2009.05.19. Casey Anthony Civil Hearing @ 10:00

[Sprout]

Yes, responding to his statement, I thought. Perhaps it was reverse? But, I do believe it was Kasen first.

AHH Gotcha. That's what I get for walking away from my desk when there is a hearing.

 

[DAWN TREADER]

HLN covering it right now. (Headline News - CNN)

 

[ThoughtFox]

Hey, ya'll - several posters have asked for a link to the video if you have one. Anyone got that?

Hi all, I'm pretty new here (great stuff!) (& lots of it!). I'm sure that this has already been mentioned somewhere in this vast forum and I've simply not found it yet in the meaty reading here, but...I'm curious about something, if anyone can help point me in the right direction.

I support ZFG's civil defamation suit, but have always wondered if ZFG has any sort of alibi-like proof of her whereabouts when Caylee was last seen/died -- does anyone know? For example, has she been able in any way to definitively disprove Casey's claims by proving her whereabouts on June 16th & the days following?

Many thanks in advance!

I'm betting . . . Yes she does.

Although, she has no reason to prove her whereabouts because other than Casey's crazy lies, there is no connection between this woman and Caylee's death. If the police have cleared her, then she doesn't have to prove that she "didn't" do anything.

They only arrested Casey for the crime. There was no Zanny the Nanny that we know about.

 

[doogiesgirl]

I missed the whole hearing----DRATS!----does anyone know if the video is up anywhere yet? I can't find it and I'm dying to see it! Sounds like it was a quickie but goodie!!

 

[littlemisslegal]

HLN covering it right now.

what is hln and link

 

[lin]

:waitasec: What? The point is, this ZG's lawyers have suggested that KC obtained this woman's name from that document. Why would KC then change the name, spelling, family details etc from those used on the document? What would be the point of choosing this woman to 'frame' in some way but then changing her name, spelling, and other details?

I don't think KC "changed" the spelling; I think at most she "corrected" it. Like many others, she may have glanced at it and saw what she expected to see, which would have been "GonzaleZ." There have been numerous tests done and perhaps you've run across a few, maybe in Reader's Digest or somewhere, showing how our minds will interpret written words and automatically correct them sometimes.

You suggest that KC changed family details, etc. That's not my understanding. It appears that in at least one of KC's versions she stuck pretty close to the details listed on the card. In fact, in one of her filings in the civil case she mentions the imaginanny has only 2 children and the plaintiff has 5, so this can't be the same one. (Yes, in another she claims zero children.) Point of fact is 2 children were listed on the Sawgrass card, not five. Any other debate on this issue that you may have in mind requires, as the court so aptly pointed out today, a finding of fact more suited to a jury. The very fact that you make these arguments shows the suit is justified and requires just such a finding of fact.

 

[Manny]

Punative damages allowed to be added-yippee!

They can't get blood from a turnip. The prisoner will remain in jail,she has no money...blah blah. What a waste of court time. HUGE WASTE

 

[ThoughtElf]

WFTV slideshow is up:
http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/19503324/detail.html

 

[KenoshaKid]

what is hln and link

Headline News now goes by that acronym.

 

[sumbunny]

They can't get blood from a turnip. The prisoner will remain in jail,she has no money...blah blah. What a waste of court time. HUGE WASTE

Can they not go after any income casey recieves? Donations etc?

She has a fairly good jail bank account accumulating.

 

[cecybeans]

Kasen's analogy of baby-splitting - aside from its obvious poor taste in this context - is also inappropriate here even if commonly used in legal circles, (as it would naturally be in that it is one of the earliest stories of jurisprudence). Solomon intended the ruling to flush out the true mother of the child who would never be willing to sacrifice the life of her baby for a materially equitable settlement. It was a ploy designed to get at the truth, not simply to settle a case fairly. The child in this case likely died at the hands of the mother so there is no applicable metaphorical "baby" which makes the countersuit plaintiff even less like the mother in the biblical reference. The "baby" referred to here is about a suit for recompense for damages done to an innocent bystander.

Kasen should maybe stick with other ancient analogies and look up "Pyrrhic Victory".

 

[DAWN TREADER]

Apparently details such as who is paying for Casey's defense and whether there are any book/movie deals in the works could come out in the civil case.

 

[ThoughtElf]

I missed it live, us there any link to watch it now? TIA

I've been searching, but none of the sites have it up yet.

Patience. :crazy:

 

[doogiesgirl]

will the punitive damages be against Cindy and George as well as Casey?

Casey has no Cha-ching But I'll bet a tim horton's coffee, the Anthony's have some

OOH! and does this mean Zenaida will get all of casey's Commisary money!!?? hehe

I wondered that too after CA's depo as JM kind of cornered CA about NOT clearing this ZG when given the opportunity. When she left the video visitation with KC she instead said that KC says she has never been shown any photos of any ZG's!! That could cost CA some cold hard cash. And I am hoping it does. jmo

 

[Patty G]

Hearing Videos

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3761893&postcount=11"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2009.05.19 Today's Current News - ***NO DISCUSSIONS HERE PLEASE ***[/ame]

 

[rosiegirl04]

WFTV slideshow is up:
http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/19503324/detail.html

was kc there?

 

[lin]

Potatohead,

ITA with you, it was Kasen who said "the court was splitting the baby" and the Judge IMO, sounded VERY offended, as he quickly said WE are NOT or I was NOT splitting the Baby. I don't think it was meant by either of them though as ANY offense or in bad taste. Just as Lin said, just an old saying and probably just a bad choice of words. These lawyers and judges have tons of cases and this is NOT on their minds 24/7. So, it was just a faux pas, IMO.

I did think though, when the judge said they were in a different position than they were months ago regarding KC answering questions and they could revisit postponing this until AFTER the criminal case, it was a hint that WILL happen.

In the meantime though, more information will get to be heard from GA and CA though. But KC will NEVER be answering ANYTHING about THIS case until after the criminal trial.

I also found it interesting that Kasen said, they have never seen it in writing that ZG will drop her suit, if, in fact, KC will just point to this ZG ans say it is NOT her. Why NOT just do that and see if it gets dropped? This would probably be over. I don't see how it could hurt KC's case AT ALL.

You may be correct that KC will not have to answer anything until after the criminal trial but in that case, she may have to relinquish her counter suit. I see no other way. Even so, I don't think this court will grant a 'gimme' to the defense but will make him work for it, if an abatement is granted at all. I believe this court is a stickler for legal procedure but he is, after all, a judge and does have some discretion. That discretion doesn't seem to lean the way of the defense, based on today's comments from the bench. As a caveat: I have seen a judge so repulsed by a respondent to a civil suit that they bent over backwards to be "fair" so as not to appear to rule based on emotion but in effect doing just that.

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

The court refused to hear anything other than the motion to dismiss the suit because nothing else was scheduled for today. The ruling allowed the suit to go forward and allowed Mitnik to amend the original complaint and to sue for punitive damages. Was there anything specific you didn't understand?

It wasn't really a specific question, just more of an "in general, what was I supposed to learn from watching, what was the purpose of this hearing, and what did the outcome mean" kind of question. I'm a pretty smart kid, but when it comes to legal matters and the way things work in the court room, I'm a little bit uneducated (okay, I‘ll admit it….VERY uneducated). You've completely answered everything for me now, thank you!! Your post explains it perfectly (in terms I can understand)!! I really appreciate your patience with me (just a little bit slow sometimes). I've always been the kid in class that asks the dumb question that half of the class wants to know but is too embarassed to speak up about (I got no shame, lol), so I have a feeling that your explanation helped many other readers, too. Thanks again! :blowkiss:

 

[MD MOMMY]

Calm down...lol! This is a reference to King Solomon in the Bible. He was confronted with the case of two mothers, each with one child, who had all slept in the same bed with their two children. In the middle of the night one child died. The two women came before King Solomon with the living child and both claimed it was theirs. King Solomon, unable to tell who was telling the truth, declared he would split the baby down the middle and give each half of the dead corpse. The real mother relinquished her claim, while the liar said "do it!" King Solomon awarded the child to the relinquisher.

Me still thinks the term was inappropriate in this instance.:blowkiss:

 

[The World According]

Yay!!!!!!!!! You rock Morgan and Morgan... Way to Go!!!!!!!

:clap::clap::clap:

They should not be surprised that someone had the nerve to slap them down to reality. What they did in those depositions was outrageous. If I were on the civil jury I would award Miss Gonzales and her six children an obscene amount of money, so ensure that every penny of blood money made off of this murder would never remain in the Anthony family. I shudder to imagine the Anthonys moving into a big beautiful new home and living large off of media deals while Miss Gonzalez's poor children remain homeless and are being bullied and beat up at school over this.