**all things zfg lawsuit merged **

[MarleneM]

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 park, 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.

I agree. Just like KC boldly cleaned out her 'friend' AH's bank account mere days before she returned from vacation, did KC even consider ZFG would take issue with KC stealing her information and using it for personal gain?

 

[Spangle]

I agree. Just like KC boldly cleaned out her 'friend' AH's bank account mere days before she returned from vacation, did KC even consider ZFG would take issue with KC stealing her information and using it for personal gain?

I doubt she thought about how ZFG thought about it. WIth AH, she could tell her some story (Oh my gosh) where she had to 'borrow' the money that she will pay back. Rolling with it.

But the ZFG thing, I think after she seen the app, it was a set up. She found a ZFG "Nanny" to point to. It became "Nanny did it." She added the details she learned from the app to her stories, as best she could. Talked about "Zani" and that Caylee was with her, to those who are interested.

Her people would believe her, that she gave Caylee to this Nanny person. So why wouldn't anyone else?

 

[LindaFaye]

I think she thought everyone would think the nanny took Caylee
and since there is know real nanny that they would never find
her then she could go on with her partying lieing stealing ect.
and live her life as if it never was a Caylee because if there is
not a nanny how can they find the nanny and Caylee.
Hope all this makes since I'm not much into putting things in
words.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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)

Thanks so much! It's really strange, I listened to that interview 2x and did not hear that part. Hmmm, so where did her attorney get the info that she told LE ZG had 2 kids as they claimed in the counter-suit! All this happened so long ago and there's been so much info dumped since the beginning my head is starting to spin!

 

[Chilly Willy]

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.

Bold mine

Just to keep things straight - the roomate's names are not the names of the two children ZG listed on the application.

 

[Chilly Willy]

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.

Thank you for taking the time to answer. What I'm understanding then is, when this case gets to court, ZFG could simply drop her claims about losing her job and home and there will be no penalty for lying about those losses when the suit was filed? It won't effect her credibility in claiming general damages?

 

[jennyb]

From what I understand the two names listed by ZFG on the application were not specified as her children. She listed two names that would be living in the apartment with her and those are the TWO NAMES that KC assumed were roomates. She named those two names SPECIFICALLY. KC obviously had access to the application but made a mistake in thinking they were adults. I think it's pretty CLEAR what happened here.

 

[Chilly Willy]

From what I understand the two names listed by ZFG on the application were not specified as her children. She listed two names that would be living in the apartment with her and those are the TWO NAMES that KC assumed were roomates. She named those two names SPECIFICALLY. KC obviously had access to the application but made a mistake in thinking they were adults. I think it's pretty CLEAR what happened here.

That is incorrect. The two names Casey gave as ZG's roommates were not the same names as the two children listed on the application.

Roomates: Raquell F and Jennifer R

The two children: M and J (not Jennifer)

 

[jennyb]

I stand corrected. However, I do believe the names are of two of ZFG's children, even if they weren't listed on the app. ZFG has 6 children. So KC got ZFG's specifics elsewhere. I don't have a link, it's just what I recall so if I'm incorrect please excuse this post.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I stand corrected. However, I do believe the names are of two of ZFG's children, even if they weren't listed on the app. ZFG has 6 children. So KC got ZFG's specifics elsewhere. I don't have a link, it's just what I recall so if I'm incorrect please excuse this post.

I don't recall the names of ZFG's other children ever being released.

 

[jennyb]

I don't recall the names of ZFG's other children ever being released.

Whether they were released or not is not my point. What I said was that I recall two of ZFG's children's names were used by KC -- mistakenly referred to as "roommates". Maybe I heard it in one of Morgan's interviews. Again, if I am incorrect, my bad. But the fact that they were not *released* means nothing in my context.

I don't have links so I'll stop here. You seem to have a handle on the facts and I haven't followed it that closely. It's quite possible I'm way off base.

 

[fortytwo]

There's been such a blizzard of claims and counter-claims made about facts, statements and rumors concerning all this that I have completely lost track.

I think (?) that the essence of the issue boils down to this

(SoCal, maybe you can help me here?)

Did KC make any statements or perform any actions which can be demonstrated to have a detrimental effect on ZFG's image or reputation in the arena of public opinion?

Isn't that what defamation is all about?

It doesn't matter how many stories KC had, when she had them, when she changed them, or anything else. It only matters whether or not it was actions of hers which brought this woman into the eye of the public in a derogatory fashion.

Somebody did, or we never would have heard of her in the first place. If it wasn't KC, then it was somebody else.

So in that case who else would it be?

The case being brought by ZFG will address the question of KC as the person initially responsible. I feel that this is reasonable.

 

[Indigo]

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

IIRC, wasn't the really odd thing supposed to be that ZFG has 6 (?) children, but only listed two on the application. And that Casey claimed that ZFG had two children? I believe I saw this on an interview with the real ZFG.

 

[Ripley007]

I doubt she thought about how ZFG thought about it. WIth AH, she could tell her some story (Oh my gosh) where she had to 'borrow' the money that she will pay back. Rolling with it.

But the ZFG thing, I think after she seen the app, it was a set up. She found a ZFG "Nanny" to point to. It became "Nanny did it." She added the details she learned from the app to her stories, as best she could. Talked about "Zani" and that Caylee was with her, to those who are interested.

Her people would believe her, that she gave Caylee to this Nanny person. So why wouldn't anyone else?

Just don't loose sight of the fact that KC claimed she had a "nanny named zanny" LONG before Caylee died. As a matter of fact the Rev. Grund is going to testify at the trial that he heard the FULL name Zeniada Gonzelez back when Caylee was an infant.
The only way KC could have been at Sawgrass apts. on the 17th of June, at the same time as the REAL ZG was if she had followed her there. (IMO)
My theory. Caylee was killed without planning and forethought. THEN KC tried to figure out who to blame her death upon. Remembered she had already snowed friends and family with this ZG babysitter lie, then she had to find A REAL ZG to pin the crime on...

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Thank you for taking the time to answer. What I'm understanding then is, when this case gets to court, ZFG could simply drop her claims about losing her job and home and there will be no penalty for lying about those losses when the suit was filed? It won't effect her credibility in claiming general damages?

I just re-read ZG's lawsuit. It is not a verified complaint signed by ZG under penalty of perjury--it is just a form complaint for defamation signed by her lawyer (very common). Therefore, although things brought up in the complaint, if they turned out to be false, could be brought up at trial--it's really a non-issue since her attorney wrote it and my guess is she didn't even see it before he filed it. (Again, very common).

Significantly, ZG makes no claims about loss of income, loss of a job or loss of a home in her complaint. She is not claiming damages for losing her job or home or any special or economic loss damages at all. The only damages she claims she sustained as a result of KC's actions are damages to her reputation and emotional distress--non-pecuniary general damages. Since she never mentioned job loss or home loss in her complaint she can't very well be accused of lying about it in the complaint.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

There's been such a blizzard of claims and counter-claims made about facts, statements and rumors concerning all this that I have completely lost track.

I think (?) that the essence of the issue boils down to this

(SoCal, maybe you can help me here?)

Did KC make any statements or perform any actions which can be demonstrated to have a detrimental effect on ZFG's image or reputation in the arena of public opinion?

Isn't that what defamation is all about?

It doesn't matter how many stories KC had, when she had them, when she changed them, or anything else. It only matters whether or not it was actions of hers which brought this woman into the eye of the public in a derogatory fashion.

Somebody did, or we never would have heard of her in the first place. If it wasn't KC, then it was somebody else.

So in that case who else would it be?

The case being brought by ZFG will address the question of KC as the person initially responsible. I feel that this is reasonable.

You are exactly right but for one very significant element that has to be added. In order to prove defamation ZG has to prove that "kc made a defamatory statement of or concerning the Plaintiff." In this case, the plaintiff is ZG so ZG has to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that KC made a defamatory statement of or concerning her. KC, of course, is going to say it wasn't about this ZG it was about another ZG. However, the law on this particular issue is pretty clear that if you make a defamatory statement about someone--and by virtue of what you said, Who you said it to, how you said it, and the circumstances surrounding the statement-it is reasonable for others to think you were referring to a particular person--then you are liable, even if you were actually directing it at someone else.

 

[Ripley007]

IIRC, wasn't the really odd thing supposed to be that ZFG has 6 (?) children, but only listed two on the application. And that Casey claimed that ZFG had two children? I believe I saw this on an interview with the real ZFG.

IIRC ZG has 6 children. At least 4 are grown and gone out her care, I assume.

 

[MOMto5]

You are exactly right but for one very significant element that has to be added. In order to prove defamation ZG has to prove that "kc made a defamatory statement of or concerning the Plaintiff." In this case, the plaintiff is ZG so ZG has to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that KC made a defamatory statement of or concerning her. KC, of course, is going to say it wasn't about this ZG it was about another ZG. However, the law on this particular issue is pretty clear that if you make a defamatory statement about someone--and by virtue of what you said, Who you said it to, how you said it, and the circumstances surrounding the statement-it is reasonable for others to think you were referring to a particular person--then you are liable, even if you were actually directing it at someone else.

*bold mine

Very interesting. So, LE has stated that this is the only ZFG in FL that has connections to Sawgrass Apt., and the Sawgrass Apt. thing came from KC, too. So, if it was enough info. to lead LE to this particular ZFG, do you think she may have a viable suit?

 

[tx_Dot]

I just re-read ZG's lawsuit. It is not a verified complaint signed by ZG under penalty of perjury--it is just a form complaint for defamation signed by her lawyer (very common). Therefore, although things brought up in the complaint, if they turned out to be false, could be brought up at trial--it's really a non-issue since her attorney wrote it and my guess is she didn't even see it before he filed it. (Again, very common).

Significantly, ZG makes no claims about loss of income, loss of a job or loss of a home in her complaint. She is not claiming damages for losing her job or home or any special or economic loss damages at all. The only damages she claims she sustained as a result of KC's actions are damages to her reputation and emotional distress--non-pecuniary general damages. Since she never mentioned job loss or home loss in her complaint she can't very well be accused of lying about it in the complaint.

my bold.....

Interesting......since this lawsuit is the only ref. we can find that has the F-name in this ZG's name.....or even an F.........there are many rumors about another middle initial.

So where's her lawsuit if there is no F-name included in hers ??

 

[Ripley007]

my bold.....

Interesting......since this lawsuit is the only ref. we can find that has the F-name in this ZG's name.....or even an F.........there are many rumors about another middle initial.

So where's her lawsuit if there is no F-name included in hers ??

The "F" hyphened name is no different of a lie than changing the make and model of the car that ZG drove. I believe ZG's lawyer when he says he feels confident that despite the "half-truths/lies" he can prove to a judge or jury that initially KC meant to frame THIS ZG.