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

[Ezryder9]

I am putting this so it will post my response above in green. (message was too short)

It's nice to find a mind reader on this thread! You keep answering my questions just before I post them. Now, do you know what I really, really want for Christmas? :blowkiss:

 

[sweetwater]

bump. bumpity bump bump

 

[Shavaun]

I love the statue of Lady Liberty, who is blindfolded.....the law applies to everyone or it shouldn't apply to anyone. Grief isn't an excuse for bad behavior or breaking the law. To what extent that gets prosecuted isn't up to anyone here.

Clearly, it is up for consideration by the Prosecutors who don't need either grand parent to testify--George's testimony is secured in the Grand Jury transcripts and Cindy has yet to be truthful in court. This isn't necessarily about what they might say in trial it's about something or things they have already done, IMO.

Amen, ita

 

[DesSands]

I am in that circle.:Banane45:

Okay, Couey or no Couey, they are very vulnerable legally.
Let me think on the rest. You know I'm a stickler for leaving no statute unturned.
I won't let you down.:blowkiss: We're gonna figure out the legislative background. Now I'm curious anyway. :blowkiss:

Me too and getting very dizzy. I read your posts on the statutes and wondering if you can expound on what specifically you think they have done to cross that line? Is it more than the hair brush or dog's toothbrush?
Now as I type, I'm thinking her hacked e mails were more detailed, but I also think it IS definitely something LE found the first night. I've been wracking my brain trying to think of what it could be as they wouldn't have thrown around the obstruction word without something VERY SIGNIFICANT to back them up.
Not at a time when they are supposed to be in shock and grieving.
Geez I thought for sure the other day we were all going to get a break, but this has led to more sleuthing than before, I think. So I'll go to bed again tonight with a rattled brain until I fall to sleep. :waitasec:

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Me too and getting very dizzy. I read your posts on the statutes and wondering if you can expound on what specifically you think they have done to cross that line? Is it more than the hair brush or dog's toothbrush?
Now as I type, I'm thinking her hacked e mails were more detailed, but I also think it IS definitely something LE found the first night. I've been wracking my brain trying to think of what it could be as they wouldn't have thrown around the obstruction word without something VERY SIGNIFICANT to back them up.
Not at a time when they are supposed to be in shock and grieving.
Geez I thought for sure the other day we were all going to get a break, but this has led to more sleuthing than before, I think. So I'll go to bed again tonight with a rattled brain until I fall to sleep. :waitasec:

I think it involves much more than a few isolated instances.
For starters, their lawyer seems to have told us that they will be telling the truth from now on.
That can't be good when one has been in situations where lying can be prosecuted as a crime.
They are vulnerable in their continued and sustained efforts to seemingly throw of the investigation into the death of a child, to misdirect LE, and to hinder the search for the true circumstances of Caylee's death..and so forth....
When we know all the truth, we will know all the lies!

jmho

 

[Bobby62]

Hmmm. I'm not sure. I don't even know if there is a possibility of federal charges, since there is lying to the FBI. Would that lead to federal charges? Or, since the feds are working with the locals, would they remain solely state charges?

Personally, I believe there's more than is being reported. Otherwise, why would Conway bring up the immunity issue? I mean, if his clients are truly innocent or any wrongdoing, as he espoused, then from what is he seeking immunity?

One possibility is that whatever was found in the bag with Caylee that made LE sprint to the home was reported by one or both A's to not be missing. Or it could be something they totally lied about. Thus, the accesory angle. LE may be using it to squeeze them. It is odd that right after she was found, the new attorney starts asking for immunity with a veiled promise for some good info. They would have to subject themselves to full invasive disclosure. I borrowed the term full invasive disclosure from a friend because I really like it.

Miracles Happen had in one post that the obstruction could carry one year and a 1k fine per instance. Also I think he said accesory could be 30 years but I forget the fine amount. IMHO, LE is starting to squeeze them.

I reckon squeezing a festering sore is painful, memorable and gushy

 

[suspicious1]

I think the A's should be punished in some way. I have a feeling that they are now trying to come clean just to save their own behind. CA has already stated that she didn't care where KC was and still does not care, she was just worried about KLee. I don't believe that they helped in committing this crime but CA knows more than she was telling beforehand. Could it be possible that Klee told her nana just what mom had been doing to her which led to the fight the night of June 15th. You know kids talk a lot and just maybe Klee said to nana, "my moma put me in the trunk sometimes." not knowing that it would cause a huge problem between CA and KC.

 

[ThoughtElf]

If there were more determined and concrete efforts to frame someone else, (i.e. JG or AH), than we're actually aware of, where does that fall into play with charges by LE &/or a separate civil case? I suspect that a lot more went on behind the scenes than has been made public about attempts CA may have made along these lines.

TYIA

 

[Ezryder9]

This one's gonna be long, so please bear with me. DH and I were talking about all of this just a while ago, and we had a duh-huh moment. Advance warning...I do not have all the links at hand! I've been wondering what all could have happened and why they would be seeking immunity. Well, I've decided I think two very significant lies were thrown out there early on by George and Cindy.

The last time Caylee was sent by someone outside of the family that was verifiable was when she was at the nursing home. The video and employees of the nursing home confirm that. That was on Sunday, June 15. In her interview, Cindy said she, I think, put Caylee to bed? (I'm a little shady on that.) But she specifically said she did not see Caylee on Monday, June 16. George, a month later, recalled that he saw KC and Caylee leave on Monday, June 16, at 12:50.

I believe these are the first two lies for which G & C are seeking immunity.

I think on the evening of the 15th, after the big blow up, that KC took Caylee, stormed out of the house, chloroformed her, in a rage, wrapped her little head with duct tape, and put her in the trunk. She borrowed the shovel on June 18. The Body Farm evidence said the decomp in the car was consistent with a body decomposing for 2.6 days. It all kind of fits.

I think G&C originally bought into KC's fabrication about ZFG and thought, well, if we tell this story about when we last saw Caylee, maybe, just maybe, all the family's dirty laundry won't get aired. The stealing. The fight. All of that would remain secret.

Bottom line, if these are the first two lies, admittedly, what I believe are the first of many, would this fall into the category of obstruction or accessory? And do you guys think I'm nuts??

 

[mitzi]

One possibility is that whatever was found in the bag with Caylee that made LE sprint to the home was reported by one or both A's to not be missing. Or it could be something they totally lied about. Thus, the accesory angle. LE may be using it to squeeze them. It is odd that right after she was found, the new attorney starts asking for immunity with a veiled promise for some good info. They would have to subject themselves to full invasive disclosure. I borrowed the term full invasive disclosure from a friend because I really like it.

Miracles Happen had in one post that the obstruction could carry one year and a 1k fine per instance. Also I think he said accesory could be 30 years but I forget the fine amount. IMHO, LE is starting to squeeze them.

I reckon squeezing a festering sore is painful, memorable and gushy

Bobby, thanks for always making me smile!

 

[ThoughtElf]

This one's gonna be long, so please bear with me. DH and I were talking about all of this just a while ago, and we had a duh-huh moment. Advance warning...I do not have all the links at hand! I've been wondering what all could have happened and why they would be seeking immunity. Well, I've decided I think two very significant lies were thrown out there early on by George and Cindy.

The last time Caylee was sent by someone outside of the family that was verifiable was when she was at the nursing home. The video and employees of the nursing home confirm that. That was on Sunday, June 15. In her interview, Cindy said she, I think, put Caylee to bed? (I'm a little shady on that.) But she specifically said she did not see Caylee on Monday, June 16. George, a month later, recalled that he saw KC and Caylee leave on Monday, June 16, at 12:50.

I believe these are the first two lies for which G & C are seeking immunity.

I think on the evening of the 15th, after the big blow up, that KC took Caylee, stormed out of the house, chloroformed her, in a rage, wrapped her little head with duct tape, and put her in the trunk. She borrowed the shovel on June 18. The Body Farm evidence said the decomp in the car was consistent with a body decomposing for 2.6 days. It all kind of fits.

I think G&C originally bought into KC's fabrication about ZFG and thought, well, if we tell this story about when we last saw Caylee, maybe, just maybe, all the family's dirty laundry won't get aired. The stealing. The fight. All of that would remain secret.

Bottom line, if these are the first two lies, admittedly, what I believe are the first of many, would this fall into the category of obstruction or accessory? And do you guys think I'm nuts??

NO - not nuts. I have thought for many months now that KC killed Caylee on the night of July 15th. Since reading the excellent work going in the the latest time line thread in the sticky area, I have since revised it to include possibly the early morning hours of the 16th.

But I am still on the fence as to whether GA deliberately lied about seeing them on the 16th, or because it was a month past at time of interview, if he just got his days mixed up. I do believe that CA lied about the evening of the 15th.

I'm interested to see what the legal eagles answer on this one, too.

psst - EZ - thoughts on my post above yours, pls. There is a reason I am wondering. TY :blowkiss:

 

[Ezryder9]

If there were more determined and concrete efforts to frame someone else, (i.e. JG or AH), than we're actually aware of, where does that fall into play with charges by LE &/or a separate civil case? I suspect that a lot more went on behind the scenes than has been made public about attempts CA may have made along these lines.

TYIA

Personally, I don't think the A's have seen anything when it comes to civil suits yet. Their persistent efforts to convince LE that maybe Zanny was either JG or AH? That, to me, was intentional and deliberate misdirection. I would have to place that under obstruction, and also the object of a civil suit by BOTH AH and JG for defamation or slander/libel. I put both of those here, because I don't remember if that was contained in a written statement as well as the spoken interview.

Sadly, my pushing for the accessory charge would make it impossible for any plaintiff to recover anything, short of their good name and reputation.

 

[Paladine]

This one's gonna be long, so please bear with me. DH and I were talking about all of this just a while ago, and we had a duh-huh moment. Advance warning...I do not have all the links at hand! I've been wondering what all could have happened and why they would be seeking immunity. Well, I've decided I think two very significant lies were thrown out there early on by George and Cindy.

The last time Caylee was sent by someone outside of the family that was verifiable was when she was at the nursing home. The video and employees of the nursing home confirm that. That was on Sunday, June 15. In her interview, Cindy said she, I think, put Caylee to bed? (I'm a little shady on that.) But she specifically said she did not see Caylee on Monday, June 16. George, a month later, recalled that he saw KC and Caylee leave on Monday, June 16, at 12:50.

I believe these are the first two lies for which G & C are seeking immunity.

I think on the evening of the 15th, after the big blow up, that KC took Caylee, stormed out of the house, chloroformed her, in a rage, wrapped her little head with duct tape, and put her in the trunk. She borrowed the shovel on June 18. The Body Farm evidence said the decomp in the car was consistent with a body decomposing for 2.6 days. It all kind of fits.

I think G&C originally bought into KC's fabrication about ZFG and thought, well, if we tell this story about when we last saw Caylee, maybe, just maybe, all the family's dirty laundry won't get aired. The stealing. The fight. All of that would remain secret.

Bottom line, if these are the first two lies, admittedly, what I believe are the first of many, would this fall into the category of obstruction or accessory? And do you guys think I'm nuts??

Sorry, I can't answer your question, with legal certainty, but I must say, I totally agree with your theory. Maybe they found the clothes from the 15th video? That would show George and Cindy lied.

Caylee went to sleep usually between 8-10. With all the fighting, I'm sure they were behind schedule, so I don't think she'd be in her pj's yet. And if you notice the texts that night, she was busy with Tony into the wee hours, where was Caylee? In the trunk...imo. Hence the fluids...I think she was put in the bag/bags on the 18th, and if double bagged..if theres a time to double bag...wouldn't THIS be it?

Also, ot a bit....I also think she took Caylee from the back of her parents property to the woods, that might explain the ladder and shovel on the 18th and how she cleaned up...she seemed not to leave the property with the shovel...did she sneak out from behind? Did animals and water carry Caylee more toward the road? On NG, Lance said they were searching a 1 acre area...how big is the area, triangularish in shape, behind the A's and Suburban...?

A few thoughts...

 

[MiraclesHappen]

If there were more determined and concrete efforts to frame someone else, (i.e. JG or AH), than we're actually aware of, where does that fall into play with charges by LE &/or a separate civil case? I suspect that a lot more went on behind the scenes than has been made public about attempts CA may have made along these lines.

TYIA

If there were more determined and concrete efforts to frame someone, then they sure wasted a bunch of time which might have been better spent in trying to cope with the truth and the horror of the actual matter at hand.

From a civil perspective, I don't see much impact in that arena because the offended party would have to prove actual damages.

Rather than being scourned, these particular victims have mostly garnered sympathy and compassion. They are not ruined, so to speak, from a legal standpoint. Yes I realize there is lasting emotional devastation, as would be suffered by any of Casey's victims.

If one were to approach it from the remaining cause of action, "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Stress" as that seems to fit the bill......why would they want to do that.

It's a roll of the dice which will produce years of added interaction with a group of people they are trying to put behind them, so as to regain stability.

I can't see them doing that to themselves.

They too are dealing with the loss of Caylee as people who knew her.
:blowkiss:

 

[MiraclesHappen]

NO - not nuts. I have thought for many months now that KC killed Caylee on the night of July 15th. Since reading the excellent work going in the the latest time line thread in the sticky area, I have since revised it to include possibly the early morning hours of the 16th.

But I am still on the fence as to whether GA deliberately lied about seeing them on the 16th, or because it was a month past at time of interview, if he just got his days mixed up. I do believe that CA lied about the evening of the 15th.

I'm interested to see what the legal eagles answer on this one, too.

psst - EZ - thoughts on my post above yours, pls. There is a reason I am wondering. TY :blowkiss:

Just wanted to add:

From a Criminal standpoint:

From a criminal standpoint, these actions of the A's would fall under the umbrella of the accessory, perjury, obstruction issues , so as to merge in as evidence of those crimes.

Each instance of misleading LE isn't going to be charged as a separate offense, imho.

The State would have to prove the fundamental elements of the crime, over and over and over.

It makes more sense to me to charge it once, and offer the proof of whatever intent is required by the criminal statute being used, just one time, with an eye toward conviction.

This way the evidence of lying, misleading, interfering, is offered as evidence of the particular crime being proved by the prosecution.

If the jury discounts the A's lied on Monday, they still have Tuesday's and Wednesday's lies to consider towards a conviction, if that makes sense.

If they don't think the interference on one date, offered as evidence , is at criminal level, then why not give them more ammo to return a guilty finding.
LAy out repeat instances of interfering.

I'm not talking about any instance of criminal activity here other than the conduct of the Anthony's, for purposes of theorizing how a crime would be charged :wink: It's just an opinion.

A continuing course of conduct is often charged as one crime for these reasons.
:blowkiss:

 

[ThoughtElf]

Just wanted to add:

From a Criminal standpoint:

From a criminal standpoint, these actions of the A's would fall under the umbrella of the accessory, perjury, obstruction issues , so as to merge in as evidence of those crimes.

Each instance of misleading LE isn't going to be charged as a separate offense, imho.

The State would have to prove the fundamental elements of the crime, over and over and over.

It makes more sense to me to charge it once, and offer the proof of whatever intent is required by the criminal statute being used, just one time, with an eye toward conviction.

This way the evidence of lying, misleading, interfering, is offered as evidence of the particular crime being proved by the prosecution.

If the jury discounts the A's lied on Monday, they still have Tuesday's and Wednesday's lies to consider towards a conviction, if that makes sense.

If they don't think the interference on one date, offered as evidence , is at criminal level, then why not give them more ammo to return a guilty finding.
LAy out repeat instances of interfering.

I'm not talking about any instance of criminal activity here other than the conduct of the Anthony's, for purposes of theorizing how a crime would be charged :wink: It's just an opinion.

A continuing course of conduct is often charged as one crime for these reasons.
:blowkiss:

Light Bulb moment via bolded portions! Gotcha! You do explain these intricacies so well. TYVM!

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Light Bulb moment via bolded portions! Gotcha! You do explain these intricacies so well. TYVM!

Possibly, but you are confusing me with these abbreviations. :wink:

YWVM!!!:blowkiss:

 

[hawki123]

Thanks for these wonderful posts, MH. I've been thinking recently (that's a novelty with me sometimes...) that accessory after the fact may be a more applicable avenue. What's the statute of limitations for charging this? Is it possible for LE/SA to continue with the Caylee case, and keep the Anthonys potential charges for later? Would that give LE the chance to have their cake and eat it, too? Like, have use of the A's testimony and then charge them after the murder trial? Seems like I'm kinda being cold-hearted, and I'm not saying one way or the other that I think that's what they should do; merely asking if this is something that could do.

I don't think you are being cold-hearted at all. Facts are facts and now with precious Caylee's remains being found,how truly astonishing to see the Anthony family head for the mountains! Asking for full immunity and now Lee has gotten all lawyered up.
IMO,if there was any moving of the remains,Lee did it. And I truly resent reading from his lawyer's statement that Lee had been conduction his OWN invetigation and of course,used funds that had been donated in the course of his "detective" work. Where does this entire family think they are detectives(not even George has been that since Lee was very small according to Cindy).Casey supposedly did her own investigation "in a backwards sort of way" and also used "other avenues."How did she have the time to run an investigation while shacked up and cooking for boyfriend and others?" Perhaps Lee's Blog may give us a hint of what he considers his deductive powers and running his own investigation. However,what I have read so far of his blog has nothing to do with any thing but sex and DDDRRRAAAMMMA! He uses drama more than Casey does if that is at all possible.

 

[karenz]

I think the A's should be punished in some way. I have a feeling that they are now trying to come clean just to save their own behind. CA has already stated that she didn't care where KC was and still does not care, she was just worried about KLee. I don't believe that they helped in committing this crime but CA knows more than she was telling beforehand. Could it be possible that Klee told her nana just what mom had been doing to her which led to the fight the night of June 15th. You know kids talk a lot and just maybe Klee said to nana, "my moma put me in the trunk sometimes." not knowing that it would cause a huge problem between CA and KC.

I am probably one of the biggest anti-A people out there but in my heart they HAVE been punished. Just like the Ramsey's there will always be a cloud over their head. So until I hear of something concrete that they obstructed I will not pass judgement.

For example, if the story about the hairbrush turns out to be true, they should fry with KC.

 

[Katana]

Why did all this talk about obstruction charges come right after finding Caylee? Finding Caylee's remains seems to have changed the game for the Anthony's, but why? Is this really all based on their previous behaviors and prior statements to LE or was something pertinent found at the discovery site that set up a case against the A's?