John Morgan to depose Casey

[BetsyB]

Isn't this the lawyer who CA called an "Ambulance Chaser"? LOL I think he may be a bigger "Game Player" than JB may figured. I think JB has to many Tigers by the tail, one of them just might turn around and grab hold of him and take him down a notch or two.

Baez did indeed call him an ambulance chaser, but Morgan is anything but.

He is well-respected and professional, and --more importantly----competent.

I can't believe that his office would intentionally misspell Caylee's name--looks like an honest mistake to me. You know, a narcissistic woman named Casey changing just one letter in her name for her daughter (to Caley) isn't all that farfetched.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

in reading the questions, I noticed something interesting in Q#9. The real ZFG had visited Sawgrass Apts. with a car that had NY tags. This may not be new to anyone here on WS, but certainly new information to me. Another *Bombshell.*

Didn't KC tell several people, including LE, that ZFG had connections in NY? How is KC going to explain this story, too?

IMO the real ZFG has a solid case against KC.

Good catch !

 

[LCoastMom]

I thought she couldn't plead the 5th if she is countering the suit?

That's what the judge said. She has been court mandated to answer these questions. She has 30 days to submit them.

Aside from dropping her counter suit, what can the judge do if she refuses to answer? Hold her in contempt?

Could the judge hold JB in contempt if his client doesn't provide the answers?

 

[WandaPlayWii]

I thought the questions could be a little tougher. And, oh yeah, they mis-spelled Caylee's name. I'd fire the secretary who typed it, yeah I would.

The attorney should have proofread the interogs as well. I thought there were too many compound questions, and I wonder if Florida has a limit of 40 interrogs.

I probably would have asked some questions about intent and damages, like "What did you think would happen to a person named ZG when you repeatedly said she was the last person you saw with your daughter?"

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I'm not sure why the Judge said no to an oral deposition but yes to written interrogatories, makes no sense to me. The difference between the two, however, is that oral depositions involve knowledge by the deponent only whereas answers to interrogatories have to be based on the knowledge of the party as well as the party's attorney, investigators, experts, etc. I don't see how KC will be able to claim the 5th since she filed a cross-complaint. My guess is that she will and then ZG's attorney will bring a motion to compel and so forth. The one thing I do like about these questions is that they force her to stick with her nanny kidnapping story.

 

[MUGENDAI]

...so the questions are put oddly and...i did read these questions really late last night but i read one that said something like "is it true the defendant has two "2" children?" shes the defendant in this right? and zg has six kids anyways, which is another thing cause it asked "how many kids does zg have?" but further on says she has six "6".

 

[Manny]

.I am really confused. First of all I have listened to Casey's interview with LE, and I was under the impression that Zanny had no children. She did not identify the picture of ZG when it was shown to her. Is this lawyer confused with something he read somewhere else? How can he ask if she killed her child????
Does he honestly expect an answer to that question? How would that prove ZG
case? She is suing because her name has been ruined and she can't get a job. I don't think Casey not answering a direct question about her guilt or innocence is even legal. No judge, no jury ,, he just expects her to say " yeah, sure I am guilty. I cannot tell a lie"
I think the whole thing is a phony law suit.
She doesn't even have the same name, so I have heard. Her middle initial is C or something.
just my own confused opinion

 

[DawnTCB]

First of all it seems to me that "Do you know who killed Cayley?" and "were you involved in the death of Cayley?" are completely irrelevant to ZG's case. Not that it wouldn't be a delight if KC were feeling like answering them honestly, but it does not have anything to do with ZG's defamation, IMO.

Second, I don't think ZG is in it for the money exactly. I think her lawyer suggested this and not the other way around. In the interview with her on Daily BS, she is pretty clear on the fact that she could go back to her job that she loved if the media would leave her alone. Honestly, I can't imagine the media is tracking her right now so maybe she should give it a shot.

I think KC will answer the questions, if forced, with things like " I don't recall." I think KC wants to get ZG to go away, so I think she will admit that this ZG is not the ZG. However, I think she will not go into detail about things about the real (imaginary) ZFG, reiterating her tattoos, children, age, or car information again. I think ZFG will not be part of the defense, so no need to give out any details about her.

Can KC legally refuse to answer some of the questions based on the fact that she doesn't know anyone named "CALEY??"

Interesting thought, and I would think she could. They did not define Cayley as the KC's daughter. Maybe the judge will catch it on his review.

 

[FaerieB]

Do you think KC will risk a new charge of "perjury" by not answering 16 and 17 truthfully?

All things considered, I think a charge of perjury is the least of her worries.

I honestly believe she'll just answer "no" to both 16 and 17 because she's convinced herself that is the truth.

 

[FaerieB]

Several of the questions asked by ZG's attorney, concerned ZG's children, and their names, if she had any.

KC was asked when she was being questioned by police, if Zaneida (the "nanny") had any children of her own, and KC said, "No". The Zaneida that has filed the lawsuit DOES have children.

Yes, but in her counter-claim to the lawsuit, Casey states ZFG has two children.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

First of all it seems to me that "Do you know who killed Cayley?" and "were you involved in the death of Cayley?" are completely irrelevant to ZG's case. Not that it wouldn't be a delight if KC were feeling like answering them honestly, but it does not have anything to do with ZG's defamation, IMO.

Second, I don't think ZG is in it for the money exactly. I think her lawyer suggested this and not the other way around. In the interview with her on Daily BS, she is pretty clear on the fact that she could go back to her job that she loved if the media would leave her alone. Honestly, I can't imagine the media is tracking her right now so maybe she should give it a shot.

I think KC will answer the questions, if forced, with things like " I don't recall." I think KC wants to get ZG to go away, so I think she will admit that this ZG is not the ZG. However, I think she will not go into detail about things about the real (imaginary) ZFG, reiterating her tattoos, children, age, or car information again. I think ZFG will not be part of the defense, so no need to give out any details about her.



Interesting thought, and I would think she could. They did not define Cayley as the KC's daughter. Maybe the judge will catch it on his review.

The question "Were you involved in the death of Caylee" is relevant to the defamation action because if she answers in the affirmative it shows she acted with malice pointing the finger at ZFG and hence ZFG may be entitled to punitive damages.

 

[Cerenity2u]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. We really don't know if Caylee's name was purposely misspelled. Why does it matter what pic of ZFG she was shown? There could be many reasons to have a car with out of state tags. What's ironic is the fact that KC kept referencing a NY connection.

ZFG lost her job over this, her name will forever be synonymous with the death of Caylee Anthony. I wouldn't blame anyone with that name for suing KC. This woman though, was at sawgrass. IMO she has a good case and a civil suit is always about some sort of compensation.

I don't believe that KC will answer any of the questions truthfully, but it will be an interesting read, if and when we get a hold of her answers. One thing that bothers me about ZFG is the fact she claims to have lost her job over this case. How come she is not suing the company for her job back? ZFG has been cleared by LE, she has also made numerous appearances on media programs to publicly clear her name. Unless there is something that we don't know about pertaining to her job, the company she worked for really didn't have any legal grounds to fire her, if indeed this case was the given reason. Does she honestly think she can squeez blood out of a turnip with this lawsuit? Seems to me she would make more money suing the company that fired her. KC has no money.

 

[Capri]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/p...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

"Through her lawyers, we know Casey says the woman filing the suit is not the Zenaida she claimed she dropped Caylee off with. Casey's attorneys say they will not let her answer the 29 questions, so the debate over the questionnaire could easily end up back in court."

I hadn't heard that. So, if she doesn't answer the questions, what happens next?

 

[bookworm474]

I don't really understand all the legal manipulations, so if ZFG won her suit for damages for X amount of money can they take that out of Casey's snack funds or her parents home liability insurance?

 

[DaughterAlice]

Okay, I made a phone call last night & feel impelled to take back something I said yesterday. The name misspelling may not be an error, it might really truly have been on purpose.

I called a relative who works for an Orlando lawfirm. We'll call him/her "Pat" (just like the SNL character!). Pat doesn't work for any of the lawfirms involved in this case. S/He was unaware of the misspelling of Caylee's name until I told him/her. Pat immediately snorted & said "that was on purpose!!" That took me by suprize!! "Why would JM's office purposely misspell the name??"

"Because that's just how underhanded JM is. He wants to p*$$ off KC and/or her family. It was no accident. That's how they work."

 

[BuzzieCat]

I like question #8 myself. So curious as to how Casey apparently knew ZG had looked at an apt there and now curious about the NY license plates, too. Really sounds to me like Casey did know some info about this Zenaida and hoped the police would check into it superficially and just believe her somehow.

As someone else has pointed out, however, Casey has no money even if ZG wins her case.

Would lurve to see Casey's answers.

 

[DawnTCB]

One thing that bothers me about ZFG is the fact she claims to have lost her job over this case. How come she is not suing the company for her job back?

In the interview I listened to, she explained that she hoped to get that job back some day when this was over, that she loved her job very much. She mad it sound as though her boss reluctantly let her go not because her boss thought she was guilty, but because the media was making things impossible. I would imagine if hundreds of mobbing paparazzi were outside my place of employment stopping random coworkers, shouting questions and blocking the exits, I might be asked to leave as well. And my job has no contact with the public at our building. If customers had to go through that chaos to get to the building, I would certainly be asked to take an extended leave.

At any rate, she basically stated she thought her employer was right that she should not be there - it was making it difficult or impossible for work to be done. She is not going to burn that bridge - when this is over she hopes to go back. But she is going to make it very clear that not only is she innocent, but that she was pointed at with malice. In her interview she repeatedly said it was not about the money, but about clearing her name.

I think if she was fired solely because she was investigated by the police then she would have a case against the company she worked for. That's not what happened.

 

[lin]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. We really don't know if Caylee's name was purposely misspelled. Why does it matter what pic of ZFG she was shown? There could be many reasons to have a car with out of state tags. What's ironic is the fact that KC kept referencing a NY connection.

ZFG lost her job over this, her name will forever be synonymous with the death of Caylee Anthony. I wouldn't blame anyone with that name for suing KC. This woman though, was at sawgrass. IMO she has a good case and a civil suit is always about some sort of compensation.

100% agree. Excellent post, Mom of Five! Haven't read most of the thread but had to comment here.

And since I'm commenting, as for the questions generally, I thought they were absolutely excellent and now must agree with Morgan that they have probably the best defamation lawyer in the state on the case. I also think the court will allow most, if not all, of the questions. moo

My favorite question was asking about the rate of pay for the alleged nanny. Oh my, how to answer, how to answer, how to answer?? If she puts down any amount whatsoever, $5 a month, then the follow up question is where did she get the $$? How many times is sure to be proved wrong; it's not like the perp has a work schedule to which she can refer.

Also liked how they pointed out the Casey's discrepancies in the number of ZG's children. (Remember, according to Morgan, she gave the specific names of the two children that were listed on the rental forms from Sawgrass.) She couldn't keep her story straight from document to document in the same case!!

As for the questions about whom she told what about the babysitter, that's to prove that she spread this slander further than LE, like JB tried to claim. Remember that one? She only told LE, it was LE that put it out to the public. Yeah, right. She had told the G's, her parents, at least some of her friends and who knows who all else? And once she lists all of them, and they're deposed...

Some of the questions are aimed at clearing ZFG, making it clear this was not the person to whom she referred, which is the stated purpose of the suit. However, think about it for a second --- if she describes this person to a degree that is not easily mistaken for another, such as having two children with the same names as given by KC; driving a similar car; NY residence prior to FL; etc. etc. --- then it's also more proof of the defamation. She didn't do anything but KC pointed the finger at her anyway. Clever. Can't just look at the questions; have to also consider the follow up questions. And if this is what this guy has on paper, imagine what he would do in a live depo.

Someone asked about a bathing suit. My guess is that they have KC on tape or witnesses stating KC told them about beach outings with ZFG; or conversely, they have her on tape saying she could have had tattoos that were not visible; or with KC, probably both. They're trying to lock her into an answer on this to prove her lack of credibility, imo.

Some also asked about the visit to Sawgrass. #6 asks her to state each time she went, where, with whom and why. That would cover dates in question. Morgan has seemed pretty certain throughout that KC got the info from Sawgrass. He knows something; a fingerprint on the form? a witness? a former lover? He's seems so sure, I just have to wonder what he has...

#14 -- which phonebook?? I had to laugh out loud at that one.

#16, #17 were also commented upon. I think they're fair questions. #16 - Either she knows or she doesn't. If she doesn't, she can't blame their client, now can she? #17 - Either she did or she didn't. Easy enough for an innocent person, yes/no questions, she doesn't have to get into theorizing.

I can't understand the reasoning of the defense in pleading the 5th on #17 unless they are planning to come up with a whole new pack of lies, er, I mean, story to explain events that would include some culpability for KC, such as an accidental death.

Any other ideas why #17 isn't being answered, anyone?

 

[lin]

PS -- I sincerely doubt the misspelling of "Caylee" was deliberate. It's an uncommon spelling of an uncommon name and it was most likely clerical/spell check error auto error. I've seen the names of parties to suits spelled incorrectly, much less a witness or other subject. It happens. Not everyone is as intimately involved with the details of this case as are we, including paralegals and legal secretaries. At worst it's sloppy. I can see no reason to suggest it was deliberate.

 

[lin]

.I am really confused. First of all I have listened to Casey's interview with LE, and I was under the impression that Zanny had no children. She did not identify the picture of ZG when it was shown to her. Is this lawyer confused with something he read somewhere else? How can he ask if she killed her child????
Does he honestly expect an answer to that question? How would that prove ZG
case? She is suing because her name has been ruined and she can't get a job. I don't think Casey not answering a direct question about her guilt or innocence is even legal. No judge, no jury ,, he just expects her to say " yeah, sure I am guilty. I cannot tell a lie"
I think the whole thing is a phony law suit.
She doesn't even have the same name, so I have heard. Her middle initial is C or something.
just my own confused opinion

In documents filed in this suit obo KC, she gave a different # of children of the alleged nanny. Who knows how many different answers she gave LE?

IF KC is innocent, as she claims, then the answer is easy. Why not answer that question if one is innocent?

ZG is not suing because KC alleged she at one time or another babysat Caylee; she is suing because KC alleged she kidnapped Caylee, a criminal act. The 'nanny' part of this is just a detail of the criminal allegation, how ZG allegedly got possession of Caylee to kidnap her; supposedly by vacating her apt. when KC was "at work" as in the 1st story. Later, the story changed to holding her down while her sister took Caylee, and the being a sitter in this scenario I suppose explains why she wanted Caylee specifically or how they all got to the park at the same time or some other such nonsense.

In most circumstances, it's not defamatory to allege someone took good care of a child, without incident. Accusing them of committing a crime which they had no part in, especially publicly, is certainly defamation per se.