Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[cityslick]

Isn't she concerned about her lying convictions on appeal?

Sure, but she would be lying about the lies made in court, not the lies she told LE. I don't think they can hold it against her what was said during the trial (double jeopardy and all that).

 

[Aedrys]

Isn't she concerned about her lying convictions on appeal?

No, that's for her lawyers to handle. This is Casey. She will lie and lie and lie again. It doesn't matter if she has a lying appeal going on. The only people who probably care are the lawyers handling the appeal. Casey doesn't give a rats arse about any appeal (no offense river rat).

 

[logicalgirl]

No, that's for her lawyers to handle. This is Casey. She will lie and lie and lie again. It doesn't matter if she has a lying appeal going on. The only people who probably care are the lawyers handling the appeal. Casey doesn't give a rats arse about any appeal (no offense river rat).

She needs to care because some of the money she owes in judgements is tied into the appeals.
You answered before I added the rest of my response - which is so what if she lies and says no.

Morgan and Morgan have lots of ammunition to show she lies and lies and here she is lying again. This gal lies so much you can't believe anything she says so you can't believe her in this one instance in this civil trial.

So OCA still loses to TES because no one would vote in her favour under these circumstances.

Now I am going back to my world where the glass is always half full - always. Sometimes it just takes me a while to see it. But that's an optimist for you.

 

[Talina]

Isn't she concerned about her lying convictions on appeal? And if she does say no, then Morgan and Morgan can point out what a liar she is - again and who can believe anything she says - a judge won't and a jury won't. So TES still wins.

Well, that depends on what she appealing. Is she appealing that she got sentenced to 4 instead of just 1 continuous (as they argued at sentencing and HHJP said no, it was 4 distinct lies) or she appealing the lying conviction altogether? I've heard both and until the actual appeal argument is filed, we won't know.

Since she didn't testify to anything at her trial, I don't see how any attorney TES or Morgan can say she is lying now because it conflicts with what she said at trial since she didn't say anything herself.

 

[logicalgirl]

Well, that depends on what she appealing. Is she appealing that she got sentenced to 4 instead of just 1 continuous (as they argued at sentencing and HHJP said no, it was 4 distinct lies) or she appealing the lying conviction altogether? I've heard both and until the actual appeal argument is filed, we won't know.

Since she didn't testify to anything at her trial, I don't see how any attorney TES or Morgan can say she is lying now because it conflicts with what she said at trial since she didn't say anything herself.

Um, she signed a statement saying Caylee was kidnapped, then Baez, acting on information she gave him, said otherwise. So if he said it, she said it. It is not legal for him to make up stories she hasn't told him IMO.

 

[Aedrys]

Well, that depends on what she appealing. Is she appealing that she got sentenced to 4 instead of just 1 continuous (as they argued at sentencing and HHJP said no, it was 4 distinct lies) or she appealing the lying conviction altogether? I've heard both and until the actual appeal argument is filed, we won't know.

Since she didn't testify to anything at her trial, I don't see how any attorney TES or Morgan can say she is lying now because it conflicts with what she said at trial since she didn't say anything herself.

Yep, and her lawyers keep putting off saying what the appeal is about. Someone said they have one last 30 day extension, but I just know they'll find a way to keep putting off saying exactly what they're appealing as long as they can. Gotta love our judicial system for stuff like that.

 

[Thinker Belle]

I think it is like when your kids are in middle school, and they try these ridiculous stories out on you. [ No,we weren't playing with matches..ummm...this new kid was...don't know his name..never saw him around here before,,,yup, he was in our front yard but I think he moved back to Texas....]

Anyway, one of the best ways to trap them is to 'accept' their version of events and follow it through. It was kind of fun sometimes...lol

Great point! And I will have to remember that strategy for when my little one is in middle school..

 

[Talina]

Um, she signed a statement saying Caylee was kidnapped, then Baez, acting on information she gave him, said otherwise. So if he said it, she said it. It is not legal for him to make up stories she hasn't told him IMO.

Yes, but many attorneys have said since he very first said this in the OS and since the end of the trial that she can not be held legally responsible for what he says. She did not say it herself under oath.

All she would have to say now is that she lied to him, not that he made anything up and he wouldn't get into any trouble either. Given how she lies with no thought whatsoever, I feel sure she has already thought of that.

Lying to her comes as natural as breathing does, IMO.

 

[logicalgirl]

Okay - here's my problem!:maddening: By believing OCA will always slide away from everything, and always get away with everything as if she is teflon - would make me an OCA supporter. Because to believe she will always get away with everything, I'd have to believe she is some kind of magical, some kind of special, or some kind of super intelligent, with out of this world luck.

Well sorry folks - I believe OCA is none of those. So I am not going to reverse support her by believing she will always win.

No one always wins. No one. And she won't either. Sooner or later, her luck number will run out. Can't come too soon for me. But until it does, every chance I get I'll remain optimistic that this time is THE time she doesn't get to lie anymore, or receives some kind of retribution for doing so. :woot:

 

[logicalgirl]

Yes, but many attorneys have said since he very first said this in the OS and since the end of the trial that she can not be held legally responsible for what he says. She did not say it herself under oath.

All she would have to say now is that she lied to him, not that he made anything up and he wouldn't get into any trouble either. Given how she lies with no thought whatsoever, I feel sure she has already thought of that.

Lying to her comes as natural as breathing does, IMO.

Precisely - and what confirmed liar wins a civil case?

Girl's in a Box.

 

[Aedrys]

Okay - here's my problem!:maddening: By believing OCA will always slide away from everything, and always get away with everything as if she is teflon - would make me an OCA supporter. Because to believe she will always get away with everything, I'd have to believe she is some kind of magical, some kind of special, or some kind of super intelligent, with out of this world luck.

Well sorry folks - I believe OCA is none of those. So I am not going to reverse support her by believing she will always win.

No one always wins. No one. And she won't either. Sooner or later, her luck number will run out. Can't come too soon for me. But until it does, every chance I get I'll remain optimistic that this time is THE time she doesn't get to lie anymore. :woot:

I'm glad you're so optimistic. I've just been so jaded and burned by this case. I'm so tired of Casey being lucky or being able to lie her way out of things. When does it stop? When does her luck finally run out? I do hope these civil cases start her luck running out. It's about dang time.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I did find, in TES's lawsuit, this statement:

"48. But for the misrepresentations regarding Caylee's whereabouts and her status, TES would not have dedicated its resources to search for Caylee, but could have used them to conduct searches for other worthy families who were trying to locate their missing loved ones."

So is that saying that if TES had known she was (a) not alive or (b) not missing/abducted that they would not have searched? I think so.

Then how would answering either of the two approved questions prove a or b if Casey flat outright lies again? (i.e. "No he didn't call 911. That drowning never happened.") What will prevent her from lying again?

If the judge has already decided that neither of these questions are "self incriminating" ~ then hasn't she already indicated that the answers will not incriminate Casey? And why are these two not eligible for 5th Amendment pleas while all the other are?

 

[bayouland]

Okay - here's my problem!:maddening: By believing OCA will always slide away from everything, and always get away with everything as if she is teflon - would make me an OCA supporter. Because to believe she will always get away with everything, I'd have to believe she is some kind of magical, some kind of special, or some kind of super intelligent, with out of this world luck.

Well sorry folks - I believe OCA is none of those. So I am not going to reverse support her by believing she will always win.

No one always wins. No one. And she won't either. Sooner or later, her luck number will run out. Can't come too soon for me. But until it does, every chance I get I'll remain optimistic that this time is THE time she doesn't get to lie anymore, or receives some kind of retribution for doing so. :woot:

Samfrantastic post!

 

[logicalgirl]

I did find, in TES's lawsuit, this statement:

"48. But for the misrepresentations regarding Caylee's whereabouts and her status, TES would not have dedicated its resources to search for Caylee, but could have used them to conduct searches for other worthy families who were trying to locate their missing loved ones."

So is that saying that if TES had known she was (a) not alive or (b) not missing/abducted that they would not have searched? I think so.

Then how would answering either of the two approved questions prove a or b if Casey flat outright lies again? (i.e. "No he didn't call 911. That drowning never happened.") What will prevent her from lying again?

If the judge has already decided that neither of these questions are "self incriminating" ~ then hasn't she already indicated that the answers will not incriminate Casey? And why are these two not eligible for 5th Amendment pleas while all the other are?

I think #1 is not about did Caylee drown or about George.

Question #1 - IMO - was did OCA know Caylee was dead on June 16th.
Not how, not who, not why. Just yes or no.

In question #1 - she does not have to admit guilt - just knowledge. She knew Caylee was dead.

If she says no, I did not know Caylee was dead - then I'd need some legal advice for what happens when you let your lawyer present a defense that isn't true. And what about all those statements to the psychiatrists? All lies too.

How can she possibly win a civil case if she says no to the question and so she admits to lying again?

 

[coco puff]

having TES spend money looking for your kidnapped daughter (that you know is dead...from an accident...and put into the woods...somehow by someone cause she was just a shell) then to have the nerve to investigate TES folks for the search cause maybe the body wasn't there or there is someone is covering up the documentation - sheesh. I can't wait until this goes to court. The defense will just sound desperate trying to get her out of this one. Not unlike the first trial.

 

[Bravo]

Okay - here's my problem!:maddening: By believing OCA will always slide away from everything, and always get away with everything as if she is teflon - would make me an OCA supporter. Because to believe she will always get away with everything, I'd have to believe she is some kind of magical, some kind of special, or some kind of super intelligent, with out of this world luck.

Well sorry folks - I believe OCA is none of those. So I am not going to reverse support her by believing she will always win.

No one always wins. No one. And she won't either. Sooner or later, her luck number will run out. Can't come too soon for me. But until it does, every chance I get I'll remain optimistic that this time is THE time she doesn't get to lie anymore, or receives some kind of retribution for doing so. :woot:

Cant say enough about this post. Agree on every point.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

I think #1 is not about did Caylee drown or about George.

Question #1 - IMO - was did OCA know Caylee was dead on June 16th.
Not how, not who, not why. Just yes or no.

In question #1 - she does not have to admit guilt - just knowledge. She knew Caylee was dead.

If she says no, I did not know Caylee was dead - then I'd need some legal advice for what happens when you let your lawyer present a defense that isn't true. And what about all those statements to the psychiatrists? All lies too.

How can she possibly win a civil case if she says no to the question and so she admits to lying again?

... a very neat little catch-22, imho. Lovve it!

 

[RiverRat]

No, that's for her lawyers to handle. This is Casey. She will lie and lie and lie again. It doesn't matter if she has a lying appeal going on. The only people who probably care are the lawyers handling the appeal. Casey doesn't give a rats arse about any appeal (no offense river rat).

None taken as I know that my arse is MINE, not Casey's but Mine and I don't ever have to give it to her for her to give or not! MINE MINE MINE!!!

Deal with it, Casey! :rocker:
RR
(and my little arse too)

 

[katydid23]

What stops her from lying on the 1st question again, saying she didn't know Caylee drowned (or died)? Yes, I understand that make the OS a lie, but the OS wasn't evidence to begin with.

She told two different psychiatrists her whole story about Caylee dying and being brought to her in George's arms.

 

[katydid23]

I did find, in TES's lawsuit, this statement:

"48. But for the misrepresentations regarding Caylee's whereabouts and her status, TES would not have dedicated its resources to search for Caylee, but could have used them to conduct searches for other worthy families who were trying to locate their missing loved ones."

So is that saying that if TES had known she was (a) not alive or (b) not missing/abducted that they would not have searched? I think so.

Then how would answering either of the two approved questions prove a or b if Casey flat outright lies again? (i.e. "No he didn't call 911. That drowning never happened.") What will prevent her from lying again?

If the judge has already decided that neither of these questions are "self incriminating" ~ then hasn't she already indicated that the answers will not incriminate Casey? And why are these two not eligible for 5th Amendment pleas while all the other are?

I thought that the reason she is eligible to take the 5th is that she is still appealing her lying charges. The ONLY reason they are appealing that verdict is so that she can take the 5th in these other cases. imo

However, the judge is declaring that these two questions are not connected in any way to that appeal, I think, so that may be why he chose these two for her to answer.

I don't think she can say ' that drowning never happened.' I really do not believe she will dare to say that was all a lie. She is married to that bogus story. If she dares to say it was another lie...:worms: