George & Cindy's Response to "NO DEATH PENALTY" Decision

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
We were speaking about the dates Yuri had ASKED Cindy to provide the pants, prior to him being forced get a subpeona to get them from her.

In the warrant it says they learned about the pants from Cindy on 8/4.
 
Ya! And he drove the car to his house knowing a dead body had been in it. Then proceeded to take things from it. Or he instructed CA to anyways. It blows my mind. The only people I know who would do that is a murderer or someone who's covering up for a murderer.

LOL! I have a hard time believing that george instructed cindy to do anything.......seems in that family, it was the other way around!
 
What is up with this search warrant? The dates are messed up.
Judge signs 5th August, 2008.
Inventory and Receipt dated 6th February, 2008
It shows received 5th July, 2008 and executed 6th July, 2008.

Am I misreading something here?
Lanie
 
That was good Chilly Willy. So they didn't even know about the pants until August 4th during an interview with CA?

Cindy claims that she told the responding officers about the pants the night of the 911 call but they weren't interested. Apparently Yuri learned of the pants on 8/4.
 
That was good Chilly Willy. So they didn't even know about the pants until August 4th during an interview with CA?

If you go and read Doc #1, page 16 of the docs released on 11-27, Yuri specifically writes about the pants, and that Cindy has laundered them. That was either on July 16th or 17th.
 
What is up with this search warrant? The dates are messed up.
Judge signs 5th August, 2008.
Inventory and Receipt dated 6th February, 2008
It shows received 5th July, 2008 and executed 6th July, 2008.

Am I misreading something here?
Lanie

No, that's what it says. Obviously all those dates are actually supposed to say August.
 
What is up with this search warrant? The dates are messed up.
Judge signs 5th August, 2008.
Inventory and Receipt dated 6th February, 2008
It shows received 5th July, 2008 and executed 6th July, 2008.

Am I misreading something here?
Lanie

Unfortunately they used a saved word doc and forgot to update the dates. It's making my head spin trying to read it. When push comes to shove in court, thankfully, the date the search warrant was created and saved will be provable.
 
LOL! I have a hard time believing that george instructed cindy to do anything.......seems in that family, it was the other way around!

Ha! Good point. IIRC, it's Cindy that gave the impression that GA instructed her to do this.
 
If you go and read Doc #1, page 16 of the docs released on 11-27, Yuri specifically writes about the pants, and that Cindy has laundered them. That was either on July 16th or 17th.

"Detective Beasley relayed to me that Cynthia had washed a pair of pants found in the car as well as the defendant's clothing recovered by Lee A at Tony L's house. I did not have Detective Beasley collect any clothing since it had been laundered." This report was from July 16 or 17.
 
Cindy claims that she told the responding officers about the pants the night of the 911 call but they weren't interested. Apparently Yuri learned of the pants on 8/4.

I wonder why she waited until August 4th to tell Yuri? If he was the lead detective and she wasn't trying to hide anything, why not tell him earlier?
 
I wonder why she waited until August 4th to tell Yuri? If he was the lead detective and she wasn't trying to hide anything, why not tell him earlier?

He knew about the pants from "day one" of the investigation, see my post above. He didn't ask for them at that point, but once he did, Cindy wouldn't cooperate, thus requiring him to get the subpeona.
 
No, that's what it says. Obviously all those dates are actually supposed to say August.

Chili, I have the link up you provided. What page should I be looking at? I'm getting lost in wrong dates etc.
 
http://www.helpfindcaylee.com/uploads/15/In response to the State.pdf

".....Today's announcement only supports our theory that our granddaughter is still with us..."

NO CINDY - NO GEORGE!!!! IT means that the Prosecution doesn't want to risk a non-conviction based on the potential of imposing death with no body!!!!!!!!!!! Besides that, DEATH would be too easy for your daughter - she needs to rot in prison!

Actually, the no DP announcement by the prosecutor's office means the prosecutors didn't meet the legal standard to go forward with a death penalty case because not enough of the aggravating factors listed in the statute for death penalty cases were in this case. It does not mean that there isn't enough evidence to support a homicide conviction for premeditated murder. A death penalty is only authorized by statute when there are certain additional facts supporting an aggravated homicide case. That's all it means and no more. It is still a solid premeditated homicide case.
 
Chili, I have the link up you provided. What page should I be looking at? I'm getting lost in wrong dates etc.

Some of the pages are repeated. It's on the 6th or 7th page but it's also on the very last page.
 
We were speaking about the dates Yuri had ASKED Cindy to provide the pants, prior to him being forced get a subpeona to get them from her.

So what day did Yuri ask for the pants? He learned about them on the first day and chose not to collect them, learned about them again (apparently) on 8/4 and decided to ask for a warrant on 8/5....when in between did he request Cindy to bring them in?
 
Unfortunately they used a saved word doc and forgot to update the dates. It's making my head spin trying to read it. When push comes to shove in court, thankfully, the date the search warrant was created and saved will be provable.
Thank you. I've been trying to figure out how Yuri confused August with February.
 
If you go and read Doc #1, page 16 of the docs released on 11-27, Yuri specifically writes about the pants, and that Cindy has laundered them. That was either on July 16th or 17th.

Both are probably correct -- if CA told LE about the pants but that they were laundered they probably didn't worry about them too much at first -- it was rendered moot but as this became even more serious then they probably felt that they should take them into evidence and have them checked. The cost/benefit changed because it was murder/homicide.
 
I've forgotten what we were debating about the pants, lol, but I did notice something. It says in the search warrant "Cynthia explained that she had removed a pair of grey dress slacks from the back seat area of the car. The slacks were reportedly on the rear floor board of the vehicle and were with a pair of boots and ....."

If my long term memory is serving me a little better than my short term memory is, it seems in FBI interview George tells FBI in addition to the bag of trash being in the trunk, there were also a pair of pants in the blue bin thing.
Lanie
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
276
Total visitors
464

Forum statistics

Threads
609,290
Messages
18,252,003
Members
234,593
Latest member
Sarah78
Back
Top