ZFG Civil Case: Casey's Deposition #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally believe it WON'T drop (the shoe, that is) because it is all BS. I only hope that if she does file charges, Yuri gets to be the lead investigator. BUT......... if FCA needs money, wouldn't that be an excellent way to get it? New charges, new trial, new publicity, new book that would put her as a "victim"......I can see it now. And come to think of it, she wouldn't even have to file charges to perpetuate this new scam.

And guess, what? A percentage of the population will believe her story. Doesn't matter that she is a convicted liar.

Hi TO - I'll join in....

1. A shoe will drop - (my money on CA shouting out an excited utterance)
2. I would believe that YM has moved waaaay on from this case, and is onto other responsibilities at the OSCO.
3. New Charges - never happen (primary reason, she does not have the truth behind it)
4. New Book ... if OCA and JB set out to write a book, it would have to be filled with 3 letter words as 4 letter words appear to be stumpers for JB. With her work ethic - look for it on shelves in 2039.
5. % of population believing her? she is long forgotten, and has grown into a run of the mill 25+ year old unemployed woman from FL.
 
Hi TO - I'll join in....

1. A shoe will drop - (my money on CA shouting out an excited utterance)
2. I would believe that YM has moved waaaay on from this case, and is onto other responsibilities at the OSCO.
3. New Charges - never happen (primary reason, she does not have the truth behind it)
4. New Book ... if OCA and JB set out to write a book, it would have to be filled with 3 letter words as 4 letter words appear to be stumpers for JB. With her work ethic - look for it on shelves in 2039.
5. % of population believing her? she is long forgotton, and has grown into a a run of the mill 25+ year old unemployed woman from FL.

:rocker:This made my day! The best and funniest post of the day:floorlaugh:
BRAVO!

I must be a bit :waitasec:demented, because nothing makes me laugh more than CA making up transparent, bombastic stuff to convince the masses of her absolute audacity. She's slick, that's for sure, but I'm sure someone is going to sand her down and expose all of her nonsense.:please:
 
:rocker:This made my day! The best and funniest post of the day:floorlaugh:
BRAVO!

I must be a bit :waitasec:demented, because nothing makes me laugh more than CA making up transparent, bombastic stuff to convince the masses of her absolute audacity. She's slick, that's for sure, but I'm sure someone is going to sand her down and expose all of her nonsense.:please:

I've got a feeling Mr. Morgan is hyperventilating in excitement at the very thought of it. I'll bet he can't wait and I picture him gleefully rubbing his hands together whenever he thinks about it!:fireworks2:
 
A single mother who is looking for a job and a new place to live...yes, she can be slandered/defamed.

IMO, JMO, MOO

Sure, IF she can prove that it was specifically her that was being slandered. The problem she has is that is clear that it was not her. Her jumping up in public, pointing at herself and saying "hey, Anthony accused ME!!" does not make it slander. That is pretty much what she did.

Now, that is not to say that a jury would not find for her, but if they did they would have to ignore the facts of the case. In civil trials it is not unusual for that to happen though.
 
Sure, IF she can prove that it was specifically her that was being slandered. The problem she has is that is clear that it was not her. Her jumping up in public, pointing at herself and saying "hey, Anthony accused ME!!" does not make it slander. That is pretty much what she did.

Now, that is not to say that a jury would not find for her, but if they did they would have to ignore the facts of the case. In civil trials it is not unusual for that to happen though.

You are probably right, legally, that it has to be proven that the slander was intended specifically for her but, ethically, it holds no water for me.

I can compare it to bystanders who are caught in a hailstorm of bullets from a criminal who is trying to protect themselves during the commission of a crime. They weren't necessarily singled out, either, but nonetheless were still injured ~ or worse.

Or even to victims of drunk drivers for that matter. If this is the law, it sure doesn't make sense or seem right to me.
 
Sure, IF she can prove that it was specifically her that was being slandered. The problem she has is that is clear that it was not her. Her jumping up in public, pointing at herself and saying "hey, Anthony accused ME!!" does not make it slander. That is pretty much what she did.

.

Now, that is not to say that a jury would not find for her, but if they did they would have to ignore the facts of the case. In civil trials it is not unusual for that to happen though

Or in criminal trials either, apparently.
 
Sure, IF she can prove that it was specifically her that was being slandered. The problem she has is that is clear that it was not her. Her jumping up in public, pointing at herself and saying "hey, Anthony accused ME!!" does not make it slander. That is pretty much what she did.

Now, that is not to say that a jury would not find for her, but if they did they would have to ignore the facts of the case. In civil trials it is not unusual for that to happen though.

How would FCA prove that it wasn't this ZG she was saying kidnapped Caylee? Was this from the lie she told about kidnapping in the first place, or the lie she told when she said she had known "her" Zenaida Gonzales" for four years, or the lie she told Cindy when she said she had not seen a picture of this ZG, the only ZG the LE interviewed whose children were being threatened? Or do you mean when FCA's legal counsel refused to step up in one of their many many media appearances and categorically deny this ZG was the fictional nanny and in fact there was no nanny at all - that Caylee drowned and it was all just another lie? When the whole business was just allowed to ride to deflect attention away from FCA and her lies?

Or do you mean when FCA refused to apologize to this ZG and end this nonsense for good and directed her defense to counter sue instead?

It looks to me like the jury will have quite a lot to consider when it's time for a few decisions.:waitasec:
 
How would FCA prove that it wasn't this ZG she was saying kidnapped Caylee? Was this from the lie she told about kidnapping in the first place, or the lie she told when she said she had known "her" Zenaida Gonzales" for four years, or the lie she told Cindy when she said she had not seen a picture of this ZG, the only ZG the LE interviewed whose children were being threatened? Or do you mean when FCA's legal counsel refused to step up in one of their many many media appearances and categorically deny this ZG was the fictional nanny and in fact there was no nanny at all - that Caylee drowned and it was all just another lie? When the whole business was just allowed to ride to deflect attention away from FCA and her lies?

Or do you mean when FCA refused to apologize to this ZG and end this nonsense for good and directed her defense to counter sue instead?

It looks to me like the jury will have quite a lot to consider when it's time for a few decisions.:waitasec:

I'm now singing in my head that Tommy Roe song!

Dizzy, I'm so dizzy my head is spinning
Like a whirlpool it never ends
And it's You girl makin' it spin
You're making me dizzy

:floorlaugh:
 
I'm now singing in my head that Tommy Roe song!

Dizzy, I'm so dizzy my head is spinning
Like a whirlpool it never ends
And it's You girl makin' it spin
You're making me dizzy

:floorlaugh:

Sorry atthelake -I stopped a lot shorter than I wanted to.... I forget posters come in to the site - find a thread such as this one, post their thoughts on the outcome, and don't read any or all of the conversation that comes before their post - and the majority of the time, none past it either.

I wonder when I will ever stop taking the bait? :waitasec:
 
Hi TO - I'll join in....

1. A shoe will drop - (my money on CA shouting out an excited utterance)
2. I would believe that YM has moved waaaay on from this case, and is onto other responsibilities at the OSCO.
3. New Charges - never happen (primary reason, she does not have the truth behind it)
4. New Book ... if OCA and JB set out to write a book, it would have to be filled with 3 letter words as 4 letter words appear to be stumpers for JB. With her work ethic - look for it on shelves in 2039. 5. % of population believing her? she is long forgotten, and has grown into a run of the mill 25+ year old unemployed woman from FL.

BBM
# 4 one has me rolling.
 
How would FCA prove that it wasn't this ZG she was saying kidnapped Caylee? Was this from the lie she told about kidnapping in the first place, or the lie she told when she said she had known "her" Zenaida Gonzales" for four years, or the lie she told Cindy when she said she had not seen a picture of this ZG, the only ZG the LE interviewed whose children were being threatened? Or do you mean when FCA's legal counsel refused to step up in one of their many many media appearances and categorically deny this ZG was the fictional nanny and in fact there was no nanny at all - that Caylee drowned and it was all just another lie? When the whole business was just allowed to ride to deflect attention away from FCA and her lies?

Or do you mean when FCA refused to apologize to this ZG and end this nonsense for good and directed her defense to counter sue instead?

It looks to me like the jury will have quite a lot to consider when it's time for a few decisions.:waitasec:
Thanks was not enough! You are brilliant and correct:)
 
How would FCA prove that it wasn't this ZG she was saying kidnapped Caylee? Was this from the lie she told about kidnapping in the first place, or the lie she told when she said she had known "her" Zenaida Gonzales" for four years, or the lie she told Cindy when she said she had not seen a picture of this ZG, the only ZG the LE interviewed whose children were being threatened? Or do you mean when FCA's legal counsel refused to step up in one of their many many media appearances and categorically deny this ZG was the fictional nanny and in fact there was no nanny at all - that Caylee drowned and it was all just another lie? When the whole business was just allowed to ride to deflect attention away from FCA and her lies?

Or do you mean when FCA refused to apologize to this ZG and end this nonsense for good and directed her defense to counter sue instead?

It looks to me like the jury will have quite a lot to consider when it's time for a few decisions.:waitasec:
Oh, and let's not forget that Casey's "Zanny" was a 10 afterall.
Thank you Cindy for straightening everyone out on that matter.
Cindy does really believe all of her daughter's BS, doesn't she?
 
