Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[NavySubMom]

Sorry - misunderstood you. I have no idea what the question of Caylee's paternity has to do with anything at all.

Clearly OCA was a bit of a party gal and has no idea who it was. The father hasn't ever been in Caylee's life, isn't on her birth certificate as far as I know so why they asked that question I have no idea except to further perpetuate how much she lies...IMO

Am I way off base here? Why do you think it is important? I'm interested...

I find the intricacies of these proceedings interesting some times, and this just baffled me..... There has to be a reason Munyon decided FCA did not have to answer this question. I'm just curious what exactly Greene really seemed to want to tell Munyon privately in-camera without the TES attorneys, and then with CM/LF in there, and then afterwards Munyon ordering the notes from that hearing not be transcribed and sealed, but WITHOUT the TES attorneys getting to know anything that went on in there. Something is just bugging me about this question in particular, I can't exactly put my finger on it.

FCA's attys. must have thought Munyon might make FCA answer several of the depo questions in this TES case (versus none in the ZG case), and it seems they really wanted to get in there and tell Munyon something, along with CM/LF for extra measure, and I am just wondering what that was. JB gave his scenario in the opening statement of the criminal trial (which I know is not evidence), so that is all out there as what supposedly happened to Caylee, the drowning, but now is FCA saying something a little DIFFERENT really happened? or something about JB and that opening statement they wanted to relate to Munyon??? about FCA thinking AT THAT TIME that GA was Caylee's father and he threatened her or her fear of GA, along those lines, so since GA was there when TES was there, her fear of GA somehow relating to her molesting her..... I know :floorlaugh:, I have become a HUGE conspiracy theorist :crazy: after witnessing the depths of deception that went on in this trial by the DT. :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

versus the rape scenario or party girl scenario for Caylee's father. If FCA just wanted to say " I don't know who Caylee's father is", that would not be incriminating, IMO. So I would think her answer would be AT THAT TIME she thought GA was the father, something along those lines?? The paternity tests weren't done until after FCA was charged with murder, and in her psych depo docs recently released she indicated she initially thought GA was Caylee's father (I do not in any sense believe GA molested FCA), until the paternity test said he wasn't, then she came up with the date-rape scenario. Since this paternity information was not supposed to be allowed to even be brought into the trial (I know JB asked about Caylee's paternity after being told not to ask) why would paternity be significant if there was a retrial on the 4x lying charges or how does this incriminate FCA in her appeal if she answers this, why is she allowed to take the 5th on this re: a link in the chain of evidence in her lying appeal.

I wanted to get a WS lawyer's take on this....

Sometimes I think myself into circles and can't even explain what I am trying to say :maddening:, but I think I do have a point I think in there somewhere...... or maybe not, I am thoroughly confused myself reading what I wrote, :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :crazy: :crazy:

 

[NavySubMom]

anyway, after that long explanation, I targeted that #5 question about Caylee's paternity in the Interrogatories, and I wish I could cut&paste from the actual Order, but I can't seem to, but in the Judge's Order

2nd paragraph

the Judge references "Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to Defendant numbers 4 and 5" specifically, that those are what Defendant's counsel provided a detailed explanation for FCA's assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights, and #5 is specifically about Caylee's paternity. So they explained something specific about Caylee's paternity to Munyon in that in-camera hearing where the notes are sealed, to help her make her decision about FCA pleading the Fifth, and I was just wondering why that would apply to her lying appeal, and surmising what they found so important to tell her about that.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[logicalgirl]

It would have been important to Caylee!! I was adopted and although it was a huge letdown, I'm still glad I found out my nationality and where I came from. Everyone needs to know their roots! I'm sure little Caylee knows who he is now. :

OMG! Sorry I didn't mean to upset you or imply it wasn't generally very important. I can't see what bearing it has on the case, which is what we were discussing. Sorry! :blowkiss:

 

[NavySubMom]

OMG! Sorry I didn't mean to upset you or imply it wasn't generally very important. I can't see what bearing it has on the case, which is what we were discussing. Sorry! :blowkiss:

bbm, I agree, can't figure out what, but something Greene/Mason/Fryer told the judge, specifically about Interrogatory question #5: Caylee's paternity, DOES have some bearing on the link in the chain between Caylee's paternity and the lying convictions -- per the in-camera meeting and Munyon's ultimate Order that FCA does not have to answer that question about paternity and she can plead the Fifth on it.

I wonder what the heck they told Munyon in there, but we will never know :maddening:

 

[logicalgirl]

I find the intricacies of these proceedings interesting some times, and this just baffled me..... There has to be a reason Munyon decided FCA did not have to answer this question. I'm just curious what exactly Greene really seemed to want to tell Munyon privately in-camera without the TES attorneys, and then with CM/LF in there, and then afterwards Munyon ordering the notes from that hearing not be transcribed and sealed, but WITHOUT the TES attorneys getting to know anything that went on in there. Something is just bugging me about this question in particular, I can't exactly put my finger on it.

FCA's attys. must have thought Munyon might make FCA answer several of the depo questions in this TES case (versus none in the ZG case), and it seems they really wanted to get in there and tell Munyon something, along with CM/LF for extra measure, and I am just wondering what that was. JB gave his scenario in the opening statement of the criminal trial (which I know is not evidence), so that is all out there as what supposedly happened to Caylee, the drowning, but now is FCA saying something a little DIFFERENT really happened? or something about JB and that opening statement they wanted to relate to Munyon??? about FCA thinking AT THAT TIME that GA was Caylee's father and he threatened her or her fear of GA, along those lines, so since GA was there when TES was there, her fear of GA somehow relating to her molesting her..... I know :floorlaugh:, I have become a HUGE conspiracy theorist :crazy: after witnessing the depths of deception that went on in this trial by the DT. :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:


versus the rape scenario or party girl scenario for Caylee's father. If FCA just wanted to say " I don't know who Caylee's father is", that would not be incriminating, IMO. So I would think her answer would be AT THAT TIME she thought GA was the father, something along those lines?? The paternity tests weren't done until after FCA was charged with murder, and in her psych depo docs recently released she indicated she initially thought GA was Caylee's father (I do not in any sense believe GA molested FCA), until the paternity test said he wasn't, then she came up with the date-rape scenario. Since this paternity information was not supposed to be allowed to even be brought into the trial (I know JB asked about Caylee's paternity after being told not to ask) why would paternity be significant if there was a retrial on the 4x lying charges or how does this incriminate FCA in her appeal if she answers this, why is she allowed to take the 5th on this re: a link in the chain of evidence in her lying appeal.

I wanted to get a WS lawyer's take on this....

Sometimes I think myself into circles and can't even explain what I am trying to say :maddening:, but I think I do have a point I think in there somewhere...... or maybe not, I am thoroughly confused myself reading what I wrote, :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :crazy: :crazy:

BBM: Was that before or after Jesse "was the father"?

AZLawyer has said she thinks OCA will just deny knowing Caylee was dead on June 16th, drowned or otherwise. As much as I respect AZ and her opinion/knowledge - I'm going to reserve judgment because I can't see how lying again and opening herself up to her own guilt is going to help her with this judge and jury to get a ruling in her favor.

 

[logicalgirl]

bbm, I agree, can't figure out what, but something Greene/Mason/Fryer told the judge, specifically about Interrogatory question #5: Caylee's paternity, DOES have some bearing on the link in the chain between Caylee's paternity and the lying convictions -- per the in-camera meeting and Munyon's ultimate Order that FCA does not have to answer that question about paternity and she can plead the Fifth on it.

I wonder what the heck they told Munyon in there, but we will never know :maddening:

Why not just repeat the lie that Caylee was a result of a date rape when OCA was passed out at a party? :furious:

Good reason to be able to say she has no idea and still let her be the victim.:furious:

 

[bayouland]

bbm, I agree, can't figure out what, but something Greene/Mason/Fryer told the judge, specifically about Interrogatory question #5: Caylee's paternity, DOES have some bearing on the link in the chain between Caylee's paternity and the lying convictions -- per the in-camera meeting and Munyon's ultimate Order that FCA does not have to answer that question about paternity and she can plead the Fifth on it.

I wonder what the heck they told Munyon in there, but we will never know :maddening:

(Not to butt in but.....) AZLawyer said it could be argued irrelevant so I can see CM making a very good case that it is just that.

Maybe they argued this was just harassment, intended to embarass their client, humiliating, and had zero bearing on the case. Sometimes things are more simple than they seem.

JMO.

 

[NavySubMom]

(Not to butt in but.....) AZLawyer said it could be argued irrelevant so I can see CM making a very good case that it is just that.

Maybe they argued this was just harassment, intended to embarass their client, humiliating, and had zero bearing on the case. Sometimes things are more simple than they seem.

JMO.

I'm glad you butted in bayouland, I love to see your dancing Avatar!!

and I'm going to drop it now, I just asked the question, and then got asked why I was asking, so I explained,

and if the Judge made her Order that FCA did not have to answer based on Relevance, as AZ said, I would not have asked my question in the first place, but the judge made her Order re: Caylee's paternity based on violating FCA's Fifth Amendment rights, and I don't understand that reasoning, and AZ said she did not understand that reasoning, either, soooooooo.......

back to the SideBar thread until the next step on this TES case, I guess, which will be when we get to see FCA's written answers to those 2 questions, unless she gets MORE special treatment and the Judge seals them :maddening: :maddening: .

 

[bayouland]

I'm glad you butted in bayouland, I love to see your dancing Avatar!!

and I'm going to drop it now, I just asked the question, and then got asked why I was asking, so I explained,

and if the Judge made her Order that FCA did not have to answer based on Relevance, as AZ said, I would not have asked my question in the first place, but the judge made her Order re: Caylee's paternity based on violating FCA's Fifth Amendment rights, and I don't understand that reasoning, and AZ said she did not understand that reasoning, either, soooooooo.......

back to the SideBar thread until the next step on this TES case, I guess, which will be when we get to see FCA's written answers to those 2 questions, unless she gets MORE special treatment and the Judge seals them :maddening: :maddening: .

Thanks! You make excellent points, you really do, I love your insight and passion. Just to add a thought though, I hope you don't mind.

I feel the game has changed from when it was with Baez. I know some will think I am nuts and will dismiss this but this is my opinion.

CM and LF give credibility to FCA's case that she desperately needs. In this particular situation of admissions, I really think alot of it is all about credibility. I think when CM and LF speak, the Judge listens.

In this question of paternity, how can it be relevant at all?

A side note regarding credibility (the Judges could care less if he shot all of us and the press a bird, it is a personna thing), CM has a good reputation and a long history in Orange County, he knows the Judges, he knows the law and LF is an added bonus that has NO baggage, a good reputation as an up and coming attorney.

Baez, on the other hand, has had numerous Bar complaints, has a lousy reputation and is a nobody in Orange County.

Again, JMO, but for FCA, if she listens, the outcome can change dramatically. She has probably been recently advised to shut up, chill out, and wait this thing out.

I give them credit. It looks like they are doing everything they can to get this defiant child of a client back in line. As much as I hate her, FCA is on a much better path than she was with Baez and she is very lucky that they are even representing her.

JMO

 

[jon_burrows]

Yes,but I think her team will push that it was not her responsibility to tell TES where Caylee was. I'm not agreeing ,just think that if she says she knew Caylee was dead that they still have an argument.

This really is quite convoluted. Wish Cindy could get sued or arrested for something,too. I'm mean,that way.

BBM - ITA (except for the part about being mean).

Laws were broken by CA during a capital murder case. Caylee deserves justice and CA needs to be held accountable for her crimes.

IMO

 

[bayouland]

BBM - ITA (except for the part about being mean).

Laws were broken by CA during a capital murder case. Caylee deserves justice and CA needs to be held accountable for her crimes.

IMO

I will never understand why they didn't go after her for tampering with evidence. She KNEW it was evidence, the SA's knew it was evidence, WHY?

Well, JMO, but they conceded and thought she would be their loyal and faithful witness. She fooled them didn't she?

Perjury, what was it all the pundits said? No one prosecutes families for perjury, it is nomal and expected.

Bullsheeeeeeeit, not to the degree that Cindy Anthony got away with.

She should have been prosecuted, she should be in jail.

JMO.

 

[logicalgirl]

Thanks! You make excellent points, you really do, I love your insight and passion. Just to add a thought though, I hope you don't mind.

I feel the game has changed from when it was with Baez. I know some will think I am nuts and will dismiss this but this is my opinion.

CM and LF give credibility to FCA's case that she desperately needs. In this particular situation of admissions, I really think alot of it is all about credibility. I think when CM and LF speak, the Judge listens.

In this question of paternity, how can it be relevant at all?

A side note regarding credibility (the Judges could care less if he shot all of us and the press a bird, it is a personna thing), CM has a good reputation and a long history in Orange County, he knows the Judges, he knows the law and LF is an added bonus that has NO baggage, a good reputation as an up and coming attorney.

Baez, on the other hand, has had numerous Bar complaints, has a lousy reputation and is a nobody in Orange County.

Again, JMO, but for FCA, if she listens, the outcome can change dramatically. She has probably been recently advised to shut up, chill out, and wait this thing out.

I give them credit. It looks like they are doing everything they can to get this defiant child of a client back in line. As much as I hate her, FCA is on a much better path than she was with Baez and she is very lucky that they are even representing her.

JMO

Ha! You know I love you dearly but name me one motion CM has won in the long winding saga....just one!!! I don't know about getting her in line - I think the majority of it is going clean over their heads and they aren't even aware of it.

At least Baez was another grifter and not much OCA could pull wasn't something he'd already thought of. IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

I will never understand why they didn't go after her for tampering with evidence. She KNEW it was evidence, the SA's knew it was evidence, WHY?

Well, JMO, but they conceded and thought she would be their loyal and faithful witness. She fooled them didn't she?

Perjury, what was it all the pundits said? No one prosecutes families for perjury, it is nomal and expected.

Bullsheeeeeeeit, not to the degree that Cindy Anthony got away with.

She should have been prosecuted, she should be in jail.

JMO.

Ashton said because the State's Attorney wanted the drama to end and didn't want to spend the money when he wasn't sure they would get a conviction. Apparently almost all relatives lie about their charged relatives...:waitasec:

 

[bayouland]

Ha! You know I love you dearly but name me one motion CM has won in the long winding saga....just one!!! I don't know about getting her in line - I think the majority of it is going clean over their heads and they aren't even aware of it.

At least Baez was another grifter and not much OCA could pull wasn't something he'd already thought of. IMO

I won't cite you any motions that he has won, but there is no disputing the reputation that he has in Orange County and that is my point. Judges do listen to those who have credibility.

http://www.jcheneymason.com/new_page_8.htm#Awards and Special Recognition:

As for her getting in line, I am hoping she doesn't but my point is that she has better chances with them than with Baez.

 

[NavySubMom]

Thanks! You make excellent points, you really do, I love your insight and passion. Just to add a thought though, I hope you don't mind.

I feel the game has changed from when it was with Baez. I know some will think I am nuts and will dismiss this but this is my opinion.

CM and LF give credibility to FCA's case that she desperately needs. In this particular situation of admissions, I really think alot of it is all about credibility. I think when CM and LF speak, the Judge listens.

In this question of paternity, how can it be relevant at all?

A side note regarding credibility (the Judges could care less if he shot all of us and the press a bird, it is a personna thing), CM has a good reputation and a long history in Orange County, he knows the Judges, he knows the law and LF is an added bonus that has NO baggage, a good reputation as an up and coming attorney.

Baez, on the other hand, has had numerous Bar complaints, has a lousy reputation and is a nobody in Orange County.

Again, JMO, but for FCA, if she listens, the outcome can change dramatically. She has probably been recently advised to shut up, chill out, and wait this thing out.

I give them credit. It looks like they are doing everything they can to get this defiant child of a client back in line. As much as I hate her, FCA is on a much better path than she was with Baez and she is very lucky that they are even representing her.

JMO

I know I am :deadhorse:, but bbm, that is EXACTLY my point, how can it be relevant, or WHY is that question relevant?? so my whole initial question was:

why does FCA NOT have to answer the question about Caylee's paternity??? -- when you read the Order, the Judge said she does NOT have to answer it because of something specifically her DT told her in-camera yesterday specifically about that question #5, so somehow it ** IS ** relevant.

Aahhhhhhh, anyway Bayouland, I do agree with all you said about CM/LF vs. JB, but I don't know if anyone can steer FCA where she needs to go, I wonder if she will ever listen to anybody.....

this whole case has made me NUTS!!!!!! :seeya:

 

[bayouland]

I know I am :deadhorse:, but bbm, that is EXACTLY my point, how can it be relevant, or WHY is that question relevant?? so my whole initial question was:

why does FCA NOT have to answer the question about Caylee's paternity??? -- when you read the Order, the Judge said she does NOT have to answer it because of something specifically her DT told her in-camera yesterday specifically about that question #5, so somehow it ** IS ** relevant.

Aahhhhhhh, anyway Bayouland, I do agree with all you said about CM/LF vs. JB, but I don't know if anyone can steer FCA where she needs to go, I wonder if she will ever listen to anybody.....

this whole case has made me NUTS!!!!!! :seeya:

And made me nuts as well.

I do see your point 100%, if it is irrelevant, why can she not answer? If it won't harm her in her appeal, why can't she answer.

IMO, because it is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the current case at all.

Love you......beat that horse girl!!!!!!!

I love all the opinions here and the fact that we can gather and discuss, even when we don't agree.

 

[Aedrys]

And made me nuts as well.

I do see your point 100%, if it is irrelevant, why can she not answer? If it won't harm her in her appeal, why can't she answer.

IMO, because it is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the current case at all.

Love you......beat that horse girl!!!!!!!

I love all the opinions here and the fact that we can gather and discuss, even when we don't agree.

I also think it's because how may lies did she put out there about who the daddy was, even now saying Caylee was conceived due to date rape? I think CM does not want to go down that alley (I'd say road, but that would be putting it way too nicely. A dirty, dingy alley fits her lies better), and probably did argue that it was totally irrelevant to the case. I don't know if it would affect her appeal, but if all of those lies came back out, it would surely show what a proficient liar Casey is, no doubt. No need to let anyone drag that up again. The only good thing for the DT and Casey is that there were so many lies and so much information in this case that if a light is not shone on it, it may get tossed aside or forgotten.

 

[bayouland]

I also think it's because how may lies did she put out there about who the daddy was, even now saying Caylee was conceived due to date rape? I think CM does not want to go down that alley (I'd say road, but that would be putting it way too nicely. A dirty, dingy alley fits her lies better), and probably did argue that it was totally irrelevant to the case. I don't know if it would affect her appeal, but if all of those lies came back out, it would surely show what a proficient liar Casey is, no doubt. No need to let anyone drag that up again. The only good thing for the DT and Casey is that there were so many lies and so much information in this case that if a light is not shone on it, it may get tossed aside or forgotten.

Good morning!

LOL. Yes, it would be hard to defend her on her lying convictions and have to admit once again that she is a big fat liar. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that closed door hearing :floorlaugh:

 

[BigMomma]

Will be pretty interesting what will happen in a few days with these 2 questions OCA will have to answer. Sure hope nothing is delayed because of what happened the other day. I agree with Bayouland(who's avatar always makes me laugh every morning-Thank you!) about the liar part. We all have seen a few terrible people in our lifetime, thru media, but I don't think any other questionable character compares to her and the family when it comes all these lies that have been told regarding the death of a child. Just Wow!

 

[ZsaZsa]

Good morning!

LOL. Yes, it would be hard to defend her on her lying convictions and have to admit once again that she is a big fat liar. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that closed door hearing :floorlaugh:

Me too! I have to think it'd be like watching my dog chasing his tail around in circles !
"But if we let her say this .... it will prove she lied about that..... what CAN we let her say?"