I don't understand what you're trying to say. We really don't know if Caylee's name was purposely misspelled. Why does it matter what pic of ZFG she was shown? There could be many reasons to have a car with out of state tags. What's ironic is the fact that KC kept referencing a NY connection.
ZFG lost her job over this, her name will forever be synonymous with the death of Caylee Anthony. I wouldn't blame anyone with that name for suing KC. This woman though, was at sawgrass. IMO she has a good case and a civil suit is always about some sort of compensation.
100% agree. Excellent post, Mom of Five! Haven't read most of the thread but had to comment here.
And since I'm commenting, as for the questions generally, I thought they were absolutely excellent and now must agree with Morgan that they have probably the best defamation lawyer in the state on the case. I also think the court will allow most, if not all, of the questions. moo
My favorite question was asking about the rate of pay for the alleged nanny. Oh my, how to answer, how to answer, how to answer?? If she puts down any amount whatsoever, $5 a month, then the follow up question is where did she get the $$? How many times is sure to be proved wrong; it's not like the perp has a work schedule to which she can refer.
Also liked how they pointed out the Casey's discrepancies in the number of ZG's children. (Remember, according to Morgan, she gave the specific names of the two children that were listed on the rental forms from Sawgrass.) She couldn't keep her story straight from document to document in the same case!!
As for the questions about whom she told what about the babysitter, that's to prove that she spread this slander further than LE, like JB tried to claim. Remember that one? She only told LE, it was LE that put it out to the public. Yeah, right. She had told the G's, her parents, at least some of her friends and who knows who all else? And once she lists all of them, and they're deposed...
Some of the questions are aimed at clearing ZFG, making it clear this was not the person to whom she referred, which is the stated purpose of the suit. However, think about it for a second --- if she describes this person to a degree that is not easily mistaken for another, such as having two children with the same names as given by KC; driving a similar car; NY residence prior to FL; etc. etc. --- then it's also more proof of the defamation. She didn't do anything but KC pointed the finger at her anyway. Clever. Can't just look at the questions; have to also consider the follow up questions. And if this is what this guy has on paper, imagine what he would do in a live depo.
Someone asked about a bathing suit. My guess is that they have KC on tape or witnesses stating KC told them about beach outings with ZFG; or conversely, they have her on tape saying she could have had tattoos that were not visible; or with KC, probably both. They're trying to lock her into an answer on this to prove her lack of credibility, imo.
Some also asked about the visit to Sawgrass. #6 asks her to state
each time she went, where, with whom and why. That would cover dates in question. Morgan has seemed pretty certain throughout that KC got the info from Sawgrass. He knows something; a fingerprint on the form? a witness? a former lover? He's seems so sure, I just have to wonder what he has...
#14 -- which phonebook?? I had to laugh out loud at that one.
#16, #17 were also commented upon. I think they're fair questions. #16 - Either she knows or she doesn't. If she doesn't, she can't blame their client, now can she? #17 - Either she did or she didn't. Easy enough for an innocent person, yes/no questions, she doesn't have to get into theorizing.
I can't understand the reasoning of the defense in pleading the 5th on #17 unless they are planning to come up with a whole new pack of lies, er, I mean, story to explain events that would include some culpability for KC, such as an accidental death.
Any other ideas why #17 isn't being answered, anyone?