Jay D
Registered Cynic
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/George Anthony Deposition.pdf Page 34
(Morning Deposition of George)
George: You'll have to ask sheriff's department about that.
MR. MORGAN: No, your investigators, what reports did you
get back?
MR. CONWAY: That's privileged information. It's privileged information.
MR. MORGAN: Why is it privileged
MR. CONWAY: Because he hired them. They worked for him. Everything that was given to them
is work product.
MR. MORGAN: That isn't work.
MR. CONWAY: It had everything to do with the fact they were being investigated by the sheriff's office. They were obstructions of --
MR. MORGAN: You're taking the privilege based on no pending lawsuit.
MR. CONWAY: I'm talking about the lawsuit based on pending criminal charges at the time.
MR. MORGAN: Against the Anthonys?
MR. CONWAY: Yes, sir.
MR. MORGAN: George and Cindy?
MR. CONWAY: According to the sheriff's office, they're being investigated and could be charged with obstruction charges.
MR. MORGAN: Not now or still?
MR. CONWAY: At this point, no, absolutely not.
MR. MORGAN: Then you have no privilege.
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/Cindy Anthony Deposition April 9.pdf Page 113-114
(Afternoon Deposition of Cindy)
MR. CONWAY: I'm going to object to work product, privilege.
MR. DILL: I want to make sure for your objection, these private citizens have retained a private attorney to work for them and you're --
MR. MITNIK: Private investigator Mr. Dill
MR. DILL: private investigator and you're taking the position that there is a privilege that applies that makes it not discoverable in a civil lawsuit about the substance of any conversations or anything else?
MR. CONWAY: The conversations between them, correct.
MR. DILL: What is the basis for that.
MR. CONWAY: Product, work product.
MR. DILL: You understand -- I'm not trying to -- hold on. I'm not trying to argue here but I want to be clear. Work product means that there is something in pending litigation that's made in anticipation of -- in existing or pending litigation. Is there existing or pending litigation against these individuals, the answer that I'm not aware of O.K.
MR. CONWAY: There may be.
MR. DILL: I want to know or not.
In this morning session with George, Conway is attempting to excuse George from testifying about his relationship and communication with DC. He objects by using "work product". Eventually he admits that there is no current investigation or litigation, at least by the State. (Actually, he is rather adamant about it).
In the afternoon session with Cindy, once again Conway attempts to claim "work product" to keep Cindy from having to disclose her relationship with DC. This time he claims that there may be "existing or pending litigation".
This seems contradictory to me, but it may be that I am to naive to understand why it is not a contradiction by Conway. I hesitate to use the word "lie" here, but to me there is an apparent inconsistancy by Conway. This disturbs me. I realize that Conway is not under oath, but he is an officer of the court being recorded in a deposition. Either GA/CA have been served notice of possible court proceedings by the State or a private party, or they have not.
Maybe the differences in Conways statements can be explained?
(Morning Deposition of George)
George: You'll have to ask sheriff's department about that.
MR. MORGAN: No, your investigators, what reports did you
get back?
MR. CONWAY: That's privileged information. It's privileged information.
MR. MORGAN: Why is it privileged
MR. CONWAY: Because he hired them. They worked for him. Everything that was given to them
is work product.
MR. MORGAN: That isn't work.
MR. CONWAY: It had everything to do with the fact they were being investigated by the sheriff's office. They were obstructions of --
MR. MORGAN: You're taking the privilege based on no pending lawsuit.
MR. CONWAY: I'm talking about the lawsuit based on pending criminal charges at the time.
MR. MORGAN: Against the Anthonys?
MR. CONWAY: Yes, sir.
MR. MORGAN: George and Cindy?
MR. CONWAY: According to the sheriff's office, they're being investigated and could be charged with obstruction charges.
MR. MORGAN: Not now or still?
MR. CONWAY: At this point, no, absolutely not.
MR. MORGAN: Then you have no privilege.
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/Cindy Anthony Deposition April 9.pdf Page 113-114
(Afternoon Deposition of Cindy)
MR. CONWAY: I'm going to object to work product, privilege.
MR. DILL: I want to make sure for your objection, these private citizens have retained a private attorney to work for them and you're --
MR. MITNIK: Private investigator Mr. Dill
MR. DILL: private investigator and you're taking the position that there is a privilege that applies that makes it not discoverable in a civil lawsuit about the substance of any conversations or anything else?
MR. CONWAY: The conversations between them, correct.
MR. DILL: What is the basis for that.
MR. CONWAY: Product, work product.
MR. DILL: You understand -- I'm not trying to -- hold on. I'm not trying to argue here but I want to be clear. Work product means that there is something in pending litigation that's made in anticipation of -- in existing or pending litigation. Is there existing or pending litigation against these individuals, the answer that I'm not aware of O.K.
MR. CONWAY: There may be.
MR. DILL: I want to know or not.
In this morning session with George, Conway is attempting to excuse George from testifying about his relationship and communication with DC. He objects by using "work product". Eventually he admits that there is no current investigation or litigation, at least by the State. (Actually, he is rather adamant about it).
In the afternoon session with Cindy, once again Conway attempts to claim "work product" to keep Cindy from having to disclose her relationship with DC. This time he claims that there may be "existing or pending litigation".
This seems contradictory to me, but it may be that I am to naive to understand why it is not a contradiction by Conway. I hesitate to use the word "lie" here, but to me there is an apparent inconsistancy by Conway. This disturbs me. I realize that Conway is not under oath, but he is an officer of the court being recorded in a deposition. Either GA/CA have been served notice of possible court proceedings by the State or a private party, or they have not.
Maybe the differences in Conways statements can be explained?