amethyst221
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,158
- Reaction score
- 0
In the beginning of the interviewing by police, Casey was shown a picture of ZFG and was asked... is this the nanny? ZFG? Casey said NO and signed the picture that she did not know who that person was. Essentially, this states that she did not have Caylee.
ZFG was asked to look at a picture of Casey and was asked.. do you know this person? She said no.. and signed it.
In my book, CASE CLOSED. ZFG was found by Fox news and asked to do an interview... she said yes and did it under the shadow.. if she did not want the attention.. she should not have done the interview. There are other ZFG's in FLORIDA and they are not suing.
Casey also states in the jail house video that ZFG was in her twenties with straight sometime curly hair. UMMMM ZFG that is 40 and has FAKE blond hair.. that does not sound like you.....:waitasec:
If she can't get a job (she was already living in a motel) then maybe she needs to work on that.
I am not for the Anthony's but I am sorry....
we all know Casey did it, Orlando knows Casey did it.. I do not think that ZFG could find 1 person in Orlando that thinks she killed Casey. She is suing for defamation right? Do we think this ZFG did this? Do you know ANYONE that thinks this particular ZFG killed Caylee? I bet not.. then I hereby state how can one be defamed if no one thinks you did anything? What about the other ZFG's????
So if she "proves" Casey did it through her "civil suit" and Casey shows that she said early on and signed a paper that the ZFG was not this ZFG then I do not see where Casey EVER said it was this PARTICULAR person.
I think using her civil case as a way to "get titalating juicy tidbits" about the murder case is not nessecary.. Why does she just not wait until the trial.. CASEY WILL BE CONVICTED????? She is not waiting because then it will prove she was not the one who killed Caylee.. and she will not have a case.
Now you can all burn me at the stake...
I don't want to burn you at the stake. I probably disagree with your interpretation of some of the "facts" and in my legal interpretations of how to prove a defamation claim, don't find the lawsuit wholly frivolous, and I'm not opposed in general to people using the courts for relief when that is necessary, obviously. I won't beat that dead horse again. I also don't have any illusion that the motives of the attorney who filed (not necessarily his client's) are mixed. He wants to explore the issues in the murder case, to the extent he can, and garner some publicity, perhaps, or help. I'd leave it to the SA's, though he doesn't have to. I personally, in the interest of my client's claims, would not have released the deposition transcripts of the witnesses so far, and would want the witnesses sequestered, to avoid their "harmonizing" their testimony. Even though the press and people like me have a prurient interest, I wouldn't do it this way.