2009.04.09 Cindy's Deposition #2

[LambChop]

I did not begin posting until Dec. 30, 2008.

I went back to the Official Doc thread, post 3, and found the original flyer that was put out - only the name Zenaida is mentioned on that flyer that contains the missing date of June 9.

I just read Yuri Melich's written report from 7/16/08 19:32.

Only the name Zenaida Gonzalez is mentioned. The report states
that Amanda M. ran the name in her system and found a ZG who came to look at an apartment April 17th.

Yes, the report states APRIL 17th.

YM says, "They gave me a "guest card" completed by Zenaida Gonzalez which contained her cell phone number. I called ZG, she denied knowing KC or Caylee."

"Sgt. Allen pulled up all the ZGs in our DAVID system. The defendant couldn't identify any of them based on this. I had him pull up the photo of the Zenaida I just spoke with, and the defendant said she didn't recognize her."

So far there has been no mention of "Fernandez" or a car. Neither of these is mentioned in that initial report.

To be continued in an effort to ascertain when "Fernandez" was first mentioned and info about the car. Was the April versus July sleuthe

I know it is confusing to keep up with some of these issues unless you've been following since the beginning. It took me awhile to catch up. But the manager of Sawgrass Apts. put ZG name on the card that is why there is an error. KC stated ZG had NY plates on her car. ZG was the only ZG to visit Sawgrass Apts and it is obvious to LE that KC knew this particular ZG was there looking at the apartments at that time. It is clear that Attorney Morgan is probably aware of information that has not yet been released to the public. Some believe the connection is the tatoo shop.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Maybe that's why I'm feeling so miserable - ha! You did not upset me. It's this whole case that's upsetting yet I can't seem to leave it. Who knew it could go on and on like this with no concrete answers. It's like dwelling on something you can't do anything about. I need a meeting!

Amen! :hug:

 

[kant]

That gum popping was so obxoxious. Does the whole freakin family have a gum addiction?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I did not begin posting until Dec. 30, 2008.

I went back to the Official Doc thread, post 3, and found the original flyer that was put out - only the name Zenaida is mentioned on that flyer that contains the missing date of June 9.

I just read Yuri Melich's written report from 7/16/08 19:32.

Only the name Zenaida Gonzalez is mentioned. The report states
that Amanda M. ran the name in her system and found a ZG who came to look at an apartment April 17th.

Yes, the report states APRIL 17th.

YM says, "They gave me a "guest card" completed by Zenaida Gonzalez which contained her cell phone number. I called ZG, she denied knowing KC or Caylee."

"Sgt. Allen pulled up all the ZGs in our DAVID system. The defendant couldn't identify any of them based on this. I had him pull up the photo of the Zenaida I just spoke with, and the defendant said she didn't recognize her."

So far there has been no mention of "Fernandez" or a car. Neither of these is mentioned in that initial report.

To be continued in an effort to ascertain when "Fernandez" was first mentioned and info about the car. Was the April versus July sleuthe

I know it is confusing to keep up with some of these issues unless you've been following since the beginning. It took me awhile to catch up. But the manager of Sawgrass Apts. put ZG name on the card that is why there is an error. KC stated ZG had NY plates on her car. ZG was the only ZG to visit Sawgrass Apts and it is obvious to LE that KC knew this particular ZG was there looking at the apartments at that time. It is clear that Attorney Morgan is probably aware of information that has not yet been released to the public. Some believe the connection is the tatoo shop.

What? Now I'm really lost. Why the April vs. June confusion? Do you know?

 

[kant]

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.

Wow you took the words right out of my mouth. It was astounding wasnt it? Yes, Cindy, b/c of a typo or small error, that makes all KC's lies credible now.

Except not.

Same with George's rant about the way Morgan pronunciated the name "Zanny."

Sheesh.

 

[JBean]

What? Now I'm really lost. Why the April vs. June confusion? Do you know?

They did not read the handwriting correctly and the date was corrected from April to June. I will see if I can find a link but that was a long time ago.

ETA: IIRC the visitor cards are entered into a computer and it was typed in as April. but when they looked at the actual card sawgrass emplyess discovered they made an error and alerted Yuri.

 

[debbie0604]

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

I'm with ya on that.... it takes someone who understands her personality and mindset (if you will)... to be able to deal with her effectively.

I do agree with Mamabear though... there are basic rules to follow in a deposition and she was not made to follow them. However, in my opinion she did such a great job of showing her a$$ to the world on videotape, JM knew that she was helping both his and the prosecution's case.

 

[lonetraveler]

I'm trying to scrape up money to buy stock in chewing gum before the trial starts. I'm forecasting an increase in demand.

 

[OneLostGrl]

I'm with ya on that.... it takes someone who understands her personality and mindset (if you will)... to be able to deal with her effectively.

I do agree with Mamabear though... there are basic rules to follow in a deposition and she was not made to follow them. However, in my opinion she did such a great job of showing her a$$ to the world on videotape, JM knew that she was helping both his and the prosecution's case.

Ita!! Which is one reason I am always sitting here wondering if she is trying to destroy Casey's defense.. any possible defense she could have had, ol' dear, loving "mom" has wrecked for her.

 

[mitzi]

I agree completely that CA seems to have some sort of view of herself as a "looker" or an ingenue or something. I am relatively new to Cindy watching but that "dangling shoe" and her very relaxed gestures during the police interview were not lost on me. The hair fluffing and posing has a degree of self awareness and flirti-ness that is difficult to understand. She seems very fidget-y just like KC.
Oh, and I forgot what poster brought up Brad's "comforting" stroking hand (seen during the deposition)..YES I saw that and it just seemed so fake. All these people seem a lot like bad actors....pretending to care about eachother when they really do not..those fakey-y stroking strokes seem so disingenuous. Pretense describes the entire situation.

Cindy also, at one point in the depo, leaned to whisper into BC's ear and practically laid her boob on the back of BC's hand. She really goes beyond the pale!

 

[ayjey]

*bolding mine*

Excellent post! ITA! When the news of this situation broke, I was stunned. Anyone who has heard the 911 calls made by Cindy felt some form of sympathy/empathy for her. Cindy's apprehension and fear were tangible. I feel for the Anthonys because they have lost a grandchild, but that does not absolve them from being honest about Casey's actions. The Anthonys have crafted a world for Casey where delusion, deception, and enablement abound. Just as we must hold Casey accountable for her actions, her own parents must take responsibility as well. The Anthonys must come to terms with the fact that justice for Caylee means incarceration for Casey. It is as simple as that...IMO as usual...

Excellent post. ITA

 

[mitzi]

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.

The female for the prosecution will have her turn with Cindy, at the murder trial. She is excellent, and has already shown us, at the bond hearing, that she don't take no "sheet".

 

[nssherlock]

I really think you might be missing his intent. I believe this whole line of questioning was to establish that the defamatory statement was published by KC via CA. If you notice he makes sure to cover the fact that 1. CA was told by LE that they had shown KC a picture of THIS Zenaida and KC did not identify her as "Zani", 2.) that CA had discussed this with KC, and KC had the opportunity to verify that LE had shown her the picture and THIS Zenaida was not Zani, and instead denied the whole event, 3.) he then forced CA to either say that she thought LE was lying, or she believed KC. This is really where CA starts losing in this particular line of questioning because she said neither. In other words, she has now stated in a deposition that she was told something by LE that she has now refused to say was a lie, and that she was unclear if KC was being honest when she denied what LE stated. But she went ahead and PUBLISHED KC's claim against a Zenaida at Sawgrass. And she published KC's defamatory statement in a broad media outlet.
Now, aside from that, he can either pursue a second defamation suit against CA or not, but CA REPEATING a false, defamatory statement first published (and it was published) by KC does not limit the degree to which KC's original statements caused damage to ZFG. In fact, it can increase it because CA's repetition of the statement broadened the audience to which the statement was published.

hmmmmmm Very Interesting.............and didn't our little Cindy refer to JM once as an Ambulance Chaser? LOL

 

[shgrbkr]

I know it is confusing to keep up with some of these issues unless you've been following since the beginning. It took me awhile to catch up. But the manager of Sawgrass Apts. put ZG name on the card that is why there is an error. KC stated ZG had NY plates on her car. ZG was the only ZG to visit Sawgrass Apts and it is obvious to LE that KC knew this particular ZG was there looking at the apartments at that time. It is clear that Attorney Morgan is probably aware of information that has not yet been released to the public. Some believe the connection is the tatoo shop.

bold by me

Yes, I had heard that KC and ZG had both used that same tattoo parlor and wondered if that's where the connection started. Did someone at the tattoo shop know ZG was going to Sawgrass and mention it in passing? Who knows, but it seems pretty obvious that KC got most of her information about ZG from the Sawgrass card.

 

[Friday]

I haven't read this whole thread. However, I saw CA's gum-chewing ("like a horse") mentioned on the thread about imaginary Zanny's imaginary white dog. Since we were to stay on the topic of the "white dog" on that thread, I thought I'd mention here that I think CA's gum might be nicotine gum, since one poster said she chews it constantly.
CA seems to be such an angry, controlling person. I've said it before and I'll say it again: IMO a controlling person is a very, very fearful, anxious, person. They are not the raging bulls they seem to be. Far from it--in my opinion. IMO controlling persons are scared to death of a lot of things that other people just shrug their shoulders at. Her depo shows CA's need for control in all its glory.

Re my bold-- You're quite right that controlling people like CA have severe, underlying fears and anxieties which makes them seem like raging bulls. Unfortunately, when you're being attacked by a raging bull, his underlying fears and anxieties don't make his horns any less deadly.

KWIM?

 

[Friday]

Respectfully snipped by me

I saw CA's gum-chewing ("like a horse") mentioned on the thread about imaginary Zanny's imaginary white dog. I thought I'd mention here that I think CA's gum might be nicotine gum, since one poster said she chews it constantly.

If that large wad of gum had nicotine in it, it would surely be a fatal dose. Seriously, wouldn't it?

 

[Friday]

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.

You're absolutely right, Tater! Also, I didn't realize until just now, when I re-read this MySpace post that it also provides some hard proof that Cindy was lying about many other things in her sworn deposition statements.

Have we already compared the things she said on this July 3 MySpace post vs. her statements in the deposition? For example, in the depo Cindy didn't know/talk to any of KC's friends. Yet in the MySpace post Cindy does know that Casey "tells her friends that her mother is controlling her life and she needs her space."

I won't go further with comparisons. I'm not the sharpest Sleuther around here, so it's probably already been done and posted in a sticky thread.

 

[Friday]

People can say otherwise, but you simply cannot, in the ordinary course of getting homeowner's insurance, insure against intentional wrongdoing by the policy holders themselves. You can't choose to do harm and have someone else pay for the consequences. If a tree limb snaps off a tree in your yard and strikes and injures a couple you've invited over for dinner, you will likely have coverage. If you get mad at the couple because they didn't like your chicken recipe, and you beat the stuffing out of them, causing serious bodily harm, or you have your daughter who lives there do it for you, OR you go on local tv and say that both of them are elementary school teachers and pedophiles -- no coverage. We aren't talking about a business for which there may be some sort of bond or coverage in case your employees who all handle others' money steal it (like for bank tellers).

This is really not my area of expertise, and I don't want to get into a complex set of circumstances, but if, like many homeowners, the A's also have an "Umbrella Policy" which is very cheap ($150/year for $1,000,000.00?) it will in fact cover virtually anything the homeowner is ever sued for--including what is totally unrelated to home ownership. Hence the term "Umbrella."

Someone here explained yesterday that Bill Clinton's umbrella policy paid for a civil lawsuit brought against him by some woman for sexual harrassment, or somesuch thing.

Whenever people purchase a regular homeowner's insurance policy or renter's policy, they are always urged by the insurance agent to add an inexpensive umbrella policy.

Regular homeowner's insurance policies also cover a surprising (to me at least) variety of events. For example, if my dependent 21-year-old college student son were to attend a party at the lovely home of a frathernity brother's parents, and during the course of the evening, while rough-housing with a frat brother, my son were to break a valuable vase-- my homeowner's insurance policy would cover the cost of the vase.

Now, if I were in Cindy's place, and I failed to convey to the world that my daughter said this ZFG wasn't the real Zanny the Nanny, I could say I chose not to do that because I didn't believe she was telling the truth...or because I was afraid that yada, yada, yada, then I would have done something for which ZFG could sue me. And my umbrella policy would cover me.

However, if I steal my my neighbor's new riding lawnmower, or embezzle funds, or sell fake Rolexes on Ebay, this is criminal behavior and my umbrella policy will simply let LE rain all over my parade.

 

[Friday]

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.

Devon, are you an attorney? If so, criminal or civil, if I may ask?

 

[Friday]

Excellent post!:dance::dance::dance:

I hope ZFG proves her case and is adequately compensated.

Me, too, and since KC does have monetary assets in jail (her candy and accessories account), I think she should be forced to contribute a large portion of those funds monthly to whatever ZFG is awarded as a judgment. Once she's in prison, will she receive any sort of little income? That, too, could be paid to ZFG.

It's my bedtime. I know it is, 'cause I'm feeling a tad bit vengeful. :blowkiss: