What questions should Mr. Morgan ask at the second G and C depositions

[justbetweenus]

Huh?

Sorry mitzi. I haven't been active on this forum for awhile other then reading daily news updates. I never read this thread. I just clicked on the last message which was yours, and was shocked at the advice of sending JM an example of questions he should ask. Nothing against you.

 

[mitzi]

Sorry mitzi. I haven't been active on this forum for awhile other then reading daily news updates. I never read this thread. I just clicked on the last message which was yours, and was shocked at the advice of sending JM an example of questions he should ask. Nothing against you.

Whew! I thought I did somethin' wrong. No problem! :blowkiss:

If you go back and read Valhall's long post with questions, I think you'll understand what I meant.

 

[jandkmom]

I'll tell you what he should ask them...what the he77 is wrong with you people?????????

I had to bump this again...it is still my favorite

 

[ayjey]

1st question:

KC says she was "protecting" the family.

From who?

Why do you think KC would need to protect you? G is an ex law enforcement officer, C is a medical professional, LA is a well built "man" (term used loosely).
KC is a 5 foot nothing, small framed female. What did you think she was going to do if the "scary people" showed up at your door?

2nd question:

were you born stupid or did you just wake up one morning stupid?

Yes or no Cindy, just like you like it.

 

[scorpion1110]

surely the morgan law firm would'nt be ABLE to ask CA/GA any "addititional (new) questions", if this motion to compel is granted to answer the questions, would'nt they ONLY have to answer the questions that they "the Anthonys" did not answer in the first depositions? I am not an expert in law, but common sense just speaks this way to me, any legal experts here that can clear this up for me would be greatly appreciated, TYIA

 

[Valhall]

surely the morgan law firm would'nt be ABLE to ask CA/GA any "addititional (new) questions", if this motion to compel is granted to answer the questions, would'nt they ONLY have to answer the questions that they "the Anthonys" did not answer in the first depositions? I am not an expert in law, but common sense just speaks this way to me, any legal experts here that can clear this up for me would be greatly appreiated, TYIA

That's something I would like to learn as well. I don't know what the rules are in such civil matters. Do they get to add follow-up questions that developed from the first deposition? Do they get to ask follow-up questions on the answers they get in the second deposition?

I look forward to hearing the answer to this one.

 

[scorpion1110]

That's something I would like to learn as well. I don't what the rules are in such civil matters. Do they get to add follow-up questions that developed from the first deposition? Do they get to ask follow-up questions on the answers they get in the second deposition?

I look forward to hearing the answer to this one.

me too

 

[debs]

OK that means that Morgan has to talk to Casey not C&G.
also my HS best Friend and maid of honor lives in Florida and not in Orlando in Boca and the only 2 names she can identify are Caylee & Casey Anthony. That is it.
People that are not hooked into the case do not know.

Are you suggesting that an officer of the court (Mr. Morgan) IGNORE material witnesses in the defense of his client? Surely that is not what is being bandied about here.

 

[Lexington]

For George:

Did you ever see your granddaughter's remains in the trunk of the car?

 

[Valhall]

That's something I would like to learn as well. I don't know what the rules are in such civil matters. Do they get to add follow-up questions that developed from the first deposition? Do they get to ask follow-up questions on the answers they get in the second deposition?

I look forward to hearing the answer to this one.

I'm quoting myself here because I'd like to add a question to the experts on this...

What about statements made AFTER the deposition that Morgan didn't have knowledge of at the time of the first deposition but does now...like some of CA's statements in the Early Show interview. Do they get to add questions about those statements?

 

[MarleneM]

For George:

Did you ever see your granddaughter's remains in the trunk of the car?

Don't bother mentioning the word 'remains' to George though, he'll just use it as another opportunity to side-track you with how offended he is and then you won't get the answer you're after unless you remember to bring it back-around when he's done.

 

[Lexington]

Don't bother mentioning the word 'remains' to George though, he'll just use it as another opportunity to side-track you with how offended he is and then you won't get the answer you're after unless you remember to bring it back-around when he's done.

Thanks. I forgot about the use of the word "remains". That would have really set him off.

 

[debs]

Thanks. I forgot about the use of the word "remains". That would have really set him off.

They say that the sense of smell is the strongest impression one carries. I can still remember, 40 years later, the perfume my kindergarten teacher wore. I can remember the smell on my husband after a few hours in the garage working on cars, 4 years after his death. I can remember the smell of my oldest daughter's skin immediately I first held her.

I wonder, every time George hears the word "remains" does that sense of smell kick in and he remembers his drive home from the tow yard.

 

[songline]

Bold mine.

I waited til I finished the whole thread to see if anyone responded to you in regards to the bolded part of your above statement. Are you saying that you think ZG was a nanny? And I do believe that she did have a "real job", one that she lost because her employer didn't want to have all the media attention. Do you have a link that says ZG was a nanny?

I do not have a thread at all. Nanny's often work off the books, and that is what one of the sites/links have said
I put the link up somewhere.
I think it said she was cleaning homes. but we have so many threads I could not find it. I will try again.
The bottom line of that article was that she is an opportunist because she is STILL working off the books and collecting SS; That she has not lost any money.
I am not suggesting that she should not clear her name - SHE SHOULD and she HAS. good for her.
My point is only that enough is enough and going after the A's will produce ziltch.....
In this scenario.
I say go after the criminal side; the reason they did not call 911 much sooner, the reason they cleaned the car, the reason there are no GA finger prints on his shed (all cleaned up). that is what needs to happen in the proper arena.
BUT here we are Off topic again. so I will drop it here.
We can go further on another thread

 

[EmMomma]

I do not have a thread at all. Nanny's often work off the books, and that is what one of the sites/links have said
I put the link up somewhere.
I think it said she was cleaning homes. but we have so many threads I could not find it. I will try again.

I could swear I read somewhere at the VERY beginning of all this mess that she was a cleaning lady at a hotel. I could be wrong, though, for some reason that's sticking out in my head.

 

[Lexington]

I do not have a thread at all. Nanny's often work off the books, and that is what one of the sites/links have said
I put the link up somewhere.
I think it said she was cleaning homes. but we have so many threads I could not find it. I will try again.

ZG cleaned homes for a living. I never heard that she worked as a nanny.

 

[songline]

Are you suggesting that an officer of the court (Mr. Morgan) IGNORE material witnesses in the defense of his client? Surely that is not what is being bandied about here.

IMO G&A should be asked many many questions. ABSOLUTELY.
but in the right arena in the criminal arena.
IMO Mr Morgan is as arrogant, and unlikable as they are.
IMO since Zenaida is in the clear his job is done.
that is my opinion and I am sticking with it.
This is not to say that the Anthony's should not be questioned at all.
They have lied as much as Casey has.

 

[Lexington]

I could swear I read somewhere at the VERY beginning of all this mess that she was a cleaning lady at a hotel. I could be wrong, though, for some reason that's sticking out in my head.

After I read your post, I realized that I had heard this too - that she worked in a hotel.

 

[cecybeans]

Morgan is a nut, ZG is exonerated.
and has'nt suffered at all, as she has worked off the books and continues to collect Social Security.
How is she suffering? ZG has become an opportunist. (like many others)
Why isn’t ZG going after Casey, not C&G who have never met her. ?
It amazes me that the lawsuit is even continuing.
EXONERATED

I'm not sure this statement has ever been proved. A recently deceased blogger from NY who initially befriended CA was the one to promulgate this story IIRC. If it has been corroborated by others then I stand corrected.

I respectfully disagree that this woman is an opportunist like many others. She was the very first person harmed by these accusations, losing income and receiving death threats. I was in Florida during the first few weeks of the case and its concommitant media attention and lots of people believed she may have been the nanny, because neither CA or GA ever said otherwise on television.

She doesn't stand to make a lot of money from this for all the pain and suffering she went through. Certainly not as much as many other "opportunists" up to and including CA and GA and KC who have managed to turn a daughter hiding the death of her child into a prolonged nationwide search for a darling little girl and profit handsomely as a result. And I don't care if she is exonerated now - she is not only due to have her name publicly cleared (without snarky references to her physical appearance) but to be compensated by the woman and her family who were more than happy to sit back and have her name dragged through the mud and investigated even though every one of them knew it was a lie when they originally signed the police report on 7-15.

They did nothing to correct the public misperception that this woman was not indeed the ZFG in question, so yes, her family is culpable as well. Furthermore, their daughter that accused her refuses to answer so much as a question, so Mr. Morgan and company have no real choice to to depose others.

Also, let us remember that CA and GA and LA wouldn't have had to testify AT ALL without taking the fifth if KC had not filed a countersuit.

IMO, this would be similar to a drunk driver hitting you with their car and breaking your leg, but calling your lawsuit frivolous when you walk into the courtroom seven months later simply because the cast is off and you don't need physical therapy any more and you have gone back to work.

 

[Sunshine52]

This is 100% correct, and it appears that not everyone is aware of it. I hope Morgan reminds the Anthonys of this. It is like being mad at the bank when KC's fraudulent checks bounce. The poster saying MR. Morgan is so awful may be surprised to learn that his law firm has helped Miss Gonzalez get her children in to a hotel and out of the shelter they were forced to live in after she lost her job. The thing that is truly evil here is this family trying to blame Jesse and others for this murder.

There is one person who could have told the truth and not put the family through this, and that person is not Mr. Morgan! It's their daughter. imo

Just to clarify...KC invoked her 5th amendment rights because there were questions on the depo that she did not want to answer. If you take the 5th you cannot answer one question or the 5th goes out the window...so although she may have exonerated ZG...she could not as then she would have to answer the rest of the questions, which JM fails to convey when he says she could have said this is not the ZG who took Caylee.