pale, and they should receive the harshest punishment the law allows.

If they had told the truth in the beginning, that baby would not have to had laid in the woods in a garbage bag for months, and for that I hold them accountable as should LE.

 

[amethyst221]

So what does this mean in English?

Thanks

Here's another oar in the water on the immunity/Son of Sam law relationship, in general. I'm trying for plain English! If a person were given full immunity from prosecution, then it follows that they would not be convicted of any crimes. As a result, Son of Sam type laws or restitution statutes would theoretically never come into play or be triggered.

It's a whole other question whether a person might be covered or restricted by a SOS law in the first place. I tried to look once, and I think Florida has both a SOS type law and another, separate civil restitution statute. They would control, as interpreted by the courts. This was all in issue in a case concerning the guy who murdered all the Florida coeds several years ago, Rolling? Rollings? I'm going just from memory, but I think the court used the restitution statute to support the result of keeping money from the convicted defendant for selling his art or something. There may have been a girlfriend or spouse involved as well. The court avoided ruling on the constitutionality of the FLA Son of Sam type statute.

In either case, the idea is to keep a person convicted of a crime from profiting from it. Some of the early SOS statutes were very broad, and included both the convicted defendant AND people associated with him (like family members, lawyers), even though they had committed no independent "crime of their own." They also covered a lot of potential forms of expression or speech and prohibited them outright. The courts have struck down several of these SOS statutes as overly broad under the first amendment, because they unduly infringe the right to free speech. The more recent approach has been not to have a blanket, broad prohibition of activities/expression, but to switch to a system where the victims can find out about money being made and have an opportunity to go after it.

 

[marla]

Give them immunity???

I'd give all of them THE chair .. :furious:

 

[tfrohning]

No, and I would not want to hear the "truth" from anyone for whom it is conditional.

Who knows what "mistruths" they might futher purport, after all "lying is not a crime". Certainly they wouldn't lie (yet again) for Casey at trial, or would they? "Why does anyone lie?". While lying in and of itself may not make you a murderer or a criminal, it does make your word worthless and others unwilling to trust you.


Also, great post BeanE :clap:

Lying on the stand will be guilty of perjury and would take the immunity deal off the table.(afterall that what Martha S went to jail for lying on the stand)

 

[tfrohning]

The Flordia have the heasay law? Does anyone know? Illinois just pass this law( I think to take Drew p to court or to charge him something).

 

[yolorado]

I simply don't believe they can be trusted. IMO, as suggested in the emails between CA and her brother, CA and the truth haven't been on speaking terms in years where KC is concerned. Giving the Anthonys immunity is like giving them a license to commit perjury at trial. Just on the basis of what's publicly known, I don't think Prosecutors are either that desperate or stupid and I sus[ect they've probably more than enough evidence to obtain a conviction against KC.

However, if the evidence exists to do so, I think the Prosecution should charge CA and/or GA with obstruction, or GJ perjury, and/or hindering prosecution. Once charged, they can negotiate a plea to drop criminal charges contingent on totally truthful testimony in KC's case at trial. The plea would ensure their honesty because false testimony would negate the deal and leave them open to prosecution themselves. :behindbar

Agree. I really don't know if the Anthony's have committed any chargeable offense. If they have, and it's grave, I suppose we'll find out over time but the police should charge them with anything substantial and then deal if they feel like it. However, I don't think the police and state have ever really wanted to go after the Anthonys. Seems to me they've always been sympathetic to their position and if the Anthonys have done low-level obstruction, I don't see the police pushing that. They don't want to put these people in jail for being in the bind they're in...if they haven't done anything major. I'd go ahead and solicit their co-operation. If they wanted to give it, fine. If not, fine. They're around. They're not the defendents. You could always put them on the stand knowing they were a wildcard and let them either co-operate or obstruct or deny, just be ready for either way they went. They could be friendly or hostile, just prepare for both. If they told the truth, fine. If they became angry, confrontational and evasive, go with that as well. Everything they've said is on tape. If they lie in court, I'm pretty sure the tapes could come in to impeach their false testimony. The jury will get their number fast if they try to obstruct. My fear in cutting a deal would be that they aren't particularly trustworthy. I wouldn't necessarily want to prosecute them for something relatively minor but I wouldn't trust them to go through with the deal. Of course, if they wanted to come in and cop to Casey having spilled the beans to them about what actually happened and if having her confession to them would send her down the river without any doubt, it might be hard not to deal.