Why Have George and Cindy Requested a Video Visitation With Casey?

[tpgks]

Which is why they would use crazy code talk, lol.

But seriously, I now wonder if something has been hatched through letters, and a face to face meeting is supposed to part of some sort of agreement? Maybe that's what the A's demanded so they would do their part? I can't help but think something's been going on behind the scenes, and this meeting is supposed to mean something more than just a meeting. Like someone else, maybe it's a signal of some kind that only the DT and the A's will understand.

I am glad that there are others that are as crazy as I am.

 

[chefmom]

They should be moving KC soon to the local jailhouse in the location of the jury selection. I'm sure they want her settled in prior to the court disclosing the location so the A's would not be seeing her unless they get it approved within the next 24 hours. Also the jail has rules as to which days they can visit and it has to be with prior notice so I doubt they will see her prior to the beginning of her trial, if at all. jmo

BBM

So, if there is going to be a meeting between ICA and her parents, it will need to take place today or tomorrow. That's good info to know. I can't help but think that KB or someone won't be staking out the jail, watching for any sign of the A's arriving. If they meet with her, I'm sure someone will report it. moo

 

[tpgks]

That would involved witness tampering and could get them in a lot of trouble. The A's have an attorney and I'm sure he was warned them against anything that would remotely be viewed as such to stay away from. The jail will video the meeting regardless and it would be reviewed so the A's would have to be very careful what they say and so would KC. jmo

I agree with you 100%. I never said it was a good plan. Cindy and George have stood behind ICA condoning her lies and behavior for years. To any normal person there is no way in hell that they would go along with something like this, regardless if it was their child or not...but we are not dealing with "normal" people. As others have stated CA is going to do what she feels is in the best interest of ICA...attorneys or others be damned.

 

[LolaMoon08]

My problem with Cindy and George visiting Casey and Casey admitting to some sort of tragic accident is that it is going to change the testimony of Cindy and George considerably. With each new story... there is always a new set of lies. It is something that I have learned about this family in these past few years. More details will be added that were not there before... and details that were added before will either be denied of blamed on the "grieving grandparent" card these two people like to pull everytime they get caught in one of their lies.

What are they going to say about ZFG? The whole nanny story is coming in. Are they going to change their testimony about the first time they were told about this nanny to fit with their new role as grandparents of a tragic accident? They surely won't be the grandparents of a missing child anymore because Casey is conceding that Caylee was never missing (I think the State of Florida should sue Casey for costs that went into finding a missing child personally... if she really does admit to an accident). I think Cindy and George's testimony about when they first heard about this non-existant woman is very important because it goes to premeditation. If this was all just a tragic accident that Casey covered up on a whim... there should have been no mention of this non-existant woman until after June 16th, 2008. If they stick with knowing about this non-existant woman since early 2008... A jury is going to be scratching their heads. So are they going to change their testimony in order to help Casey with... what is this? Her fourth version of events now? Even if they do change their testimony... Casey's text messages/instant messages have her mentioning this "nanny" in early May. Jesse and Richard Grund I believe have Casey mentioning this "nanny" in early 2008. I also think that if Cindy and George change their testimony so significantly that it was obvious that they were covering up this "accident" that the State of Florida should also sue them for costs that went into finding a missing child. They do this now when someone reports a false crime.

There are so many things that they could change their testimony on to mold this into what they want it to be... that is what they do. I could pick through every single thing that has happened in this case and come up with ways that I think they could change their testimony to help Casey with her accident story... I really hope the State is prepared for what I believe is going to be drastically different testimony than what they gave in their depositions.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I have to get me one of those so I'm ready for whatever the defense is going to roll out - Can you please point me in the direction of the "Tin Foil Hat" store or do you have an extra lying around I could have? Please? LOL
Hahaha - I'm picturing 500 or so sleuthers sitting at their computers on WS threads watching all the opening statements - and when Baez/Mason step up, all placing a tin foil hat on our heads....

We will all need tin foil hats before this is over!

 

[logicalgirl]

My problem with Cindy and George visiting Casey and Casey admitting to some sort of tragic accident is that it is going to change the testimony of Cindy and George considerably. With each new story... there is always a new set of lies. It is something that I have learned about this family in these past few years. More details will be added that were not there before... and details that were added before will either be denied of blamed on the "grieving grandparent" card these two people like to pull everytime they get caught in one of their lies.

What are they going to say about ZFG? The whole nanny story is coming in. Are they going to change their testimony about the first time they were told about this nanny to fit with their new role as grandparents of a tragic accident? They surely won't be the grandparents of a missing child anymore because Casey is conceding that Caylee was never missing (I think the State of Florida should sue Casey for costs that went into finding a missing child personally... if she really does admit to an accident). I think Cindy and George's testimony about when they first heard about this non-existant woman is very important because it goes to premeditation. If this was all just a tragic accident that Casey covered up on a whim... there should have been no mention of this non-existant woman until after June 16th, 2008. If they stick with knowing about this non-existant woman since early 2008... A jury is going to be scratching their heads. So are they going to change their testimony in order to help Casey with... what is this? Her fourth version of events now? Even if they do change their testimony... Casey's text messages/instant messages have her mentioning this "nanny" in early May. Jesse and Richard Grund I believe have Casey mentioning this "nanny" in early 2008. I also think that if Cindy and George change their testimony so significantly that it was obvious that they were covering up this "accident" that the State of Florida should also sue them for costs that went into finding a missing child. They do this now when someone reports a false crime.

There are so many things that they could change their testimony on to mold this into what they want it to be... that is what they do. I could pick through every single thing that has happened in this case and come up with ways that I think they could change their testimony to help Casey with her accident story... I really hope the State is prepared for what I believe is going to be drastically different testimony than what they gave in their depositions.

LolaMoon08 - I start getting those same thoughts swirling around in my head and then I remember they both will be facing LDB at trial. Nuff said.

 

[darnudes]

:waitasec: I thought it was the Anthony's that want to talk to Casey and that the Anthony's are waiting for a response from Casey.

Because it is ICA, through her lawyer, who has been trying for many months to get these visits sealed.

Think about this, what if ICA told Baez to tell the Anthonys "You have a go through your lawyers, arguing Bent, and see if you can get those visitations sealed, after Judge Perry's comments at the last hearing. The Anthony's motion has a good chance of being granted, depending on where the Bent decision stands now.

 

[LolaMoon08]

LolaMoon08 - I start getting those same thoughts swirling around in my head and then I remember they both will be facing LDB at trial. Nuff said.

:great: Yes, Mrs. Drane Burdick!! :great: Thank you for bringing me back down to reality!

 

[logicalgirl]

We will all need tin foil hats before this is over!

A_News_Junkie!!! Wowzers!!! My Very Own Tin Foil Hat!!! How will I ever be able to thank you enough!!!

Well, I'm safe - heh heh. Anytime Mr. Mason, anytime you are ready, please proceed. LOL!:bigfight: I'm ready for ya!! :woot:

 

[logicalgirl]

:great: Yes, Mrs. Drane Burdick!! :great: Thank you for bringing me back down to reality!

It's cause I'm wearing my new tin foil hat A_News_Junkie made for me - LOL!

 

[darnudes]

BUT - isn't ICA part of the sequestration process once the jury selection starts? If GA and CA are not allowed into the courtroom until they complete their testimony, surely this includes visitation rights with ICA while the trial is underway?? Makes no sense at all to me that they would be allowed to have visits with ICA but not attend the trial.:waitasec:

No I don't think so. I don't see how the sequestration issue has anything to do with visits to ICA.

 

[darnudes]

I'm still puzzled as to whey they filed this with HHJP? Last time they objected to visits being videotaped he shrugged and said Take it up with the Jail...

I think it all relates to the last hearing, and Judge Perry's comments. I can't see any other impetus other than that.

 

[logicalgirl]

No I don't think so. I don't see who the sequestration issue has anything to do with visits to ICA.

If they have not yet testified, who is to say these visits and ICA might influence how the Anthony's testimony might change (again)?

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Hmmm... where is the tin foil avatar?

Geez, I don't know!

 

[countzero]

The A's cannot change their story now without committing perjury. They have completed more than one sworn deposition as well as numerous sworn interviews, ALL part of the courts record. CA is not about to set herself or GA or LA by changing their stories this late in the proceedings.

I think they are attempting to do a COA, plural of CYA. If they change their stories, cover up, now their house of glass collapses. Jose risks his license as well, should their story involve him.

Any changes they attempt to do now will snowball out of control quickly. JBarrett maybe the key to all of this. She, more than anyone, knows where those ghosts are hiding. She just maybe the person behind this new renewed motion. And Anne too.

 

[darnudes]

If they have not yet testified, who is to say these visits and ICA might influence how the Anthony's testimony might change (again)?

The sequestration issue has to do with how each of the Anthonys testify and other witnesses, it has nothing to do with ICA and if they visit her in jail or not.

 

[Peepers McPeep]

Watching in session....
July 25. 2008..video visit with ICA
Dad say's the longer this takes..the more things are going to come out..
Making it harder on everyone..Paraphrased..
Hmmmm..
I figure the little meeting is just so Mom and Dad can let Kitten know Mom will cheerfully strap Dad to the bus with a fresh roll Henkle. George on the stand pleading the 5th..
This will be a big game of, Confuse the Jury.
I hope a taped meeting is allowed, at least HHBP will be able to gauge what shennanigans are taking place, even if the public never sees the visit.
I will punctuate the end of my post with a giant
AAAaarrrggggg

 

[darnudes]

If they have not yet testified, who is to say these visits and ICA might influence how the Anthony's testimony might change (again)?

If they are successful in getting the visits sealed I'm sure the visits would still be recorded, phone calls or visitations, so the SAO will still have the ability to look at them. The Anthonys and ICA would be stupid to try anything, imo.

 

[Fluffy Puppy]

I have been thinking that the Anthony's desire to meet now, again and all of a sudden, is perhaps tied to the DT trying to arrange a plea. I have two divergent theories about what they want to accomplish: 1) they want her to plead to LWOP (if offered) or 2) they want to get yet another version of events in front of the SA. Not the public or the media, but the prosecution.

Here is my scenario: I think the DT is trying to get the state to accept a plea to a lesser charge based on accident, and the state is saying no way. So they think maybe a conversation between Casey and her parents now would suddenly and surprisingly (lol) add some "new" information (ahem) for the state to consider.

 

[Fluffy Puppy]

If they have not yet testified, who is to say these visits and ICA might influence how the Anthony's testimony might change (again)?

Exactly! They are witnesses in a murder trial. Call me silly, but I think a conversation between a witness and a defendant is discoverable evidence.