Sure, IF she can prove that it was specifically her that was being slandered. The problem she has is that is clear that it was not her. Her jumping up in public, pointing at herself and saying "hey, Anthony accused ME!!" does not make it slander. That is pretty much what she did.

Now, that is not to say that a jury would not find for her, but if they did they would have to ignore the facts of the case. In civil trials it is not unusual for that to happen though.

While this woman may not have been targeted originally, she became THE target once fca heard from ca about "the woman in Kissimmee". She was targeted from that point on for a certainty, simply by the fact that fca nor her legal team ever cleared her.
 
I've got a feeling Mr. Morgan is hyperventilating in excitement at the very thought of it. I'll bet he can't wait and I picture him gleefully rubbing his hands together whenever he thinks about it!:fireworks2:

:seeya:If it is being televised, I'll gleefully watch it for the comedic relief as I'm sure we are going to see A LOT of whimsical stuff going on. At the same time, I don't think it's 1 bit funny when someone gets shoved into a lie and it hurts them and their family.

I just had a terrible thought of a What If....What if OCA does turn the tables on 1 or both her parents or LE for that matter and claims defamation of character? What about that? Will never know what goes on in that head of hers:what: I get the feeling we all will be hearing of the neverending OCA story for years to come via a courtroom.
 
:seeya:If it is being televised, I'll gleefully watch it for the comedic relief as I'm sure we are going to see A LOT of whimsical stuff going on. At the same time, I don't think it's 1 bit funny when someone gets shoved into a lie and it hurts them and their family.

I just had a terrible thought of a What If....What if OCA does turn the tables on 1 or both her parents or LE for that matter and claims defamation of character? What about that? Will never know what goes on in that head of hers:what: I get the feeling we all will be hearing of the neverending OCA story for years to come via a courtroom.

I'm guessing she'll keep it up in one form or another until she runs out of pro bono lawyers and has to anti up the cash up front in advance before another one will take her on.....:rolleyes:
 
While this woman may not have been targeted originally, she became THE target once fca heard from ca about "the woman in Kissimmee". She was targeted from that point on for a certainty, simply by the fact that fca nor her legal team ever cleared her.

Who says she wasn't targeted originally? Even that's up for grabs - my point being FCA's defense is built on a lie to get out of the previous lie. Who knows if she saw that name at Sawgrass and just ran with it. At the time FCA gave her originial statement, it was pretty clear she just expected the LE to take her at her word and not start checking it out.

The thing is - because her whole description was based on a lie, how is FCA going to defend not targeting ZG - with her lie? Ummm...now which lie was that? I'm getting dizzy...
 
Sure, IF she can prove that it was specifically her that was being slandered. The problem she has is that is clear that it was not her. Her jumping up in public, pointing at herself and saying "hey, Anthony accused ME!!" does not make it slander. That is pretty much what she did.

Now, that is not to say that a jury would not find for her, but if they did they would have to ignore the facts of the case. In civil trials it is not unusual for that to happen though.

The problem for the defense is the fact that FCA has YET To declare publicly that this is not the nanny that she was referring to in her lies to police.
 
Who says she wasn't targeted originally? Even that's up for grabs - my point being FCA's defense is built on a lie to get out of the previous lie. Who knows if she saw that name at Sawgrass and just ran with it. At the time FCA gave her originial statement, it was pretty clear she just expected the LE to take her at her word and not start checking it out.

The thing is - because her whole description was based on a lie, how is FCA going to defend not targeting ZG - with her lie? Ummm...now which lie was that? I'm getting dizzy...

ITA. I was just saying that she "may" not have targeted her in the beginning, but even if she had not then, she certainly did later. In my mind, it makes no difference if her original statement was aimed at zg. She did take aim.
 
The problem for the defense is the fact that FCA has YET To declare publicly that this is not the nanny that she was referring to in her lies to police.

Makes me think if she did declare publicly this was not the nanny, through her spokesperson=mom, during the depositions. Now there's a kettle of fish there as well because how could CA possibly know what Zanny or ZG looked liked since she said she never had met either one-how could she possibly know if she was a 10 or not, she supposedly had a phone #, but couldn't find it all of a sudden and so on and so forth. CA was going by OCA words when she blantantly spoke up yet again. Unless those 2 have ESP, there was some probable cahootin going on.:moo:
 
ITA. I was just saying that she "may" not have targeted her in the beginning, but even if she had not then, she certainly did later. In my mind, it makes no difference if her original statement was aimed at zg. She did take aim.

No No my friend - wasn't arguing with you...:floorlaugh: ..I was still up yammering on my original soapbox..:blowkiss:

Didn't mean to sound like I was jumping on your comment...:blushing:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
2,605
Total visitors
2,726

Forum statistics

Threads
590,018
Messages
17,929,059
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top