Motion for George's Grand Jury Transcript MERGED

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
chefmom said:
Very interesting! Seems as though the SA may be setting up to show GA's inconsistencies to the court, and I would hope it is for perjury or other charges. As far as JB asking for a copy, well, I think GA better hold on! "The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round!"
Click to expand...

STOP IT!!
Do you know how hard it is to get the @##%^&%^#@$# SOUTHPARK stuff out of my head??????
 
I started reading over the transcript, and carefully noting the answers GA gave that were at variance with what he had said in that interview that he gave LE early on, (just after the police got involved)....then I was going to go watch the interview again, to check and make sure my recollection was correct. I never even got through the depo, let alone checked my recollection of what he said in the police interview.

Despite my good intentions, it is just too big a job .. almost every word is a direct contradiction of his testimony to LE..(as to whether or not KC was working, or whether she stole money, or when he had first hear of ZFG.).but I still don't know what in particular caught the attention of SA.. it is all just the usual A's spin on stuff, as far as I can see. Seems a little late in the day to hold the A's to a normal standard of truthfulness. Or if one is going to go after GA for being less than meticulous with the truth, then why not CA as well?
 
snow_walker said:
I started reading over the transcript, and carefully noting the answers GA gave that were at variance with what he had said in that interview that he gave LE early on, (just after the police got involved)....then I was going to go watch the interview again, to check and make sure my recollection was correct. I never even got through the depo, let alone checked my recollection of what he said in the police interview.

Despite my good intentions, it is just too big a job .. almost every word is a direct contradiction of his testimony to LE..(as to whether or not KC was working, or whether she stole money, or when he had first hear of ZFG.).but I still don't know what in particular caught the attention of SA.. it is all just the usual A's spin on stuff, as far as I can see. Seems a little late in the day to hold the A's to a normal standard of truthfulness. Or if one is going to go after GA for being less than meticulous with the truth, then why not CA as well?
Click to expand...

CA didn't testify b4 the GJ . . .

.
 
I noticed that paragraph 2 of SA's motion only says "GA testified at deposition in a manner that . . ." The first depo that came to my mind was M&M's depo because I saw and read it. But I bet they're referring to State's own depo done in August. (I hope I'm remembering this right.) SA would probably feel more sure-footed using their own deposition as a basis for such an important analysis. If this is right, we won't have anything to compare it to but will still be able to glean a lot of info. moo
 
snow_walker said:
I wonder what in particular they thought he had changed his testimony about?

Of course we don't know what was said to the grand jury, but we got to watch those depos, and apart from thinking GA was an even sillier fool than I had hitherto thought of him as being, I can't recall that he said anything too interesting.. must go watch that depo thing again..
Click to expand...

Snow_walker, he is referring to the depo George did at the SA's office last month (which we have not seen dammit!) not the Morgan depos. I should have clarified that. :)
 
Ok, so which depo are they talking about? We only have access to the civil trial depo, right? Or am I missing something?

They are saying GA's testimony to the GJ does not line up with his testimony in the criminal trial depo, right?

We do not have access to either. Correct? If I am wrong, please point me in the right direction.

What I mean is that we can only compare GA's questioning by LE to his civil depo. So, we can't even see what they are talking about...Darn.

Poor GA. I really like the guy. (don't hit me, lol)
 
The thing that the A's and BC are going to use ad nauseam, will be, we had just lost our grand daughter. We couldn't be expected to remember these things when we were going through all of this. I seem to recall, CA even saying this to LE in many of her interviews. This will definitely be their defense to ANY and ALL inconsistencies, mark my words. Or at least it is what they will TRY to use as a defense.
I am also almost certain, there will NEVER be ANY charges against ANY of the A's. I think the state is too compassionate to their position. now this may change if they out and out lie AT TRIAL and they can prove THAT!
 
OK...I had, IMO, a good post about my thoughts on this subject...but it went the way of wayward posts...LOL

I think perhaps it truely wasn't GA's testimony at the Grand Jury hearing that sealed KC's doom. IMO, we might be a little disappointed with these documents....just IMO, again..."don't shoot me...I'm only the piano player"...LOL

Remember, he walked into that hearing with a binder that had Caylee's "Have You Seen Me" type of flier on the front.
http://www.wftv.com/video/17710753/index.html

Although, there was also this one....
http://www.wftv.com/video/17710722/index.html

I'm sure he testified about KC's behavior...past and present....but, at that time he believed (or wanted to) that Caylee was still alive (or maybe he really didn't in his heart).
What I DO know, is that it obviously was the "sum of the whole" that brought the indictment. Regardless of what GA said...IF, in fact, it was more towards a live Caylee and covering KC's buttocks.

Never the less...the indictment, IMO, is a GREAT indication that a jury CAN, in fact, differentiate between the A's bull caca and the more logical conclusion...the probability that KC was involved in Caylee's death...AND, that Caylee was in fact deceased.
They came to that conclusion perhaps IN SPITE of what GA might have said that was contrary to other testimony of Yuri, etc.

Maybe GA is throwing GA under the bus. Like the proverbial martyr, giving his life for his daughter...to save her...even if it means his own freedom....almost the greatest show of love for her, because of his guilt for past problems between them. A little dramatic, but you know what I'm saying.
By creating doubt....even if it means being charged with perjury...he's going to do it for "gorgeous".

BTW...What is the sentence if found guilty of perjury??

ETA : But...then, again...his testimony could be a real "BOMBSHELL"....
 
I doubt that this has anything to do with perjury charges but is so the transcript will be available in court to impeach any testimony by GA during trial that is contradicted by his GJ testimony. Glad someone pointed out that the depo being referred to was not the civil case depo that we have seen but the SA one that we haven't. My guess is that JB & company didn't oppose this motion because he wasn't present for GJ testimony and needs this transcript to know what was said rather than rely upon GA's recollection of what he was asked and how he answered. Now, as the defense was present for GA's SA depo, they might not need a transcript of it, but if they do request one to compare to the GJ transcript, would that depo then become available to us? If JB doesn't request a transcript, is there any chance the judge would request it to review before ruling on the motion to release the GJ transcript and if so, would that then become available to us? (Can you tell, I really want to see the transcript of that depo?)
 
I must agree you WS'ers are more likely to be correct about it being the states depo they are refferring to than the ZFG one.. I had forgotten about that, but I was mildly puzzled about them getting TOO excited over a civil case depo.

Well, we don't have access to either the depo nor the GJ transcript..where can we go with this topic? It needs discussing, but I shall have to stick to wondering why JB is in favour of allowing the GJ statement to be unsealed... almost like I can hear the music from 'Jaws' in the background..
 
I just want to add that I WANT his testimony to blow the defense outta the water!!!
 
Oh good grief, of course whatever he said at a deposition in August clearly contradicts anything he said to a grand jury (which also clearly contradicts everything we heard in both LE and FBI interviews). That was so "last year"!

This is the new, improved, 2009 version, full of smug and smirky "No, it was an OFFICE COMPLEX" (not a WAREHOUSE) parsing and contradictions.

I'm so glad the state is finally calling them on their Pinocchios. If they need any help with past "mistruths or half-truths" we'd all be more than happy to make up a spreadsheet for them, I'd imagine. And Winzip it before we send it so the file isn't too big...
 
I think the SA's are gearing up to have GA declared a hostile witness.

They have not been forthcoming, they have be contradictory from the second they retreived KC's vehicle and KC. They have mislead, they have told "untruths" (which to me is the same as lying), tampered with evidence, given FBI incorrect evidence, witness tampering, etc... These two are lucky OSCO has had sympathy for their loss or should have been arrested a long time ago.

I also believe they use Caylee death as an excuse when it benefits them.

I want GA to hold that huge photo of Caylee each and every time they go to court.

mytinkiegirl said:
Maybe GA is throwing GA under the bus. Like the proverbial martyr, giving his life for his daughter...to save her...even if it means his own freedom....almost the greatest show of love for her, because of his guilt for past problems between them. A little dramatic, but you know what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Which is why no one from the Anthony clan should be given any type of immunity. That is my fear, that one of them will say it was them, not KC, which would allow an alleged killer set free and they cannot be charged due to the immunity deal. That ship has passed and I feel the prosecutors are too smart for that.
 
chefmom said:
Fine! That's fine! Respect my Authoritie!

:dance:
Click to expand...

I'm gonna need something in my coffee - the lyrics to some of Chef's songs are starting to pop in my head. WAY too early for that!
 
RR0004 said:
So if it's proven to be inconsistent then they'll use it at trial? I find #3 confusing. What's he getting at?
Click to expand...

It basically means that if he recalls correctly that GA is giving inconsistent statements, then he wants the GJ testimony unsealed so he can use it for impeachment purposes at trial.
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
I noticed that paragraph 2 of SA's motion only says "GA testified at deposition in a manner that . . ." The first depo that came to my mind was M&M's depo because I saw and read it. But I bet they're referring to State's own depo done in August. (I hope I'm remembering this right.) SA would probably feel more sure-footed using their own deposition as a basis for such an important analysis. If this is right, we won't have anything to compare it to but will still be able to glean a lot of info. moo
Click to expand...

Right because the only way the morgan depo is going to be admitted into evidence is if GA lies on the stand. The SA can then use the Morgan Depo for impeachment purposes. Basically, you can bet it will be admitted. GA and CA are going to get ripped to shreds on the stand. If they had any hopes of lying to save their daughter it went out the door when they testified in the manner they did at the Morgan depo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 86 more.
Total: 3,558 (members: 87, guests: 3,471)

Online statistics

Members online
87
Guests online
3,471
Total visitors
3,558
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,492
Messages
17,969,829
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top