I think you are misunderstanding AZ's posts - she was not addressing whether or not JB's statements legally represented FCA, but rather whether or not those statements were 'evidence', and further she states "The point is that his statements in opening (or closing) argument regarding his theory of the defense are not binding upon Casey as admissions of fact." Admissions of fact (a legal term) meaning that both the plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys agree on a declaration, making it fact for the purpose of the upcoming trial. She's saying that statements - not evidence - made in the first trial aren't automatically accepted as fact by later trials.
But if FCA's attorney does object or deny the declaration that FCA knew Caylee was dead during the Request of Admissions (the process that determines agreed upon 'fact') that doesn't mean those earlier claims/statements won't be brought in and argued as part of the trial. One way or the other, it will be addressed and those statements will play a part in her answers, IMO.
No I don't think I misunderstood anything. The inference made in this thread is the statement/evidence/whatever you want to call it about the drowning theory made by JB was thus in turn made by KC and can then be used as a basis by which TM will use to prove he was defrauded. That is not the case. AZ once again clarified in the lawyer thread.
TM's lawsuit and ZG's lawsuit can both go forward now, no problem. In fact, ZG's lawsuit has been going forward for a long time. But TM will have to actually prove Casey lied to him--he can't use JB's defense theory from the criminal case as "proof."
The bolded part is what I meant when I said JB said it does not equal KC said it.