Why Did John (W6) Lie to the Police?

February 3, 2013

Sunday, February 3, 2013

As I’ve said before, I find it very difficult to attribute to a coincidence John’s (W6) first statement to police falsely describing an MMA-style thrashing that exactly matches the defendant’s false statement.

The statistical probability that those two false statements would coincidentally match must be vanishingly small. Therefore, I believe BDLR and the FDLE concluded early on that John repeated what the defendant told him.

I imagine that they wondered if John actually saw and/or heard what happened and knew the defendant was lying, or if he merely repeated what the defendant told him in an innocent but misguided effort to help him.

Let there be no mistake, however. Telling the police that he saw something he did not see is a lie, even if he believed that the detailed description he provided were true.

His conduct is more reprehensible, of course, if he knew the defendant lied about what happened and he repeated that lie to the police.

Let us assume for a moment that he repeated the lie knowing that it was a lie. Why might he have done that?

I offer six possible reasons.

First, the defendant may have been his friend and he lied to protect him.

Second, he may have feared him and agreed to tell the police whatever the defendant told him to say in order to protect himself and his wife from retaliation.

Third, the defendant may have threatened to harm him or his wife if John did not tell the police what the defendant instructed him to say.

Fourth, if he were a home owner, he would have had a financial interest in the outcome of the investigation. Since a conviction might result in HOA liability for wrongful death, he may have lied to protect his financial self-interest.

Fifth, he may have known that the defendant was going to follow, confront and interrogate Trayvon about neighborhood burglaries before the incident happened.

Sixth, and the most ominous reason, he may have known that the defendant was going to follow, confront, interrogate and kill Trayvon before the incident happened.

I have long suspected that the defendant had enlisted the support and cooperation of some neighborhood residents to serve as his eyes and ears. I also suspect that those eyes and ears had reported Trayvon’s presence in the neighborhood to the defendant. In other words, I believe he was specifically hunting for Trayvon when he left his house that night and I believe John was one of his informants.

LLMPapa’s video last night about Trayvon’s hoodie is consistent with this theory. He pointed out that the defendant accurately described the hoodie in the NEN call as dark gray and the defendant as a teenager; yet, the defendant would not have known either fact since it was dark and raining. The wet hoodie appeared to be black or dark blue and Trayvon had it up concealing most of his head and face.

Therefore, either the defendant had seen Trayvon in daylight wearing the hoodie or someone provided him with a description before he went hunting.

I do not doubt that BDLR and the FDLE have known this for a long time and they probably knew it when they interviewed John (W6) and he retracted his statement.

John (W6) needs to come clean and tell the whole truth.

Unfortunately, however, his credibility is no better than the defendant’s. Why would anyone believe anything he says unless it is independently corroborated?

The plot would thicken if independent corroboration in the form of the defendant’s cell phone records show a call from John moments before the defendant grabbed Shellie’s gun and went hunting for Trayvon followed by a call from the defendant to John moments after the shooting.

Was Trayvon Martin a Peaceful and Non-violent Person?

January 13, 2013

I write today regarding a game within the game. I am specifically referring to trial by ambush despite discovery rules that require the prosecution to basically turn over everything it has to the defense long before trial.

My inspiration to write about this subject comes from a series of questions asked by Diaryofasuccessfulloser, who wanted to know where to find evidence that Trayvon was a peaceful and non-violent person in the discovery that has been released.

You can look but you will not find much.

The discovery rules require the prosecution to identify the witnesses it intends to call and to provide copies of their statements to the defense and to the public.

Those statements do not necessarily include all of the information obtained from those witnesses. Defense counsel have a duty to investigate their cases and that includes tasking an investigator to interview the witnesses or to be present and take notes when the lawyer interviews them. Florida permits the use of depositions under oath in criminal cases.

Interviews and depositions provide an opportunity to obtain information not included in the statements and reports.

The best source of information about Trayvon’s non-violent and peaceful nature is his family and friends like Dee Dee. She described him that way to Benjamin Crump and to Bernie de la Rionda. So did the librarian where he used to study after school. His parents have described him that way publicly.

Note that the defense, which has been trying its case in the court of public opinion, has not produced any evidence at all to support its claim that he was an aggressive martial arts enthusiast who picked fights and bullied others. Obviously his school records contained no information to support that claim or the defense would have shouted it from the tree house.

According to the complaint filed by the security/investigation firm, the investigators did not find out anything useful to the defense about Trayvon. We do not know what they were tasked to do, but given the importance of such evidence to support the defendant’s claim, I suspect they looked for such evidence, but did not find it.

The absence of evidence to support the defense claim might reasonably be considered evidence that he was not an aggressive martial arts enthusiast who picked fights and bullied others.

That absence of evidence is consistent with what we have heard from his family and Dee Dee.

There are other witnesses too. I vaguely recall his former football coach describing him that way, for example.

In other words, you have to read between the lines sometimes because the prosecution is not required to document all of its evidence.

Remember that most witness statements and reports will never be admitted into evidence because most of them are hearsay. The evidence in court will consist of the exhibits admitted into evidence and the testimony of the witnesses under oath

Witness statements and reports rarely contain the whole story. They are like movie trailers and serve as a starting point to find out what the witness knows. Only a fool would assume that they contain all of the relevant information that a witness knows.

The prosecution has no obligation to reduce all of that information to writing and share it with the defense. The prosecution is only obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense and this evidence is not exculpatory. Evidence that Trayvon was peaceful and non-violent hurts the defense. Therefore, the prosecution has no duty to reveal it to the defense, unless it is in a statement.

I suspect the prosecution has a lot of evidence that has not been recorded or written down anywhere in a report.

Part of the game is to conceal as well as reveal only that which you are required to reveal.

The only way the defense can discover the information not included in the reports is to use an investigator to find it or acquire it during a deposition.

Unfortunately, the defense does not appear to have any investigators or experts to assist the lawyers.

This is one reason why I have been so critical of the defense effort. With the exception of the one report we know about, which they did not pay for, the defense appears to have sacrificed the use of investigators in favor of maintaining and paying for the defendant’s comfort and unnecessary security. In a case where the forensics likely will determine the outcome, the defense also appears to have sacrificed the use of experts for the same two reasons.

With O’Mara potentially indebted to the security/investigation firm for $27,000 and not having been paid a cent for the work he has performed, I can only shake my head in amazement that the priorities in this case are so upside down.

This is what can happen when a lawyer lets a selfish and clueless client run the show.

%d bloggers like this: