I am really befuddled by the court's decision to allow Casey Anthony to remain silent and cling to her fifth amendment rights. On the one hand, she objected to answer questions in a deposition saying she would incriminate herself if she did so in the civil cases brought against her.
Right now, there are three of them. Zenaida Gonzalez has claimed she was damaged when Casey told lies about her. Judge Lisa Monyon ruled that a deposition in this case would include questions that could directly impact her appeal on her four convictions for lying to law enforcement. Thus, her right to remain silent was upheld.
The judge has yet to reach a decisions in the Texas Equusearch lawsuit. The organization requested reimbursement for the $110,000 they spent on a wild goose chase for a missing child that Casey knew, according to opening statements in her trial, was already deceased. Munyon reserved her decision on this matter, writing that she needed "a more detailed explanation of the defendant's reasons for asserting her fifth amendment privilege." There is little reason, however, to believe that she would rule differently in this case.
The third and most recent lawsuit was filed by Roy Kronk, the hapless meter-reader who found Caylee's body. He claimed that Casey and her representatives, on numerous occasions, alleged that he was responsible for placing the remains where they were discovered. In his filing, he asserted that this accusation has caused him humiliation and embarrassment. The fifth amendment question has yet to arise in this case. Again, it is suspected the courts would protect Casey's silence in the same manner.
On the other hand, a media interview with Casey Anthony has been peddled by an agent working on her behalf, originally for $750,000 and now bargain-priced for $500,000. In addition to that, Dr. Keith Ablow reported that he was approached to do a combo therapy and book deal with Anthony. He found the ethics of that offer questionable and declined to take part in it.
So, Casey Anthony is free to laugh at the court and at her victims because she is protected from answering questions to the people she has harmed in her deal with the devil to get away with murder. But she is free to answer questions for a profit. Does that make any sense to you?
Not a bit to me. I'm not saying that the protections against self-incrimination are wrong. I am simply suggesting that when the person in question is trying to sell her story, she's fair game. She shouldn't be able to have it both ways. Yet, somehow, the courts are allowing that, leaving me wanting something else to top the current crop of claims against her.
Here's what I'd like to see happen on New Year's Day or any time soon after: George Anthony wakes up one morning with Caylee on his mind and enough gumption in his spine to do the right thing for his granddaughter. He files a wrongful death suit against the woman clearly responsible for the little girl's death, Casey Anthony.
Caylee's watching, George. Wouldn't that be a nice way to start the new year?