Cindy's Deposition #3 *UPDATED* MOTION FILED

[nyvictoria]

Thanks, I thought it should be there, but it isn't

Are you logged in? If not, I don't think you'll see the edit button.

ETA: I just realized how ridiculous this suggestion is. Of course you're logged in. If you weren't, you wouldn't be able to post.

Just ignore me :crazy:

 

[Chezhire]

If he is going after proving that Casey did the deed; surly he is planing to get way ahead of the criminal case.
AGAIN: if there is something to fear IF IF IF it has to be given respect too.
Like I have been saying it should be conducted in hush, hush manor, no videos, and other BS.
in the proper arena = seems this case may need that.
IF there is any reason at all to fear - he is asking them to walk out of court and wait for a bullet.
If GA's suicide attempt has to do with all the things we DO NOT KNOW.
I appreciate your reply. :blowkiss:
I am also waiting for a reply from a Florida attorney. but he is corporate and gaming, I am not so sure he will know.

If the Anthonys were truly worried for their safety, their attorney would have filed a Motion For Protective Order Re: Discovery Depositions on these grounds, ask that the discovery depositions be conducted "...in a specific manner/not be conducted in a specific manner...," so as not to bring/cause any harm to the Anthonys, etc. Attorneys who file these types of motions typically ask for an in chambers conference/Status Conference to discuss the sensitive nature of the discovery issues, and it could have been handled fairly easily this way. I've done this myself.

Brad C. didn't do this, so I have to presume the Anthonys are not in fear for their lives, or that they'll "... walk out of court and wait for a bullet...," as you suggest.

 

[songline]

If the Anthony's were truly worried for their safety, their attorney would have filed a Motion For Protective Order Re: Discovery Depositions on these grounds, ask that the discovery depositions be conducted "...in a specific manner/not be conducted in a specific manner...," so as not to bring/cause any harm to the Anthony's, etc. Attorneys who file these types of motions typically ask for an in chambers conference/Status Conference to discuss the sensitive nature of the discovery issues, and it could have been handled fairly easily this way. I've done this myself.

Brad C. didn't do this, so I have to presume the Anthony's are not in fear for their lives, or that they'll "... walk out of court and wait for a bullet...," as you suggest.

You are being rational...In a case that does not seem to be rational. If the "A"s were to seek for a motion for protection? they would have to name names. Protection from who?
Mr. Big $hot would know how the process works. IF IF IF they are hooked in with bad people reasonable does not work.

I once had to help a woman escape USA with her son, to go back home to her country. Her husband was hooked up with bad people and he took her passport.
Reasonable could not have worked. Not in this case. Out of the question.
After a year he was able to get her back here with a court order. But I had to help her set it up in a way that forced them to send her back home to her country.
He is a well known rich guy who offered to pay me big buck$ to help him but I refused.
I managed the building they lived in and I had enough data to go in another direction with the case.
She is safe and she is gone back home to her country.
If there are shady bad people in the mix... Rational is not always rational.
But consideration deserves space too.
IN THE END it may be a Casey done the deed, but I sure would hate to find out in 15 years that she was innocent.

 

[Patty G]

Thanks, I thought it should be there, but it isn't

After a certain amount of time you can no longer edit your post.

 

[songline]

No, it should not. This woman was slandered publicly and she has the right to have her name cleared publicly. AGREEDWhat part of defamation are you not understanding? Someone took enough of her identity to create an imaginanny. That person's family did all they could to keep the focus on that person. When confronted by that person saying "HEY! HOLD ON A SECOND!!!! I'VE NEVER MET CASEY ANTHONY AND I HAVE NEVER WATCHED HER CHILD!!" the lot of them scoffed and pretended it was OKAY!!!!!!!! to have done it in the first place. IT IS NOT OK and it needs to be cleared, exonerated means that the rest is just a formality, she is clear

It was unequivocally NOT okay. It was an offense where ZG-of-the-Deposition has rights. Her right is to NOT have someone utilize a part of her identity to create a story which involves the death of a small child (let alone anything that would fall into a much more minor area). Right

Imagine if you will, someone gets hold of your identity. Not just Songline, but the identity by which your friends and family and employer know you. They take that identity and start linking it to illegal activity. When you catch on, you see what they're doing, you call them on it. They may cease what they have done up until then, but the damage to your name has already been done. They may go on television and tell people that she's blowing it out of proportion; we didn't even MEAN her. She just has the same name we were using. They keep insisting, however, that the person has nearly all the same attributes as you possess, except gosh. You're really not that attractive and we're sure we said she was a 10. They continue to drag your name out as a convenient excuse for who really committed the crime, yet scoff at any thoughts you might have to attempt to clear your name. By god, they've SAID it wasn't you!!!! They are not nice or smart people, they are between a rock and a hard place, and not likable, neither is Mr. Morgan.

That is what ZG-of-the-Deposition faces, to this day. I've even seen you disparage her because you disagree with her civil action against those people who did this to her. You've said she had nothing before. You've said she's just looking for money. You've said she's just looking for her 15 minutes.
I have said that her attorney is looking for fame and she is looking for money. because it does not have to go on and on and on. I have said she is cleared now, and the rest belongs in the criminal arena
ZG-of-the-Deposition will never be afforded what you so easily scoff at now: A name kept out of the limelight, always with a question attached as to what was her "real" role in the disappearance and death of Caylee Marie Anthony. Be glad you have that privilege in these United States. It has been stripped from one of your countrywomen.

There are far too many cases where peope come out of jail after 10-25 years and have always been innocent.
I am sure you read about that too, but if you google it there will be pages of names that come up.
I have said that because much is pointing at Casey it seems like the easy way to go. but not all things that are easy are right, and I also said that she may be the culprit, but I want to give all the other possibilities enough space and time to air out, and not just jump on "it must be Casey" frankly the girl just is not that smart and there are many flags that make me ask more questions. And I said that Mr. Morgan IMHO is heading in the wrong line of questioning that has nothing to do with clearing ZG, he wants to go after a killer - that is not his job. That is what I am still saying.

 

[believe09]

You are being rational...In a case that does not seem to be rational. If the "A"s were to seek for a motion for protection? they would have to name names. Protection from who?
Mr. Big $hot would know how the process works. IF IF IF they are hooked in with bad people reasonable does not work.

Respectfully edited...Perhaps I have not been following closely enough or I am simplistic-in the case of the ZFG lawsuit, the Anthony's could have headed this off months ago if they had conceeded that this woman was not the ZFG who had anything to do in anyway shape or form with their granddaughter's disappearance.

But they did not; until they couldn't avoid the depos any longer.

Additionally, as far as I could see, they did not make any firm statements regarding her that completely separated her from the identity of the ZFG that their daughter claimed was associated with the granddaughter...I recall statements from Cindy about the spelling of the name being the difference...WTH? How about, "No I do not believe the woman involved in this lawsuit is the ZFG who I choose to believe stole my grandchild."

The fact of the matter is the Anthony's are still looking for a fall guy to pin this on, SODDI. Jesse, the fictitious nanny, Tony...whomever. The more the merrier. Reasonable doubt at any cost. Again, they need to assign the blame to the person who put them in the position. JB could have dropped the countersuit. But he didn't, and this alone put Casey's family on the hot seat in front of ZFG's attorneys. Of course, we will side step the fact that their grandchild lay decomposing in the trunk of the car that their child had sole control over....and that they now know their child was not working and that a nanny never existed.

JMO.

 

[MissJames]

There are far too many cases where peope come out of jail after 10-25 years and have always been innocent.
I am sure you read about that too, but if you google it there will be pages of names that come up.
I have said that because much is pointing at Casey it seems like the easy way to go. but not all things that are easy are right, and I also said that she may be the culprit, but I want to give all the other possibilities enough space and time to air out, and not just jump on "it must be Casey" frankly the girl just is not that smart and there are many flags that make me ask more questions. And I said that Mr. Morgan IMHO is heading in the wrong line of questioning that has nothing to do with clearing ZG, he wants to go after a killer - that is not his job. That is what I am still saying.

I disagree.If JM can show KC is the probable killer and used ZFG from Sawgrass apts to throw off LE, he proves his case.KC knew Caylee was dead and most likely would be found.She knew this would eventually link ZFG from Sawgrass as the killer.JM has to ask these questions to prove it wasn't just a coincidence that KC used the name,but that she totally made the story up and got the name from the Sawgrass application.
To prove damage JM has to show KC's intent was to throw someone else under the bus.He has to show she did not have a nanny named Zeneida,not just that this was not THE ZFG.

 

[magic-cat]

What WAS Jose's logic in NOT dropping this case? And why does he not just go on and get them to drop it NOW to put an end to it? What could possibly be the benefit to his client? It is like a nuclear disaster...at first it may not seem so bad, but the fallout is devastating!

 

[MissJames]

I disagree.If JM can show KC is the probable killer and used ZFG from Sawgrass apts to throw off LE, he proves his case.KC knew Caylee was dead and most likely would be found.She knew this would eventually link ZFG from Sawgrass as the killer.JM has to ask these questions to prove it wasn't just a coincidence that KC used the name,but that she totally made the story up and got the name from the Sawgrass application.
To prove damage JM has to show KC's intent was to throw someone else under the bus.He has to show she did not have a nanny named Zeneida,not just that this was not THE ZFG.

I'm going to quote myself,sorry.
If my brother' s name is Charles Manson he can't sue Sharon Tate's family because they said someone named Charles Manson killed their relative.It's a coincidence that they have the same name. JM has to prove that their was NO NANNY named ZFG to prove it was more than a coincidence that the same name was used.He does that by showing KC is the most likely killer,that she didn't use a nanny,therefore never left Caylee with a nanny named ZFG.

 

[songline]

Respectfully edited...Perhaps I have not been following closely enough or I am simplistic-in the case of the ZFG lawsuit, the Anthony's could have headed this off months ago if they had conceeded that this woman was not the ZFG who had anything to do in anyway shape or form with their granddaughter's disappearance.

But they did not; until they couldn't avoid the depos any longer.

Additionally, as far as I could see, they did not make any firm statements regarding her that completely separated her from the identity of the ZFG that their daughter claimed was associated with the granddaughter...I recall statements from Cindy about the spelling of the name being the difference...WTH? How about, "No I do not believe the woman involved in this lawsuit is the ZFG who I choose to believe stole my grandchild."

The fact of the matter is the Anthony's are still looking for a fall guy to pin this on, SODDI. Jesse, the fictitious nanny, Tony...whomever. The more the merrier. Reasonable doubt at any cost. Again, they need to assign the blame to the person who put them in the position. JB could have dropped the countersuit. But he didn't, and this alone put Casey's family on the hot seat in front of ZFG's attorneys. Of course, we will side step the fact that their grandchild lay decomposing in the trunk of the car that their child had sole control over....and that they now know their child was not working and that a nanny never existed.

JMO.

Made bold....I agree that this is a problem, and that they are nuts to engage in that line of avoiding what ever it is that they MAY fear.
please notice that I never said that Casey is not the culprit, please notice that I only say that IF there is something to fear this attorney Morgan is going after things that should belong to the criminal arena.
I never said the "A"s are smart, likable, I only say and continue to say that IF there is another direction that this case may take that he is putting them in danger.
That is MO. This is not a normal case.

 

[songline]

What WAS Jose's logic in NOT dropping this case? And why does he not just go on and get them to drop it NOW to put an end to it? What could possibly be the benefit to his client? It is like a nuclear disaster...at first it may not seem so bad, but the fallout is devastating!

I have no clue how Jose' entered this picture at all. Guessing that the person paying the bill may know.
Guessing that the person paying the bill also has a criminal attorney who is advising Jose'.
Obviously Jose does not have a resume to warrant this type of a case.

 

[songline]

I'm going to quote myself,sorry.
If my brother' s name is Charles Manson he can't sue Sharon Tate's family because they said someone named Charles Manson killed their relative.It's a coincidence that they have the same name. JM has to prove that their was NO NANNY named ZFG to prove it was more than a coincidence that the same name was used.He does that by showing KC is the most likely killer,that she didn't use a nanny,therefore never left Caylee with a nanny named ZFG.

I do not think there is a ZFG, and this can be part of how they will get to the truth of the case.
IMHO Jose is an idiot for going along with a counter suit, but then again he was ill advised IMO he has no resume to warrant that he even handle a case like this. But...
The criminal case should go to criminal court, and there may be a FEAR factor here, and Morgan IMO is after something else.
I think now that she ZG is exonerated (the rest is formality and she is in the clear).
I think the rest can wait for the criminal case. I see no hurry for him to get anyone thrown under a bus. It will all come in due time.
I just hope the "A"s stop blaming every Tom Dick and Harry because that is not helping the real case at all.
And if they thought they were broke before this, they may never be less then broke after this. So they need to just go home and wait it out. Till the case begins.
But I do not agree with Morgans agenda.
I see how unlikable the "A"s really are and how they are getting everyone to go against them.
I still do not agree with Morgans line of questioning. This case is not the norm....

 

[debs]

Jose' is not the civil suit lawyer on record, but of course must work in conjunction with that attorney.

As far as Morgan going after Casey as though she were the "culprit" as you put it, he is doing nothing more than what he needs to in order to make certain his client cannot be. That there is no way Casey could have come up with ZG-of-the-Deposition's name that was honest, an accident, or sheer luck (the kind you get from leprechauns). That Casey Anthony, in a willful act in order to cover up nefarious deeds (whatever those deeds may be) selected THIS ZG-of-the-Deposition to use as her alibi.

I explained it upthread: It is not enough now for them to simply sit in a room and say "She's not the one" because too many darn things are in place where coincidence HAS to be removed and intent is applied. Only insofar as his client has been linked to criminal acts including kidnapping and murder, Mr. Morgan CAN ask questions about what these people (the Anthony's) know about the nanny. That includes the questions about meeting her, talking to her on the phone, what they know of her payment, whether they ever wrote checks to finance the nanny's expenses, whether Casey ever seemed to tap into their finances without their permission and whether they know what the reason for that was. Mr. Morgan can ask why they never confronted Casey about her stealing money from family because it goes to exactly their veracity as "loving caring grandparents." It is one of the hallmark themes on this website as to how loving could these grandparents be and be so oblivious to where their granddaughter went when she left the house with her mother who they had suspicions did not have a job and that they pondered whether there really was a nanny or whether "zanny" was just the name of whoever was taking care of Caylee. AND THAT THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING TO FIND OUT THE ANSWERS. If they DID do something, then it is the right of Mr. Morgan for his client's sake to ask the question "What did you do? Did that cause any tension? Were there any fights? Did Casey take off because you finally confronted her on these lies about a nanny?"

Mr. Morgan has more than one question for Casey but somehow everyone thinks that the problem is resolved if she simply answers for this civil suit "Is this woman the woman you know to be the nanny you say you left your child with (or later on said kidnapped from your arms in a wrestling match in JBP)?" It is NOT that simple. Casey knew enough about THIS woman's life to weave it into her story. While she had the name "Zanny" for years, at least one person says he heard the name "ZFG" very early on in Caylee's life. Casey herself says she's known ZFG for 6 years. She weaves a life of friendship into this woman's name. She identifies where she showed up to apply for an apartment as the location (at first) where she dropped off Caylee. She identifies a car similar to the one this woman drives. The names in her story are similar to names (if not identical) this woman has in her life.

There is no coincidences here. There is a series of events whereby Casey found out information about this woman and took it and used it as an alibi to cover up a heineous act. If Casey did not do it (allowing for innocent until proven), it does not remove the fact that she still created THIS story about THIS woman to cover up what happened to her child. And as an attorney defending his client's name, he has every right to dig into this criminal act to find out how far down did Casey crawl into the slime to create this craptastic story about how ZG stole her baby. And too bad that their daughter could not have come forth herself to do so.

 

[believe09]

Made bold....I agree that this is a problem, and that they are nuts to engage in that line of avoiding what ever it is that they MAY fear.
please notice that I never said that Casey is not the culprit, please notice that I only say that IF there is something to fear this attorney Morgan is going after things that should belong to the criminal arena.
I never said the "A"s are smart, likable, I only say and continue to say that IF there is another direction that this case may take that he is putting them in danger.
That is MO. This is not a normal case.

I understand what you are saying; I have seen not a shred of anything that indicates they are in danger from anything other than a nuclear meltdown when they cannot hide from what their child has done and they have to aknowledge to themselves that they did not stand up for Caylee who was the victim. Casey is not the victim to me-Casey is the perp. The Anthony's are victims too, BUT. First in line for victimization is Caylee the defenseless toddler who was murdered. Gma and Gpa are adults with more days of life available to them-they have all kinds of time to see their child should they choose to have a reunion with no strings attached.

It makes me crazy that this baby was so disposable by one and all.

 

[believe09]

Jose' is not the civil suit lawyer on record, but of course must work in conjunction with that attorney.

As far as Morgan going after Casey as though she were the "culprit" as you put it, he is doing nothing more than what he needs to in order to make certain his client cannot be. That there is no way Casey could have come up with ZG-of-the-Deposition's name that was honest, an accident, or sheer luck (the kind you get from leprechauns). That Casey Anthony, in a willful act in order to cover up nefarious deeds (whatever those deeds may be) selected THIS ZG-of-the-Deposition to use as her alibi.

I explained it upthread: It is not enough now for them to simply sit in a room and say "She's not the one" because too many darn things are in place where coincidence HAS to be removed and intent is applied. Only insofar as his client has been linked to criminal acts including kidnapping and murder, Mr. Morgan CAN ask questions about what these people (the Anthony's) know about the nanny. That includes the questions about meeting her, talking to her on the phone, what they know of her payment, whether they ever wrote checks to finance the nanny's expenses, whether Casey ever seemed to tap into their finances without their permission and whether they know what the reason for that was. Mr. Morgan can ask why they never confronted Casey about her stealing money from family because it goes to exactly their veracity as "loving caring grandparents." It is one of the hallmark themes on this website as to how loving could these grandparents be and be so oblivious to where their granddaughter went when she left the house with her mother who they had suspicions did not have a job and that they pondered whether there really was a nanny or whether "zanny" was just the name of whoever was taking care of Caylee. AND THAT THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING TO FIND OUT THE ANSWERS. If they DID do something, then it is the right of Mr. Morgan for his client's sake to ask the question "What did you do? Did that cause any tension? Were there any fights? Did Casey take off because you finally confronted her on these lies about a nanny?"

Mr. Morgan has more than one question for Casey but somehow everyone thinks that the problem is resolved if she simply answers for this civil suit "Is this woman the woman you know to be the nanny you say you left your child with (or later on said kidnapped from your arms in a wrestling match in JBP)?" It is NOT that simple. Casey knew enough about THIS woman's life to weave it into her story. While she had the name "Zanny" for years, at least one person says he heard the name "ZFG" very early on in Caylee's life. Casey herself says she's known ZFG for 6 years. She weaves a life of friendship into this woman's name. She identifies where she showed up to apply for an apartment as the location (at first) where she dropped off Caylee. She identifies a car similar to the one this woman drives. The names in her story are similar to names (if not identical) this woman has in her life.

There is no coincidences here. There is a series of events whereby Casey found out information about this woman and took it and used it as an alibi to cover up a heineous act. If Casey did not do it (allowing for innocent until proven), it does not remove the fact that she still created THIS story about THIS woman to cover up what happened to her child. And as an attorney defending his client's name, he has every right to dig into this criminal act to find out how far down did Casey crawl into the slime to create this craptastic story about how ZG stole her baby. And too bad that their daughter could not have come forth herself to do so.

I agree with the spirit of this; Casey chose this woman based on her vulnerability...based on the fact that she was likely a minority with children who drove something less than a beamer. This was an integral part of the plan; choose someone who possibly cannot fight back...say like her original victim.

So go, JM-and as for theories on why JB did not drop the suit, I suspect this is part of the incompetent defense or saturate the jury pool plan...JMO.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "You are being rational...In a case that does not seem to be rational. If the "A"s were to seek for a motion for protection? they would have to name names. Protection from who?..."

...and it is Brad C's job to be rational on behalf of his clients and to provide them with sound, rational legal advice.

If the Anthonys had a justifiable belief that they were in any danger, such that any reasonable person would feel that they were in danger (reasonability is typically the test in the courts, "would a reasonable person in the Anthonys shoes be fearful," etc.,) Brad C. should have no problem drafting a Motion For Protective Order that a judge would sign. It's just not that complicated to do.

Specific people don't have to be named - but you do have to provide enough of a rational basis for your clients' fear/beliefs. I once had a client who kept getting horrible phone calls and messages during the pendancy of a case. She was a witness only, so I filed for a protective order on her behalf re: all discovery directed at her, which allowed her to speak without fear that anyone other than the parties to the case would read/hear what she'd said, and said order remained in place throught the pendancy of the proceedings. Since the only people who were, per the court order, to be privy to her statements/deposition were the parties themselves, if she continued getting harrassing/obscene calls about what she said it would be really clear that one of the parties was doing it or had leaked it, which would lead to court ordered subpeonas for everyone's phone records, etc. Have to say, there was nary a PEEP in her direction after that.

It is true that if all someone has is their personal beliefs and cannot with some degree of specificity explain the basis for said beliefs, such as someone stalking them, making threatening phone calls, etc., it does lead to the conclusion that it's simply the person's paranoia, which means that such a motion would be denied, and properly so. Personal paranoia is never a basis for impeding the movement of a civil matter in our legal system (though it might qualify one for a trip to see a psychiatrist/psychologist/therapist... )

 

[Chezhire]

There are far too many cases where peope come out of jail after 10-25 years and have always been innocent. I am sure you read about that too, but if you google it there will be pages of names that come up.
I have said that because much is pointing at Casey it seems like the easy way to go. but not all things that are easy are right, and I also said that she may be the culprit, but I want to give all the other possibilities enough space and time to air out, and not just jump on "it must be Casey" frankly the girl just is not that smart and there are many flags that make me ask more questions. And I said that Mr. Morgan IMHO is heading in the wrong line of questioning that has nothing to do with clearing ZG, he wants to go after a killer - that is not his job. That is what I am still saying.

Bolded be me, Chezhire.

I think that the above post veers off track into the criminal case, and these depositions are not being taken by the SA for the purpose of the criminal indictment against Casey.

They're being taken by the plaintiff's attorney in a civil matter because Casey allegedly defamed the plaintiff. A civil matter that Casey responded to by filing a countersuit, no less.

Part of Mr. Morgan's job is to prove that Casey lied when she'd said that she left Caylee with a nanny named ZG - and the easiest way in the civil case for him to do his job is to prove to those civil jurors that it is more likely than not that Casey killed Caylee.

The standard of proof in a civil matter is different than in a criminal matter, as well it should be, since you're looking at monetary damages and not your personal freedoms/liberties. It's just as when OJ wasn't convicted in Nicole's murder, but the civil case was a landslide victory for N's family.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... The criminal case should go to criminal court, and there may be a FEAR factor here, and Morgan IMO is after something else.
I think now that she ZG is exonerated (the rest is formality and she is in the clear).
I think the rest can wait for the criminal case. I see no hurry for him to get anyone thrown under a bus. It will all come in due time. ..."

Bolded by me, Chezhire.

It is the client's decision as to how aggressively she wishes her attorney to pursue her case. I imagine that ZFG is quite upset about what Casey had to say...and no one should place any blame on her for wanting to move her civil case along as she so desires. It's how our legal system is set up and if a litigant/witness doesn't like it, well then they need to complain that their laws should be changed, etc.

 

[Boston]

What WAS Jose's logic in NOT dropping this case? And why does he not just go on and get them to drop it NOW to put an end to it? What could possibly be the benefit to his client? It is like a nuclear disaster...at first it may not seem so bad, but the fallout is devastating!

I agree...

His client is facing Death ...!!

What possible benefit can come from allowing this Lawsuit to go forward?

He's risking everything to gain nothing...!!

 

[Vegas Bride]

I'm going to quote myself,sorry.
If my brother' s name is Charles Manson he can't sue Sharon Tate's family because they said someone named Charles Manson killed their relative.It's a coincidence that they have the same name. JM has to prove that their was NO NANNY named ZFG to prove it was more than a coincidence that the same name was used.He does that by showing KC is the most likely killer,that she didn't use a nanny,therefore never left Caylee with a nanny named ZFG.

Except in this case, there is another Charles Manson (a real Charles Manson, not a figment of someones imagination) who is in prison for murder so I doubt anybody would be thinking Charles Manson the killer is running around free and maybe putting in job applications somewhere. If I were to meet somebody today with the name Charles Manson my reaction would be to feel sorry for the person.
The thing with ZHG, how many ZHG are there that have a connection to the sawgrass apartments?

VB