Dee Dee is an innocent witness to a murder and must be protected from breitbarting

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Peace, Joy and Freedom to all:

I begin with a confession. I have been awfully slow to identify the core issue presented by W8, who was assigned a fake name (Dee Dee) by the prosecution to protect her privacy. That alone should have been sufficient to trigger my curiosity. I could offer some excuses, but that would detract reader attention from where it should be.

Mark O’Mara is changing the practice of criminal defense from winning the case in the courtroom to winning the case before trial in the court of public opinion. He uses the internet and the media to dispense false information to the public about the case and to discredit and intimidate prosecution witnesses by character assassination.

For example, he has enlisted the support of two reporters at the Orlando Sentinel, Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, who report the information that he gives them on a daily basis as “news. He also has endorsed a website (i.e., the Conservative Tree House) as a legitimate source of ideas and assistance. He also uses motions for discovery and motions to reconsider or clarify prior court orders as a vehicle to repeat his false narrative.

Intentionally dispensing false information about the case to the media is a low-risk strategy with high-reward potential, since the the media is willing to report the defense statement without reviewing it for accuracy and the prosecution is prohibited from commenting about the case.

Although anyone who is familiar with the evidence released to the public via the State of Florida’s remarkable Sunshine Law knows that the media consistently reports a false and misleading narrative favorable to the defense, there is little that we can do as individuals to correct false information reported by the media.

Fortunately, we can do our part here in this blog and others like it to identify and correct false information. Unfortunately, however, the national media prefers to ignore us and instead provide Robert Zimmerman, Jr., with multiple opportunities to deny that anyone in the Zimmerman family is racist and to proclaim that his brother, George Zimmerman, is a decent American who acted in self-defense to prevent Trayvon Martin from killing him with his bare hands. Never mind that Trayvon was an unarmed 17-year-old kid walking home in the rain talking via cell phone to his girlfriend in Miami when he supposedly launched this attack. Move along. There is nothing to see here, folks.

That brings me to O’Mara’s second strategy, using character assassination to intimidate witnesses and destroy their credibility before trial.

Character assassination has been used for many years to discredit and defeat political opponents and win national elections. If you should visit the Conservative Treehouse, take a look at the banner on the home page. You will see a shrine to a person described as a great American patriot and within that shrine you will see a photo of the man to whom the site has accorded godlike status. The man depicted in that photo is Andrew Breitbart who so perfected the use of manufactured evidence to support false accusations against political opponents that his name has entered our lexicon as a new verb. To Breitbart someone means to destroy that person’s reputation with a campaign of malicious lies based on manufactured or doctored evidence.

My wife and I have been subjected to a vicious and continuing campaign of character assassination by lie for daring to operate a blog that promotes evidence-based discussions of the Trayvon Martin killing. We are not alone. Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson and many others, including Trayvon Martin, the innocent victim of the killing, have been subjected to a similar, if not worse campaign of lies.

That brings me to Dee Dee. As a victim who continues to endure breitbarting, I have some idea how she must feel knowing that two innocent girls in Miami, whose only crime was to have been named Dee Dee, were successively breitbarted by mistake. I imagine she also knows about the doxing and breitbarting of W9 (the defendant’s cousin) whose only crime was to have reported to police that George Zimmerman sexually molested her for 10 years beginning when she was 6-years-old and he was 8-years-old.

I know that if I were Dee Dee or Bernie de la Rionda I would not believe that Mark O’Mara would honor his duty as a lawyer and officer of the court to assure that no information that might assist in identifying Dee Dee is leaked from his office.

I am well equipped to survive breitbarting because I am self-employed with this blog and I have the strength, willpower and self-assurance of a warrior forged in the heat and pressure of high stake courtroom battles during a long career. I chose to create and operate this blog and I accept responsibility for what we do here.

Dee Dee is a child and she did not choose to be a witness to a murder. Yet, she is and I worry about her. The media and the general public appear not to realize that she too is a victim of the defendant’s violent act on February 26, 2012. I wonder if she is plagued with panic attacks and nightmares generated by a brain stuck on a spin cycle of fragmented memories, what-ifs, and if-onlys. No one, especially a child, should be subjected to such torture.

The realization that she also must know that she has been targeted for destruction by breitbarting frightens me and makes me wonder how any human being could be so full of hate that they would even consider hurting her, let alone setting out to destroy her with lies.

I can only regard Mark O’Mara with horror and disgust

The god of my understanding and belief is not going to be OK with this.

I think Bernie de la Rionda is doing his best to balance his duties as a prosecutor, including his duty to comply with the Brady rule, with his duty as an empathetic member of the human race to protect her from the coming onslaught.

I applaud his decision to withhold the information that O’Mara requested until the night before the hearing on the defense request for a subpoena duces tecum.

He did not violate the Brady rule because he disclosed the potential impeachment information a week before deposition, which is the first time that O’Mara could have used it for a legitimate purpose. O’Mara suffered no inconvenience and the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process of law and a fair trial have not been violated.

Mark O’Mara’s motions for sanctions, fees and costs are frivolous because they are not supported by law.

I will close with this warning. Breitbarting a witness in a murder case is witness intimidation under Florida law. Anyone convicted of that crime can be sentenced to life in prison.

I sincerely hope that anyone who participates in the coming effort to intimidate Dee Dee will be charged, convicted and sentenced to a very long and unpleasant time in prison.

The Prosecution did not violate the Brady rule in Zimmerman case

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Good morning everyone.

I realized at approximately 3:30 am this morning that I forgot to mention several extremely important points in the articles and comments that I have posted recently about the Brady rule and the timing of the exculpatory evidence disclosures to the defense.

The Brady rule imposes an obligation on the lead prosecutor and case agent in each case to periodically review the case file for the specific purpose of identifying exculpatory evidence. Since police investigations typically continue until a final order terminates a case after verdict and sentencing, a case file will continue to grow documenting the investigation and the discovery of new information. Prosecutors also add their stuff to the file. This feature of the criminal justice system frustrates judicial efforts to establish a uniform drop-dead deadline by which the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in any given case.

Therefore, the general practice is to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense as soon as practicable after it has been obtained and identified. One might reasonably expect to see multiple disclosures of exculpatory evidence prior to trial and even during trial.

A major exception to this practice was developed to deal with unusual or exceptional circumstances that warrant delaying the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense until the defense must have it to prepare for a deposition, pretrial hearing or the trial.

We have that situation in this case due to the well documented need to protect the privacy and safety of W8 (Dee Dee) from harassment and intimidation by the defendant’s supporters.

The vast majority of Brady violations involve situations where the prosecution had exculpatory evidence, but never disclosed it to the defense. In most cases a new team of defense investigators independently discovers the exculpatory evidence several years later during the run-up to filing a state or federal habeas petition after the judgment and sentence of the trial court was affirmed by appellate courts.

Tthe Brady rule requires a showing that the exculpatory evidence withheld from the defense was so important that the outcome of the trial likely would have been different, if the prosecution had disclosed it to the defense before trial. In other words, absent a showing of materiality, the prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence in any given case will be deemed harmless error.

Finally, the importance or materiality of that exculpatory evidence relative to rest of the evidence admitted at trial cannot be determined until after the trial has concluded.

For this reason alone, the defense claim that the prosecution violated the Brady rule should be summarily dismissed as premature, impossible to determine, and frivolous.

Nevertheless, let us briefly review the available facts to see if the timing of the prosecution disclosure disadvantaged or prejudiced the defense.

There is no evidence that it did.

ASA John Guy contacted MOM the evening before the court hearing in early March and told him that there were no hospital records to confirm Dee Dee’s statement that she did not attend the funeral and the wake because she was in the hospital.

Because of that disclosure, the judge ruled that the defense motion for a subpoena duces tecum of Dee Dee’s hospital records was moot.

The defense deposition of Dee Dee a week later could not have been adversely affected by the timing of the disclosure because the defense had the information for a week and used it to question Dee Dee.

The trial is still three months down the road, so I do not see any possibility of prejudice to the defense from the timing of the disclosure.

In conclusion, I do not see any prejudice to the defense caused by the delay between the defense request for the hospitalization records last fall and the recent disclosure.

As I have already mentioned, the prosecution has legitimate reality-based concerns to protect the privacy and safety of Dee Dee. I refer of course to the concerted effort by the defendant’s supporters to successively intimidate two girls whom they mistakenly believed to be the real Dee Dee.

Therefore, the delay in disclosing the evidence requested by the defense not only failed to harm the defense, it was reasonable and necessary to protect Dee Dee.

For all of these reasons, the defense motion is frivolous and should be denied.

Finally, the responses by the two reporters for the Orlando Sentinel and the national media to BDLR’s response to the defendant’s frivolous motions demonstrated that they have not yet grasped the facts in this case and the simple truth that the defendant has no defense.

Pathetic fail.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

Bernie’s epic smackdown of Mark O’Mara

Friday, March 29, 2013

Good morning, everyone!

I bow down in absolute awe of Bernie de la Rionda’s epic Shakespear-style smackdown late yesterday of the defense team, their internet troll advisers, and the reporters at the Orlando Sentinel who labor so diligently to spread the defense message. I have never read anything like it and it’s so perfect that I think I would only diminish its impact were I to cut and paste bits and pieces of it into a new post.

It’s as close to perfection as I think is humanly possible and Bernie de la Rionda deserves all of the credit for producing this gem.

Make no mistake. Bernie de la Rionda’s masterpiece is so superior to any other formal written legal argument that I have read or heard about that I believe it will achieve immortality as an example of the elegant smackdown.

Read and savor it here.

In other news yesterday, on Monday Judge Nelson issued without a hearing a terse three sentence order denying the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and clarification of her previous order denying the defendant’s motion to depose Benjamin Crump. The defendant’s supporters are in an uproar because Judge Nelson did not conduct a hearing or provide an explanation or justification for the order.

I held my breath and performed a quick survey of comments posted at right-wing websites to get an idea of what they are saying. I saw comments asserting the existence of a conspiracy against the defendant and his lawyers to rig the outcome of the trial so that the innocent defendant is convicted. President Obama is supposedly telling Judge Nelson what to do and she is in cahoots with Bernie de la Rionda to achieve the desired outcome. The lack of a hearing and the absence of a written opinion supporting her order are cited as proof that this conspiracy exists.

They apparently do not realize that judges are not required to hold a hearing before deciding whether to grant a motion to reconsider a previous order. They also appear not to know that the standard practice nationwide in state and federal courts is for judges to summarily decide motions to reconsider by granting or denying them without further explanation.

Needless to say, evidence of judicial compliance with a standard practice is not evidence of a conspiracy to deny the defendant a fair trial.

Finally, did y’all notice BDLR’s comments about O’Mara’s behavior at the the first bail hearing. That was quite a dramatic and disquieting shot across O’Mara’s bow introducing the possibility that O’Mara might be prosecuted for his role in assisting his client to conceal assets and a second passport from Judge Lester at the hearing.

If I were O’Mara, I would take that threat seriously and consult with counsel before deciding whether to respond.

Of course, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew and acted with intent to deceive Judge Lester at the bail hearing about the second passport and the thousands of dollars that had been donated to his client via the Paypal account. I suspect BDLR decided not to pursue that matter last year because he realized that he would need solid and convincing evidence to independently confirm the defendant’s disclosures in the recorded jailhouse phone calls.

BDLR knows that the defendant is an habitual liar and no jury would convict O’Mara on his word alone. He is certainly smart enough to realize that his emotional response to O’Mara’s frivolous accusations is not a legitimate factor to consider in deciding whether to charge O’Mara with a crime. This leads me to ask what has changed since last summer that would independently confirm that O’Mara knew about the money and the second Passport at the time of the hearing?

Has Shellie Zimmerman flipped on George Zimmerman and provided the missing link?

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

Read before you write

Thursday, March 28, 2013

I was inspired to write this post by a dust-up that I discovered upon returning home from running some important errands.

Erica said she really did not see any difference between Dee Dee’s lie compared to the defendant’s lies. She was concerned that the jury might disregard everything Dee Dee says according to the once-a-liar-always-a-liar rule, and she asked if that would hurt the prosecution case.

Although she claimed to be a Trayvon supporter worried about the outcome of the case, many of you smelled a rat, so to speak, because she accepted the defense argument that Dee Dee’s lie destroyed her credibility and she was placing the burden on us to refute that claim. As someone pointed out this is exactly what the defendant’s supporters have been saying. Not surprising, therefore, that several of you accused her of being a troll.

Meanwhile, we have beaten that issue to death here and concluded that Dee Dee’s lie will have little or no impact on her credibility or the prosecution’s case. I have written several articles on the subject and many of you have added your thoughts in the comments. I think I can safely say that we left no stone unturned and our conclusion and the basis for it are easily accessible here at the site.

I cannot think of a reason why anyone familiar with this site would not also be familiar with our recent debunking of the-prosecution-is-crumbling scenario. In other words, I do not understand why Erica did not know the answer to her question. After reviewing the exchange of comments, I believe people were justified in suspecting Erica was expressing unreasonable and incomprehensible approval for the defendant’s thoroughly debunked idea that Dee Dee’s credibility had been destroyed and the prosecution’s case was “crumbling.”

I do not know if Erica actually had read any of my posts or the comments by others regarding this matter. However, I think she had a duty and responsibility to inform herself as best she could regarding the matter before she expressed her opinion and she should have explained why she thought her idea had any merit, rather than merely assuming that she was right, a telltale sign of troll behavior. She also should have been prepared to expose the flaws in our various arguments rather than complaining about being attacked.

In other words, she should have realized that she was expressing support for a thoroughly discussed and discredited idea and therefore she should have expected to be challenged and maybe even accused of being a troll. Therefore, she should have been prepared to defend her thesis by supporting her statement and exposing any flaws that she found .

Erica did neither. Instead, she took the attack personally and rebuked people for challenging her.

This was not a successful strategy and only confirmed initial suspicions that she was a troll.

I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on the troll issue, so I will not ban her or divert her comments into a purgatory file.

I am instead going to use this situation as a teaching opportunity to hopefully reduce, if not eliminate the possibility that an innocent inquiry might lead to someone being banned by mistake.

I think Erica is capable of reasoning her way through the evidence, reaching her own conclusions, and clearly expressing those conclusions here on this blog.

However, she and everyone else, including me, has to acknowledge that from time to time someone is going to disagree with something we say and challenge us. This is especially true if we express an opinion that is contrary to the group consensus reached after the matter in question has been extensively debated and firm conclusions have been reached.

In other words, we have a duty to inform ourselves to avoid revisiting resolved issues and wasting time reinventing the wheel.

When challenging someone’s idea, each of us has a duty and responsibility to the person whose comment we are challenging to focus on the statement or conclusion to which we object and clearly express our objection and the basis for it.

Rarely, if ever, will there be a valid reason to personalize the challenge by attacking and insulting the person who made the comment.

In turn, rarely, if ever, will there be a reason for the person being challenged to attack the challenger with insults, instead of defending the merits of the comment challenged.

In other words, the debate should be about the merit of the idea expressed and not about the person who expressed it.

A big exception, of course will come up as it did with Erica when she endorsed a defense opinion that the national media recently supported. She endorsed it without qualification ignoring multiple recent posts and a thorough analysis debunking it. People are going to challenge anyone who does that because the opinion expressed has been debunked and the person expressing it has not offered any new evidence, reason or argument to justify reconsidering the matter. As such, the person’s comment is an annoying distraction that often derails thoughtful debate and consideration of new matters or issues.

We learn by making mistakes and there is no reason to pretend we are perfect.

Just know that from today forward every time anyone challenges consensus, they should expect to be questioned and be prepared to support their theory with new evidence while explaining what is wrong with the consensus opinion or theory. Relying on discredited arguments or unproven assumptions is not acceptable.

This is the way mature and responsible people engage in debate, learn and grow as human beings. We are inevitably more knowledgeable and better people from participating in this process throughout our entire lives.

We do not stop learning when we leave school. We go to school to acquire the tools to learn and communicate, Our true learning begins when we leave school and continues until we cease to exist.

Zimmerman: LLMPapa with Liar’s Dance

Papa’s classic, starring Frank and friends.

(h/t Ay2z)

Zimmerman: When in doubt, George leaves it out. What George did, he blames on the kid

At 10:53 am this morning on LLMpapa’s Dee Dee’s Story thread, Willis Newton posted the following comment:

VERY VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE

00:19 into the video, Dee Dee confirms the car-to-pedestrian chase that George omitted, obfuscated, lied and manipulated statements about to the SPD detectives. IMO this is the KEYSTONE to destroying GZ’s credibility and also helps establish a strategy for winning the case for M2. More on that at the end.

George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon WITH HIS CAR before he exited his car, likely causing the teen to panic and run away OFF the roadway and into the cut thru area. There are laws regarding stalking someone in Florida and IMO GZ was breaking this law when he crept his car up behind the teen. ANYTHING that happened after that, ESPECIALLY his getting out of the car with a loaded weapon and (admitting) following the teen is just a nail in George’s coffin metaphorically speaking.

If (and this did NOT happen) TM had been waiting around the corner with a baseball bat and a set of burglary tools a map to the location of all the resident’s laptops and had cold-cocked GZ, the teenager had a legal right to defend himself against an armed stalker. He would have been “standing his ground.”

One cannot claim self defense while already acting in violation of the law. Criminals in the act of committing a crime like GZ was don’t get to claim they acted in self defense.

The “depraved mind” aspect of M2 charges begins (provably) when GZ chases Trayvon with his car. A stopwatch , a map and the NEN call recording ALONE can be used in court to show GZ chased the teen with his car down TTL. But in addition to that proof, it is corroborated by a map GZ personally marked showing his most likely position, facing the mail kiosk from the vicinity of the first bend in TTL, in contradiction to his impossible story of being in the clubhouse parking lot, a story GZ himself backed off from when confronted with the NEN call recording. But also we have Dee Dee’s understanding of events as heard from Trayvon – that he was ahead of a car that was following him and scared by a menacing figure.

Dee Dee is provably telling the truth about the car-to-pedestrian chase and each proof corroborates the other – the deductive reasoning derived from the NEN call recording, and the recollections of a person who was on the phone with the doomed teenager. In opposition to this is a self serving liar who is afraid to take the stand because he lied about THIS IN PARTICULAR in addition to whatever else the state can prove.

In addition to all this there is also the clubhouse videos, which show the position of the car that must be GZ’s, unless there never was any car at all, in which case GZ is still lying. This car seemingly trolls the mail kiosk, runs down to the cut thru area and then returns to exactly where GZ marked a map position he quickly crossed out before telling yet another lie, the story of TM’s doubling back and circling his vehicle, another impossible claim. I am not discounting this important evidence at all, but simply saying that it’s additional evidence and not necessary to proving the case. Nor are Dee Dee’s statements or testimony necessary either. The entire picture can be shown of a car-to-pedestrian chase simply by pitting a map and a stopwatch against the NEN call recording. Also unneeded is GZ’s statements to the police, if you want to exclude them. The proof is so simple once you look at the simple fact that GZ does not exist out of time and space, and that he was SOMEWHERE when he had the following exchange:

NEN CALL TAKER: He’s by the clubhouse now?

GZ: Yeah, and now he’s coming towards me.

This is the bedrock truth that no GZ supported has ever been able to refute credibly. GZ was lying about where he was BECAUSE he had to omit the car to pedestrian chase -he knows what it proves – his own bad intent from the get-go.

What I was saying about trial strategy above relates to where this proof gets the prosecution when arguing before a jury that GZ is guilty of M2. Firstly and importantly, it proves GZ was already guilty of a crime before the physical altercation even began. He was stalking someone in an illegal manner. Second, when giving voluntary statements to the police in the aftermath, George demonstrably lies to obscure this car-to-pedestrian chase. He invents a tale that is impossible to reconcile with the NEN call recording, inserting not one but TWO instances of being “directed” to follow the teen. This clearly never happened, but teasing out why and how George has to claim this happened TWICE (once when he was “in the parking lot” and again when he “went to get an address”) is the key to understanding what really was happening at the time.

GZ probably never saw TM by Frank Taafe’s house. The clubhouse videos and Dee Dee’s call timings along with her recollections seem to show us this. He may even have had a “tip off” to send him out looking for the lad. But it’s a more difficult “proof” to present in court and may not be worth pursuing at trial. These were actions that GZ claims came before a record was established – the NEN call recording, which puts a time clock onto the events of the evening.

Once that time clock is running however, we have something to plot likely and unlikely events against. George’s account comes up wanting, severely when you try to place the individuals at that very important and KNOWN moment in time -the moment GZ seems to say that TM is near the clubhouse, moving towards GZ.

This is where the strategy comes in – GZ is establishing a PATTERN of lies when he speaks of these actions prior to the running around in the dark, the actions that sadly are NOT recorded or witnessed by anyone living other than the (lying) defendant and one person, Dee Dee, who was listening but not able to see what exactly happened.

IMO GZ establishes a pattern to his lies that can be shown at trial EXTENDS into the actions of the missing minutes. “When in doubt, George leaves it out.” Beyond a reasonable doubt, he chased the teen down TTL with his car. And he never admitted this.

In the “missing minutes,” the prosecution can argue he also leaves out incriminating actions, in particular what he was doing and where he moved after the NEN call ended. When in doubt, George leaves it out. He’s got no explanation at all for what he did between the end of the call and the first 911 call, and WAY too much time to have been stationary given the situation – lost “suspect” (aka person he stalked and profiled, illegally), soon-to-be arriving police headed to a different position, and the silly address-looking take. George had enough time to PAINT a new street sign arguably here. Yet he never explains what he did, nor did he call the police to report an address for a meet-up.

Second is the strategy that I call “what George did, he blames on the kid.” GZ claims the teen “doubled back” to circle his car. His supporters also claim the teen “doubled back” to the T in order to confront and beat George in an aggressive manner. George himself never fully makes that assertion, but he is implying it with his account of his movements. But Trayvon never did “double back” from the T to circle George’s vehicle. It would not be possible for him to do this if one cares to try to reconcile this action with the NEN call recording and the assertion on it that the teen was “by the clubhouse now” and “moving towards me.”

What else did George do that he blames on the kid? HE DOUBLED BACK. First after trolling the mail kiosk, and secondly after Trayvon walked past his car on his way home. As GZ can be heard saying “these axxholes always get away” he is PROVABLY starting to follow the teen with his car. Dee Dee knows it. The map and stopwatch prove it. The clubhouse videos DON’T show it, (his lights are off and there is a lens “flare” obscuring the visibility) but the videos do confirm his initial position after the first doubling back action.

It’s also likely GZ “doubled back” in the missing minutes in some fashion, although absent a confession we’ll never know how and where.

GZ also leaves out significantly what he was doing with his hands during almost all of the physical altercation, save draw his weapon and shoot the unarmed teen. “When in doubt,” the prosecution should hammer over and over to the jury, “George leaves it out.” Forensics are likely to suggest George was attempting to detain the teen as he has partially admitted in his tale of an exchange with W6/ John when he speaks about “help me” being “help me hold this kid.” Just like GZ left out the car to pedestrian chase and told heaps of lies to omit, obfuscate and obscure the event, GZ seems to be leaving out his hands and what possible illegal things they were doing.

This is the PATTERN of lies. “When in doubt George leaves it out. What George did, he blames on the kid.”

There are many more examples of situations and evidence that can be presented using this general idea. I’m sure many here can name more, probably a dozen easily. He blames his domestic violence on the other partner. He leaves out that he never completed his degree, etc. He substitutes “something in his waistband” for his own ill-advised concealed weapon, etc. Most significant will be the courtroom battle over who is heard yelling for help on the 911 call. (I personally have no opinion yet on that one, but the prosecution has his mother to present and that will be very powerful, especially if a jury sees a pattern ALREADY established of substitution.)

The list is endless.

Using these two mantras, the prosecution could paint a very very damning picture and give a jury a framework to build a very solid consensus for conviction on, needing only to present each phase of it’s case as more or less holding to one or the other basic principal – that he’s a proven liar who tells two kinds of lies – ones of omission and others of substitution.

Were I the prosecutor, I’d practically pass out free t-shirts to the jury on these three sayings:

Many things are possible; what GZ claims happened is not possible.

When in doubt, George leaves it out.

What George did, he blames on the kid.

Zimmerman defense team’s latest actions show fear and desperation

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

From the they-don’t-teach-you-this-in-law-school file, comes this bit of sage advice whispered to me late at night in a bar in some long forgotten city by a nationally respected criminal defense lawyer whose name I shall not disclose in this sacred house.

When all else fails and you know you have a loser case, abandon hope, jack-up the level of pain pissing off the judge and prosecutor, keep on swingin’ ’til you knock somebody down and keep on keepin’ on until they commit reversible error. You want to make them mad enough to spit nails so they go home at night and kick the fuckin’ dog

This is the desperate strategy that Mark O’Mara appears to be using with his latest flurry of specious motions that have no chance of being granted. He is personalizing the battle hoping to evoke anger sufficient to overwhelm reason and provoke an emotional retaliation that introduces reversible error into the record. He also has an eye on the rate of financial contributions to the internet fund. He needs to keep making news to loosen the purse strings of the dwindling number of racists still willing to contribute money to the defendant’s losing cause.

Why do I say losing?

Because he has, in effect, waived the immunity hearing without formally doing so on the record, and he is trying his case everywhere except a courtroom, which is the only place that it should be tried.

Hell, he is so desperate and scattered that he cannot even get it together to note up his specious motions for a hearing.

Take heart fellow Trayvon supporters because these are not the actions of a well prepared, confident and professional attorney.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

Featuring: LLMPapa’s video: Dee Dee’s story

Here’s LLMPapa again:

Several months ago, I removed the questioning and interaction of Bernie de la Rionda from the audio of DeeDee’s statement in order to hear her story in a narrative format. The following is her story of the last few moments of her childhood friend’s life.

In June of this year, when called, I believe this young girl will rise and stand tall with a strength of purpose and resolve born of the knowledge that her story needs to be heard.

Listen to her words and answer, for yourself, the question I’ve raised at the end.

Personally, I don’t think there’ll be a dry eye in the house.

I plan on being there.

I’ll let you know.

Robert Zimmerman proves he is a racist

Here’s LLMPapa with another excellent post.

I was going to comment on RZ, Jr., but I cannot match Papa.

Let ‘er roll.

Trayvon Martin: The prosecution is not crumbling

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Now that W8 (Dee Dee) has apparently admitted during the defense deposition on March 13th that she lied when she told Benjamin Crump during a telephone interview and later confirmed to BDLR that she did not go to Trayvon Martin’s funeral because she was sick and went to a hospital, the inevitable question is:

How might this affect the trial?

First, do not expect to see her charged with perjury because BDLR’s question was ambiguous (i.e., went to a hospital or someplace) and her answer was not material (i.e., important enough to affect the outcome of the trial).

Second, let’s take a look at how this admission might come out at trial.

BDLR would ask her if she attended the wake or the funeral and she would answer, “No.”

BDLR would then ask her why not and she probably would answer that she was too upset and could not handle it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecution either did not move in limine (i.e., before the trial begins) to prohibit the defense from pursuing this line of inquiry pursuant to Rule 608(b) or if it did, Judge Nelson denied the motion, BDLR would have the option to end that line of inquiry (i.e., permitting the defense to bring it out on cross) or to proceed further and reveal her lie).

Any experienced prosecutor, and BDLR is experienced, would elect to reveal her lie in the least damaging manner possible rather than allow the defense to bring it out on cross in the most damaging manner possible.

This is how it might work:

BDLR: Do you recall Benjamin Crump interviewing you by phone in March of last year regarding your cell phone conversations with Trayvon before the shooting?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Do you recall him asking you, if you went to Trayvon’s wake and funeral?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: What, if anything did you tell him?

DD: I told him that I did not go to either one.

BDLR: Was that truth?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Did he ask why you did not go the funeral and the wake?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: What did you tell him?

DD: I told him I was sick and went to the hospital.

BDLR: Was that the truth?

DD: No.

BDLR: What was the truth?

DD: I was too upset and could not handle it.

BDLR: Why didn’t you tell him that?

DD: I did not want to admit to his mother that I was not strong enough to be there for her.

BDLR: Are you referring to Sybrina Fulton?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Was Trayvon’s mother present when Mr. Crump interviewed you?

DD: Yes, she was in Mr. Crump’s office listening over the speaker phone.

BDLR: How did you know that?

DD: Mr. Crump introduced her and she said, “Hello.”

BDLR: Did there come a later time when I interviewed you in person?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Do you recall when that was?

DD: I think it was about a month later.

BDLR: Was Trayvon’s mother present when I interviewed you?

DD: Yes, she gave me a ride to the office where you interviewed me and she sat next to me the whole time.

BDLR: Did you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth during the interview?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Did I ask you if you went to the funeral and the wake?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: What did you say?

DD: I lied and told you that my blood pressure was very high and I went to the hospital instead.

BDLR: Do you suffer from high blood pressure?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Why did you lie to me?

DD: I did not want to admit to Trayvon’s mother that I could not deal with what happened to Trayvon. I could not handle seeing him dead or in a casket, so I lied to her and to Mr. Crump.

BDLR: Are you sorry that you lied?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Have you apologized to Trayvon’s mom and dad.

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Did you love Trayvon?

DD: Yes, I still do.

BDLR: Do you miss him?

DD: Yes, very much.

BDLR: Thank you. Your witness, counsel.

Picture this scene taking place before a jury in a crowded courtroom in June with a nation and the world looking on, after the prosecution has introduced all of its damning evidence against the defendant, including the medical examiner’s testimony using graphic color photos taken during the autopsy, as this young woman confesses her love and affection for Trayvon while baring her soul and tearfully confessing to her overwhelming sense of loss, responsibility, confusion, weakness and guilt.

If BDLR conducts the direct examination properly, as I believe he will, the best cross will be no cross. The jury will not take kindly to a defense attorney picking on her and prolonging her agony.

Finally, do not forget that the phone records and the other evidence in the case will independently confirm everything else she says about her conversation with Trayvon.

One understandable simple lie by Dee Dee is relatively unimportant compared to the vast ocean of lies uttered by the defendant in this case.

Is the prosecution crumbling? I don’t think so.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated