John Morgan to depose Cindy A and George A on Monday, 12/22/08

[surini59]

On a human level, of course I feel bad when anyone goes through a holiday missing a loved one. I woudn't wish that on my worst enemy.

On a practical level, if they would just DO THE RIGHT THING, they could avoid the mess and the focus on their situation. They are so far into denial and/or cover up, that I feel very comfortable in saying "What you sow, you shall reap." They enabled and coddled Casey past the time when she should have put on her big girl pants. They knew Casey was a spoiled brat with no sense of responsibility, yet they didn't call CPS or attempt to get parental rights for Caylee. They have completely thrown common sense out the window, believing lie after proven lie after proven lie from Casey. And yet I'm supposed to feel bad about the culmination of grossly deleterious lapses in judgement for an adult? Absolutely not.

I say this KNOWING my kids aren't angels, anyone that thinks differently of their own offspring is clearly delusional. Mine aren't perfect, but they have been working part time jobs while going to school since they were old enough to work. No money for a movie? No gas for the car? Guess you need to plan your money more wisely in the future. They also know if they are not going to school, working and giving an honest attempt at a future, they can 'let the door hit them where the good lord split them.' I'll be the first to throw them out but I'll also be sobbing like a baby after I close the door. If I have any doubts at all, I can just give a quick thought towards the dysfunctional Ant colony for renewed strength of purpose.

The only person that has my unadulterated sympathy is a little girl who idolized each and every one of them and made the naive mistake in trusting loved adults to keep her safe from harm. RIP little girl.

Well said :clap:

 

[Chilly Willy]

That's not true. If the question posed to a civil witness seeks information that could subject he/she to prosecution for a crime, you may invoke the Fifth Amendment. There does not have to be a bill of information or an indictment pending against the deponant.

Moreover, this is precisely why the Anthonys, who are rumored to be seeking immunity from the state, would be seeking such immunity. They know that they'll have to either (1) answer the questions, or (2) invoke the Fifth Amendment. If they haven't been able to negotiate immunity, and they have some incriminating information, divulging same or invoking the 5th draws LE's attention to them like a heat seeking missile (not that they haevn't done so already, just a saying that their counsel, Mr. Conway, will not allow them to put themselves int he hot seat any further if he can help it.)

Please excuse my post, you are correct. The information I read and based my post on appears to be wrong.

 

[Chezhire]

For those who have access to Westlaw and are interested, here's a recent case out of Louisiana, where I practice, quoting & expounding upon the long-standing rule as set out in the US Supreme Court case:

SNIPPED:

"...The federal and state constitutions guarantee the privilege against self-incrimination. Although a witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a civil proceeding, the Fifth Amendment does not forbid an adverse inference against the party witness who refuses to testify. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976). While an accused in a criminal prosecution has a privilege not to be called or sworn as a witness at the State's instance, any witness except such an accused has no such broad exemption. A witness in a civil proceeding must submit to be called and sworn and to answer all questions except incriminating ones. The proper procedure is for the court to permit the witness to be called on cross-examination and to invoke the privilege after each question is asked so that the court may rule as to whether the particular question is incriminating. Louisiana Livestock Sanitary Board v. Pickett, 323 So.2d 521, 524 (1975); Lamartiniere v. Department of Employment Security, 372 So.2d 690, 694 n. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 375 So.2d 945(La.1979)...."

See on Westlaw, by the following citation: State ex rel. A.R., 2008 WL 2332322.

 

[Chezhire]

Please excuse my post, you are correct. The information I read and based my post on appears to be wrong.

no problem - glad to clarify - that's what we're all here for.

 

[MeenaMom]

I heard on the news last night that since KC filed a countersuit against ZFG She cannot plead the fifth in this case.........

 

[amethyst221]

A witness in a civil case can not plead the fifth UNLESS it jeopardizes them in an ongoing criminal case. There are no criminal cases pending against the A's. In other words, Casey can plead the fifth in the civil case, her parents can not.

I think that's an incorrect statement of the law. Is it an exception in FLA that there has to be a pending criminal case or even civil case against the A's (or any witness in a case to which they aren't a party) for them to invoke the right not to incriminate themselves? Not where I am. They would be protecting their own constitutional right not to incriminate themselves in any future proceeding that might be brought. It would have nothing to do with Casey's right.

 

[MaryAnn]

Really? Maybe if they told the little princess liar to cut the crap from the beginning they would not be in this mess!

I feel sorry for ZG.

I think it's Mark Klaus (who lost his Daughter to a murderer, her name was Polly Klaus) couldn't have worded it better last night on NG. He pretty much said the same thing. He pretty much said that this could have been avoided if they hadn't been so dysfunctional.

 

[MUGENDAI]

very well written. Imo - it's just painful all the way around!! Leaves me almost speechless at times.

such a tragic and unnecessary loss of a beautiful child! It is just so difficult to wrap my brain around all that has happened since the news of caylee's disappearance came out. The events that have unfolded have been more of something you would see in some freak horror show and not at all how 99.99999999% of us would handle the situation if our child/grandchild were missing.

well in instant messages, kc was referred to as "freak show"!!! "hey freak show!" makes you wonder why...made me wonder why...?

 

[costalpilot]

my hope is that Cindy remains consistent i n her public utterances, which would mean she would LIE LIE LIE during the deposition, which would finally bring her to the reality of having to account for her lies.

again I ask, how do you help your child by lying for them in a murder case????

how does lying for a murderer help them?

 

[costalpilot]

I heard on the news last night that since KC filed a countersuit against ZFG She cannot plead the fifth in this case.........

thats right..she brings a suit, she has to testify what her damages are.

course, soon as her crackerjaCK Lawyer figures that out

they'll drop the suit

 

[Andy H.]

For those who have access to Westlaw and are interested, here's a recent case out of Louisiana, where I practice, quoting & expounding upon the long-standing rule as set out in the US Supreme Court case:

SNIPPED:

"...The federal and state constitutions guarantee the privilege against self-incrimination. Although a witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a civil proceeding, the Fifth Amendment does not forbid an adverse inference against the party witness who refuses to testify. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976). While an accused in a criminal prosecution has a privilege not to be called or sworn as a witness at the State's instance, any witness except such an accused has no such broad exemption. A witness in a civil proceeding must submit to be called and sworn and to answer all questions except incriminating ones. The proper procedure is for the court to permit the witness to be called on cross-examination and to invoke the privilege after each question is asked so that the court may rule as to whether the particular question is incriminating. Louisiana Livestock Sanitary Board v. Pickett, 323 So.2d 521, 524 (1975); Lamartiniere v. Department of Employment Security, 372 So.2d 690, 694 n. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 375 So.2d 945(La.1979)...."

See on Westlaw, by the following citation: State ex rel. A.R., 2008 WL 2332322.

That's good information--in most states--Florida say--can the plaitiff's representative bring out the questions where no answer could be made because of the fifth in order to make a point? If he/she can, it seems to me that it could be a powerful part of the record for a jury and the judge against the Anthonys.
Thank you,
Andy

 

[Andy H.]

Sorry--getting ahead of myself in an area I know little. I assume some laibility may be in place if it is proven that George and Cindy had Casey as a dependent. Maybe her age would preclude this... don't know.

 

[DotsEyes]

The testifying witness can not pick and choose which questions he will answer. Once the Fifth is invoked, he can not answer any questions. And one can not invoke the Fifth because the answer might incriminate another.

 

[azwriter]

What questions do you suppose he will ask the A's? Will he try to establish that "Zanny" was made to be a real person by the A's through their public statements? Hasn't CA given a description to the media that matches this ZG?

Don't you know, George and Cindy will immediately claim she's the WRONG Zanny. Isn't that their latest broken record?
jmo

 

[amethyst221]

Sorry--getting ahead of myself in an area I know little. I assume some laibility may be in place if it is proven that George and Cindy had Casey as a dependent. Maybe her age would preclude this... don't know.

The A's would not be liable, civilly or criminally, for the actions of their adult daughter, just because they are her parents. There may be some crimes they might potentially be liable for, and they may have some relation to the Casey situation. But any liability would be based on the A's own wrongful activity, such as lying to police, under oath, obstruction, being accessories after the fact. It would be personal liability, not vicarious.

If someone is a criminal defendant, you can never point out that they invoked their fifth amendment rights and didn't answer questions, to try to show guilt. In a civil case to which they are a party, you can use the invocation against them. Only Casey is a party to this ZG civil case, not the A's. She could come to a depositon, plead the fifth, and protect herself in her pending criminal case. In the civil case, though, refusal to answer could lead to her losing the case, getting her counterclaim dismissed, etc.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Don't you know, George and Cindy will immediately claim she's the WRONG Zanny. Isn't that their latest broken record?
jmo

They have maintained all along that this is the wrong ZFG.

 

[Andy H.]

Thank you very much, Amethyst!

 

[believe09]

CW-How would the Anthony's know whether or not this is the correct ZFG? Because Casey said so??? Come on now....they made it abundantly clear that they never ever met the nanny who watched their beloved grandchild for 2 years...right?

 

[Chilly Willy]

CW-How would the Anthony's know whether or not this is the correct ZFG? Because Casey said so??? Come on now....they made it abundantly clear that they never ever met the nanny who watched their beloved grandchild for 2 years...right?

I have no idea how they know, other than perhaps because Casey told them so. I'm just saying that they have said all along that that it was a different ZFG, it is not their 'latest broken record'.

 

[costalpilot]

They have maintained all along that this is the wrong ZFG.

yes they would have to lie about that or else their house of lies falls immediately. they have no choice but to say:

this is not THE ZG.

once one starts to lie, there is no turning back