2009.04.09 Cindy's Deposition #2

[Woe.be.gone]

Somewhere in the old interviews with GA he gives the info. To be honest with you, I don't remember him saying it was 6/29.

That is the date of the thread here on websleuths where this event has been discussed and potentially supported by pings, e-pass, etc. So I added CA's comments for the record. (not stating they're true)

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I agree. I think both she and George worked themselves into a fit of righteous indignation before the deposition. They both looked like two kegs of dynamite just waiting for the fuses to be lit...smouldering...smouldering.

Because KC was arrested on July 16 and CZG went to Sawgrass on July 17.

 

[NSS]

Yes, but unfortunately he didn't limit his interrogation to establishing that CA was the instrument by which KC's alleged slander was published - he then went on to state that CA herself had slandered his client during the same media interview. Therefore, since this all occurred during a single 'publication' which appears to be the basis of this claim, the question is how much of the alleged harm to ZG was caused by CA repeating KC's words, and how much was caused by what CA stated from her own opinion or beliefs?

ZG's claim is essentially that KC caused her harm for which adequate compensation would be $15,000, but since JM has now accused CA of being the cause of that harm (or a part of it), how can he now argue that KC is responsible for all $15,000 worth of it? Whatever harm ZG is alleged to have suffered is one unique experience which stems from a single cause - being questioned in relation to the 'nanny' story. She can't claim that what KC said caused her to lose her job/suffer harassment/be treated with suspicion or whatever, but at the same time also claim that what CA said (of her own accord) was the cause of what she has allegedly suffered. She didn't lose her job or her reputation twice! In any case, CA is not currently a party to the claim, so the court could only award damages to ZG in respect of KC's share of the overall liability, whatever that would be deemed to be. Nice one Mr M, you've clearly acted in your client's best interests - NOT!

Although the claim against KC is limited to that one media event, the avenue of a case against CA is now open. - BTW the jail visits where KC makes this claim of no pics is also public knowledge, and ran for days, so I don't think it is a single event.

If the claim against KC fails or judgement can't be collected (Not sure why everyone keeps saying she is indigent - she is paying for some heavy hitting lawyers) then ZG can sue CA.

CA's case will be easy to prove given her admittance in the depo AND is compounded by not simply repeating that lie in one media interview, but failing to rectify it in the many other opportunities that arose.

Oh and although she didn't lose her job twice - it makes no difference, you can't murder someone twice but often here, a group of people are found guilty of a single crime - you don't get to share the sentence.

Defamation here is soooooo very different than in the UK, the burden of proof is completely opposite. It is also much lower.

Remember the McCanns? They sued more than one newspaper for printing the SAME accusation, and collected from more than 1 paper. They collected way more than $15,000.00

 

[NSS]

If he now adds CA as a party to the claim, she would have potential joint liability for the alleged harm, apportioned according to degree of fault, but ZG would still not get more than the full damages claimed in total. So if e.g. the court were to rule that CA's liability was 40% then ZG might actually get that share of the claim because CA has some property/money, but she would likely still get zilch in respect of KC's 60% liability because she has nothing! It remains to be seen however, whether CA gets added as co-defendant.

I think I see where th misunderstanding is.
You are assuming CA will be a co-defendant, I am assuming a seperate suit will follow.
JM is dealing with KCs defaming of ZG right now, including the part that CA played in that.

CA's role as herself, and not KCs mouthpiece could well be a completely seperate case.

Two seperate judgements, not a single judgement shared. Each tried and adjudicated on their own merits.

 

[OneLostGrl]

I re-watched part of Cindy's depo, I actually had the feeling she was sinking into madness when she sits back and winks at BC right after she stopped screaming and waving her arms. It was like looking insanity in the face, chilling...

Insanity isn't controled.. not this way, not in any way! I bet Cindy wishes she would go insane so she wouldn't have to think or feel anything about this anymore.

 

[NSS]

Originally Posted by NSS
July 15th.

Dispatch: 911. What’s your emergency?
Cindy: I called a little bit ago. The deputy sheriff ‘s (inaudible). My granddaughter has been taken. She has been missing for a month. Her mother finally admitted that she’s been missing. I want someone here now.
Dispatch: OK, what is the address that you’re calling from?

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Sidebar...y_anthony.html


CA considered her missing from the day she left Hopespring Drive.

What is your point? That on July 15th... 13 days after she posted the myspace that she finds out Caylee has been missing for 31 days....

Please clarify your post.. I don't get it.

The point is, that by July 15th, CA considers Caylee has been *missing* for 31 days ---- that includes all dates AFTER June 16th. So when she wrote the MS message she DID believe that Caylee was missing, as she indeed wrote.

In the depo CA claims she DIDN'T think they were missing on July 3rd, and you agreed with that.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Yes yes...but they would have us all think everything was hunky-dory there. I bet Cindy cringes when she hears how KC referred to her as a b!tch and that she wanted to control everything. Remember how Cindy stated on the stand at the bond hearing that KC and she were very close? "Best friends" was the term she used, IIRC.

uh huh- that is indeed what she said. It's ironic because really she knows nothing about her daughter, nothing! Not even who her friends have been for the last few years! She still has herself convinced that Casey is a "mini Cindy"... and that IF she is that it's a good thing! *vomit*

 

[OneLostGrl]

Well, well, now we're finally getting to see the real Anthony's. And it isn't hard to see where KC's personality came from. Noticed CA has an answer for everything, just like the tot-killer.

These freaks are STILL trying to fix KC's screw ups, this time at the cost of their b'loved granddaughter.

And George. I've completely lost what little respect I had for him, (which wasn't much to start with), he's as dispicable as the other three A's.

They are no longer grieving g'parent's in my eyes, they are just the parents of a tot-killer. (not that anyone cares)

We have been seeing the real Anthony's since "day 1". These people don't know what love, as most know it, is.

 

[OneLostGrl]

I do believe he just welcomed Cindy Anthony into the wonderful world of the law suit and he got her to admit under oath she was guilty. I'm sure all of his little lawyer buddies gave him a high five on that one!!! :highfive: :highfive: :highfive:

I give him a ^5 on it too! She sat there throughout thinking she was outsmarting him and he showed her what an actual idiot she is. She needs to just shut her mouth.. she has made things so difficult for Casey's defense and it's like she doesn't care, really! I'm telling ya, I cannot help but wonder if Cindy is trying to throw CASEY under the bus.

 

[LambChop]

Because KC was arrested on July 16 and CZG went to Sawgrass on July 17.

ZG went to Sawgrass on JUNE 17th

 

[OneLostGrl]

If I was one of his lawyer buddies I would be asking him why he has compromised his client's claim by attempting to show that someone other than (or as well as) the defendant she named is responsible for the alleged harm she has suffered. He now has to prove how much of the alleged harm was actually caused by the named defendant, rather than by CA, who is not being sued for damages. :doh:

When the case is over and ZG has won you can come back and tell us again what an awful lawyer Morgan is.

 

[reeseeva]

uh huh- that is indeed what she said. It's ironic because really she knows nothing about her daughter, nothing! Not even who her friends have been for the last few years! She still has herself convinced that Casey is a "mini Cindy"... and that IF she is that it's a good thing! *vomit*[/QUOTE]:clap::clap:

Bold mine!

This has always been a huge red flag to me theat KC had a secret life that Cindy never knew. My opinion has always been that KC knew not to bring friends home as CA would chew them up & spit them out in short order!

 

[cecybeans]

If he now adds CA as a party to the claim, she would have potential joint liability for the alleged harm, apportioned according to degree of fault, but ZG would still not get more than the full damages claimed in total. So if e.g. the court were to rule that CA's liability was 40% then ZG might actually get that share of the claim because CA has some property/money, but she would likely still get zilch in respect of KC's 60% liability because she has nothing! It remains to be seen however, whether CA gets added as co-defendant.

I think it is premature to assume KC is "indigent" as some postulate. If she was, she wouldn't have a "dream team" of expensive experts and would have settled on a public defender (who probably wouldn't have wasted the state's time and money by not filing for a speedy trial, filing against a gag order, subsequently filing other erroneous and poorly phrased motions, and be under scrutiny for various breaches of conduct.) The size of the little trust she and JB may have been amassing since her indictment to deal with her legal expenses via alleged media deals has not been determined. And $15K, if I'm not mistaken is simply the minimum settlement for such cases.

And if she does happen to have no means of support and is relying on family members to drum up the money for her expenses, and same said family members are engaged in lucrative media deals and could also be up on charges, then that needs to be part of Morgan's discovery too. The family is agog and aghast at anyone but themselves profiting from Caylee's death. Which is absolutely ironic in my mind as they obviously had a hand in creating the perfect storm that led to it. The fact that CA and GA admit covering up repeated thefts for a family member - thefts that would have resulted in arrest on grand theft and prison time if anyone had pressed charges - is, in my mind, asking for escalation. If they spent half the time they have spent angrily blaming the media and LE and the public for this figuring out how they might have contributed to the situation in the first place (which might have circumvented it altogether), NOBODY would feel as disgusted and frustrated toward these hostile, self-righteous people and we would be able to feel the sympathy we would truly like to extend for their loss.

 

[OneLostGrl]

That is the thang that bothers me-----very much. I wanna know WHY? Who the He!! does she think she is? There are ways of the Court that have to be respected and obeyed. CA is NOT above the Law. You can't walk into a depo and "TAKE" over. You are there to answer question-------whether you like the questions or not. I am so mad that she is getting away with her actions. We "ALL" have to answer for our actions-------> not CA tho. What the He!! is the deal here???????????

CA will NOT ever have to spit that gum out during the trial. She can do or say anythang she wants-----and get away with it. We can control our lives but we can NOT run thru life with a hammer in our hand and spew sheet out of our mouths like this woman does.

I think that when she gets started with those wild eyes and mouth opened that she throws the male Lawyers into a state of shock. Where are women Lawyers? Can't wait for one of them to get hold of that sow. She won't intimidate a female like she seems to a male. She seems to go straight for the balls. I wanna see a FEMALE git hold of her. Somebody needs to step up to the plate and get hold of this mess. She needs to be stopped in her tracks at the very first question or answer and made (legally) to just shut up and answer the question or go to jail. If she wants to be a martyr then give her that. Martyr her azz to jail. Grrrrr. I would love a shot at her.

You have to understand that she has years of practice. As much as it sickens us, she is getting away with her behaviors and I don't think it's going to change anytime soon. They always- always use the victim card if all else fails and it's difficult for people (LE, lawyers, court, judge etc) to imagine
a middle aged woman lying like she does so they excuse it for sadness and grief. It's MUCH like men who beat their wives and children yet end up with full custody... the court on his side.

I'm with ya, I'd love a shot at the both of 'em! LOL

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Bold Me.

Absolutely critical information in this case!

If we didn't have you we would have to hire a consultant!

Keep up the good work

You appear to have turned away from the dark side.

OneLostGirl, you have not turned away from your mother as you have stated that she lives with you. I'm just saying CA cannot turn away from KC until, in her mind, every last stone is unturned for KC's defense. Also, SP has not said derogatory things about CA. If SP is so "normal", why then doesn't she see the error of her daughter's ways?

 

[OneLostGrl]

Bold mine!

This has always been a huge red flag to me theat KC had a secret life that Cindy never knew. My opinion has always been that KC knew not to bring friends home as CA would chew them up & spit them out in short order!

It is quite odd she hasn't brought anyone new home (friends or boyfriends) since Jesse!

 

[cecybeans]

If this has already been discussed, please forgive me.

I really don't understand the smug way that CA talks about the "C Zenaida Gonzale" guest card as if it somehow proves that KC is right about something.

For one, it is probably a typo by H Garcia, the rental agent who filled out the unsigned card. The "C" in my mind looks like a "G", as if he mistakenly started filling it out with the last name first. There is not a period after it but what looks like a hypen - so it could be the middle stroke of a G if the pen skipped. Also, who named C anything uses a hypen?

I just don't understand her exultation in the fact that the name was slightly misspelled by a rental agent, when in other documents this same ZG obviously uses a z at the end of her name when she signs. It would be different if she had filled it out herself and signed it the same way, but I just don't see what it proves other than the rental agent was in a hurry. We already know she was the only ZG on the planet there that day because KC also described her car and tags.

What is also interesting, is that when she amends her story from Sawgrass to the Blanchard Park version, KC is careful to add 2 children to the story, matching the rental card once again (and contradicted other versions of Zanny in which she has no children).

As a mother, I would be mortified to sit in a deposition and act as if a bold series of proven lies my daughter told had somehow morphed into true statements simply because I found tiny flaws or imperfections in the actual facts.

Her line of logic in insisting that if Caylee described a white dog, it must therefore belong to a legitimate nanny and therefore it must also prove the existence of same said nanny, is absolutely beyond the pale. The only reason CA believes the white dog belongs to some nanny is because that is information KC gave her. She is trying to create credibility for a known liar by incomplete corroboration of a baby. It's beyond pathetic.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Cindy DID defame this Zenaida Gonzalez on TV. Cindy's defaming comments are just more defamation on top of tot-killer's defamation, imo.

Wouldn't that be a separate lawsuit?

 

[OneLostGrl]

Here is the full script of July 3, 2008 posting on Cindy's MySpace Page. (Thanks PattyG)

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Current mood: http://x.myspace.com/images/blog/moods/iBrads/sad.gif distraught

She came into my life unexspectedly, just as she has left me. This precious little angel from above gave me strength and unconditional love. Now she is gone and I don’t know why. All I am guilty of is loving her and providing her a safe home. Jealousy has taken her away. Jealousy from the one person that should be thankfull for all of the love and support given to her. A mother’s love is deep, however there are limits when one is betrayed by the one she loved and trusted the most. A daughter comes to her mother for support when she is pregnant, the mother says without hesitation it will be ok. And it was. But then the lies and betrayal began. First it seemed harmless, ah, love is blind. A mother will look for the good in her child and give them a chance to change. This mother gave chance after chance for her daughter to change, but instead more lies more betrayal. What does the mother get for giving her daughter all of these chances? A broken heart. The daughter who stole money, lots of money, leaves without warning and does not let her mother now speak to the baby that her mother raised, fed, clothed, sheltered, paid her medical bills, etc. Instead tells her friends that her mother is controlling her life and she needs her space. No money, no future. Where did she go? Who is now watching out for the little angel?

-----------------------------------------
Ok, this is what I was looking for. In her deposition, CA claims she only ever paid the one bill after Caylee's birth. Her post on MySpace sounds more like she has paid all of Caylee's medical bills. Yes, I know it is a subjective interpretation, but you would think one single paid bill would be lumped in as 'bills' when she is also discussing how she - Cindy - sheltered, fed, clothed Caylee.

I am of the belief that Cindy was untruthful on that question and it can be proven that she did pay Caylee's medical bills.

Just to clarify..

Do you mean you think she paid for more than the one bill and is lying about it now? Or that her Myspace blog reference to "medical bills" she was claiming to have paid for more than she actually did pay for?

 

[OneLostGrl]

If this has already been discussed, please forgive me.

I really don't understand the smug way that CA talks about the "C Zenaida Gonzale" guest card as if it somehow proves that KC is right about something.

For one, it is probably a typo by H Garcia, the rental agent who filled out the unsigned card. The "C" in my mind looks like a "G", as if he mistakenly started filling it out with the last name first. There is not a period after it but what looks like a hypen - so it could be the middle stroke of a G if the pen skipped. Also, who named C anything uses a hypen?

I just don't understand her exultation in the fact that the name was slightly misspelled by a rental agent, when in other documents this same ZG obviously uses a z at the end of her name when she signs. It would be different if she had filled it out herself and signed it the same way, but I just don't see what it proves other than the rental agent was in a hurry. We already know she was the only ZG on the planet there that day because KC also described her car and tags.

What is also interesting, is that when she amends her story from Sawgrass to the Blanchard Park version, KC is careful to add 2 children to the story, matching the rental card once again (and contradicted other versions of Zanny in which she has no children).

As a mother, I would be mortified to sit in a deposition and act as if a bold series of proven lies my daughter told had somehow morphed into true statements simply because I found tiny flaws or imperfections in the actual facts.

Her line of logic in insisting that if Caylee described a white dog, it must therefore belong to a legitimate nanny and therefore it must also prove the existence of same said nanny, is absolutely beyond the pale. The only reason CA believes the white dog belongs to some nanny is because that is information KC gave her. She is trying to create credibility for a known liar by incomplete corroboration of a baby. It's beyond pathetic.

Bold is mine-

It is indeed but don't expect any better from her, pathetic is all she's got.