Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

New Posts

ZsaZsa said:
I don't need to read that thread, I was responding to Chilly Willy's post where she says Baez didn't know what happened and was presenting the drowning story as theory. I don't believe it was fact and we all know how well the Jury did in assessing what was factual, but what the record shows is that he presented it to them as a fact,not a theory as to what happened.
Click to expand...

You're arguing semantics and I'm arguing what it legally is, specifically as it related to TM's lawsuit. Yes, he presented it to them as if it was true, but that doesn't mean it is now fact as far as other lawsuits go.
 
cityslick said:
You're arguing semantics and I'm arguing what it legally is, specifically as it related to TM's lawsuit. Yes, he presented it to them as if it was true, but that doesn't mean it is now fact as far as other lawsuits go.
Click to expand...

She will have to admit to something and can't just leave it in the air now that she can no longer hide behind the threat of being prosecuted. We know there is no evidence of any nanny. We know that all the circumstancial evidence only points to one person, KC. This is a civil case that has no threat of death if she testifies. She will have to have a position one way or another. The more she changes her story the worse off she will be in a civil court. Pressure will be off this next jury and hopefully the blinders, too. What will matter is what the jury's belief is. jmo
 
cityslick said:
He's not presenting anything as fact (we've gone over this). It's up to the jury as to the finder of fact or not.
Click to expand...

ZsaZsa said:
I disagree- when he states "Actually it was the early morning hours" he is stating it as fact. Definition of Actually = fact. Existing, and not merely potential or possible. He did not say I have a theory about this, he told them what 'actually' happened..
Click to expand...


He cannot "legally" establish it as a fact via an opening statement.

Ethically, an attorney is NOT permitted to present his or her own opinion to a jury.

He is not permitted to use phrases like "I have a theory" when doing an opening.

A lawyer doesn't say things like "I think the evidence will show you that...."
Not an experienced trial attorney. Not allowed.
opinion
MH :wolf:

the standard definition of the word "fact" is not applicable to a jury trial.
:wolf:
 
logicalgirl said:
I heard it that way too ZsaZsa and now I am wondering how the jurors are feeling about the news that this was just a theory - read lie - and they seemed to have based their decision on the "hey - it could have happened that way" stories Baez came up with at trial....
Click to expand...

I know and I have one heck of a headache right now - oh well - anyway the jurors should have addressed it in deliberation, he said this and that and was there any hard evidence to back it up, did he ever address it again after OS - but no-o-o-o I envision the deliberation conversations consisting of asking each other if "x" sandwich was good and if it came with fries?
 
Chilly Willy said:
Thanks for bringing it over here. I could be remembering wrong but even if Baez only admitted that the abuse story was a theory, it still shows that the defense can present anything they can imagine as a defense with no evidence to back it up.

The tip off that the drowning story is what Baez calls a theory (and the rest of us would call a lie) is that Baez didn't know what time of day it happened..."could have been morning, or afternoon....or...no, it was morning...we'll never know". Obviously if Casey told him Caylee drowned she also would have been able to tell him what time of day it happened.
Click to expand...

Whatever JB said during trial had to be ok'd by fca - by law - unsaid understood by law
 
okiedokietoo said:
I know and I have one heck of a headache right now - oh well - anyway the jurors should have addressed it in deliberation, he said this and that and was there any hard evidence to back it up, did he ever address it again after OS - but no-o-o-o I envision the deliberation conversations consisting of asking each other if "x" sandwich was good and if it came with fries?
Click to expand...

You forgot...."what's for dessert?"
 
And I understand why OCA is trying to avoid testifying at this civil trial - exactly what story will she come up with now that Morgan(s) aren't going to tear her apart limb by limb?
 
MiraclesHappen said:
He cannot "legally" establish it as a fact via an opening statement.

Ethically, an attorney is NOT permitted to present his or her own opinion to a jury.

He is not permitted to use phrases like "I have a theory" when doing an opening.

A lawyer doesn't say things like "I think the evidence will show you that...."
Not an experienced trial attorney. Not allowed.
opinion
MH :wolf:

the standard definition of the word "fact" is not applicable to a jury trial.
:wolf:
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point (my point).....
I do not think the drowning story was a fact.
No Juror with two neurons should have believed it was a fact.
I doubt sincerely it can be used as a fact to be relied upon in any other legal proceeding.

What I stated was in contradiction to what Chilly Willy wrote- she said he ended his statement by saying "It could have been morning, we will never know". Nowhere that I can recall or find documented did he ever say 'We will never know', he ended that statement by saying "actually it was the early morning hours' (when the drowning occurred) which is meant to convey to the Jury that his words are fact.
 
ZsaZsa said:
I think you are missing the point (my point).....
I do not think the drowning story was a fact.
No Juror with two neurons should have believed it was a fact.
I doubt sincerely it can be used as a fact to be relied upon in any other legal proceeding.

What I stated was in contradiction to what Chilly Willy wrote- she said he ended his statement by saying "It could have been morning, we will never know". Nowhere that I can recall or find documented did he ever say 'We will never know', he ended that statement by saying "actually it was the early morning hours' (when the drowning occurred) which is meant to convey to the Jury that his words are fact.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that even though JB did not tell the jury "KC told me" he presented it in such a way to make them believe that she did tell him what happened. This is what I believe, too. How do you give such detail about what happened on that day, with the defendant sitting there in court, and still maintain it's only a theory? He either knew about these "great" details or he made them up.

I can see this being a problem in both cases. As far as TM having to prove KC asked him to search for Caylee, I believe there were witnesses in the room when she asked him. jmo
 
ZsaZsa said:
I think you are missing the point (my point).....
I do not think the drowning story was a fact.
No Juror with two neurons should have believed it was a fact.
I doubt sincerely it can be used as a fact to be relied upon in any other legal proceeding.

What I stated was in contradiction to what Chilly Willy wrote- she said he ended his statement by saying "It could have been morning, we will never know". Nowhere that I can recall or find documented did he ever say 'We will never know', he ended that statement by saying "actually it was the early morning hours' (when the drowning occurred) which is meant to convey to the Jury that his words are fact.
Click to expand...

I have a pretty good memory, and my recollection is in JB's Closing Argument, he said "we will never know what happened" to Caylee......... and I remember being shocked to hear it.

and I completely agree with you on what he said in the opening, your version is as I recall it. I remember the 'we will never know' in his closing, and I was stunned to say the least, after his opening statement, the submitted photos of Caylee on the ladder and at the glass door and then CA on the stand about the ladder being up/notup in the phantom call to GA that never happened, whatever she was saying, to try to purport a drowning.

Then he goes on to say in Closing Argument, as i recall it, we will never know what happened to Caylee.

does anyone else recall that statement in Closing? I know I might be asked for a link, I just don't have time at the moment, nor the stomach today. but I could check later.

IMO, MOO, etc.
 
NavySubMom said:
I have a pretty good memory, and my recollection is in JB's Closing Argument, he said "we will never know what happened" to Caylee......... and I remember being shocked to hear it.

and I completely agree with you on what he said in the opening, your version is as I recall it. I remember the 'we will never know' in his closing, and I was stunned to say the least, after his opening statement, the submitted photos of Caylee on the ladder and at the glass door and then CA on the stand about the ladder being up/notup in the phantom call to GA that never happened, whatever she was saying, to try to purport a drowning.

Then he goes on to say in Closing Argument, as i recall it, we will never know what happened to Caylee.

does anyone else recall that statement in Closing? I know I might be asked for a link, I just don't have time at the moment, nor the stomach today. but I could check later.

IMO, MOO, etc.
Click to expand...

I thought he meant how or who disposed of her....that is bagged her up and did the dumping. Since he left that open between George and Mr. Kronk..
 
logicalgirl said:
I thought he meant how or who disposed of her....that is bagged her up and did the dumping. Since he left that open between George and Mr. Kronk..
Click to expand...

O.K., you may be right. I swear I remember him saying "we will never know what happened to Caylee..." at some point during the Opening or Closing, I though it was about what actually happened to her. Maybe then he said that at the end of the opening statement?

anyway, just got back from a timewarp scan of JB's closing argument. I fast-forwarded through some parts, obviously. Couldn't find the statement I referenced,

but I found the part in JB's Closing where he has the photos of Caylee going up the ladder w/CA and the sliding glass door photo as Exhibits on his easel, and he calls the drowning :

"a reasonable hypothesis"

JB: "it is an extremely reasonable hypothesis that she could have drown in the pool."

I wrote down his exact words here. This is just re: our discussion of what JB said in the opening/during/closing of the trial re; the pool drowning in relation to what OCA can/will now say (if she even says anything) in the Tim Miller lawsuit.

and I realize Closing Arguments are not testimony during the case-in-chief.

Just trying to figure out what JB said during the trial and when he said it about the drowning.

ETA: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ha_eacgw7I&feature=relmfu"]Defense's Closing: Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]
at the above link, starting ~25 minutes in.


IMO, MOO, etc.
 
Sun posted this up in the news thread today.

(snipped)
TEXAS EQUUSEARCH MOUNTED SEARCH AND RECOVERY vs. ANTHONY, CASEY

11/02/2011 Objection
AMENDED Objection TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT

11/02/2011 Objection
AMENDED Objection TO PLAINTIFF'S ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT

http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cas...CaseID=1450829
 
ZsaZsa said:
I think you are missing the point (my point).....
I do not think the drowning story was a fact.
No Juror with two neurons should have believed it was a fact.
I doubt sincerely it can be used as a fact to be relied upon in any other legal proceeding.

What I stated was in contradiction to what Chilly Willy wrote- she said he ended his statement by saying "It could have been morning, we will never know". Nowhere that I can recall or find documented did he ever say 'We will never know', he ended that statement by saying "actually it was the early morning hours' (when the drowning occurred) which is meant to convey to the Jury that his words are fact.
Click to expand...
...and actually, I thought it was just a typical Baez stutter step.
Whatever he meant to say...in the end it was all actually a lie!
Still shaking my head...still my heart hurts.
 
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...da-equusearch-motion-20111203,0,7659449.story

Texas EquuSearch files motion in Fernandez-Gonzalez suit against Casey Anthony

"The plaintiffs in two pending lawsuits against Casey Anthony may be teaming up in the hopes of compelling her to answer questions about the death of her daughter, Caylee Marie.

The director of Texas EquuSearch, the noted search and recovery group, said on Saturday he has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit brought by Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez. .....

.....<snipped>

During a recent deposition, Anthony declined to answer many questions by asserting her 5th Amendment rights. Fernandez-Gonzalez's attorneys have filed a motion to compel her to answer.

Now EquuSearch director Tim Miller, who is also suing Anthony, wants to file a brief in support of that motion. EquuSearch's motion to intervene will be heard Monday morning, Miller said. ......."

Good, appears this hearing will be tomorrow? Hope TM can help ZG and himself and make FCA answer for HERSELF for HER LIES!! and have to NOT wear a ridiculous disguise this time, Halloween is over, unless she might want to dress as Santa Claus. and hope she is made to answer soon.

IMO, MOO, etc.

ETA: but she probably won't have to answer anything to anybody, because I keep forgetting how special she is, NOT, and how much it is "All OK" and she needs to RELAX on her PROBATION so we wouldn't want to compel her to do ANYTHING, Grrrrrrr
 
I still think a class action suit (brought by everyone whose reputation was besmirched by the false accusations of this lot, who lost money and precious time and anyone who suffered emotional distress due to the lies of the infamous offender) would be the best way to go.

How many people does it take to bring a class action suit? Here are just the obvious names that come to mind.

ZG,
JG
TL
AH
Dr Vass
Dr G
YM
JAllen
RK
TM and everyone on his team who searched because the A's stated publicly that Caylee was kidnapped/missing...
The guy/ex con who they claimed GA called
Anyone who was in a photo released by any Anthony without their permission.
Even RC/aka Crystal...
and GA himself

Please feel free to add to this list anyone who has a valid argument.
 
I never thought these lawyers could sink any lower, but harassing Tim Miller is beneath contempt. They sure showed him, huh? Serving him papers at the airport. Way to go! Serves him right for almost bankrupting his highly effective operation to help FCA and the Anthonys. Ole CA was right, she always wins.
 
NavySubMom said:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...da-equusearch-motion-20111203,0,7659449.story

Texas EquuSearch files motion in Fernandez-Gonzalez suit against Casey Anthony

"The plaintiffs in two pending lawsuits against Casey Anthony may be teaming up in the hopes of compelling her to answer questions about the death of her daughter, Caylee Marie.

The director of Texas EquuSearch, the noted search and recovery group, said on Saturday he has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit brought by Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez. .....

.....<snipped>

During a recent deposition, Anthony declined to answer many questions by asserting her 5th Amendment rights. Fernandez-Gonzalez's attorneys have filed a motion to compel her to answer.

Now EquuSearch director Tim Miller, who is also suing Anthony, wants to file a brief in support of that motion. EquuSearch's motion to intervene will be heard Monday morning, Miller said. ......."

Good, appears this hearing will be tomorrow? Hope TM can help ZG and himself and make FCA answer for HERSELF for HER LIES!! and have to NOT wear a ridiculous disguise this time, Halloween is over, unless she might want to dress as Santa Claus. and hope she is made to answer soon.

IMO, MOO, etc.

ETA: but she probably won't have to answer anything to anybody, because I keep forgetting how special she is, NOT, and how much it is "All OK" and she needs to RELAX on her PROBATION so we wouldn't want to compel her to do ANYTHING, Grrrrrrr
Click to expand...

"navysubmom" i TOTALLY agree with you...she cant go on pleading the 5th..she needs to be made to account for not only ruining ZG's life,and reputation but also leading TM on a wild goose chase. sure fca may not have called them, ca did, what have you. but TM's time and resources were tied up on a wild goose chase and TM couldnt help other familys in LEGIT need. and of course fca knew where she was ALL this time and DELIBERATELY did not tell ANYONE.( just all MOO)
:maddening: im just sick how the "teflon princess" keeps getting away with this, and she isn't compelled to do ANYTHING on her probation? others i heard of/know have to stay AWAY from drugs/ alcohol( even in moderation!) -at least show effort of looking for a job,if not land/secure one, attend (in her case, GED class), therapy= and she hasnt done hardly any of it( oh maybe an occasional therapy session) :pullhair:
they need to stop the enabling of the TP( teflon princess) and MAKE her answer- why did she pick ZG's name to pin her as the "imagin-nanny"- among other things...but JMO - and probably :deadhorse:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 222 more.
Total: 4,308 (members: 223, guests: 4,085)

Online statistics

Members online
223
Guests online
4,085
Total visitors
4,308
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,816
Messages
17,959,460
Members
228,615
Latest member
JR Rainwater
Back
Top