2009.05.19. Casey Anthony Civil Hearing @ 10:00

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back from laundry, lol-So Cindy is back in court on Thursday on a motion to compel her answers/contempt right?

This is of course why Kasen wanted the suit dropped today. So more depos, more fireworks-are we going to hear on Thursday that Casey drops the countersuit?
 
I missed the splitting babies comment. Who said it?

The judge; but again, it's just an expression and a very, very common one. There is zero doubt in my mind that the court in any way, shape or form meant any reference whatsoever to Caylee or any other real child. Having her on our minds, I can understand why some here may have misunderstood but I cannot stress enough it's just a very, very common expression with the meaning I already outlined.
 
What I would like to know is what the "new evidence" is they were talking about at the beginning of the hearing.
 
Also sounded like Kasen will have his work cut out for him in avoiding answering the interrogatories propounded by Mitnik, based on the court's responses today.
 
What I would like to know is what the "new evidence" is they were talking about at the beginning of the hearing.

Most likely the depositions, particularly CA. That's the basis for punitive damages, imo, based on my recollections of that depo.
 
Cindy bought this up in her deposition, she thought she was so smart! Perhaps Zanny was in a hurry and in no mood to fill out paperwork.

Cindy's point in her depo was if KC had obtained ZG's name from the sign-in form in the apartment complex, why wouldn't she have used that name/spelling, and other details given on the form. The form doesn't match up with the name/spelling/other details given by KC regarding a ZFG.
 
The judge; but again, it's just an expression and a very, very common one. There is zero doubt in my mind that the court in any way, shape or form meant any reference whatsoever to Caylee or any other real child. Having her on our minds, I can understand why some here may have misunderstood but I cannot stress enough it's just a very, very common expression with the meaning I already outlined.

Thanks lin! I am sure Judge Rodriguez didn't mean anything by it.
 
Cindy's point in her depo was if KC had obtained ZG's name from the sign-in form in the apartment complex, why wouldn't she have used the name/spelling, and other details given on the form. The form doesn't match up with the name/spelling/other details given by KC regarding a ZFG.

Then CA isn't giving her daughter credit for being as smart as the average rock, is she? rofl. Even KC recognized that as a scrivener's error.
 
This is laughable...the name is misspelled..."Gonzale"....so frickin' what ZG was there, right? She didn't fill out the card so can she help it if the guy filling out the card misspelled her name. Oh, please, if these are the grounds on which the defense is wanting this dismissed then forget it. This is laughable!

Seriously? That's an argument? Must have gotten instructions from Cindy...:rolleyes:
 
It isn't a legal issue, but first I do want to say that "splitting the baby" is a very old figure of speech, and I imagine it just came out inadvertently. It has to do with trying to give something to both sides and it not really working so well. I have to say, I once almost used it once in posting about the court's initial decision to allow the case to go forward but only allow discovery through written interrogatories to Casey A. I didn't, because I read this board, and had time to reflect on the potential to offend. I don't think any offense was intended, and splitting hairs is a different thing.

What happened today is really a non-event in a civil case. Amendments to an initial pleading are not rare. It is usually only after a certain amount of time has passed that permission of the court to amend is even required. It is an intentional tort that is alleged, and punitive damages are potentially available in such cases as a matter of law, so there we have it. Routine, routine, routine, unless you expect special rules for matters involving the A's.

As far as dismissal at the pleading stage, it was also unlikely. There are conceivably facts that support the claim, discovery is barely begun, so it would be premature to rule against the plaintiff as a matter of law. As of now, the case is going to the jury, the decider of the facts. Again, nothing unusual. The defense attorney is big on delivering attitude, but not so much on viable legal arguments. You can't resist all discovery from the person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and expect to get the case dismissed at this point because the other side doesn't have all the facts.

That said, maybe now that the defendant is facing the death penalty, the court will decide to postpone the case until after the criminal case is over. I only raise the possibility because he said the facts are "different on the ground" now than they were the first time he ruled.

If I had to read between the lines, I also would guess the court is not pleased with the approach the defense took to answering the interrogatories. They continue to stand up and discuss what Casey told the police about ZG, what the facts allegedly are, but wouldn't answer under oath on the same subject matter. The court did mention his expectation of "good faith" in responding to his previous ruling. How much can we expect this very mannerly judge will like the deposition behavior of the A's, in regard to that motion to compel? Anyway, just some impressions. This was a very expectable outcome, IMO.
 
I missed the splitting babies comment. Who said it?

Kasen. Judge R responded to it, and to me, sounded offended, but I'll have to watch again when the tape is up to see if that was a correct interpretation.

p.s. @LIN - TY for the explanation of what 'splitting the baby' means in legal circles.
 
The judge; but again, it's just an expression and a very, very common one. There is zero doubt in my mind that the court in any way, shape or form meant any reference whatsoever to Caylee or any other real child. Having her on our minds, I can understand why some here may have misunderstood but I cannot stress enough it's just a very, very common expression with the meaning I already outlined.

I understood the term perfectly. It may have been easier to use that term because of the common understanding in a courtroom setting of its meaning, but considering this case is about the murder of a 2 year old baby, it was inappropriate.

I still love this judge, and I actually have the feeling that he is kicking himself for using the expression.
 
No b/c thanks to KC there aren't any more babies to split..what is that????? OMG it's splitting HAIRS not babies. I'm going to run and hide, this is ridiculous. That comment struck a nerve..sorry.:mad:


Calm down...lol! This is a reference to King Solomon in the Bible. He was confronted with the case of two mothers, each with one child, who had all slept in the same bed with their two children. In the middle of the night one child died. The two women came before King Solomon with the living child and both claimed it was theirs. King Solomon, unable to tell who was telling the truth, declared he would split the baby down the middle and give each half of the dead corpse. The real mother relinquished her claim, while the liar said "do it!" King Solomon awarded the child to the relinquisher.
 
No b/c thanks to KC there aren't any more babies to split..what is that????? OMG it's splitting HAIRS not babies. I'm going to run and hide, this is ridiculous. That comment struck a nerve..sorry.:mad:


i think it's a Biblical reference (king solomon) but it's still in very poor taste.
 
Cindy's point in her depo was if KC had obtained ZG's name from the sign-in form in the apartment complex, why wouldn't she have used that name/spelling, and other details given on the form. The form doesn't match up with the name/spelling/other details given by KC regarding a ZFG.

ZFG didn't fill in the form. The rental property manager/RE person showing the apt filled in the form. Ergo, the spelling error not ZFG's responsibility or problem.

If KC only had a few minutes to see the form, she quite likely screwed up the spelling herself later.
 
is there a link to the video from this morning?i can not find one to play
 
it's called grief

I disagree. It's called inappropriate anger and a refusal to accept responsibility, or have anyone in his family accept responsibility, for their behavior. With a good sized dose of paranoia thrown in. And a total disregard for the rights of others as well as the law.

ETA: :moo:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
2,250
Total visitors
2,437

Forum statistics

Threads
589,968
Messages
17,928,480
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top