Thank you for still being here as we all try to get past this. But, I do have a question regarding the state going for reimbursement and that it;s basically because of jb statements about Caylees' death the question is seeing that they could legally say all the things they wanted about other people can jb just say he was lying about those statements in order to get his client off therefore, they cannot go after ica. And is it only ica that can be gone after the way they made it sound like they knew for quite awhile I'm sorry if these queries have been asked and answered. I'm so glad you're all here.
They can only seek reimbursement for costs caused by the crimes for which she was convicted--lying to LE. They don't need to rely on any statements JB made, because they have the convictions. IMO they did not spend much time or money discovering that she lied about the specific things listed in the indictment--they figured out those lies in less than 24 hours--but HHJP seems disappointed in the result of the trial and might allow more costs than he normally would.
They cannot go after the lawyers. The lawyers did not commit the crimes.
Caylee was cremated. Who at this point has the legal rights to the reamins. ICA would seem to legal person that has the rights, am I correct.
Can GA and CA claim that they scattered the ashes and nothing can be done or said about it, even if that in fact is not true. If it cant be proven will they be allowed to keep them regardless if Casey wants the remains.
Casey owns the remains.
Of course GA and CA can lie, and, as we have seen, sometimes lying does pay off.
Isn't covering up a death and disposing of a body without notifying authorities against the law? And wouldn't there be an implied amount of guilt for someone taking such actions, as well as misleading law enforcement and refusing to cooperate?
I've read that some people (including jurors) believe this was a horrible accident and that this dysfunctional family was unable to deal with it appropriately. That doesn't seem like a valid excuse and I'm surprised it's not a serious offense (more serious than fraud).
I'm very curious about how CA could be cleared of any criminal conduct. Is it because the state went for the death penalty and put all their cards on the table? If so, why would the state risk it if it could mean that CA would walk free?
In Florida, it looks like covering up an accident by disposing of the body is a misdemeanor (i.e., no big deal).
The jurors were instructed on many lesser offenses and had lots of options.
are you certain she was not interviewed by the FBI?
her parents were:
http://www.news4jax.com/news/18040317/detail.html
and if she was, and she lied to them about the nanny, why would jurisdiction make a difference? if you lie to the FBI when they are questioning you, you have lied to the FBI; surely that is a federal offense, even if they were just helping out?
no? yes?
Her parents were interviewed by the FBI while she was in jail. She was not.
The statute regarding lying to the FBI states that it must be about a matter within federal jurisdiction.
and has to do with lying to federal officers. But Casey did not lie to the FBI, just to Orlando LE, and anyway I don't think this was ever a case within FBI jurisdiction. I think they were just "helping out."
