Motion for George's Grand Jury Transcript MERGED

[Muzikman]

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.

Thanks JSR.

What I'm wondering is, if they charged George with perjury and threw him in jail now - with the GJ and depo statements as evidence - would that knock some sense into the A's heads about how serious lying is, and make them more likely to tell the truth on the stand without having to impeach them?

Or would being charged with perjury affect George's ability to even be called to testify?

 

[RR0004]

It seems to me that the SA is going to use this info on cross if necessary. During the SA's depo it is highly possible that GA lied to defend his daughter like he did during the Morgan depo. Of course, there are also the various versions he gave on national television. To tell you the truth, he's told so many lies I don't think even he can keep them straight! He probably doesn't remember from one minute to the next what he's told to whom. The SA has to know this before they put him on the stand.

...and perhaps his recollection as to what day/time he last saw his granddaughter alive wasn't truthful as well?

 

[JSR]

Thanks JSR.

What I'm wondering is, if they charged George with perjury and threw him in jail now - with the GJ and depo statements as evidence - would that knock some sense into the A's heads about how serious lying is, and make them more likely to tell the truth on the stand without having to impeach them?

Or would being charged with perjury affect George's ability to even be called to testify?

Do I think GA has already committed perjury, yes I do. Although I haven't seen the criminal depo transcripts I still think this motion brought by the SA pretty much guarantees GA lied big time (and on key points). But I also think it would be much more powerful evidence to put GA's feet to the fire on the stand and to hold all charges of perjury until after this trial is over. Actually I highly doubt he'll ever be charged. But I still think that legally GA has lied under oath, multiple times.

I think it would end up being much more bombshell testimony if the state can rake GA over the coals than to have him truthfully answer questions. It shows a pattern in that family.

 

[AZlawyer]

Haven't seen much discussion on this motion filed the other day, and I thought the wording was pretty interesting. Also attached is Baez's response - he has no objection.

SA Ashton says his recollection of what George testified to at the Grand Jury is different than what he testified to at his deposition.

Could this be the first step towards a perjury charge?

And also, since both the SA and Baez will get their copies simultaneously, will we see this?

I don't know if anyone's answered this yet--I believe the testimony would still be under seal even if it is transcribed and provided to Baez and the SA, so we would not see it. But if the SA is correct that the testimony is inconsistent with George's later deposition testimony, the SA will file a motion to unseal it (or at least the inconsistent portion). And then we should see whatever portion is unsealed.

 

[whiteangora]

I don't know if anyone's answered this yet--I believe the testimony would still be under seal even if it is transcribed and provided to Baez and the SA, so we would not see it. But if the SA is correct that the testimony is inconsistent with George's later deposition testimony, the SA will file a motion to unseal it (or at least the inconsistent portion). And then we should see whatever portion is unsealed.

Wouldn't this be quite rare? I have not heard of GJ testimony becoming public knowledge before, even with the FL SS Laws.

 

[Muzikman]

I don't know if anyone's answered this yet--I believe the testimony would still be under seal even if it is transcribed and provided to Baez and the SA, so we would not see it. But if the SA is correct that the testimony is inconsistent with George's later deposition testimony, the SA will file a motion to unseal it (or at least the inconsistent portion). And then we should see whatever portion is unsealed.

Thanks AZ.

So Baez won't even get to see it, unless the SA determines it is inconsistent and then files a motion to unseal it? And then provides to Baez "pursuant to the rules of discovery"?

Or would Baez's motion allow him to see it regardless, as long as the judge rules in his favor (and I don't see why he wouldn't). And would that allow them to skip the discovery process, and thus skip the public release?

 

[JSR]

Thanks AZ.

So Baez won't even get to see it, unless the SA determines it is inconsistent and then files a motion to unseal it? And then provides to Baez "pursuant to the rules of discovery"?

Or would Baez's motion allow him to see it regardless, as long as the judge rules in his favor (and I don't see why he wouldn't). And would that allow them to skip the discovery process, and thus skip the public release?

I believe JB will only get to see it if it's inconsistent. I don't think he'll be granted his request to receive the transcript at the same time as the SA. If it's unsealed and will be used at trial then yes, we'll get to see it pursuant to FL discovery laws. But we'll only get to see the unsealed portions which should only be the areas which GA has flubbed.

 

[tsitra01]

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!

I agree that they will not charge G or CA for their lies. They ultimately are
out to hold KC responsible for Calee's death and I don't think they will take
any chances of allienating those jurors who may feel sympathetic to the
A family. Showing their attempts to interfere with the ongoing investigation
would satisfy me.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

CA didn't testify b4 the GJ . . .

.

Do you know why CA didn't testify b4 the GJ?

They better have her testify immediately then - comparisons are good. :dance:

 

[sumbunny]

I believe in the beginning george was more forthcoming with the truth then any of the other Anthonys. Eventually, he saw the untruths the rest of the family were telling and not getting in trouble for.He then realized he too could tell lies and not be held accountable. There were more reasons to lie then to tell the truth (keeping the peace with the other lying family members). Like the Anthony's towards KC, LE isn't holding their feet to the fire about their lies. Reminds me of what Cindy refused to do with her own lying daughter. It's a vicious circle.

 

[Paladine]

Seems to me the defence might want to use the inconsistant testimony to their own advantage. I dont know, say for instance when they THROW GEORGE DIRECTLY UNDER THE BUS???

I wonder how supportive the A's will be if one of them gets targeted like JG and RM did.

Doesnt it bother them in the slightest that if she is prepared to murder her own daughter it is a really short stretch and just NO PROBLEM AT ALL for her to let one of them go down for it?

Maybe another reason why AL is so keen to get them all together. Maybe she can get LE,CA or GA to say something that would incriminate THEM rather than the perp. IDK, just a thought.

respectfully bolded by me

The A's need to take a good hard look at your words!

 

[ZsaZsa]

Do you know why CA didn't testify b4 the GJ?

They better have her testify immediately then - comparisons are good. :dance:

From her past history I think they KNEW that there was little chance she would tell the truth, under oath or not. That would be trivial to her. At least on occasion George does seem to be troubled by a conscience.

 

[ThinkTank]

Thanks JSR.

What I'm wondering is, if they charged George with perjury and threw him in jail now - with the GJ and depo statements as evidence - would that knock some sense into the A's heads about how serious lying is, and make them more likely to tell the truth on the stand without having to impeach them?

Or would being charged with perjury affect George's ability to even be called to testify?

It is my opinion that none of the A's will be charged with anything before the murder trial (if ever) because then they would have a "legal" reason to claim the 5th and not testify at all. I believe the State needs to be able to put them on the stand and show the jury all of their false testimony, and how they did nothing to find the mysterious zanny nanny, and their impressions of the bad smell in the car, and their knowledge of KC being a prolific liar ......etc ........

 

[Friday]

Snipped and bolded by me:

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"!

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

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

 

[Friday]

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.

Respectfully snipped by me.

Like most of us here, I've been amazed and frustrated and downright infuriated at times that LE has allowed the A's to get by with all the wrongs and illegalities you listed merely because the A's are the perps parents. I came to a conclusion about that few months ago while pondering another crime where family members blatently lied and misled authorities in order to protect their relative.

FWIW, I realized I personally couldn't remember a situation where obstructive family members were actually arrested and prosecuted. I've started to wonder if perhaps law enforcement in America equates the act of strong-arming/punishing recalcitrant relatives as coming too close to the despicable behavior of Nazi germany, and other countries today where human rights are meaningless. It's just a theory--the only one I can think of that explains why the A's have been allowed to platantly give false testimony under oath, etc., etc.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[Friday]

From her past history I think they KNEW that there was little chance she would tell the truth, under oath or not. That would be trivial to her. At least on occasion George does seem to be troubled by a conscience.

A very flexible conscience with a small voice, it would seem.

 

[ThinkTank]

Respectfully snipped by me.

Like most of us here, I've been amazed and frustrated and downright infuriated at times that LE has allowed the A's to get by with all the wrongs and illegalities you listed merely because the A's are the perps parents. I came to a conclusion about that few months ago while pondering another crime where family members blatently lied and misled authorities in order to protect their relative.

FWIW, I realized I personally couldn't remember a situation where obstructive family members were actually arrested and prosecuted. I've started to wonder if perhaps law enforcement in America equates the act of strong-arming/punishing recalcitrant relatives as coming too close to the despicable behavior of Nazi germany, and other countries today where human rights are meaningless. It's just a theory--the only one I can think of that explains why the A's have been allowed to platantly give false testimony under oath, etc., etc.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

notes from Sept. 9, 2009 civil Hearing
John Dill, atty for Zenaida, said: ......there is no pending lawsuit against G or C or criminal invest. against G or C. – no blanket privilege for future litigation or criminal charges ................mere liklihood of litigation is not good enough..................there is no litigation against G & C ..............can’t say maybe someday there will be litigation
there is no work product privilege – must be specific litigation
.................................
Mitnik asked Dominic: Did you have a specific belief about criminal charges against G & C? specific concern? or gosh, anything is possible? Dominic – it was not a specific concern – no.

Deducing from this information, there must be SPECIFIC litigation pending against George and/or Cindy for Dominic to claim any kind of privilege to protect them from possible charges that might be filed against them. I understand this to mean that the State has intentionally NOT filed any charges against the Anthonys, to date, and Dominic had no specific reason to believe that charges would be filed. There must be a reason the State is not charging them.

I understand that if there was any kind of pending charges (litigation) against the Anthonys when/if the A's are called to the witness stand in either the civil or criminal trials, that the A's would have a legal reason to claim the 5th and not testify or say anything on the witness stand that might incriminate themselves in their own case if charges were filed against them. I believe the State (and Zenaida's attys) needs the (lying) Anthonys on the witness stand, and not gagged by the 5th.

 

[momtective]

Saw this posted in the news updates by AWC's.

Motion: Casey Anthony's dad may have given conflicting statements

Assistant State Attorney Jeffrey Ashton filed a motion Thursday stating that George Anthony may have "testified at a deposition in a manner that, to the recollection of the undersigned, was materially inconsistent with his grand jury testimony on some points."

George Anthony testified before a grand jury on Oct. 14. His daughter, Casey Anthony, was later indicted on first-degree murder charge following that hearing.

The State Attorney's Office wants the the court to unseal George Anthony's testimony so it can be reviewed.

Article:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ey-anthony-motion-news-092109,0,6082282.story

 

[momtective]

So which of George's statements were conflicting? Ah yes, that is the question. I thought for sure it would be CA before GA but this really is quite a twist seeing that the SA filled the motion. So what could happen to GA if it is proven that he has given conflicting statements? What effect if any will this have on KC's trial?

 

[SewingDeb]

Your link didn't work for me. Here's a good link:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ey-anthony-motion-news-092109,0,6082282.story

I'm wondering which of George's statements were contradictory too. I hope the judge unseals his testimony.