seagull65
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,667
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think KC "changed" the spelling; I think at most she "corrected" it. Like many others, she may have glanced at it and saw what she expected to see, which would have been "GonzaleZ." There have been numerous tests done and perhaps you've run across a few, maybe in Reader's Digest or somewhere, showing how our minds will interpret written words and automatically correct them sometimes.
You suggest that KC changed family details, etc. That's not my understanding. It appears that in at least one of KC's versions she stuck pretty close to the details listed on the card. In fact, in one of her filings in the civil case she mentions the imaginanny has only 2 children and the plaintiff has 5, so this can't be the same one. (Yes, in another she claims zero children.) Point of fact is 2 children were listed on the Sawgrass card, not five. Any other debate on this issue that you may have in mind requires, as the court so aptly pointed out today, a finding of fact more suited to a jury. The very fact that you make these arguments shows the suit is justified and requires just such a finding of fact.
:waitasec: Yes, I've followed the case. I know that this ZG listed two children, M and Y/J on the card, and that KC said that her ZFG has no children (that ZFG's sister S has 2 children, no mention of their names.) IIRC, it wasn't KC who made the comment that ZFG has 2 children and this one has 5. Regarding the rest of your post directed at me here, maybe you've got me confused with someone else? I have not addressed the point of whether this ZG has a case or not, or where it should be tried. I could see how she might want to bring a case, and I would have to agree with the judge that it would have to wait.