Statement Analysis shows that Dorothy Sims is not comfortable lying.
The mercenary lawyers were falling over one another to "volunteer" (or pay to get in) to defend a child killer they knew was guilty. The obvious answer is to turn fame, or infamy, into money, via movie, book, interview deals, but also through the possible job of network television personality, which worked well for those involved in the perversion of justice for Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. It mattered not which side they were on, as the lure of money, via fame, drew them in.
How will Sims benefit from all of this?
She is acutely aware that the cameras caught her comforting with "compassionate" hugs and embraces, a woman who carefully planned out and executed those plans to murder her own child. This is her association with Casey Anthony and she is also acutely aware of the national outrage due to the injustice she helped to accomplish.
Dorothy Sims knows that a nation's anger and hatred is at the boiling point, and she knows she is associated with this hatred. She knows Casey is a murderer, but could only say that she thinks the State didn't prove it. When someone believes in innocence, it is said without qualifying it. Here, she couldn't even do that.
Dorothy Sims knowingly helped pervert justice under the Constitution.
Why does she go on television shows? Does she really feel that she needs to defend Casey's "character" and that she can influence the public to "respect" Casey Anthony?
Is it just the lure of fame to exchange into money?
What is it inside of one human being that will cause them to not only pervert justice for a 2 year old murder victim, but to literally and figuratively embrace the hands of she who destroyed life?
Perhaps if Dorothy Sims speaks enough, we will learn.
Statement Analysis is in bold type, with italics and underlining added for emphasis.
ANNOUNCER: Coming up on THE JOY BEHAR SHOW, Texas Equusearch is suing Casey Anthony to recover over $100,000 it spent searching for Caylee at a time when the defense contended she was already dead.
Then Joy talks to Dorothy Clay-Sims of Casey Anthony`s defense team; on the brink of her release from prison, Joy finds out what Casey is really like.
Plus, you cut class, you pay a fine. That`s the law one California school district passed. As a former teacher, Joy has a lot to say about this one. That and more starting right now.
JOY BEHAR, HOST: Well, it`s four days until freedom for Casey Anthony. The 25-year-old may have been acquitted of murder, but her troubles stemming from this case are far from over. Yet another lawsuit has been filed against her. This time from the search group Texas Equusearch.
Note that HLN/CNN has been having a "countdown" clock. The continually recycle the same talking heads, from show to show, without many fresh or new opinions solicited. Regular readers of statement analysis, who embrace the principles of the laws of grammar have a good idea on which talking heads use an abundance of qualifiers and who show deception in language.
I`m going to talk to Casey Anthony`s lawyer in a just minute. But first I want to bring in Sunny Hostin, legal contributor to "In Session" on TruTV and former federal prosecutor.
Ok. Sunny, Texas Equusearch has filed a lawsuit versus Casey Anthony. She was actually served the papers in her jail cell. What does Equusearch want exactly?
SUNNY HOSTIN, LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR, "IN SESSION": Well, they want their money back, Joy. They`re saying that they spent about $112,000 in man- hours, in resources, looking for Caylee Anthony.
Now they`re saying that Casey Anthony committed fraud because she lied to them. If she knew that little Caylee had died an accidental death by drown, then she wasted everyone`s time. She falsely represented the facts and they want their money back.
I`ve got to tell you, I always wonder about this case because you would never imagine that something like this would come up post verdict, but here we are, talking about Equusearch`s lawsuit.
BEHAR: Ok. The founder, Tim Miller, spoke about it also. Watch this.
TIM MILLER, FOUNDER, TEXAS EQUUSEARCH: We`ve done what we thought was necessary to do, and now we`ll see if the system`s going to work, and just hope we don`t get the same jury. I mean, that`s a fact.
BEHAR: Does it seem like Equusearch could actually recoup some of their losses?
HOSTIN: You know, normally I would say no. This is a volunteer organization. You know, how are they going to really get their money back? But I`ve got to tell you, everything surrounding the Casey Anthony case doesn`t make sense for me sometimes when it comes to the law.
So does it pass the smell test? The legal smell test? Probably so. Will six jurors in a civil suit perhaps award Texas Equusearch some money, perhaps. So I think there may be something to the suit when normally I would say probably not. Here, Joy, maybe so. Maybe so.
BEHAR: Well, The lawyer who filed the defamation lawsuit against Casey for Zenaida Gonzalez filed an emergency motion today. What was that for?
HOSTIN: Well, you know, Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez is the alleged nanny that Casey Anthony made up and said that that`s who took Caylee Anthony. Now she`s saying that her life was ruined because her name Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez is so very unusual, everyone thought she was complicit in this. She`s suing her for defamation.
And now her lawyers are saying we want the videotape deposition to take place before she gets out because she`s -- this are all these reports, Joy, that she`s going to disguise herself. She`s going to leave the jurisdiction. She`s going to change her name.
They think if all of that happens they won`t get their opportunity to depose her. So they want to do it either before she gets out which would be on this Sunday, 17th, or they want the judge to compel her to show up at their offices the following Tuesday, July 19.
BEHAR: Ok. One more question. At the sheriff`s press conference yesterday, he mentioned they were looking to allegations of witness- tampering.
HOSTIN: Yes. Isn`t that something?
BEHAR: What`s that about?
HOSTIN: We don`t know who they`re talking about, they sort of remained mum on that. They did say it wasn`t Cindy Anthony, but I got to wonder, could it be Lee Anthony? Remember when he got on the witness stand, Jeff Ashton, the prosecutor, said, you wouldn`t talk to us, but now all of a sudden you felt compelled to go to the defense to talk about this case? So perhaps it`s Lee Anthony.
But we`re also speculating, we don`t know who they`re investigating, but they have met with witnesses. So they`re investigating someone.
BEHAR: Ok. This is the case that never ends, isn`t it?
HOSTIN: It really is.
BEHAR: Ok. Thank you very much Sunny.
HOSTIN: Thanks.
BEHAR: I now want to turn to one of Casey`s defense attorneys, Dorothy Clay-Sims; welcome to the show, Dorothy. Anything in that that you want to comment on?
DOROTHY CLAY-SIMS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: No.
BEHAR: No, ok. In watching the case, you seemed very close to Casey. You were whispering with her. What were you talking about with her when you were whispering with her?
CLAY-SIMS: That`s covered by attorney-client privilege.
BEHAR: Of course.
CLAY-SIMS: I can`t really discuss that.
Note that Sims is on television because of her discussions with Casey Anthony, and will likely use "client confidentiality" on questions she does not want to answer only. This is why she qualifies her answer with "really" rather than say: "I cannot discuss that" plainly. It is an indication that information she is comfortable with, will be shared, regardless of law.
BEHAR: Can`t blame a girl for trying.
So it seems as though the defense feels that Casey is a misunderstood girl; that, you know, people don`t like her, they still say she`s guilty even though the verdict was not guilty, the jurors are under the gun. People are furious.
What is it about -- what do you know about Casey that would go against that? Which would fly in the face of all of that criticism?
CLAY-SIMS: Well, actually what I saw, what was compelling to me was the testimony of the people that spent time with her, the guards in the jail were testifying at the request of the defense, and they were talking about how they observed her. She was in lockdown 23 out of 24 hours.
Note the introduction of the word "compelling" by Sims. What was compelling to her was the testimony of "people"; which people? She specifies the jail guards. These were the ones Baez attempted to solicit psychological testimony from.
What does Dorothy Clay Sims hope to gain from this television appearance and other television appearances?
BEHAR: Yes.
CLAY-SIMS: And she was still respectful to them. She was kind to them. They were describing her behavior, and I think that you may be perhaps seeing a couple of hours out of somebody`s life, and that can`t define them. And the people that were watching her day in and day out for years were getting up and taking the stand and saying this woman was kind, this woman was respectful. We`d wake her up, she would not be angry. That`s the person that I saw.
Note that the guards had little interaction with her, yet "respectful" and "kind" enter into Sims' language.
Note "And the people" are not Sims herself. Note "kind" and "respectful" are sensitive to Sims, as she repeats them.
Note that Casey was "not" angry when awoken by "we"; this is reported in the negative, therefore it is highly sensitive.
Note the change from "woman" to "person". Those that took the stand viewed Casey Anthony as a "woman" but when Casey Anthony was viewed by Sims, she was a "person"
This is a strong indication that Sims is aware of the sexual flirtation Casey engaged in regularly, including at court. It may reflect what she knows or suspects about the relationship between Casey Anthony and Jose Baez.
This small "slip" as some would describe it, is not a slip at all. There is a reason why Sims would call her a "woman" and then a few words later change to "person." If there is no justifiable reason for a linguistic change, it is deception. Here, I think it refers to her overt flirtatious behavior.
BEHAR: I see. I don`t know that the person were so upset with her because they thought she wasn`t a nice person in some parts of her life. They just didn`t like her attitude and the way she didn`t -- you know, she didn`t report that the child was missing for so many days and all that time she was partying. And having a good time. She seemed unremorseful. All of that, I think, is what people are really angry about.
CLAY-SIMS: I understand. And I think --
BEHAR: You do?
CLAY-SIMS: I think that the grief specialist who testified explained that people who respond to trauma respond in so many different ways. And in fact, since this occurred I received emails, a number of emails from people who had had thing happen to them in their lives. And they described very similar responses.
So I think if there can be perhaps an open heart and compassion and -- stepping back, I think that would be helpful for everyone.
Note that Jeff Ashton showed that every single human behavior would be described by the grief "specialist" as "grieving"
Note next that she "received emails" (passive) "a number of emails" repetition. It is likely that she received very few such emails which is why it is sensitive and repeated for the plural emphasis. Did she receive only 2 or close to it? Why the need to emphasize the volume? This shows weakness.
BEHAR: Do you really believe the whole story that Jose Baez presented in the beginning? Do you believe that Caylee drowned? That George found her, that George disposed of the body, that Roy Kronk moved the body, that George molested her? All of those things that he brought up, do you believe those things?
In spite of Behar's multitude of words, the question is:
Did Caylee drown?
CLAY-SIMS: I think there were a number of things -- well, if you look at the testimony that took place, you look at the photographs of the child going in -- going up the ladder, you see the child with her hand -- you see Caylee with her hand on the door. She loved to swim. I think there was compelling evidence, compelling evidence that Casey did not murder her child. The burden was not on the defense --
Statement Analysis: She knows Jose Baez was lying when he said Caylee drowned in the pool.
note: 1. The question is not answered.
2. The change in language from "child" to "Caylee" does not appear justified and is likely deception.
Note that she goes beyond the scope of the question to answer:
Did Casey murder Caylee?
Look at her response:
"I think there was compelling evidence, compelling evidence, that Casey did not murder her child. The burden was not on the defense..."
Compare this with:
"Casey did not murder her child." This is straight forward. Sims does not want to experience the stress of lying so she does not say that Casey didn't murder Caylee, only that there was "compelling evidence" that she "thinks" (weakness) coupled with the sensitivity of repetition of "compelling evidence". Sims is telling us:
1. Casey Anthony murdered Caylee
2. She cannot even say that evidence existed to prove that she didn't.
"compelling" is sensitive
"evidence" is sensitive
"think" allows her and us to "think" differently. But do not lose sight of what is the target of what she "thinks":
She is not saying she "thinks Casey didn't murder..." only that she is thinking about evidence; evidence that her own words show doubt.
Dorothy Sims knows that Caylee was murdered by Casey; did not drown in a pool, and that she took part in the perversion of justice, but still wants people to "respect" her and if not, at least be "kind" to her, as she feels the intense, unrelenting righteous anger of a nation.
Statement analysis gets to the truth.
BEHAR: I know that.
CLAY-SIMS: The burden was on the state to prove that she had motive. I don`t think they did that. I don`t think that they were able to do that, and that`s why that jury came back with a not guilty verdict. That was their responsibility, and they were not able to do that.
Note: the state had burden for "motive" and not that Casey didn't kill her. Here, her weakness shows that she does believe that Casey's motive was revealed.
Note that Dorothy Sims blames the State for Casey's verdict; she does not defend the verdict from the position of Casey not murdering Caylee.
BEHAR: What was the idea of throwing out that George molested her? I don`t get that part. I know he threw it out to bring up reasonable doubt but then again, he never brought it up again for the rest of the trial because there was no way to prove that either.
Do you think that that`s really -- is that a kosher thing to do, really? To just bring up something like that and ruin the man`s reputation even though it`s probably not true?
On George molesting Casey:
CLAY-SIMS: Well, I think when a lawyer gives an opening statement, what that lawyer does is he explains to the jury what he believes the evidence will show. No lawyer can predict what`s going to be said, what the responses are --
Note that she speaks of "a" lawyer, not "the" lawyer, nor "Baez"
Dorothy Sims is not comfortable with lying.
She avoided the question and appears to believe that the "Casey went to school after having..." is a lie.
BEHAR: Yes.
CLAY-SIMS: Et cetera I think that the jury did struggle, from what I understand from watching some of the television shows, some of the jurors, when they discussed the evidence they struggled with George`s testimony and his responses to things and the way in which he answered the questions.
BEHAR: But they made it look like he was guilty, like he was on trial for something.
CLAY-SIMS: I think that the defense`s job is to hold the state to the burden that they have. They have that burden, the defense doesn`t have a burden, and if there are weaknesses in the state`s case -- and there were a lot of weaknesses. For example, tremendous problems with those forensics. Why they would bring in the people they brought in I really don`t understand but I think that that might have been one of the reasons that the jurors --
Note that Sims avoids the issue of George molesting Casey as a red herring to deceive a jury. She knows that Baez "won, but did so by cheating"
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: They had their experts and you guys had your experts and they conflicted, isn`t that what happened?
CLAY-SIMS: Well, there`s a difference. For example, the botanical expert that testified for the defense talked about how she estimated that Caylee`s remains could have been there as little as two weeks. She wasn`t saying how long they were there. She was not going to be that specific. And an air potato vine that has a heart-shaped leaf can grow eight inches in a day.
So I think the defense`s witnesses weren`t going so far out on a ledge. They were not going to say that taking a can of air from a trunk is going allow you to conclude an odor of decomposition. I think that that -- that was --
BEHAR: Obviously they didn`t prove the case well enough to convict the girl, they did not.
Let me ask you one thing that`s been bothering me. There was a tape of her when they told Casey that the child`s remains were found, and she became hysterical -- she was so upset and weirded and crazy and like that, acting -- in response to the tape that they had found the child.
If she -- the child was dead and she accidentally killed her or the child died of an accident, why was she so upset that they found the remains?
CLAY-SIMS: See, that`s the point that --
BEHAR: That doesn`t make sense to me.
CLAY-SIMS: That`s what the trauma expert I think was talking about. You can`t predict how anyone`s going to respond to any event at any time.
Note that "you" can predict, but we can for her. A mother of a drowning victim tries CPR and calls 911. We can predict that a mother of a drowning victim will call 911 100 out of 100 times. Note that Sims is deceptive, but will not say "I can't predict" with first person singular emphasis. She can hardly answer a question without qualifying it with "I think" She is deceptive nonetheless, even though she attempts to avoid the stress of outwardly lying for Casey Anthony. She should be ashamed of herself for the rest of her life, and do whatever it is in her power to reverse this injustice and seek redress for Caylee.
BEHAR: I see.
CLAY-SIMS: There is really -- there`s just no way to do that.
BEHAR: Now, after the verdict, you guys were all caught on camera celebrating, which I mean some people can understand that. You had won the case. And other people -- especially on this network -- people were saying that it was kind of unseemly to be celebrating at that point when there is a dead child in the picture. How do you respond to these critics?
Note that additional words gives us additional information:
CLAY-SIMS: There wasn`t any planned celebration. We went through that restaurant every day on the way to our cars. What had occur is on the way through the restaurant we looked out and the owners of the restaurant locked the doors because they could see a crowd forming, and I think they were concerned for our safety. They then offered us food and drink.
There was a toast, but the toast was to the Constitution. We felt very strongly about our client`s innocence, and we were so grateful that she was not going to be executed for a crime that we believe very strongly she did not commit.
BEHAR: Do you think if they weren`t for a lesser crime she would have been convicted of it, maybe? Child neglect, manslaughter?
CLAY-SIMS: Well, there were several charges, and the only thing that she was found guilty of was --
BEHAR: Lying.
CLAY-SIMS: Lying to law enforcement.
BEHAR: So you admit she is a pathological liar, the girl, at least we have that, right?
CLAY-SIMS: Well, what we have is somebody who isn`t telling the truth, but we don`t know why. We don`t know what was going on in her head. And I think to speculate beyond that, I`m not willing to do. When Doctor (INAUDIBLE) talked about responses to -- trauma responses to grief, responses to anything in our life, you know, there`s lots of explanations for that.
Note the softening of the language: "isn't telling the truth"
Note that she claims to have gotten to know her, but here, does not know what is inside her "head"; that is, why she lied.
BEHAR: Let me ask you something -- do you have children?
CLAY-SIMS: Yes.
BEHAR: Would you let Casey babysit your kids? You say she`s innocent.
CLAY-SIMS: Well, you know, my kids are older.
Note: "well" means a pause to think: sensitive question
Note: Question not answered: sensitive question (see prior analysis). Behar isn't buying it.
BEHAR: Well, let`s say they were younger. Would you leave her with your children?
CLAY-SIMS: I -- I liked Casey Anthony. I came to trust her. And that`s a really -- I felt the Casey Anthony that I knew, I felt very comfortable with her. I felt that the person that I became close to during that trial, I felt comfortable with her.
Note repeated "I" shows anxiety.
Note "liked" is past tense.
Note broken sentences means withheld information.
Note she did not see Casey as a "woman" but a "person"
Note the word "that" shows distance; as she distances one Casey from another.
Note that she avoided answering the question:
When a subject has not answered the question, she has answered the question.
BEHAR: Well, I guess if you believe she`s completely innocent, then you would.
Behar knows she has avoided the answer, but won't let up:
CLAY-SIMS: Well, again, my children are grown. I don`t quite know how to answer that question.
Three times she avoided giving an answer. She has stalled to think of an answer, but cannot.
BEHAR: Your grandchildren -- how about your grandchildren?
CLAY-SIMS: I think Casey Anthony has been so unfairly represented in the press, the person that I know I felt very comfortable with.
Fourth time she avoided answering the question. A simple "yes or no" question, but she does not want to lie, nor to face her defense partners if she tells the truth. This is something that causes people to despise weaseling out of answers by deceptive people. Sims is utterly without courage of conviction.
BEHAR: Do you fear for her safety?
CLAY-SIMS: I do, I do.
BEHAR: Does she have any protection now?
CLAY-SIMS: That`s being taken care of.
Avoidance. Should the protection of a killer be at the Florida Taxpayer's expense?
BEHAR: Oh, yes. That`s good. Ok. Thanks very much.
BEHAR: We are continuing our conversation about Casey Anthony and the aftermath of her acquittal. Joining me now are George Parnham, criminal defense attorney who was also an attorney for Andrea Yates; and Marcia Clark, former O.J. Simpson prosecutor and the author of "Guilt by Association".
You both just heard my interview with Dorothy Clay-Sims, Casey`s defense attorney. Do you think -- I know this is a crazy question -- but do you think Dorothy Clay-Sims believes that Casey is innocent? Start with you, Marcia.
MARCIA CLARK, AUTHOR, "GUILT BY ASSOCIATION": Ok. I can`t tell -- I would guess based on your last question to her -- and by the way, Joy, beautiful interview. Well done.
BEHAR: Thank you.
CLARK: Yes. Based on the way she answered that last question, you asked her, would you trust her with your children. And boy, she evaded that like crazy. She ran all over the studio to avoid really answering that one directly and never really did in my opinion. Which tells you -- she believes that she was -- I think that she believes the case was not proven against Casey Anthony, but I think she does not necessarily believe she is innocent either.
BEHAR: George, as a defense attorney, do you have to believe your client?
GEORGE PARNHAM, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Quite frankly, Joy, I never get to that point. I always rely on reading the state`s evidence. I prefer in most instances for my client not to even discuss with me the situation unless I bring the matter up. So it`s -- it`s a matter of what evidence is there. And what I can use and what I can`t use.
BEHAR: Ok. Now Marcia, part of the conversation I had with Dorothy was about the toasting that they did after the verdict was read. And she said they were toasting the Constitution in the bar after the verdict. Are you buying that?
CLARK: No. Really? Here`s to the Sixth Amendment -- no. I have yet to hear any defense attorney or any really prosecutor either -- that`s not what you`re toasting. Come on. I understand that they`re celebrating. They all do. I mean everybody has some form of celebration when they, quote, "win a case".
I think it was probably poor judgment on their part to do it so close to the courthouse. At least go home, do it at somebody`s house, do it where the press can`t follow you. But I get it. And it did feel unseemly under all the circumstances, and yet they did win the case. They did win.
BEHAR: Yes. Another thing, George, the jury foreperson said that when they first voted in the jury room it was really ten for not guilty and two for guilty. Now, I`m -- I saw "12 Angry Men", you know. And I think everybody`s seen that. It`s been a great civic lesson, that movie. But how difficult is it, George, for one or two jurors to actually change the minds of the other ten? Because that`s what happened. Yes.
PARNHAM: Sure, Joy, I think it`s extremely difficult, particularly if you have performed well either side in selecting or actually eliminating the jurors that you disapprove of and getting 12 individuals up there that are committed. If you`ve got 10-2, you`re going to have a very, very difficult time having two people persuade the remainder to see it in your favor.
BEHAR: Right. But if they stick to their guns, then what happens? You have a hung jury, right?
PARNHAM: We have a hung jury, and we redo it, deja vu all over again.
BEHAR: Oh, my God. I don`t know if I could go through it again. Thank you, guys, very much for weighing in.
We`ll continue in a minute with this. We`re not leaving them yet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tomorrow on THE JOY BEHAR SHOW, Roseanne Barr tells Joy why she`s so enraged over the Casey Anthony verdict.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: I`m back with my guests talking the Casey Anthony trial. Now, there was one report stating how the jury -- this kills me -- the jury didn`t like the fact that the prosecution never said good morning to them and they liked that the defense did. Marcia, do you think something as lame as that can influence the jury?
CLARK: Joy, well said. It can -- it can I think in the end -- I`m sorry, that was a good one. I think it can in that aggregate. I think that something that lame in and of itself would not necessarily do it. But you know, things can -- can conglomerate, you know, can combine to make a jury have a certain attitude. Especially if they`re coming in with some kind of formed attitudes.
Sometimes these nonverbal or verbal but non-relevant cues can have an impact on how favorably disposed the jurors can be to one side or another. Now said, that by itself whether they said good morning or not, by itself probably didn`t matter. But who knows how it combined with other things to make a difference in the matter?
BEHAR: Do you think that the O.J. jury liked Johnnie Cochran more than they liked your team? They liked that team better? He was very poetic, you know. Johnnie, he`s a real showman and everything. Do you think they just liked him better?
CLARK: I mean, I don`t know. I think we talked about this once before. Let me just say the jurors who came out and wrote a book said they did not. They said --
BEHAR: Really?
CLARK: Yes, they did. They said we saw through him. We knew he was a charming snake oil salesman, we didn`t care. And we actually felt that he and Shapiro talked down to us and we resented that. And they said you know it was really the evidence, it was about whatever.
And I don`t think, I don`t think that jurors ultimately do vote because they like one lawyer better than another. But I do think they vote because they like one defendant or victim better than another. It comes down to that popularity contest. So if they like a defendant, or they have some kind of sympathy or some kind of identification with the defendant, then they`re going to like that lawyer better, too.
BEHAR: Right.
CLARK: I mean that`s where it spills over. I don`t think it spills so much from the lawyer to the defendant as it does the reverse.
BEHAR: I see.
CLARK: So if they hate the victim, if they think the victim`s a gold digger, that kind of thing, that`s going to have an impact.
BEHAR: Of course.
CLARK: That`s where I think their sympathies go.
BEHAR: Now this is a sort of interesting thing that`s just come up. Texas Equusearch filed a civil lawsuit against Casey for the loss of over $100,000 which was spent during Caylee`s search.
Now George, shouldn`t Casey pay back that money since she knew Caylee was dead at that point? And where will she get the money?
PARNHAM: Well, you know, Equusearch went into this with open eyes, and they knew that obviously the trial had not yet begun, that she was entering a plea. They knew about the 31 days of partying and silence, no 911 calls so they took a shot. And it ended up empty, unfortunately for this child.
I -- I think when you take a risk or a gamble like that then it`s probably unfair to go against the party that you claim now was deceptive and forcing you to get involved.
BEHAR: What about Zenaida Gonzalez?
PARNHAM: I`m sorry.
BEHAR: What about Zenaida Gonzalez; so-called Zanny the nanny? That was defamation of character there. Shouldn`t she get some money out of her?
PARNHAM: Well --
BEHAR: George?
PARNHAM: Well, it`s fair game. You bet. I would take a shot at that if -- if there`s anything to it.
BEHAR: Ok. Thanks, guys, very much. We`ll be right back.
No comments:
Post a Comment