Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[AZlawyer]

BBM She wanted to participate in searches (for a child she knew was dead). She knew Tim was there, she knew he was searching for Caylee and she knew only searches for a "dead Caylee" would yield results, that's why she only wanted to participate in searches for a "live Caylee."
The very fact that she wanted to participate in searches, albeit searches for a child she knew was dead, indicates she knew Tim was there to search for Caylee.

Like I said, I think it will be easy peasy to prove she knew about the searches. I think her denial of that allegation is just some silly childish "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" objection.

The REAL question will be whether or not she encouraged or requested TES to search. Most of the evidence I've seen thus far points to, "No. She wanted them to get the he$$ out of Orlando." But if she really approved a flyer for Tim to use, that helps. And JB's statement to Tim that they appreciated him being there helps.

 

[LambChop]

Let's not forget, too, how the TES searcher/volunteers were harassed by the defense team trying to find someone who was out on Suburban Drive. All the money the state spent and to what end? JP said he was not paying for a fishing expedition and that is exactly what he did. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

Hmmm well that document didn't have 50 pages but I search for "flyer" and "flier" and didn't see anything about Casey approving the flyer. :waitasec:



No, the jury did not get to see the depositions, only the evidence admitted at trial. Also they did not need to ask to see the evidence--it was left in the jury room with them during deliberations.

Tim Miller might have had something to say, but not much. I don't think this jury would have been impressed with "Casey wouldn't make an x on the map"--they would have said, "That just proves she had no idea where to look. Mean old George, torturing her by asking her to put an x on the map."



Yes, but even if they had gotten the answer they wanted (that she knew TES was searching for Caylee), it wouldn't have gotten them to the "finish line." They still need to show that she asked for the search (at the very least by asking Cindy to get someone to search), encouraged TES to search once they arrived, or something similar.

LOL, meaning our page 50, where I first posted it....:floorlaugh:

 

[logicalgirl]

But the question was whether or not she knew they were searching, and she said no. The above quote of Baez was from Oct., and she knew they were searching enough to say she didn't want to help them, etc. (proving her lie to the question.) The point of the lawsuit is that she continued to insist Caylee was kidnapped before the body was found and specifically during the time Equisearch was out there. At trial she says she knew she was dead all along and hinted @ who disposed of the body.... IOW, she could have stopped it, but chose not to by insisting Caylee was kidnapped.

Thank you LinTx - I am having an issue with the same statement. Judge Munyon did not ask if she wanted the search, asked for the search, wanted them to search for a live Caylee or knew they were searching for a dead Caylee, all she asked for "did Casey know TES was conducting a search for Caylee during the specified dates".

I believe if the rest was important to the civil case, the Judge would have asked for an expanded answer.

 

[logicalgirl]

Like I said, I think it will be easy peasy to prove she knew about the searches. I think her denial of that allegation is just some silly childish "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" objection.

The REAL question will be whether or not she encouraged or requested TES to search. Most of the evidence I've seen thus far points to, "No. She wanted them to get the he$$ out of Orlando." But if she really approved a flyer for Tim to use, that helps. And JB's statement to Tim that they appreciated him being there helps.

I don't know AZ why Judge Munyon phrased the question is this very narrow frame, but perhaps between the lawyers of both sides, they have already agreed that Casey did not ask for the searches to be done?

I can't see what difference it makes if she asked for the search to be done. The point is she did not tell them to stop when she knew Caylee drowned on the 16th of June.

Another kind of a "make up your mind" kind of a question....

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you LinTx - I am having an issue with the same statement. Judge Munyon did not ask if she wanted the search, asked for the search, wanted them to search for a live Caylee or knew they were searching for a dead Caylee, all she asked for "did Casey know TES was conducting a search for Caylee during the specified dates".

I believe if the rest was important to the civil case, the Judge would have asked for an expanded answer.

I don't know AZ why Judge Munyon phrased the question is this very narrow frame, but perhaps between the lawyers of both sides, they have already agreed that Casey did not ask for the searches to be done?

I can't see what difference it makes if she asked for the search to be done. The point is she did not tell them to stop when she knew Caylee drowned on the 16th of June.

Another kind of a "make up your mind" kind of a question....

The judge did not write or "ask" the question at all. TES's lawyers asked the questions; the judge just picked which ones Casey needed to answer. It is not her job to help the lawyers ask good questions.

My best guess is that TES's lawyers only asked about August and Sept. because they are willing to concede that, after September, he was searching in spite of the fact that the Anthonys didn't want him to, rather than at their request.

It makes a BIG difference if she just "failed to stop" the searches vs. actually asking for/encouraging them. IMO one would not form the basis for any legal claim, while the other one would. If you read the TES complaint, you can see that the TES lawyers agree with this analysis.

 

[heidisams]

It is a bad piece of evidence for TES because it shows that Casey didn't want TES to search. Her pretend reason was that "Caylee was alive"; her real reason was that Caylee was dead and TES might find the evidence. But it doesn't matter what the reason was.



No, there is no legal obligation to stop people from spending money to "help" you. IMO there is no legal claim unless, at the very least, Casey asked for or encouraged the search in some way.

ETA: But you're correct that TES can use Baez's statement "we appreciate you being out here" or whatever it was as evidence that Casey encouraged the search. But when he ALSO says "Casey won't help TES search because they're looking for a dead baby," the messages sort of cancel out.

As far as the courts finding kc liable to the state for their searches, police resources, etc... How is that different, she certainly didn't encourage them (le,etc...) or want them involved in this in any way. Cindy is the one who called them too, not kc... I understand there is a big difference between law enforcement getting involved vs tes, but isn't it kind of the same argument??? I mean we know she had knowledge, but either way her lies are what continued this whole drawn out charade, whether she encouraged of not.

 

[cityslick]

The judge did not write or "ask" the question at all. TES's lawyers asked the questions; the judge just picked which ones Casey needed to answer. It is not her job to help the lawyers ask good questions.

My best guess is that TES's lawyers only asked about August and Sept. because they are willing to concede that, after September, he was searching in spite of the fact that the Anthonys didn't want him to, rather than at their request.

It makes a BIG difference if she just "failed to stop" the searches vs. actually asking for/encouraging them. IMO one would not form the basis for any legal claim, while the other one would. If you read the TES complaint, you can see that the TES lawyers agree with this analysis.

BBM

Thank you for all your answers. What I bolded is really the crux of this whole lawsuit and why, IMO, I think at the end of the day the lawsuit doesn't hold much water. The issue from the very beginning for me was always trying to prove that OCA actually wanted and encouraged TES to be there, thus the basis of the lawsuit to begin with.

In hindsight, I kinda wondered if TM was suing the wrong person, but I guess it's harder to prove that CA knew her granddaughter was already dead.

 

[Gnatcatcher]

I made it through the "lost" jail tapes from August, all 4 parts, not a single mention of anything relevant.

I wonder if there was anything in the Larry King interviews? Will try them next.

 

[Intermezzo]

AZ,

:tyou: for answering our posts concerning legal issues...

:yourock:

 

[Aedrys]

I just want to know if the fact that Casey was sticking with Caylee being kidnapped could be considered encouraging the search, technically? I mean, she pretty much had to have someone searching to keep her story going. If no one searched for Caylee, alive or dead, wouldn't that have made Casey look worse? And her family asked TES to come search. It's not like TES showed up on their own and demanded to search. Wouldn't the actions of Casey's family be an extension of her since she was staying with them, and they were acting on her behalf? I guess I just don't understand how TES searching wasn't Casey's fault. She lied. She stuck with that lie so much that her mother brought in a search team. It all goes back to Casey. I don't think she had to be there encouraging TES, at least I don't think a civil jury is going to go all Pinellas and say well, she wasn't in Tim's face demanding a search, so she's not liable. Isn't there more room in civil cases than there is in a criminal case?

Or is the problem that the judge may throw this out because the judge could say that legally TES doesn't have a claim? That would really just suck.

 

[AZlawyer]

As far as the courts finding kc liable to the state for their searches, police resources, etc... How is that different, she certainly didn't encourage them (le,etc...) or want them involved in this in any way. Cindy is the one who called them too, not kc... I understand there is a big difference between law enforcement getting involved vs tes, but isn't it kind of the same argument??? I mean we know she had knowledge, but either way her lies are what continued this whole drawn out charade, whether she encouraged of not.

The reimbursement of the state was pursuant to statute and was based on Casey being convicted for a crime. The costs she had to pay were not IIRC for the search anyway, but rather for the investigation into the crimes of which she was convicted.

Normally, a private person can't sue just because they spent money in hopes that someone was telling the truth--unless the liar intended for that person to rely on their lies.

And keep in mind that, in this case, Tim Miller (and most of the other searchers) DIDN'T think Casey was telling the truth. That's why they were looking for a body instead of a live child. They were not relying on Casey's lies--they assumed she knew Caylee was dead (either by accident or murder).

I just want to know if the fact that Casey was sticking with Caylee being kidnapped could be considered encouraging the search, technically? I mean, she pretty much had to have someone searching to keep her story going. If no one searched for Caylee, alive or dead, wouldn't that have made Casey look worse? And her family asked TES to come search. It's not like TES showed up on their own and demanded to search. Wouldn't the actions of Casey's family be an extension of her since she was staying with them, and they were acting on her behalf? I guess I just don't understand how TES searching wasn't Casey's fault. She lied. She stuck with that lie so much that her mother brought in a search team. It all goes back to Casey. I don't think she had to be there encouraging TES, at least I don't think a civil jury is going to go all Pinellas and say well, she wasn't in Tim's face demanding a search, so she's not liable. Isn't there more room in civil cases than there is in a criminal case?

Or is the problem that the judge may throw this out because the judge could say that legally TES doesn't have a claim? That would really just suck.

IMO just saying that Caylee had been kidnapped wouldn't have been enough to form the basis for a legal claim in any event. But in this case the claim is even weaker because Casey and her family made it clear they did NOT want any searches for a dead Caylee (which is what TES was doing).

Casey cannot be sued for the requests of her family (which kicked TES out pretty early on anyway), unless they were passing on her own requests.

Yes, my concern is that the judge could throw out the case before it ever gets to a jury.

 

[chakti]

So what I am getting from what AZlawyer is saying is that if my house burns down and I lie to my folks and say that I didn't have fire insurance and my folks ask a charity group to help out and they build me a new house and find out I did indeed have insurance and got paid for reconstruction but, lied and didn't stop them that that is okay in the eyes of the law ?

 

[ZsaZsa]

The reimbursement of the state was pursuant to statute and was based on Casey being convicted for a crime. The costs she had to pay were not IIRC for the search anyway, but rather for the investigation into the crimes of which she was convicted.

Normally, a private person can't sue just because they spent money in hopes that someone was telling the truth--unless the liar intended for that person to rely on their lies.

And keep in mind that, in this case, Tim Miller (and most of the other searchers) DIDN'T think Casey was telling the truth. That's why they were looking for a body instead of a live child. They were not relying on Casey's lies--they assumed she knew Caylee was dead (either by accident or murder).

O just saying that Caylee had been kidnapped wouldn't have been enough to form the basis for a legal claim in any event. But in this case the claim is even weaker because Casey and her family made it clear they did NOT want any searches for a dead Caylee (which is what TES was doing).

Casey cannot be sued for the requests of her family (which kicked TES out pretty early on anyway), unless they were passing on her own requests.

Yes, my concern is that the judge could throw out the case before it ever gets to a jury.

But Casey knew where the child was. She let Tim search all over Orlando anyway. Does it matter to his claim that she knew Caylee was dead? I thought it was the fact she sent him out on a wild goose chase that counted... It was the deliberate wasting of his resources that is the source of his complaint.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Here are Valhall's comments about the most clueless person on earth...

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2012/0...ampaign=Feed:+TheHinkyMeter+(The+Hinky+Meter)

 

[logicalgirl]

But Casey knew where the child was. She let Tim search all over Orlando anyway. Does it matter to his claim that she knew Caylee was dead? I thought it was the fact she sent him out on a wild goose chase that counted... It was the deliberate wasting of his resources that is the source of his complaint.

Agree ZsaZsa - and despite AZLawyer's legal wisdom - I am stubbornly staying in my corner just cause I wanna!

 

[cityslick]

But Casey knew where the child was. She let Tim search all over Orlando anyway. Does it matter to his claim that she knew Caylee was dead? I thought it was the fact she sent him out on a wild goose chase that counted... It was the deliberate wasting of his resources that is the source of his complaint.

BBM

But you see that is the whole point, Casey did not send TES out, at least not in a way that seems to be provable. She didn't go to him and say, 'can you find my daughter'. What you seem to be saying is her 'inaction' is the same as saying 'go find my daughter' but legally (according to AZ) that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[chefmom]

From what I am gathering by reading around the net and listening to blog radio, the general consensus of most lawyers is that TM and TES do not have a good case. A bitter pill to swallow, perhaps, but that is what most think. General opinion of most in the populace is they want KC to pay and pay dearly. But, as far as the legal world goes, most think she won't be made to. For what it's worth.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

From what I am gathering by reading around the net and listening to blog radio, the general consensus of most lawyers is that TM and TES do not have a good case. A bitter pill to swallow, perhaps, but that is what most think. General opinion of most in the populace is they want KC to pay and pay dearly. But, as far as the legal world goes, most think she won't be made to. For what it's worth.

Seems like another case of the legal system missing the forest for the trees. She knew they were searching for Caylee, everyone knows she knew that - yet because technically FCA wasn't the one who asked for it...she's not accountable? Utterly disgusting.

 

[Isabelle]

IF LE would have drained that flooded area, none of this carp would be happening. It really ticks me off that they didn't do that. It has been done in other cities and states when a person/child is missing. Florida doesn't really care. Florida and California are the best places to commit the ultimate crime and know you'll get away with it. Sick!