Casey Anthony Answers Questions In Civil Suit Or Did JB? Legal Implications

[okiedokietoo]

KC filed a counter suit - wasn't the issue that KC could not do that and plead the 5th amendment?

 

[debs]

KC filed a counter suit - wasn't the issue that KC could not do that and plead the 5th amendment?

She didn't plead the 5th. Her attorney objected to the question and advised his client to not answer it. Rightfully so.

 

[Oakley]

The deposition is to clear THIS ZG. "She is not the woman I talked about." End of questioning.

Maybe I'm dense but if KC was found to have done it, would that not clear this ZFG?

 

[SissyPo]

Casey is guilty alright of killing Caylee and when the trial begins It will show that she did it and had planned it all out to.

 

[okiedokietoo]

She didn't plead the 5th. Her attorney objected to the question and advised his client to not answer it. Rightfully so.

I wasn't referring to this one question - she did plead the 5th on all of the questions except this one and her name.

(quoted from article)
She took the Fifth Amendment invoking her right to remain silent on the rest.
http://www.wesh.com/news/18854442/detail.html
Casey Anthony Pleads 5th On Caylee Questionnaire
Next Hearing Slated For March 12
POSTED: 3:22 pm EST March 4, 2009
UPDATED: 4:53 pm EST March 4, 2009

 

[debs]

Maybe I'm dense but if KC was found to have done it, would that not clear this ZFG?

That's what the criminal trial is meant to determine: If Casey did it, not whether this ZG is the one that Casey says did it. ZG's defamation suit is a civil one, and these depositions are intended to once and for all, legally separate THIS ZG (not all ZG's) from implication in the criminal case. Otherwise, there would be a criminal trial where this ZG was the defendant. Morgan wants answers for a criminal trial before the criminal trial takes place. These questions, past "Is this the ZG who you say took your daughter?" should be answered with exactly the statement that was given.

And you're not even close to being dense. Far from it

 

[debs]

I wasn't referring to this one question - she did plead the 5th on all of the questions except this one and her name.

(quoted from article)
She took the Fifth Amendment invoking her right to remain silent on the rest.
http://www.wesh.com/news/18854442/detail.html
Casey Anthony Pleads 5th On Caylee Questionnaire
Next Hearing Slated For March 12
POSTED: 3:22 pm EST March 4, 2009
UPDATED: 4:53 pm EST March 4, 2009

You're right. Mybad!

 

[orb4me]

I 'thought' once you took the 5th, if you answered any more questions then the 5th is not good then. just a thought

 

[Searchfortruth]

I 'thought' once you took the 5th, if you answered any more questions then the 5th is not good then. just a thought

I'm a little confused about this too, maybe one of our fine legal experts will weigh in...

 

[Searchfortruth]

I think JM is tryiing to help out the state with a litle extra ammo for the criminal trial, along with clearing ZG.

 

[amethyst221]

The way Casey gets protected from incriminating herself is that she takes the 5th. The plaintiff can ask her whether she made up the Zanny story and is instead the real culprit. The court will sort out the privilege question and the other objections. There isn't an automatic one question, minimalist limit for the plaintiff that the defendant gets to decide in the civil litigation. It just doesn't work that way. Discovery is liberal in scope. Also, ZG doesn't have to have the intent to clear all the ZG's in the universe. But it follows that if no ZG did it, then plaintiff didn't do it. I read that ZG has added or will add a claim for punitive damages. Hypothetically, it could be relevant to the issue of malice if Casey did it and nevertheless blamed someone else. But things aren't always black and white, so anyone is totally free to disagree all over the place.

I don't really know the full effect of Casey already having discussed the Zanny issue with police and the extent of any waiver of privilege on that issue. Guess we'll see.

 

[Searchfortruth]

The way Casey gets protected from incriminating herself is that she takes the 5th. The plaintiff can ask her whether she made up the Zanny story and is instead the real culprit. The court will sort out the privilege question and the other objections. There isn't an automatic one question, minimalist limit for the plaintiff that the defendant gets to decide in the civil litigation. It just doesn't work that way. Discovery is liberal in scope. Also, ZG doesn't have to have the intent to clear all the ZG's in the universe. But it follows that if no ZG did it, then plaintiff didn't do it. I read that ZG has added or will add a claim for punitive damages. Hypothetically, it could be relevant to the issue of malice if Casey did it and nevertheless blamed someone else. But things aren't always black and white, so anyone is totally free to disagree all over the place.

I don't really know the full effect of Casey already having discussed the Zanny issue with police and the extent of any waiver of privilege on that issue. Guess we'll see.

Thank you for that clarification. I remember JM explaining, in Lee's depo, why the question of, is Casey responsible for Caylee's kidnapping/death, is relevant to their case. He said that if they can prove that someone else committed the crime then that shows ZG didn't do it. I believe JM is trying to nail down their answers in their depos for the state's prosecution of Casey, giving the state a little help. He already was successful with Lee in getting him to admit to the second, Blanchard Park, version of events and the fact that LE wasn't notified. Lee also confirmed that Casey has a history of lying by talking about her claim that she was in Jacksonville when she wasn't, also by telling JM that she admittedly lied to the cops in her first statement when it made no sense to do so. By giving away Zenada's name, in any form, she was taking a risk, acording to her story. I have a feeling that by the time JM has all of the deposition's done, there won't be one Anthony left to testify, CREDIBLY, in the criminal trial.

 

[LCoastMom]

I thought when Lee was depo'd it was said he couldn't pick and choose what he would answer and what he would plead the 5th to. Isn't that what KC did by pleading the 5th to questions 2-16, answering #1 and giving a quasi answer to #17?

How can ZG's atty get away with showing he knows the answers to many of his questions by referring to statements KC made to LE? And asking other questions that really don't pertain to the lawsuit? It makes it look like he's showboating; "these other fools can't get a straight answer out of KC, just watch me!"

IMO he did the same thing to Lee.

KC's signature has morphed again.

Did ZG fill out an application at Sawgrass or just fill out a visitor card?

 

[LCoastMom]

What could be more embarrasing than getting so loaded that you are photographed squatting and peeing in public and hanging your head in a toilet full of vomit, AND you have them up on the internet to share with your friends.
Don't tell me you are NOW concerned about being embarrased CASEY!!

Oh that's not embarrassing to KC, it wasn't her it was the alcohol! Not her fault you understand, someone spiked her drinks. She was drinking water/red bull/soda whatever the non drinkers drink.

And KC surely wasn't peeing in a parking lot, NOooo... she was just sitting there waiting for her friends to open the car. And that was a nasty case of food poisoning/the flu/morning sickness that made her so sick that she was hugging the commode/praying to the porcelain gods/not caring that her friends were taking pictures. See she was pregnant with Caylee at the time, George said so.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I thought when Lee was depo'd it was said he couldn't pick and choose what he would answer and what he would plead the 5th to. Isn't that what KC did by pleading the 5th to questions 2-16, answering #1 and giving a quasi answer to #17?

How can ZG's atty get away with showing he knows the answers to many of his questions by referring to statements KC made to LE? And asking other questions that really don't pertain to the lawsuit? It makes it look like he's showboating; "these other fools can't get a straight answer out of KC, just watch me!"

IMO he did the same thing to Lee.

KC's signature has morphed again.

Did ZG fill out an application at Sawgrass or just fill out a visitor card?

From my very limited legal knowledge, I understand that a person can plead the fifth if, the answer, will incriminate themselves. If their answer incriminates someone else, and not themselves, they can not use the 5th to avoid answering the question. Feel free to correct me if this information is wrong.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

From my very limited legal knowledge, I understand that a person can plead the fifth if, the answer, will incriminate themselves. If their answer incriminates someone else, and not themselves, they can not use the 5th to avoid answering the question. Feel free to correct me if this information is wrong.

You're right. The person invoking the 5th amendment privilege, must do it on behalf of their own interests, period. The proteticon does not flow to anyone else, other the the person doing the refusal to answer.

The criminal trial will be a different story though. Florida has statutes which allow for the granting of "limited immunity" when a witness refuses to answer a question on 5th amendment grounds. The witness can be granted immunity as to the info in the question & answer and thus ordered to answer. (Florida Statute 914.04)
However, the compelled answer is still available to use in seeking perjury charges relative to the produced answer and anything subsequent to that event surrounding the compelled testimony. :wink: :bananapowerslide:

The ease of hiding behind the 5th amendment won't be available at the criminal trial, for witnesses.

Humble Opinion:smiliescale: & :wolf:

 

[MAMABEAR]

Phew.:iamashamed0005:
I was going to get some bubble wrap to do an emergency repair.

Yup, there's still the rest of the family.opcorn: Also waiting with baited breath.

Would somebody just ANSWER SOMETHING! Preview of coming attractions with the Lee Depo was sooooo enticing.

JMHO as always, :smiliescale:MH &:wolf:
I am taking a stand however, that I am very proud of my multi-quoting success.

Congrates! I was thinkin last night, I would like to see about posting 2 post. And here you pop with 3.
CUTE POST

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Thank you for that clarification. I remember JM explaining, in Lee's depo, why the question of, is Casey responsible for Caylee's kidnapping/death, is relevant to their case. He said that if they can prove that someone else committed the crime then that shows ZG didn't do it. I believe JM is trying to nail down their answers in their depos for the state's prosecution of Casey, giving the state a little help. He already was successful with Lee in getting him to admit to the second, Blanchard Park, version of events and the fact that LE wasn't notified. Lee also confirmed that Casey has a history of lying by talking about her claim that she was in Jacksonville when she wasn't, also by telling JM that she admittedly lied to the cops in her first statement when it made no sense to do so. By giving away Zenada's name, in any form, she was taking a risk, acording to her story. I have a feeling that by the time JM has all of the deposition's done, there won't be one Anthony left to testify, CREDIBLY, in the criminal trial.

** bold added**


I think we arrived there on day one.

 

[Oakley]

That's what the criminal trial is meant to determine: If Casey did it, not whether this ZG is the one that Casey says did it. ZG's defamation suit is a civil one, and these depositions are intended to once and for all, legally separate THIS ZG (not all ZG's) from implication in the criminal case. Otherwise, there would be a criminal trial where this ZG was the defendant. Morgan wants answers for a criminal trial before the criminal trial takes place. These questions, past "Is this the ZG who you say took your daughter?" should be answered with exactly the statement that was given.

And you're not even close to being dense. Far from it

Debs, thank you kindly for your patient explanation. Aside from my ignorance of legal procedures (which is apparent!) it seems to me that any truth Mr Morgan can glean regarding Caylee's demise would be a good thing. No one who has the answers (the truth) seems to be forthcoming.

 

[MAMABEAR]

No legal expertise here, but I feel she can't answer any of these questions because they still do not know what defense they are going with.

"Were you involved in the death of Caylee?" question 17 asks."The defendant would object to the question and would move to strike it. This question is being brought solely to embarrass, harass and brought in an attempt to implicate the Defendant in an on-going criminal prosecution for First (1st) Degree Murder," Casey responded.
The document was signed by Casey and dated February 25.

If KC answers Q17 with "No" then she cannot go back and say it was accidental.
If she answers "yes" we all know what that implies.

If they knew which way they were going to plead her defense in the criminal case, then I think these questions could possibly help her case, to some degree. Which is why I believe LE has so much more, and is releasing it ever so slowly. I am sure at trial time we will not be disappointed. SA's will have plenty of "bombshells" in their arsenal for a conviction.

Always, just my thoughts & opinions.

:blowkiss:
Thank You for posting this. You have taken a burden off my shoulders. Sometimes I see no light at the end of this tunnel and up pops a post like this and I realize that Caylee will get her Justice no matter how her kin-folks drag their feet. After all they are "JUST KIN-FOLKS. She doesn't need their feet. She will get Justice whether they like it or not.