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

[songline]

I think Mr.Morgan should stick to asking questions about wheter his client is the nanny or not.I honestly think he is going to far in asking questions that have to do with a murder case.Casey even if we hate her deserves a fair trial,
i can not believe this is being allowed.Mr.Morgan was rude and offencive imo.He repeatedly asked the same question over and over again.If I were the Anthonys I would have answered I dont remember to each and every question.Mr.Morgan is just trying to get his 15 minutes afterall she is not ZFG she is ZG and she is old with kids and the family has said its not her. I think whats being done to the anthonys is horrible,and I do not understand how the law is allowing his line of questioning.

This is not a popular direction to go.
soon you'll get singled out too...
I do agree with you totally.
I am not suggesting that they should be allowed to lie, or hide.
I am always only suggesting that it be asked in an appropriate formate.
IMO it is not being done in an appropriate formate. JMO
And they can single me out all day long.
Until I see something from a CIVIL COURT RULING that questions regarding a criminal case is permitted in a civil arena I will continue to stand by what I believe in.
AGAIN - I never said the "A"s should get away with anything at all. I am still looking for information that will let us know if I am mistaken. I am not bent on being right.
I am bent on standing for what I think is right and I am open to be shown IF I am mistaken. Could not find it yet where it spells it out that Morgan is in the proper jurisdiction for his line of questioning.

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

This is not a popular direction to go.
soon you'll get singled out too...
I do agree with you totally.
I am not suggesting that they should be allowed to lie, or hide.
I am always only suggesting that it be asked in an appropriate formate.
IMO it is not being done in an appropriate formate. JMO
And they can single me out all day long.
Until I see something from a CIVIL COURT RULING that questions regarding a criminal case is permitted in a civil arena I will continue to stand by what I believe in.
AGAIN - I never said the "A"s should get away with anything at all. I am still looking for information that will let us know if I am mistaken. I am not bent on being right.
I am bent on standing for what I think is right and I am open to be shown IF I am mistaken. Could not find it yet where it spells it out that Morgan is in the proper jurisdiction for his line of questioning.

ther_beatingA_Deadther_beatingA_Dead

 

[Chezhire]

Here is a great article where he himself says he is conducting a "Homicide Investigation" :waitasec:
I did not think you can do that in a Civil Court House: To my knowledge there is another court house for that.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...hes-conducting-a-homicide-investigation-.html

I think it is a prety fine stink that the Anthonys created with thier last performance.
But I think it belongs in the right arena, not civil....
but I think he is going after the TV station that released her name first,
that is where he will get her some real money.
but before he can win there he need to do this He is on the edge.
but staying on the legal side for sure but pushing for something else. More then money....
MOO "A certain kind of Recognition" ??? not just in Clearing ZG NO!!!!!

...because if Mr. Morgan can prove that Casey killed Caylee, then he's proven one of the elements of his client's defamation suit, and that is that Casey lied about leaving Caylee with someone named ZG. Remember: Mr. Morgan can ask anything whatsoever that is relevant to what happened to Caylee - and if Casey did something to Caylee - then that's as relevant as it gets. It's Mr. Morgan's prerogative to work up his client's case the manner that he deems fit - and if he thinks Casey harmed Caylee, instead of leaving her with someone named ZG, then he's entitled to ask those questions.

I've posted about this here, too:http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3672416#post3672416

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... Until I see something from a CIVIL COURT RULING that questions regarding a criminal case is permitted in a civil arena I will continue to stand by what I believe in.... Could not find it yet where it spells it out that Morgan is in the proper jurisdiction for his line of questioning."

You're not going to find a case spelling this out because it's such a basic principle. The converse is what cases do spell out: cases that hold that that a deponant (ie, Cindy, George, CASEY) cannot avoid answering questions in a civil matter just because there is a parallel criminal proceeding that has not been resolved, and, if such a deponant does try to plead the 5th Amendment, then in the civil case, the opposing party will ask for and receive a JURY INSTRUCTION advising the jury to assume that the information being requested or asked is TRUE: it's called the adverse interest principle. See here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2959322&highlight=adverse+interest#post2959322

 

[AZlawyer]

This is not a popular direction to go.
soon you'll get singled out too...
I do agree with you totally.
I am not suggesting that they should be allowed to lie, or hide.
I am always only suggesting that it be asked in an appropriate formate.
IMO it is not being done in an appropriate formate. JMO
And they can single me out all day long.
Until I see something from a CIVIL COURT RULING that questions regarding a criminal case is permitted in a civil arena I will continue to stand by what I believe in.
AGAIN - I never said the "A"s should get away with anything at all. I am still looking for information that will let us know if I am mistaken. I am not bent on being right.
I am bent on standing for what I think is right and I am open to be shown IF I am mistaken. Could not find it yet where it spells it out that Morgan is in the proper jurisdiction for his line of questioning.

I know this has already been answered several times in a couple of threads, but I thought I'd take a crack at an example you might have heard of--remember when OJ was found not guilty in the criminal court but then was found to have killed Nicole and Ron G in the civil case? Those lawyers had to prove murder in the civil case.

As I posted in the other thread, there are lots of other scenarios in which you would have to or want to prove criminal conduct in a civil case, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. It doesn't send the person to jail, but if it proves part of your CIVIL case, you aren't prevented from getting into it just because the actions in question are also criminal in nature.

 

[amethyst221]

There is no question of proper "jurisdiction." Facts and issues are not the "property" only of the criminal case against Casey A. ZG has filed a civil suit against Casey A seeking only monetary damages, in a separate court before a different judge. She and her lawyers can pursue a broad range of factual discovery in their civil case, in compliance with the rules of civil procedure and the judge in this case will handle evidentiary rulings, etc. They can explore anything related to ZG's claims, anything related to the defenses and claims of the defendant, the existence of potential witnesses, helpful documents, etc. They can elicit hearsay or other evidence that may not be admissible at trial. They can range widely, and ask about things that might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The end result of this proceeding will not be to adjudge criminal guilt or innocence and send anyone to prison. Respect will be paid to the constitution by allowing Casey A to refuse to testify by invoking her 5th amendment right against self incrimination. She may lose the civil case for defamation and owe money, but that's it.

The A's are merely fact witnesses. There may be 20 potential civil cases in which they could become witnesses because of what they saw or heard or know. It is what it is.

An example. ZG says she was defamed by the suggestion that she is a child kidnapper. Truth is a defense to that, so ZG will want to explore anything she can to show that it is not true; for example, that someone else did it. This isn't really difficult.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... The end result of this proceeding will not be to adjudge criminal guilt or innocence and send anyone to prison. Respect will be paid to the constitution by allowing Casey A to refuse to testify by invoking her 5th amendment right against self incrimination. She may lose the civil case for defamation and owe money, but that's it. ..."

...that's right, and if Casey, or any other future defendant in ZG's suit, has a judgment hanging over their heads, much like OJ did, they can pay it with any future blood money they try to make from Caylee's death, instead of spending it on themselves. This is one reason I am so pleased with the events in the civil suit... :furious:

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

I would be thrilled if the movie and book deals make it into the pockets of the ones under the bus. Then two people looking for a job because the Caylee gray train has dried up. I hope future employers would laugh in their face after all the garbage they have pulled. They have NO integrity left at all. Who would want a known bold face liar on their payroll.

 

[The World According]

I know this has already been answered several times in a couple of threads, but I thought I'd take a crack at an example you might have heard of--remember when OJ was found not guilty in the criminal court but then was found to have killed Nicole and Ron G in the civil case? Those lawyers had to prove murder in the civil case.

As I posted in the other thread, there are lots of other scenarios in which you would have to or want to prove criminal conduct in a civil case, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. It doesn't send the person to jail, but if it proves part of your CIVIL case, you aren't prevented from getting into it just because the actions in question are also criminal in nature.

I really appreciate you giving this example. Now all of the folks that are confused and mad at ZG's lawyers will understand. Finally. Thank you so much, I was getting a headache! LOL

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

I really appreciate you giving this example. Now all of the folks that are confused and mad at ZG's lawyers will understand. Finally. Thank you so much, I was getting a headache! LOL

you too...lol

 

[The World According]

...that's right, and if Casey, or any other future defendant in ZG's suit, has a judgment hanging over their heads, much like OJ did, they can pay it with any future blood money they try to make from Caylee's death, instead of spending it on themselves. This is one reason I am so pleased with the events in the civil suit... :furious:

Me too! Indeed there will be blood money as they are all writing books, including the KF buddies of theirs, and they will try to justify it by saying they had to raise money for KC's defense. I hope the jury awards ZG, Jesse, Amy and Ricardo all judgments so that the A family will be forced by the court to turn over any profits from any movie/book/media deals. Every time! I was so relieved when the Goldman's finally got some justice and the judge gave them all the rights to OJ's book "If I did it", and the fact that their lawyers hunted down every penny he was making, every time , made him do the extremely stupid things he did in his armed robbery. The A family reminds me of him in that way, so embolden and so self serving they are going to make a fine mess of all they do. These depos show the side of them that LP has been describing all along, and it is not sympathetic grandparents. I no longer like trust or respect them, they will have no credibility with a jury. Their behavior in these civil depositions will be different the next time because the judge is going to set them straight. Thank you for your posts. I thoroughly enjoy them!!

 

[LancelotLink]

Me three!

 

[MAMABEAR]

Lmao 4 here

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

Me three!

Psssssssssst Lance...You need to shave dear

 

[The World According]

Psssssssssst Lance...You need to shave dear

A lesser group would be driven to drink! I want Mr. Morgan to ask them what is the difference between a mistruth and a lie, and why they have not investigated the possibility that any member of the baby's father's family (be he dead or alive) would have taken her. A biological Aunt, Uncle, Grandparent or certainly Parent would have motive to want to take the child that they perceive as being theirs and wrongfully withheld from their lives, for low these three years, right? I can tell you that if one of my nieces or nephews were being parented by someone holding that child from my parents being able to know their grandchild I would be highly motivated to go and fight for my parents rights. I wouldn't kidnap the child, but my family would be not accept their plight and not fight for the child to grow up knowing them. For goodness sake, I turn the neighborhood upside down just when one of my pups is missing. I mean, I go door to door. Imagine that you had a grand-daughter missing, wouldn't the first thing you would think of, is could her bio family on her dad's side have her? Wouldn't they have been all over KC asking for her to divulge all the details about the bio dad? I believe they would have, unless they already knew.

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

A lesser group would be driven to drink!

I do not drink and I was almost there.

 

[LancelotLink]

Psssssssssst Lance...You need to shave dear

No doubt! I haven't blinked in months either. I just stare....

 

[eddeva]

No doubt! I haven't blinked in months either. I just stare....

you've seen zippity's jack sparrow avatar too then?

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

you've seen zippity's jack sparrow avatar too then?

I have missed that one need to go and check it out.

 

[songline]

You're not going to find a case spelling this out because it's such a basic principle. The converse is what cases do spell out: cases that hold that that a deponant (ie, Cindy, George, CASEY) cannot avoid answering questions in a civil matter just because there is a parallel criminal proceeding that has not been resolved, and, if such a deponant does try to plead the 5th Amendment, then in the civil case, the opposing party will ask for and receive a JURY INSTRUCTION advising the jury to assume that the information being requested or asked is TRUE: it's called the adverse interest principle. See here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2959322&highlight=adverse+interest#post2959322

Thank you for the reply.
I do not get it...I did not want to bother my brother in law who is busy. I just fired off an e-mail to a him -
he is an attorney in Florida I really want to find out.
And if you are right and it is not spelled out....I would have to hear what the basic principle is.
Other wise I will stick to my guns. I do not jump on ban wagons. I go with my gut sometimes.
If there is a reason to be afraid IF IF IF. IMHO this should be taken to the criminal court with
a hush, hush deposition for safety reasons.

Seems also that GA acted normal in the very beginning. Seems to me that someone may be pulling a string.
I am not ready to say it is CA because she acts out...Or is not balanced at all. (it may be her and I do not rule anything out) It also seems to me that GA is no longer an LE for some mysterious reason. hmmm?
to many quirks here for me to just go with the flow and point ONLY at Casey. I am open. And I refuse to jump on a ban wagon.