**all things zfg lawsuit merged **

[DAWN TREADER]

Since it appears Casey can't produce a single witness that ever met ZFG or even talked to her by phone, including members of her own immediate family, nor can she show any incoming calls from ZFG on July 14, 2008 the date Casey claims she talked to Caylee, I think Baez is going to have a difficult time selling the Nanny the Zanny (purposely misstated for dramatic effect) story to a jury. Quite simply, that dog just don't hunt.

 

[MarleneM]

<snipped>

Sure a few of the details Casey gave could match this ZFG, but others totally exclude her. A few of the details could match any of us, it's the details that exclude that really matter. Casey excluded this ZFG before she ever saw her picture.

Of course KC excluded this ZFG. Of course she did.

Following your logic, you would have to believe KC would point her finger at ANY ZFG that LE or anyone could find and expect KC to say: "That's her!! That's the ZFG I was friends with for 4-6 years, the one who was living for months in that vacant apt I took you guys too, the one who cancelled all her phone numbers and deleted her email addresses to hide from me, the one who was living in a senior's resort across from Ricardo's for awhile, the one with two roommates with the same names as that 'lying' ZFG's kids, that's the one who took Caylee! There she is!"

And then the "real ZFG" would have to be found guilty of KC's accusations to prove the suing ZFG who only matches "some" of KC's Sawgrass-related accusations wrong.

And if you are willing to believe that KC's ZFG really exists, and the woman suing her wasn't merely another ID victim of KC's, then maybe there is hope for KC yet. I just can't see how the woman suing KC doesn't have the right to fight what so carelessly and casually has been done to her from submitting one apartment application.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Of course KC excluded this ZFG. Of course she did.

Following your logic, you would have to believe KC would point her finger at ANY ZFG that LE or anyone could find and expect KC to say: "That's her!! That's the ZFG I was friends with for 4-6 years, the one who was living for months in that vacant apt I took you guys too, the one who cancelled all her phone numbers and deleted her email addresses to hide from me, the one who was living in a senior's resort across from Ricardo's for awhile, the one with two roommates with the same names as that 'lying' ZFG's kids, that's the one who took Caylee! There she is!"

And then the "real ZFG" would have to be found guilty of KC's accusations to prove the suing ZFG who only matches "some" of KC's Sawgrass-related accusations wrong.

And if you are willing to believe that KC's ZFG really exists, and the woman suing her wasn't merely another ID victim of KC's, then maybe there is hope for KC yet. I just can't see how the woman suing KC doesn't have the right to fight what so carelessly and casually has been done to her from submitting one apartment application.

I fail to see how that is following my logic in the least. It's not necessary to produce a kidnapping ZFG in order to show that this particular ZFG was not accused.

Let's say my car gets stolen and I saw the perp drive off. I report it and tell LE that the perp was wearing a shirt with the name Joe sewn above the pocket. I tell them Joe has blue eyes and brown hair. I tell them Joe is average height and weight and in his mid 20's.

LE finds an address for a Joe. They go talk to him. He is wearing a shirt with the name Joe sewn over the pocket. He has brown hair and blue eyes. He's 24. He's a midget and stands 3 feet tall. LE shows me Joe's picture and asks if he's the guy. I say no, it isn't.

Did I accuse short Joe? Do I have to produce tall Joe in order to prove I didn't accuse short Joe?

 

[fortytwo]

I fail to see how that is following my logic in the least. It's not necessary to produce a kidnapping ZFG in order to show that this particular ZFG was not accused.

Let's say my car gets stolen and I saw the perp drive off. I report it and tell LE that the perp was wearing a shirt with the name Joe sewn above the pocket. I tell them Joe has blue eyes and brown hair. I tell them Joe is average height and weight and in his mid 20's.

LE finds an address for a Joe. They go talk to him. He is wearing a shirt with the name Joe sewn over the pocket. He has brown hair and blue eyes. He's 24. He's a midget and stands 3 feet tall. LE shows me Joe's picture and asks if he's the guy. I say no, it isn't.

Did I accuse short Joe? Do I have to produce tall Joe in order to prove I didn't accuse short Joe?

I'm not singling you out, Chilly. You just happened to be the last response in this topic.

I wonder if it would be of benefit to review what things might justify ZFG's suit?

From previous posts I am led to believe that her lawyer, Morgan, is not an ambulance chaser or publicity hound, but a well-respected and reputable attorney in the area. We can surmise that ZFG is not affluent enough to afford his services at standard rates.

I wonder what facts and circumstances led him to believe that her case had merit, and was worthy of his time and attention?

 

[elementary]

Of course KC excluded this ZFG. Of course she did.

Following your logic, you would have to believe KC would point her finger at ANY ZFG that LE or anyone could find and expect KC to say: "That's her!! That's the ZFG I was friends with for 4-6 years, the one who was living for months in that vacant apt I took you guys too, the one who cancelled all her phone numbers and deleted her email addresses to hide from me, the one who was living in a senior's resort across from Ricardo's for awhile, the one with two roommates with the same names as that 'lying' ZFG's kids, that's the one who took Caylee! There she is!"

And then the "real ZFG" would have to be found guilty of KC's accusations to prove the suing ZFG who only matches "some" of KC's Sawgrass-related accusations wrong.

And if you are willing to believe that KC's ZFG really exists, and the woman suing her wasn't merely another ID victim of KC's, then maybe there is hope for KC yet. I just can't see how the woman suing KC doesn't have the right to fight what so carelessly and casually has been done to her from submitting one apartment application.

Well put! And there's the rub. We know the perp's ZFG does not exist. She wouldn't be pointing her finger at anyone real because LE would find out that was all a lie too and the case would be even stronger against the perp.

But the perp did provide authentic identifying features for one ZFG that did not fit any other ZFG.

You are right- the only way the logic would work is if the perp's ZFG really existed.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I have to say this every time someone is looking for a "legal eagle" No one on this board has been confirmed to be an atty. I would suspect that those that say they are probably are, but we do not know that for certain..so please remember this is a discussion board and it is a exchange of ideas with no verified professional input.
If there is an attorney that would like to be authenticated by TRicia and would like to answer legal questions for us, that would be great. but at this time no one has offered to do that.

Tricia knows I am an actual attorney and since I usually answer the legal questions I would be more than happy to do it.

 

[MOMto5]

Tricia knows I am an actual attorney and since I usually answer the legal questions I would be more than happy to do it.

If it's okay, I have a question. How would it hurt KC's criminal case to simply say that, "This ZFG is not the ZFG that took Caylee?" I can't figure that out. Why the need to take the Fifth on that? (Much thanks in advance )

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Do we still have any legal eagles posting? I have some questions about this lawsuit.

What happens if it can be proven that ZFG was unemployed prior to 7/15, meaning Casey's accusation did not cause her to lose her job?

What happens if it can be proven that ZFG was homeless prior to 7/15, meaning that Casey's accusation did not cause her to lose her home?

What happens if it can be proven that ZFG was offered jobs after 7/15 and did not take one?

Can she continue to pursue this case if she has lied about the damages she's claiming?

When you accuse someone of a crime that constitutes defamation per se: In such a case general damages, that is, damages to your reputation and emotional distress are presumed and the jury is so instructed. You do not have to prove your reputation was damaged and you do not have to offer proof that you were emotionally distressed. If you are claiming special damages, however, such as loss of income from a job loss then you have to prove such damages by a preponderance of the evidence. In answer to your questions then: If it turns out that ZG was unemployed prior to 7/15 then she would not meet her burden of proof and would not be awarded any special damages for loss of income. Nothing happens if it turns out that ZG was homeless prior to 7/15--she just doesn't get awarded any general damages for that (if, in fact; she was claiming that); If it turns out that she was offered jobs after 7/15 and didn't take them-well, that would depend on the job she was offered and the reason(s) she didn't take it. The only damages she could lie about would be special damages because general damages are presumed--so if it turns out she lied about job loss, for instance, she just wouldn't be awarded those damages. All of this is very unlikely. As the plaintiff ZG has the burden of proof and as the party with the burden of proof she goes first--she has to prove her case first. If she wasn't employed at the time then she simply won't put that in her case-in-chief and she won't ask for any such damages. Unless her loss of income is substantial it is best in defamation cases to just go for the general damages--because you don't have to prove anything.

 

[Tichad3]

Tricia knows I am an actual attorney and since I usually answer the legal questions I would be more than happy to do it.

Thank you for volunteering your time for us. I'm sure it will be well used and appreciated.:clap::clap::clap:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

If it's okay, I have a question. How would it hurt KC's criminal case to simply say that, "This ZFG is not the ZFG that took Caylee?" I can't figure that out. Why the need to take the Fifth on that? (Much thanks in advance )

It would hurt your case if you were no longer claiming that a ZFG took Caylee because the question presupposes you are still claiming that a ZFG took Caylee.

 

[MOMto5]

It would hurt your case if you were no longer claiming that a ZFG took Caylee because the question presupposes you are still claiming that a ZFG took Caylee.

Oh, so if KC answers that question, it backs JB into the corner of having to stick with the Zanny did it defense. Lol, I guess he hasn't made up his mind and wants to leave his options open. Thanks so much for answering. I feel kind of greedy, but I have just one more question. The documents filed in KC's countersuit state the ZFG she claims took Caylee had two children. We know that she told LE that ZFG had no children. Will that present a problem in court? Will it just be chalked up to human error or will the differing stories be brought into question ? TIA.

 

[doogiesgirl]

The details that Casey gave about her ZG exluded ZFG as being the nanny. I can't recall which of these came from her statement to LE and which came later but they rule out ZFG as being Casey's ZG.

Casey's ZG has no kids. ZFG has 6 kids.
Casey's ZG is in her early 20's. ZFG is late 30's.
Casey's ZG drove a brand new Ford. ZFG drove a older foreign car.
Casey's ZG is 140 pounds. ZFG is...well, no where close.
Casey's ZG had an apartment with two roomates. ZFG lived at Motel 6.
Casey's ZG was the child of Victor and Gloria. ZFG is not.
Casey's ZG had no tattoos. ZFG has many very obvious tattoos.
The list goes on and on.

Aside from the name (if ZFG really is ZFG) and the sawgrass connection and the NY connection, there are no similarities between the

real ZFG and the imaginary nanny. Plaintiff ZFG is obviously not the woman Casey accused, IMO.

So is it your opinion then that whatever misfortune this ZFG has suffered since KC named ZFG is not due to KC? So you believe that this Z has not experienced incredible stress (that would affect her children) by this? That LE and the media and public attention because of this is not due to KC's lies? Is it your opinion that whatever has happened in this woman's life and her families life has nothing to do with KC naming ZFG as the kidnapper? Who, according to KC, she happened to drop Caylee off to at Sawgrass apt #210, the very apt this ZFG is connected to?. Just wondering if I've got this right.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Oh, so if KC answers that question, it backs JB into the corner of having to stick with the Zanny did it defense. Lol, I guess he hasn't made up his mind and wants to leave his options open. Thanks so much for answering. I feel kind of greedy, but I have just one more question. The documents filed in KC's countersuit state the ZFG she claims took Caylee had two children. We know that she told LE that ZFG had no children. Will that present a problem in court? Will it just be chalked up to human error or will the differing stories be brought into question ? TIA.

JB is waiting for the forensics to come back before he settles on a defense, imho. In answer to your question: my recollection is that KC told LE that ZG had two children and those were the two children that were living with ZG at the time and whose names appeared on the Sawgrass application. I know though that many on this forum claim KC told LE ZG didn't have any children. Let's assume KC told LE that ZG had no children and now claims in her counter-suit that she told LE ZG had two children. I couldn't find a verification page for the counter-suit so I'm assuming it was an unverified pleading--in that case the allegations are written by lawyers, it's not under oath, and if you make a mistake you make a mistake. There are a lot of allegations in the counter-suit that are known to be false imo. Yes, the differing stories could come up at trial (both her criminal and her civil trial) and be used against her. I don't think the allegation hurts ZG's suit though because ZG only had two of her children living with her at the time this all happened and those two children's names were on the SawGrass Apt application so what's KC's point as to how many actual children ZG had?

 

[MOMto5]

JB is waiting for the forensics to come back before he settles on a defense, imho. In answer to your question: my recollection is that KC told LE that ZG had two children and those were the two children that were living with ZG at the time and whose names appeared on the Sawgrass application. I know though that many on this forum claim KC told LE ZG didn't have any children. Let's assume KC told LE that ZG had no children and now claims in her counter-suit that she told LE ZG had two children. I couldn't find a verification page for the counter-suit so I'm assuming it was an unverified pleading--in that case the allegations are written by lawyers, it's not under oath, and if you make a mistake you make a mistake. There are a lot of allegations in the counter-suit that are known to be false imo. Yes, the differing stories could come up at trial (both her criminal and her civil trial) and be used against her. I don't think the allegation hurts ZG's suit though because ZG only had two of her children living with her at the time this all happened and those two children's names were on the SawGrass Apt application so what's KC's point as to how many actual children ZG had?

Thank you, SoCal, for sharing your knowledge. I really appreciate it and your answers make it so much easier to understand.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Now I am going nuts and am on a Mission. I just listened to both LE interviews with KC and read the arrest report. KC isn't asked and doesn't state how many kids ZG had or did not have. Yet, I remember long ago thinking she was asked and said 2 kids; everyone else on this forum says she was asked and said no kids--her countersuit claims she told LE 2 kids--her attorney is quoted in the news today as stating that she told LE she had no kids. So which is it? Where in any of the docs is KC asked this question and what is her answer!?

 

[sha-sha]

Now I am going nuts and am on a Mission. I just listened to both LE interviews with KC and read the arrest report. KC isn't asked and doesn't state how many kids ZG had or did not have. Yet, I remember long ago thinking she was asked and said 2 kids; everyone else on this forum says she was asked and said no kids--her countersuit claims she told LE 2 kids--her attorney is quoted in the news today as stating that she told LE she had no kids. So which is it? Where in any of the docs is KC asked this question and what is her answer!?

I remember the same thing you do... she said 2 kids and they were the kids that were listed on the Sawgrass visitors card.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Of course KC excluded this ZFG. Of course she did.

Following your logic, you would have to believe KC would point her finger at ANY ZFG that LE or anyone could find and expect KC to say: "That's her!! That's the ZFG I was friends with for 4-6 years, the one who was living for months in that vacant apt I took you guys too, the one who cancelled all her phone numbers and deleted her email addresses to hide from me, the one who was living in a senior's resort across from Ricardo's for awhile, the one with two roommates with the same names as that 'lying' ZFG's kids, that's the one who took Caylee! There she is!"

And then the "real ZFG" would have to be found guilty of KC's accusations to prove the suing ZFG who only matches "some" of KC's Sawgrass-related accusations wrong.

And if you are willing to believe that KC's ZFG really exists, and the woman suing her wasn't merely another ID victim of KC's, then maybe there is hope for KC yet. I just can't see how the woman suing KC doesn't have the right to fight what so carelessly and casually has been done to her from submitting one apartment application.

I Agree with You!
Is there another ZFG that has been to Sawgrass Apartments driving a car with NY tags that has roommates with the names that KC said were the names of ZFG children?? I keep waiting for that ZFG to show up

 

[okiedokietoo]

The details that Casey gave about her ZG exluded ZFG as being the nanny. I can't recall which of these came from her statement to LE and which came later but they rule out ZFG as being Casey's ZG.

Casey's ZG has no kids. ZFG has 6 kids.
Casey's ZG is in her early 20's. ZFG is late 30's.
Casey's ZG drove a brand new Ford. ZFG drove a older foreign car.
Casey's ZG is 140 pounds. ZFG is...well, no where close.
Casey's ZG had an apartment with two roomates. ZFG lived at Motel 6.
Casey's ZG was the child of Victor and Gloria. ZFG is not.
Casey's ZG had no tattoos. ZFG has many very obvious tattoos.
The list goes on and on.

Aside from the name (if ZFG really is ZFG) and the sawgrass connection and the NY connection, there are no similarities between the real ZFG and the imaginary nanny. Plaintiff ZFG is obviously not the woman Casey accused, IMO.

Show me the real/fake ZFG that lived at Sawgrass Apartments that was watching Caylee - come up with another ZFG that fits KC's story better

 

[Spangle]

The details that Casey gave about her ZG exluded ZFG as being the nanny. I can't recall which of these came from her statement to LE and which came later but they rule out ZFG as being Casey's ZG.

Casey's ZG has no kids. ZFG has 6 kids.
Casey's ZG is in her early 20's. ZFG is late 30's.
Casey's ZG drove a brand new Ford. ZFG drove a older foreign car.
Casey's ZG is 140 pounds. ZFG is...well, no where close.
Casey's ZG had an apartment with two roomates. ZFG lived at Motel 6.
Casey's ZG was the child of Victor and Gloria. ZFG is not.
Casey's ZG had no tattoos. ZFG has many very obvious tattoos.
The list goes on and on.

Aside from the name (if ZFG really is ZFG) and the sawgrass connection and the NY connection, there are no similarities between the real ZFG and the imaginary nanny. Plaintiff ZFG is obviously not the woman Casey accused, IMO.

Chilly, as it is, the Nanny is a made up person. Most of the details you listed are what she said, as she went along. From what it sounds like, she seen the Sawgrass application, saw the name, and made the connection herself. Starting connection ZFG with a real person. Which explains why she started talking about room mates, that we now know are children of ZFG.

Another words, THIS person wasn't originally the 'nanny'. She only became the 'nanny' after KC seen her app. It's possible that KC lead the LE to Sawgrass thinking it would get them off of her, and on to 'this' ZFG.

KC goes with what will work for the moment. KC didn't think folks would think she was lying. She most likely didn't think about what ZFG would do, or that ZFG would have the option to prove she wasn't involved. The whole thing fell apart right away. The fact that the apartment # she was using in her story is vacant.. she changed it to dropping the baby off at the stairs. Then it was the part, but still with the same woman. Trying to make a 'fit' that couldn't' be disproven.

She didn't really have it all thought out. The fact that this ZFG didn't match what she said before, she most likely didn't think it would matter. What does, is that it matched what she was saying lately. Using what little she could gather from that app.

If that is what KC did, and IMHO she did, then she should be held accountable for it.

 

[MOMto5]

Now I am going nuts and am on a Mission. I just listened to both LE interviews with KC and read the arrest report. KC isn't asked and doesn't state how many kids ZG had or did not have. Yet, I remember long ago thinking she was asked and said 2 kids; everyone else on this forum says she was asked and said no kids--her countersuit claims she told LE 2 kids--her attorney is quoted in the news today as stating that she told LE she had no kids. So which is it? Where in any of the docs is KC asked this question and what is her answer!?

This is from the transcripts of LE interview:

Q: And we're talking about the baby sitter right?

A: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

Q: She didn't have any children?

A: No

Q: Could, could she have children?

A: I...

Q: Is this something that she could've done and....

A: I'm pretty sure that she could that was never anything that came up.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1473801...t-UNiversal-of-Casey-Anthony-2008-0716-Part-2

(It's on page 58 of 68)