Should Cindy and George be charged? Do They Need An Attorney?

[USARDOG]

IMO, LE will not charge C&G, though I think they should. Apparently this charge is seldom brought before the court for some reason.

I don't think C&G will be called to testify "against" KC, but just to provide facts, time lines etc. They did not see any aspect of the crime, so there can be no testimony about that. In this respect they too are victims of KC. However they do know about many incidental facts, identify the laundry bag, cloths etc. If those facts prove damaging... What protection would be given for testifying, did you see X on the 17 of July? IMO, none.

 

[cecybeans]

(this was in answer to ladybugplus)

The victim was a tiny, innocent child who no longer has a voice - and she was also a member of the family. What family member is testifying on her behalf?

We are not talking about family members testifying against each other in a crime outside the family, like loyal gang members. This is about testifying for the only member of the family that was not a grown-up with all her faculties who might have been able to defend herself if she had been. Everyone else seems to be doing an admirable job of looking after their own self-interests.

Given the amount of internecine violence in this country - the number of battered and killed spouses and children, in which cases other family members are often the only ones in a position to testify to certain facts, allowing such a rule would pretty much insure that even more domestic violence would go unpunished.

 

[nursebeeme]

just responding to the poll question... I if they are charged it will come during the trial... as they may get psycho on the stand. I could see contempt charges or more. I hope BC is in the front row when they testify (and I don't think even that will keep his clients under control) Moo of course.

As for obstruction and if they should have been charged? Not sure if it would be conducive yet... as their obstruction is going to play in nicely with the entire case... it is obvious that they do not necessarily believe Casey did not do it... and it is obvious they will do what ever it takes to defend her to include lying. This roundabout disbelief in her says a lot imhoo.

 

[gogrannypop]

I personally don't care if they are charged, But I do wish that they could be BANNED from the media. I do not like them and they have no truth to tell.

 

[songline]

ABSOLUTELY BE CHARGED :furious:

But not yet....Let them keep on mouthing.....
Let them trip and fall......

Today I got this in My e-mail box GA said he would have never arrested KC???
Sure GA you cleaned up so well after her that no direct tie has happened yet.
Your plan that she should not get arrested fell short..... so will the trial.
You had to clean up because your own evidence was in the clean up.
But what are you hiding??????


Casey Anthony Case: George Anthony Would Have Made No Arrest
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1755982/casey_anthony_case_george_anthony_would.html?cat=17

 

[songline]

IMO, LE will not charge C&G, though I think they should. Apparently this charge is seldom brought before the court for some reason.

I don't think C&G will be called to testify "against" KC, but just to provide facts, time lines etc. They did not see any aspect of the crime, so there can be no testimony about that. In this respect they too are victims of KC. However they do know about many incidental facts, identify the laundry bag, cloths etc. If those facts prove damaging... What protection would be given for testifying, did you see X on the 17 of July? IMO, none.

hmmm. but they knew looooong before 31 days.
they are involved in the clean up.
Maybe they put the bag in the place it was found.
All they need to do is trip. OR maybe someone will come up
and say what they DO know. I HOPE.
I think this will happen at the 12th hour.
It will be a surprise moment.
But this case may not be an OJ...

 

[songline]

What is LE waiting for? Seriously, don'tcha think the A's performance last week would've been the last straw, with their obvious lies and GA's flat out refusal to answer some questions? I am at my wits end with these people!! Seriously, they make my blood boil! The lies, the sense of entitlement, the fact that they're making money off their dead granddaughter (and yes, George, I will refer to Caylee as that because thats what your daughter did to her). THud-Thud-Thud...sorry thats just me banging my head against the wall.

As you can see so am I and I did feel sorry for them.
I always said I do not have to like them to feel for them.
But this new fund raising venture has made me throw up uke:
Their focus is very self serving. but how dare they not stand behind CAYLEE and then open a foundation for her.
They open a foundation with questionable people and delete the baby? They make me uke:

their clean up job of Caylee for Casey - is teaching Casey that she may do bad things and they will clean up.
that secrets and lies are fine. uke:

How can I continue to feel sorry for them?
They are a menace to society....

No....Let them continue to rant and rave and make azzes of themselves. Last one was only one additional nail in their coffin....
PLEASE NOTICE that While I say they did the clean up.
I am not saying that Casey did the deed. My vote on that is still on hold.

 

[Spangle]

just responding to the poll question... I if they are charged it will come during the trial... as they may get psycho on the stand. I could see contempt charges or more. I hope BC is in the front row when they testify (and I don't think even that will keep his clients under control) Moo of course.

As for obstruction and if they should have been charged? Not sure if it would be conducive yet... as their obstruction is going to play in nicely with the entire case... it is obvious that they do not necessarily believe Casey did not do it... and it is obvious they will do what ever it takes to defend her to include lying. This roundabout disbelief in her says a lot imhoo.

I think it will happen after the trial. To give them a chance to 'come clean" on the stand.

Depo's, etc.. give a person a chance to 'remember' the facts, before trial. A person might not give the factuall answer during questioning, because they might not realize the correct answer. Sounds odd, I know. But just like the date the A's first gave of when Caylee was 'taken.'. At first it was the 9th. After further thought/evidence, etc.. that date was changed.

This is why it's rarely charged. The LE realizes the answers are rather 'loose' at first. The more a person thinks about events, the more they might recall. Details that they didn't think important at the time, they might recall later.

But if they get on the stand and knowingly lie and it can be proven that they knew their statements to be a lie.. they can be charged. And most likely will be charged.

Spouses are not forced, because it might break up the family unit. And one spouse might be afraid of the other. In such cases, the spouse will lie out of protection. Also, if it might take the spouse away, who is the bread winner.. that would also be out of protection. Generally, it was the Man who would be charged, and the woman/wife being questioned.

 

[songline]

ITA! Could you imagine if this 'nanny' had really taken Caylee? Cindy would be standing on the courthouse steps demanding retribution at the top of her lungs. Instead we get 'mother of the year.'

I keep telling myself that this family and this case are not the norm. There are responsible, law abiding people out there who stick to their beliefs even in the face of horrible tragedy. Remember the family of Mark Hackings?

I do believe there was someone or somewhere that Caylee was left at times.
I think it would get Casey in more deep chit to let us know where that was.
Maybe it was a brothel and casey did turn tricks.
Maybe Casey sold drugs and spent the money and when she went to sell more at the club, they were not going to let her ripp them off again so they wanted to teach her a lesson????
I DO NOT KNOW.
Don't throw rocks at me....:chicken:
But while she was responsible for Caylee she may not have done the deed. And maybe she did....
BUT DADDY did make the clean up plan. She is not a brain child at all.

 

[Gma Kat]

just responding to the poll question... I if they are charged it will come during the trial... as they may get psycho on the stand. I could see contempt charges or more. I hope BC is in the front row when they testify (and I don't think even that will keep his clients under control) Moo of course.

As for obstruction and if they should have been charged? Not sure if it would be conducive yet... as their obstruction is going to play in nicely with the entire case... it is obvious that they do not necessarily believe Casey did not do it... and it is obvious they will do what ever it takes to defend her to include lying. This roundabout disbelief in her says a lot imhoo.

My Bold: You bring up a really good point that I keep glossing over. The A's behavior could be used as evidence of "their" conscienceness of KC's guilt, otherwise why tamper or interfere with the case at all?

 

[ThoughtElf]

I don't think they will charge any of them until after the trial, if at all.

I think that once KC is found guilty, they may not bother further, providing closure for the case and the burden on the FL tax-payers.

I think the goal is justice and while I think that justice should include eventual charges, I can understand if LE & the SA just lay it to rest once KC is sentenced.

 

[Hoping4Justice]

I'm thinking that they will be spared charges after she is convicted. I think that LE will view them as suffered enough. I believe that they should face charges because you would be setting a bad example for future cases where family members might believe that they can interfere and get away with it.

 

[songline]

I'm thinking that they will be spared charges after she is convicted. I think that LE will view them as suffered enough. I believe that they should face charges because you would be setting a bad example for future cases where family members might believe that they can interfere and get away with it.

Assuming the Stat can see that they did obstruct justice, and cost the state months of valuable time and money by diverting an investigation - I can not see the state saying "No problem - you get to walk".
Assuming the "A"s did help LE and just cover a little bit just so that they do not throw their kid under a bus that would be the only way I can see the State do nothing.

BUT IMHO - LE daddy knew far more then he is saying. And knows - the state has to prove it
Let's not forget "GA is a man who knows a lot" ; as some detective said.
Knows a lot about how to clean up too, no doubt in my mind. None.

 

[cecybeans]

I don't think they will charge any of them until after the trial, if at all.

I think that once KC is found guilty, they may not bother further, providing closure for the case and the burden on the FL tax-payers.

I think the goal is justice and while I think that justice should include eventual charges, I can understand if LE & the SA just lay it to rest once KC is sentenced.

Very practical summary, 'Tater. Didn't a talking head on NG or something a few months ago say that the reason the Anthony family lawyers were sort of making a huge deal about the possibility of obstruction charges is that they secretly wanted them to be charged because that way they could take the Fifth at the trial? That was the reason I always thought the SA has held off. I know I'm not alone in wishing they would be called to task because they have cost the taxpayers already by their actions and behavior (not to mention the message it sends to other families who might want to act like laws and rules just don't apply), but I can see where the state would not want to compound the cost by adding to it. I just hope the family doesn't get too cocky thinking that it might not happen; they have certainly been getting bolder in their revisionist tendencies and act like they do so with impunity.

 

[akashana]

I agree with nursebeeme that charges for G & C are most likely during or right befoe trial. I think the state's attorneys are letting them play their hand all out, letting the chips fall as they may, while they stand in the background quietly gathering ammunition for the courtroom battle. If they charge them now, they will shut down out of fear and necessity. It's actually benefitting LE that they thrust themselves into the spotlight again and again, as they do not present a sympathetic picture. Cindy is out of touch with reality; she has created the world in which she lives and can't be dragged from it. I think that George is truly a tortured soul at this point. In another family, I think that he would have long ago abandoned the "Casey is innocent " farce.

In the beginning, I was very much in their corner. I felt that people were too hard on them after their great loss. I even re-read my posts the other night to see when I started to change my mind. Around March I begn to lose my sympathy, as they hadn't done a single thing to support Caylee, IMO, since her disappearance. I think they knew fairly early on that she was dead and that was when the KC is innocen KoolAid consumption went up. I don't know about George, but I feel that Cindy has definitely stepped over the legal line after-the-fact. Probably more than once.

 

[Just Jayla]

I know as a parent my first priority ... if I got my daughters car back after being abandoned for two weeks wreaking of death.. Would be to find my daughter and granddaughter and make sure they were both ok... not clean the car and do laundry.

Agreed, and furthermore I am worried they may have known darn near for a fact what was going on by November 15th, when PI was in the woods.
I would, however, not want them to be charged until after KC's trial, so that they may not reach for immunity while on the stand in her murder trial.

 

[ThoughtElf]

Very practical summary, 'Tater. Didn't a talking head on NG or something a few months ago say that the reason the Anthony family lawyers were sort of making a huge deal about the possibility of obstruction charges is that they secretly wanted them to be charged because that way they could take the Fifth at the trial? That was the reason I always thought the SA has held off. I know I'm not alone in wishing they would be called to task because they have cost the taxpayers already by their actions and behavior (not to mention the message it sends to other families who might want to act like laws and rules just don't apply), but I can see where the state would not want to compound the cost by adding to it. I just hope the family doesn't get too cocky thinking that it might not happen; they have certainly been getting bolder in their revisionist tendencies and act like they do so with impunity.

TY, likewise with your thoughts.

That was my understanding, although I got it from the Legal Eagles here. Many of them stated the '5th' option was the main reason for no charges being laid YET.

Also, note that BC has made statements several times that imply that he has already tried to cut a plea or a deal, yet none exists. It is my personal belief that BC has approached the SA on several occasions, knowing full well charges could be pending, and the SA politely states, "Oh, but we haven't laid charges at this time."

BC has stated often that he wants full immunity for his clients. Implies knowledge of guilty knowledge, yes?

Which makes this all the more interesting/funny (in a very twisted sort of way.)

And since any charges might come AFTER the trial, there will be even less likelihood of a deal, and more likelihood of further evidence of obstruction, etc.

They will not get immunity then either, but if they plea then it isn't going to cost the tax payers much at all, is it? :wink:



I have not given up hope for justice all around, I'm just waiting to see how it plays out.

 

[Ripley007]

Agreed, and furthermore I am worried they may have known darn near for a fact what was going on by November 15th, when PI was in the woods.
I would, however, not want them to be charged until after KC's trial, so that they may not reach for immunity while on the stand in her murder trial.

I can't help but wonder IF LE doesn't have (enough) eviedence to indite GA & CA of SOMETHING!!! In fact I find myself spouting off angry words towards these two because no arrests have been made yet...

My consolation is the the thought that You spoke of of, that LE is strategically NOT arresting them till AFTER their testimony in KC's trial.

Let's keep our fingers crossed!!!

 

[songline]

I understand why you believe privilege should be given between all family members. I would think the parent/child would be esp difficult, providing incriminating evidence on your own child/or parent would truly be horrific, but IMO it is right. As awful a position as that would be, I have to disagree though, I believe our justice system is correct in providing that privilege between spouses only. It is the only relationship (biblically) that blurs the lines between two individual people. Two married people are to become one, not only in the physical act but in baring their souls to each other, becoming intertwined. It would not be fair to have to testify against a spouse as it would be like testifying against yourself IMO.

Even so, I still understand where you are coming from. :cow:

I am wondering if LE is waiting until the end of the trial, when the A's (all 3 or 4!) testimony is on record, in a court of law, nailed down, before they charge any of them with anything. If our hunches are proven in court, (that they did tamper, destroy evidence, or obstruct, flat out lie) then I want the book thrown at them. :cow:

I think there is a huge difference between not having to give incriminating evidence
about your child which I CAN agree with.
And obstructing the entire investigation.
IMHO they obstructed the entire investigation. AND THAT IS A HUGE no,no....

 

[songline]

(this was in answer to ladybugplus)

The victim was a tiny, innocent child who no longer has a voice - and she was also a member of the family. What family member is testifying on her behalf?We are not talking about family members testifying against each other in a crime outside the family, like loyal gang members. This is about testifying for the only member of the family that was not a grown-up with all her faculties who might have been able to defend herself if she had been. Everyone else seems to be doing an admirable job of looking after their own self-interests.

Given the amount of internecine violence in this country - the number of battered and killed spouses and children, in which cases other family members are often the only ones in a position to testify to certain facts, allowing such a rule would pretty much insure that even more domestic violence would go unpunished.

NOBODY is :furious:
but they are using her name to feed their azzzes :furious:
and when you lose weight you have to get new cloths too. GRRRR!!!