2009.04.09 Cindy's Deposition #2

[ThoughtElf]

Here is the full script of July 3, 2008 posting on Cindy's MySpace Page. (Thanks PattyG)

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Current mood: http://x.myspace.com/images/blog/moods/iBrads/sad.gif distraught

She came into my life unexspectedly, just as she has left me. This precious little angel from above gave me strength and unconditional love. Now she is gone and I don’t know why. All I am guilty of is loving her and providing her a safe home. Jealousy has taken her away. Jealousy from the one person that should be thankfull for all of the love and support given to her. A mother’s love is deep, however there are limits when one is betrayed by the one she loved and trusted the most. A daughter comes to her mother for support when she is pregnant, the mother says without hesitation it will be ok. And it was. But then the lies and betrayal began. First it seemed harmless, ah, love is blind. A mother will look for the good in her child and give them a chance to change. This mother gave chance after chance for her daughter to change, but instead more lies more betrayal. What does the mother get for giving her daughter all of these chances? A broken heart. The daughter who stole money, lots of money, leaves without warning and does not let her mother now speak to the baby that her mother raised, fed, clothed, sheltered, paid her medical bills, etc. Instead tells her friends that her mother is controlling her life and she needs her space. No money, no future. Where did she go? Who is now watching out for the little angel?

-----------------------------------------
Ok, this is what I was looking for. In her deposition, CA claims she only ever paid the one bill after Caylee's birth. Her post on MySpace sounds more like she has paid all of Caylee's medical bills. Yes, I know it is a subjective interpretation, but you would think one single paid bill would be lumped in as 'bills' when she is also discussing how she - Cindy - sheltered, fed, clothed Caylee.

I am of the belief that Cindy was untruthful on that question and it can be proven that she did pay Caylee's medical bills.

 

[amethyst221]

Thanks for the link. I guess it depends then on what coverage the A's insurance policy actually has and whether KC was included on the policy as one of the 'insured'.

People can say otherwise, but you simply cannot, in the ordinary course of getting homeowner's insurance, insure against intentional wrongdoing by the policy holders themselves. You can't choose to do harm and have someone else pay for the consequences. If a tree limb snaps off a tree in your yard and strikes and injures a couple you've invited over for dinner, you will likely have coverage. If you get mad at the couple because they didn't like your chicken recipe, and you beat the stuffing out of them, causing serious bodily harm, or you have your daughter who lives there do it for you, OR you go on local tv and say that both of them are elementary school teachers and pedophiles -- no coverage. We aren't talking about a business for which there may be some sort of bond or coverage in case your employees who all handle others' money steal it (like for bank tellers).

 

[amethyst221]

If I was one of his lawyer buddies I would be asking him why he has compromised his client's claim by attempting to show that someone other than (or as well as) the defendant she named is responsible for the alleged harm she has suffered. He now has to prove how much of the alleged harm was actually caused by the named defendant, rather than by CA, who is not being sued for damages. :doh:

Why is this a problem? If multiple people "republish" a defamatory statement, they may be liable as well. He can add defendants. If he ever gets a judgement, he can collect from the ones who are solvent.

 

[Oakley]

In theory (mine ) high-powered or at least highly-competent attorneys will always appear to sympathize with their clients, but they do not allow their clients to openly argue with them or ignore their instructrions, let alone take over control of the proceedings!

All of this is for their client's own good, as well as for the attorney's own self-respect and reputation.

Somewhere during part 1 of her deposition, I started expecting BC to make some excuse to ask for a brief time out so that he could get Cindy alone and warn her to knock it the h@ll off or plan on finding a new attorney. When he started gently rubbing her shoulder, all I could think was, "A good attorney would have squeezed just hard enough to cut off the blood flow as his final warning."

I have a feeling that in BC, Cindy has found herself another nice guy, but a weak guy she can control. As a result she was able to make a fool of herself and a fool of him, too.

My thoughts as well, Friday. I see BC as an enabler, which is the only type of person the A's will tolerate.

 

[Oakley]

That is the thang that bothers me-----very much. I wanna know WHY? Who the He!! does she think she is? There are ways of the Court that have to be respected and obeyed. CA is NOT above the Law. You can't walk into a depo and "TAKE" over. You are there to answer question-------whether you like the questions or not. I am so mad that she is getting away with her actions. We "ALL" have to answer for our actions-------> not CA tho. What the He!! is the deal here???????????

CA will NOT ever have to spit that gum out during the trial. She can do or say anythang she wants-----and get away with it. We can control our lives but we can NOT run thru life with a hammer in our hand and spew sheet out of our mouths like this woman does.

I think that when she gets started with those wild eyes and mouth opened that she throws the male Lawyers into a state of shock. Where are women Lawyers? Can't wait for one of them to get hold of that sow. She won't intimidate a female like she seems to a male. She seems to go straight for the balls. I wanna see a FEMALE git hold of her. Somebody needs to step up to the plate and get hold of this mess. She needs to be stopped in her tracks at the very first question or answer and made (legally) to just shut up and answer the question or go to jail. If she wants to be a martyr then give her that. Martyr her azz to jail. Grrrrr. I would love a shot at her.

lol! Mama, I truly believe Cindy will have her day. There is a principle of sowing and reaping, and she has already been the unfortunate recipient of her past sowing. Anyhow, I thought Mitnik and Morgan more than held their own with her antics. She is certainly a bully and I think most people do concede to bully's. But I was impressed with the way these attorney's handled very difficult (an understatement!) depositions.

 

[Devon]

Because he first got CA to admit she was the authorized agent of KC prior to having her admit perpetuating the defamation.

If KC had told her agent/mouthpiece (CA) the truth about not recognizing ZFG, then the GretaVS interview would not have compounded ZFGs problems.

All roads lead back to KC.

Yes, but unfortunately he didn't limit his interrogation to establishing that CA was the instrument by which KC's alleged slander was published - he then went on to state that CA herself had slandered his client during the same media interview. Therefore, since this all occurred during a single 'publication' which appears to be the basis of this claim, the question is how much of the alleged harm to ZG was caused by CA repeating KC's words, and how much was caused by what CA stated from her own opinion or beliefs?

ZG's claim is essentially that KC caused her harm for which adequate compensation would be $15,000, but since JM has now accused CA of being the cause of that harm (or a part of it), how can he now argue that KC is responsible for all $15,000 worth of it? Whatever harm ZG is alleged to have suffered is one unique experience which stems from a single cause - being questioned in relation to the 'nanny' story. She can't claim that what KC said caused her to lose her job/suffer harassment/be treated with suspicion or whatever, but at the same time also claim that what CA said (of her own accord) was the cause of what she has allegedly suffered. She didn't lose her job or her reputation twice! In any case, CA is not currently a party to the claim, so the court could only award damages to ZG in respect of KC's share of the overall liability, whatever that would be deemed to be. Nice one Mr M, you've clearly acted in your client's best interests - NOT!

 

[MAMABEAR]

lol! Mama, I truly believe Cindy will have her day. There is a principle of sowing and reaping, and she has already been the unfortunate recipient of her past sowing. Anyhow, I thought Mitnik and Morgan more than held their own with her antics. She is certainly a bully and I think most people do concede to bully's. But I was impressed with the way these attorney's handled very difficult (an understatement!) depositions.

Yes, they did do a good job considering what they had to work with. I think I might have misspelled a word in that last post. When I said--->"Where are women Lawyers? Can't wait for one of them to get hold of that sow. She won't intimidate a female like she seems to a male." I was saying, "SOW"---->old female pig. How do you spell that word? I have dyslexia and have a hard time saying what is in my head. LOL

 

[Devon]

People can say otherwise, but you simply cannot, in the ordinary course of getting homeowner's insurance, insure against intentional wrongdoing by the policy holders themselves. You can't choose to do harm and have someone else pay for the consequences. If a tree limb snaps off a tree in your yard and strikes and injures a couple you've invited over for dinner, you will likely have coverage. If you get mad at the couple because they didn't like your chicken recipe, and you beat the stuffing out of them, causing serious bodily harm, or you have your daughter who lives there do it for you, OR you go on local tv and say that both of them are elementary school teachers and pedophiles -- no coverage. We aren't talking about a business for which there may be some sort of bond or coverage in case your employees who all handle others' money steal it (like for bank tellers).

Thanks for the further clarification. I did think it a bit odd that cover was available under home insurance for liability in respect of civil suits unconnected with your property, and UK home insurance certainly would never include such coverage, but since I am not familiar with how US insurance works I accepted that it may be the case.

 

[amethyst221]

Yes, but unfortunately he didn't limit his interrogation to establishing that CA was the instrument by which KC's alleged slander was published - he then went on to state that CA herself had slandered his client during the same media interview. Therefore, since this all occurred during a single 'publication' which appears to be the basis of this claim, the question is how much of the alleged harm to ZG was caused by CA repeating KC's words, and how much was caused by what CA stated from her own opinion or beliefs?

ZG's claim is essentially that KC caused her harm for which adequate compensation would be $15,000, but since JM has now accused CA of being the cause of that harm (or a part of it), how can he now argue that KC is responsible for all $15,000 worth of it? Whatever harm ZG is alleged to have suffered is one unique experience which stems from a single cause - being questioned in relation to the 'nanny' story. She can't claim that what KC said caused her to lose her job/suffer harassment/be treated with suspicion or whatever, but at the same time also claim that what CA said (of her own accord) was the cause of what she has allegedly suffered. She didn't lose her job or her reputation twice! In any case, CA is not currently a party to the claim, so the court could only award damages to ZG in respect of KC's share of the overall liability, whatever that would be deemed to be. Nice one Mr M, you've clearly acted in your client's best interests - NOT!

What you've just stated may be your take on things, to which you are certainly entitled, but it does not represent the applicable law, IMO. I wouldn't expect you to trust any claim I might make about what the law is, but maybe you could find a good legal treatise you do trust to see what it says about every publication of a defamation being a separate tort, damages, pleading, etc. to see if it changes your opinion. The one thing I will note is that it is a pleading device to state that you want to recover damages of at least X amount of dollars, $15,000 for example. It often has to do with the actual subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff isn't bound or restricted to recovering that exact amount.

 

[abbra]

If she treats the lawyers and the law with such contempt can you imagine how she has treated her kids all these years. No wonder that family is all screwed up. Look at the Matriarch!

 

[Devon]

KC has nothing, a little prison acct kept fat by donations. Unless she is found not guilty, it is all she will ever have.

Cindy on the other hand stands to make a lot of green over the next few years, after her daughter is locked away for good. I think he is just following the money.

When he signed ZG, Morgan already had an idea how this was going to play out. Initially I saw no point in going after KC in a civil suit, knowing KC would never walk away from murder charges. But since KC, not Cindy was the one who started this whole business, he had to go after KC to draw Cindy into it. I think this was his plan all along, I don't think BC ever saw it coming and Cindy walked straight into it.

If he now adds CA as a party to the claim, she would have potential joint liability for the alleged harm, apportioned according to degree of fault, but ZG would still not get more than the full damages claimed in total. So if e.g. the court were to rule that CA's liability was 40% then ZG might actually get that share of the claim because CA has some property/money, but she would likely still get zilch in respect of KC's 60% liability because she has nothing! It remains to be seen however, whether CA gets added as co-defendant.

 

[Paintr]

What you've just stated may be your take on things, to which you are certainly entitled, but it does not represent the applicable law, IMO. I wouldn't expect you to trust any claim I might make about what the law is, but maybe you could find a good legal treatise you do trust to see what it says about every publication of a defamation being a separate tort, damages, pleading, etc. to see if it changes your opinion. The one thing I will note is that it is a pleading device to state that you want to recover damages of at least X amount of dollars, $15,000 for example. It often has to do with the actual subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff isn't bound or restricted to recovering that exact amount.

Excellent post!:dance::dance::dance:

I hope ZFG proves her case and is adequately compensated.

 

[Oakley]

Yes, they did do a good job considering what they had to work with. I think I might have misspelled a word in that last post. When I said--->"Where are women Lawyers? Can't wait for one of them to get hold of that sow. She won't intimidate a female like she seems to a male." I was saying, "SOW"---->old female pig. How do you spell that word? I have dyslexia and have a hard time saying what is in my head. LOL

That is the correct spelling.

 

[Valhall]

If he now adds CA as a party to the claim, she would have potential joint liability for the alleged harm, apportioned according to degree of fault, but ZG would still not get more than the full damages claimed in total. So if e.g. the court were to rule that CA's liability was 40% then ZG might actually get that share of the claim because CA has some property/money, but she would likely still get zilch in respect of KC's 60% liability because she has nothing! It remains to be seen however, whether CA gets added as co-defendant.

I really think you might be missing his intent. I believe this whole line of questioning was to establish that the defamatory statement was published by KC via CA. If you notice he makes sure to cover the fact that 1. CA was told by LE that they had shown KC a picture of THIS Zenaida and KC did not identify her as "Zani", 2.) that CA had discussed this with KC, and KC had the opportunity to verify that LE had shown her the picture and THIS Zenaida was not Zani, and instead denied the whole event, 3.) he then forced CA to either say that she thought LE was lying, or she believed KC. This is really where CA starts losing in this particular line of questioning because she said neither. In other words, she has now stated in a deposition that she was told something by LE that she has now refused to say was a lie, and that she was unclear if KC was being honest when she denied what LE stated. But she went ahead and PUBLISHED KC's claim against a Zenaida at Sawgrass. And she published KC's defamatory statement in a broad media outlet.

Now, aside from that, he can either pursue a second defamation suit against CA or not, but CA REPEATING a false, defamatory statement first published (and it was published) by KC does not limit the degree to which KC's original statements caused damage to ZFG. In fact, it can increase it because CA's repetition of the statement broadened the audience to which the statement was published.

 

[LCoastMom]

Yes, they did do a good job considering what they had to work with. I think I might have misspelled a word in that last post. When I said--->"Where are women Lawyers? Can't wait for one of them to get hold of that sow. She won't intimidate a female like she seems to a male." I was saying, "SOW"---->old female pig. How do you spell that word? I have dyslexia and have a hard time saying what is in my head. LOL

I thought you summed it up quite beautifully! Your posts are informative with just the right twist of anger and/or humor to make your point or tickle a funny bone. Sow is just what you thought, "The female of swine, or of the hog kind." I wish we had a smiley for it, sow is so fitting the way she sits there jawing on a piece of gum with her mouth open....

 

[LCoastMom]

If he now adds CA as a party to the claim, she would have potential joint liability for the alleged harm, apportioned according to degree of fault, but ZG would still not get more than the full damages claimed in total. So if e.g. the court were to rule that CA's liability was 40% then ZG might actually get that share of the claim because CA has some property/money, but she would likely still get zilch in respect of KC's 60% liability because she has nothing! It remains to be seen however, whether CA gets added as co-defendant.

I'm figuring they're going to want 51/49, and if he goes after KC alone she gets nothing. I don't understand your confusion?

 

[logic13]

July 15th.

Dispatch: 911. What’s your emergency?
Cindy: I called a little bit ago. The deputy sheriff ‘s (inaudible). My granddaughter has been taken. She has been missing for a month. Her mother finally admitted that she’s been missing. I want someone here now.
Dispatch: OK, what is the address that you’re calling from?

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Sidebar/2008/7/24/transcript_of_second_911_call_from_cindy_anthony.html


CA considered her missing from the day she left Hopespring Drive.

What is your point? That on July 15th... 13 days after she posted the myspace that she finds out Caylee has been missing for 31 days....

Please clarify your post.. I don't get it.

 

[LambChop]

I believe the $15,000 claim on the lawsuit is to get it filed in court. It can be changed. Legal experts weigh in. And in my opinion Cindy did more damage with her depo testimony. You can see the resentment in her face and hear it in her voice. George did his job trying to show there was no malice towards ZG. Cindy over-cooked her own goose!!! IMO

 

[Devon]

I'm figuring they're going to want 51/49, and if he goes after KC alone she gets nothing. I don't understand your confusion?

I don't have any confusion. KC is the only defendant named in this suit at present.

 

[Dear Prudence]

In my mind I keep coming back to the phone #'s and addresses Cindy said she had (but now no longer has) of the nanny's. This is a real bombshell to me, hint hint Nancy G. Does anyone remember hearing her say this or anything like this at any other time? I sure don't. I would love someone to ask her what these numbers were listed under in the address book - Nanny, Zanny, Zenaida, Gonzalez, what? Cindy says she never called these numbers, ever! That is soooo strange. I would think she would have called sometime between 6/16 and 7/15, and especially after 7/16. At one point in the depo she says she gave them to JB and later says she gave everything she had to LE. And she did not investigate these herself or give them to her PI. I am just having such a hard time wrapping my brain around this. It seems like such an obvious lie, but why would she do that? Don't you know Det. Melich and crew are checking this out now. I really can't wait to find out if she really did give them to Baez, LE, both or neither.