NavySubMom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 31
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: