I saw what you guys did there Ben and Bruce

April 11, 2013

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Greetings to all:

This post substantially exceeds my typical post. I had a lot to say, however, and I have been rewriting and fine tuning this piece since Tuesday night.

As you all know, Benjamin Crump represents Trayvon’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin. He negotiated a settlement agreement earlier this year with the Homeowner’s Association at the Retreat at Twin Lakes (the HOA) whereby Trayvon’s parents agreed not to sue the HOA for the wrongful death of their son in exchange for the HOA paying them a certain sum of money. Although the specific terms of the agreement and the amount of the settlement have not been released to the public, I believe we can reasonably conclude that the HOA agreed to settle the case before trial because they believe that the jury will reject Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. If they had concluded that the jury would find him “Not Guilty,” they would not have had any reason to settle the case.

Benjamin Crump filed a copy of the confidential settlement agreement in Zimmerman’s criminal case file late last week after blacking out the settlement amount. He also provided copies to Bernie de la Rionda and Mark O’Mara.

The Clerk of the Court has since notified Crump that she does not believe she has a proper legal basis to keep the terms of the settlement agreement confidential. She told him that she will unseal the settlement agreement in 10 days, unless he obtains an order from Judge Nelson telling her not to do that.

Regardless what she does, the amount of the settlement probably will remain confidential since he blacked out the amount before he filed the agreement.

Since Crump was not required to announce or to file the settlement agreement, I have been attempting to figure out why he decided to file it and why he waited until the end of last week to do it.

I believe I know the answer.

When considered together with O’Mara’s recent decision to forego an immunity hearing later this month, members of the public now have two solid reasons to doubt O’Mara’s credibility and to question everything he has stated about the case. There cannot be any doubt that this is a devastating turn of events for the man who decided long ago to focus on wining his case in the court of public opinion where he believed he could control the message reported by the media before the trial started and hope that would somehow favorably influence a jury to find the defendant not guilty, despite the evidence. That strategy is falling apart.

I never believed his strategy made any sense unless he got very lucky and a racist Zimmerman supporter lied his way onto the jury with the intent of voting “not guilty,” regardless of the evidence. That seems about as likely to me as filling an inside straight on the draw in a game of poker. In other words, only suckers make that bet.

The inescapable reality is that this case will go to trial eventually and when it does, the jury will be instructed to decide the case based only on the evidence admitted during the trial. That jury, BTW, will have been screened as thoroughly as possible by the juror questionnaire and the use of individual voir dire to identify and excuse prospective jurors who may be biased or prejudiced.

Another inescapable reality is that the evidence admitted during the trial is going to paint a far different picture of the case against the defendant compared to the false and misleading narrative that O’Mara has been repeating at every available opportunity since he got involved in the case. To the extent that any members of the jury recall what he said before trial, they will soon realize that he did not know what he was talking about or he was lying. That most definitely is not a thought that O’Mara wants any juror to have during the trial.

Sooner or later, he will have to face the jury and present a coherent final argument for acquittal based on the evidence admitted during the trial.

Meanwhile, Mark O’Mara and Don West have been subjecting Benjamin Crump to a relentless effort to obtain a court order authorizing them to depose him regarding his contacts with W8, the witness known by the pseudonym Dee Dee assigned to her by the prosecution to protect her privacy. attack on his character and professional reputation in an effort to discredit W8, the witness known by the pseudonym Dee Dee assigned to her by the prosecution to protect her privacy.

Cellular phone records establish that Dee Dee and Trayvon spent many hours on their phones talking to each other on the day that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon. In fact the records show that their phones were connected [detail]. Therefore, Dee Dee is the only witness who was in contact with Trayvon during the approximate 30 minute period leading up to his death. In effect, she is Trayvon’s voice from the grave and she presents a problem to the defendant’s claim of self-defense because she told Bernie de la Rionda that Trayvon told her he was afraid of. He told her that he ran to escape from the creepy man and believed he had successfully eluded him until the man suddenly appeared nearby on foot. She heard Trayvon say, “What are you following me for? She heard a deeper voice respond, “What are you doing here? Then she heard what sounded like physical contact between the two followed by Trayvon screaming, “Get off.” She lost the connection and was unable to reconnect with Trayvon.

George Zimmerman fired the fatal shot approximately one minute later.

That shot is preceded by an agonized shriek that abruptly ends with the sound of the fatal gunshot. The shriek sounds inhuman and it lasts for 40 seconds. It sounds like a desperate and panicked child protesting the certainty of imminent death without knowing who is going to kill him and why he going to do it. The shriek is audible in the background of a recorded 911 call from a neighbor who lived close to the scene of the shooting.

The shriek far exceeds any horror that I have witnessed and it will likely continue to haunt me for the rest of my life.

The combination of Dee Dee’s testimony and the shriek pose a major problem to the defendant’s claim of self-defense.

The defense scheme to discredit Dee Dee and blame Ben Crump for suborning perjury for dollars

To cast doubt on Dee Dee’s credibility, Mark O’Mara and Don West have accused her of committing perjury and Ben Crump of suborning her perjury. Never mind that they have no evidence to support their claim that she committed perjury. However, they do have her admission that she lied to Bernie de la Rionda while under oath when she told him that she did not go to Trayvon’s funeral or wake because she was sick and stayed overnight in a hospital. Apparently, despite the lack of materiality, which is an essential element of a perjury charge, they believe that admission is sufficient to support an accusation that everything she said was a lie.

Calling her an admitted perjurer, they now accuse Ben Crump of convincing her to lie. They are basically accusing him of providing her with a script full of lies to repeat when she testifies at trial.

Yes indeed, despite a lack of any evidence O’Mara and West have accused Ben Crump of concocting a scheme to have Dee Dee lie during the trial in order to fool the jury into wrongfully convicting an innocent George Zimmerman of second degree murder thereby setting up multi-million dollar causes of action against George Zimmerman for wrongful death and the Homeowner’s Association for negligently appointing and failing to supervise his activities as the captain of the neighborhood watch program contributing to the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin.

Finally, they claim they must be permitted to depose him under oath regarding this scheme in order to adequately prepare for trial.

Even though there is no evidence that Benjamin Crump encouraged or attempted to encourage Dee Dee to lie about what Trayvon told her and even though there were other witnesses present when he interviewed her by telephone that the defense has not attempted to interview or to depose, defense counsel continue to repeat their false allegations about Benjamin Crump and insist that the defense will suffer irreparable harm if the court does not authorize the deposition. Of course, they do not explain why they would suffer irreparable harm.

Benjamin Crump actually is the person most likely to suffer irreparable harm, if the court were to authorize the deposition since he cannot answer any question regarding any discussions he had with his clients about Dee Dee and the civil causes of action against the HOA and George Zimmerman because those discussions were confidential and protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Discussions with his clients about George Zimmerman’s credibility and the probable result of his self-defense claim are also protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. In addition, he cannot provide any notes he made regarding the questions that he decided to ask her and her responses to those questions since that subject matter is protected from disclosure as attorney work product. In addition, he would be justified in refusing to answer any questions about his plans to sue George Zimmerman. In short, there are very few questions that he could answer, if a deposition were to take place.

With his motives, character and professional reputation under relentless attack by defense counsel and unable to defend himself due to the attorney-client and work product privileges, Benjamin Crump did the only sensible thing he could do under the circumstances. He retained Bruce Blackwell to speak for him and defend him from the attempted character assassination.

Judge Nelson denied their motion to depose Ben Crump with a written opinion in which she found that as attorney for Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, Ben Crump’s communications with them are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. She also ruled that he acted as opposing counsel when he recorded a telephonic interview with Dee Dee in early March and provided the FBI with the original recording. This finding is significant because an attorney cannot depose opposing counsel under Florida law. She also ruled that his efforts to locate and interview Dee Dee constituted attorney work product protected from disclosure. She summarily denied their motion to reconsider and clarify her decision.

They have now filed for a writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals asking it to reverse Judge Nelson’s decision and order Ben Crump to submit to a deposition.

The Court of Appeals entered an order yesterday granting Bernie de la Rionda and Bruce Blackwell 20 days to respond to the defendant’s petition.

I believe Bruce Blackwell and Benjamin Crump decided to file the settlement agreement to accomplish two objectives:

1. To place indisputable documentary evidence in the record to support his claim that he represents Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton and that he acted on their behalf contrary and in opposition to George Zimmerman’s best interests in his criminal case. The agreement also firms up his argument that he is opposing counsel as it indicates his intent to sue George Zimmerman for causing the wrongful death of their son, Trayvon, after the criminal trial concludes.

2. To figuratively smack Mark O’Mara, Don West and their client where it hurts the most on the eve of trial by publicizing documentary evidence that Zimmerman’s employer, the HOA, does not believe Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense will prevail at the trial. Coming on the heels of O’Mara’s decision to waive the immunity hearing, which he attempted to conceal by falsely claiming he could always bring it up later, publication of the settlement agreement sends a clear message to anyone following the case that the defense is in deep trouble, notwithstanding O’Mara’s massive propaganda effort to convince the public that the prosecution has no case.

Lawyers are required to have a good faith basis for the statements, arguments and objections they make. They are prohibited from knowingly or intentionally misleading the Court. The defense attack on Ben Crump and Dee Dee is based on a fanciful theory that is not supported by the evidence or the law. For those two reasons, I do not believe the defense effort to discredit and demonize Dee Dee and Crump is being made in good faith. Instead, the defense effort reminds me of political strategies and arguments that Andrew Breitbart used to discredit Democratic Party candidates for national office. Such strategies and arguments have no place in a court of law.

Efforts to discredit people by character assassination, uttering false statements and misrepresenting existing evidence can cause unpleasant real-life consequences to the people targeted. Therefore, I am not only offended by the defense team’s choice of tactics, I am disgusted that the defense team decided to harm Dee Dee’s reputation and Ben Crump’s professional representation.

Good lawyers take pride in what they do and they do not tolerate unfounded attacks on their character and reputation. I believe Ben Crump and Bruce Blackwell are extremely offended by the continuing bad faith defense effort to discredit Dee Dee and destroy Ben Crump’s professional reputation with false statements and misrepresentation of existing evidence.

I think they decided to file the settlement agreement to counter the defense team’s false narrative and misleading argument that there is no evidence that refutes the defendant’s claim of self-defense.


The differences between regular guilty pleas and Alford pleas

April 8, 2013

Monday, April 8, 2013

Many have asked about what will happen if GZ pleads guilty to murder second degree. Most want to know if the prosecution will lay out its case for the public.

The quick answer is probably not.

There are two types of guilty pleas: a regular guilty plea and an Alford plea.

In a regular guilty plea, the defendant must provide a factual basis to support each element of the crime that the defendant is admitting. The factual basis is written by the defendant’s lawyer and it contains the bare bones necessary to support the charge. For example, O’Mara might write something like this:

On or about February 26, 2012 in Sanford, FL I shot and killed Trayvon Martin in the chest at close range with complete disregard for whether he lived or died. I did not even call 911 for emergency medical assistance and I did not attempt CPR. He did not attack me, he was not armed with a weapon, and I did not shoot him in self-defense. This incident happened in Seminole County, FL

Before accepting his guilty plea, Judge Nelson would place him under oath and read that statement to him and ask him if it was his statement and if it were voluntary after considering all of his rights, including the right to be presumed innocent, remain silent, and force the prosecution to unanimously convince a jury that it had proven each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

She would accept his plea, if he answers those questions affirmatively.

The Alford plea is quite different because a defendant concedes that the prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt without admitting that he committed the crime. The prosecution then provides the factual basis for the guilty plea by attaching police reports, witness statements, and forensic reports to the guilty plea. Defendant admits that he has reviewed those reports, their contents are true and correct, and the court may consider them in deciding whether he is guilty.

The court takes a recess and reviews the materials. When she is finished, court resumes and she accepts the plea.

Alford pleas are based on the SCOTUS decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). They permit defendants to continue to claim they didn’t commit the crime, but the legal system makes no distinction between the two. Both are treated the same for sentencing purposes.

A good example of an Alford plea would be a defendant who claims innocence agrees to plead guilty to take advantage of a plea agreement to plead guilty in exchange for the prosecution’s agreement to not seek the death penalty. This is what happened in Alford.

Due to the nature of the Alford plea, more information about the crime is incorporated into the record than would be the case with a regular guilty plea.

Obviously, much more information comes out, if the case goes to trial.

I do not like Alford pleas because they generally permit defendants to avoid accepting responsibility for what they did and that can come back to hurt them, for example, when a parole board reviews the case and decides to deny parole because the defendant never has accepted responsibility for what he did.

Failure to accept responsibility also typically results in a determination that the defendant is in denial and not amenable to treatment in cases where treatment is a sentencing option.

I hope this summary of the two types of guilty pleas and how they differ answers your questions.

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

Your donations are appreciated


Settlement agreement is dreadful news for George Zimmerman

April 8, 2013

Monday, April 8, 2013

I asked a question yesterday and did not get an answer.

The question was, Did Mark O’Mara advise the HOA to settle the Fulton-Martin lawsuit?

Rene Stutzman at the Orlando Sentinel provided some additional information today.

That secret homeowners association settlement with Trayvon Martin’s family may not remain secret much longer.

Seminole County Clerk of Courts Maryanne Morse has written a letter to Trayvon’s family attorney, Benjamin Crump, telling him that she doesn’t think it meets the standard of a confidential filing so she intends to make it public in 10 days.

Even so, the total dollar figure paid out by the association will likely remain a secret. That’s because Crump edited it out before he put the 12-page document in the court file Thursday.

It’s believed to be more than $1 million.

Stutzman also revealed that Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton settled their claim against the HOA without filing a lawsuit. Therefore, the settlement agreement has not been reviewed by a judge.

We know that the Traveler’s Insurance Co., was not a party to the agreement because the HOA did not purchase the insurance until March 30, 2012, a little over a month after the defendant shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

Why did Benjamin Crump file the settlement agreement in the GZ criminal case?

Here’s Stutzman again,

Why Crump had it placed in the file in the first place remains a mystery. He did not return phone calls from the Orlando Sentinel. But his clients, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, were deposed last month by Zimmerman’s attorneys and were likely asked about the settlement.

In an interview last month, when asked if the settlement was a specific figure between $1 million and $2 million, Crump would not say.

“I have no comment on the subject,” he said. “I know you didn’t get that from me.”

There is an unconfirmed rumor that the New York Times reported in February that Mark O’Mara said Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton had rejected a $1 million settlement offer.

Stutzman said today about the settlement amount, “It’s believed to be more than $1 million.”

Sundance Cracker at the treehouse, which is Mark O’Mara’s internet site of choice, reported yesterday that the settlement is closer to $2 million.

Difficult to draw any conclusions without more information, but I sincerely doubt the claim was settled for nuisance value because, given the defendant’s waiver of an immunity hearing and a substantial likelihood that a jury will reject his claim of self-defense, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton would have no incentive to settle the case for peanuts. Better to wait and sue him and the HOA together after he is convicted when, basically, the sky would be the limit.

I figure they were in the driver’s seat and could afford to demand a substantial sum of money to cut HOA loose before trial.

This settlement agreement is dreadful news for the defendant.

BTW, Dee Dee definitely is not the prosecution’s star witness.

The prosecution’s star witness is the defendant and that is why a jury will convict him of murder in the second degree.

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

Your donations are appreciated


Run Jack Run

April 7, 2013

LLMPapa posted a feel good vid:

I know this is O/T, but we spend so much time talking about what’s wrong in this crazy world, take a moment and watch something that’s as RIGHT as anything I’ve seen in a long, long time.

From yesterday’s Nebraska Cornhusker’s annual Spring Game:

Run Jack Run!


Did Mark O’Mara advise the HOA to settle the Fulton-Martin lawsuit

April 7, 2013

I am hoping to find out today if Mark O’Mara played any role in advising the HOA to settle the wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton.

Sundance Cracker at The Conservative Treehouse claims that he did. This is the website O’Mara has publicly referenced with approval as a source of ideas.

Since Benjamin Crump represents Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton that would certainly qualify him as opposing counsel for purposes of the silly deposition issue.

More importantly, he would have a conflict of interest because he would be in possession of inside information obtained from his client, plus all of the discovery that has not been released to the public, and advising the HOA to settle before the criminal trial.

That’s the equivalent of saying:

GZ’s self-defense claim isn’t going to fly. He’s going to be convicted of murder 2, so you better cut your losses to a minimum by settling now.

If true, that’s a conflict of interest and a major violation of a lawyer’s obligation to maintain client confidentiality.

Imagine how you would feel, if you were George Zimmerman.

O’Mara should be kicked off the case and disbarred, if he did that.

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

Your donations are appreciated


The petition for a writ of certiorari is ridiculous

April 6, 2013

Saturday, April 6, 2013

I write today about the defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

I believe it is ridiculous and I predict that the Court of Appeals will deny it summarily. At least, I would, if I were a judge on the Court of Appeals.

The first thing that struck me when I read the petition was the flagrant false statement that a witness saw Trayvon straddling the defendant and hitting him repeatedly. W6 (John) retracted that statement while under oath. Therefore, it was a lie. Nevertheless, the defense continues to rely on it and I am sick and tired of it.

I would sanction the defense counsel for misrepresenting the facts to the court.

Second, Benjamin Crump recorded the Dee Dee interview in front of witnesses whom defense counsel can interview and should interview before the subject of interviewing him even comes up.

Finally, I am not impressed with any of the defense team’s arguments.

Benjamin Crump did not kill Trayvon Martin.

He did not invent Dee Dee.

The phone records establish that someone was talking to Trayvon when he was attacked and the connection was broken. We now know that someone was Dee Dee.

Attempting to depict him as a malicious wrongdoer encouraging Dee Dee to lie is not supported by any evidence. It is wild speculation from defense counsel’s support group of delusional racist internet trolls. More smoke and mirrors from a defendant who has no defense.

Trial starts June 10th.

Time to get it on and stop with the diversions.

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

Your donations are appreciated


Trayvon Martin’s parents settle lawsuit against HOA for more than $1 million

April 5, 2013

Friday, April 5, 2013

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting today that Trayvon’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, have settled their wrongful death case against the Homeowner’s Association for more than $1 million.

The parties are settling the matter to avoid litigation without admitting responsibility and the terms of the settlement agreement are subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

Trayvon’s parents still intend to sue George Zimmerman separately.

The settlement agreement should not have any effect on the criminal case but it does indicate that the HOA has little confidence in the viability of the GZ’s claim of self-defense.

Of course, we already knew that from our review of the evidence and the defense team’s decision to abandon an immunity hearing.

Congratulations to Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin!

This will not bring back Trayvon, but it’s an important achievement and milestone in the long road seeking justice for Trayvon.

H/T to Benjamin Crump: Well done, sir.

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

Your donations are appreciated


Criminal motions practice in Florida

April 4, 2013

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Good afternoon.

I write today to provide a possible explanation for the cancellation of the April 2nd hearing.

No motion was pending and she was not under any obligation to check with counsel to verify that nothing was in the works before cancelling the hearing.

When a lawyer files a motion in the circuit court clerk’s office asking the court to do something, he also should file a memorandum of legal authorities in support of the motion. In addition, he must file a notice of the date, time and place where a hearing on the motion will take place.

Copies of the three documents must be provided to opposing counsel with sufficient lead time to file a response.

Copies also must be provided to the court.

This formal procedure can be ignored, if the parties agree that something must be done. In that situation, the parties can prepare an agreed order and present it to the judge for signature without a hearing.

At the last hearing, Judge Nelson told counsel that she was going to tentatively schedule the next hearing for April 2nd even though no motions were pending. She also told counsel that she was going to be on vacation that week, but still in town and available to hold a hearing on April 2nd, if needed.

Several weeks went by during which neither side filed a motion.

On Monday, March 25th, with no motion pending, she cancelled the hearing.

Mark O’Mara filed a motion later that afternoon and a second motion the next day. Both motions seek sanctions, costs and attorney’s fees imposed against BDLR.

BDLR filed an epic response denying any wrongdoing.

I believe the defense motions are frivolous and will be denied.

If O’Mara still intends to proceed with his frivolous motions, he will have to note them for hearing on April 30th, which is the next available date for a hearing.

He really should reconsider those motions.

Whether he will do so remains to be seen.

Go here to review the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

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

Your donations are appreciated


Using motions to disclose information in depositions is a sleazy tactic

April 3, 2013

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Good morning.

I believe that we have completed our analysis and discussion regarding whether the use of doxing and breitbarting to intimidate and assassinate a person’s character constitutes witness intimidation, if used to discredit and intimidate a witness in a murder case.

The clear answer is “Yes.”

Moreover, I believe the two efforts by the defendant’s supporters to discredit and intimidate Dee Dee, which successively targeted two innocent girls named Dee Dee, constituted at the very least criminal attempts to intimidate a witness.

Since the perpetrators proudly declared their intent to intimidate the real Dee Dee when they mistakenly went after the wrong Dee Dees, and there is no doubt that the real Dee Dee found out about and was intimidated by those efforts, which were reported by the media, I believe the perpetrators already have committed at least two completed offenses of witness tampering.

I say “at least two,” because each lie, misrepresentation or threat is a completed crime. For example, 10 lies, misrepresentations or threats targeted against one witness constitutes 10 separate crimes or counts of witness intimidation.

Needless to say that the people who have committed these crimes are in deep trouble, even if they only get charged with attempted witness intimidation.

Are they stupid enough to continue their search for the right Dee Dee?

Only time will tell.

They have failed to demonstrate even a scintilla of intelligence, so I recommend against betting the ranch that they will stop.

By endorsing the CTH as a legitimate website and source of helpful information and ideas to use in defending GZ, Mark O’Mara has only himself to blame if the public associates him with the unlawful efforts to intimidate Dee Dee.

* * * *

Now, I want to take a look at O’Mara’s use of motions to disclose information that should not be disclosed.

Xena raised this issue yesterday when she asked me if depositions are supposed to be released to the public.

I replied that the answer is “No.”

She responded,

Thank you. O’Mara did manage to get in parts of one — IIRC, Santiago, that he included as an Exhibit with a Motion.

I believe O’Mara has been deliberately publicizing information, which he knows should not be publicized, by appending it to a marginally appropriate motion that he creates to serve as a vehicle to publicize the information in a manner that provides him with plausible deniability.

In other words, he has not been filing these motions in good faith.

He then incorporates the publicized information into his propaganda campaign to win the case in the court of public opinion.

For example, despite knowing that a police officer’s opinion regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence is inadmissible at trial, he publicized Santiago’s deposition to support his propaganda claim that the Sanford Police Department believed the defendant killed Trayvon in self-defense.

Fortunately, BDLR quickly shut him down in court when he handed him Serino’s three or four drafts of the Capias request in which Serino considered charging the defendant with murder or manslaughter and ultimately settled on manslaughter.

I think it’s pretty clear that O’Mara was attempting to create and exploit a difference of opinion regarding the defendant’s innocence between the local SA and hometown police department versus the Jacksonville SA and the FDLE. I think he hoped to hijack and derail the jury inquiry into an are-you-going-to-trust-and-believe-your-hometown-law-enforcement-officials or the outsiders that the governor was forced to select for political reasons unrelated to what actually happened.

Notice that despite not mentioning race, that particular strategy is all about exploiting racism. The argument is little more than a transparent dress concealing a bloated and maggot infested corpse.

This is a good example of what lawyers mean when they refer to “playing the race card.”

I have to admit that I am fantasizing that there will come a day when O’Mara schedules a press conference and no one shows up.

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

Your donations are appreciated


Open thread discussion

April 2, 2013

Tuesday, April 2, 2013.

Good evening.

I will not be posting a new article today, so I am going to open a new thread for discussion.

I suddenly realized this morning that I am not aware of any information, good or bad, about Trayvon and Dee Dee and that means that an extremely effective wall of silence is in place.

That is an amazing accomplishment, given the virtually impossible to control teenage urge to gossip.

I want to thank everyone who has played a role in erecting and maintaining that wall. All of you have shown incredible resolve, grace and dignity by staying on the high road and ignoring the venomous and mean spirited personal attacks by the defendant’s racist supporters.

It’s difficult to watch them soil themselves in shame each day. Unfortunately, they have no time for other things and they are not any good at anything else.

I have not had much time to read comments today. I will be reading to catch-up until I fall asleep.

O’Mara appears to have positioned himself well enough to plausibly deny responsibility for leaking personal information about Dee Dee.

Do you all believe he will make that move?

Fred


%d bloggers like this: