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

[EmMomma]

Miracles, you just burst my bubble. You are right, there is really nothing the courst can do that would benefit Casey into answering the questions. Dang.

...but there's still G&C. :woohoo:

 

[SuziQ]

...but there's still G&C. :woohoo:

Thank you for reinflating my bubble. lol. :crazy:

 

[tiredofthis]

I think they need to learn to keep the word "embarrass" out of any documents concerning Casey..
That one word just makes the hair on my arm stand up..
UUUkkkk..she has embarrassed herself..I don't think there is nothing any of us, or any lawyer can do to outdo what she has done to herself..

Nope. It would take a miracle to undo the damage she has done not only to herself, but the people around her.

 

[JustJax]

I think they need to learn to keep the word "embarrass" out of any documents concerning Casey..
That one word just makes the hair on my arm stand up..
UUUkkkk..she has embarrassed herself..I don't think there is nothing any of us, or any lawyer can do to outdo what she has done to herself..

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!!

 

[Short_Stuff]

Let her take the 5th.
Taking the 5th IMO = I cant answer because IM GUILTY AS CHARGED.
Plain and simple and everyone knows it.

 

[okiedokietoo]

This is Legal-speak. KC did not write this.

 

[EclecticArtist]

Didn't KC file a counter suit against ZFG? What happened to that???

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Miracles, you just burst my bubble. You are right, there is really nothing the court can do that would benefit Casey by answering the questions. Dang.

...but there's still G&C. :woohoo:

Thank you for reinflating my bubble. lol. :crazy:

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.

 

[capoly]

So instead of pleading the 5th amendment, Casey (or her attorney) chose to answer the question. What, if anything, will this mean for the pending criminal case?


Casey Anthony Answers Questions In Civil Suit
Posted: 12:35 pm EST March 4, 2009
Updated: 12:44 pm EST March 4, 2009
<snipped>
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Eyewitness News has learned Casey Anthony did answer questions under oath and in writing in a civil lawsuit she's facing.
Zenaida Gonzalez's attorney, John Morgan, submitted 17 different topics, some with multiple related questions, for Casey to answer as part of her deposition in the case.
Of the 29 total questions, Casey answered to only two. Casey wrote her name to answer the question asking for it, but had a much stronger response to another question.
"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.
A court hearing is scheduled for May 19 when Casey's attorney will attempt to get the lawsuit thrown out.

:waitasec: That's a yes/no question. Why the need for righteous indignation when a simple 'no' would suffice?

God bless, Caylee.

 

[LisaNY]

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.

 

[Oakley]

Let her take the 5th.
Taking the 5th IMO = I cant answer because IM GUILTY AS CHARGED.
Plain and simple and everyone knows it.

And that may be precisely why she/they answered this question (re Caylee's death) rather than taking the 5th. JMO.

 

[amethyst221]

And that may be precisely why she/they answered this question (re Caylee's death) rather than taking the 5th. JMO.

Well, she didn't really answer it. She just objected on a ground other than the 5th amendment, with a little editorializing thrown in to try to make her look better and indignant. I'm shocked she didn't object on privilege grounds, too, and just throw this in as a second objection to the question. Maybe she's waived the the privilege as to this question?

 

[debs]

It is a question irrelevant to "Is this Zenaida Gonzales the one who you say kidnapped your daughter?"

Isn't that what they're out there looking for? To free THIS ZG from the case? What possible relevance to whether Casey killed her daughter could there be to clearing this woman from the case completely?

 

[Crabcake23]

Having worked for attorneys most of my life - her attorney would have standard objections to those interrogatory questions. KC would have just signed the prepared document.

Agreed.

 

[Oakley]

Well, she didn't really answer it. She just objected on a ground other than the 5th amendment, with a little editorializing thrown in to try to make her look better and indignant. I'm shocked she didn't object on privilege grounds, too, and just throw this in as a second objection to the question. Maybe she's waived the the privilege as to this question?

dunno. Need more legal eagles to weigh-in

 

[Oakley]

It is a question irrelevant to "Is this Zenaida Gonzales the one who you say kidnapped your daughter?"

Isn't that what they're out there looking for? To free THIS ZG from the case? What possible relevance to whether Casey killed her daughter could there be to clearing this woman from the case completely?

I don't doubt Mr Morgan is aware of that. Maybe the wording was strategic?

 

[amethyst221]

It is a question irrelevant to "Is this Zenaida Gonzales the one who you say kidnapped your daughter?"

Isn't that what they're out there looking for? To free THIS ZG from the case? What possible relevance to whether Casey killed her daughter could there be to clearing this woman from the case completely?

Well, she filed the suit, so she either wants to prevail in her defamation claim, which would tell the world she isn't the kidnapping Zanny, even if there is no money to recover. Or she might get enough evidence from someone who actually has firsthand information (that would be the non-answering Casey) to establish there is no kidnapping Zanny at all and/or plaintiff isn't that Zanny, and choose to dismiss her case. But she isn't required to do that, especially not with a counterclaim against her and the looming possibility of a trial where for weeks the name ZG will be repeatedly raised.

Just being the devil's advocate here, but what can be asked in discovery is not limited by relevance. It might not later be admissible at trial, but that isn't the standard now. Anyway, the question whether Casey is the culprit and thus there is NO Zanny the Nanny at all seems relevant.

 

[Oakley]

It is a question irrelevant to "Is this Zenaida Gonzales the one who you say kidnapped your daughter?"

Isn't that what they're out there looking for? To free THIS ZG from the case? What possible relevance to whether Casey killed her daughter could there be to clearing this woman from the case completely?

Okay, I am not the sharpest tack in the box, I know, but if Casey killed her daughter, then ZFG didn't do it, right?

 

[debs]

Well, she filed the suit, so she either wants to prevail in her defamation claim, which would tell the world she isn't the kidnapping Zanny, even if there is no money to recover. Or she might get enough evidence from someone who actually has firsthand information (that would be the non-answering Casey) to establish there is no kidnapping Zanny at all and/or plaintiff isn't that Zanny, and choose to dismiss her case. But she isn't required to do that, especially not with a counterclaim against her and the looming possibility of a trial where for weeks the name ZG will be repeatedly raised.

Just being the devil's advocate here, but what can be asked in discovery is not limited by relevance. It might not later be admissible at trial, but that isn't the standard now. Anyway, the question whether Casey is the culprit and thus there is NO Zanny the Nanny at all seems relevant.

This goes beyond the scope of a civil defamation case, where she claims her name was harmed by Casey Anthony et al using it as the culprit in a crime. She has, as well as her lawyer, made the statement that what they want is to have Casey say this is not the ZG who they claim kidnapped Caylee and it will all go away.

I completely disagree with your last paragraph for the simple reason that the deposition was to clear THIS ZG, not all ZG's. It was not to find out WHO killed Caylee, but to in fact put an end to any speculation that THIS ZG did so.

 

[debs]

Okay, I am not the sharpest tack in the box, I know, but if Casey killed her daughter, then ZFG didn't do it, right?

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