ZG Hires Attorney - Lawsuit Against Casey Anthony Part 2

[IrishSweetOne]

The index.dat file (red) was created on 6/12/08, it is the container. On 7/16 (blue) the search cookie was placed into that already existing container.

Chilly in order to have a container you have to have a location that this container is sitting . So what your saying is IE5 was never used until June 12 , 2008 on that computer ??? See Full Path

Name: index.dat
Description: File, Archive
File Created: 06/12/08 11:15:29PM
Last Accessed: 06/12/08 11:15:29PM
Last Written: 07/16/08 04:20:12PM
Full Path: 08-069208\S013J10X237614\D\Documents and Settings\casey\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.IE5\index.dat

 

[Chilly Willy]

How do you know this?

It is in the report.

 

[Tate]

It is in the report.

Can you cite where?

 

[princess]

I can, until I learn otherwise. I base my opinions on the facts that are presented and proven. Morgan can't go into court and say he assumes there were earlier searches, he'll have to provide proof.

Morgon does not need what KC searched on the computer to prove his case. He has enough with the Sawgrass Apt. connection. IMO


LE has the results of many more searches of many things, including the chloroform searches that were done prior to Caylees disaperence..they do not have to release that now and they purposely have not...they are holding off on somethings for when they charge KC with murder.
Just like the witness list, they have a heck of a lot more people but will use them for the murder trail as well..
MOO

 

[Brini]

In her description her nanny is 25 years old, this certainly does not match the ZFG in this suit at all. Of course she has disregard for the law of course she is responsible for her actions, but this case is based on laws, legal statutes that in my opinion will not hold up in court. Again there is not one thing you can say, no matter how many uphamisms you decide to use, that will change my mind, find a law that fits the crime and I will buy of on it, this one does not.

Keep debating me if you wish the outcome will not change, the court will decide and in my opinion the case will fail. I hope I am wrong but even JM in my honest opinion knows this, he mentioned it is not about money, because for one he knows if he does win he will get zero and for two he probably has no doubt the case is a looser because as he also mentioned this case is about pushing back, To me those are defeatist words. Had he said knocking Casey on her patootie I would see those words as winner words. Nobody wins a pushing match.

He also mentioned it’s about clearing ZFG's name, hmmm how many people have heard now it is not her it never was her the law cleared her name, now this suit is in the public eye. I think her name is clear now, but that aside as well, what if he fails? Does that mean her name is not cleared? Not in my opinion because the point is bringing this case in the public eye once that is done then they see it in the media (that filed her to start with) then she should have some alleviation from the mess started. And JM knows this too IMHO, but say it does fail? Some of the "dumb" people that have not listened to the words of the LE that cleared this woman from the get go may say, she lost in court it must be her! This could do as much damage as it could do good.

Again, I truly wish she wins on one hand. But on the other hand if she does I fear we will ALL have lost some personal rights and maybe we should never speak again to anyone for fear of a suit ourselves. I personally am not that willing to give my freedom of speech so easily.

I have defended this person since day one of my ever posting about this case. I will continue to do so because I believe she is innocent and I do feel Casey stole some information from her somehow that she used in her make believe story about her make believe nanny. (Again this is my opinion because I also hope that is false and that there is a real Nanny somewhere out there with this same name I just doubt it.) I just do not feel the law they are using to sue Casey is the appropriate one.

Again keep debating me if you wish, but nothing you have said so far has changed my mind so far, not even come close either, and I suspect that unless you can find a different law to base this on that nothing ever will.

And IMHO the media should not be requesting information on a case such as this because they want to provide the public with every words said in private and release all of that information to the public in complete disregard to any potential lies about individuals contains within those very documents. There is a legal right to freedom of information but they also have an obligation to NOT print/broadcast Libel, Slander and words that would be considered Defamation of Character. This is in fact in these statutes that JM is using in his case against Casey. If he was going after them for their negligence I would be praising this suit in a heart beat. I will just leave it at that because that bothers me the most of all in this case, why is he not pressing this case against that front.... Maybe figures they have smarter attorney's.....

The problem is STILL that the media simply released what LE gave them, and LE released what KC gave them.

The media is obligated to release what the criminal complaint says. Period. They also released the clearing of the suspect. They moreover released what KC said to her bodyguard about the "mugging." Ensuring that KC tells the truth is not their job,

I know it's sad that KC is being asked to account for her own misdeeds, but, them's the breaks!

Again, descriptions of kidnappers are not confidential, Again, they are routinely released to the public. Again, the police are not responsible for KC's lies-- KC is.

And, yet again, every detail doesn't HAVE to match. Enough has to be there to convince the average man on the street. Again, there are people on THIS w/s who still think ZG did it, and, sadly, yes, that is still KC's fault. Some of the people who are still into the kidnap theory are also the ones who are in denial about the forensics.

The point of the entire exercise-- had KC not accused ZG, ZG would no have had problems. Bottom line.

And, ZG's lawyer saying "it's not about money" is predictable-- KC doesn't HAVE any money. He knows he'll win, but not get much, if anything in monetary damages.

 

[Brini]

Someone asked earlier about her losing her job prior to the events Casey started or after the events Casey started. I posted some information above that I could find but even on JM's website for this case they only say she "claims" she lost her job. Why not jsut say she lost her job, why the confusing "claims." I thought I heard her say in one of the interviews that she lost it prior, I am still seaking this out fully.

Also some more information on her name, people asked does she use a middle, or mentioned if it's a hyphanated last name then it's not a middle name and maybe that's why she said she had no middle name.

On JM's website they only use the Z and the G parts for her name. No middle name or hyphenated name.
http://www.forthepeople.com/Zenaida_Gonzalez_Defamation_Suit.htm

If I were Casey's lawyer I would say, "how can they claim we have caused issues when this either isn't her name or she never uses it anyway. Or somehting of that nature. Them not using her correct name on their website the full (ZFG) only makes the case weaker if you ask me. If that is her real full name, we have some conflicting information here on which to base this.

It WAS used on her MySpace, for awhile. ZFG.

Doesn't matter, anyway. That's her name (first and two last, NOT middle name). KC used it. There is no other ZFG in town. And, based on that name, the Sawgrass, and other KC details, LE found ZFG. Doesn't matter how KC got it. KC got it!

Here's an example. I have an Hispanic friend who usually goes by I.G. His full name is I.V. (mother's last name) G. (father's last name). That's a way they do it in Guatemala. SOMETIMES it's I.V y G. That's ALSO a way they do it in Guatemala.

Nobody is required to consistently use a USA culturally correct from of their name JUST in case some felon wants to accuse him of a crime.

 

[Brini]

I understand about hyphenating and not depending on your mood.
I do have a question for the legal experts here:

Would whether or not she was known by this name at work or in her personal life (with the F) have an affect on her lawsuit? Or is just that it is her legal name that makes it so?

No, i would not necessarily make a difference She was also the ZG at the Sawgrass, with the white car, and the specific ethnicity, and the specfics of hair.

If you read back a couple pages, you'll see that Hispanics often use their mother's and father's surnames. That's part of the name. But, they often just use the first and last in the US.

 

[Brini]

Someone asked earlier about her losing her job prior to the events Casey started or after the events Casey started. I posted some information above that I could find but even on JM's website for this case they only say she "claims" she lost her job. Why not jsut say she lost her job, why the confusing "claims." I thought I heard her say in one of the interviews that she lost it prior, I am still seaking this out fully.

Also some more information on her name, people asked does she use a middle, or mentioned if it's a hyphanated last name then it's not a middle name and maybe that's why she said she had no middle name.

On JM's website they only use the Z and the G parts for her name. No middle name or hyphenated name.
http://www.forthepeople.com/Zenaida_Gonzalez_Defamation_Suit.htm

If I were Casey's lawyer I would say, "how can they claim we have caused issues when this either isn't her name or she never uses it anyway. Or somehting of that nature. Them not using her correct name on their website the full (ZFG) only makes the case weaker if you ask me. If that is her real full name, we have some conflicting information here on which to base this.

All she has to do is hand the court that stack of threats.

 

[Brini]

I think that's irrelevant. Casey still named ZF-G to police in either spoken or written statements which were a lie. She threw ZF-G under a bus to save her own hide, so then when they found ZF-G, she couldn't admit to lying, so she claimed it was another ZF-G, another lie. The media running with the story is journalistic irresponsibility, but that's a different problem. If Casey hadn't specifically named ZF-G so precisely that authorities could find her, ZF-G wouldn't have been framed. Thank goodness the police didn't first arrest ZF-G before checking out her story, but she still suffered needlessly. Casey still could have lied, but more generally, "A Hispanic/Puerto Rican nanny stole her". Something like that.

You are absolutely right!

 

[Brini]

The fact that she searched the information AT ALL shows guilt and premeditation.

It does, indeed!

 

[Friptzap]

I wonder why she chose this particular name.........Cindy didn't like Hispanics. I wonder if that played a role in all this? Maybe Casey knew Cindy would fall for the idea if a Hispanic was the kidnapper. Just a thought

I always thought that, every instance of mention of the nanny's name prior to this dissapearance was only mentioned a few times and she was called Zani, very innocuous name and if you dislike hispanic people you may never make any link if that person by that name happened to be hispanic. I feel she wanted one more day to escape (she asked for one more day before the 911 call was made) And becausee she was forced to commit to something she chose a person that her mother would have a dislike for, being that this person she chose to make up in her imagination is "hispanic".

We know Casey told her best friend that her mother hated hispanic people in fact she was never allowed in the home when ehr mom was home, only when it was just George. Now we can assume this is true or assume it is yet another of Casey's lies. Tough call, this means she has been lying since 5th grade? But if she did tell the truth then I can see how she would use that against Cindy's emmotions to put her on her side, very easliy.

 

[Friptzap]

I spent the better part of the day researching history.dat and index.dat , creation dates , last accessed dates etc. BEFORE I posted above ,your more then welcome to do the research your self .

This isn't the thread to debate computer forensics , I believe I saw a thread that would better suit that purpose .

Well I was meerly responding to your post and the information you provided about research that could affect the outcome of the case that this thread regards. I understand you put alot of effort into what you did, but I was pointing out what some of the computer experts her at WS have mentioned about that data previously on another thread.

 

[Friptzap]

I think that's irrelevant. Casey still named ZF-G to police in either spoken or written statements which were a lie. She threw ZF-G under a bus to save her own hide, so then when they found ZF-G, she couldn't admit to lying, so she claimed it was another ZF-G, another lie. The media running with the story is journalistic irresponsibility, but that's a different problem. If Casey hadn't specifically named ZF-G so precisely that authorities could find her, ZF-G wouldn't have been framed. Thank goodness the police didn't first arrest ZF-G before checking out her story, but she still suffered needlessly. Casey still could have lied, but more generally, "A Hispanic/Puerto Rican nanny stole her". Something like that.

I don't disagree at all in context, but the law is specific to what the damages are from, you are not damaged in the general public eye if only yhe police know about your name being used in someones lie to the police. Once the jurnalistic irrisponsibility took hold is when the damage was done, in the principle that the law details as damages.

 

[Friptzap]

The problem is STILL that the media simply released what LE gave them, and LE released what KC gave them.

The media is obligated to release what the criminal complaint says. Period. They also released the clearing of the suspect. They moreover released what KC said to her bodyguard about the "mugging." Ensuring that KC tells the truth is not their job,

I know it's sad that KC is being asked to account for her own misdeeds, but, them's the breaks!

Again, descriptions of kidnappers are not confidential, Again, they are routinely released to the public. Again, the police are not responsible for KC's lies-- KC is.

And, yet again, every detail doesn't HAVE to match. Enough has to be there to convince the average man on the street. Again, there are people on THIS w/s who still think ZG did it, and, sadly, yes, that is still KC's fault. Some of the people who are still into the kidnap theory are also the ones who are in denial about the forensics.

The point of the entire exercise-- had KC not accused ZG, ZG would no have had problems. Bottom line.

And, ZG's lawyer saying "it's not about money" is predictable-- KC doesn't HAVE any money. He knows he'll win, but not get much, if anything in monetary damages.

The media has a legal obligation to NOT releaselibel,slander,defamation of character, they could have redacted much of what they released of any innocent parties. They were irrisponsible and this is very specific in the law. Freedom of information act or not they chose to print this information when they could have left out certain parts to protect the innocent. Look at the delay in the last 2 batches of information releases, they wanted to make sure they took out ALL the phone numbers addresses social security numbers etc before they stepped in it again.

I might add that the majority of the personal information and evidence (Sawgrass cards etc) were released after they cleared her.

 

[Friptzap]

It WAS used on her MySpace, for awhile. ZFG.

Doesn't matter, anyway. That's her name (first and two last, NOT middle name). KC used it. There is no other ZFG in town. And, based on that name, the Sawgrass, and other KC details, LE found ZFG. Doesn't matter how KC got it. KC got it!

Here's an example. I have an Hispanic friend who usually goes by I.G. His full name is I.V. (mother's last name) G. (father's last name). That's a way they do it in Guatemala. SOMETIMES it's I.V y G. That's ALSO a way they do it in Guatemala.

Nobody is required to consistently use a USA culturally correct from of their name JUST in case some felon wants to accuse him of a crime.

I fully understand the cultural ussage of hispanic naming conventions. I am well read I have even posted several links here on this forum that explain this in great detail, that aside I don't know for a fact what her "full" name is, there is much confusion in this area and if it is important that Casey used ZFG and not ZG and if this persons name is really only ZG or ZCG as some have mentioned then again how can the masses confuse her by name alone to this case. This will be a very important fact for the defense.

Plus I was meerly responding to questions asked.

 

[Friptzap]

I understand about hyphenating and not depending on your mood.
I do have a question for the legal experts here:

Would whether or not she was known by this name at work or in her personal life (with the F) have an affect on her lawsuit? Or is just that it is her legal name that makes it so?

If your claiming damages based on the name someone used when making Slanderous or Libelous comments and are claiming those comments are specifically about you and there is confusion on what name you actually go by then I would have to think the defense team will jump on that in a heart beat.

 

[Friptzap]

All she has to do is hand the court that stack of threats.

All I am trying to say here is the statute for Libel states:
836.09 Communicating libelous matter to newspapers; penalty.--If any person shall state, deliver, or transmit by any means whatever, to the manager, editor, publisher or reporter of any newspaper or periodical for publication therein any false and libelous statement concerning any person, then and there known by such person to be false or libelous, and thereby secure the publication of the same he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.

And she did not bring it to them. I believe this is the first point the defense will put into play.

 

[Friptzap]

NOW regarding the media, their initial OUT in this by law is very specific. Esspecially in a missing child case.

(5)(a) Upon receiving a request to record, report, transmit, display, or release Amber Alert or Missing Child Alert information from the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the missing child, the Department of Law Enforcement as the state Amber Alert coordinator, any state or local law enforcement agency, and the personnel of these agencies; any radio or television network, broadcaster, or other media representative; any dealer of communications services as defined in s. 202.11; or any agency, employee, individual, or entity is immune from civil liability for damages for complying in good faith with the request and is presumed to have acted in good faith in recording, reporting, transmitting, displaying, or releasing Amber Alert or Missing Child Alert information pertaining to such child.

Now that does not mean they can continue to disseminate Libelous information, so anything beyond the Police clearing this person is irresponsibility on their part and they could be held libel, each company individually including the editors etc....

The law goes on to state:

(c) The presumption of good faith is not overcome if a technical or clerical error is made by any agency, employee, individual, or entity acting at the request of the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction, or if the Amber Alert, Missing Child Alert, or missing adult information is incomplete or incorrect because the information received from the local law enforcement agency was incomplete or incorrect. (d) Neither this subsection nor any other provision of law creates a duty of the agency, employee, individual, or entity to record, report, transmit, display, or release the Amber Alert, Missing Child Alert, or missing adult information received from the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. The decision to record, report, transmit, display, or release information is discretionary with the agency, employee, individual, or entity receiving the information.

Which to me sounds like, if the information is still incorrect the presumption of good faith may still not be denied, at least initially, they cannot continue to report false information once they know it to be false. And they have no legal obligation to post any information to begin with, which again they chose to publish the information not Casey.

I really hate defending her, but if I do not I fear we all loose some of our rights because of this case. Well what I say here don;t mean jack anyway and will not affect our rights either way, but my point is I feel the need to speak out in defense of them anyway just in case the people that could affect our rights down the road are listening.... I am not willing to just sit by silent and watch my rights go down the drain here just to prove Casey guilty about "something" I have no doubt she will do time for theft and that is a great start, to me murder charges would be even better. Libel? Not if the law is being streatched in a manner that will tread on my rights. I don;t have to worry about murder or theft I will never steal or kill, without valid reason (slef defense etc) But I may say something that someone may think is about them some time in the future and I would hate to be caught up in the legal system to defend myself when I was meerly speaking about a cartoon character I had a dislike for......

 

[suzet]

I really hate defending her, but if I do not I fear we all loose some of our rights because of this case. Well what I say here don;t mean jack anyway and will not affect our rights either way, but my point is I feel the need to speak out in defense of them anyway just in case the people that could affect our rights down the road are listening.... I am not willing to just sit by silent and watch my rights go down the drain here just to prove Casey guilty about "something" I have no doubt she will do time for theft and that is a great start, to me murder charges would be even better. Libel? Not if the law is being streatched in a manner that will tread on my rights. I don;t have to worry about murder or theft I will never steal or kill, without valid reason (slef defense etc) But I may say something that someone may think is about them some time in the future and I would hate to be caught up in the legal system to defend myself when I was meerly speaking about a cartoon character I had a dislike for......

:clap:

 

[IrishSweetOne]

Well I was meerly responding to your post and the information you provided about research that could affect the outcome of the case that this thread regards. I understand you put alot of effort into what you did, but I was pointing out what some of the computer experts her at WS have mentioned about that data previously on another thread.

I understand that and took the thread into consideration when I posted , I've read it . Not trying to dis any member at all but how do we know for a fact they are experts or what their credentials might be ?? That is why I choose to do my research outside of WS .

The link I posted was a LE Computer Forensics Lab , very interesting read !!