Just my thoughts... if I was on the jury for the ZFG case
(not to stand up for Casey)
1. Casey seen a picture of her and said NO she did not know her and she was to old.
2. The children's names are different than the roommates names.
3. There are several other ZG's and they are not having problems with jobs.
4. ZG was found by a local news station and ZG CHOSE to go on TV in the "shadow". If ZG would have turned the tv station down in a request for an interview. We would not know or care about her. Just like we do not know or care about all the other ZG's in Orlando.
5. Casey stated that ZG was 25 years old and sometimes wore straight or curly hair.
6. When asked if she had children Casey said No or she did not know.
Maybe Casey was wanting to use the ZG name from the lady down the street who's house is for sale. Why shouldn't she file for defamation? Why do not all the ZG's in Orlando sue?
45.
1. KC told her mother that she had not been shown a picture of 'that girl in Kissimmee; that was another lie the police told.' CA then went on TV and repeated that the 'girl in Kissimmee' had not been cleared by KC.
2. KC's story on the details of ZG changed even in her pleadings in the civil suit.
3. There are no other ZG's that had any connection to Sawgrass.
4. We can't see into another's heart to determine their "true" motives but my understanding is that the woman felt compelled to clear her name because at that time CA was actively trying to cast suspicion on her. I hope Morgan adds CA as a defendant to the suit. IMO, CA and GA seemed very reluctant to clear this ZG even at the depositions where they seemed to bite off the words, they were so angry at saying them, imo.
5. KC's descriptions of this woman changed throughout, including in her pleadings in the civil case.
6. In one pleading she said her ZG only had 2 children, coincidentally the number of children listed on the Sawgrass guest form and that didn't match the real ZG who had 6 children. In another pleading, she claimed zero children.
The case has been allowed to proceed so far and I guess we'll see in a little while if there are sufficient legal grounds to go forward. I respect your opinion as I do the opinions of the many posters who agree with your position on this case. I disagree but am responding to your post at this late date solely to try to clear up what I perceive to be a misunderstanding of the facts of the case. Well, one of us is confused, could be me!
