Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[NavySubMom]

Not sure it is possible to have had a seizure, be texting, on the computer and talking on her cell which it appears she was doing during the time of the drowning. I never got why those pings, texting info were not used in rebuttal to prove Caylee could not have drowned unless it was between her constant electronic activities which only slowed and was quiet after her father left for work????

I think TM has as good a chance as any to get money back. How many people are fed up with misuse of funds that have been donated to help the less fortunate??? jmo

I am just trying to figure out something she will come up with should she be made to speak and testify in ZFG and TES cases; the drowning, IMO, is not going to work for her. JB did state the drowning as fact, I earlier re-listened to his opening statement, as much as it pained me.

re: ZFG and TES, FCA stated her child was kidnapped and was MISSING at the time, .......I do know THAT, that is the crux of these 2 suits, but during the trial it was stated Caylee drowned on July 16, is FCA GOING TO STICK WITH THAT and DOES SHE HAVE TO STICK WITH THAT, is my question???????.

Now GA handing FCA a dead Caylee was denied by GA and FCA never spoke a word during her trial, so she will have some leeway there I think. IMO, she has to come up with something where she has no knowledge or recollection of anything that happened that day re: ZFG trial, or she is cooked. TES is a little different LEGALLY I think whether he showed up on his own, was called to come, or what FCA actually said to him. I will believe what TM says over FCA or CA ANYDAY, I am talking LEGALLY, what the law will say about it. FCA "spoke" publicly re; jailhouse tapes about ZFG. Only TM, FCA and probably CA/GA know what FCA said to TM, and of those 4 I will only believe TM.

Also, if you can pay enough $$ and find the right witness, or if a witness just wants the massive publicity, you can get a hired gun to say just about anything, testify to about anything, even though FCA has no medical records of actual seizures or mental health records of any kind for a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or some such thing, but there might be some rare case of a one-time seizure or something that causes a black-out that SOME PAID WITNESS will testify to. I am not saying I BELIEVE any of what I am typing here, I am just trying to figure a way for FCA to get out of her culpability in these 2 lawsuits........... if she is made to speak in these depos and civil trials, she HAS to come up with SOMETHING that will work......... or she has to tell the truth, which I think is impossible.

Whether she is legally locked into the drowning re: JB's opening statement (I know, NOT actual EVIDENCE), and then the EVIDENCE JB presented during the trial regarding the alleged drowning..... will rest on legal precedence and all legal "stuff" and legal mumbo-jumbo I imagine.

There was that ~1hr timeframe later in the day on the 16th when all computer/phone/electronic activity as you say, ceased, .......she could say she was beamed up by an alien spacecraft during that time and they did medical experiments on her and erased her brain and now she cannot retain any memories at all of anything that happens in the present day, and then the next thing she remembers is she was sitting at her death penalty trial and has no memory of ANYTHING AT ALL....... :floorlaugh: I am sure JB could find an 'expert" witness who would testify to that, not sure if her new atty. Greene will go that far, or not, we will have to see.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[2goldfish]

bbm, and IMO, thus the appeal of the lying convictions, from 4x down to 1x, she has already served her time for that, and the $$ fine is a drop in the bucket, stall stall stall and more delays.

I really hope this Judge makes her finally speak and make her answer questions and not hide behind pleading the 5th. I, for one, cannot wait to hear what FCA has to say, proven liar or not. and I want to watch her face and eyes and body language while she is saying it.

I think her story, should her special treatment cease and she actually be made to tell it, is going to be something like the "seizure" nonsense CA spewed in Phil, or some kind of "blackout", where she will say she has no actual memory of what actually happened, and she still has no memory today of what actually happened, and therefore she cannot be held responsible in any way, shape, or form.

because that is how she rolls, no responsibility for anything, ever. If Cynthia can step forward in these 2 cases as a witness and take some kind of responsibility from FCA again, IMO, she will, because that is how Cynthia rolls.

IMO, MOO, etc.

my bold

here is one question for anyone who knows, if the judge orders her and she continues to refuse to answer as I believe she will, can she face charges for that or because it is a civil case, does it only mean ZG/tim miller/whomever wins?

 

[NavySubMom]

my bold

here is one question for anyone who knows, if the judge orders her and she continues to refuse to answer as I believe she will, can she face charges for that or because it is a civil case, does it only mean ZG/tim miller/whomever wins?

there you go, that could be her plan all along. I am obviously not a lawyer so we will have to see on that question. I know I have heard as a WITNESS, if you just refuse to answer questions you can actually go to jail for contempt, but i don't know about pleading the 5th if you actually have grounds where you COULD be incriminated, if FCA keeps pleading the 5th after she is told she cannot, good question.

Since it is only $$ ZFG and TM are asking for, I can actually see FCA NEVER NEVER saying what actually happened that day. There is $$ that can be hidden for her and never needs to see the light of day and she can hide forever in some foreign country, in a cave maybe, become a hermit lol, and not ever pay it.

But if she wants HER OWN BIG PAYDAY interview, all of the $$ she owes the IRS, State of FLA will have to come out of it. Not sure about civil damages cases, if she will have to pay $10.00 a month on them for the rest of her life, I can see her doing something like that, NEVER speaking what actually happened that day.

if she gets her big $$ interview NOW, she can easily say "I am involved in litigation and cannot talk about anything related to the death of my daughter"

but she does have herself in a kind of Catch-22 here re: her Big Pay Day Interview or Book that her criminal DT and FCA herself are counting on ........ IF these types of things are EVEN BEING OFFERED TO HER at this point.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[Chilly Willy]

but unlike the GA molestation "theory", evidence in the way of CA testimony and photographs of Caylee going up a ladder and Caylee in the pool was presented, so IMO there WAS testimony that Caylee drowned in the pool.

IMO, the jury sure went for it......

and JB argued about the pool drowning in closing statements, because evidence was presented. He could NOT argue about the GA molestation, because NO EVIDENCE was presented about that.

that is how I see it, anyway.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Caylee being in the pool and being assisted up the ladder at some time is NOT evidence that she drowned. I have pictures of my son in a car, that doesn't mean he died in a car accident.

 

[Chilly Willy]

my bold

here is one question for anyone who knows, if the judge orders her and she continues to refuse to answer as I believe she will, can she face charges for that or because it is a civil case, does it only mean ZG/tim miller/whomever wins?

Unless all criminal charges and appeals are final, the judge can not order Casey to answer any question that may incriminate her. Unlike in a criminal case, the jury can infer guilt if Casey pleads the fifth in a civil trial. Whether Tim and Z?G win would be for the jury to decide.

 

[NavySubMom]

Caylee being in the pool and being assisted up the ladder at some time is NOT evidence that she drowned. I have pictures of my son in a car, that doesn't mean he died in a car accident.

O.K., I will stop after this, why does no one see what I am saying here???

Respectfully, I am not saying it was good/bad/indifferent evidence, maybe I am not getting the right words here.???? My post was in response to a series of posts.........

I am only saying that it was "accepted" as "evidence" by Judge Perry in the trial. It was PRESENTED as evidence by JB, et al. THE PHOTOS WERE SUBMITTED AND MARKED AS OFFICIAL EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL.

CA TESTIFIED in the trial and therefore HER TESTIMONY WAS LEGAL EVIDENCE in this trial.

I am NOT talking about the strength or BELIEVABILITY of the evidence, just that there was evidence presented, THEREFORE, Judge Perry let JB argue it in his closing arguments,

UNLIKE the GA MOLESTATION statement in opening statement, NO EVIDENCE was presented, THEREFORE, JB could NOT PER JUDGE PERRY argue the GA Molestation during Closing Arguments.

I AM DONE trying to explain this.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[2goldfish]

Unless all criminal charges and appeals are final, the judge can not order Casey to answer any question that may incriminate her. Unlike in a criminal case, the jury can infer guilt if Casey pleads the fifth in a civil trial. Whether Tim and Z?G win would be for the jury to decide.

re: my bold, I knew that much, but after the appeal she'd theoretically if it gets to that point be ordered to answer and in THAT case, refusing to answer leads her where?

 

[coco puff]

You missed the point of my question. It's the reason I brought up the runaway bride case upthread. Shouldn't all the volunteers who searched for the Wilbanks girl now have legal grounds to sue (and win) because it turns out she wasn't really missing in the first place?

I didn't miss the point. If your lie causes folks to act in good faith to help, you should face litigation. If you don't like it, then don't lie.

 

[Chilly Willy]

O.K., I will stop after this, why does no one see what I am saying here???

Respectfully, I am not saying it was good/bad/indifferent evidence, maybe I am not getting the right words here.???? My post was in response to a series of posts.........

I am only saying that it was "accepted" as "evidence" by Judge Perry in the trial. It was PRESENTED as evidence by JB, et al. THE PHOTOS WERE SUBMITTED AND MARKED AS OFFICIAL EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL.

CA TESTIFIED in the trial and therefore HER TESTIMONY WAS LEGAL EVIDENCE in this trial.

I am NOT talking about the strength or BELIEVABILITY of the evidence, just that there was evidence presented, THEREFORE, Judge Perry let JB argue it in his closing arguments,

UNLIKE the GA MOLESTATION statement in opening statement, NO EVIDENCE was presented, THEREFORE, JB could NOT PER JUDGE PERRY argue the GA Molestation during Closing Arguments.

I AM DONE trying to explain this.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Yes, it was accepted as evidence, but evidence of what? It is not evidence that Caylee drowned, only that she was possibly able to open the sliding door and climb the ladder to the pool. It means nothing. Unfortunately, the jury was not smart enough to see that.

Neither Casey nor George testified that Jose's drowning scenario actually happened. Baez was not there to witness it. His opening is not testimony and is not evidence. He could just as easily have claimed that Caylee was abducted by aliens and introduced a picture of ET as evidence. That doesn't make it fact.

 

[LinTX]

Just my :twocents: on cityslick's comments/questions. First, the 'assumption' that JB was speaking for FCA is not an assumption. He was hired by her as an attorney, he is licensed for practice by the state. He is her voice in the court. Fl State Statutes cover the fact that as an attorney he is bound to represent his client's directives in court, to confer with her regularly, and requires "that the lawyer may not counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" is criminal or fraudulent, and must consult with the client if the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct." In fact, one of the acceptable reasons for a lawyer to leave a case is if the client insists on fraud in their defense. What JB presented was as her representative (or voice) in court. According to law, not assumption.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/narr/FL_NARR_1_02.HTM#1.2:100

As for proving TM's contact with FCA, since JB himself was there, met TM and knew they were originally searching for a live Caylee, I'm pretty sure trying to argue that FCA didn't mislead TM will be pretty useless. JB did ask TM not to consult privately with his client, but other than that he voiced no objections. FCA was in and out of his conversations with CA/GA without protesting their assertions. Other than TM's word, there were both his assistant and the Padilla people, GA/CA and her own attorney there witnessing it. I don't know the rules about hearsay in civil cases, but several EquaSearch volunteers heard TM's comments about the map incident, and GA's Ohio friend was there involved in the whole thing. TM's assistant and Padilla's may have overheard the map thing too.

 

[LambChop]

Just my :twocents: on cityslick's comments/questions. First, the 'assumption' that JB was speaking for FCA is not an assumption. He was hired by her as an attorney, he is licensed for practice by the state. He is her voice in the court. Fl State Statutes cover the fact that as an attorney he is bound to represent his client's directives in court, to confer with her regularly, and requires "that the lawyer may not counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" is criminal or fraudulent, and must consult with the client if the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct." In fact, one of the acceptable reasons for a lawyer to leave a case is if the client insists on fraud in their defense. What JB presented was as her representative (or voice) in court. According to law, not assumption.
As for proving TM's contact with FCA, since JB himself was there, met TM and knew they were originally searching for a live Caylee, I'm pretty sure trying to argue that FCA didn't mislead TM will be pretty useless. JB did ask TM not to consult privately with his client, but other than that he voiced no objections. FCA was in and out of his conversations with CA/GA without protesting their assertions. Other than TM's word, there were both his assistant and the Padilla people, GA/CA and her own attorney there witnessing it. I don't know the rules about hearsay in civil cases, but several EquaSearch volunteers heard TM's comments about the map incident, and GA's Ohio friend was there involved in the whole thing. TM's assistant and Padilla's may have overheard the map thing too.

Thank you. I think you did an excellent job of getting to the point that we can all clearly understand. My problem was I was trying to give an example and the point was lost. Thanks, again.

 

[NavySubMom]

Yes, it was accepted as evidence, but evidence of what? It is not evidence that Caylee drowned, only that she was possibly able to open the sliding door and climb the ladder to the pool. It means nothing. Unfortunately, the jury was not smart enough to see that.

Neither Casey nor George testified that Jose's drowning scenario actually happened. Baez was not there to witness it. His opening is not testimony and is not evidence. He could just as easily have claimed that Caylee was abducted by aliens and introduced a picture of ET as evidence. That doesn't make it fact.

bbm, that is ALL I was saying. It was accepted as evidence by Judge Perry and JB was allowed to submit it and argue it. Period.

Evidence submitted by JB through his client FCA. I do not believe for one minute that Caylee drowned. nor that GA was there in any way, shape or form. Period. I am talking "legally", not on the merits of the evidence.

I am talking about a LEGAL THRESHOLD , that those photos as evidence of an "alleged drowning" passed a legal test by Judge Perry to be admitted, and therefore they were allowed. PERIOD. not everything an attorney asks to be submitted as actual evidence during the course of a trial is allowable, it has to pass a legal test by the Judge. I was not for these posts or these purposes posting anything on my own EMOTION or OPINION.

and for goodness sake, I am not an idiot, I freakin' KNOW that an opening statement is NEVER considered testimony in a trial.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[Chilly Willy]

bbm, that is ALL I was saying. It was accepted as evidence by Judge Perry and JB was allowed to submit it and argue it. Period.

Evidence submitted by JB through his client FCA. I do not believe for one minute that Caylee drowned. nor that GA was there in any way, shape or form. Period. I am talking "legally", not on the merits of the evidence.

I am talking about a LEGAL THRESHOLD , that those photos as evidence of an "alleged drowning" passed a legal test by Judge Perry to be admitted, and therefore they were allowed. PERIOD. not everything an attorney asks to be submitted as actual evidence during the course of a trial is allowable, it has to pass a legal test by the Judge. I was not for these posts or these purposes posting anything on my own EMOTION or OPINION.

and for goodness sake, I am not an idiot, I freakin' KNOW that an opening statement is NEVER considered testimony in a trial.

IMO, MOO, etc.

My bold and red.

I'm sorry, I never meant to imply in any way that you're an idiot. I'm merely trying to understand the point you're attempting to make. Yes, the judge allowed the photos to be used as evidence, but NOT as evidence of an 'alleged drowning' because they are NOT evidence that Caylee drowned. The pics are only evidence that Caylee may have been able to open the sliding door and may have been able to climb the pool ladder. Legally they are not evidence of an alleged drowning, as we know Caylee did not drown on the day those pictures were taken.

 

[strawberry]

bbm, that is ALL I was saying. It was accepted as evidence by Judge Perry and JB was allowed to submit it and argue it. Period.

Evidence submitted by JB through his client FCA. I do not believe for one minute that Caylee drowned. nor that GA was there in any way, shape or form. Period. I am talking "legally", not on the merits of the evidence.

I am talking about a LEGAL THRESHOLD , that those photos as evidence of an "alleged drowning" passed a legal test by Judge Perry to be admitted, and therefore they were allowed. PERIOD. not everything an attorney asks to be submitted as actual evidence during the course of a trial is allowable, it has to pass a legal test by the Judge. I was not for these posts or these purposes posting anything on my own EMOTION or OPINION.

and for goodness sake, I am not an idiot, I freakin' KNOW that an opening statement is NEVER considered testimony in a trial.

IMO, MOO, etc.

:grouphug: I agree with you..FCA "admitted" through her attorney that Caylee drowned. The ironic part is their defense lie (IMO) is what set them up for this lawsuit. I do believe she knew she was dead on that date but not because she drowned. It's kind of funny in a not funny kind of way.

 

[logicalgirl]

O.K., I will stop after this, why does no one see what I am saying here???

Respectfully, I am not saying it was good/bad/indifferent evidence, maybe I am not getting the right words here.???? My post was in response to a series of posts.........

I am only saying that it was "accepted" as "evidence" by Judge Perry in the trial. It was PRESENTED as evidence by JB, et al. THE PHOTOS WERE SUBMITTED AND MARKED AS OFFICIAL EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL.

CA TESTIFIED in the trial and therefore HER TESTIMONY WAS LEGAL EVIDENCE in this trial.

I am NOT talking about the strength or BELIEVABILITY of the evidence, just that there was evidence presented, THEREFORE, Judge Perry let JB argue it in his closing arguments,

UNLIKE the GA MOLESTATION statement in opening statement, NO EVIDENCE was presented, THEREFORE, JB could NOT PER JUDGE PERRY argue the GA Molestation during Closing Arguments.

I AM DONE trying to explain this.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Easy does it there NavySubMom - I believe we are "thinking" about your questions - some of which could/should be posted in the legal thread.

I'm not sure what appeals in the criminal court are going to apply to this civil case. OCA isn't saying she didn't lie, she is appealing the four lies, which her DT believes was only one....all the same lie....and not as HHJP rules - four.
So I don't see the relevance of this appeal holding up the civil case...

And obviously, based on the verdict of not guilty, the drowning was accepted as fact, despite coming completely from Bunkville.

And I thought you couldn't plead the 5th in a civil case? Where are our lawyers? I'm pretty sure as we get closer to a trial, OCA will be ordered to testify. Because I can't think of any plausible reason she would have for allowing TES to search for a live child. A child her lawyer stated on her behalf had been dead since June 16th.

I'm thinking of what a motion says - obviously her lawyers have written it, but they state comes now Casey Marie Anthony. And on file is only one written statement of what happened to Caylee. OCA had the opportunity to say don't search for a live child - search for a dead one who drowned and some SODDI has disposed of her body.

Girl's gotten herself in a box comprised of a rock and a hard place. Doesn't seem to see the bulldozer moving slowly but surely directly toward her.

 

[logicalgirl]

Not sure it is possible to have had a seizure, be texting, on the computer and talking on her cell which it appears she was doing during the time of the drowning. I never got why those pings, texting info were not used in rebuttal to prove Caylee could not have drowned unless it was between her constant electronic activities which only slowed and was quiet after her father left for work????

I think TM has as good a chance as any to get money back. How many people are fed up with misuse of funds that have been donated to help the less fortunate??? jmo

Especially if her lawyer continues to say what difference does it make because these funds would have been used for some other missing child anyhow.

Well Duh....isn't that the whole point?

 

[logicalgirl]

:grouphug: I agree with you..FCA "admitted" through her attorney that Caylee drowned. The ironic part is their defense lie (IMO) is what set them up for this lawsuit. I do believe she knew she was dead on that date but not because she drowned. It's kind of funny in a not funny kind of way.

I am pretty sure - say I just before I head to the legal thread to confirm - that every statement a lawyer makes has been "approved" as fact by the defendant, or in the case of an OS, as a theory, by the defendant in the courtroom.

After all isn't that the point of a lawyer - your mouthpiece with legal experience?

 

[bayouland]

O.K., I will stop after this, why does no one see what I am saying here???

Respectfully, I am not saying it was good/bad/indifferent evidence, maybe I am not getting the right words here.???? My post was in response to a series of posts.........

I am only saying that it was "accepted" as "evidence" by Judge Perry in the trial. It was PRESENTED as evidence by JB, et al. THE PHOTOS WERE SUBMITTED AND MARKED AS OFFICIAL EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL.

CA TESTIFIED in the trial and therefore HER TESTIMONY WAS LEGAL EVIDENCE in this trial.

I am NOT talking about the strength or BELIEVABILITY of the evidence, just that there was evidence presented, THEREFORE, Judge Perry let JB argue it in his closing arguments,

UNLIKE the GA MOLESTATION statement in opening statement, NO EVIDENCE was presented, THEREFORE, JB could NOT PER JUDGE PERRY argue the GA Molestation during Closing Arguments.

I AM DONE trying to explain this.

IMO, MOO, etc.

And your point is?

JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cityslick]

Just my :twocents: on cityslick's comments/questions. First, the 'assumption' that JB was speaking for FCA is not an assumption. He was hired by her as an attorney, he is licensed for practice by the state. He is her voice in the court. Fl State Statutes cover the fact that as an attorney he is bound to represent his client's directives in court, to confer with her regularly, and requires "that the lawyer may not counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" is criminal or fraudulent, and must consult with the client if the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know" that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct." In fact, one of the acceptable reasons for a lawyer to leave a case is if the client insists on fraud in their defense. What JB presented was as her representative (or voice) in court. According to law, not assumption.
As for proving TM's contact with FCA, since JB himself was there, met TM and knew they were originally searching for a live Caylee, I'm pretty sure trying to argue that FCA didn't mislead TM will be pretty useless. JB did ask TM not to consult privately with his client, but other than that he voiced no objections. FCA was in and out of his conversations with CA/GA without protesting their assertions. Other than TM's word, there were both his assistant and the Padilla people, GA/CA and her own attorney there witnessing it. I don't know the rules about hearsay in civil cases, but several EquaSearch volunteers heard TM's comments about the map incident, and GA's Ohio friend was there involved in the whole thing. TM's assistant and Padilla's may have overheard the map thing too.

Thanks for your explanation, it makes more sense to me. But my question is obviously Casey's explanation of a drowning was never proven, plus she was found not guilty of having anything to do with Caylee's disappearance/murder, so where does that leave TES as to what to prove FCA knew and didn't know at the moment he spoke with her?

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'd prefer to see her have to deal with 500 small claims suits. :great:

That is hilarious.
And she will need 500 costumes, too.

:whiteflag:eace:​

If it is not a fact and was not stated as a theory than what is it?

Simple answer:croc:

Well, the the states case is predicated of the fact that she knowingly lied to LE and was found guilty of such. It's not been proven anywhere that Casey 'lied' to TES. Yes JB presented it as fact but it is not 'fact' in the eyes of the court.

In my humble-really-humble opinion, JB made a suggestion. He cannot , in his function as an attorney doing that opening statement, present that drowning theory as a fact.
The jury is the ultimate "Finder of Fact."
Evidence is not fact. It is still evidence and it is being used in the proof of fact.
Sure there are times when a Court will take "judicial notice of a fact" but most of the time, it is the jury that is finding what is "fact."

I'm still having a hard time seeing where he has a case. It's never been proven in a court of law (or anywhere else) that Caylee 'drowned'. The only statement is JB's opening statement and last I checked, you couldn't use that as a 'legal' admission of anything in court.

Actually it varies from state to state as to whether or not these so called "judicial admissions" are binding on the defendant.

If the state's law mandates that the "admission" is binding on the client, then the next issue that will present itself is whether or not the legally binding admission from one trial is binding only in the trial where it happened or if it
is available for use at some future proceeding.

Wasn't it an admission? JB did not say "could" have drowned he said Caylee did drown. He is not suppose to knowingly lie. He can present theories but has to present them as theories as in, "She could have had her father's......." which is what he said in his opening statement. JB said Caylee died on June 16, 2008 when she drowned in the family pool. I don't think he is permitted to lie to the court, even during his opening statement. JB presented this as a fact, not a theory, which he could have only known if KC had told him. So that ship has sailed as far as whether this is KC's story or not. And, not that she could not have lied to him. But if the SA's office has a valid complaint why wouldn't TES? jmo

Yup. But you have to look at the state's law to see if it is really really an admission and after that ...is it really binding. Then that question about whether or not it is memorialized comes into play.

Yeah really - the sum total of Baez's "proof" was there actually was in pool in the back yard...:furious:

Only through the use of my keen legal eye :bullseye::bullseye: am I able to submit to you that there was also proof that there was an actual :doorhide:door.

MH:wolf:
opinions
:grouphug: did somebody say Kombayah?