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.

202 Responses to Featuring: LLMPapa’s video: Dee Dee’s story

  1. Rachael says:

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

    • Two sides to a story says:

      LOL! Good one, Rachael!

    • willisnewton says:

      Hey, it worked for OJ. Catchy courtroom phrases like “if the glove does not fit, you must acquit” are (sadly) what it takes sometimes to get a point across. If that’s what it’s come to, I hope they fight fire with fire to a certain extent. The defense’s actions sicken me and I want to see a fair and just trial ending in a clear conviction. How they get there is secondary.

  2. willisnewton says:

    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.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      Once a blog reaches a certain number of comments, I start reading it from the bottom up.
      While scrolling up to get to the top of this comment, I knew it had to be you. 😃
      Now I am going to get a cup of coffee and then read your comment.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      I like that one Willis
      When in doubt, George leaves it out.
      What George did, he blames on the kid.

      For anyone having a difficult time visualizing Willisnewton’s chase, check this. We think GZ probably made a yturn after Trayvon had passed him, and starts following Trayvon in his car around 7:11 pm. I edited in Dave’s walk from the mail boxes towards the cut-through.
      Just check where Dave is on TTL when GZ jumps out of his car.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Great post.

    • ladystclaire says:

      @willisnewton, I really do like your comment and, with all of the evidence I don’t see how anybody on that jury can say, not guilty. also, O’mara is a DOG in the fact that he hired someone to video DeeDee’s deposition but, Bernie wouldn’t allow it. I have a feeling he was doing this at the request of his tree house minions, so they could maybe go to Miami in order to see if they can spot her, with the aid of a video tape given to them by O’mara.

      Notice how he didn’t video tape any of the witnesses that he deposed. he is as low as low can get.

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        “Notice how he didn’t video tape any of the witnesses that he deposed. he is as low as low can get.”

        The draft notices of deposition, submitted to the prosecution a week in advance and covering the 13th, 14th, and 15th, all indicate that they intend to make video recordings of them.

        We do not yet know if the prosecution tried to block any of the others or what the court said about whether it would be allowed or not.

        unitron

    • Tzar says:

      I brought up the stalking offense and assault statute as cause for a Murder 1 charge back in April (I think) on Leatherman’s FDL site. Glad to see that the issue is still on the clever minds of this site.

      • willisnewton says:

        Thanks Tzar, yes I’m standing on your shoulders in pushing that one. Stalking statute or not, the overall picture is still the same – depraved mind, profiling, bad intent, etc. are all established BEFORE GZ got out of his car.

        I write long posts hoping that lurkes and latecomers can benefit from posts that try to summarize what’s been said before and contain enough context to stand alone somewhat.

        It’s all one big consensus IMO that is building, starting from 2 million outraged people who wanted this trial based on just the simple fact that an unarmed kid was killed under suspicious circumstances and America’s love affair with handguns and long history of racist behavior was called into question.

        As the facts emerge, we can all learn some lessons, I hope. One is that the blogging community has power and strength where the mainstream press sometimes fails us. It takes more than a few reporters paying partial attention to keep the truth from being obscured.

        • Tzar says:

          There is nothing in this post that I don’t agree with 100%. In fact reading it warmed the cockles of me wittle heart an made me smile like the Cheshire cat .

    • Tzar says:

      Willis that was an excellent read
      I suspect the professor will feature this write-up

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @WillisNewton

      Superb! You are the LLMPapa of verbal dissertation (highest praise I could think of).

      Analytical, pulled all the threads together , AND, best of all, presented with an eye to THE JURY’S comprehension. So important!

      And I love, love, love “The Willis Mantra”:

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

      ( … as in: “What you need to know, Willis will show …” )

  3. WTF kind of headline is this?

    Benjamin Crump: Judge, don’t make me answer questions from George Zimmerman’s lawyers

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-zimmerman-crump-depo-20130327,0,5147520.story

    Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Trayvon Martin’s family, has filed new paperwork, saying there’s no valid reason for a judge to reverse herself and order him to answer defense attorneys’ questions in the George Zimmerman murder case.

    On Feb, 22, Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson rejected defense attorneys’ initial request, agreeing with Crump that he was not at the scene of the shooting and could provide no material details.

    But last week, defense attorney Mark O’Mara filed new paperwork, asking her to reconsider

    Defense attorneys want to learn more about Crump’s dealings with the state’s most important witness, a young Miami woman who was on the phone with Trayvon moments before Zimmerman shot the Miami Gardens 17-year-old to death Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford.

    Crump discovered her and recorded an interview with her before police even knew that she existed or that Trayvon had been on the phone with anyone.

    • Tzar says:

      one written by a shill

    • leander22 says:

      René Stutzman is a very, very bad writer. She doesn’t even get her details straight. No, not Crump “discovered her”, that’s a really crucial point. Is she trying to manipulate her audience or is she simply ill-informed? The next point that DeeDee said she was 16 while in fact she was 18, is something we do not know either. For all I can tell she could have been ’18-year-old’ on April 2, and 17 on Feb. 26.

      But the most stunning thing is the headline. Maybe we should sponsor a reading comprehension teacher to this woman, after all she is following the case quite some time. Were exactly did she find the line: Judge Nelson, please don’t make me answer defense questions?

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        Reporters write stories.

        They hand these stories over to editors.

        Editors decide how much of the story they have room for in the paper, and cut stuff out and move it around accordingly, and they write the headlines.

        Once the reporter hands the story to an editor, they no longer have any control over it.

        Stutzman must be doing something right, though, ’cause the people at the treehouse hate her even more than the people here.

        unitron

        • leander22 says:

          I am aware of that, but some passages can’t be explained by that. They surely cut, but would not attribute “the discovery of a witness” to someone else than the author of the article. You have no problem with this type of misinformation by media, or you you think in this case it is none?

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            You were mistaken about who writes headlines, and laying the blame where it did not belong.

            That was what I addressed.

            Whether any of the rest of what you wrote was right or wrong has no bearing on that.

            unitron

      • leander22 says:

        unitron, if you love to be right and feel better in the believe that I am not aware that headlines are not done by the writers in most I know one journalist you objects to it over here, or that to their frustration occasionally their articles are cut, not always mind you, there you go. Enjoy your success.

        Do you feel the article meets the requirement of the supposedly reigning balance? See, I have my hobby horses too. Good night. I have to look more closely into the genesis of the video discussion here.

        You avoided my question if that is already misinformation, or if it is only misinformation if someone e.g. talks or writes about Stand your Ground instead of “Justified Self-Defense”? In other words if misinformation has a partly political quality to it.

  4. elcymoo says:

    If O’Mara is demanding that the prosecution be sanctioned because of the expense the defense team incurred, what about the expenses the prosecution incurred when it transported witnesses for depositions that the defense team canceled without advance notice a few months ago?

  5. Mella says:

    Did Dee Dee go to the cops right away and then they informed Tracy Martin of this girl?

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      “Did Dee Dee go to the cops right away and then they informed Tracy Martin of this girl?”

      Assuming that you are asking this question in all innocence and sincerity, the answer is no, she did not go to the police.

      Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s father, was, on the night of Sunday, March 18th, 2012, reviewing his cell phone bill, which covered several family cell phones, including Trayvon’s, and noticed calls billed that were listed to have occurred shortly before Trayvon’s death.

      He called the number shown as having been the one in contact with Trayvon’s phone, and that is how the existence of the young lady now known as Witness 8, and her telephonic contact with him shortly before his death, was first made known to anyone connected with the case, other than Trayvon himself, of course.

      He passed this information on to his attorney, Benjamin Crump, who contacted her and wound up recording a telephone interview with her the next day, the existence of which (and thereby of her) he revealed to the world the day after that, the 20th.

      The prosecution in the case interviewed her, under oath, in early April of 2012, and made an audio recording of it, and apparently also conducted an unrecorded interview of her sometime last August, but as far as I know she has never been interviewed by the Sanford Police Department, or by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement independently of the prosecutor’s office.

      unitron

  6. Tzar says:

    Papa it is not that you give me hope with your work, it is that you keep me grounded in the human community.

  7. nocamo33 says:

    I praise my God for Papas and others relentless pursuit of justice for this innocent young man. Thank you Mr. Papa.

  8. SearchingMind says:

    O’Mara’s expert witness(es)

    Professor, anyone, please tell me I am wrong. I have been searching non-stop through GZ’s supplemental witness list linked above by Southern Girl2 and cannot find any expert witness(es) (in e.g. forensics, ballistic, etc.). O’Mara listed the medical examiners from Volusia county. But those are the same ones that did performed the autopsy on Trayvon’ body.

    I am left to conclude that the defense will not be calling its own expert witness(es) to testify during the SYG-hearing (if there is one) and/or trial (not even Knox!). Someone better tell me I am wrong before I open a bottle of Budweiser.

    (BTW, thanks SoutherGirl2 for your industrious work in supplying good info on this case).

    • SearchingMind says:

      Missing in action on that list are:

      a. Robert Zimmerman Jr.
      b. W9
      c. Joe Oliver
      d. Mark Osterman
      e. Shellie Zimmerman

    • I haven’t looked at the defense list of witnesses, but I’m sure you’re right about the absence of any experts, with the exception of the ME’s office.

      IIRC, MOM recently claimed to have spent $12,000 on expert witnesses. That number sounds like money spent on retainers.

      Given the deadline to endorse witnesses, I think we can reasonably infer that they’ve reviewed the discovery, looked at the evidence, and concluded that they agree with the state’s experts.

      That is good news for the prosecution and bad news for the defendant.

      Of course, there is always the possibility that MOM did not tell the truth when he claimed to have spent $12,000 on expert witnesses . . .

      We don’t really know what’s going on with that internet money.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Of course, there is always the possibility that MOM did not tell the truth when he claimed to have spent $12,000 on expert witnesses . . .

        A definite possibility indeed. I think that Knox was a trial balloon that didn’t work as intended. I think that Knox’s previous clients, as well has his opponents, received his new work as impeachment material. THAT would leave him embroiled in an imbroglio of some proportions.

        We note that there have been no new biofidelic challenges to the “schoolboy ruler” work.

    • Tzar says:

      the term “a comedy of errors” comes to mind…or maybe abbot and costello…no wait, the three stooges

    • SearchingMind says:

      And this one also. If not, I am sure Tzar will come to my aid.

      http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/witness_list.pdf

  9. fauxmccoy says:

    just wondering if i am the only one who has grasped the irony that should the defense collect on any sanctions/reimbursement from the prosecution, that it would be infinitely more cash than they have received from their client, office upgrades notwithstanding.

    ugggg – i feel like that bad old hippie joke ‘help, i’ve tripped and i can’t come down!’

    • Jun says:

      The part I find ridiculous is them asking the state to pay them money for saying no to the cameramen that Omara hired

      Bernie did not hire them, Omara did

      Bernie and the witnesses, and every American has the right to say no to being filmed

      No one made Omara argue with Bernie for 5 hours or whatever he is claiming

      Omara should have taken the no, accepted it, did the deposition, and sent the cameraman home early on in the beginning and the court reporter could have began

      But no… its someone else’s fault for choices Omara made SMDH

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @jun who says

        …But no… its someone else’s fault …

        i reckon he’s taking lessons from his clients, eh? the irony continues.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Fauxy, Jun, another irony is that the State has in the past spent money, time and energy arranging the deposition of certain witnesses and making sure that they are present for deposition only to have O’Mara bail out at the last minute. “That’s frustrating” – BDLR once said in Court.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          @searching mind

          yupperz on the defense wasting time/money of almost all involved parties – especially the taxpaying citizens and court personnel on frivolous motions. most egregious though is the last minute cancellation of depositions.

          i have not yet researched florida law regarding videotape of depositions. i am looking forward to BDLR’s response, i am sure his reasons for refusing were sound, but am interested in the legal background.

          i find it very interesting that judge nelson issued an order for the defendant to appear at the april 2 hearing and now that hearing has been canceled. information regarding both of these issues is scant.

      • SearchingMind says:

        I am also thinking that O’Mara was informed before the deposition that video cameras would not be allowed during the deposition. But O’Mara decided to go with his video-crew anyway (to argue and make trouble).

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Fauxy

        The April 2nd hearing has been canceled? Was that a typo (I am the kind of typos) or do you mean it?

        • fauxmccoy says:

          @searchingmind — first, i love it when people feel free to call me ‘fauxy’ thanks 🙂 it makes me happy.

          secondly, the orlando sentinel reported yesterday that the april 2 hearing was canceled but that there will be one on april 30. this was in the article discussing o’mara’s motions for sanctions/reimbursement from the prosecution. no word on who canceled it or why.

          • IIRC, Judge Nelson announced that she would be on vacation next week, but in town and available to come in for a hearing on April 2nd, if the parties need it. I don’t think the defense noted up the recent frivolous motions for a sternly worded rebuke of the prosecution, sanctions and attorney’s fees, so she canceled the hearing.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @professor – it does seem odd though that this hearing was canceled by an as yet unknown party, but that judge nelson had specifically ordered for zimmerman to appear or forfeit bond.

            i am sure that this does occur in the scheme of all things trial related. i look forward to more information becoming available. i especially look forward to BDLR’s response to recent motions.

            what do you know about videotaping of depositions — is it mandatory, can the deponent object? i’m curious.

          • The notice to appear at the 4/2 hearing was sent out by the Clerk’s Office because Judge Nelson had scheduled a hearing for that date. The Clerk’s Office has sent out a similar notice for all of the previous hearings. That is a customary practice because he is out on bond and the notice eliminates the possibility of an I-didn’t-know-I-was-supposed-to-be-there-because-my-lawyer-didn’t-tell-me excuse. By filing a waiver of presence, as he has done in the past, the defendant could have skipped the hearing. That will not be necessary, since the judge has cancelled the hearing. You can reasonably expect another notice will be sent to the defendant regarding the 4/30 hearing.

            Video deps are not mandatory and BDLR was not required to agree to one.

            I suspect MOM pulled that stunt at the last minute to complicate matters and jack-up the level of Dee Dee’s pain.

            Since the defense failed to complete the deposition because of the delay caused by their last-minute request for a video dep, I do not think Judge Nelson will be favorably disposed to authorize another deposition.

            I think it’s ironic that the deposition may have to be rescheduled because of bad faith defense intransigence when the defense has two pending motions accusing BDLR of unethical prosecutorial misconduct.

            If I were Judge Nelson, I would be extremely pissed off at the defense, deny both defense motions, and refuse to authorize a second deposition.

            She’s probably going to bite her tongue and be more reasonable than I would be, but that does not mean she won’t be furious.

            It’s never a good idea to piss off a judge.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            thanks prof for the longer explanation. this was just the first time i saw the ‘notice to appear’ published on the florida court’s website. i do check it regularly, but may have missed previous ones or perhaps they were not posted. it does make sense now that you explain it that it would be SOP.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Video deps are not mandatory and BDLR was not required to agree to one.

            I suspect MOM pulled that stunt at the last minute to complicate matters and jack-up the level of Dee Dee’s pain.

            Since the defense failed to complete the deposition because of the delay caused by their last-minute request for a video dep, I do not think Judge Nelson will be favorably disposed to authorize another deposition.”

            According to this:

            http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/mot_for_sanctions_fees.pdf

            they sent Bernie draft notices on the 6th that said they’d be videotaping, and formal notice on the 11th, including the name of the videography service hired.

            Not until they showed up in Miami on the morning of the 13th does Bernie say anything about not allowing video recording.

            They even offered to go ahead with it while waiting to hear back from the court and let the prosecution seize or destroy the recording if the court ruled against them, in order to not waste time, if possible, and Bernie wouldn’t even go along with that.

            unitron

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Uni,

            Bernie refusing videography of the deposition could have been predicted, based on (a) DeeDee’s aversion to papparazzi being announced before the depo starts, or, (b)Bernie in guerilla warfare mode (I like that … Bernie crazy like
            a faux ).

            I have been deposed many times, and if a camera crew showed up – or an individual with a video camera – my first words would have been “Get that creep out of here!”

            Giving a deposition is serious business, and you shouldn’t have to worry about “Is he shooting my good side?” or “Will he make me look like an idiot?”, etc. It’s an intrusion and, you don’t have to put up with it.

            O’Mara should have known Bernie would play it this way.

          • Xena says:

            BDLR made it clear to Judge Nelson that DeeDee is afraid. For his support, he mentioned the CTH and presented print-outs of how they posted the personal information of Witness 9. I am pretty sure that some of the printed material also contained the comment sections with attempts to dox DeeDee and others.

            In the weeks just before that hearing, admins on that site removed information where they had the phone number from Trayvon’s phone log and were going through Google map trying to get the address for that phone number.

            The State is not going to allow its witnesses to be placed in position of harm. O’Mara should understand and appreciate that. As long as GZ supporters publicly post communicating with O’Mara (whether true or not), BDLR cannot trust him to keep confidentiality pertaining to witness identification.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Xena –

            “As long as GZ supporters publicly post communicating with O’Mara (whether true or not), BDLR cannot trust him to keep confidentiality pertaining to witness identification.”

            Amen, Sistah, amen!

          • Xena says:

            @Professor

            I suspect MOM pulled that stunt at the last minute to complicate matters and jack-up the level of Dee Dee’s pain.

            It was to play into a Zidiot scheme. There is a theory that there is more than one DeeDee.

            There are some GZ supporters who claim to know the real name of the real DeeDee and have photos of her. I was informed the other day that on a blog, they have actually posted the first names of two individuals who they say represent the two DeeDee’s.

            In order to support their theory of there being more than one DeeDee, they need video or photos of who O’Mara deposed to compare with what they have doxed.

            Of course, if what they have doxed is not the same as the video taped DeeDee, they will say there is more than one DeeDee; never admitting that their doxed info is what is wrong.

      • Rachael says:

        That’s odd. Remember she said she had something like 2 dates open in April and said she would be on vacation but she would be available if O’Mara wanted them and he said no so I’m not sure why he was supposed to appear April 2 and it was cancelled.

      • Rachael says:

        So what’s going on here, the defense is trying to piss off the judge the same way Jr. is trying to prove they are not a racist family? Are we all on the same side of justice for Trayvon after all?

      • Tzar says:

        It’s never a good idea to piss off a judge.

        Unless you are hoping for said judge to give you a reason to cry judge disqualification and also thereby a reason to delay the case and hope for more time to dupe racists out of their donation dollars

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Unitron

        a. What was/is the legal basis for a video deposition of DeeDee?

        b. Why was/is a video deposition of DeeDee necessary?

        c. Why does O’Mara want/need a video deposition EXCLUSIVELY for DeeDee?

        d. Was/is there any contract/agreement between O’Mara and the prosecution stipulating that both parties have agreed to a video deposition of DeeDee?

        e. All forms of liability must be grounded on specific violation(s). If no law/rule/contract/agreement exist mandating video deposition of DeeDee, what then is the specific violation on the part of the prosecution? If you cannot cite any violation(s) of any law/rule/contract/agreement by the prosecution, on what basis then do you contend that the prosecution did any wrong?

        f. Do you think that O’Mara bears any responsibility for his ill-informed maneuvers?

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “a. What was/is the legal basis for a video deposition of DeeDee?”

          Feel free to ask someone familiar with Florida’s laws on the subject.

          Since the defense planned on doing so and informed the prosecution of this a week ahead of time, I assume there is one.

          “b. Why was/is a video deposition of DeeDee necessary?”

          Feel free to ask O’Mara. He hasn’t seen fit to make me privy to his thinking on the matter, but I assume he has what he considers good reasons.

          “c. Why does O’Mara want/need a video deposition EXCLUSIVELY for DeeDee?”

          On 3/6/13 he submitted draft notices of taking depositions for all three days, the 13th (Witness 8), the 14th (Sybrina Fulton, Jahvarius Fulton, Witness 25, and 3 other people whose identities/designations are redacted), and the 15th (Tracy Martin, Witness 7, and Witness 10/24–the son of Witness 7 and apparently listed under two different last names somewhere along the line), and all 3 of those notices included mention of video recording the depositions.

          So it’s not exclusively for any particular witness or day.

          (it occurs to me that we haven’t heard anything about Bernie blocking video on those other 2 days)

          “d. Was/is there any contract/agreement between O’Mara and the prosecution stipulating that both parties have agreed to a video deposition of DeeDee?”

          There’s the implied agreement that Bernie had a week’s notice and didn’t object at any time during that week, but it really boils down to whether the court allows it, regardless of the wishes of the prosecution.

          “e. All forms of liability must be grounded on specific violation(s). If no law/rule/contract/agreement exist mandating video deposition of DeeDee, what then is the specific violation on the part of the prosecution? If you cannot cite any violation(s) of any law/rule/contract/agreement by the prosecution, on what basis then do you contend that the prosecution did any wrong?”

          It is the defense which is making that contention.

          I merely pointed out that the notion that O’Mara waited until the morning of the 13th to “spring” the video recording aspect on the prosecution is incorrect and documentation exists which proves that it is incorrect.

          “f. Do you think that O’Mara bears any responsibility for his ill-informed maneuvers?”

          The question pre-supposes that it has been established that his maneuvers (which you did not define further) were ill-informed, a supposition I am not willing to concede without further information.

          I think it’s a bit much to expect him to be able to know in advance that Bernie was going to jerk him around on this, if that’s where you’re going.

          As for whether the prosecution has the power to allow or disallow the video recording of depositions, I don’t know enough about Florida law to know, and I leave it to the court to decide.

          unitron

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Unitron
        There is a system in place within which all parties must think, act and achieve their specific results. There are rules and regulations all parties must abide by within that system. No one gets to come up with (a system of) rules that exist only in his/her idiosyncratic world, try to impose them on other players within and run to the judge demanding compensation when those other players refuse to play according to their idiosyncratic rules and ideas. That O’Mara even suggested something like: ‘well let’s do the video deposition and you can destroy the tapes if the judge rules against us’, I find, frankly, very infuriating. Are you sure this O’Mara guy has been practicing law for over 28yrs? Where the heck is his “common-sense”?

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “That O’Mara even suggested something like: ‘well let’s do the video deposition and you can destroy the tapes if the judge rules against us’, I find, frankly, very infuriating.”

          Why? They told Bernie a week in advance they were going to be video recording the deposition(s), a not-unheard of concept, told him 2 days ahead of time exactly who they’d hired to do it, and Bernie waited until that morning when they were ready to go to object.

          In an effort to save money and everyone’s time, they propose that while they waited for the court to decide whether Bernie could prevent them from doing it they’d go ahead and if the court said no they’d surrender the recording, but if the court said yes they’d already have gotten it done.

          Seems a pretty sensible suggestion to me.

          unitron

          • I disagree. O’Mara never should have presumed to vary the established procedure for depositions without a firm agreement.

            I would have done the same thing BDLR did and told O’Mara to suck eggs and cram it where the sun don’t shine at the deposition.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “I disagree. O’Mara never should have presumed to vary the established procedure for depositions without a firm agreement.”

            What is the established procedure in that jurisdiction, and how was he at variance with it?

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            It might seem “sensible” but it isn’t what the rules allow. MOM should have tended his request to the court and obtained a ruling, since this is not something that the rules allow automatically.

            BDLR is not required to do MOM’s work for him. MOM can suggest and plan to do whatever he wants, however he wants, but if it isn’t required by law, and/or if it is not a necessity, then he has no right to do it, period. BDLR is right to let MOM do all the work, then at the last minute assert his rights. MOM knew in advance that BDLR had the right to refuse. He ignored it, despite the fact that he knew how sensitive DD’s situation is, and that filming would create additional psychological hardship for her.

            MOM did not go to court, he did not get the ruling he needed to overcome BDLR’s rights, so no matter how “sensible” his plans were, he simply had no right to implement them! Nor any right to assume or assert that they should be implemented.

            Not to mention that this crew MOM hired could easily take a copy and “lose” it somewhere along the way.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          First of all MOM should know that once tapes are made, regardless of the Judges ruling, those tapes can not be legally destroyed. They can be sealed but never destroyed.

          MOM must think that he’s dealing with a set of ignorant jerks, that he can simply show up with cameras, ready to film that which is not supposed to be filmed, and say that it will take a court order to stop him. Or that he deserves notice that his offer will be refused.

          The only thing he is doing is demonstrating his own lack of expertise at law. He’s acting more like a clown than a lawyer. I sincerely doubt that people in need of legal advice are going to seek the advice of a clown.

      • Trained Observer says:

        “It’s never a good idea to piss off a judge.” — Frederick Leatherman

        Ha! Yet however sage, so often attorneys seem to forget this seemingly keen-sense-of-the-obvious tip. Based on what’s transpired thus far, Judge Nelson must be approaching HPP status — HPP being as in highly and permanently pissed.

        Long after Fogen’s gone on to his deserved doom, would not MOM and West be concerned that they’d be appearing in her court representing other clients? (That’s assuming anyone would want either of these two as their counsel.)

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Unitron

        O’Mara’s “suggestion” might “seem pretty sensible” to you, but you fail to demonstrate that BDLR was/is obliged to play in accordance with O’Mara’s (idiosyncratic) “suggestion” and as such did wrong in not doing so. Would you do that? Please.

        If you can’t answer the rest of my questions, please, answer just this one:

        ‘Which law/rule/contract/agreement did the prosecution violate?’

        (Hint. Under US law, liability of any kind MUST be based on (a) Tort, (b) Contract or (c) Statute. No liability can be based on rejected “suggestions” – no matter how “sensible”).

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “If you can’t answer the rest of my questions, please, answer just this one:

          ‘Which law/rule/contract/agreement did the prosecution violate?’ ”

          I’m going to wait for the court to rule on that.

          I’ve never said one way or the other if I thought O’Mara is correct in expecting the court to sanction and fine the prosecutor’s office and/or any prosecutor personally.

          I just pointed out that the accusation that O’Mara waited until the morning of the 13th to suddenly spring the video recording aspect of the deposition taking on everyone is incorrect, and I provided the documentation to back my assertion.

          If somebody says Joe Smith shot someone else’s dog, and I point out that the dog is alive and well and was never shot, that in no way has anything to do with whether or not I think Joe Smith should receive the Citizen of the Year award, and if I can prove what I said about the dog, my feelings one way or the other about Joe Smith are immaterial to the question of the dog.

          unitron

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Unitron

        Ignore my last post. I think we were posting at the same time. Sorry for that.

        You said sth about “implied agreements”

        a) what do you mean by “implied agreements” (within the context of criminal law)?

        (b) What are the requirements for “implied agreements”? And were those requirements met?

        (c) what’s the source of any of your answers?

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “You said sth about “implied agreements”

          a) what do you mean by “implied agreements” (within the context of criminal law)? ”

          They gave him a week’s advance notice of their intentions.

          His failure to object could be interpreted to have implied agreement.

          Feel free to disagree as you attempt to obfusticate that what this is really about is that the professor made a baseless charge against O’Mara.

          “I suspect MOM pulled that stunt at the last minute…”

          A week’s advance notice is not “at the last minute”.

          unitron

          • Unitron said,

            They gave him a week’s advance notice of their intentions.

            His failure to object could be interpreted to have implied agreement.

            Feel free to disagree as you attempt to obfusticate that what this is really about is that the professor made a baseless charge against O’Mara.

            Excuse me, but you do not know what you are talking about.

            There is no doctrine of implied agreement that applies and it does not matter how much notice MOM gave BDLR.

            MOM cannot arbitrarily change the rules and BDLR was not obligated to respond one way or the other.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “MOM cannot arbitrarily change the rules…”

            What are the rules?

            Attempting to google the answer just brings a tsunami of links to Florida firms that specialize in doing video recordings of depositions.

            I’m sure most of the work is for civil cases, but once I broadened the search terms enough to get some other results there was one Houston lawyer’s site talking about depositions in general that mentioned Florida as using video depositions in criminal cases, so apparently it’s not a brand new notion down there.

            Interestingly, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(h)(4) Depositions of Sensitive Witnesses says

            “Depositions of children under the
            age of 16 shall be videotaped unless otherwise ordered by the court.”

            so if Witness 8 had been a bit younger than we were first led to believe there wouldn’t be any question about it.

            It further says

            ” The court may order the
            videotaping of a deposition or the taking of a deposition of a witness with fragile emotional strength to be in the presence of
            the trial judge or a special magistrate.”

            so apparently it’s within the power of the court to allow it, although the wording is a bit confusing over whether fragile emotional strength triggers just the need for a judge or magistrate, or the need for a video recording in general, or whether the judge or magistrate is required for the video recording.

            But the rest of Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(h) Discovery Depositions doesn’t seem to mention video or audio recording of depositions one way or the other.

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Hahaha… As if to say: “The robbery was legal because the bank robber gave sufficient notice, and the fact that the bank did not object, implied that they agreed to be robbed”. I just love unitrons ability to reason. Then he say that the Professor is wrong, hahaha…

            BDLR has no reason to assist how MOM prepares for and/or pursues his case. MOM can give all the notice he wants, about anything he wants, but if he doesn’t have the right to do what he wants to do, no amount of advanced warning, nor any lack of advanced objection, yields any right to do what he wants. BDLR waited until the last moment, to see if MOM would or could obtain the permission he needed. When the time came and MOM had no rights, BDLR rightly objected to him exercising rights he did not have.

            Of course, in general, failure to object to notice, only implies acceptance in cases where the person performing or intending to perform, already has the rights and powers so to do, already in their possession. In short, MOM is performing like a circus clown, attempting to do things that are absolutely silly from a legal standpoint.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Thanks all, for the interesting discussion above. Much food for thought and your fine-tuned minds handle this better than mine.

        What I object to is that OM and Co. seemed to want to video only particular witnesses. IMHO, he’s harassing W8 and the Fulton-Martin family, something I hope that Judge Nelson will take a dim view of. Either you video all witnesses or none at all, in my law book . . . just sayin’.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “What I object to is that OM and Co. seemed to want to video only particular witnesses. ”

          Yep, particularly everyone to have been deposed on the 13th, 14th, and 15th.

          Which included several others than just Witness 8 and some of Trayvon’s relatives.

          Of course those are just the ones for which the notices of intent to depose have been made public, so we don’t know one way or the other about any others.

          unitron

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Unitron

        The law is very clear on what is required for a legal contract/agreement to come into existence. Legal contracts/agreements come to be through the process of ‘offer’ and ‘acceptance’. Parties must also explicitly declare their intentions to be bound by whatever they contract/agreed to. If these minimum requirements are not met, not contract/agreement exists. Period.

        “Implied contract/agreement” is a special form of legal contract. Because this kind of legal contract/agreement presupposes the absence of an explicit offer or acceptance, specific cumulative requirements must be met in order for such a contract to come to be (private law 101). Statute and/or case law determine (a) specific areas of inter-human transactions where a legal “implied contract/agreement” is POSSIBLE and (b) specific set of requirement that must be met for such contract/agreement to come to be. If you cannot name those requirements and show that they all have been met, you may not claim the existence of one.

        To use your example: you don’t have an “implied agreement” with your neighbor to “shoot his dog”, simply because your neighbor said nothing when you informed him 2weeks ago that ‘you will shoot his dog’, do you?

        (Side bar: No one is obfuscating. I know you as a man of correct facts, fairness and precision. I am merely holding you to your own standards).

      • leander22 says:

        unitron, before I did through this long thread. Yes there are quite a few firms which offer to work for video depositions, they offer a lot of different scenarios under which this tool might be helpful, e.g. for the trial. There is a special law in Florida which demands video

        92.53 Videotaping of testimony of victim or witness under age 16 or person with mental retardation.—

        But it does not seem to be true that a notice one week in advance is enough, much less in our specific scenario. I did a fast check. Neither does it matter concerning all the other witnesses present if they consented to being videotaped:

        http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/91285/op-91285.pdf

        (7) Defendant’s Physical Presence.
        A defendant shall not be physically present at a deposition except on stipulation of the parties or as provided by this rule. The court may order the physical presence of the defendant on a showing of good cause. The court may consider (A) the need for the physical presence of the defendant to obtain effective discovery, (B) the intimadating effect of the defendant’s presence on the witness, if any, (C) any cost or inconvenience which may result, and (D) any alternative electronic or audio/visual means available.

        This is a 1998 amendment to the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          Why are you bringing the rules about the defendant’s presence into this?

          There was never any suggestion, by anyone worth listening to on the subject, that Zimmerman would be at any of the depositions.

          unitron

      • Jun says:

        Unitron

        It’s very simple

        No matter who is filming, they have to get actual permission before filming, and a waiver needs to be signed

        Was there any waiver signed or agreed on for filming?

        No there was not.

        Who’s responsibility is it?

        It is Omara’s, since he was the one who wanted to film the deposition

        There’s no such thing as an implied agreement and if we were to go by your reasoning, Omara should not have brought the cameraman, because there never was an agreement to do the filming

        Lastly, Omara should have accepted the NO, and then did the deposition. No one made him argue with the state for 5 hours when no one wanted to be filmed. You can’t force people to be filmed. People are allowed to say NO, and it is well written in law.

        I have worked with various media personnel and camera services, and permission needs to be granted before one can be filmed.

      • Jun says:

        Unitron

        Where did the court order video depositions?

        Omara ordered video depositions

        Why should anyone but Omara pay for the video taping, other than Omara, since he ordered it, and the parties being filmed objected to it and said NO

        Use basic common sense

        When someone proposes or offers something to you, do you have a right to say Yes or No?

        Of freakin course you can say NO

      • leander22 says:

        implied agreement

        I know the equivalent of this term in civil cases over here, but I doubt they would be relevant in criminal procedures, at least I would be very surprised. I seems to be a very specific set of rules for that. I doubt that if BDLR would have been forced to respond under these rules he would have forgotten about it. Not concerning someone like DeeDee, he went to great length to protect against defense curiosity. That’s what puzzles me in your argument, unitron.

        In any case, I can understand defense and or GZ would love to have it videotaped, but on first sight that seems to demand Debra Nelson’s agreement. Till someone e.g. Debra Nelson and/or our host convinces me it is otherwise, I book this as another trick pulled hoping that the other side would be caught unaware. Since strictly I do not think they do not know the rules.

      • leander22 says:

        I seems

        No idea what this was before I changed something. But in any case it should be “There seems to be”

        Jun, while you are around, were did you find the info about O’Mara’s attempts to videotape DeeDee?

      • Jun says:

        Its in his motion for sanction or whatever it is called that he blames Bernie for saying No and objecting to being filmed

      • leander22 says:

        Why are you bringing the rules about the defendant’s presence into this?

        There was never any suggestion, by anyone worth listening to on the subject, that Zimmerman would be at any of the depositions.

        unitron

        Answer: Because in my universe a video would imply a future presence of the witness or a chance for him to watch me. It seems to be connected that way in the paragraph I cite. “The defendant” could even distribute her image to his fan base with a tag attached. Find this woman.

        Ooops, before I consult people “worth listening to on the subject” whoever they may be, maybe you tell me. Let me ask you what makes you so angry? It feels you are. If I understand it may save me line space in a response.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          Why do you think the defendant would be allowed to get his hands on or even view the video of the witness?

          That would expose O’Mara to possible charges of witness tampering should anything happen to any of them.

          Despite the low regard in which he is held in some quarters, he’s very likely not that stupid, or he would have torpedoed his own career years ago.

          No one in a position to know has suggested that there was ever any thought given by the defense to having Zimmerman present for the depositions.

          Some people not in a position to know are probably saying that, but since they’re not in a position to know they aren’t worth listening to on the subject.

          unitron

      • leander22 says:

        No one in a position to know has suggested that there was ever any thought given by the defense to having Zimmerman present for the depositions.

        Do you have insider information in this context, or is this pure speculation? A direct phone line into O’Mara’s team? my first really fast impression is that they may not even have a chance to consider it.

        Concerning your larger argument: The little knowledge I have from these type of procedures is that the defendant, while not being able to get it without the help of a lawyer can take a look at his complete files too. I have never met a case in which this wasn’t so and the accused showed no interest in them. Obviously I do not know the procedures in the US, but if I may speculate, I would imagine GZ has the background with his associate degree in criminal law to be at least be as curious as everyone else would be. This obviously includes depositions, or at least the transcript of them. And there seem to have been transcripts, at least O’Mara cited from at least one. Shouldn’t he be at least as curious as we are, or maybe much more. After all his future is at stake.

        Some people not in a position to know are probably saying that, but since they’re not in a position to know they aren’t worth listening to on the subject.

        If this is some type of insinuation that I am misguided by misinformation in whatever US media or social media, or by my friends here, I have to disappoint you. Whatever I wrote were simply spontaneous thoughts, and they may surely change while I look more closely into matters. I will start with the original sources if you don’t mind, once I have done that I will thankfully take your advice whom to listen to beyond Jeralyn Merrit if it comes to experts. Even anyone has a slightly deeper type of appetite for the topic than you show here, I’d surely appreciate your hint as to: reliable sources, or in “the position to know”.

        Sorry, I will shift my attention now.

  10. amsterdam1234 says:

    Anyone care to comment on this demand for specific discovery?

    Any and all data in the State’s posession or the State has received regarding any downloads from any phone or phone number connected to George Zimmerman or his wife Shellie Zimmerman or any information that the law enforcement has received, retrieved or investigated concerning George Zimmerman’s phone, phones and or phone numbers.

    http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/discovery_demand_326.pdf

    It seems a broad request for a specific discovery. And why are they asking for this so late in the game?

    • Jun says:

      LMAO Well if Fogen’s phone has GPS, its gonna show he’s a liar LMAO

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        Obviously this is just a fishing expedition. Can you explain the legal justification for this request?
        This is their own information, this is just asking the prosecution ” how much did you find out about me?”.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Jun, GZ’s phone has GPS. It’s a Blackberry, for goodness sake :). GZ did give his consent to “search” his phone. That means: ‘download and save whatever is on it’. GZ’s- and Trayvon’s GPS-data must have been compared- and matched with one another. The results must have played major role in taking SYG of the defense’s table. I think O’Mara & Co. know a lot more than they are telling the donors. For now, we stay tuned.

    • Rachael says:

      Because they were too busy degrading Trayvon, his family and DeeDee to actually work on their defense.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        I am just shocked. Iirc, the SPD made an image of the drive on GZ’s phone, before they returned it to him. The defense wouldn’t have a clue about what the state would’ve been able to retrieve from that phone.
        What kind of case are you building, if you neglect something as obvious as the data on the phone of GZ?

        GZ was not arrested until 6 weeks later. Deleted stuff is retrievable as long as it hasn’t been over written with new data. Six weeks later that image would’ve looked completely different, if they took the trouble of checking it at that time.

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ A’dam (ha! guess how I know that?)

        On March 22 2012, GZ handed his phone to FDLE and signed a consent to search his phone. Search include ‘download all and ‘save all’. FDLE also obtained GZ’s cell phone records from his carrier for the period 20th of February 2012 – 28th of February 2012. All these happened roughly 3-weeks after Trayvon’s death. I do not think that any significant damage has been done by the delay.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        Didn’t they also make a copy on the 2/26? I know Singleton had to get his phone for him during his first interview, when they wanted a phone number for the company that was working on the sec video cameras.

        I am sure the state would’ve wanted a copy of the phone drive for the weeks following the incident, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t already have a copy of the drive.

    • PYorck says:

      I can think of several possibilities:

      Perhaps it is about Shellie. As far as I can remember so far only three phones have appeared in the discovery (contents and records for Trayvon and GZ, records for DeeDee). Perhaps they have reason to believe that someone may have checked Shellie’s records.

      It could be that they are after the fully processed location information for GZ. Remember the map of Trayvon’s movements that O’Mara heard about but did not get? If the prosecution has reasonably good location info for GZ then a corresponding map should exist for GZ. It would be very valuable to know how much the prosecution can prove about GZ’s movements.

      And finally it could be an attempt to find out if anyone else (*cough* FBI *cough*) has checked the records.

      • gbrbsb says:

        @Pyork

        “Remember the map of Trayvon’s movements that O’Mara heard about but did not get?”

        It wasn’t a map in the end Pyork, it was a diagram on the back of the phone disclosure papers showing with dots, arrows a line and a few numbers the dialing order of the pin code for Trayvon’s phone. It was on discussed here a few weeks ago and IIRC that was the conclusion the blog came to.

        • PYorck says:

          It wasn’t a map in the end Pyork, it was a diagram on the back of the phone disclosure papers showing with dots, arrows a line and a few numbers the dialing order of the pin code for Trayvon’s phone.

          Ok, but even then somewhere in the vaults of the prosecution there is a document describing the sum of everything they know about the locations of the two main participants.

          The worst case is that it is just a cell ID (i.e. tower) per call and that would almost certainly be useless. If there is more then things get interesting.

          • gbrbsb says:

            @PYork
            My bet the GPS data, whatever there is if any (and I hope I am wrong), is going to be too imprecise. IMBW but over here at least you need a software based system if you want to pinpoint exact global co-ordinates the kind we have for my OH’s learning impaired adult sons. We tried basic GPS tracking and it was useless.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        I am just shocked that they didn’t ask for this data a year ago. If they don’t have that data, and they are just know beginning to wonder what the state will bring to the trial, GZ is in even more trouble than I thought he was.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @PYorck,
        Even gps data that is not very precise, will show certain things that may put GZ in a lot of trouble.

        It may show Trayvon near the mail area as early as 6:49 pm. It may show Trayvon entering through the front gate. It may show that GZ didn’t leave his house until around 7:06 pm.

        This would validate DD and proof GZ to be a liar.
        Even if it would be impossible to show exactly what happened during the missing minutes, I think it would be very difficult for the defense to make a case for GZ.

      • leander22 says:

        Good points, Amsterdam. Admittedly I haven’t thought about that.

        What I wonder about though, ( Irony alert) would the state need to pass on all data from GZ’s retrieved from GZ’s phone? One should think GZ knows all they could find there. No? The same should be true of GPS data, after all GZ knew were he was at the time.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @leander
        I don’t know if the State is obliged to hand over the raw data, just a copy of the image they got of GZ’s phone. I’m quite sure they don’t have to hand over their work product. I am not sure if deleted data that has been retrieved, is considered part of their work product, but I would think it is.

        What shocks me is that they are asking for it now. It doesn’t really matter what the state may have found, it seems the defense is in the dark about what was on GZ’s phone. That is not a very good position to be in, 2 months before the beginning of the trial.
        It also tells me something about O’Mara’s experience with criminal law cases and forensics.

    • gbrbsb says:

      I expect they want to know exactly what the prosecution has in that respect to try to see where they might be coming from, “know your enemy”, sort of thing, and probably also save time and costs to themselves.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Yeah, Gbrbsb. And in doing so, they do not differentiate between what they are entitled to and what the prosecution is not oblige to give them. They want just everything – including work-product, privileged info, etc. It also shows how nervous they are. I find the wording of the Motion very interesting. The word “retrieved” stands out for me. Probably O’Mara does not know the content of the “hidden information” on the 911-tapes. That, if it transpires to be true, will indeed be a shame.

        • gbrbsb says:

          @SearchingMInd
          I have left a long reply to your long comment I wasn’t quite sure how to take, directed at “@Unitron, Gbrbsb, Jeralyn Merrit” on the thread “The Prosecution did not violate the Brady rule in Zimmerman case” because it’s in such a long thread you may not get it and also we have now moved on again. No offence intended, I was just somewhat confused.

    • leander22 says:

      Do you have an idea when this was filed? I see, seems yesterday.

      Searching mind there seem to be blackberrys that do not have GPS, at least that was my impression looking at these things really, really superficially. Besides some here have a rather elaborate scenario in mind, wouldn’t you in such a premeditation scenario disable GPS? You may also want to do this if you for instance in advance have Frank Taaffe’s house in mind, but realize you may not be lucky to meet someone there. From the top of my head.

      Any and all data … regarding any downloads from any phone or number connected to George Zimmerman or his wife Shellie or any information that the law enforcment has retrieved, received or investigated concerning George Zimmerman’s phone, phones and/or phone number.

      Interesting concerning hopes Shellie would inform on GZ. It never felt likely.

      Paranoia, FBI related, or what else could it tell us something else? Since BDLR lately seems the target this may be the result of brainstorming. Did anyone see the text messages or whatever he could have referred to during the first bond hearing. Is there more out there? Well that wouldn’t include Shellie, but that could also be a distraction.

      It also may be just smoke and mirrors or PR now that they have the attention of their fan base again due to the last motions. But I somehow doubt that is all it is.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        I don’t think this is for their fan base. They didn’t put this document on their front page.

        They may have been shocked into reality, after they saw the data retrieved from Trayvon’s cell phone.

        The state has at least one image from GZ’s phone, maybe 2. Those were taken before GZ was charged with murder 2. O’Mara had just become GZ’s lawyer during that time.
        Even if O’Mara secured the data on that phone immediately after he became GZ’s lawyer, and he had an expert working on that phone to retrieve deleted data, chances are the state would’ve been able to retrieve more.

        GZ bought himself and Shellie new smart phones when the money started coming in. They may have sold their old phones on eBay or something.

        O’Mara may find himself blindsided during the trial.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Back in the early 2000’s service providers began implementing gps on their phones and devices, not as a consumer usable feature, but rather because of the billing options it made possible. They could then bury extra fees for wandering outside of the “service area” in the contracts. GPS became so popular with service providers that mfg’s began enabling their devices at the factory.

          So, by 2012 it’s pretty certain that GZ’s blackberry could capture GPS, the question is whether his service provider used or stored that data themselves, or if they made it available to their clients. Obviously if your service provider was using gps data for billing purposes, they would still be able to track your device, even if you shut your user application off.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Back in the early 2000′s service providers began implementing gps on their phones and devices, not as a consumer usable feature, but rather because of the billing options it made possible. They could then bury extra fees for wandering outside of the “service area” in the contracts. ”

            Was that not already possible based on to which cell tower the phone was connected?

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            That was a very imprecise system that went out of use around 2000 when a civilian GPS system became available, it wasn’t as precise as the military system but for a few years it would have to do. It was accurate to +/- 50 feet or so. IIRC sometime around 2005/6 military grade gps became available and the switch over proceeded rapidly, within 2 years 90% had military grade gps. Then the talk started about the E911 system which would not only make it possible to use 911 on cell networks, but allow the E911 call centers to track the phones that called in, so as to locate people who could not give directions.

            You or your child is in trouble today? They dial 911 and put the phone away, in a backpack, pocket or bag that stays with them. The call center will track their location and direct the police/rescue to them.

            Sanford implemented E911 in 2009 as part of a state wide upgrade program. Thus on the night of 2/26/12 E911 should have been capable of tracking GZ’s movements. So far we’ve heard nothing about them having done so.

      • leander22 says:

        Even if O’Mara secured the data on that phone immediately after he became GZ’s lawyer

        I doubt he did, I even doubt he would do so later. It would complicate the basic trust between lawyer and client scenario. Don’t know how to put this better.

        This is a very, very interesting story.

        GZ bought himself and Shellie new smart phones when the money started coming in. They may have sold their old phones on eBay or something.

        Hmm, I didn’t pay much attention on these matters, at least not much beyond the apparent excitement by Shellie about both “being allowed” to handling money matters and her seeming pleasure about the money flows. Somewhat naive it felt, imagine to envision a brilliant future based on such matters. In any case, I only stored talk about one cell phone purchase. Concerning the old phone could he at all sell in the given context?

        But strictly this seems the first “broad discovery motion” that somehow may well manage to distract attention from specifics by its ”broadness”.

        Thanks for alerting us to this. 😉

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        One has to keep in mind that, some times what seems to be the simplest way in hindsight, was not so simple when it was in the future and there were other considerations that complicated things them. The solution to these expected problems led to some seemingly inexplicable actions being taken, but which can later be easily explained away as coincidence, happenstance, or otherwise minimizing the import of them.

        For example: Long ago I proposed that, according to Tchoupi’s work, the path of GZ’s truck could be accounted for, if GZ had taken a quick look in the mail shed, saw nothing, figured he had either arrived too early or too late, and decided to retrace his travel. Before he gets very far, I surmise, he receives a call, to turn back to the mail shed. He does and then, because he spends more time maneuvering in this ares, I figure he’s spotted Trayvon on this second pass.

        Next some one posts that, GZ could still have been going to the store, and that spotting TM in the mail shed, was his cause for not turning to exit the front gate. Of course, the explanation is dropped at that point, no need to explain why GZ drove away after having already spotted TM.

        Then there’s no explanation for why GZ, headed either for Taaffe’s or to return home, should suddenly stop, turn around, and go back to where he had just left. This time to stop on station and start the NEN call. While at the same time being reported by TM to be watching and/or following.

        On a lonely road, at night, in the rain, it doesn’t take much for a person in a vehicle to show interest in a person on foot, to give the impression of following. GZ could have thrown his headlamps on TM in the mail shed, while aiming his flashlight at TM through the opened drivers side window. In such a situation, if it were a policeman, undercover or otherwise, you’d expect them to call you over for questioning. If they didn’t, you’d still expect that they would, because of the pointed interest they’d shown in your progress.

        Well, in that case you’d be drawn to walk towards them, in an effort to let them know you are aware of them watching you, and provoke them, thereby to identify themselves as police. When identification does not happen, you can either attempt to speak or, decide they are not police, and therefore a dangerous threat and attempt to flee.

        According to GZ, Trayvon attempted to speak, he asked GZ why he was following, to which GZ claims he illegally lied and replied that he was not following Trayvon. This lie was an illegal act, because it establishes GZ as a strangely aggressive intruder/stalker, intending to instill fear in his victim, rather than being concerned about dispelling hostilities.

        Consider, if as GZ claims, his only concern is to keep the neighborhood safe, why would he create and maintain a hostile atmosphere that will illegally cause someone to fear for their own safety? Trayvon’s actions, as claimed by GZ himself, require that GZ stop scaring the youth he is causing to be so concerned for his safety, that he is forced to inquire of a stranger why he is being followed. GZ knew he was following Trayvon and his NEN call confirms that he was showing a keen interest in Trayvon’s progress. A keen interest via the description he gives Sean, even while Trayvon is reporting being followed to his contact. So, things were quite a bit more complex in actual practice, than they can be made to appear in hindsight, simply because the artifacts that caused the complex actions are gone. So the actions are surmised to be not so complex at all, but reflexive responses to imagined stimulus.

        As far as disabling GPS, there is a possibility that it can’t be disabled. While you might be able to disable the user app, the proprietary function may still be operating. We won’t know, apparently, until we’re told.

      • leander22 says:

        According to GZ, Trayvon attempted to speak, he asked GZ why he was following, to which GZ claims he illegally lied and replied that he was not following Trayvon. This lie was an illegal act, because it establishes GZ as a strangely aggressive intruder/stalker, intending to instill fear in his victim, rather than being concerned about dispelling hostilities.

        This is a brilliant point, just as everything that follows. Not sure about the clubhouse video’s. And I am an absolute fan of Tchoubi’s (et al) work, I admire it deeply. The problem is that the light events cannot really be attributed to specific cars. I can see the pattern, but I am still hesitant. Someone would need to simulate the light events the researchers discovered under the same light conditions around the clubhouse. What would be the difference with several cars and several scenarios? On the other hand, if there were several cars moving around at the same time, someone may have noticed GZ. That’s true. There may have been a witness coming forward.

        Concerning GPS, it was my absolutely favorite scenario from the start, I have to admit. But I am old enough to know that the world does not always offer ideal scenarios. Surely we should not give up hope. 😉

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          If you look at Tcoupi’s work again, you’ll note by looking at the histogram first, there aren’t any cars available to be confused with the motions of the car that ends up where GZ admits his car does, at the time GZ admits his car winds up there. Believe me, if Tcoupi knew of any ambiguity he would either have continued his analysis, or simply given up and so stated that this ambiguity could not be resolved.

    • Nef05 says:

      Interesting. The other posters have pretty much covered the fogen portion request, so what I’m curious about is the inclusion of Shellie’s name/info included in the request.

      Many have speculated, based on fogen’s sotto voce comments on the NEN call and verbal slips in his statements, that Shellie was with him, that night. Perhaps they want Shellie’s records to confirm whether or not she actually *called* Osterman or whether there is some other explanation for his rapid presence on the scene.

      IIRC – We discussed a possible 3rd party, that night and ruled it out (for discussion purposes) simply for lack of any hard evidence. I didn’t have a position on it, because I don’t put anything past fogen (so I think it’s possible), but I didn’t see any hard evidence either, which is hard to reconcile. But now…

      IMHO – fogen is too prominent (counterintuitive, I know, but please bear with me) and this motion is too obvious (info should have been requested long ago). My instincts and psych background tend to have me look below the surface, and it’s telling me this is about Shellie’s info, fogen’s name (in this instance) is just cover and a bonus – if they get something they don’t already have. And, as the poster mentioned, it’s not on the front page. So O’Mara put it out, low key, under the radar, as if he doesn’t want it scrutinized like the others. I’ve been wrong before, and I could be again. But, I think we should definitely keep our eyes on this one. JMHO

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @Nef05,
        @WilisNewton,

        I have for the past week or so been mulling over Shellie’s role on-site in all of this.

        Please give me your comments on:

        1) Recall that a few posters here considered: someone was in the truck, feeding info to Zimmerman.

        2) Suppose it was Shellie. Suppose they were BOTH on the way to Target – and SHE had the purse with the cash? Fits his story that “they” go out and do the shopping together Sunday night.

        3) Shellie sees very, very dependent and cowed. She WOULD keep her mouth shut if George ordered her to befre he called 311-NEN.

        3) In re-enacting his on-foot pursuit of Trayvon for the cops, GZ slipped up by saying “My wife…. ” on exiting the vehicle, then quickly corrects himself. This indicates Shellie was with him at the start of the pursuit.

        4) On 2/26/12 GZ hurriedly heaves himself out of the truck in pursuit of Trayvon. Does he leave Shellie stunned and still seated, alone, in the truck? As he told Sean-NEN311, “te keys are in the truck.” Maybe Shellie does NOT want to be there when the cops arrive, because she’s sure George is heading into trouble.

        5) Maybe after a terrified minute sitting there not knowing what George is up to but terribly worried and knowing George is armed, SHELLIE GRABS THE KEY WITH FLASHLIGHT and runs after George in the darkness. She gets as far as the T and George is nowhere to be seen, nor is anything else able to be seen;it’s too dark

        6) Not knowing where George is, she throws the key + lit flashlight to the southwest side of the T, in the grass, figuring wherever George was, he would have to come back by the T and would see the light and retreive the key.
        She doesn’t want to leave the key in the truck for fear it would be stolen.

        7) Maybe then she hightails it home on foot, or calls their friend Osterman using her own cellphone – (she may have tried to call GZ but he was still on the phone with Sean-NEN311?) but she DOES NOT go back to that truck.

        Does she hear the wail of “lights & siren” on te squad car approaching?

        8) Does she hear the wail of “lights & siren” on te squad car approaching? She runs home …

        9) When she get home she gets the other vehicle and drives it to the same locale. With Osterman inside? SPD cops ran the IDs on the two vehicles and they are both Zimmermans. George did NOT drive both vehices up there.

        10) After the killing, GZ tells “Jon” “Call my wife” and cuts through his preliminaries by telling Jon “just tell her I shot somebody.” Zimmerman knows he does not have to have Jon explain, “Ummm, Shellie, umm, your husband didn’t make it to Target; there was, umm, a change in his plans.” BECAUSE Shellie was there and knows George was in pursuit and was armed. George just needs her to know what happened SO SHE WILL KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT.

        11) Later, Shellie reports to Osterman, “George shot somebody else.” Does she mean “George shot ANOTHER person – the second he’s killed in his life”? Or does she mean “George shot ‘someobdy else’ other than he INTENDED to shoot this night” ?

        I wish out friend from Manitoba, Seallison, were still posting. She always maintained that the key with the lit flashlight-keychain would be a key piece of evidence. Did Shellie place it there for George to find?

        If there was this involvement by Shellie FROM THE OUTSET of this stalking, she is in a very precarious position. O’Mara surely wants her phone records.

        Shellie can see now that GZ is doomed by the evidence, will spend his life in jail, is leaving her facing a mountain of debt, and has placed her in a very dangerous position on the perjury charge.

        She and her attorney may well be trying to plea bargain in her favor if she turns informer on George – because George nor any of his family will EVER support her after George is senteced.

        She doesn’t want to go to jail, too. She could have valuable first-hand evidence that could be used in court against George. WAS SHE IN THE TRUCK WHEN GEORGE CHASED TRAYVON, LIGHTS OUT, FROM THE MAIL KIOSK TO THE “CUT THROUGH”? With this, she’s in a good bargaining position to help herself.

        Does any of this concept stick together?

        Thank you.

  11. Jun says:

    I think Omara is trying to dupe the judge, so he can try to recuse her

    How long is this clown show gonna go on for?

    • whonoze says:

      Prof. Fred:

      Based not on the merits, but on your pragmatic experience in the courtroom, what chances do you think there are that any Judge would grant MOM’s motion for penalties to the prosecution? I would assume they are slim, yes? If so, a denial of his motion would hardly seem to be grounds for a recusal, and would most likely PO the Judge, yes? So I’m thinking MOM is just playing this motion for the press, and won’t take the risk of demanding the Judge step down if he loses. Do you cncur?

      • Jun says:

        I concur, but that is using my common sense

        At the same time, I do not understand that side of law, recusing a judge

        I personally think the motion is baseless and seeks to blame others for the defense’s own follies, but that is my opinion

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @WhoNoze –

        Always love to read your posts, because you are the precise acoustic scientist — who thinks outside the box.

        You do get me to thinking …

        (1) O’Mara already knows the Judge, by her track record, is going to filet his oafish client, so what does he have to lose by pissing her off?

        (2) He gains a few more weeks and months of freedom for same oaf, while he tries to finagle another judge out of the system.

        (3) And the staler the case gets, the better his chances with a drowsy jury.

        (4) Another fund raising ploy!

        What I’m waiting for is to see how much in legal fees he will ask the court to grant him.

        What if she grants him his request, and awards him $100? Period … Or, maybe, $10?

        At all times, she will speak with a soft, kind, explicit voice, like speaking to a none-too-bright child, who missed out on his nap.

        Well, we’ve got a ring-side seat at the Destruction Derby!

      • Yes and no.

        She will deny both defense motions and, depending on what she says in court or in her written order, they will file a motion asking her to recuse herself.

        I believe she is too smart and in control of her emotions to fall for that crap.

        The defense also is attempting to create a basis to renew the motion to continue the trial date.

        I don’t believe she will grant that motion.

        I believe the defense is attempting to piss off the judge and the prosecution to provoke them into making a mistake that creates a basis to get a new judge or reversible error.

        In other words, their actions tell us that they know they have no defense as they are now focused on provoking reversible error.

      • leander22 says:

        The defense also is attempting to create a basis to renew the motion to continue the trial date.

        Yes this motion has case historical traces. It reminded me too of the hearing where O’Mara waved around diagrams showing the delays prosecution has supposedly caused defense in blue, if I remember correctly.

        Concerning the rest, I wouldn’t put it beyond them to one way or another try to lure Debra Nelson into a trap. I also think she is aware of it.

        Strictly the argument that prosecution should have made informations concerning DeeDee available to defense, which they had since the start of August last year seems to be valid for this non-expert, no matter how irrelevant these details are. All points towards an extra interview in Jacksonville. Which reminds me that Jeralyn Merritt seemed rather obsessed with that fact.

        Personally I prepare myself for a judgment not completely satisfactory from my perspective. making her judgment ironclad seems to be better for this non-expert nitwit. I have no idea what leeway prosecution has in this context. If you ever told us, forgive my bad memory. A compromise could even return to a granting of whatever amount of continuance.

  12. Xena says:

    HAHA! The Defense Witness List spelled attorney Crump’s name “Bengamin.”

    • Trained Observer says:

      Those darned interns! You just can’t get good help these days.

      • Xena says:

        LOL@Trained Observer. Can O’Mara also blame his poorly constructed motions on interns? LOL!! Those interns should be too ashamed to list his firm on their resumes.

      • gbrbsb says:

        It’s the waning donations!

      • Rachael says:

        Xena, it might be good on their resume if they are trying for stand up at a comedy club. Bet that experience would give them an awful lot of material.

        • Xena says:

          @Rachael. If O’Mara’s interns are really smart, they should be downloading documents and emails, taping conversations, and keeping a daily journal so they can seek a reputable publisher for a book deal when the case is decided.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “If O’Mara’s interns are really smart, they should be downloading documents and emails, taping conversations, and keeping a daily journal so they can seek a reputable publisher for a book deal when the case is decided.”

            A reputable publisher who wants to participate in the violation of attorney-client privilege?

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron

            A reputable publisher who wants to participate in the violation of attorney-client privilege?

            I’ve never known an intern to act as attorney and have “clients”. Most of them don’t sign confidentiality agreements because they are delegated clerical type work.

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Unitron

        No publisher can violate the attorney-client-privilege between GZ and O’Mara by publishing handed over to it by O’Mara and/or his interns. The only ones who can violate that privilege are O’Mara himself and/or his interns – if they reveal info without GZ’s permission.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      There are other names misspelled too.

    • Amsterdam1234 says:

      @Xena
      Where can I find the list?

      • leander22 says:

        Amsterdam, as always in such cases go to GZ legal. Admittedly not easy to dig around on their site, but seems their twitter news helps a little. Since I do not read their twitter feeds, I started to lately pay attention to the feed on the right site of their site. Which helped me find it.

        • Xena says:

          @Leander22. Thanks for providing the link. I’m getting a late start today.

          • leander22 says:

            Your welcome Xena, we are here to help each other find the documents. I should be already on my way out since I have a very, very interesting book. But sometimes it is really hard to stop reading. 😉 Take care.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        Thanks Leander
        I started digging around GZlegalcase and I found it.

  13. Two sides to a story says:

    Oh, do go. GO. Gogogo, Professor. Your energy there will uplift the situation. Thank you for all you do.

  14. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    I am flooded with sadness to see verbal abuse of Trayvon’s good name; to see vicious racism; to see the bullying. I am numbed and aghast + tired and seething. However I am driven by compassion for the suffering of Trayvon’s loved ones. Compassion and support are my offerings. Justice for Trayvon!
    .
    .

    How many ears must one man have
    Before he can hear people cry?
    How many deaths will it take ’til he knows
    That too many people have died?

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

    • gbrbsb says:

      @yahtc
      Sorry I just had to take it on yahtc but such a beautiful poem deserved to be in full, at least for the youngsters here who may not know it (Lol, everyone knows it… don’t they?) as things haven’t changed since it was written so it is still valid… well it’s eternal in fact:

      Blowing in the Wind (Bob Dylan)

      How many roads must a man walk down
      Before you call him a man?
      How many seas must a white dove sail
      Before she sleeps in the sand?
      Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly
      Before they’re forever banned?
      The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
      The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

      Yes, how many years can a mountain exist
      Before it’s washed to the sea?
      Yes, how many years can some people exist
      Before they’re allowed to be free?
      Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
      Pretending he just doesn’t see?
      The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
      The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

      Yes, how many times must a man look up
      Before he can really see the sky?
      Yes, how many ears must one man have
      Before he can hear people cry?
      Yes, how many deaths will it take till he knows
      That too many people have died?
      The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
      The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

  15. Xena says:

    @LLMPapa. Words cannot express how profound your videos are. Neither can words express my appreciation for them.

  16. Erica says:

    Will she be impeached? I can’t figure out why she would lie about going to the hospital and what did she really do? This lie seems to be favorable to the defense so is BDLR in trouble?

    • Big Willie says:

      DD going to the hospital is a moot point…

    • parrot says:

      I suggest you read the professor’s post: Trayvon Martin: The prosecution is not crumbling.

    • Xena says:

      The question about attending the wake and funeral was beyond the scope of statement necessary regarding the event of 2/26/12. Had DeeDee been represented by legal counsel, he/she may have objected on that basis. The subject and question was apparently because attorney Crump and BDLR were trying to show empathy.

      What DeeDee did or didn’t do in attending the wake and funeral has nothing to do with proving or disproving GZ’s claim of self-defense. Trayvon’s phone records clearly provide that he was on the phone with DeeDee. There is only one person to testify of the content of their conversation and therefore, it is highly doubtful that the judge will disallow DeeDee’s testimony.

    • Rachael says:

      Erica, what does her going to the hospital have to do with GZ shooting Trayvon? How is it favorable to the defense one way or another? Would her having gone or not gone somehow prevented GZ from shooting Trayvon? Do you understand what I’m saying? It has nothing to do with what happened that night.

    • Jun says:

      No. They can only try to impeach her, after her testimony. However, I am not sure it is admissible because Omara is using circumstantial character evidence and it is not even specific instances of misconduct, just at most a specific instant (singular) of misconduct. However, telling a white lie to try not to hurt someone’s feelings is not really misconduct and Omara only has straws so he will try to flip it. On the other hand, the state can always bolster her credibility by showing how her testimony matches evidence and that it was just a white lie. Conclusion though, is, I doubt any reasonable person will call her less credible than Fogen.

    • ladystclaire says:

      @Erica, what darn lie did she tell? whether she went to the hospital or the moon, instead of the wake, that has nothing to do with this case or what she heard when she was talking to Trayvon. the girl didn’t LIE!

      • Erica says:

        I guess you are a trollologist? and you are not a ST aka Saint. Im not a troll Im a juror and I just was wondering why. Im sure Sabrina Fulton wanted to know why. The jury may want to know to why. You all have turned a simply and logical question into trollism. MAYBE you need to do your homework. In the defense’s motion, it has been confirmed…she lied. She admitted it to the defense. She lied! and its has nothing to do with the case but I am concerned about the character issue that may come up during trial. Name calling is not for necessary!

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          What “character issue” is there? Everyone knows that everyone lies. Therefore there’s nothing at all astonishing or even troubling about discovering that a lie has been told. What is astonishing or troubling about a lie, is the nature of it. Why the lie was told and/or what the lie was intended to do.

          If, for example DD, had told a lie that was intended to incriminate GZ unfairly and/or falsely, then yes, there would be a character issue. Since what kind of person would unfairly accuse another person of having done something that they didn’t? But that is not what DD’s lie does, that is not what DD’s lie was intended to do.

          The lie DD told was intended to spare the feelings of someone DD considered important to her. The lie did nothing to incriminate or unfairly complicate GZ’s complicity in the issues being tried.

          So, if you want to discuss “the character issues” the lie unfolds, then, what you want to discuss is: “What kind of person lies to spare another persons feelings?”. The answer, of course is, most everyone with a sense of compassion for others. So then, the problematic person is, the kind of person who does not lie to spare other people’s feelings.

          Okay, so those are the character issues, do you really feel there’s something probative in there to discuss further? If so, please feel free.

      • Jun says:

        Erica, they have to let her testify before they can even try to impeach her

        Its probably not even admissible but if they try to use it, like I said, they can always bolster her credibility by showing how her statement is supported by witnesses and forensic evidence

        Lastly, we will not know what happened until we hear from her mouth, because Omara is a liar that twists everything to suit his agenda

        And it also does not take away the defendant’s lies

        The defendant still has to explain how he started at the clubhouse, and then ended up over 600 feet away, where a chase was heard, and a witness seen the defendant confronting the victim and can undoubtedly say that the defendant was pinning the victim before killing the victim, and that it was the victim who was screaming

        Anyways, it sounds like she was too embarrassed to say in front of Sybrina why she could not go to the wake

        Also I do feel you are a troll because I do not get why you feel to blame Bernie and feel he should get in trouble as what did he allegedly do and can it be proven?

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @ Erica –

      “Will she be impeached?”

      ??????

      You heartless _________.

      “What did she really do?”

      She stayed home, in a darkened room, and cried deep, racking, unconsolable sobs.
      She cried deeper and harder than ever before in her life. Over and over, she would call his name.

      Knowing she could never talk with him again, racked with guilt that she could not have prevented his murder, alone with the loss of hopes and dreams that surrounds young love – cut short in the most cruel manner.

      “Erica,” what is your heart made of?

      Lead?

      “Erica,” what is your brain made of?

      Styrofoam?

      You Zimmermonsters are all alike. Go back to your ever-lying “hero.” Perhaps he will invite you to his “graduation party” as he’s headed to incarceration. The only institution of higher learning
      that will take him in.

      Remember to tip the waiter.
      Because George Zimmerman will stiff them.

      • YvetteEU says:

        BOOM!!! Thank you PyranhaMom Thank you

      • whonoze says:

        @PiranhaMom:

        I don’t think we know what DeeDee really did, nor does it matter. Different people react to tragedy different ways. Some mourn. Some need to forget and blow off steam. My mom would cry over small things, yet remained calm when there was a death in the family, and she was anything but a cold uncaring person. There’s no ‘right’ answer.

        Reading between the lines, I’m guessing that the admission of the hospital falsehood was all the defense got out of DeeDee, and she otherwise stuck to her story and probably seemed quite credible in doing so. Otherwise, methinks, the defense would be screaming bloody murder about anything else they found contradictory between their depo and her earlier statements, as they seem gung ho to mount any attack on DeeDee or Benjamin Crump they can get Rene Stutzman to print in the OS.

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @WhoNoze,

          You’re right, of course, none of us knows how DeeDee reacted. But it is clear she couldn’t “handle” going to the wake or the funeral.

          And she’s young. We steel our emotions over the years, as your Mother proved. No doubt she (your Mom) felt the need to be “the anchor” in the family to keep everybody else (particularly the kids) calm in the raging storm. It’s a skill Mom’s learn.

          My response to Erica was this: Erica was being a troll. There! I’ve said the banning word! (And I’m not sorry.) And how insensitve she was! Did she think we were all idiots not to see that?

          I think your analysis is spot on. Always admire that about you. O’Mara got nothhhing more out of DeeDee than that. What I found curious is that he states she was not a juvenile as of some date after the murder – in April, as I recall. Could well mean she was under 18 at the time of the murder and funeral. I notice O’Mara did not give her age …

          So we shall see, what we will see.

          The trial is, indeed, getting close.

          • cielo62 says:

            PirhanaMom- how does Erica think that a small IMMATERIAL lie will get Dee Dee impeached when Jon had to recant his entire “MMA style” lie down to “I don’t know. I saw the wrestling. ” yes, it was very insensitive. Once I went to a co-worker’s husband’s “viewing” which is, to me, a bizarre American custom. I couldn’t make myself go the casket. I gave my condolences, signed the visitor book but refused to look at the body. I don’t blame Dee Dee one bit for skipping whatever part she couldn’t handle. GZ is still a murderer no matter what.

            Sent from my iPod

          • X2

            I don’t do funerals either……..not what I want my last memory of a person to be.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Cielo,

            I’m with you.

            There is not ONE of us who has experienced – and is still experiencing – what DeeDee has and is still going through.

            Not ONE of us should question her decision to attend, or not attend, Trayvon’s wake or funeral.

            It is her private decision.

            Certainly NONE of us should criticize that very personal and private decision.

            Likewise, no one should question or criticize DeeDee for how and why she chose to conceal her pain from Trayvon’s family, and how and why she chose to NOT cause Trayvon’s mother and the rest of Trayvon’s family any further pain, than they were already bearing.

            Who was so insensitive in the first place to even ask DeeDee, “Did you go to Trayvon’s funeral?”

            Even if she had volunteered her decision not to attend, the only response should have been, “I understand.”

            It is the very least we should do for this young woman, who truly knows that the expression “a world of hurt” means.

          • “Who was so insensitive in the first place to even ask DeeDee, “Did you go to Trayvon’s funeral?” ”

            I believe both Mr. Crump and Mr. de la Rionda explored that area in their initial conversations with her.

            Since that took place after the night in question, I don’t know why they bothered to bring it up.

            unitron

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Uni –

            Re:

            ” ‘Who was so insensitive in the first place to even ask DeeDee, “Did you go to Trayvon’s funeral?”

            “I believe both Mr. Crump and Mr. de la Rionda explored that area in their initial conversations with her.

            “Since that took place after the night in question, I don’t know why they bothered to bring it up.”

            Right, Uni. I don’t know why they brought it up, either. It’s not only a NON-issue, it was a personal decision. It had no bearing on the facts of Trayvon Martin’s murder.

            It seems that people in out society today feel free to ask the darnedest personal questions, thinking it’s perfectly OK to be intrusive. And that they are entitled to answers to those intrusive questions!

            (Examples: “How’s your love life?” … “Are you sleeping with that guy?” … “Are you two ever going to have kids?” … “Why aren’t you working?” … “Aren’t you gaining weight?” come to mind.)

            More people need to get into the habit of responding with “Why do you ask?”

            If that doesn’t stop the nosy questioners, who then go on to justify their prying questions about why, or why not, you did something, the appropriate response is, “That was my personal decision.”

            Only if you are placed under oath and the question is MATERIAL do you have to spill your guts to anyone else.

            Next time somebody asks you an annoying personal question – stuff a gym sock in their mouth!

            If you have to take off your shoe to get that sock, it makes it even more effective.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            So is that a yes on both Mr. Crump and Mr. de la Rionda being insensitive?

            unitron

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Uni –

            Yeah, in my book, they were insensitive … UNLESS the issue had been previously raised, or was brought up by DeeDee herself.

            If you have background on that, let me know.

            (That info may be out there, and I’ve forgotten it; if so, I apologize now for not remembering same. Please remind me, Uni; you’re a good “brain library.”)

            If this had been bandied about publicly, they had no choice but to tread there – with sensitivity.

            I didn’t notice a whole lot of sensitivity displayed when I herard the tape. (Frankly, I thought most of those LE interviews lost many opportunities to bring forth, gently, much more information than they did.)

            I spent a few years as an investigative reporter and people always asked, “How did you get “X” to talk?”

            Answer: “Listened.”

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Yeah, in my book, they were insensitive … UNLESS the issue had been previously raised, or was brought up by DeeDee herself.

            If you have background on that, let me know.”

            As far as I know, the first mention that became public knowledge of her going to the hospital or missing the funeral or wake or both because of health problems was when Crump brought it up in that telephone interview.

            I can’t find a transcript of that interview just now, so can’t remember exactly how Crump brought up the whole hospital thing, but I think I remember it being more along the lines of him already knowing about it than discovering it in the course of the interview, so he had to have heard about it from someone, possibly the young lady during phone conversation prior to the part that was recorded, and maybe even a call previous to the interview call, or maybe Sybrina told Crump after hearing it from the young lady–there currently seems to be some uncertainty as to just how much she spoke with Trayvon’s parents prior to the interview with Crump.

            unitron

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Uni –

            Thanks, Uni.

            Unfortunately, just another burden added to that young woman’s life.

            Fortunately, not going to be an issue during the trial if Bernie De la Rionda handles it in the straightforward manner advocated by The Professor. The handling, in fact, could be a plus.

      • leander22 says:

        My response to Erica was this: Erica was being a troll. There! I’ve said the banning word! (And I’m not sorry.) And how insensitve she was! Did she think we were all idiots not to see that?

        Some people feel I am a very unemotional person, it seems to irritate them that I do not show emotions. I also find it very, very hard to cry. It happened to me one time. I had avoided funerals till my favorite aunt died, the sister of my mother. My mother wanted to give me some pills to calm me down, she knows better than everybody else who I am, and she knows what a funeral means. I was enormously surprised when it happened. It was the first time I confronted the finality that a funeral is all about. And yes, that was one of the very, very few moments in my life that I actually cried.

        I do not like the idea that people are necessarily always trolls. I have no idea who she is. And strictly I don’t care. But she could have read the argument somewhere else and simply wondered what the apparently opposite camp over here feels about it. Yes she may be trying to provoke. If that is her intention, I would not want to please her with an outburst like yours. That’s something my headmaster in high school taught me. He tried to provoke me over and over again, and I instinctively froze, realizing that what he really wanted was to see me break down, When there was no reaction on my side the insults got worse and worse. Up to the final sentence: Let’s see how is the stronger here. After that he used a different tool set of dirty tricks, but at least verbally he left me alone.

        • cielo62 says:

          Leander22- what Erica is is lazy. That entire line of questioning had been dealt with on at least TWO different threads. Had she bothered to look she would have found the answer without being a jerk about it.

          Sent from my iPod

      • Erica says:

        Are you serious…….. heartless? I asked a simply and logical question and now Im a troll. I have always supported Trayvon. You are non objective people. Your emotions have caught you and given you a black eye. I support Trayvon. It is despicable to be called a troll by this unbiased site, that supports Trayvon but in a non biased matter and to be a child by a not so trained observer. I’m not a troll nor am I a child to you three idiots. You don’t know me at all. I’m a realist. I have to prove nothing to you 2 fools. I suspect my comments after this will be moderated but F@@K TRAINED OBSERVER, LADY NOT A ST. Claire Rachael and all you others who have called me a name because I asked a question you may as well be a Zimbot because they don’t use common sense just as you have not so you are a Traybot. It will not be a non-issue to the jury if the defense brings it up. They will at least think about it…just as I have done and I have read all the professors articles but the jury wont read them. I’m a Trayvon Martin supporter not a Traybot! Its ok to disagree but to disagree and disparge one for a question? I guess but to be called a name…no not ok! If someone calls you a name or try to detain you…you fight back!

      • leander22 says:

        cielo, basically I would like to stay out of this debate.

        I noticed her before. Maybe since “Erica” caught my attention but not anything she contributed. So she is a juror? And she wants to prepare herself for the task? In any case she sucks up much energy and while flattering the forum as unbiased combined with foolish, she may in fact be trying to paint it as exactly that. Or stating, I don’t have to explain myself after doing exactly that. Confuse image. Hard to grasp.

        Im not a troll Im a juror and I just was wondering why. Im sure Sabrina Fulton wanted to know why. The jury may want to know to why.

        I am not good at distinguishing stupidity from evil intentions, a friend once told me. I shouldn’t have responded to this. I only got the highly emotional response and not much else. I think what triggered it was to ascribe to DeeDee a specific reaction. She has all my sympathy, but she is also not myself and not some type of stereotype. Admittedly I fear she will face really dirty tricks.

        In this special case, after taking a closer look, I have to admit, I am more on the side of the forum than in other similar events. Fact is, I seem to instinctively withdraw on myself in this type of struggles, when the people don’t interest me very much. … In other words this is very different for me from the troubles here around Bettykath.

      • leander22 says:

        cielo, I have changed my mind completely on Piranha Mom’s quite good response in hindsight. She also seems to change her mind along the way between lecturing a misguided person* and a feigning Fogen supporter. Thanks for making me take a closer look on the context.

        * Interesting that she seems to understand that part. 😉

        Also interesting that “Erica” herself triggers the Troll debate.

        Hmm, yes. Sometimes I should shut up, and just watch.

      • leander22 says:

        Also interesting that “Erica” herself triggers the Troll debate.

        Piranha, in the above context I made a mistake.I will take more care in my responses concerning ongoing debates in the future and first look more closely. I didn’t quite understand your response immediately. Sorry, for adding my superfluous mediation.

        I wrote a longer response on the topic to BettyKath whom I defended against the image of a troll. On the read before you comment thread 😉 Which i didn’t. But I also paid not enough attention on what could have caused your anger.

        Yes maybe it is odd to respond to his video as the second person with that type of question. Now it suggests exactly what you wrote: Feels heartless. Absolutely. And surely is interesting if it is the first thing on your mind.

    • Jun says:

      We wont know till we actually hear from Deedee because Omara twists everything but the story is she allegedly lied because she did not want to say why she could not attend the wake as Sybrina was there, and she did not want to hurt her feelings

      And BDLR getting in trouble is kind of ridiculous, especially since he did not do anything

      lastly, it does not take away Fogen’s lies, so who cares…

      still does not change the fact that he told police he was by the clubhouse parked in his car, and then began scaring a teenage boy to run from him and Fogen angrily getting out of his car to go after the kid with a gun… Fogen still ended close to 600 feet from where he started, in the same direction as where the victim ended up… Fogen is also contradicted by himself, and on the on scene evidence…

      Also, it is circumstantial character evidence based on a specific instant of misconduct, which can not be used to prove that she acted in accordance with that trait due to undue prejudice, and that is what Omara is trying to say

      • Xena says:

        Looks like O’Mara has prejudicial interviewing techniques for depositions. I mean, there was John saying he saw MMA style fighting, who changed his story later and said he saw nothing of the sort. O’Mara deposed John, but is not holding BDLR accountable for John’s inconsistent statements. That in fact, O’Mara cherry-picked from which of John’s statements he wanted.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Hi Erica — Is BDLR in trouble? Nope.

      But I suspect you are staying up way past curfew. Be sure to wash your mouth out with soap and go to the potty before you really get in trouble with mommy.

    • nocamo33 says:

      Will Trayvon be imoeached for smoking marijajuana? The answer is NO. If we can give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and hear him out, then it behooves us to grant DeeDee and others at least as much.

  17. onlyiamunitron says:

    follow

    unitron

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: