State's Attorney request transcripts from GA and CA Testimony

[pharsin]

Wonder why would the State Attorney ask for these transcripts? Could it be time for Pergury charges? Maybe to send a message to the A's that this is not a game, and they will be held to task. And they will begin telling the truth, or else.

What are your thoughts?




By Amy Pavuk, Orlando Sentinel

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-trial-friday-filings20110429,0,512553.story


12:05 p.m. EDT, April 29, 2011
os-casey-anthony-trial-friday-filings20110429
State prosecutors want transcripts of testimony George and Cindy Anthony gave during court proceedings in their daughter's first-degree murder case.

In a document filed Friday, an Assistant State Attorney requested the transcripts from hearings that occurred March 2, 3, and 4.

Anthony, 25, is accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter Caylee Marie Anthony in the summer of 2008. Her trial will begin with jury selection May 9.

During the early March proceedings, Casey Anthony's defense team was trying to get statements she and her parents made to law-enforcement tossed.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Might be to point out any lies they told previously while they are questioning them during trial.

 

[Intermezzo]

Discrepancies in their sworn testimony/statements
Ashton also asked and received George's Grand Jury Testimony Transcript citing discrepancy in sworn testimony and depositions
And possibly to refer back to during trial when they are being questioned by the Prosecutors

 

[Leila]

I think the most logical presentation by the state would be to start with the events of July 15, 2008, when the Anthonys retrieved Casey's car from the impound yard, found Casey and brought her home, and learned that Caylee was missing and had been missing for the past 31 days. This was the point at which LE became involved and the beginning of the case from a legal perspective.

George, Cindy, and Lee Anthony were questioned by both the state and the defense during the hearings of March 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, and the questions revolved around events and statements made during those first few hours, days, and weeks into the case. The defense had claimed that the Anthonys were made "agents of the state" and wanted that information not admissible during the trial. The defense's motion was denied, and those statements are coming in.

If the state plans on beginning their presentation with the events of July 15, 2008, then George, Cindy, and Lee will be among their first witnesses, along with Yuri Melich, John Allen, and other LE who were present.

The state will likely ask GA, CA, and LA the same questions they asked them during the hearings of March 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. I would think that the Anthonys are locked into what they testified to during the March hearings. If they change their story, it will be noted and they will be questioned further in regard to which story is the truth.........what they testified to during the March hearings or what they're testifying to in the trial.

 

[chefmom]

I agree with others that they want to use it to try and keep the A's tied down to one version of their "truth" or the other. At this point in time, there are so many versions it is hard to remember them all. IMO, the SA is anticipating, as am I, that, during the trial, the A's memories will morph into different ones. Ones that can counter the other testimony that is being presented. CA will start remembering all kinds of useful things, as will GA. MOO.

 

[LambChop]

I think the Febreeze statement from CA shows she would willingly change her statement to fit with whatever defense wanted her to do. The fact that CA met with defense before the hearing makes her more of a defense witness than one for the State. I imagine they will keep it simple with both CA and GA. jmo

 

[MsRyber]

Likely SA will keep it simple and let GA and CA be grieving grandparents. LDB will get both of them to open the floodgates and hopefully they will crumble. I am sure looking hostile in front of the jury is something CA and GA have both been schooled on.
It won't help their daughter. Answer the questions and keep it simple, stupid.

If they act hostile, I am sure LDB or JA will point out to the jury in closing arguments that their testimony shouldn't be trusted and that they just want to save their daughter's skin instead of finding out the truth of what happened to Caylee. Basically tell the jury by their conduct, CA and GA know what happened to Caylee.

The best would be to get either LA, CA or GA to admit in hindsight they realized Caylee was deceased in those 31 days. Fat chance, but who knows.
The key will be getting CA to admit NOW that there wasn't a Zanny then. Or ever. And that she either chose to deny her daughter was a liar and a thief and neglecting her granddaughter or she enabled it. CA did say in her July 3 note that "Ah, love is blind."

 

[BigMomma]

I agree with others that they want to use it to try and keep the A's tied down to one version of their "truth" or the other. At this point in time, there are so many versions it is hard to remember them all. IMO, the SA is anticipating, as am I, that, during the trial, the A's memories will morph into different ones. Ones that can counter the other testimony that is being presented. CA will start remembering all kinds of useful things, as will GA. MOO.

I liked the words you have used here, 'keep the A's tied down'. Nobody has been able to do that yet. They might just have a Divine moment of clear recollection, sort of a sorry excuse for all they have told so far. I wonder if SAO will keep pulling all their mis struths out of a hat, which will take forever, or are they just going to just stick with what they have told LE and in their depostions? I would like to see them squirm some more. They've been so obnoxious in the past(ZFGDepositions) that the grieving grandparent role just does not cut it for me, never have seen that, not true grief.

 

[steadychick]

I think the Febreeze statement from CA shows she would willingly change her statement to fit with whatever defense wanted her to do. The fact that CA met with defense before the hearing makes her more of a defense witness than one for the State. I imagine they will keep it simple with both CA and GA. jmo

Cindy stated early on that she used Febreeze in the car. This is nothing new. What is new is that she now claims to have used a whole can. I know this was discussed quite a while ago on at least one of the forums and whether or not some ingredient in Febreeze could combine with something in the trunk to form chloroform. I believe the answer was that this ingredient was present, and yes it could form chloroform, but certainly not the amount of chloroform that was found. IMO Cindy picked up on this information and that is why she now claims she sprayed the "whole can".

 

[LambChop]

Cindy stated early on that she used Febreeze in the car. This is nothing new. What is new is that she now claims to have used a whole can. I know this was discussed quite a while ago on at least one of the forums and whether or not some ingredient in Febreeze could combine with something in the trunk to form chloroform. I believe the answer was that this ingredient was present, and yes it could form chloroform, but certainly not the amount of chloroform that was found. IMO Cindy picked up on this information and that is why she now claims she sprayed the "whole can".

That's right. What CA mentioned this time were the dryer sheets which she denied putting in the car before. SA has pictures and the sheet in the back seat is half under one of KC's shoes which CA claims not to have touched so to be consistent she would have to now change that testimony also, that she moved to shoe to put the dryer sheet under and over. Since the dryer sheets from the trunk were in the bag which was removed from the trunk at the tow yard I think SA will have no problem discrediting her statement. I believe that would then make her a hostile witness.

If she used a can there isn't much in the cans and not knowing how much was already used she could have used up the whole can. We all know one can would not account for the chemicals in that trunk. jmo

 

[katydid23]

I think the state wants to emphasize the early statements by both George And Cindy that the trunk smelled like a dead body. The Anthony's have been trying to squirm their way out of those early statements.
They will call them on it when Cindy tries to say it could have been old pizza she smelled, or that she made it up just to get the cops out to the house.

 

[kaRN]

I believe it's to argue against the A's motion requesting they be exempted from sequestration. Those transcripts in March compared to all the others they already have on hand.

 

[steadychick]

CA's mistruths about the dryer sheets makes no sense to me. Casey had already stated to several people that the car smelled. So the fact that she spread dryer sheets around to decrease/cover up the smell (from the trash and/or squirrel) should not be very important. Why in the world would Cindy add to her lies by claiming responsibility for the dryer sheets? All it tells me is the length the A's will go, whether they make sense or not, to have their daughter set free.

 

[twomanywords]

Oh, but won't the "anti depressants" and GA's suicide come in as reasons for "mis-remembering"?

What would be interesting is if they got D Casey's depo and found that someone in the family did indeed know Caylee was diseased. Then they could compare their statements to his...

 

[Sooner Fan#1]

I am glad to see this thread bumped up. Does anyone else think SA are planning their strategy to have the A's testify early and then fit that into a plan to have the need to recall them at a later time to keep them out of the courtroom as much as possible? If so, I think that is a smart move. That's my opinion only. I'm going back and read now. :innocent:

 

[Ricki]

Wonder why would the State Attorney ask for these transcripts? Could it be time for Pergury charges? Maybe to send a message to the A's that this is not a game, and they will be held to task. And they will begin telling the truth, or else.

What are your thoughts?




By Amy Pavuk, Orlando Sentinel

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-trial-friday-filings20110429,0,512553.story


12:05 p.m. EDT, April 29, 2011
os-casey-anthony-trial-friday-filings20110429
State prosecutors want transcripts of testimony George and Cindy Anthony gave during court proceedings in their daughter's first-degree murder case.

In a document filed Friday, an Assistant State Attorney requested the transcripts from hearings that occurred March 2, 3, and 4.

Anthony, 25, is accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter Caylee Marie Anthony in the summer of 2008. Her trial will begin with jury selection May 9.

During the early March proceedings, Casey Anthony's defense team was trying to get statements she and her parents made to law-enforcement tossed.

Maybe because the LKB has stated that the Nany story was a lie but the Anthony's seemed to have either gone along with that story or actually believed it. I notice that LA transcripts are not being asked for on those dates in March.

 

[Sooner Fan#1]

I think the Febreeze statement from CA shows she would willingly change her statement to fit with whatever defense wanted her to do. The fact that CA met with defense before the hearing makes her more of a defense witness than one for the State. I imagine they will keep it simple with both CA and GA. jmo

Lambchop, I was dumbfounded when the SA called CA back to the stand to testified about the febreeze.. after I thought about it, it made sense to me that the "febreeze" testimony would be presented much, much later in the trial...and it clicked in my mind that that was the reason they called her back to the stand. We all know the A's are not going to be held accountable, as much as we would like. I think it would tarnish the SA to present the "greiving" grandparents in a bad light for the jury pool. The febreeze was a red herring, IMO

 

[Sooner Fan#1]

I think the most logical presentation by the state would be to start with the events of July 15, 2008, when the Anthonys retrieved Casey's car from the impound yard, found Casey and brought her home, and learned that Caylee was missing and had been missing for the past 31 days. This was the point at which LE became involved and the beginning of the case from a legal perspective.

George, Cindy, and Lee Anthony were questioned by both the state and the defense during the hearings of March 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, and the questions revolved around events and statements made during those first few hours, days, and weeks into the case. The defense had claimed that the Anthonys were made "agents of the state" and wanted that information not admissible during the trial. The defense's motion was denied, and those statements are coming in.

If the state plans on beginning their presentation with the events of July 15, 2008, then George, Cindy, and Lee will be among their first witnesses, along with Yuri Melich, John Allen, and other LE who were present.

The state will likely ask GA, CA, and LA the same questions they asked them during the hearings of March 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. I would think that the Anthonys are locked into what they testified to during the March hearings. If they change their story, it will be noted and they will be questioned further in regard to which story is the truth.........what they testified to during the March hearings or what they're testifying to in the trial.

Leila, I agree, and I think the have to get those 911 calls in at the very first thing. That will make a huge impact on the jury.

 

[Melanie]

I think the Febreeze statement from CA shows she would willingly change her statement to fit with whatever defense wanted her to do. The fact that CA met with defense before the hearing makes her more of a defense witness than one for the State. I imagine they will keep it simple with both CA and GA. jmo

OMG when she was making her Febreeze "commercial" i was gobsmacked. I had never heard that before - nor anything about throwing dryer sheets "all over the car".

I'm anxious to read those depos should they be released to the public.

Can I ask - Why wouldn't the SA already have them. Wouldn't they be needed at trial anyway and be considered discovery.

Moo

mel
(I'm no lawyer and can't claim to be one)

 

[Tulessa]

I believe it's to argue against the A's motion requesting they be exempted from sequestration. Those transcripts in March compared to all the others they already have on hand.

Great post!

Where's my dragonfly?:innocent: