Proposal to protect Dee Dee from witness intimidation

Monday, April 1,2013

I write today to provide additional context regarding when the prosecution must turn over Brady material to the defense in federal court. This article supplements The Prosecution did not violate the Brady rule in Zimmerman case.

Discovery in federal criminal cases is controlled by the Jencks Act (18 USC 3100 et. seq.), which was passed by Congress in the early 1930s in order to protect the lives and safety of prosecution witnesses in cases against members of criminal organizations (i.e., mob prosecutions). Pursuant to the Jencks Act, federal prosecutors do not have to disclose the identity of a witness to the defense until the witness takes the stand. They do not have to disclose witness statements until after the witness testifies on direct examination. To prevent recessing a trial after the direct examination of each witness to allow defense counsel an opportunity to read the statements before commencing cross examination, federal prosecutors in most districts provide a list of their witnesses and all of their statements and reports late Friday afternoon before the trial starts on the following Monday.

The only discovery that a defendant has a right to obtain before the Jencks material is delivered on Friday afternoon, is his statements, search warrants, affidavits for search warrants, and an inventory of all of his property seized by federal agents executing those searches.

The Brady rule applies in federal criminal cases just as it does in state criminal cases.

As I stated in my Saturday post, regardless of when the defense requests Brady material in a state case, there is no violation of the Brady rule so long as the defense receives the defendant’s Brady material before the trial starts. The same is true in federal court.

I hope this brief description of discovery practices in federal court that do not violate the Brady rule sheds additional light on the defendant’s frivolous claim that Bernie de la Rionda violated the Brady rule by waiting until the night before a pretrial hearing to inform the defense that no hospital records supported Dee Dee’s claim that she missed the funeral and wake because she was in the hospital.

If I were the judge handling this case, I would enter an order dismissing the two defense motions because they are frivolous and I would assess terms against O’Mara for wasting the court’s time.

I had another reason for mentioning the Jencks Act in this post. Since I am concerned about protecting Dee Dee from willful, intentional and malicious doxing and character assassination by people who pride themselves in breitbarting those who seek justice for Trayvon, I think Bernie de la Rionda might want to consider seeking the court’s permission to wait until the trial starts before it discloses information that identifies Dee Dee and any other witness for whom there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be subjected to the same intimidating criminal acts.

358 Responses to Proposal to protect Dee Dee from witness intimidation

  1. panorain says:

    Given how much DLR was leading the witness and feeding her answers there was good reason to find out how much testimony she could provide without being coached. Plus to determine which answers were coached and which were not. And what the correct answers were supposed to be.

  2. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    We all know that gz had already told the NEN dispatcher that Trayvon was black when the dispatcher had asked if he was black, white or Hispanic.

    Yet, gz mentions AGAIN that Trayvon was black BUT pay attention to WHEN he says it:

    He’s got his hand in his waistband….and he’s black.

    Obviously, gz wanted to convey to the dispatcher that Trayvon was also suspicious because Trayvon had his hand in his waistband. Did adding “…..and he’s back” right after that have a purpose? He had already identified Trayvon as being black.

    Why the reminder?? And, why at this point? I personally feel that adding that Trayvon was “black” was like adding an exclamation point at the end of his comment…… “He’s got his hand in his waistband” ……in order to convey that being black REALLY made Trayvon suspicious.

    • JustMe says:

      Fogen did add an (!) mark on to that comment, “he’s black”. I also felt as though he was very aware and calculated when he repeated Trayvon’s race to alarm the SPD to get there pronto.

    • willisnewton says:

      IMO he is biased against blacks, but one reason for saying that then is because the teen was approaching him and he was getting a better look at him. He’d qualified his initial statement “he looks black” and now was confirming it.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        And, yet, much earlier in the call, gz had been able to tell that Trayvon was wearing a GREY hoodie.

    • Let’s see if Grace Zimmerman sent him a text stating race if she was the one that spotted him.

    • cielo62 says:

      YAHTC~ Here in Houston, the cops use that line all the time to justify shooting someone; “he had his hand in his waistband. I feared for my life.” BAM! Cop gets away with murder when nothing is found, or it’s a cell phone tucked in the front pocket. Since GZ was a wanna be cop, maybe he thought he’d use that line in conjunction with “I feared for my life” in order to justify his own murder of an innocent kid. I swaer, I HATE those 2 lines; “hand in his waistband” and “I feared for my life.” I mean, since the “fashion” is to wear loose clothes, I’d guess grabbing at your waistband happens all day. It’s certainly NOT a reason to shoot someone.

  3. willisnewton says:

    correction:

    Either way he profiled, chased the kid with car and on foot, and then killed him while illegally harassing the unarmed youth.

  4. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    Willis, I am thinking about George and the clubhouse.

    Do you think there is any possibility that gz left his house, paused at Taaffe’s and did not see Trayvon there, and then drove RVC and parked on the side of the road just before the clubhouse?

    At that point, could he have exited his car and searched the clubhouse with his flashlight and then returned to his vehicle and finally ended up on NEN where he made his call?

    I have never considered this scenario before and am actually not too keen on it.

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      Of course, this scenario would depend upon someone tipping off George that Trayvon was on his way to the Retreat via the short cut at Taaffe’s townhouse.

    • willisnewton says:

      What would it possibly matter if he did that? I don’t care what he did when he was NOT seeing the teen and had yet to lay eyes on him… seems immaterial to me.

      The “action” begins when GZ spots TM and profiles him as a suspicious person. He clearly has demonstrated when and how and IMO where he did that, and again IMO this is when he trolled the mail kiosk slowly, then drove down by the cut thru and returned to park facing the mail kiosk as can be clearly seen in the surveillance tapes as happening at the same time he called the NEN and said as much.

      This isn’t a game of guess what GZ’s every thought and move was. It’s a criminal trial to prove murder.

      He saw the kid. Who cares why it happened there, really? When he did however, he immediately viewed the teen as a suspicious person even though there was no suspicious activity to report. Someone in a mail kiosk waiting out a shower is not suspicious at all.

      I believe GZ conflated a story from months previous to what he claims TM was doing near Frank Taaffe’s, It’s curious to note that he completely fails to mention that there was specific action there previously, and instead he uses elements of that action to attribute to the teen. He’s making up a false narrative using bits of things he feels he can speak coherently about. He also fails to mention it’s a common cut thru for pedestrians. In fact, he at first tried to leave out the whole business and get right to the “the kid hit me and knocked me down” part. He wanted very much to leave out the activity near the clubhouse so he invents some crap that happened on either side of it as a distraction.

      What happened near the clubhouse is what mattered however. And his obfuscating that action is his reason d’etre. It’s the absolute center of the case IMO. This is where he lied, and this is why he lied and this is how he lied later, too since it established the pattern of omission and transference I invented a motto for: when in doubt george leaves it out; what george did he blames on the kid. (also, many things are possible; what george claims happened is not possible.)

      And those who have studied the clubhouse videos that I feel are trustworthy don’t see any flashlight action anywhere, nor do they see a car on RVC stopping at the clubhouse, so I suppose he could have indeed stopped before the clubhouse but there’s nothing there to steal so why search it? Also, GZ is a coward so he wasn’t immediately anxious to confront the teen. I think he wanted the cops to do his dirty work for him, which was basically to ALSO profile the teen and roust him on general principle.

      GZ either got a tipoff or else he somehow just passed TM near the clubhouse and decided to investigate. Either way he profiled, chased and killed the kid with car and on foot, and then killed him while illegally harassing the unarmed youth.

      Who cares about what else happened? I don’t mean to be harsh but I don;t understand what point your post is driving at.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        My thinking came about from LLMPapa’s video about gz’s sister.
        If she had tipped gz off, gz might have just been waiting for Trayvon to appear.

        But your are correct in all you are saying, Willis. The strongest case that the BDLR can present will be that which sticks to the solid evidence and engages in no speculation.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        I think gz’s statements are full of lies.

        gz said that Trayvon was pounding his head into the concrete and punching his face when gz shot him. The forensic evidence proves that this is NOT true—There was NONE of gz’s blood or DNA on Trayvon’s hands.

        gz said that Trayvon was smothering gz by putting his hands on gz’s mouth and nose. The forensic evidence proves this is NOT true—There was NONE of gz’s DNA on Trayvon’s hands.

      • cielo62 says:

        willisnewton~ I think the point was PREMEDITATION. IF GZ was tipped off, then WHY? The fact that GZ was WAITING seems to point to predmeditated, instead of just spontaneous stalking of some random black kid.

  5. I posted this question way up thread. I’ll post again here: “Professor, I have an unrelated question. Is there law about when the defense must provide reciprocal discovery? Is it a month from trial? …six weeks from trial? …the night before trial? …enroute to the courthouse? I’ve noticed that there has been very little provided by the defense.”

    • willisnewton says:

      I’m curious about this as well. I think there really can’t be “laws” about the timing of discovery however since the situations vary so greatly from case to case. In other words, precedent and tradition and the supposed code of ethics between attorneys is what comes into play.

      Many case followers are very curious about what the defense has already and has not shared with the public, starting with the supposed GPS data from TM’s phone. What else is out there presumably in the hands of the defense? Can others help us make a short list?

      Information regarding GZ’s cell phone and the calls and texts he sent, plus the data about any GPS stuff on it are curiosity worthy but I don’t think that material is forthcoming since in theory the prosecution has what they have and the defense has the same evidence – the phone itself.

      I’m wondering if the additional surveillance camera footage is showing anything. Presumably that’s something we’d see before trial.

      I don’t think the prosecution got much from “Social media” such as facebook and twitter since they never got a federal subpoena for it, nor am i concerned about the school records of TM. He was a normal kid AFAICT.

      I’m also unsure about depositions since I think they don’t have to share those but I am not a lawyer.

      What else?

      • Xena says:

        @willisnewton

        What else is out there presumably in the hands of the defense? Can others help us make a short list?

        Print-outs from Zidiots containing quotes of Rev. Sharpton, attorney Crump and attorney Jackson, and maybe some blog posts from here.

        …, nor am i concerned about the school records of TM. He was a normal kid AFAICT.

        The attorney for FDLE stated in the last hearing that there is nothing in Trayvon’s school records that is admissible at trial.

        I’m also unsure about depositions since I think they don’t have to share those but I am not a lawyer.

        Transcripts of depositions might be provided to the prosecution, but they are inadmissible at trial.

        There’s still the subpoena issued to 7-Eleven. Store receipts are sure to prove that GZ killed Trayvon in self-defense. (snark)

    • I do not know when the deadline is, but they probably do not have much discovery to provide.

      Apparently, they don’t intend to call any experts. The defendant may be the only witness they call.

  6. Nellie Dell says:

    To keep it simple O’Mara has made mistakes and he is trying to get what he wants. Without following procedure and with as less work as possible. He knows the evidence says guilty and he is trying to get anything to stick to the wall.

  7. PYorck says:

    I think there is another reason why the defense spends so much time on DeeDee and especially Crump besides impeaching and intimidating DeeDee.

    GZ’s supporters and even many otherwise reasonable people react very negatively to any evidence of deliberate or strategic behavior of the family and their supporters. Victims have to be meek, naive and sufficiently miserable to deserve justice. Any strategy is ‘scheming’ and makes them less deserving of justice.

    DeeDee is a point where the work of the family with and the state intersect. I think the defense thinks they have a foot in the door and can ‘expose’ the inner workings of the effort to get GZ convicted.

    Of course a witness like DeeDee was exactly what Crump was looking for. He wanted her testimony to be as effective as possible and the decision to go to the media and what to tell them was very deliberate. There is nothing wrong with that and it shouldn’t be a big surprise either. Unfortunately many think otherwise.

    • Xena says:

      @PYorck

      There is nothing wrong with that and it shouldn’t be a big surprise either. Unfortunately many think otherwise.

      Of course they don’t like it because it works against their thugification of Trayvon, and painting his parents as uneducated, ignorant, and on welfare.

    • Malisha says:

      If you start with the assumption that it is wrongful to try to prosecute a white guy for killing an African American kid HE FOUND SUSPICIOUS (and who obviously didn’t respond to him the way he wanted to be responded to), then you identify all cooperation with the prosecution as “scheming.”

      This is part of that idiotic meme that Fogen should not have been charged. That he should have escaped all criticism for killing someone HE believed needed to be killed.

      This is the big lie; this is the worst abuse. Fogen and his Fogenites believe that our society is so weak it does not have the right to hold him accountable for bad acts that HE SAYS WERE GOOD. He is trying to say that HE is OUR JUDGE; we (the people) are not HIS.

    • Jun says:

      All criminal indictments have strategy involved, so, this case being no different

      Of course there is effort to find the guilty party, that is what investigation and court is for, so that we can have a reasonable discussion on all matters

      What you are following is a concept of having an unreasonable means to an end

      Also, how is what Fogen doing, not deliberate or strategic in behavior?

      Fogen got caught redhanded murdering a kid, and his only option at that point was to stage a self defense claim and concoct lies

      Fogen just never expected there to be witnesses and audio recordings and forensics to be used against him to prove he is guilty of murder

      Even logically speaking, Fogen killed a kid, of course there is a reason to believe he committed a murder

      And to stalk, terrorize and kill someone for simply being “suspicious” completely goes against our constitution and system of justice, since in America, it is a belief to have a reasonable discussion of the matters material before finding a party guilty, and to base “guilt” on the words of a liar (Fogen), would be a huge infringement of the US constitution

      To grant Fogen all these exceptions and not the dead victim, is hypocritical, to say the least

    • Xena says:

      @LLMPapa. Thank you!!!! DeeDee was right when saying that Trayvon was sheltering in the mail shed to get out of the rain. GZ saw him in the mail shed — not standing outside of Taaffe’s house.

      • SpecialladyT says:

        Xena, fogen never mentions a mail shed on the NEN call, ever.

        Also, the professor will be sending you a message from me.

        • Xena says:

          @SpecialladyT

          Xena, fogen never mentions a mail shed on the NEN call, ever.

          Of course not because he had to paint Trayvon as a burglar rather than someone standing out of the rain.

          Also, the professor will be sending you a message from me

          Ooooh. I’m excited. 🙂 If you want, post a comment at the following link. http://blackbutterfly7.wordpress.com/about/

          If you haven’t posted there previously, your comment will go into moderation. That way I’ll have your email address, can send you one, and you can write to me directly.

          • SpecialladyT says:

            I will later tonight or in the am. The professor and I had a nice chat today and he will forward what we spoke about.

            ttyl.. 🙂

      • GZ actually does confirm to Sean that Trayvon is near the mail shed. Sean asked if Trayvon is at the clubhouse… then GZ answers, “Yeah.”

        • JustMe says:

          Fogen never stated that Trayvon was at the mail shed to take shelter, check mail.. etc. When dispatch asked fogen where he was he said, “the best address I can give 111 Twin Trees lane” Fogen never said Trayvon circled his truck there or at the town homes either.

      • Sean’s word were “…near the clubhouse.”

    • Rachael says:

      That picture of MOM is priceless! Oh how I hope someone from the prosecution has either already thought of this or is reading here and sees this. He slips and gives all kinds of little big clues.

      Thank you!

    • Oh ISH!

      LLMPapa, you rock! That.is.all.

  8. ay2z says:

    Never noticed this before, but look at the background of Frank Taaffe ‘on location’– who created that video clip of Frank? Really, where is this black community he’s ‘in front of’, if anyone wants to see what a ‘green screen’ can do, watch this.

    It’s pure fabrication, nice touch, those helicopter sounds, real or not, the scene is fake. Look at the lighting on Taaffe’s shoulders, he’s in front of a chroma key screen and the video is from some stock footage of black people, maybe in a community, maybe at a college.

    Just fake media manipulation for fogen’s friend to be standing in front of black people milling about. That is a ‘lie’, nothing less.

    Any experts with media videos able to comment? (sorry about the ad, it does work)

    http://video.answers.com/frank-taaffe-trayvon-should-have-acted-accordingly-517312661#

    • Malisha says:

      Sure. Go kill somebody who’s just minding their own business. THEN tell them what they SHOULD HAVE DONE to avoid your killing them. Right. We should all take a lesson from people who tell us what we should do to avoid abuse or murder. Right.

    • What did Zimmerman tell Frank Taaffe? Was he there that night?I hope LE is on him. Racist bigot!

    • Trained Observer says:

      Don’t know, but this could be a scene near the Seminole courthouse, with media choppers above, and a camera on hand to capture old Taffeeee andthe coulda-shoulda-wouldas of his crazy world.

    • willisnewton says:

      Don’t be ridiculous, there are no green screen vfx here. Taaffe is attending a protest or is outside the courthouse where a local affiliate has a camera crew. Check the date if you are curious, I’m sure it will explain it all. Recall that many were speaking on GZ’s behalf before Mark O’Mara took control of the defense’s PR efforts and wisely waved off FT, who usually did more harm than good, as we see here.

      This is Anderson Cooper on MSNBC interviewing Frank Taaffe on the scene via satellite hookup. There are a lot of spectators and yes, many are black but what’s that got to do with anything?

      Anderson Cooper is asking a newsworthy acquaintance of GZ’s some normal questions. Taaffe’s answers are biased and self-serving, yes but this is no green screen shot. I’ve worked in motion pictures for three decades now and yes, it’s possible but no, it’s not probable and serves no purpose. The light on his shoulders is supplemental because he’s on television and the crew brought lights for the purpose of lighting the local reporter and anyone he or she pulls in front of the camera to speak.

      Anderson Cooper may be a MSM journalist but he’s one with a good record in his profession. I for one am glad he documented the mindset of the average white guy who is from a place and time similar to GZ. He’s espousing the standard casual racist speech – “if only black people would submit to random vigilante/ white authority at all times… especially when walking home in their own neighborhood, why then blah blah blah.”

      Half of the job of journalists is to just give these losers enough rope and let the public watch them hang themselves.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        i also worked a bit in TV as a sports anchor and indeed they are using the chroma key in that shot notice the people in the background are NOT even looking at the camera, IF it was a live shot on location those around would be reacting and they clearly are not, also the lighting, that is in daylight no need at all for artificial lighting in that location.

      • lurker says:

        I agree. Michael Moore is a master at that sort of thing–letting people be themselves and capturing the absurdity of it all.

      • ay2z says:

        Look at Taaffe’s shoulder edges, lighting is all wrong. So what if that is a scene contemporary to the gatherings of this case, Taaffe was NNOT there at that moment.

        Different perspective too, subtle but there. Lighting is the real key the subject doesn’t fit in.

      • ay2z says:

        Bill TAylor, thanks for your input.

      • aussie says:

        Have to agree with Willis here.

        Most of the people in the background are looking towards some kind of action off camera to the left of the screen.

        One guy in a green shirt does look briefly in the direction of the camera.

        Not everyone has O’mara’s magnetic attraction towards news cameras.

    • cielo62 says:

      Damn that Taafe makes me want to slug him!

      Sent from my iPod

    • tonydphotog says:

      I like how his jacket keeps vanishing on his left shoulder and arm.

    • Malisha says:

      Very significant: Taaffe says (1) George was “doing his duty as a watch captain” that evening (Didn’t we remember that Fogen denies that?); and (2) that George APPROACHED and QUESTIONED Trayvon Martin (Didn’t we remember that Fogen claims that he did NEITHER?).

      Taaffe is a GREAT witness. He will have to stick to his statements and he could have only gotten that information from Fogen! Fogen was on patrol that night; he approached and questioned Trayvon Martin; he has admitted twice to Serino that he did not identify himself as a watch captain.

      Check Mate.

      • JustMe says:

        Can anyone, anyone, tell me if they know of one other person who was supposed to be on NW duty that night? Nope, and you know why, there wasn’t another soul in that community who was assigned to NW other than fogen, himself!

        Frankly, it doesn’t matter if he was on or off that night. The moment he called, he put himself on duty. He knew the rules and regulations and he chose to ignore all of them.

  9. Jun says:

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

    They are still asking to depose Crump

    Their motion is that what was already considered, therefore denied, was never considered in the first place, although the affidavit was the reason the motion was denied, therefore considered already

    • ay2z says:

      Is this called circular logic???! Back to where they started, serpent devouring itself comes to mind.

      • Malisha says:

        My father used to tell the tale of the “KEE RIY” bird. It’s a big bird that flies in a circle. Then it flies in a smaller and smaller circle, faster and faster, until it flies up its own a55 and then it yells out: “KEE RIYSTE it’s DARK IN HERE!”

      • Two sides to a story says:

        It’s called we need to extort another 30k from Fogen supporters in April.

    • ay2z says:

      Step one in the procedure to get rid of the defendant’s 3rd judge? Hope Bernie rides this one smoothly, a simple one sentence reply, disagree once again, would pair beautifully with his last response.

    • ay2z says:

      June, once again, the document is NOT filed with the clerk’s office before it’s filed on gzlegal. OS will have it on their desktops now.

    • Xena says:

      The Certificate of Service is dated March 27, 2013. So, is this something filed after Judge Nelson denied their Motion for Reconsideration? Geez!!! Can they be more disrespectful of the order of the court?

      The defense has a real hard-on for attorney Crump.

      • ChrisNY~Laurie says:

        I didn’t read the motion yet, but can’t imagine it has anything new or relevant in it. These are the times that I sit here shaking my head at these two.

    • groans says:

      Jun – That document, dated 3/27/13, was a defense reply to Crump/Blackwell’s opposition to the defense motion.

      IOW, it’s not new – it pertains to the defense’s March “motion for reconsideration,” which the judge denied on 3/29/13, without a hearing.

      Hope that makes sense.

      • ChrisNY~Laurie says:

        Well I’m still gonna sit here and shake my head at MOM and West. 😉

      • aussie says:

        ChrisNY

        try to stop shaking your head. The number of times you’d have to do it in this case, you’ll end up with self-inflicted shaken baby syndrome 😉

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Oops. But they’re still figuring out a good ploy for that 30k for April, I betcha!

      • groans says:

        @ ChrisNY, re:

        Well I’m still gonna sit here and shake my head at MOM and West.

        Well, of course! There are just so many ongoing reasons to to keep on doing so!

        SMH here, too. 😆

  10. ay2z says:

    Do you hear pens scratching away at an emergency motion to get equal treatment in Seminole county for one large bail-bonded defendant??

    News, Judge Belvin Perry has just suspended use of GPS monitoring, pending review of vendors. His order is for security breaches in Orange, not comfort of wearers in Seminole.

    Bet O’Mara is considering a motion today after Perry’s decision, in an effort to try to get that ankle monitor off his client.

    • Romaine says:

      Levey’s statement Tuesday said that people who are currently on GPS while out of jail awaiting trial and are being monitored by one of the approved vendors will continue to be monitored by those private companies.

    • Malisha says:

      If there are security breaches in Orange County, I will BET you there are security breaches in Seminole County. If there are security breaches in Seminole County (and vendors are being investigated in Orange County) then I really think it is possible Fogen is escaping OR HAS ALREADY escaped. Check it out.

    • Rachael says:

      Didn’t he already make a motion for that and it was denied? If he tries again, his client may just end up in jail until his trial – it’s not like it is that far away.

      • Trained Observer says:

        Last time around he wanted to ditch the ankle monitor and expand his horizons beyond Seminole County to the entirety of Florida.

        Here’s my proposal for JN’s consideration :Fogen can have permission to repair to the Dry Tortugas off Key West, providing he stays within confines of desolate Fort Jefferson, where Dr. Samuel Mudd (the doc who treated John Wilkes Booth) was imprisoned. No pizza delivery there, and he’ll need to get fresh water shipped in. Mosquitoes are fierce.

    • ChrisNY~Laurie says:

      I don’t think I have much faith in ankle monitors after these two recent tragedies involving mistakes with them and the companies in charge of monitoring them.

      This one is sensitive to me because it happened in Syracuse, which is not far from me.
      David Renz was out on bail while waiting to be tried for child pornography when he deactivated his ankle bracelet monitor and carjacked a woman, killing her and raping her 10 yr. old daughter.

      http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/accused_killer_david_renz_outs.html

      Evan Spencer Ebel
      Parole officials did not realize that a white supremacist gang member had slipped his ankle bracelet and fled custody until five days after the system first flagged him as being delinquent. – he is believed to have killed a prison cheif and a pizza delivery man.

      http://www.kctv5.com/story/21850979/colorado-officials-to-do-review-after-prison-error

  11. Romaine says:

    I come to this belief because i find it hard to believe the defendants statements he views as making Trayvon suspicious.
    the defendant states trayvon entered via a frequently used short cut within the complex.
    The defendant didn’t see trayvon jump a fence, scale a wall, coming out of a neighbors home, garage, car, picking through garbage, picking mail box locks, none of these events occurred.
    Trayvon walks through the well lit neighborhood down twin trees lane, in full view for anyone living in that portion of the complex to see.
    Seriously, when did criminals become so obvious? It’s like going to walmart and telling the clerk “I will be stealing these items, meet me out front in 20 and see if you can catch me”..
    The only suspicious being on the scene that night was the “creepy” man in the car.

    • ay2z says:

      Well, he had ‘somethin’ in his hands’. Fogen could have laid in wait for the always left ‘open’ Taaffe house, hoping to catch the suspicous person with Taaffe goods in hand. Imagine the applause he woulda-shoulda got for stopping the pattern of ‘them’ always getting away.

      He didn’t think what happens when someone is so afraid for their life, they scream and they struggle with adrenalin that no common thug with crime on his mind, can bring. For Travon, it was struggle for his very life from a man he tried to run from, tried to lose in the vehicle follwoing, then the cause of his fear was again behind him, in the darkness……..

      • ay2z says:

        (need a new KB with keys in the right places 😉

      • For Travon, it was struggle for his very life from a man he tried to run from, tried to lose in the vehicle follwoing, then the cause of his fear was again behind him, in the darkness……..

        I can’t begin to imagine the fear Trayvon felt.

  12. LLMPapa says:

    Malisha says:
    April 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    He couldn’t even SEE because he had blood in his eyes and there was blood “everywhere.”

    According to Fogen, AFTER he had shot Trayvon Martin, when the witnesses were showing up in the area from the surrounding homes, he asked someone, “Am I bleeding?”

    Huh?

    Don’t mind me, I’m just gonna start following you around! LOL LOL!

    • ay2z says:

      And dialing his phone that wasn’t where it should have been, and patting pockets to see where it is after the killing, blood all over hands, all over face and eyes.

      How could he, after he survived all that blood loss and eyefilling, could he dial the damned phone that was somewhere he had to try to locate in pockets with those bloody hands.

      He was all about himself, not the well being of another human being he just killed. Not even raised BP. Let’s hear from the real qualified EMT paramedic who wrote the report on that.

    • groans says:

      That’s great! Thank you LLMPapa and Malisha!

    • Xena says:

      Get him LLMPapa. Gethimgethimgethim. Get George Zimmerman.

    • Rachael says:

      I don’t know that it is so much that he’s not real bright (aside from the fact that he does not sound/appear to be), but the problem is his memory. He has memory problems you know. And as Judge Judy says, if you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember your lie.

    • ladystclaire says:

      Oh yea, he definitely asked one of the neighbors on the scene if, he was “BLEEDING” and, if he had taken a beat down like he describes, why the hell would he have to ask someone, “am I bleeding?” this is one more Imbecile and, IMO he should have been charged with first degree murder instead of second degree.

      • Trained Observer says:

        Fogen: “Am I bleeding”
        Consensus: “Not just yet. Wait for your first prison rumble, and you won’t need to ask.”

    • Two sides to a story says:

      True dat – he had a cool story, the thought, before he saw the picture of his smudge.

  13. Romaine says:

    rot=route

  14. Romaine says:

    I believe there was a common route of exit used by the burglars, of which the defendant was aware. this causes me to question that route and the proximity of each burglary one from the other, i.e. did each occur within the same area and did they occur close to the defendants townhouse on rvc and long oak way. I believe the defendant assumed Trayvon was using the rote used by the previous burglar when trayvon was actually going home

    • ay2z says:

      And it’s just too much coincidence that Taaffe’s house was, as fogen said, always left unsescured, garage doors etc open. All that can’t be blamed on drunken forgetfulness and short term eyesight.

      Sunday evenings, regular routines, previous suspects at Taafee’s always open windows and doors place, right at the short cut from neighborhood to neighborhood. Innocent kids cut thru all the time.

      Perfect ‘sting’ location for wanna be cop little-heros types to save the day.

    • kllypyn says:

      Tracy martin’s girlfriend’s home is just across from the rear entrance. I believe if trayvon doubled back, he would have done so for only one reason someone intercepted trayvon and kept him from reaching home. it also may be possible that someone was waiting at the t. for him to come back that way. we will never Know for certain if that happened or not. I DON’T BUY FOR ONE MINUTE THAT TRAYVON DOUBLED BACK TO BEAT UP A GUY HE HAD NO HOPE OF PREVAILING AGAINST. In a fair fight trayvon would have had his but handed to him most likely. the police would have found an unconsicous teenager and a pissed off 28 year old.it’s also possible given Zimmerman anger issues trayvon might still ended up dead zimmerman might have gotten so angry he would have strangled him.Trayvon being ligher and weaker would not have able to resist being strangled to death for long. it would have been physically impossible for trayvon to do what he claims. From a mounted position it would be impossible to repeated slam a person head into a hard surface in the way he describes.he would not have enough leverage. which is compounded by the fact that Zimmerman was bald the night he killed Trayvon, there was no hair to hold onto. he also was not disable in any way and i highly doubt he would just lay there and let trayvon try to do what he claims. Trayvon had not history of violence.unlike Zimmerpunk. I can guarante if they had found anything in trayvon school record in reguards to violence or being a trouble maker despite the fact his records cant be disclosed without a court order someone on the defense team would have leaked it.I also believe they have probably been digging around trying to find out if trayvon had a juvenile record. which they obviously haven’t found anything because they would have been leaked it as well. i now believe he pulled his gun while he was looking for trayvon.trayvon when he asked “WHAT ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME FOR?” he never knew at that point there was a gun because of the darkness. What the #$%^ is frank the dirt bag taafe talking about? I don’t think DEE DEE should be identified until after the trial.I personally believe her life may be in danger because some of the Zimmerpukes are crazy.

  15. ay2z says:

    Whether depos are taped or typed or if this distraction or that, it all comes down to this reminder-

    And now we can consider the sighting before Trayvon cut through between houses (between complexes), and consider what fogen said about ‘not following him, just going in same general direction as him’, and consider also what fogen said ‘was on my way to Target to do grocery shopping’.

    If he did divert into Colonial and from his vehicle saw Trayvon at that mail kiosk, then did he follow in his car to the loop (circle) over on Deadwood where the complex meets Taaffee’s back yard area? In fogen’s own tactic of lie or blame other guy, could the ‘circling’ have been done in the car around Trayvon as he headed straight to the short cut where a car would not follow?

    That is very possible at the end of Millwood.

    “Going in same direction as him, not following” blown out of the water under this scenario as someone has to return to his own street to meet up with Trayvon as he walks towards the clubhouse.

    Fogen would not even have to find him back at Taaffe’s place, he would know where to expect Trayvon, and could park facing east at a point on RVC near the entry, where he could see the poolside, sidewalks area and wel lit clubhouse area, and the street.

    Whonose and team did a video some time ago, and speculated that fogen parked facing east, this would fit in. (time to review the beginnings of that excellent video also)

    • ay2z says:

      Something always didn’t seem right to me, the sighting of Trayvon at Taafee’s place and the fogen drives past him, around that sharp direction change corner and loses sight of who he calls ‘real suspicious’ so he can drive to the clubhouse and call 911.

      No way fogen could predict that Trayvon would walk along RVC NOR could he watch in a rear view mirror to see if he was doing that. No way you can see around corners light that. As Taaffe himself pointed out to Marinade Dave in a walk thru, the shortest rought to the back entrance area, could be to go ‘down’ RVC’.

      Waiting, parked at the Twin Trees side of RVC facing east/southeast, if the ‘suspect didn’t show up coming out that way from Colonial/Taaffe’s place, it would be a simple drive down Twin Trees Lane to get to the south route to watch the corner of Long Oak Way and Twin Trees, within a shor half block of RVC at the ‘back’ entrance gate.

      • ay2z says:

        ‘corners like that’ (light doesn’t bend around corners even in broad full Forida sun)

      • Rachael says:

        Good point!

      • willisnewton says:

        GZ told a series of lies, omissions, obfuscations and inconsistent things to the SPD because he knew he had to omit the car-to-pedestrian chase down TTL that caused the teen to run off the roadway.

        If you review all his statements, including the written ones and ESPECIALLY the map he marked, where he clearly marked the “facing the mail kiosk” posiition but quickluy amended it and immediately presented an obvious (impossible) lie about TM emerging from the dog walk to circle his vehicle, and keep in mind this position of his car (as seen in the clubhouse video) then it’s fairly clear what he tried to do in pushing his false narrative.

        The first time GZ told the story, he intentionally tried to skip ahead to “the good part” where he was “fighting for his life,” etc but the detective knows to keep having him repeat the story and to start at the very beginning and go through each step carefully. The reason George was trapped into saying not once but TWICE that the NEN call taker directed him to move his position (which of course would never happen, and did not happen) was that he tried to gloss over what was going on near the clubhouse, and detective Singleton caught him doing so. She halted the interview, went and got a printout of a google map and had GZ mark his positions on the map. Again, in order to omit the fact that it was he who doubled back to face the kiosk, and all that followed from that, GZ pretends that he instead somehow arrived at the clubhouse BEFORE the teen, who passed him by. George worked too hard to invent a way that he could arrive at the physical altercation never ONCE having moved BEHIND the teen with the teen in sight.

        Rather ludicrous is the portion of the false narrative where we are supposed to believe that GZ lost sight of the teen while parked in the clubhouse lot, and then miraculously knew exactly where to find the teen a few moments later, and that TM was all but disappeared from view but chose to return to intimidate a car with what, his sneakers? Why did George stop his vehicle at all, if we go with his logic – okay so he’s drivng down TTL from the parking lot and the teen is “skipping away” or whatever. Why did George stop his car? The whole tale makes no sense.

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

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

      • rayvenwolf says:

        No one would at all be surprised to find out that fogen did in fact follow Trayvon the entire FSM time.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @willisnewton
        We should make a video just about that part. What would your script look like Willis?

      • aussie says:

        Except with rain starting up again you would NOT go down the “shortest” route, but along the top of RVC to be able to shelter near the clubhouse/mailboxes, which is a lot closer than going all the way home.

        And again, there is no law that anyone must take the shortest route from anywhere to anywhere.

  16. ay2z says:

    Is O’Mara planning on spending all the possible money on a jury consultant, and will they do a mock up and provide that publicly to focus on more jury poisoning points?

    That happened in the Caylee case, didn’t it? Like a mini-deliberation.

    • Rachael says:

      I didn’t follow the Caylee case. What are you talking about?

      • ay2z says:

        The defense hired this jury consultant named Peter Gabriel who did media interviews on the talk shows, and then they got a mock jury together. The defense called it a ‘focus group’ and the story went that this was CBS’s proposal.

        Peter Gabrial always wore the same blue striped tie, ready as he was for the ‘green screen’.

        (had to refresh memory with a quick search) NOT to bring this other case up, just the use of a consultant and CBS to show the potential jury pool what the ‘mock up’ aka ‘focus’ group did, juror numbers, round table, and all. Of course, with Peter Gabriel seated in head of table position. Key questions, word associations, put into the media, who knows if it has an effect, but this was a death penalty case with no limits to the defense legal team.

  17. Rachael says:

    I guess they thonk that because they are not running a GZ forum anymore, they can be as blatantly racist as they want to ne elsewhere and no one will notice. But they are more racist evey day in their other daily racist columns. I mean I know it’s not illegal to be racist but when daddy, jr. hz himaelf and perhaps O’Mara go there, it would make no sense to say you are not racist, you family is not racist, blah, blah blah just because you hang out with racists. Aren’t they the ones trying so hard themselves to show that you are judged by the company you keep, even though they go way beyond that. For them, you don’t even need to hang out or know them, you just have to be a black male youth. God I hate them more every day and if I shouldn’t be bringing my hatred to this blog, I’ll go, but I will never stop hating racism or those who live by it.

    • Trained Observer says:

      I get suspicious whenever people rave on denying whether they are “this” or “that” , especially when nobody even asked. Then there are those who preface their most vicious jokes with “I’m not a racist, but …”

      • Rachael says:

        Well it isn’t like they say anything denying anything or preface their jokes, it is just the material they write and the comments they make – beyond suspicious. Yeah, you want to talk about looking suspicious, not knowing what their deal is, somethins wrong with them?

        But yeah, what you’re saying is a dead giveaway.

  18. SearchingMind says:

    @ Unitron and Unabogie

    Have you guys considered Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(c) which states as follows:

    “Examination and Cross-Examination; Record of Examination; Oath; Objections. Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial. The officer before whom the deposition is to be taken shall put the witness on oath and shall personally, or by someone acting under the officer’s direction and in the officer’s presence, record the testimony of the witness, except that when a deposition is being taken by telephone, the witness shall be sworn by a person present with the witness who is qualified to administer an oath in that location. The testimony shall be taken stenographically or recorded by any other means ordered in accordance with subdivision (b)(4) of this rule. If requested by one of the parties, the testimony shall be transcribed at the initial cost of the requesting party and prompt notice of the request shall be given to all other parties. All objections made at time of the examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, the manner of taking it, the evidence presented, or the conduct of any party, and any other objection to the proceedings shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition. Any objection during a deposition shall be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. A party may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation on evidence directed by the court, or to present a motion under subdivision (d). Otherwise, evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections. Instead of participating in the oral examination, parties may serve written questions in a sealed envelope on the party taking the deposition and that party shall transmit them to the officer, who shall propound them to the witness and record the answers verbatim”.

    a. What is your understanding of this Rule?

    b. Why didn’t O’Mara say even A WORD to BDLR about video deposition when the parties were negotiating the time, the place, the manner, etc. of the deposition?

    c. What do you think as to why O’Mara gave BDLR ZERO-day-notice for the video deposition (notice sent: 11/03; probably received: 12/03 if not 13/03; deposition: 13/03 at 9am!)?

    d. Do you think that it was incumbent on O’Mara to timely inform BDLR (and DeeDee) about the video deposition so that a timely objection (if any) could be made?

    e. Do you think that – if a timely objection was made to the video deposition – it would have been incumbent on O’Mara to the go to Court with a Motion to Compel (and that that Motion would have been denied)? Do you think that O’Mara knew this and decided to go the route of treachery?

    In answering the above question, it would also become apparent to you the meaning of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.301(c), when and how Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(4) works and how dishonest O’Mara is (the dude seems incapable of negotiating in good faith!) and how Judge Nelson would rule on the matter: DENIED! Just my opinion.

    • SearchingMind says:

      Supreme to all other Rights (and legislations) is the Right of the Individual to Life (Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness). The First, Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments embody and guarantee this/these Right(s). Indeed, O’Mara knows fully well that the same reason why DeeDee’s address and identifying information were withheld from him is the same reason why he may not videotape her (deposition). That reason is simple and basic: DeeDee’s personal safety! No Rules of Procedure, not even Executive Order from POTUS can violate DeeDee’s Right to personal/physical safety or trump the Constitution. That is the beauty of this Nation and O’Mara can go and eat sand.

      For the same reason, I suspect that the Court’s camera will be turned away from DeeDee during her testimony at trial.

      • Malisha says:

        It’s “life, liberty and property.” The “pursuit of happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence but “property” is in the Constitution.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Ha! Malisha! And there is no difference between those two synonyms of ONE concept first conceived by John Locke ( 1632-1704). Since “property” is a more restrictive and less attractive word, “pursuit of happiness” has come to replace it – regardless of Constitutional terminology.

      • Rachael says:

        Yep. Constitutionally they can’t just go take your life (death penalty) liberty(lock you up) or take your property without due process which is why the standards for civil (preponderence) and criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt) ate different. The standard for criminal is much more because the penalty is much more.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Rach, actually “they” can take whatever they want. “They” always find a way to do that. Don’t ever trust “them” (I don’t) 🙂 . Those lofty principles of ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’ are illusions.

      • Malisha says:

        No difference between “pursuit of happiness” and “property”?

        I better check out right the Hell NOW! I have no property whatsoever and I believe I am entitled to the pursuit of happiness, but NOT in our Constitution, although my “liberty” happens to include it.

        It is my life interest.
        Don’t get me started.
        Or if you DO get me started, ask the Professor to devote a whole thread to it.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      Momma pointed something out. The notice of deposition for DD that was filed with the court, does not identify the video operator. It does on the one for the Martin family.
      Can you comment on that?

      • SearchingMind says:

        Check the dates. DeeDee’s deposition took place on the 13th of march 2013. On the 19th of march 2013, the Court was notified of that deposition (the Court time stamped the notice to reflect the day the deposition was actually taken: 13th march 2013). Since the deposition was not video recorded, the notice (dated 19th march) could not reflect the same information contained in the initial notice of 11th of march 2013 with regard to identifying the video operator. This is my initial conclusion. I am still suspicious of O’Mara on this issue though. But I am sure he is not stupid enough to falsify documents and/or overtly commit fraud.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        Thanks
        I see what you mean.

      • groans says:

        My guess is the same as SearchingMind’s. That is: O’Mara changed the Notice after-the-fact, to reflect that it was not taken before a videographer.

        But that doesn’t make sense to me – at all – from the standpoint of an accurate court record. It seems to me that:

        > It should be captioned/named “AMENDED Notice of Deposition.”
        > The actual Notice – i.e., the one that was served on BDLR BEFORE the deposition – should also be filed.

        From O’Mara’s standpoint, he would want to file it, for purposes of his motion for sanctions and, later, for a record on appeal. So maybe the court refused to file it … or maybe it’s filed but not for public viewing on the website? (The public website doesn’t show all the filings – or at least holds back some of them until after hearings, I’ve noticed.)

        And from BDLR’s standpoint, he might want the actual Notice, too. I suggest that, because if things are going to be ugly – due to the defense motion for sanctions – he might want to make an issue of its timeliness. (It seems like the deposition notices tend to be shorter than required by the rules, but I haven’t delved into that, so I don’t know.)

        Very odd. They’d better keep their court record accurate, or an appellate court might have a lot of trouble figuring it all out!

      • groans says:

        I mean, on its face, it’s a faulty Notice of Deposition. It’s dated and served on 3/19/13, for a deposition to be taken on 3/13/13. Surely O’Mara wouldn’t want that to be considered his “notice,” would he?

      • groans says:

        @ SearchingMind – One correction, regarding:

        (the Court time stamped the notice to reflect the day the deposition was actually taken: 13th march 2013).

        The court’s file-stamp date is actually 3/20/2013. That’s when it was filed with the court.

        (The way date stamp displays the date always confuses me, too: 13 MAR 20 is in the “yy MMM dd” format.)

    • Jun says:

      (2) Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination. At any time during the taking
      of a deposition, on motion of a party or of the deponent, and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as to unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action is pending or the circuit court where the deposition is being taken may (1) terminate the deposition, (2) limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition, (3) limit the time of the deposition,
      (4) continue the deposition to a later time, (5) order the deposition to be taken in open court, and, in addition, may

      • groans says:

        Is this from civil, or criminal? And what’s the rule number, please?

      • Jun says:

        Read through the federal rules of evidence and 3.220

        Since the witnesses are evidence and even under 3.220 it says that disclosure can be restricted if a witness or party can be in reasonable belief of danger or annoyance associated

        In simple terms, witnesses and even the counsel can object and say no to video tape

    • Jun says:

      Also depositions are under the federal rules of evidence, and it already says that the state can take measures to ensure that witnesses are protected, especially in regards to their personal information

      Omara was trying to circumvent the system with the NBC lawsuit because rules of evidence for civil procedure is much more lax

    • aussie says:

      Apparently he actually proposed they go ahead with the video to save time, and to destroy it afterwards if the court ruled against it.

      How convenient, to maybe have a copy that somehow doesn’t get destroyed.

      The above rules doesn’t mention video at all.

      “..The testimony shall be taken stenographically or recorded by any other means ordered in accordance with subdivision (b)(4) of this rule…”

      Subdivision (b)(4) might mention it.

      • groans says:

        Aussie, my guess is that custody of a videotaped deposition of Dee Dee is probably the reason BDLR dug in his heels on the issue.

        Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(4)(D) states:

        Custody of Tape and Copies. The attorney for the party requesting the videotaping of the deposition shall take custody of and be responsible for the safeguarding of the videotape, shall permit the viewing of it by the opposing party, and, if requested, shall provide a copy of the videotape at the expense of the party requesting the copy.

        I imagine he does not trust, and will not allow, the defense to be the custodian of the tape – or even have a copy of the videotape unless a judge tells him he has to. But he won’t give in without a fight.

        And I think there are arguments for BDLR to make regarding bad faith in setting up a videotaped deposition in view of previous rulings by the court to protect DD (and maybe a future more explicit ruling for her protection). The legal basis for such arguments would rely on both criminal and civil rules of procedure. And throw in the hurried and LATE (if it was – and it’s my guess that it was) notice, to establish the defense’s failure to give ANY proper notice. And any number of other things from case law that we don’t know about.

        That’s how I’m picturing it at this point, anyway. FWIW.

  19. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    When I go to Screamin’ Jay’s site with the transcribed witness interviews and then click on the individual interviews, the pages are turning up blank. No transcriptions.

    Is this happening to any of you?

  20. SpecialladyT says:

    Professor, how can I email this blog directly and privately?

  21. Mary Davis says:

    @ Ladystclair. I understand how you feel. I feel the same way concerning Dee Dee’s safety. The state of Florida does have an obligation to protect her and I think they are going to do just that. Remember Bernie’s response. They know the seriousness of this case. They cannot afford to not protect her. Whatever the outcome, (or shall I say when he is convicted), it will die down after the trial.

    • ladystclaire says:

      @Mary Davis, You think? some Fogen supporters have stated that, if he is convicted, they are going to start a race war. this just goes to show how ignorant these people are. why is it that they feel, that he shouldn’t be punished for what he did? I haven’t heard of ANYBODY feeling that way about James Holmes and, this is because his victims were mainly white. the same goes for all of those who have committed school massacres as well.

      The murder of a child, no matter what color is WRONG and, these people know what Fogen did was wrong and that he is guilty. the only thing they are looking at which makes them favor Fogen, was the color of Trayvon’s skin. AA will “NEVER” be any more welcome in this country than any other minority. I have read where some people feel that AA should be deported. well if that’s the case, SO SHOULD THEY!

      • lurker says:

        I have also heard Z. supporters claim that if he is NOT convicted that blacks will riot. That element goes beyond support for GZ. There are folks who believe a whole lot of garbage about the aims of our current president and live in fear that if blacks are ever able to garner the kind of economic and political control that many whites have always expected that there will be violent retribution enacted.

        All I can say is that there are a lot of sick, angry and disappointed people in the world grasping for something to believe in that will put them back on top of the heap. Very sad.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        There are many frustrated whites who feel their way of life is threatened by immigrants and people of color. America is changing and they can’t handle it.

      • Mary Davis says:

        @ Ladystclaire. Other than his family and friends, I don’t think the nutters care what happens to GZ. They are angry and full of hate. There has been a great change over the years with African Americans. The nutters realize that African Americans are no longer at the bottom of the totem pole. They do not want to accept this change. They are angry because they cannot do anything about this change. These are sick people. You and I know that violence will not change the status of African Americans. Nothing will take African Americans back to slavery, and this is what they want. They are miserable within themselves. It is a sad thing. I actually feel sorry for them.

      • leander22 says:

        I have also heard Z. supporters claim that if he is NOT convicted that blacks will riot.

        lurker, that is an interesting larger topic, it’s connected with several others for me.

        In more polite “supporters” it surfaces as: it’s a political case, a case brought about by political/media pressure only. The frank (sheeple?) put it plainly: the threat of race riots. This scenario makes Fogen “the sacrifical lamp”. But of course it is always only the “other side” that is the threat. Good citizens like the Zimmerman or the Ostermans of course have God on their side. That’s why they should always be trusted to only defend their lives, ever.

        Let me cite a few passage from M. + S. Osterman’s (with a little help from Rita Tate, Creative Project) Defending Our Friend: the Most hated Man in America. I am wondering a bit to what extend the huge amount of religious color was added by Rita Tate and her creative team.

        Room full of mirrors

        However, I also feel deeply that George Zimmerman has been offered up as the sacrificial lamb for those who want to spew messages of hate and racism. As we were holed up in our home with the Zimmermans I prayed continuously, asking God to protect us

        [Chapter 3, Hiding the Most Hated Man in America]

        Who are “those”?

        What our friend may not understand fully is that he has been choosen to serve as representative of white gun-toting racists who feel a right to follow black teenagers wandering around in their gated communities; and he’s the sacrificial lamb.

        [Chapter 8, Is George Zimmerman a Racist?]

        ———————

        Now this. Isn’t this a more “polite, religiously tamed image of what one expects the “other” to do? Angry people could well riot. Not the good and righteous Christians, the “brothers” and “sisters” of course, they pray, but really shouldn’t they turn the other cheek? Why do they need God with their “brothers” and “sisters” out there.

        Should George be convicted of the charges against him, could we contain our anger? Not without supernatural help. Even drug addicts, gambers, or serious alcoholics will tell you they must depend on a “higher power” or a “divine source” for strength. If the jury returns a guilty verdict for George, we will need God to show up big time for us.

        [Chapter 10. Closer Than a Brother]

        —————-

        Strictly somehow connected with the political pressure, at least from my perspective, there sits a huge paradox at the center of the Osterman (Rita Fox and employees) argument.

        On one hand Fogen should never have been arrested. On the other hand we have this:

        The problem we see in using the “stand your ground” defense in George’s case is that usually the person claiming it is the person pursued, not the person doing the persuing, as many believe George was doing that night.

        Now my question is this. Should the world simply trust Fogen’s “defense theory” and to what extend is it political, if indeed only the clear “stand your ground” case could prevent an arrest and/or would need a trial and jury decision?

      • leander22 says:

        Sorry,

        the last passage was from: Chapter 9, Public Outcry Demanded George Be Charged … with Something.

        correction, the last sentence caught my

        attention: and to what extend is it political, if indeed only the clear “stand your ground” case would have prevented an immediate arrest* while “justified self-defense” would demanded investigation and judge or jury decision anyway?

        Now what is left of the political pressure, I ask you?

        *At least that is what some lawyer suggest, and unison seems to agree with me on that.

  22. Jun says:

    I feel the people who knew Fogen before this murder occurred, should have came together, called police on Fogen and warned residents of the creepy weirdo stalker who is a wanna be cop, and he is terrorizing the neighborhood

    I think if the people who were complaining to police regarding Fogen’s “aggressive patrols with his gun” should have taken action and perhaps this tragedy could have been avoided as Fogen showed many signs

    I also believe Neighborhood Watches need to be investigated, like any other title, before being bestowed and appointed (not self appointed like Fogen)

    I feel if it was properly done like any other type of work or licensing, then Fogen would never have been accepted to have access to a gun or be allowed to be a neighborhood watch, due to his past history

    • vickie s. votaw says:

      In my neighborhood some people decided neighborhood watch would be a good thing. It went along “fine” for a little while until some neighbors started complaining about the paint job a neighbor had that ” lowered the property value” of the other neighbor. That was when the whole road got together & kicked the “neighborhood watch ” out.

      • Trained Observer says:

        Smart road. Some vigilante types know no boundaries.We all know how dangerous those fuchsia awnings on a background of chartreuse can be!

      • leander22 says:

        I like your comments,

        We all know how dangerous those fuchsia awnings on a background of chartreuse can be!

        😉 What was the word for people in charge of a specific section or block? In any case it reminded me of block leader a specific figure in the Nazi hierarchy, the central informer for the specific part of the city.

        A couple of days ago I stumbled across a new LLMPapa video. Initially I felt like protesting. After all he expresses concern for the kid. But then I saw 1017 investigate, and suddenly something from George’s Virginia family life surfaced.

        He seems to be completely unable to imagine that this little boy could simply have a good friend in the neighborhood, and it is around the time he is supposed to return home. But why, if he is concerned doesn’t he simply stop and ask the boy where he going and if he does not feel this is dangerous walking along a busy road. The boy may have surprised him a little after all.

        What’s your problem homie Fogen?, but interestingly even the the little boy that catches his “concerned” attention is black.

        And yes “concern” for his sister surfaces too in his calls.

    • rayvenwolf says:

      We have one “technically” in my neighborhood an even have community meetings at our neighborhood policing center. The real problem is as one of my roommates found out after attending one, is that most people are worried more about retaliation than overall safety. My current neighborhood used to be the redlight district unofficially, things have been cleaned up though. Well the hookers are gone, the random druggies not so much.

      NWs really only work if those involved are sane and willing to do their part.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      @rayvenwolf

      The real problem is as one of my roommates found out after attending one, is that most people are worried more about retaliation than overall safety

      Yep, they have GZ stalking and intimidating people with a gun, and at least 3 of the cameras not working. Better lights and a better videosystem would’ve been a lot more effective. But then GZ couldn’t have played vigilante cop.

      • Trained Observer says:

        Have always wondered if the video cameras were deliberately disabled to facilitate a planned action by the R@TL vigilante crowd.

      • tonydphotog says:

        I’ve always questioned whether or not the cameras were working. I mean, how could Fogen know they were not working, if they were monitored elsewhere? I think they were working fine, but fogen (knowing the videos would prove he stalked Trayvon), along with the homeowners association (to avoid a lawsuit), came up with the broken camera story .

      • leander22 says:

        trained, tony, that caught my attention too, but at what point in the interview does it actually happen?. Had he already arrived at the clubhouse? Or was he still elaborating about his afraid wife, his neighbor with her baby and the burglar suspect that looked into the windows of Taaffe’s house, just as “incidentially” Trayvon did, when Singleton got the call.

        It would be brilliant if BDLR could prove via GPS that Trayvon never was at Taaffe’s house, as Amsterdam suggested. How much distance is there between the upper and the lower cut-through?

        In any case, I wondered if he expected the cameras did still not function. That’s the way he said it.

      • leander22 says:

        I’ve always questioned whether or not the cameras were working. I mean, how could Fogen know they were not working, if they were monitored elsewhere?

        Free flow of fantasy:
        Because he is a busybody? Because he now could legitimize be informed about everything connected with security? Because at one point he wondered if the video cameras actually could help identify the people partying around the pool in one of his calls?*

        Because he found out that the pool camera wasn’t working, and from now on he regularly inquired. So much so that Leland knowing about his HOA appointment hurried up to repair them. 😉 Not that he would have trusted them to do anyway.

        * Reminds me that I was completely disappointed in the Kent Taylor, Leland Managment interview.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Jun — In the “if only” department, Trayvon might be alive today if more R@TL unit owners had leaned on the board to demand that any NW coordinator/captain be an owner, not a renter.

      That’s not to suggest some owners (think Taffeee) aren’t undesirables, but it does help thin the herd. Your idea about screening NWs has merit, although I suspect Fogen would have weaseled through such a screening.

      There seems to be considerable question about whether Fogen actually had a valid license for concealed carry, since Mrs. Fogen has had her license pulled, and Fogen hasn’t, suggesting that his was not in play at the time of Trayvon’s murder.

      At any rate, Retreat residents should have raised hell when it became known this pig was trotting around packing a gun, and obnoxiously questioning residents about their work schedules or their guests about their presence.

      Hopefully, by following your suggestions, other condo complexes can avoid such a tragedy.

      • lurker says:

        TO–I would disagree. I have been around a variety of neighborhood watch/improvement groups. To my mind the ones that are most effective are those that do not draw artificial lines between good and bad folks in one way or another. In my own neighborhood, where there are a good percentage of renters, there has been a tendancy on the part of some to view all renters as problems. And while it is good to urge landlords to screen renters appropriately, I have seen some really step over the edge into what I would consider harassmment of renters–through malicious over-reporting and the like.

        I do agree that GZ should not have been in a position of responsibility, however NW groups are really sanctioned by no one and have a tendancy to be open to whoever volunteers to do the h eavy liftying

      • Malisha says:

        Trained Observer, I think that is very VERY possible, almost to the point of “probable.” Otherwise:

        How did Foge know the security cameras were out of service that night?

        He had the prop mgt. guy’s name and phone number MEMORIZED with his “bad memory” and all.

        Hmmmm…… 🙄

      • aussie says:

        He knew the guy’s name, is all. Chances are he used to bug that guy regularly, too. He did not know the phone number. That was in his phone. Singleton had to get the phone from another officer to get the number.

        Time we all go back to basics and re-read the original statements. Facts are starting to get forgotten or hazy.

      • leander22 says:

        I suspect Fogen would have weaseled through such a screening.

        Absolutely. Such a charming boy.

        I absolutely disagree. The larger atmosphere in RTL was created by HOA, meaning whoever was chosen or willing to represent them. Strictly–notice I would even accept that there were troubles as a result of the blow up of the real estate bubble and indeed the neighborhood changed–it feels a little that GZ was completely conform with the mood of the HOA board that must have been easy to grasp from their newsletters and the rigid enforcement measures. That may well have inspired our Fogen. I found the theory that he could have played with the idea of a later security business of his own interesting. Can of a little field test on a minor scale. Notice from his friend Osterman he knew that police officers occasionally need or look for a second job. Didn’t Singleton tell something like that too?

    • Malisha says:

      There WERE people who complained about Fogen. Lee covered that up and destroyed the reports, I’m SURE about that now.

      • lurker says:

        Who could they complain to? This documentary is several years old now: http://www.pbs.org/pov/flagwars/; however it portrays a similar, albeit far subtler form of antagonism between groups in a neighborhood. One difficulty with neighborhood organizing groups is that they lack any sanction of any kind and are therefore free to organized in nearly any (legal) way that they choose. They can easily become a haven for all kinds of little napoleans, although most tend to focus more on dandelions and house colors thanb fire arms. But, a piece of the background in this story had to do with a changing neighborhood–from one that was primarily white, primarily homeowners and likely a certain income level, to one that had a greater mix of racial diversity, income levels and renters vs owners.. GZ looks like he was sucking up to the scared homeowners in his role. But, the issues are seldom as simple as owners vs renters.

      • lurker says:

        I have worked in neighborhoods where there were multiple community-type groups each vying for recognition as the official voice of the community. But again–anyone can organize a group.

      • ladystclaire says:

        @Malisha, those who Fogen harassed did indeed make complaints about him but, they were ignored. the one man who was removed from the HOA meeting after the murder of Trayvon, had called LE when Fogen followed him and he even went to the man’s home harassing him. he also called LE and accused a 16 year old AA male, of stealing his bicycle. as it turned out, the bicycle wasn’t stolen.

        I’m really surprised that he hadn’t received a beat down for real. Fogen took it upon himself to be the one in that neighborhood, to harass AA who lived there to the point that they would move. he and some of those members of the HOA did not want AA living there. this is why he always questioned AA with, what are you doing around here. he was a renter, and thought he had the right to question those AA who did in fact own their homes.

        BTW, if all AA were like how Joonyah sees them, Fogen would have really received his just desserts for harassing those in that community. he even went up to an AA woman, who was outside of her home smoking and, asked her the very same question that he has asked other AA. what are you doing here?

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Lady St. Claire – if Fogen had asked me that right outside my own home he’d probably have nowhere to hang his hat.

  23. Mary Davis says:

    @ Lurker. I don’t like the idea of family court being available to the public. It is unsafe. People have actually been shot and stabbed inside and outside of family court proceedings.

    • The vast majority, if not all, of the homicides in courthouses are committed by enraged males in divorce and child custody disputes. They kill the women who seek divorce and custody of their children.

      • Malisha says:

        Thank you for noticing!

        Many to most lawyers don’t believe this simply proven fact. These men do not like to be challenged and the idea that a judge can “trump” their “authority” enrages them.

      • Professor, I have an unrelated question. Is there law about when the defense must provide reciprocal discovery? Is it a month from trial? …six weeks from trial? …the night before trial? …enroute to the courthouse? I’ve noticed that there has been very little provided by the defense.

  24. groans says:

    Since I am concerned about protecting Dee Dee from willful, intentional and malicious doxing and character assassination by people who pride themselves in breitbarting those who seek justice for Trayvon, I think Bernie de la Rionda might want to consider seeking the court’s permission to wait until the trial starts before it discloses information that identifies Dee Dee and any other witness for whom there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be subjected to the same intimidating criminal acts.

    I thought the court already ordered that information identifying certain witnesses (including Dee Dee and others) must be withheld from the public.

    But I HAVE been baffled by the prosecution’s not seeking protective orders with respect to the scope and mechanisms of discovery related to Dee Dee, the victim’s family, and maybe others. Although the prosecution has fought against defense over-reaching, it has not been “proactive” (though I hate that word) in protecting witnesses from harassment and undue annoyance. I don’t understand why, but I’ve assumed it’s due to practical, strategic, or legal reasons that I don’t know about.

    I’m also wondering how legitimately O’Mara can seek reimbursement of “attorneys fees” in this case, when he has made it clear that the defendant does not pay him any “attorneys fees” – so why should the State of Florida pay him any that he wasn’t expecting, anyway? It also seems like O’Mara ought to be required disclose his client retainer agreement in order to prove any “attorneys fees” he seeks to recover – and also itemize them more than he has done thus far in his two motions.

    Also, as far as videotaping Dee Dee’s deposition, I think O’Mara might run into trouble with violation of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.220(n)(3)(B) and (C) – violation of which would REQUIRE the court to impose sanctions on the defense, either on its own initiative or upon motion by the prosecution.

    These are just a few of my thoughts before signing off for the night….

    • Groans said,

      I thought the court already ordered that information identifying certain witnesses (including Dee Dee and others) must be withheld from the public.

      You are correct, but I am concerned about eliminating the possibility that private information, which would enable someone to identify Dee Dee and determine where she lives, might be obtained by someone who will use it to dox, breitbart and intimidate Dee Dee.

      Mark O’Mara has publicly approved of the CTH website and solicited their assistance in defending GZ. The site publicly supports and aggressively promotes right wing extremism and racist views. More important to our case, the site functions rather like a cult worshiping and idolizing Andrew Breitbart, who specialized in character assassination to destroy political opponents by combining just a dash of truth for the sake of appearances with a torrent of lies and manufactured evidence. The site has already supported aggressive efforts to dox and breitbart two innocent girls who were mistakenly identified as Dee Dee. Nevertheless, despite some mild criticism of those efforts by O’Mara, he still associates with and approves of the site. He has not condemned the site and dissociated from it. The close connection between O’Mara and the site creates the appearance that the site speaks for Mark O’Mara and the defendant.

      Given the nature of the close connection between Mark O’Mara and the CTH, I believe there is a substantial likelihood that private information about Dee Dee will end up in the hands of people at the CTH who will use it unlawfully to attack, discredit and intimidate Dee Dee.

      That is why I support withholding the disclosure of Dee Dee’s personal information to the defense until she testifies at trial.

      We already know that would not offend the Due Process Clause, violate the Brady rule or prejudice the defendant.

      • ladystclaire says:

        I may be wrong but, IMO I think these people would do a lot more than the things that you have mentioned. as for O’mara, the things he is doing concerning these people should be considered illegal because, these are some dangerous people and for an attorney to be associating with and looking to and taking advice from these people should not be tolerated by the Florida Judicial System.

        This attorney has tried every trick in the book, to get this girls address and anything else in order to hand it over to these people to do what ever they want to do with it. I feel that he and West both should be disbarred and not allowed to practice law ever again.

  25. lurker says:

    There has been talk about whether this case ought to spur a re-examination of the Stand Your Ground laws. i am wondering if it ought not also spark a re-examination of Florida’s open records laws. The professor has pointed out O’Mara’s use of filings in order to build public opinion. The same strategy was utilized in the Rifqa Bary case–where truly the only court decision ought to have been one of venue. The attorney for Ms. Bary–who had seemingly shown up at court and volunteered himself for the job without a conversation with either Bary or a GAL–at one point filed a lengthy propaganda piece designed to link a number of people in Columbus, Ohio to either Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood–thereby proving parental abuse of Ms. Bary.

    So far as i can tell, the document was never considered by the court–but this did not eve seem to be the purpose. It was republished and quoted all over th web.

    Frankly, as the resident of another state, I was shocked by how much of the procedings of a family court hearing were directly available to the public. One of the organizers of a demonstration outside the courthouse was also seated with the press–also ethically suspicious, but apparently not questioned in Florida.

    While as a follower of these cases, it is certainly exciting to have ready access to all kinds of court documents, I cannot say that I would recommend the level of openness that Florida has elected, particuilarly when I see the potential for misuse.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      “While as a follower of these cases, it is certainly exciting to have ready access to all kinds of court documents, I cannot say that I would recommend the level of openness that Florida has elected, particuilarly when I see the potential for misuse.”

      The FL sunshine law is bizarre and we are at least marginally guilty of trying the case in the media ourselves on some levels. I think it would be better for all concerned if discovery was not available to the public until a trial unfolded. And even then, the US practice of allowing cameras in courtrooms is probably not the best policy and also allows certain abuses even though by doing so, it has some educational value and allows for some transparency.

      I often feel hypocritcal by following this case, but I also feel compelled to do so for many reasons.

    • Trained Observer says:

      In Florida, many, many records are sealed. Public officials can (and often do) have their addresses withheld from elections office records, driver license records, etc.

    • Tzar says:

      and then we would be left at the mercy of the media
      consider all the misinformation you would have been exposed to if we had to rely on Stutzman et al
      no thank you
      I think all states should have sunshine discovery laws
      at least the studious can go to the source to inform themselves

      • lurker says:

        Where I am wary is that court-filed documents become a vehicle for propaganda, bearing the seemingly-official imprimator of having been filed in court. In fact, it would appear that either attorney has a fairly wide-range of freedom to file all kinds of things, either pertinent or non, and as it appears, either fact-based or mere innuendo.

        The Zimnuts are nothing compared to the wackaloons who took charge of the Bary hearing–generating far more heat than light. Coming from a state with a much tighter seal, particularly on family court and where juveniles are concerned, I was very concerned at not only the complete loss of privacy, but also the way in which dysinformation was filed and used to fan some pretty ugly flames.

        A case that ought to have been immediately sent back to Ohio became a Florida media circus–dragging out a timeline that made most usual solutions unavailable to the family.

        • Tzar says:

          otherwise the media becomes the only propaganda machine
          at least we get to fight the propaganda and keep the media honest

          transparency is never bad

    • Malisha says:

      I’m of the opposite opinion. I believe ALL the court’s actions should be completely open and transparent to EVERYONE. That’s the only way to deal with the massive corruption in the Judicial Department.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Transparency in the sense of monitoring the court and the state is good but it totally invades the privacy of individuals involved in court cases.

      • Malisha says:

        OK, both parties I’m going to mention in this are already dead so here I go. In oh, maybe 1990 a divorce began between Andrew O’Rourke (then County Executive of Westchester County, NY, and very VERY corrupt) and his wife of 40 years, Alice O’Rourke. ALL the kids were grown; this strife was about two things only: money and the divorce itself — two allegedly devout Roman Catholics (the wife actually was devout, and was a nurse, trained by nuns). I can’t remember which of them was the plaintiff but the divorce was because of Andrew having taken a mistress. BUT his mistress was significantly in the public eye because she was (a) best friends with the wife or mistress (who can remember at this point) of the judge hearing the divorce; and (b) given, by her powerful and corrupt “boyfriend,” a very high-paying county job that she had no business doing — I think it was executive director of Westchester Hospital. County money going to mistress appointed by sugar daddy County Executive, you get the picture.

        Husband goes to the judge (DiBlasi, Westchester) and asks for a gag order on the divorce.

        Gets it.

        Under NY law there is no provision for it. It is not legal under NY law. No Supreme Court divorce case can be subjected to a gag order under NY Law. He asked for it, he got it.

        Why?

        He had done such illegal things that it was becoming obvious that he should not be holding public office. Wanted to keep a certain building he owned out of the divorce so he wouldn’t have to buy out his wife’s share of it? Called its value $1, announced that it had “gone south,” and sold it to a friend of his for $100 — didn’t even declare $99 profit on his taxes. This and that and one illegal maneuver after another, all of it blatantly illegal, but Alice was gagged and not allowed to speak of it — even to her therapist — and he got away with every little bit of it. At that time he had an adult son who was a helicopter pilot. I witnessed this son call his mother a “fat bitch” right in front of his father and not even get a look of disapproval. And Alice had done NOTHING that her religion or her government would disapprove of. She was a “good wife” and an “obedient Christian” and had been a dutiful and loving mother; this entire proceeding and all those that emanated from it were CRIMES.

        And she was gagged.

        So when the police came to do a background check on her husband who had been nominated as a judge of the Supreme Court of New York — to judge OTHERS and to grant divorces HIMSELF — she felt that she was not permitted to tell them the real story of the divorce. I urged her to tell them the truth since they were doing a job for the State of New York, for the PUBLIC, but she said she was afraid to violate the gag order. She was afraid SHE WOULD GO TO JAIL if she told the truth about her husband when he wanted to be a judge.

        He then managed to get the Catholic Church to grant him an ANNULMENT of the marriage, OVER her objection. Why? Because he wanted to get remarried IN THE CHURCH. A woman with four grown childen had her marriage involuntarily annulled. BY THE CHURCH.

        This is what you get when the courts’ actions are secret and when individuals are gagged.

        Blessings on Alice O’Rourke. May Andrew O’Rourke reside forever where there are others just like him.

  26. Mary Davis says:

    @ Xena. I only recently felt comfortable commenting on this blog, but have been reading from the beginning. We really don’t know who is reading and monitoring this blog. Unitron’s baiting is distracting and leaves a bad taste.

    • Xena says:

      @Mary Davis. I’m happy you decided to start commenting, and know the importance of feeling comfortable. I mean, if we wanted to argue with unreasonable people. we would be on HP, Yahoo, or Zidiot blogs.

      But as it concerns Unitron, it appears his goal is to make us appear uninformed, although he is the one asking questions as though he only heard about the case yesterday.

    • ladystclaire says:

      @Mary Davis, I agree with you 110% because, this person is an annoyance on this site for sure.

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      After you wrote that, Mary, unitron went back to my question and here is the answer. [Notice what time he answered]
      .

      onlyiamunitron says:
      April 2, 2013 at 1:21 am
      Unitron,

      You answered other people’s questions after I asked what I will put in quotes below. You did not answer my question. Why not?

      You all have thoughtful comments says:
      March 31, 2013 at 7:04 am
      unitron,
      Do you think that gz lied throughout his interview statements?

      The post to which I am replying shows, on my screen, to have been made at 3:00pm on April 1st.

      I’ve gone back through all of the notification of new post emails I’ve gotten from this site.

      There is not one about that post 10 minutes on either side of 3:00 pm, or of 12:00 pm, 1:00 pm, 2:00 pm, 4:00 pm, 5:00 pm, or 6:00 pm–thought I’d allow for the possibility of a time zone offset.

      I also checked in similar fashion for a notification email for your original March 31st, 7:04 am post in the “The Prosecution did not violate the Brady rule in Zimmerman case” thread, and found none for it either.

      I do not know why. I certainly receive a flood of other email notices from this site.

      To your question:

      Do I think he lied throughout his interview statements? Not throughout, as in everything he said was a lie. I’m sure some of it was actually true.

      Was some of it lies?

      I don’t know, I can’t read his mind, so I don’t know for sure if he intended to deceive or not.

      Was some of it in conflict with either other things he said post-shooting, or what we hear on the NEN call recording?

      Oh, hell yeah.

      There’re holes in his story big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

      I don’t know if that’s from an intent to deceive or from being muddle-headed, or both, and I don’t know how much of that muddle-headedness he already brought to the table prior to whatever head pounding he may or may not have gotten in the minute or so before the gunshot.

      If there are any on-purpose whoppers, my main candidate would be the “got out of the vehicle to travel in the same direction as, but was really looking for an address for which he hadn’t yet been asked” routine.

      That one’s pretty hard to swallow, although by now he may have convinced himself of it.

      I don’t think it goes to motive to pre-meditatedly kill, but I can certainly see it tied to the frustration inherent in “they always get away”, and I can see where he’d want to avoid admitting that, even if his intention was, at worst, to detain Martin long enough for the cops to get there.

      unitron

      • willisnewton says:

        The specific question that stumps GZ’s supporters is and remains, “where was GZ and where was TM when this exchange took place:

        Q: He’s near the clubhouse now?

        A: yeah, and now he’s coming towards me.”

        If they cannot come up with a coherent answer that they can stick to, then they are in the exact position that George was in when HE was confronted with his recorded NEN call. Singleton knew he was lying and asked him repeatedly, “where are you now?” as they played the call for him bit by bit. Essentially his story falls apart and he loses the ability to give a straight answer as the recording goes on. Look for this exchange, or this general set of questions to be prominent at trial. THIS IS WHY HE CANNOT TAKE THE STAND AT TRIAL. George can’t answer the question, because he lacks a credible answer, and the truth is very very likely to convict him as the aggressor he is, IMO. (He’s innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. In my eyes he’s a liar.)

        This is the heart of his most clear contradiction concerning his (false) narrative, for he has claimed two impossible positions – the first being the clubhouse parking lot and the other a “final” position way down by the second bend in TTL near the cut thru (and facing in a direction that has not been verified.) Using the NEN call recording as a timeline, neither of these positions are possible to align with a map and stopwatch and produce a humanly possible result.

        George can have all the ADHD and PTSD and “muddle” and “poor memory” he wants but he does not exist outside of the space-time continuum. In order for the spontaneous observations heard on the NEN call recording to be reconciled with his statements, a map, a stopwatch, the average walking speed of a human, etc etc there has to be a plausible explanation to the question. Fantasy and science fiction have no place in a court of law ordained to establish facts in a case.

        Of course the answer is that George was at the first bend on TTL, facing the mail kiosk after “doubling back” to observe the teen having just trolled the same mail kiosk, as visible in the clubhouse videos. And the answer also is that he lied to the SPD to obscure, omit and obfuscate the car-to-pedestrian chase that followed once TM walked past his vehicle in the direction of his home for the week.

        Now, I’m not saying the unitron is a supporter of GZ. He works to fulfill a specific purpose that he feels is useful, that of the “resident sceptic.” But he is hard to pin down regarding their personal opinion, as have been others such as nomatternevermind on talkleft who see their role as people who try to point out flaws and fallacies and bias, etc. but can also be frustrating to get a straight answer out of sometimes.

        Everyone has bias. We are all human. Unitron has a screen name that sounds like a robot. I’m guessing this is a telling aspect of his personality, for better or worse.

        But you might try asking him or others that vital question if you want them to “fish or cut bait,” as the saying goes. It’s the question that got me banned from TalkLeft, by the way, so be careful where you ask it.

      • Malamiyya says:

        @willisnewton Your characterization of unitron as a person with a somewhat robotic personality who conceives of himself as a resident skeptic seems very perceptive to me. But I don’t see his quibbles and queries as undermining so much as reality testing. If I were a lawyer, I’d love to have someone like him in the office even if I sometimes found him a pain in the ass to be around.

      • Malamiyya says:

        Well, not in the office. On retainer.

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        “After you wrote that, Mary, unitron went back to my question and here is the answer. [Notice what time he answered]”

        If I had not happened to have seen her post, I would not have known about yours unless I happened to have come across them looking for something else, because, as I indicated, for whatever reason known only to WordPress.com, I never received email notification of them in the tsunami of notification emails I do receive.

        unitron

      • Malisha says:

        @ Unitron: Fogen is only “muddle-headed” when he wants to be. He was NOT “muddle-headed” when he told the cops that he had been yelling out for help; he was NOT “muddle-headed” when he told NEN that he would rather not agree to be et mat a certain location, that he would rather have them CALL HIM when they arrived in the neighborhood; he was NOT “muddle-headed” when he told Hannity that HE WOULD NOT CHANGE A THING ABOUT WHAT HE DID THAT NIGHT.

        “No Regrets” is only “muddle-headed” when he wants somebody to get confused about something he CLEARLY SAID or OBVIOUSLY DID.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        Unitron, do you believe gz when he said that he did not continue
        looking for Trayvon after he said “Okay” to the dispatcher?

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “Unitron, do you believe gz when he said that he did not continue
          looking for Trayvon after he said “Okay” to the dispatcher?”

          I’m working on an answer that’s already threatening to turn into a novelette, but I’ve got to go back and review all of what Witness 8 has said so far.

          In the meantime–

          Short version, he probably didn’t continue to search during the rest of the NEN call, maybe he started to again after the call ended, though by then I don’t know how he’d know where to start looking.

          unitron

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “Unitron, do you believe gz when he said that he did not continue
          looking for Trayvon after he said “Okay” to the dispatcher?”

          Short version, he probably didn’t continue to search during the rest of the NEN call, maybe he started to again after the call ended.

          It seems to me that a large percentage of those taking one side or another on this case decided what they believed and only then started to consider the evidence as it emerged.

          That is not what I did, so perhaps my perceptions are different.

          It’s been months since I first wrote 7:09:34 on a piece of paper and started converting elapsed time in the NEN call into Eastern Standard, and who knows where my notes have wandered off to, so I’m not going to remember things exactly, but I seem to remember the call lasting about 4 minutes, so let’s say that Zimmerman saying “have them call me when they get here” occurs around 7:13:30.

          Assuming he was truthful earlier in the call about having lost sight of Martin (and I really don’t think he’s got the mental horsepower to have hatched an elaborate deception right there on the spot. not to mention that Witness 8 seems to indicate that he lost sight of Martin at some point), the “have them call me” would probably be the soonest he would or might have caught sight of Martin again.

          At that point we’re most likely at least 2 more minutes away from the start of things getting physical.

          Why did it take so long before it did?

          We hear him pretty much jump out of the truck and take off at at least a fast walk, prompting the dispatcher’s question about following.

          The noise of the vigorous forward motion tapers off shortly after the “Okay”, the acknowledgement of the Official Discouragement.

          After that he’s probably either walking slowly or standing still.

          If he was still actively searching between “Okay” and the end of the call, I think there’d be audible indications.

          Just like listening to it when he announced that Martin was running gives you the feeling that he’s taking off to try to keep sight of him, I think a continued search during the last part of the call would have produced noises that would give you the feeling that he’s still moving, turning his head this way and that, trying to see around stuff, and so on.

          By the time he said “Okay” and quit breathing hard he must have at least gotten as far as the “T”, where he could look down the long sidewalk, and I find it difficult to believe that if he’d seen him again he would, instead of excitedly saying “I’ve got a visual on him again” (you know how he loves to talk cop lingo), stand there and launch into that pathetic attempt to give directions to his truck.

          So once he got to the “T” and couldn’t see Martin, how would he know where to go looking for him in the dark and the rain with his puny little penlight?

          Should he go over to RVC and look north and south?

          Should he go south on the long sidewalk and check the areas between buildings?

          Should he scan the rooftops in case it’s really Peter Parker in his Spider-Man suit?

          Once Martin rounded the corner at the “T” and headed south (the only direction that would have put him where Zimmerman couldn’t see him), he had plenty of places to hide if he wished to hide, depending on how familiar he was with the area behind the houses.

          What are the chances of Zimmerman magically guessing the right one?

          Witness 8 never says anything about Trayvon saying anything about being able to hear Zimmeman talking on the phone, so likely they weren’t all that near to each other until some time after George and Sean hang up on each other, and so Zimmerman probably wasn’t close enough to Martin to hear him on the phone with Witness 8 and track him down that way.

          If Susan at LL2’s guess-timate of the time of Martin’s last call being from 7:11:30 to 7:15:30 is close to right (and I think she shows how it well might be), then there’s not a lot of time after Witness 8 hears them meet up and exchange words for the fight to get going good enough to prompt that first 911 call, so that doesn’t allow for a very lengthy foot chase to have happened before they wound up approximately behind Witness 6’s house.

          The various things Witness 8 said happened can be chronologically placed in either Martin’s final phone call or the ones before that (assuming she gets it right about what happened during which call), but except for the exchange of words between Martin and Zimmerman near the end of the final call, I’m not sure with how much chronological precision they can be placed within those calls. For instance, she has someone watching him from a car “a couple of minutes” into the 18 minute penultimate call. Call it 6 minutes instead, and you’ve still got the watching starting at 7:00 pm. After that she’s got nothing but Trayvon started walking and supposedly that goes on for another 12 minutes before that next to last call drops. It’s not until the final call that we get into the whole “going to run from the back” thing. He’s being followed for 12 minutes and only then does he really start to freak about it? And then during the final call she’s got him running and walking and losing Zimmerman and then Zimmerman popping up again after a couple of minutes, and then Zimmerman getting closer and the exchange of words and the beginning of the physical contact, and all of that inside 4 minutes of phone call. With all that going on where did Trayvon find the time to answer that last call? I’m not sure that when she refers to passages of time as “a couple of minutes”, we can rely on that to mean anything more precise than “maybe fewer than 10 minutes, but who really knows”. In other words, even if what she said happened happened, it’s still kind of fuzzy as to when what she said happened happened.

          Martin and Zimmerman each had as much right as the other to be in the area near the “T” any time they wanted to be there, but once Martin got out of Zimmerman’s sight, if he remained in that area, why’d it take so long for Zimmerman to find him if Zimmerman never stopped searching?

          If he did not remain there, then Zimmerman only has a couple of minutes after the end of the NEN call to find him and chase him back up there, with no idea where to begin looking for him.

          Timing-wise, it seems most likely that when Zimmerman said “Okay” he had reached the area of the “T” and remained there for the rest of the conversation while giving the world’s worst directions to his truck as Sean grew more exasperated (patience of a saint, those operators that night) and finally giving up and asking to have them call him.

          It was probably at that point that he had the idea to go get an RVC address, so he walks over there and then back and that chews up most of the next 2 minutes if he wasn’t walking fast, although I suppose it’s possible that he never went over to RVC at all (and came up with the get an address story later), and started searching again once he ended the NEN call, but that puts us back to how did he have the first foggiest notion of where to begin looking.

          I think it less likely that Zimmerman continued to search until he was successful than it is that they just happened to come across each other again.

          Which doesn’t mean that Zimmerman didn’t then proceed to do something stupid.

          unitron

          • Xena says:

            @unitron. What is your opinion for when GZ said to dispatch, “I don’t want to give it all out. I don’t know where this kid is”????

            Do you think that conveys that GZ was not walking back to his truck, but was in an area where he thought he might find Trayvon?

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “@unitron. What is your opinion for when GZ said to dispatch, “I don’t want to give it all out. I don’t know where this kid is”????

            Do you think that conveys that GZ was not walking back to his truck, but was in an area where he thought he might find Trayvon?”

            I think any walking back to his truck, if it occurred, didn’t occur until after the end of the NEN call, and that he was probably standing still at the time he said that, and might just as easily considered himself to be in an area where he thought that Trayvon might find him, or be close enough to overhear him, since at that point he most likely did not know where Trayvon was.

            If he knew where Trayvon was, I really don’t see him passing up the chance to play Junior G-Man to stand there and give directions to his truck that just needed pretzel salt added.

            Let’s say that about the time he’s told they don’t need him following Trayvon and he acknowledges that, that he catches sight of him again.

            Do you really think he’s going to stand there chatting with Sean, secure in the knowledge that Trayvon’s not going to disappear from his sight again?

            After the sound of him when he leaves the truck there’s no way he goes running off after Trayvon during the rest of that call that we don’t hear it.

            And if he caught sight of him again about the time he’s wrapping up the call and saying have them call me, do you really see Trayvon just standing there like a knot on a log for at least 2 minutes waiting for Zimmerman to get within arm’s length before either taking off running or asking him why he’s following him?

            I’ve heard (or seen) Zimmerman described a lot of different ways by a lot of different people, but “stealthy” and “silent as a ninja” never made the list.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron. I’m trying to stay on one thing at a time. GZ did not want to give out his entire address on the basis of, “I don’t know where this kid is.” Agreed?

            Your response that addressed my question, in pertinent part is:

            and might just as easily considered himself to be in an area where he thought that Trayvon might find him,

            Wouldn’t that be sufficient reason to keep dispatch on the phone until he reached the safety of his truck?

            …or be close enough to overhear him, since at that point he most likely did not know where Trayvon was.

            Would not that contradict “He ran”???

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Would not that contradict “He ran”???”

            No, I think Trayvon running, and disappearing from Zimmerman’s vew, and Zimmerman afterwards not knowing where he is work pretty well together, actually.

            He knows Trayvon ran, he doesn’t know how far or for how long or in which direction once he was out of sight.

            It’s Trayvon disappearing out of sight and Zimmerman still knowing where he is that’s hard to accept.

            “Wouldn’t that be sufficient reason to keep dispatch on the phone until he reached the safety of his truck?”

            I never said that Zimmerman wasn’t guilty of being an idiot.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron

            It’s Trayvon disappearing out of sight and Zimmerman still knowing where he is that’s hard to accept.

            Could it be both? That is, at the point of “He ran,” GZ no longer saw Trayvon. At the point of “I don’t know where this kid is” GZ is looking for Trayvon.

            Then there’s a third point — “Can you have them call me for my location” GZ heard Trayvon talking on his cell phone and knows the general location of where Trayvon is.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Then there’s a third point — “Can you have them call me for my location” GZ heard Trayvon talking on his cell phone and knows the general location of where Trayvon is.”

            He hears Trayvon talking but Trayvon doesn’t hear him talking?

            Theoretically possible, I suppose.

            But then we’re back to Zimmerman’s secret stealthy ninja sneaking up on people skills.

            “Could it be both? That is, at the point of “He ran,” GZ no longer saw Trayvon. At the point of “I don’t know where this kid is” GZ is looking for Trayvon.”

            If by looking you mean did he have his eyes open and glance around some, yeah, but remember the whole I don’t want to give that out, I don’t know where this kid is routine was towards the end of adventures in direction giving when he’s been running his mouth the whole time.

            If I’m looking for someone I think is hiding from me, it’s pretty counter-productive to do it while flapping my gums and giving away my location and rate and direction of travel.

            And as I indicated earlier, I think if he were actively out behind those houses looking behind all the shrubbery, we would subconsciously be picking up on that from the audio clues. His stomach wasn’t flat enough for any bending or twisting not to affect his diaphragm (no birth control jokes, please), which would have affected his speech.

            Is it possible that after Zimmerman hangs up the NEN call that he goes back to looking for Trayvon?

            Of course it’s possible, the whole first half of the call indicates he wanted to be able to direct the police to where Martin was, but by the time he hangs up it’s been 2 minutes since he last saw him.

            And at that point there’s probably about another 2 minutes to go before the start of the fight.

            So if he hears Trayvon right near the end of the NEN call, does he spend almost 120 seconds creeping cat-like toward him?

            Witness 8 doesn’t have Trayvon indicating Zimmerman approaching him in a particularly unusual (and in this case hilarious-looking) manner.

            So either he hears him and does two minutes worth of ninja routine, or he doesn’t hear him, hangs up, and starts searching at random.

            I really think it’s more likely they came back into each other’s line of sight by chance, and that Zimmerman was as surprised to see Martin as Martin was to see Zimmerman.

            How far apart they were at the time and who closed the gap how quickly I don’t know, although if Zimmerman ran at him I’d think Trayvon would have been able to leave him in the dust.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron. First, forgive me for not discussing Witness 8. I base belief that Trayvon was on the phone as GZ changed his mind on where to meet the cops, solely on Trayvon’s phone records providing that he received a call at 7:12 p.m. that ended at 7:16 p.m.

            He hears Trayvon talking but Trayvon doesn’t hear him talking?

            Theoretically possible, I suppose.

            Sure. Obstructions and wind direction can play a factor. Jun is a DJ, and I’m sure he can explain the obstructions of sounds. But there is something else to consider also, which is if the ringer on Trayvon’s phone was set to be heard outside of the headset.

            I don’t know where this kid is routine was towards the end of adventures in direction giving when he’s been running his mouth the whole time.

            But note: GZ gave out his full phone number without any hesitation. Then he gave directions and was asked what address he was parked in front of. He was also banging on his tactical flashlight (multi-tasking) indicating that he intends to or needs the flashlight. For what purpose? According to GZ, he was walking back to his truck using the same straight path he took to get to RVC.

            GZ got out of his truck at 7:11:43. When he says he doesn’t want to give out his address because “I don’t know where this kid is,” it’s 7:13:10. That means GZ has been out of his truck for 2 minutes, 7 seconds.

            Is it possible that after Zimmerman hangs up the NEN call that he goes back to looking for Trayvon?

            Based on the change of his tone of voice, apparent distractions when talking to dispatch, AND his change of plans on where to meet the cops, there is reason to believe that GZ had a handle on the area where Trayvon was. GZ was not standing still during his NEN call, and that is by his own words.

            And at that point there’s probably about another 2 minutes to go before the start of the fight.

            According to Serino, the first 911 call that came in reporting the screams was received 80 seconds after GZ hung up his NEN call.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “According to Serino, the first 911 call that came in reporting the screams was received 80 seconds after GZ hung up his NEN call.”

            Serino’s time line has long been known to be faulty because of what he based it on, times when dispatchers actually entered something in via keyboard, like when they told a patrol car to respond to a 911 call, as opposed to stuff automatically logged by computer, like the start time of Zimmerman’s NEN call and the start times of the 911 calls.

            Serino looked at the logs of when they, the police, were notified of stuff, not of when the dispatchers first hit the answer button.

            7:09:34 pm plus 4:05 is 7:13:39 pm

            That’s the start, duration, and end of the NEN call.

            (there’s a figure out there that says 4:10, but that’s the extra 5 seconds of silence after George and Sean stop talking before the act of recording the call is discontinued)

            First 911 call comes in at 7:16:11 pm

            7:16:11 pm minus 7:13:39 pm is 2:32

            I’ve been working with audio in one way or another for about the last half century.

            That doesn’t mean there’s nothing I might be able to learn from Jun (if you’re smart you can, and should, learn something you don’t already know from anybody and everybody with whom you ever come into contact), but I think I might be able to manage without him in this.

            “I base belief that Trayvon was on the phone as GZ changed his mind on where to meet the cops, solely on Trayvon’s phone records providing that he received a call at 7:12 p.m. that ended at 7:16 p.m.”

            Those being cell phone billing figures, I lean more toward Susan at LL2’s theory that it was more like 7:11:30 pm to 7:15:30 pm. That gives the fight time enough to get going good enough to spur that first 911 call.

            Anyway, Trayvon being on the phone and George hearing Trayvon being on the phone are not necessarily the same thing, although I’m not denying the possibility that he might have heard Trayvon’s voice at some point prior to the exchange of words between them.

            As for George blabbering on and then suddenly realizing he might be overheard giving out his address, I never claimed he was the next Einstein.

            He probably started fiddling with the flashlight about the time that his headlights went into auto-shutoff, assuming his truck was facing east and not west, but I’m not sure someone out on foot in the dark wanting a working flashlight is necessarily sinister or exceptionally out of the ordinary in and of itself.

            He wanted to tell the cops where the kid was, so it’s not a huge stretch to think that he might look for him at some point.

            That is not evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was looking for the kid because he wanted to shoot him.

            If you have some other evidence of a specific intent, in advance, to shoot him, then looking for him might be supporting evidence for that, but by itself evidence that he might have been looking for him is only evidence that he might have been looking for him.

            “GZ was not standing still during his NEN call, and that is by his own words.”

            I am not convinced that George always gets everything exactly right and in the right order in his accounts of what happened that night, but I’m pretty sure there’s no way he can misremember the recording of the phone call into sounding different from what was originally recorded when it’s played back and heard by other people (like, for instance, me).

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron

            First 911 call comes in at 7:16:11 pm

            Trayvon’s phone call disconnected at 7:16. You are correct about the phone logs, because it could have been 7:16:01 to 7:16:59, but since the first 911 call was made at 7:16:11, let’s presume that Trayvon’s call disconnect at least or prior to 7:16:11. That would mean that Jeremy and Jenna no doubt heard the beginning of the verbal confrontation.

            I lean more toward Susan at LL2′s theory …

            I have no idea what LL2 stands for, but I don’t buy that cell phone companies begin charging before the time they put on the bill. I do accept that a call connecting at 7:12 could be from 7:12:01 until 7:12:59, but staying on point here deals with GZ’s NEN call — not Trayvon’s phone.

            … although I’m not denying the possibility that he might have heard Trayvon’s voice at some point prior to the exchange of words between them.

            Do you buy into the double-back theory then?

            As for George blabbering on and then suddenly realizing he might be overheard giving out his address, I never claimed he was the next Einstein.

            Okay, but can or do you consider that GZ was not returning to his truck, and was neither on the same route that would take him back because of “I don’t know where this kid is”??? Logically, if you didn’t care about the person hearing your conversation as you were walking the same path back that you took to get to RVC, why suddenly be concerned about them hearing your conversation unless you had changed your route?

            He probably started fiddling with the flashlight about the time that his headlights went into auto-shutoff,

            GZ began banging his tactical flashlight the moment we no longer hear the same things that caused the dispatcher to ask GZ if he was following the kid.

            He wanted to tell the cops where the kid was, so it’s not a huge stretch to think that he might look for him at some point.

            Effectively, your statement leads to the logical conclusion that GZ continued to look for Trayvon even after the dispatcher told him “We don’t need you to do that.”

            Now, I won’t address your diversion to other points but want to stay on the “I don’t want to give it all out. I don’t know where this kid is.” If GZ didn’t know where Trayvon was while he was giving out directions and his phone number, why would he suddenly become concerned that Trayvon would overhear him unless he (GZ) was no longer on that lone path leading back to his truck?

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “I have no idea what LL2 stands for…”

            Minute-by-Minute Timeline of Trayvon Martin’s Death

            Posted on April 5, 2012 by Susan Simpson

            from

            The View From LL2

            Bear in mind that it was posted a year ago.

            As for the rest of your reply, I’ll need some sleep first before tacking it.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron

            As for the rest of your reply, I’ll need some sleep first before tacking it.

            No problem. I’m up late because I’m working on something for my blog.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            I think you’ll find this timeline more up-to-date . Let me know, either by commenting here or there, if there’s an event [with authority] that should be included.
            Also, if you can discern an approximate time for an item, I can add that too with a link to your argument. TIA

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “I think you’ll find this timeline more up-to-date .”

            When I try to comment there, using my WordPress.com account, it tells me I do not own that identity.

            You seem to have the 18 minute call lasting 20 minutes.

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Yep, that’s because of T mobiles rounding. that puts a variance of one minute on each end. The call could have started at any time within the minute and ended at any time within the other minute. So that’s correct as stated.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Also, because of call waiting, one call does not have to end for the next call to begin. Unlike land lines most cell phones come with call waiting included.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            For some reason WordPress decided it needed to insert a line break into

            http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/05/minute-by-minute-timeline-of-trayvon-martins-death/

            which means the link I tried to provide in non-all over the page fashion doesn’t work, so let’s see if this way did.

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Except you must remember that, you can’t take GZ’s word for anything, unless it can be independently confirmed. Where we once believed that the NEN call contain nothing but contemporaneous reporting, we’ve discovered that was not true. So, whatever GZ is the only witness of, it has to either be confirmed or suspect.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Except you must remember that, you can’t take GZ’s word for anything, unless it can be independently confirmed. Where we once believed that the NEN call contain nothing but contemporaneous reporting, we’ve discovered that was not true. So, whatever GZ is the only witness of, it has to either be confirmed or suspect.”

            Unless George was also carrying a sound effects generator with him that night, none of that has anything to do with the stuff we hear on the call other than his words, and that other stuff includes the pitch and timbre of his voice as he’s saying those words.

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            There are so many unexplained noises on the NEN call recordings, I’d have to figure it is more reasonable, GZ knew that Trayvon couldn’t get far, because GZ had assistants out there blocking Trayvon’s way and/or who would flush him out of any hiding place.
            All GZ had to do was wait a bit.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “There are so many unexplained noises on the NEN call recordings, I’d have to figure it is more reasonable, GZ knew that Trayvon couldn’t get far, because GZ had assistants out there blocking Trayvon’s way and/or who would flush him out of any hiding place.
            All GZ had to do was wait a bit.”

            So is Witness 8 omitting to tell about Trayvon talking about being herded by these “assistants”, or is Trayvon’s failure to notice them the proof that they exist?

            How does Zimmerman know in advance where Martin is going to go and by what route, and how does he signal to his henchman without us hearing any of it on the NEN call? Morse code flashes from the supposedly non-working flashlight? Smoke signals?

            When someone says the more reasonable explanation is–insert Giant Conspiracy Theory here–, perhaps it’s time to step back a bit and try to gain a fresh perspective.

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            You do this all the time, so here, let me show you what you’ve done.

            “There are so many unexplained noises on the NEN call recordings, I’d have to figure it is more reasonable, GZ knew that Trayvon couldn’t get far, because GZ had assistants out there blocking Trayvon’s way and/or who would flush him out of any hiding place.All GZ had to do was wait a bit.”

            So is Witness 8 omitting to tell about Trayvon talking about being herded by these “assistants”, or is Trayvon’s failure to notice them the proof that they exist?

            Why is it necessary for Trayvon to talk about these “assistants”?

            You are assuming things for which your only support is your ability to surmise that what you say must be true.

            Here: Trayvon did not tell DD about the 3 guys at 711, even though he waited 5 minutes and 30 seconds for them to finish their shopping and meet him outside, before he started back for home.

            So, why do you think that if TM felt trapped and/or confused about someone in the distance and turned back because of it, where is the mandate or thing you envision, that means he has to either tell someone or that witness 8 had to see it as well? Of course you can’t. at least not without making up some more stuff.

            How does Zimmerman know in advance where Martin is going to go and by what route, and how does he signal to his henchman without us hearing any of it on the NEN call? Morse code flashes from the supposedly non-working flashlight? Smoke signals?

            Well that’s easy, there is a possibility that GZ and his minions actually knew where Trayvon lived and had him set up to meet with the 3 stooges at the 711 as he reason for even going to the store that day. Of course, as I say this is pure speculation based on this store trip being an unlikely coincidence in my book. But, a coincidence that makes it even more unlikely, that he’d wait 30 seconds outside the 711 for some guys he didn’t know, to arrive as he was leaving, then wait 5 more minutes for them to come back outside before leaving for home. That, is rather odd behavior even for a coincidental meeting.

            As far as signaling, GZ has that small flashlight, it’s a very effective beacon in the dark, in fact, hold it in your fist and aim it, and it can’t be seen by anyone off to the side of you, they have to be within a few degrees of dead ahead.

            You are also ignoring the fact that GZ expects “thugs” to exit by the east gate. A guess such as that would be close enough to put his assistants in position near Brandy Greens house.

            When someone says the more reasonable explanation is–insert Giant Conspiracy Theory here–, perhaps it’s time to step back a bit and try to gain a fresh perspective.

            unitron

            When someone says that a theory is no good because they simply don’t have any good reason why it won’t work, they’ve wasted your time. It is not a good reason to disbelieve a conspiracy theory because of it’s size. Throughout history there have been conspiracies involving many tens of thousands and even millions of people. Think of the last two world wars. Think of the 100 years war. Think of the Roman empire, the Ottoman empire, they are all extreme conspiracies, gigantic conspiracies that were once only theories themselves.

            So, when you attempt to refute a conspiracy theory, the proper way to do it is not to dream up externals to add, but to work within it to show that it is relying on impractical or impossible or unlikely components. Not that it fails because you believe that someone would have to be told something. 😀

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            @Xena: This is an aside to your conversation with unitron.

            …or be close enough to overhear him, since at that point he most likely did not know where Trayvon was.

            This part is a conundrum; he doesn’t want the guy he is chasing, to have his address? Why? If GZ is afraid of him, he has an easy solution, simply go back to his truck. While on the other hand, the kid is fleeing, why would he fear that, if the kid escaped, he’d comeback later to seek retribution? GZ has never once, in all of his 911 or NEN calls, ever shown any fear of retribution, even when the people he was harassing were neighbors who knew how to get ahold of him, and/or his address. So why this sudden concern?

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr

            If GZ is afraid of him, he has an easy solution, simply go back to his truck.

            Right on!!!

            What’s more, if GZ is afraid of the kid, and believes he is within hearing range, why not keep dispatch on the phone until he is safely back in his truck?

            So why this sudden concern?

            That’s a good question.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        I know that in your answer above, you did not think he was looking for an address [or that statement by him was a whopper]

        That is why I just took your comment to the next step and asked you this latest question.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I asked Unitron to fish or cut bait in the previous thread but he or she conveniently never gets the notifications when anyone asks exactly what his stance is on the case.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Ah. I correct myself. Unitron did finally answer my question – perhaps he or she is one of those very rare people who is still on the fence , waiting for all the evidence (and I still think perhaps enjoys stirring the pots everywhere, at least a little!)

        “So what and who do you support…”

        The right of society to know that the defendant received a fair trial.

        That has to include a vigorous defense to be seen by all as fair.

        I got interested in this because of the “solving the puzzle and figuring out what really happened” aspect (abetted more than in most cases because of the much greater than usual disclosures) and I’ve never made a secret of that.

        Last spring and early summer this was one of the sites which was good for discussing the various aspects of the case which is why I started reading and posting here.

        unitron

  27. Mary Davis says:

    @ Xena. If I were you, I would make a deal with Unitron. If he does not answer YAHTC’s question, (a question that I would love to see him answer), you will take the advice of Racerrodig and ignore him. I notice he only baits certain ones. Notice he never answered SearchingMinds question either. Believe me, if he is ignored, he will eventually get the picture. Now Unitron, I know you will try to do the same with me, but I know only too well how to ignore. Enough of the distractions. Lets keep this about justice for Trayvon please.

    • Xena says:

      @Mary Davis

      @ Xena. If I were you, I would make a deal with Unitron. If he does not answer YAHTC’s question, (a question that I would love to see him answer), you will take the advice of Racerrodig and ignore him.

      But I’m having such fun. 🙂

      You are correct about him having certain ones to pick on, because I responded to someone else and along came Unitron with nonsense questions. But I’m in a good mood. 🙂

    • texad says:

      @ Mary Davis Yes. Yes. And yes. I agree this should be kept within the parameter of justice for Trayvon Martin. Distractions diminish that goal. As I type this I am thinking about a great man of peace who was murdered 45 years ago almost to the day. April 4, 1968. The day Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered. That whole movement-and that peaceful man-also had many distractions hurled their way. One of them was a photographer who was also an FBI informant, i.e. an agent provocateur. He was such a familiar face in King’s circle that he was welcomed into many of their strategy meetings. I’m betting he took every opportunity to offer little sarcastic comments. Or negative and untrue comments about someone whom King trusted. Sound familiar?

      You can read more about him here:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/14/photographer-ernest-withers-fbi-informer

  28. bettykath says:

    “Bernie de la Rionda might want to consider seeking the court’s permission to wait until the trial starts before it discloses information that identifies Dee Dee and any other witness for whom there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be subjected to the same intimidating criminal acts.”

    The defense already knows who she is. They’ve known her name for some time and they met her at the deposition. So I guess this means that her identifying information would continue to be kept confidential until the trial.

    • ks says:

      Yes bettykath I think that’s what that means. The parties know who she is but the general public doesn’t. Imo, given the harassment and doxing of the other girls, it makes sense to keep her identity out of the public until trial.

    • Jun says:

      I worry for her safety even at and after trial

      The Fogens and the right wing wackos are just…

      • ladystclaire says:

        I too worry about her safety after this trial and, I feel that she shouldn’t have to show up in person to testify. the way I see it, if they could allow the lying family of Fogen to testify via a telephone hookup, she should be afforded the same.

        There is a way for them to get around her not having to show her face and, that is what they should do. these people are seeking to shut her up and, they mean to harm this girl. they will especially be out to harm her if the POS who they know committed a murder, when he shot Trayvon. they won’t stop until they harm her or worse. YES, she is at risk here and it’s up to the state of Florida to assure her safety.

    • SearchingMind says:

      “So I guess this means that her identifying information would continue to be kept confidential until the trial”.

      Not just until the trial, but during and thereafter. The goal of not making DeeDee’s info public is not limited to making sure that she appears and testifies at trial but also to protect her fundamental Constitutional rights to be safe and live freely thereafter. Should O’Mara make the info know to him public after the trial, he shall have made himself liable for emotional, physical and/or material damage DeeDee may suffer as a result. O’Mara’s status as defense attorney provides him no immunity in that case.

    • Actually, I thought that W8’s information was given to O’Mara with the redacted bio’s. When Judge Nelson returned, she made very clear what was and was not blacked out, but W8’s name and address was provided IIRC, I might be wrong.

  29. acemayo says:

    Allyn,
    There is one very reliable witness to the events leading up to the shooting. Call him Witness.G
    That witness is George Zimmerman speaking in the NEN call. He tells it as he sees it and when he sees it. It’s recorded in real time. There is no need to rely on memory. Everything he relates is time-stamped by an objective and automated process.
    There is one major witness whose account of events leading up to the shooting is completely unreliable. When run against the reliable account by Witness.G, the credibility of this witness is shot to hell. Call him Witness.Z
    That witness is George Zimmerman speaking after the event.
    View the Walk-through video and compare it with the NEN call.
    Witness.Z’s walk-through description of his conversation with the dispatcher is wildly different to the actual conversation. It is blatantly self-serving. It invents whole sections of conversation. The BLDR/DeeDee interview is a model of precision when compared with Zimmerman’s surreal memory of any part of the entire NEN call.
    His walk-through description of Martins movements is impossible to match to the geography and the timing of the NEN call.
    The crowning glory of this utter shambles of a witness account is where he relates that at the end of the call that he suggested to the dispatcher that he meet the patrol at the mailboxes – that he immediately set off for his truck and was attacked some 20 to 30 seconds later while on that walk.
    The reality is that in the NEN call, it was the dispatcher who suggested the meet at the mailboxes and it is Zimmerman who initially agrees and then changes to the patrol ringing him to find out where he will be.
    The timeline shows that 2 minutes and 30 seconds elapse between the NEN call ending and the struggle breaking out.
    2 minutes and 30 seconds is a major amount of time in the circumstances. It is more than half of the duration of the entire NEN call.
    Consider the amount of information that he describes in the walk-through as corresponding to the NEN call’s 4 minutes+
    Witness.Z’s entire account of the 2 minutes and 30 seconds after the NEN call ends is that he walked towards his truck for about 30 seconds.
    Witness.Z is grossly unreliable. This is not opinion. This is demonstrable fact. Listen to the call. Watch the video and compare.
    In the credibility stakes, Witness.Z trails way behind DeeDee.
    .
    Are we to believe that Witness.Z, who has proved incredible up to the start of the fight, will suddenly snap into credibility mode?
    Seems not.
    His account is that there is exchange of “You got a problem?” – “No, I don’t” – “You do now” at which stage Martin punches him on the nose, knocking him to the ground near to the T-Junction. He says that from that point on, Martin straddled him and continually pounded his head on the concrete, while also punching his face.
    Earwitnesses tell of a much longer exchange of perhaps six back and forths.
    The first eyewitness sees them on the grass about 60 feet South, both horizontal and wrestling. His last sight of them has them moving like that towards the concrete path. He does not see the final movement of some 10 feet North to where the body ends up. Nobody witness that phase. Nobody see what happens in the seconds leading to the shot or the moment of the shot.
    Zimmerman has two small cuts on the back of his head and a bruised nose.
    There are some very dramatic images of blood, but all that is underlying that is the above. I’ve seen simple nosebleeds that looked far more alarming.
    This is consistent with the back of his head being in contact with something and his nose being in contact with something.
    The extent of these injuries is not consistent with his account of the scale and seriousness of the fight.
    The place where they end up is not consistent with his description of the fight.
    There are no marks or DNA traces on Martin that are consistent with Zimmerman’s description of the nature, scale and seriousness of the fight. He has a scratch on one finger. Where’s all the blood from him pressing on Zimmerman’s bloody nose while trying to suffocate him?
    From start to finish the story of Witness.Z does not stand up to scrutiny, beginning with a woeful mismatch to the evidence of Witness.G
    Why on earth should anyone give any credibility to his account of the final seconds of the fight?
    .
    What’s this about a “voluntary lie-detector test”?
    Zimmerman specifically requested and obtained a voice stress test. This is a completely different technique. Let the experts do their stuff in court. I’m saying nothing about it.
    He had to know about such things and would be aware of the limitations.
    Watch the video of the preparation and conduct of that test. Think about the particular two questions. Think about his demeanor as he gave an account of events that very clearly did not match the objective evidence of the NEN call.
    He appears to sincerely believe what he is saying. Yet what he is saying is demonstrably not matching what happened in the NEN call and for 2 minutes 30 seconds after it. There are also clear problems with his description of the fight.
    .
    Putting to one side his self-serving and non-credible account of events..
    Zimmerman followed Martin into that dark area after complaining about assholes who always get away. His tone was aggressive. He swore about the f**king goons.
    After the call ended he spent 2 minutes and 30 seconds searching out trouble. He found trouble or trouble found him.
    Your self-defence parable does not work.
    This is not a woman in a revealing dress.
    This is a naked woman going into a bar while shouting “Anyone want a piece?” – except that she is naked apart from carrying a gun.

  30. fauxmccoy says:

    follow

  31. Tzar says:

    Bryan Stevenson: We need to talk about an injustice

  32. ay2z says:

    One use for a video of the deposition of a protected witness, such as w8,

    It’s not about what this witness says or answer in deposition, although that is important. I think they want to have the video analysed gesture by gesture, breath by breath, for reading into what she says, or what words, names cause stress or other signals they can use to push her in trial. It’s not about the answers to questions, but how to manipulate her emotionally and a video tape, with questions geared to eliciting emotions, stress, comfort levels, and professional psych help to break her down at trial.

    That might be their new frontier.

    • ay2z says:

      How to bring out a reaction, say from stress or discomfort, that will let a jury doubt her, if she hesitates in the wrong place, or comes across as this or that, the video will allow them to take their deposition to people not allowed at the deposition.

      • ay2z says:

        They would have seen what the body language experts said about their client, so fair is fair– except that going on Hannity by your own decision, supported by lawyer beside you, controlling the questions, having your interviewer able to edit to your benefit and in support of your position.

        He volunteered.

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      “One use for a video of the deposition of a protected witness, such as w8…”

      Another, perfectly legitimate, use is to be able to use the recording to review what the witness said without having to wait several days for a written copy of the deposition from the stenographer.

      unitron

      • ks says:

        Awwww such a shame, the possible, maybe, could have been, might have been several days delay, AFTER WAITING OVER A YEAR TO DEPOSE w8, would have been sooooo unbearable for a defense team who has done little except to try and delay the process. Yeah…very legitimate…right…

      • ay2z says:

        What do you mean wait a few days for the copy from a stenographer? Doesn’t happen like that, doesn’t happen at all without a court order to provide a transcription of a deposition.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “What do you mean wait a few days for the copy from a stenographer? Doesn’t happen like that, doesn’t happen at all without a court order to provide a transcription of a deposition”

          So if the prosecution takes a witnesses’s deposition, they too have to wait on a court order before being able to read a transcription of what they just heard?

          unitron

      • ks says:

        So….what? Your “possible wait of a few or several days…” is a red herring.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “So….what? Your “possible wait of a few or several days…” is a red herring.”

          After ay2z implied that the defense’s desire for video recordings of the depositions could only have a nefarious purpose, I pointed out a perfectly legitimate reason for their wanting them.

          unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron

            After ay2z implied that the defense’s desire for video recordings of the depositions could only have a nefarious purpose, I pointed out a perfectly legitimate reason for their wanting them.

            What purpose has the defense given?

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “What purpose has the defense given?”

            As there is no requirement that they give any, or otherwise justify or explain their wish for video recordings of the depositions to the state or the public, they probably haven’t given any.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @unitron

            As there is no requirement that they give any, or otherwise justify or explain their wish for video recordings of the depositions to the state or the public, they probably haven’t given any.

            Why did they file a motion about it then? I mean, that is your reason for discussing this issue, right?

      • Jun says:

        That is what the audio recording is for, Einstein

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “That is what the audio recording is for, Einstein”

          You mean the one made by the stenographer and kept by the stenographer to aid in producing the final typed up version of the deposition?

          unitron

      • ks says:

        No, you didn’t point out a “perfectly legitimate” reason why the defense wanted to videotape the deposition of w8. You offered a weak rational that didn’t pass the barest scrutiny. The possibly of having to wait a few days for transcriptions, after waiting over a year to depose w8, is not a “perfectly legitimate” reason to videotape the deposition.

      • ay2z says:

        I stand corrected, I thought that depositions did not normally have transcriptions provided to the parties. Maybe I was thinking of transcriptions not normally made public.

        Maybe video taped depositions can be published because that would belong to the defense to use as they see fit for their murder defendant?

    • Rachael says:

      That would be totally sick and disgusting,.but then that would not be new for them, just a new low.

    • ChrisNY~Laurie says:

      If they were to have videotaped W8’s depo, who has legal rights to that video? In other words, who can sell that video?

    • Malisha says:

      None of that is going to work.

      If DeeDee is uncomfortable, so be it.
      If DeeDee is upset and emotional, so be it.
      If DeeDee is defensive or hesitant as a witness, so be it.

      What DeeDee already said about what Trayvon said is on the record. It is credible. She did not change her story. It is supported and corroborated by the forensic evidence that she had no way of knowing or understanding when she made her statements the first time around. She had no independent knowledge of the geography or structure of RTL. She had no way, and no source, to make up what she said. Her phone call just gives the lie to the fairy tale told by Fogen. And he has stuffed his own foot into his own mouth so many times, so hard, so stupidly, that he cannot risk getting on the stand to contradict a thing the girl will say.

      He’s soooooooooo goose-cooked.
      He was trying to be goose-stepped, and instead, he got
      goose-cooked.

      Stick an apple in his mouth, he’s done.

    • yes I never thought of that! your right of course. they’d also love to use it to degrade and mock her during trial and try to embarrass her.

      BDLR knew what their game was. he’s gonna do whatever he can to protect her, he’s not letting anything happen to a 100000000% innocent *witness to a HORRIFIC crime*!
      he probably said hell no! GTFOOH omar, don’t be stupid, you can’t be serious! go do another TV spot and leave the lawyering to us professionals!

      and BTW, anyone who thinks there is a legitimate reason to video tape her doesn’t realize that the lawyers wouldn’t need to wait for a transcript! they’ll have it the next day!
      and they were just there asking their own questions!
      it’s not like there’s a million questions they can ask her. can’t they read their own notes?

    • leander22 says:

      I think they want to have the video analysed gesture by gesture, breath by breath, for reading into what she says, or what words, names cause stress or other signals they can use to push her in trial.

      You seem to have looked at the expert’s self-presentation too:

      Why videotape a deposition?
      A professionally recorded videotaped deposition accurately depicts the witness’ voice, appearance and demeanor. Communication goes far beyond the written word. Recording testimony by video captures body language, mood, temperament and more.

      I don’t know how often listening to the Serino/Singleton, interviews I wished I could see him.

      Strictly I think the idea is relying on an expert video presentation for the jury. The focus is clearly on the family and DeeDee. In court they will have no substitutes, that is: evil media and “handler Crump”, they will need to circle in on DeeDee and the family.

  33. Jun says:

    All Omara will do is waste more court time by trying to recuse the judge

    Whether successful or not, I feel he will do that

    It’s all a strategy to wane the trial for continuance

    But I do agree with protecting the witnesses and fining Omara

    I mean, he did collude with the defendant regarding the passport and the funds

    • Two sides to a story says:

      That might just upset the applecart. I’d rather see OM stumble right on through the trial his client loses.

    • Xena says:

      I hope that Judge Nelson asks the defense why they questioned Witness 8’s hospital records in the first place.

      And, if Judge Nelson asks that, I will count the number of stutters that come from O’Mara and/or West.

      • Jun says:

        They were told by the nuthouse I believe and it is a fairly accurate theory

        • Xena says:

          @Jun.

          They were told by the nuthouse I believe…

          Yes, but Judge Nelson doesn’t know that. An honest answer from O’Mara or West would give further support to BDLR’s allegation that O’Mara takes legal advice from “anonymous internet trolls.”

          …and it is a fairly accurate theory

          Accurate, but not relevant. It still doesn’t prove that GZ killed Trayvon in self-defense. What it does prove is that O’Mara has wasted lots of time on the theory, knowing he has a date for trial that he consistently claims he is not ready for.

      • Jun says:

        Well the state are legally sensible and reasonable in a human way in that, at most, it is potential impeachment material, however, it is at most circumstantial character evidence, which is generally not allowable, from what I read

        It seems like a lot of hoopla for absolutely nothing, the DD hospital or somewhere issue

        • Xena says:

          @Jun.

          It seems like a lot of hoopla for absolutely nothing, the DD hospital or somewhere issue

          That it is. IMO, the State is not going to allow DeeDee to be asked anything by the defense regarding what she did after 2/26/12, without objection based on relevance. When the State interviewed her, it was not to discover whether she attended Trayvon’s wake and/or funeral. That question appeared to present itself for the sake of showing empathy.

      • Jun says:

        Well that is where Omara hits a dead end

        Due to the admission by party opponent rule, if Omara attacks Deedee in any way, about an immaterial issue, the state can easily show that Fogen lied repeatedly and that Omara colluded with the defendant in regards to hiding of passport and money via structuring and misrepresenting at the first bond hearing

        Then Omara’s argument could be used against him because by him saying Deedee is not credible because she allegedly lied about going to the hospital because she wanted to save Sybrina’s feelings that she could not attend the wake for whatever her reasons may be, he can not tell the judge and jury that he is credible when he and Fogen lied and schemed the court on material issues regarding bond

        Considering the jailhouse calls and what was said, Omara would either have to own up to the money and passport issue or tell the court, that his defendant is not credible, otherwise, he can be seen as a hypocrite and losing credibility nonetheless

        So it probably is not even wise for Omara to go there, because it is a pot calling a kettle black

      • Just like when West couldn’t answer the relevance question lol…he never got that from the nutters.

    • ladystclaire says:

      O’mara and co should not be allowed to have another judge replaced on this case. this would be in the excessive and, it wouldn’t be right for the Florida justice system to bow to Fogen’s every demand, when he gets a judge not to his liking. he shouldn’t be allowed to judge shop. after all he is a *CRIMINAL* who has committed a murder and, he should be treated as such!

      • Two sides to a story says:

        But he has to be treated as innocent until proven guilty and the court has to act as fairly as possible in that regard.

      • groans says:

        I doubt it would be possible for the killer to find a judge “to his liking”!

        And merely disliking a judge’s rulings won’t get him anywhere in his judge-shopping dreams.

  34. ay2z says:

    The next scheduled hearing WAS for tomorrow. Less than 2 1.2 months to trial, and it seems, by Judge Nelson’s comments re: how much time she held open, that very little of that was needed.

    What is to do yet? All expert witnesses need to provide opinions? All depositions done, all witness names filed (extension granted), what about hearings to argue admissibility of evidence?

    Is there really a lot of time? What is the real hold up for the defense, if not W6, and seems Judge Nelson won’t buy that as a delay excuse any longer.

    Where does O’Mara go from here, excluding his trial by media jury pool poisoning?

    Will JUdge Nelson get a feel for the public opinion before deciding to grant time or other needs for the defense? Public opinion and reelection considerations?

    • Rachael says:

      Well the outhouse clan thinks because tomorrow was cancelled an aquital is coming. LOL

      • Xena says:

        @Rachael

        Well the outhouse clan thinks because tomorrow was cancelled an aquital is coming. LOL

        SMH. Acquittal is a jury’s decision. See what I mean about their ignorance?

      • Two sides to a story says:

        *rolls eyes*

      • @Xena!

        I’ve never seen such asinine bs in my life. They can _______ and moan all they want about the Professor but they read his article on Bernie’s Epic Smackdown and it has gotten to them. Bernie got their attention. No doubt about it. I swear, they are shook. They KNOW MOM f’d up about the funds and the passport. Now they’ve turned on him fiercely. I would laugh out loud if MOM gave all of them the Della treatment.

        • Xena says:

          @SG2. On thing about most Zidiots is that they lack basis understanding of courts and the law. I so appreciate the professor explaining Brady.

          They KNOW MOM f’d up about the funds and the passport.

          O’Mara didn’t bother to verify the money in Paypal, neither if GZ applied for a replacement passport, anymore than the State requested proof that witness 8 went to the hospital. The State actually has no reason to question witness 8 about why she didn’t attend Trayvon’s funeral, but the defense had very good reason to verify money accessible to GZ to pay bond.

          Now they’ve turned on him fiercely. I would laugh out loud if MOM gave all of them the Della treatment.

          Della — gotta love her. 🙂 O’Mara is too dependent on Zidiots to do that. He does just the opposite.

      • ay2z says:

        Well it IS coming. Full a qua all and the outhousers (don’t tell them) are right. They will be partying it up tonight and for the rest of the month,, booze free flowing. Imagine, and they don’t invite us to console our feelings.]

        They won’t have to pay so much attention now, and hit the booze more enthusiastically, while we stay in the dry belt.

        Woe is us. We could appeal to their better natures and let them tell us ‘told you so’ and maybe they will let us buy them some drinks to curry favor with the winning side.

        (you think they’re soused enough in celebration already to buy this cow-daddy crap I’m tossing ??? 😉

      • Malisha says:

        They think Judge Nelson is going to say, “Oh we can’t possibly put this guy on trial; we will be so embarrassed to even try!” If she doesn’t say that, he can simply get her recused, right? Or maybe he’ll have to “go in the same direction” as her? I guess it depends upon how suspicious she is. She doesn’t look like an athlete. I don’t know what her deal is.

    • ladystclaire says:

      If O’mara had been doing his job instead of being a media whore, he would have had the time to prepare for this trial, which he agreed to the start date of June 10, 2013. now he is crying about not being ready and, he has no one to blame but himself. also, he has been spending time on racist internet sites taking orders and, legal advise from a bunch of *IMBECILES* therefore, he is getting what he deserves.

      NO DELAYS FOR THIS IDIOT!

  35. Unabogie says:

    Question about Florida rules on video depositions? I’m arguing with someone on another forum and the issue has come up regarding Rule 1.310.

    http://phonl.com/fl_law/rules/frcp/frcp1310.htm

    I’d like to get your take on how the State could have legally declined to allow a video deposition if the rule states:

    (4) Any deposition may be recorded by videotape without leave of the court or stipulation of the parties, provided the deposition is taken in accordance with this subdivision.

    (A) Notice. A party intending to videotape a deposition shall state in the notice that the deposition is to be videotaped and shall give the name and address of the operator.

    Thanks in advance!

    • Xena says:

      @Unabogie

      …provided the deposition is taken in accordance with this subdivision.

      A through E of the subdivision must be complied with. We do not know whether all were.

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        “A through E of the subdivision must be complied with.”

        If you refer to 4A though 4E, B, C, and D are impossible if the videotaping is prevented before it starts, although A was done and since the guy showed up they probably had to pay him even though he was prevented from doing his job, so E might be said to have been complied with.

        You cannot have a stenographic record (B) in addition to (also) the video record if you are prevented from making the video record.

        You cannot “(i) identify the style of the action, (ii) state the date, and (iii) swear the witness” (C) on camera if the camera is banned.

        And no one can “take custody of and be responsible for the safeguarding of” (D) a non-existent recording, and the non-existence part pretty well settles the issue of copies as well.

        or did you mean a through e?

        unitron

        • Xena says:

          @Unitron. Did you not read the part of my comment where I stated we do not know whether there was compliance with all the subdivision?

          Your attempt to divert from what I didn’t say in attempt to argue unnecessarily is noted.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Did you not read the part of my comment where I stated we do not know whether there was compliance with all the subdivision? ”

            A copy of the final notice of deposition is available online which makes it clear that A was complied with.

            As I pointed out, B, C, and D CANNOT be complied with if the video recording is prevented from coming into being in the first place.

            They do not, cannot, happen in advance as A can, anymore than the videographer can play back the recording before it is made.

            Preventing the recording makes B, C, and D impossible to do.

            Therefore saying it’s not known if they complied with it does nothing to answer or address Unabogie’s original question about how the state could have prevented the recording in spite of 1.310.

            It would seem that you read as far as “(4) Any deposition may be recorded by videotape without leave of the court or stipulation of the parties, provided the deposition is taken in accordance with this subdivision.”, noticed that there was some more past the part Unabogie mentioned, (4)A, and apparently didn’t bother to actually read what B through E said, or you could have seen for yourself that B, C, and D only apply if a recording is actually made.

            Whatever the reason the state was able to prevent video recording, it wasn’t anything to do with B, C, and D.

            A had been complied with, and E doesn’t say you have to pay in advance, and Bernie doesn’t have a time machine that would have let him travel back to the start of the morning and say B, C, and D will not have been complied with a few hours from now so I’m forbidding the recording in the first place.

            As for E, I still say the guy got paid regardless, unless O’Mara uses him so often on other cases that the guy decided to cut him a break and make it up on future business.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron. Your argument is with Florida legislatures — not me.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “@Unitron. Your argument is with Florida legislatures — not me.”

            They don’t seem to be the ones not understanding chronological order.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron

            They don’t seem to be the ones not understanding chronological order.

            Are you saying that you don’t understand the chronological order of the statute they wrote? I mean, it is you asking questions based on your interpretation of the statute, right?

      • Momma says:

        There were some discussions on another board that I am on that the “Notice of Taking Deposition” did not include the name and address of the operator. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Notice%20of%20Taking%20Deposition%20March%2013.pdf
        However, the defense Motion for Sanctions included one that did include that information as Exhibit B.
        I am not enough of a legalist to know what to make of that.

      • groans says:

        Y’all, this sounds like classic trolling to me, unless demonstrated otherwise.

        Unabogie’s question is too vague and abstract to answer in any meaningful way. I’ve requested additional information from him/her, below – specifically a link (or links) to the argument on the other forum.

        I’d recommend dropping any disruptive or speculative conversation until we see if Unabogie is willing to be more transparent and forthcoming. If he/she is, THEN there might be something worth discussing.

        JMO.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @momma

        Interesting. The ones that were filed with the court don’t give the name and addres of the video operator on DD’s, but it does on the one for the Martin/Fulton family.

        If they screwed up themselves I’ll be lmao.

      • Unabogie says:

        Well, thanks, and that’s part of what I’m trying to ascertain. I’d like to know if in fact any of the provisions were not complied with. Also, I was wondering if there were any other conflicting rules elsewhere in Florida law that could come into play here. BLDR certainly didn’t take this motion seriously and took it as an opportunity to mock O’Mara. If BLDR is in the wrong, I’d expect Judge Nelson to not only chastise him for not allowing the video recording, but to do it as well for not taking the issue seriously. If O’Mara is just blowing smoke, then Judge Nelson would let them know that.

        Regarding whether I’m trolling (and this is not to you, Xena), that’s kind of hilarious if you read what I’ve written elsewhere on this (Google is your friend, groans). The number one thing that irks me about Talk Left is that they censor and delete and shout down anything that challenges their beliefs, so they’ve turned it into an echo chamber. I see the same dynamic here sometimes, so let me just they this: I don’t believe George’s story and I don’t think he killed in valid self-defense. At the same time, I believe everyone, even people I don’t like, deserve a fair trial and I don’t support short-cuts just because I personally think he’s guilty.

        Also, to quote President Obama, “I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak”. I want to understand the law before I jump to conclusions that BLDR is always right and O’Mara is always wrong.

        Hopefully that clears that up and we can discuss this actual issue and not me and my motives. My motives are to understand the law as it pertains to this case.

        Thanks.

        • Xena says:

          @Unabogie

          BLDR certainly didn’t take this motion seriously and took it as an opportunity to mock O’Mara.

          Please, refresh my memory. Was O’Mara’s allegations about the denial of taking depositions via video included in his motion for sanctions? IIRC, that is the only recently filed and pending motion that BDLR has replied to.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          If you read carefully, you will see that 1.310 (b)(4)B, C, and D cannot occur before and unless video recording happens.

          Therefore they cannot be required to be fulfilled in advance any more than the videographer can be required to play the recording for the court before the recording is made.

          unitron

      • Unabogie says:

        Ok, I think I understand what may have happened. Here is the list of “notices of deposition”.

        http://www.flcourts18.org/main/page.php?129

        One filed for the 14th of March concerned Tracy Martin and 3 other witnesses.

        http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Notice%20of%20Taking%20Deposition%20March%2014.pdf

        It includes the required info from Rule 1.310 4(a)

        But the one for Witness 8 does not.

        http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Notice%20of%20Taking%20Deposition%20March%2013.pdf

        And so Mark O’Mara merely screwed up his filing and then tried to blame BLDR for his own mistake.

        WOW.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

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

          shows the draft notices of the taking of depostitions on the 13th, 14th, and 15th, sent to the prosecution on the 6th, each of which includes the intention to make a video recording, and it shows the final or formal notices for those three days, sent to the prosecution on the 11th, each of which includes the intent to have the recording done by Ron Fleming Video Productions, Inc.

          unitron

      • Unabogie says:

        Ok, last post on this subject. In the defense’s motion for sanctions, they post two exhibits:

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

        But you’ll notice that their Exhibit A and Exhibit B don’t match the actual notice that was filed with the court. And also, in both exhibits, while one of them does name the videographer, the other one doesn’t. And neither of them list the address, which the rule requires.

        So yeah, O’Mara just did some seriously shoddy work here.

      • Jun says:

        It does not matter anyways, the argument regarding this matter is moot, because, Unaboogie is quoting civil procedure. This is a criminal procedure as part of discovery depositions, which would go under 3.220. There was no court order or agreement for videotaped depositions of the aforementioned parties, therefore, the argument is moot.

      • groans says:

        @ Unabogie, regarding:

        Regarding whether I’m trolling (and this is not to you, Xena), that’s kind of hilarious if you read what I’ve written elsewhere on this (Google is your friend, groans).

        Yes, Google is my friend. But what’s actually hilarious is your expectation that someone would Google “Unabogie” for the purpose of establishing your “bona fides” – or for any other reason, for that matter.

        You can be as flippant as you want, Unabogie, but the fact is we have had trolls here before who arrive all “friendly,” with some “question” and a tale about an “argument on another forum.” (And, of course, they’re always indignant if anyone dares to doubt their irreproachable intentions.)

        BTW, where is the link to your argument on another forum that you mentioned?

      • groans says:

        @ Xena – Regarding Unabogie’s statement:

        BLDR certainly didn’t take this motion seriously and took it as an opportunity to mock O’Mara. If BLDR is in the wrong, I’d expect Judge Nelson to not only chastise him for not allowing the video recording, but to do it as well for not taking the issue seriously.

        Unabogie is confusing two separate motions for sanctions that the defense filed.

        The first motion for sanctions (3/25/13) raises alleged failures to provide “exculpatory” evidence (W8’s “lies”) and FDLE and FBI reports.

        The second motion for sanctions (3/26/13) raises alleged violations with respect to the deposition videotaping issue.

        BDLR responded to the first motion but, to my knowledge, has not yet responded to the second motion.

      • Unabogie says:

        I’m not confusing anything. I’m asking a specific question regarding a specific allegation from the defense. I think it’s ridiculous to challenge people as to their “motives” when they ask a question. If someone comes here and demonstrates they only want to troll, then fine. But come on, now. There was zero reason to react this way and plenty of reasons for all of us to understand the law as it pertains to the allegations. Seriously, who wants to live in an echo chamber? I’m interested in knowing the facts, and learning about the law, so I asked a simple question. Thanks to Xena and Jun for trying to explain.

        • Xena says:

          @Unabogie

          I’m not confusing anything. I’m asking a specific question regarding a specific allegation from the defense. I think it’s ridiculous to challenge people as to their “motives” when they ask a question.

          You do realize that you posted this in the thread as a response to me??? If you are responding on the blog (as opposed to email notifications), remember to go up in the thread until you see “Reply” to the left of a comment. It will also help if you quote what you are responding to.

      • Unabogie says:

        Sorry, in Chrome, your post is the only one that shows a “reply” button and the rest all look part of the same reply. Apologies.

        • Xena says:

          @Unabogie. No apology necessary. When I first started posting here, it took me several weeks to figure it out. Then, because my interests continued, I started clicking the “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.” There can be numerous email notifications, but it’s the most convenient way for me to navigate the blog.

    • ay2z says:

      If parties don’t need to stipulate, does that mean that they do not have to agree and only one party has to agree? That does not sound right at all, and one side could use the video taping as an intimidation tactic, embarrass, or cause the witness to shut down.

    • groans says:

      @ Unabotie, regarding:

      I’m arguing with someone on another forum and the issue has come up regarding Rule 1.310.

      [Link omitted.]

      I’d like to get your take on how the State could have legally declined to allow a video deposition ….

      Your question is too broad and abstract for us to blindly “feed arguments” to you. Legal questions are always analyzed within some context. No appellate court or lawyer worth his/her salt would declare any “take” on a legal issue in a vacuum (i.e., without any context).

      Please provide a link (or links) to your arguments and your opponents’ responses on that other forum. Particularly important, I believe, are the points of debate that led up to the issue you mention.

      • Unabogie says:

        This is regarding the motion O’Mara filed that purported that the State violated Rule 1.310 and should have allowed a video deposition.

        • Xena says:

          @Unabogie. Just realized something. Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure rely on Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for the taking of depositions. However, under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, there are additional rules for the taking of depositions by video, including those of “Sensitive Witnesses” that include witnesses under the age of 16 and witnesses with “fragile emotional strength.”

          The Rules provide that the court may order that such video depositions be taken in the presence of the trial judge or magistrate. Don’t know, but maybe this is why the State refused to provide witnesses for video taped depositions. Maybe their position is that the parents of the victim and DeeDee are “fragile.”

          IF that is true, then it would be the responsibility of the defense to motion the court for video taping their depositions in the presence of the trial judge or a magistrate.

          http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/BDFE1551AD291A3F85256B29004BF892/$FILE/Criminal.pdf

      • Jun says:

        Criminal procedures are under 3.220

        You are quoting Civil Procedure which has different rules

      • Jun says:

        You also got to remember that depositions also fall under the rules of evidence in criminal procedure and it was already established that witnesses for a crime of a violent offense may object and limit what they do or say in regards to information

        and lastly, it is well written that people are allowed to say yes or no, so them saying no is a simple objection, and is even written in the rules under 3.220

        Omara never got any confirmation or agreement regarding the manner of videotaping, nor did he ask, he just ordered the videotaping and notified the opposing party at the last second, where the only chance to object would have been then and there when Omara arrived and while such motion is pending, the manner of which the deposition is taken will be limited as to what the objecting party says

        In easier terms, the witnesses and the state said no

      • Unabogie says:

        Thanks, guys!

    • Jun says:

      Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

      See where it says “civil”

      This issue is “criminal”

    • leander22 says:

      Unabomba, sorry Unabogie.

      I am not completely sure, but it looks pretty similar to what happened although it follows (8) which addresses minors, but that must be b (8). I am more familiar with the method of my native laws:

      (d) Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination. At any time during the taking of the deposition, on motion of a party or of the deponent and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, or that objection and instruction to a deponent not to answer are being made in violation of rule 1.310(c), the court in which the action is pending or the circuit court where the deposition is being taken may order the officer conducting the examination to cease forthwith from taking the deposition or may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition under rule 1.280(c). If the order terminates the examination, it shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action is pending. Upon demand of any party or the deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a motion for an order. The provisions of rule 1.380(a) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.

      It seems BDLR entered the motion to not allow a video deposition, thus somehow to “limit examination”. Strictly I do not understand why he did not file some type of urgent motion when he learned about defense intentions.

      Concerning unitron. I doubt it takes long to finish the typescript. I know ladies that that do several pages in a couple of minutes. The most fast typing ladies I have ever met, work either for attorneys or for court. That the witness can review the transcript and add or change something, suggests a rather speedy production to me.

      (e) Witness Review. If the testimony is transcribed, the transcript shall be furnished to the witness for examination and shall be read to or by the witness unless the examination and reading are waived by the witness and by the parties. Any changes in form or substance that the witness wants to make shall be listed in writing by the officer with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for statement of the reasons given by the witness for making the changes. The changes shall be attached to the transcript. It shall then be signed by the witness unless the parties waived the signing or the witness is ill, cannot be found, or refuses to sign. If the transcript is not signed by the witness within a reasonable time after it is furnished to the witness, the officer shall sign the transcript and state on the transcript the waiver, illness, absence of the witness, or refusal to sign with any reasons given therefor. The deposition may then be used as fully as though signed unless the court holds that the reasons given for the refusal to sign require rejection of the deposition wholly or partly, on motion under rule 1.330(d)(4).

      • fauxmccoy says:

        leander – in my prime i owned my own word processing business in san francisco doing transcription and resume services – i typed 120 wpm. in my old age, i’ve slowed down to 90, i type without my glasses and am legally blind. i should probably spend a bit more time proof reading, but y’all don’t pay me enough. 😉

      • Malisha says:

        Leander, when I was a legal secretary I typed 113 words per minute BEFORE computers — that is, typing on a manual typewriter without automatic self-correction, and when mistakes meant you either had to throw it out and start over or you had to correct it carefully some other time-consuming way. Typing doesn’t really take all that long, especially nowadays.

        One time my boss yelled out from the inner office, “You type like lightening!” I shouted out, “I’m just doing that to show off.” She responded, “But you ARE doing it, aren’t you?”

        Faster than me, in high school, was a young man who was training to be a concert pianist. He was incredibly fast. Unfortunately, he was drafted, and then killed in Vietnam so we never heard him play on the big Circuit. What a waste.

        How my mind has wandered this evening.

        Hoodies up, Typists for Trayvon!

        • cielo62 says:

          Malisha- I can’t type worth brand but I’ll join you! Hoodies up!

          Sent from my iPod

        • fauxmccoy says:

          malish – i knew we had more in common 🙂

          i am convinced that my typing speed and 12 years of classical piano lessons are related.

        • Xena says:

          Test at 95wpm. Type faster when not being timed tested.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            xena says

            Test at 95wpm. Type faster when not being timed tested.

            oh, don’t we all 😦

          • Xena says:

            @fauxmccoy. Funny thing. When I learned to type, we didn’t have letters on the typewriter. Now my computer keyboards are beginning to look like the old teaching typewriters, and I don’t notice until someone else asks where the letters are. LOL!!

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @xena – i did have letters on the keys in high school typing class, but the teacher was vigilant in making sure that no one looked. also, it became obvious quite early to me that looking just slows you down. what was hell for me, was doing office work for my CPA father. it was the best paying gig in town, but his typewriter which i just gave to my 12 year old was USED when he bought it in college in 1949. i learned to type on a 1920s era royal portable and it served me through college in the early 80s. the ibm selectrics of typing class were a breeze, comparatively speaking.

            @leander — there’s a reason i don’t do capitals, i consider it a wasted keystroke and as stated above, y’all don’t pay me well enough 😉

          • Xena says:

            @fauxmccoy

            i learned to type on a 1920s era royal portable and it served me through college in the early 80s.

            Wow! You got me beat there. I learned on a 1950’s Underwood. When I was in college in the ’70’s, I graduated to an electric typewriter — don’t remember the brand now, but it was the first typewriter I used that had black and red ribbon. LOL!

            In 2005, I finally threw away two Panasonic 700m’s. One had a display on an arm. I could no longer find a company to service them, and both had problems typing characters that had not been typed. LOL! The first was purchased in 1986; the second in 1989. They served their time.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Tell me you didn’t fall in love with those descriptors “portable” meant it weighed a few pounds less than a Sherman tank, hahaha… I, learned to type on a Remington Noiseless, once you started typing you couldn’t hear helicopters hovering overhead. lol

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr. OMG — I remember Remington typewriters. You brought back some memories.

          • cielo62 says:

            Faux McCoy~ OF COURSE we don’t pay you enough! Who ever heard of charging extra for capitalization?? 🙂

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @cielo

            you want fries with those caps? 🙂 cause then, i’d have to start charging.

          • cielo62 says:

            Fauxy- make those onion rings and you’ll get a tip! 🙂

            Sent from my iPod

      • leander22 says:

        How my mind has wandered this evening

        .

        Yes, Malisha, learning piano early may well change a lot. Not only the flexibility of the finger, but also something in the head, which may well be necessary for good coordination.

        We count strokes per minute not words..

        ooops, fauxy, that means over 700 in my German system. Yes, that is pretty good. I am close to the lady here, thus much slower. I have never made it beyond 240 😉

        She seems to be fascinated by that speed too. You can test your speed online over here. And in the end she shows maybe the best listed in the test which is, 693 Strokes/Minute (126 WPM) thus slightly slower than you. A Czechoslovakian female engineer seems to hold the world records at 1000 strokes per minute the German web tells me.

        Czech PC scientists have developed a system that works like stenography you use simple combinations for words and the software adds the whole words. Maybe with that system I could get faster too. 😉

      • Malisha says:

        I never took a class in typing. My mother taught me to type at the age 8. She handed me the NY Times and said, “Put your fingers like this. Never cross one finger over another. Move your hands as little as possible. Don’t look at your hands. Type this newspaper. When you’re done, you’ll know today’s News in New York and you’ll be a typist.” And she was right.

      • leander22 says:

        Lovely mother, Malisha. 😉

        I learned to type with all my fingers, when somebody hired me to teach kids to type with a special system where you learn to memorize the locations of the keys and what fingers you use for them. And then strictly it works like your mother suggests. You immediately write complete texts and do not type repetitive letter patterns without any significance. Before I used only a couple of my fingers. Maybe two on each hand and the thumbs. But maybe the training would have helped, but I never felt attracted to type endless rows of asdf jklö, in your system: asdf jkl; (that’s the semicolon!). that’s the middle position of the fingers. Of course other more complicated patterns and combinations of using your fingers for lower and upper row following but, as I recognized with a short look at the system it would mean endlessly typing nonsensical letter patterns. Maybe it would have helped to improve speed. It’s fast enough for me.

        In my high school we had nothing as practical as training you to type. There is one type were they learned that. If I look up the term it gives me commercial school/college in English. Mine was focused natural sciences and languages. From what I heard that is very different in the states. You seem to be able to choose more freely. My highschool trained you for one thing mainly, university.

        And I had my first Wang PC in 1982. My brother gave it to me as a present, he worked for Wang. But still was pretty expensive at the time. In any case, if one got down into MS Dos one had to know where US/English key were otherwise you were in trouble.. That I remember still.

    • Jun says:

      (c) Examination and Cross-Examination; Record of Examination; Oath; Objections. Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial. The officer before whom the deposition is to be taken shall put the witness on oath and shall personally, or by someone acting under the officer’s direction and in the officer’s presence, record the testimony of the witness, except that when a deposition is being taken by telephone, the witness shall be sworn by a person present with the witness who is qualified to administer an oath in that location. The testimony shall be taken stenographically or recorded by any other means ordered in accordance with subdivision (b)(4) of this rule. If requested by one of the parties, the testimony shall be transcribed at the initial cost of the requesting party and prompt notice of the request shall be given to all other parties. All objections made at time of the examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, the manner of taking it, the evidence presented, or the conduct of any party, and any other objection to the proceedings shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition. Any objection during a deposition shall be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. A party may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation on evidence directed by the court, or to present a motion under subdivision (d). Otherwise, evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections. Instead of participating in the oral examination, parties may serve written questions in a sealed envelope on the party taking the deposition and that party shall transmit them to the officer, who shall propound them to the witness and record the answers verbatim.
      ………………….

      It is even written here that people are allowed to object to which the manner a deposition is taken, which is what exactly happened, so even going the civil route, it specifies that objection is allowed

      …………..

      (4) Any deposition may be recorded by videotape without leave of the court or stipulation of the parties, provided the deposition is taken in accordance with this subdivision.

      ………………………

      It also says here “may” not “has to” videotape deposition

  36. I’m in the center…….in the Rockies…..Nuff sed

  37. cielo62 says:

    >^..^< following with breitbart-proof armor.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Think I’ll stay on the left coast until the other one is clear.

    • racerrodig says:

      Where can I buy some. One of the Zidiots cyber stalked me last year and I’m oh so scared !! It would have been a problem ‘ceptin he had the wrong guy. I just love it when a idiot has it all wrong, which is usually the case.

      • Xena says:

        @racerrodig.

        One of the Zidiots cyber stalked me last year and I’m oh so scared !! It would have been a problem ‘ceptin he had the wrong guy.

        LOL!! Well see, until Zidiots get confirmation of your real name, they will just keep alleging that there are two of you, like 2 DeeDees. One will be a good racer, and the other a bad racer. One will be an elderly racer, and the other a younger racer. They will allege you are the elderly, bad racer and then demand that you prove them wrong. LOL!!!

  38. parrot says:

    “I think Bernie de la Rionda might want to consider seeking the court’s permission to wait until the trial starts before it discloses information that identifies Dee Dee and any other witness for whom there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be subjected to the same intimidating criminal acts.”

    Thank you for the post, Professor.

    I would hope that in addition to the heightened security measures taken in Sanford during the trial, there would be special precautions taken for the safety of these witnesses as they travel to, and enter and exit the courthouse.

  39. Trained Observer says:

    Professor, when you say you would assess terms against O’Mara for wasting the court’s time … what options would JN have in assessing those terms?

  40. onlyiamunitron says:

    follow

    unitron

  41. Xena says:

    @Professor. Could the State motion for a protective order regarding Witness 8?

  42. Follow……and U ain’t no fool

    ‘appy april furst

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: