Home > Uncategorized > BCCList Diaspora Post #4

BCCList Diaspora Post #4

With over 300 comments on part 3, it’s time for a new thread, continuing the general discussion of all things Martin-Zimmerman case related.

I can’t help but observe that the same week of the one year anniversary of Trayvon Martin’s death, the Supreme Court seems poised to overturn crucial aspects of the Voting Rights Act. Possible food for thought? The relationship of the micro to the macro? E.g. is our investment in this case a ‘bread and circuses’ distraction taking our attention away from more important if less dramatic issues, or does one help us better understand the other? No need for anyone to comment on this unless you feel like it. Just went through my head as I opened the new thread.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. blushedbrown
    March 1, 2013 at 2:07 PM

    Thank you Whonoze, new thread was needed. Are the coolers stocked?

    • wassointeresting
      March 1, 2013 at 2:14 PM

      Gosh darnit Loree, you beat me to it!

      • blushedbrown
        March 1, 2013 at 2:16 PM

        WSI
        YEP, and drinking a beer, ahhhhh nice and cold.

  2. wassointeresting
    March 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM

    Oh, oh, oh, am I the first to follow?

    What? Are there other issues out there? Yes of course, but some of us are stuck to this case like glue and we’re in it for the long haul. And yes, it is a sounding board for other hot issues now like gun rights.

    • blushedbrown
      March 1, 2013 at 2:17 PM

      I loved Welcome Back Kotter!!!

      Bababababarino

      • March 2, 2013 at 2:01 AM

        Ron Pallilo passed away recently. He had been a college buddy of a friend of mine, and a few years I worked on a short independent film starring Ron for which my friend had written the script…

        • blushedbrown
          March 2, 2013 at 6:43 PM

          @Whonoze

          Please accept my sincere condolences on the loss of your friend.

    • blushedbrown
      March 1, 2013 at 2:20 PM

      @WSI

      Yep, in it for the long haul. Other issues are also relevant.

  3. onlyiamunitron
    March 1, 2013 at 2:18 PM

    Thank you.

    bcclist is starting to develop lounge disease.

    It’s nice to have one “let’s talk about the actual facts in the actual case” refuge left.

    unitron

    • blushedbrown
      March 1, 2013 at 2:21 PM

      @Uni

      Please be nice.

      • onlyiamunitron
        March 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM

        People making remarks about Zippo parties and how well blubber burns and calling someone’s head pus-filled and I’m the one not being nice?

        Go into Leatherman’s archives and read the stuff from around May and June of last year, and then FF to December and January and tell me there’s not a huge difference in tone, and a marked decrease in discussion of the actual case and a marked increase in what seems to be a contest to see who can hate on the defendent and everyone connected with him the most.

        unitron

      • wassointeresting
        March 1, 2013 at 2:42 PM

        Yes unitron, be nice, you wouldn’t want her to get out the whip!

        • blushedbrown
          March 1, 2013 at 2:47 PM

          @WSI

          LOL 😆

          That imagine in my head will never go away, thanks WSI. Imagine his avatar with handcuffs leather, and one of those redball mouthpieces strapped across his mouth, on second thought I like that image. 😈

  4. blushedbrown
    March 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM

    @Uni

    I am aware of the change and tone. I have addressed the issue before, it is not my blog and there are 100’s of posts.

    Just because some may partake in what you disagree with doesn’t make it right for you to do the same, you just approach it in a slightly different manner.

    I understand both sides of the issue for you, even though you may disagree with posters here, Bcclist, and the Lounge, please just let it be………

    You have written when in doubt take the high road

    I implore you to have more of a civil tongue vs your favored forked one.

    Remember you and I have an understanding.

    • onlyiamunitron
      March 1, 2013 at 2:48 PM

      I’d just like to have somewhere in addition to the TalkLeft forum to go to actually discuss the case without having to wade through a bunch of other stuff.

      unitron

      • blushedbrown
        March 1, 2013 at 2:51 PM

        @Uni

        I know it is frustrating. We all have to go through it.

      • March 2, 2013 at 2:09 AM

        Well at least I don’t think anyone here will call you unit Ron, and if anyone does no one here will be asking “Who is this Ron guy?”

        THIS _IS_ “THE HIGH ROAD”!! 😉

        • blushedbrown
          March 2, 2013 at 6:44 PM

          @Whonoze

          😉

    • blushedbrown
      March 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM

      The understanding of wanting to get to the truth.

  5. blushedbrown
    March 1, 2013 at 2:58 PM

    @WSI

    Hurry up, I’m on my second beer. AHHHHHH nice and cold.

  6. March 2, 2013 at 7:49 AM

    following

  7. ada4750
    March 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

    We can read at many places comments about the number of DeeDee (0, 1 or more) or if her account has been made up by herself or somebody else. Most of these comments imply Mr. Crump. This is totally absurd when we imagine the size of the risk this would mean for him.

    • March 2, 2013 at 9:57 AM

      Translation please.

      I think you might be talking about doxing Dee Dee and what some people claim to be her social media posts.

      What I dont know is what this person or persons supposedly said and what relevance it may or may not have. Could someone summarize please?

      • ada4750
        March 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM

        I am just saying that many doubt about her existence or claim that there is two DeeDee and in all cases they say that Mr. Crump is behind that.

        • March 2, 2013 at 10:22 AM

          I still don’t get it. What did each of these supposed two Dee Dees do or say and why and who made thsi claim based on what evidence? You are speaking in generalities about something i am unaware of and am asking for context, attribution and clarification. Thanks

        • ada4750
          March 2, 2013 at 10:40 AM

          I am talking about GZ supporters. We can read (yotutube, CTH etc …) all kind of assumptions concerning DeeDee. Most of them don’t make any sens to me.

        • March 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM

          DeeDee conspiracy theories float at CTH (of course) and TalkLeft. The supposed ‘evidence’ is largely that Mr. Crump identified DeeDee’s age as 16, and the individual BdlR interviewed was 18. Two different ages, ergo two different DeeDees. Never mind that the vocal tone, inflections, idioms etc. are identical. Team Z also finds great significance in the relatively minor differences in DeeDee’s accounts between the Crump and BdlR interviews.

          DeeDee and Crump are Team Z’s primary concern/obsession.

          I think ada is saying this is kind of silly and/or desperate, to which I would concur (apologies to NMNM if he’s still reading here and takes offense…)

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM

          I was under the impression that the “2 Dee Dee’s” theory arose early on as a result of some of the treehouse crowd or their associates getting hold of various social media content which they believed to be hers (or hers), but in actuality coming up with at least one “false positive”, if not two.

          Kind of like all the Trayvons that turned out not to be him after all.

          In other words, before the question of the age of the real young lady arose, and independently of O’Mara’s office.

          However, since in the same hearing where BDLR said the defense knew her age, he sat there like the proverbial “potted palm” when West said she was 18 on the night in question, I consider that to be the truth, and wonder why Crump, et. al., kept going on about her being younger.

          unitron

        • amsterdam1234
          March 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM

          There are people on YouTube talking about how they were abducted by aliens. What do you think we should do about that?

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM

          “There are people on YouTube talking about how they were abducted by aliens. What do you think we should do about that?”

          Back slowly away from them until it’s safe to turn around and run.

          unitron

  8. March 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

    Well, let’s get specific here. I’d like to put these rumors and innuendo to bed for good if possible at least on this blog. Who made the claim or assertion that there were two dee dee’s? What is their internet name and what else do they write about and how accurate is their record?

    What is the source for BDlR’s claim of 18 years of age? I missed that one. When was his deposition taken?

    I agree that the two voices are extremely alike and represent one person, especially since yes, to commit a fraud of that nature would be insane to do

    I agree it’s silly and desperate but I want to nail the coffin shut on these rumors.

    I don’t read TCTm it’s a bunch of morons over there who are toxic and dangerous. Their reputation for being wrong is too great to ever give them any credence. As for YouTube, that’s another story – there are simply too MANY odd things there to bother to even address.

    The value of a moderated forum is to weed out the chaff. Why drag it back in once it has been laid to rest? (let’s lay it to rest.)

    • onlyiamunitron
      March 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM

      I don’t know that Bernie has ever come right out and publicly specified her age, but as I say he said the defense knows it and when the defense mentioned it he didn’t exactly jump up to correct them, and I don’t know where the defense would reliably and officially get her name and age if not from the state.

      unitron

      • amsterdam1234
        March 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

        I don’t think BdlR ever gave specifics about the age of any witness. Every rumor about DD only exists on blogs like tct and tl.

  9. March 2, 2013 at 12:14 PM

    Isn’t O’mara demanding to be given DeeDee’s birthdate and address???

    From that I’d say they don’t have it. And Bernie is not going to jump up and start an argument about it at a hearing about something else.

    So far the defence seems to be CLAIMING she’s over 18, and that has been the Outhouse allegation (one of many) all along. If they really knew it, they’d say “her birth date is XYZ therefore Crump is lying saying she was 16”. They don’t have it, they’re hoping claiming otherwise will fol Bernie or someone else into giving it to them to prove them wrong.

    The whole thing is BS, as bad as the allegation that there are multiple DeeDees.

    On top of all that, her age is totally irrelevant to her testimony. It’s just another red herring. The defence could go into business selling tinned red herrings and make a nice income for the defence fund.

    • onlyiamunitron
      March 2, 2013 at 12:37 PM

      O’Mara wants her address.

      And some medical records.

      But Bernie says the defense knows her age. Said so in court. In front of the judge.

      I would think that unless he actually wants a career change to an entry level position in the fast food industry that we can rely on him having been truthful about that.

      I see no gain for the defense, if they know her age, to mis-state it. In court. In front of the judge.

      Her age (unless she’s actually something like 47, or 83) is probably irrelevant to her testimony, but misrepresenting it to the public early on is certainly relative to public perception of the case, and therefore of the defendant, amongst potential jurors, and I can’t blame O’Mara for wanting to know about any other possible shenanigans involving the person who may be the prosecution’s chief witness, as well as an important witness in any subsequent civil suits.

      unitron

  10. March 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM

    willisnewton :

    The value of a moderated forum is to weed out the chaff. Why drag it back in once it has been laid to rest? (let’s lay it to rest.)

    Since the question of DeeDee’s age seems to matter to O’Mara and West, not just the crackers in Sundance’s barrel, I think it’s valid to discuss here if only as an example of possible Defense strategies.

    I believe it has been affirmed that BdlR’s DeeDee was 18 when he interviewed her. I believe the Defense may well say, “she is 18 therefore Crump is lying saying she was 16,” and is holding their powder on this maneuver as long as they can in the hopes they can get more dirt or DeeDee and/or Atty. Crump. The Defense motions show an inordinate (IMHO) attention to W8 and Crump. This suggests to me that their larger strategy may not involve trying to defend GZ’s statements (for the obvious reason that they are essentially defenseless), but trying to shift the focus to ‘This was all drawn up by the Scheme Team!’ Perhaps it is their hope that this will allow them to prevail at an immunity hearing. ‘These charges aren’t legitimate! The whole case is crumped up… err, trumped up.’ It seems they want to make Crump the villain, the criminal mastermind behind GZ’s persecution. You could say O’Mara and West have been spending too much time listening to the CTH talk, but what else are they gonna present?

    I think there’s no there there, that Crump was probably just misinformed about DeeDee’s age, probably by Sybrina Fulton, who didn’t know DeeDee that well and was simply mistaken. Perhaps Trayvon had even lied to his parents about her age for some reason, perhaps out of some fear they’d disapprove of her (just a wild guess). The notion that Crump would intentionally lie about her age strikes me as a very long stretch. He’s a smart lawyer, and certainly wants to take any advantage the system may offer him, but he’s not going to go around making varifiably false statements that could get him in trouble with the bar on purpose.

    • onlyiamunitron
      March 2, 2013 at 1:37 PM

      “Crumped up charges” is now officially my favorite new phrase for at least the next 5 or 10 minutes.

      unitron

    • amsterdam1234
      March 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

      What is there to discuss? Bdlr has stated that the defense has DD’s birthdate. West has stated in court that DD was 18 at the time of the incidence, and is now 19.
      Bdlr has never made any personal information available to the general public about any witness who hadn’t already divulged that information.
      I haven’t heard Crump making the statement that DD was 16, but I’ll accept that he did, and it seems he was wrong. There is no evidence DD lied about her age.

      I think that covers about all there is to know, everything else is speculation.

      • March 2, 2013 at 5:44 PM

        Exactly.

        • blushedbrown
          March 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM

          Ditto

    • March 2, 2013 at 4:35 PM

      Thanks. My “take away” on all this is that BDlR confirmed the actual age of “Dee Dee
      ” is eighteen at the time of her deposition. The rest is supposition and speculation.

      I do agree w Whonoze that the defense possibly has a strategy at work here wherin the hope to create the appearance and reinforce the notion that the state cannot prove their case for murder in the second degree. They also probably would be wise NOT to attack “Dee Dee” directly in open court because to do so is quite likely to backfire with a jury rather spectacularly. She is an unsophisticated teen who likely was an ear witness to a tragic crime. Better to attack Crump who will not be standing in court to defend himself or his credibility. One has to admit there is a certain logic to what MOM is trying to do here. It’s not really trying the case on it’s merits but like you said, Whonoze, what choice does e have?

      He’s also seemingly benefiting from an echo chamber of Internet figures and a rather lazy and compliant MSM.

      • March 3, 2013 at 7:37 AM

        The biggest hurdle for the defense to jump is, DD’s testimony is spot on for the case, with a match to events that she could not see and it was impossible for her to be aware of. There was neither time nor knowledge sufficient for anyone at all, Atty Crump included, to have managed to coach DD at all. For to coach DD, they, themselves, would have to have certain knowledge that simply wasn’t available to anyone, until several months of analysis of the evidence releases had been accomplished.

        It, therefore, cannot matter whether or not she or Atty Crump had the benefit of hearing either news programs or evidence releases at that time, because none of it could easily reveal, by simple inspection, what would be needed to construct a workable falsity.

        • ada4750
          March 3, 2013 at 10:56 AM

          Sorry, but i have to disagree. When Mr. Crump interviewed her, the NEN call and 911 calls were already released. It was possible to built her story from that. The only detail that was not available is the mailboxes cover (also maybe the heavy rain timeline).

          Having said that, i don’t believe one second that M. Crump did coach her. Formally, she could have made up the story herself or with some help. I really think that was not the case but she will have to be convincing.

        • March 3, 2013 at 2:35 PM

          How could either of them construct a story, using the NeN call tapes? They were originally led to believe that the call started in front of the Clubhouse after Trayvon had been followed from Taaffe’s. If they’d have tried to construct a false story, their account could not possibly line up with the location of the start of the NeN call, when it shifted from in front of the clubhouse to over by the mail boxes, so it would have become another anomaly without explanation and a suspect one as well. Remember neither of then knew the truth of the matter about where Trayvon or GZ was at the time the call started, so they could not have faked it, even just using the NeN tapes.

          It took the tapes, the timelines from 711 back to RATL and Trayvon’s call logs as well as the cctv data that took months to get and extract. Until all of that had been both analyzed and debated, no one could know that GZ had lied and had not called NEN from in front of the clubhouse. Thus, if they’d tried to falsify testimony they’d have assumed that GZ was in front of the clubhouse when the NEN call started. That would have lead to easily discovered and glaring mistakes. If you don’t believe me, take my word for it. Go back and do the work yourself.

          DD testimony illuminated the events and even revealed things we did not know. As well as confirmed things we had only speculated about. Impossible to get those things right by luck.

        • ada4750
          March 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM

          But the analysis of the Clubhouse cameras provides a powerful way to validate DeeDee’s account since no mention of Trayvon being at the mailboxes was made in GZ’s call.

        • March 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM

          Exactly, therefore an attempt to construct a false story, would have failed to realize that false information was going to be used to do so. So, the fact that DD’s testimony follows the truth, even after the lies in the original story are revealed, demonstrates the truth of it.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 3, 2013 at 2:39 PM

          @ada4750
          At the time Crump interviewed DD the nen call was available, but not the logs. In other words a 4 minute audio recording without timestamps. When GZ said Trayvon ran, Crump or DD couldn’t know what time that happened.

          The same for the 911 calls. The verbal exchange she heard, matches what w11 heard. DD said she thought Trayvon was pushed, indicating the beginnining of the physical altercation, and that she thought the phone fell and the call disconnected. The telephone records show that this happened at 7:16 pm. W11 called 911 when the physical altercation began at 7:16:11. That information was not known when Crump interviewed DD.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 3, 2013 at 8:22 PM

          The telephone company time stamps on the young lady’s calls and Trayvon’s calls cannot be considered to have the same degree of accuracy as the law enforcement provided time stamps on the NEN and 911 calls.

          LE has no financial incentive to turn part of a minute into an entire minute.

          And the phone company is really showing you what you’re being billed for, not exactly what actually happened.

          I suspect Susan at LL2 is probably pretty near correct with her guesstimate of 7:11:30 pm to 7:15:30 pm for their last conversation together.

          unitron

        • amsterdam1234
          March 3, 2013 at 2:43 PM

          I agree. If you seriously looked at the data, it is amazing how spot on DD’s statements are. Especially with the problems they had with the calls that kept disconnecting.

        • ada4750
          March 3, 2013 at 5:08 PM

          @lonniestar. Neither DeeDee or GZ in his NEN call talked about Taafe’s house. GZ fist spotted Trayvon near the ClubHouse, nothing more precise.

          @lonniestar and amsterdam1234 No question about it, DeeDee was on phone with Trayvon. Therefore it would not be hard for her to get the rigth time logs. Same for the round trip to the 711 or when (not how) the confrontation started.

          Yes W11 furnishes a slim validation. This could not be faked. I wonder if W11 will try to melt it in court since i think she got some tie with GZ.

          Back to DeeDee. It is only the last part of her testimony that is crucial. She could have kept without problem the first part like it really happened. I realize that i am contradicting my previous comment.

          Actually, DeeDee’s account validates the analysis of the Clubhouse cameras which destroys GZ’s credibility.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 3, 2013 at 5:26 PM

          Ada
          It is not about her phonelogs it is about the nen and 911 logs. Those were not made public until after DD’s interview. She couldn’t have known what time GZ called the nen, and she couldn’t have known what time Trayvon was killed.

          Please do your analysis of the evidence if you want to seriously discuss the topic. You’re only contribution right now are rumors from GZ support blogs.

        • ada4750
          March 3, 2013 at 6:03 PM

          @amsterdam The NEN call and 911 calls were released march 16th. Crump made his iinterview march 19th.

          Gee!!! You don’t know i much i hate most of the guys you’re talking about.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 4, 2013 at 2:18 AM

          @ada4750

          The nen call was released on the 16th without timestamps!!
          DD gave her statement with the time they happened by linking events to the call drops. So when DD said Trayvon started running she gave a time when he did, while on the 16th nobody knew at what time GZ said Trayvon was running in his nen call.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 4, 2013 at 5:51 AM

          @unitron
          The telephone information that has been made public is the billing information the telephone company provides its customers.
          The prosecution subpoenaed the telephone company for the telephone records, which will include the exact times and will be as valid as the information from the nen call.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 8:35 AM

          But we, the public, do not have what the phone company has revealed to the state, we just have Tracy Martin’s billing statement, and people are treating that 7:12:00 pm and exactly 4 minutes duration as gospel in doing comparisons to the other calls from that night, which is like saying someone’s sailing time from Spain to Hispanola was exactly 37 mintutes faster than it took Columbus.

          unitron

        • amsterdam1234
          March 4, 2013 at 10:13 AM

          @unitron
          I really dislike your modus operandi. I refute Ada’s claim that DD and Crump had the information to taylor DD’s statement, by showing that they didn’t. The nen call was released on the 16th of march but the logs that show the time GZ called and made his statements, were not released until after Crump recorded the DD interview.

          Your statement that the phone records are not as valid in a court of law as the nen logs, is not relevant to the discussion if DD and Crump had all the information to “fix” DD’s statements.

          Then when I point out that those phone records that are now available to the public are not same records the prosecution subpoenaed from the phone company, you start pontificating about all the intellectually inferior people you have to share the internet with, who use these records as the gospel.

          So let me take it back to the original argument.
          The billing records and the actual records will be off by at most 59 seconds. DD and Crump had no indication of time available when the nen call was released. That means for all they knew, GZ may have made his call at 6:30 pm that evening.

          All DD’s statement’s about events measured for time against phone disconnects, are within that 59 sec margin. And that includes the ones measured against the 911 calls, and that information wasn’t available until april.

          Now you can start your whining about all those stupid blogs, with stupid people, who are so mean to you.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 11:22 AM

          “Your statement that the phone records are not as valid in a court of law as the nen logs, is not relevant to the discussion if DD and Crump had all the information to “fix” DD’s statements.”

          My statement–that the phone company billing sheet figures which are all that we in the public have seen so far are not as accurate as the law enforcement time stamps–is relevant to your claim that “The telephone records show that this happened at 7:16 pm. ” where “this” is “DD said she thought Trayvon was pushed, indicating the beginnining of the physical altercation, and that she thought the phone fell and the call disconnected.”

          I was pointing out that it might well have been perhaps 30 seconds earlier than that.

          For the physical encounter to begin as late as 7:16:00 pm and the first 911 caller to have dialed and gotten answered only 11 seconds later assumes almost superhuman reaction times and reflexes on the part of that first caller.

          “Then when I point out that those phone records that are now available to the public are not same records the prosecution subpoenaed from the phone company, you start pontificating about all the intellectually inferior people you have to share the internet with, who use these records as the gospel.”

          When I pointed out that “…we, the public, do not have what the phone company has revealed to the state, we just have Tracy Martin’s billing statement…” at no point did I refer to anyone as intellectually (or otherwise) inferior.

          IF the young lady was the person on the phone with Trayvon, and IF she wished to “enhance” her account with information learned from listening to the recording of Zimmerman’s NEN call, then assuming Trayvon did tell her when he started to run, or she could tell by the change in ambient sounds that he started to run, she could pin down a time for Zimmerman’s call from his announcement that Trayvon had run.

          “DD and Crump had no indication of time available when the nen call was released. That means for all they knew, GZ may have made his call at 6:30 pm that evening.”

          Perhaps the lack of any mention in the various media of the police arriving in the neighborhood in the 6:40 to 6:50 pm time frame assured them that he had not made the call that early.

          IF the young lady was the person on the phone with Trayvon, and IF she wished to “enhance” her account, then hearing the recordings of all the calls that night would enable her to avoid including anything which conflicted with any of those calls.

          unitron

        • March 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM

          Hahaha… That assumes a whole lot more brain power than they had available. DD would not have been deposed for several days while they tried to struggle to put that together. But they didn’t, they wasted no time attempting to parse any reports for opportunities to enhance her testimony. They went to it straight away, and it compliments what was learned later about the several key time approximations and she repeats this feat with the SP’s deposition. You heard her language, do you really want us to believe that she and Atty Crump collected all the 911 calls and listened to them overnight, took the necessary notes and held the needed discussions to locate the places where enhancements could be successfully made without later detection? Hmmmm… that’s quite a bit of work for an 18 year old girl who has no training in document handling and a very big risk for a notable Attorney with a very profitable statewide practice.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 2:56 PM

          I did not say that she and Crump did or did not do anything.

          I merely pointed out that the making public of the calls would have made it possible if they wished to, a position with which others disagree, and offered supporting argument for my position.

          unitron

        • ada4750
          March 4, 2013 at 10:23 AM

          amsterdam1234 Supposedly, DeeDee interviews given to Crump and BDLR are for the essential identical. DeeDee gave only relative times. Like before or after the communication started or finished then this or that happened.

    • March 3, 2013 at 5:26 AM

      I can think of a possible reason Crump created the impression that DeeDee is under 18 — that makes her a minor, and makes it so much easier to protect her identity. So far this has worked. She’s the only main witness whose details are not in the public arena.

  11. onlyiamunitron
    March 2, 2013 at 9:55 PM

    whonoze, did you happen to save a copy of the post Jeralyn deleted from the back porch thread?

    Kinda hard to know what breaks the rules when the example disappears.

    unitron

    • March 3, 2013 at 2:26 PM

      I did hear back from Jeralyn. I had said that GZ’s statements aren’t worth spit since they are full of internal contradictions and physical impossibilities. Thou shalt not question the word of George on TalkLeft. I also had said GZ said “coons” not “punks”, but in the context of noting (per the article i wrote here months ago) that it doesn’t matter, and that it would be wrong to hang a hate-crime beef on GZ on the basis of him uttering a single epithet under his breath. But that raised Jeralyn’s ire anyway and she deleted it.
      **sigh** **shrug**

  12. March 2, 2013 at 11:22 PM

    onlyiamunitron :

    whonoze, did you happen to save a copy of the post Jeralyn deleted from the back porch thread?

    No. And I honestly can’t remember what i wrote either. I emailed JM to ask her to send the post back to me, or summarize. Don’t know if she’ll reply. FromBelow posted a very insulting reply to one of my comments, and I flamed him/her back in kind, which may get me banned. That woman is the poster child for hypocrisy. ‘No speculation’ she says. Well, if so, why is there a back porch thread to begin with, and why is it bearing a discussion of whether or not the ‘Three Stooges’ gave Trayvon a ride home from the 7-11?

    The thing is, the TalkLeft Zimmerman forum is actually worthless as a tool for it’s stated goal of aiding Zimmerman’s defense because any cogent analysis of Zimmerman’s statements and actions from a prosecution-ish perspective gets the poster banned. Thus, the forum is a bubble where no one is allowed to question the assumptions that are likely to be questioned at trial, so they can formulate no counter argument. They just resort to insults and name-calling and Jeralyn’s delete key, options O’Mara will not have in front of a jury.

    Kinda hard to know what breaks the rules when the example disappears.

    Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
    Willard: I don’t see any method, sir.

    • March 3, 2013 at 10:09 AM

      “The bullshit’s so high (at talkLeft) you needed wings to get above it. ”

      Asking “Where was George?” is what got me banned from Jeralyn Merrit’s website. She must have deleted several dozen perfectly reasonable posts of mine before she finally tired of helpfully suggesting that I “move on” from asserting that GZ lacked any credibility regarding his statements regarding his movements from clubhouse to cut thru vicinity. How can one “move on” when no one on that site was ever willing to explain ” where’s George?” as the prosecution is so likely to ask?

      Getting banned there was a huge favor to me. I started posting here instead and the level of deductive reasoning was a great deal higher.

  13. March 3, 2013 at 12:31 AM

    New LLMPapa video debunking ‘forensics expert’ Michael Knox’s claim that the bullet hole in Trayvon’s hoodie indicates he was on top of GZ when the fatal shot was fired:

    • ada4750
      March 3, 2013 at 9:36 AM

      There must be a way to figure the distance between the two shirts. If the distance is very small it means they were pulled with a grip from the lowest part of the shirt.

      But it must be very hard to stretch that much the upper part of the shirts. Therefore, i suppose the grip must has been somewhere near Trayvon’s right shoulder. But then the shirts were not tight together

      All this is extremely technical and IMO we can not say much. I can’t wait to learn the details at the trial.

      • March 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM

        Ada the holes in the 2 shirts line up exactly. They were being held tight together. No way they were hanging loose.

        • ada4750
          March 3, 2013 at 11:33 AM

          More i think about of it, more i find this analysis hard to make. At least to determine if GZ was under Trayvon or not. But, it may contradict GZ’s account because he coud not hold Trayvon’s arm and stretch the shirts at the same time.

        • March 3, 2013 at 2:49 PM

          There is not enough room for him to grab TM’s garments and pull them towards himself, while he’s on his back. At the very same time, as he’s pulling on those same garments in a direction that’s towards himself and to his left, he has to fire a straight in shot with no angle, using a gun held in his right hand, where his elbow cannot go below ground level and thus restricts his forearm to move in an arc. Nowhere along that arc, is there any possibility of a straight in shot with no angle. Because Trayvon’s body would have to be both distant and close at the very same time. Distant so GZ could get his forearm with the gun hand on it, under Trayvon’s chest, while at the same time, with enough distance for GZ to pull Trayvon’s garment 4 to 5 inches towards himself.

          In this position there is only room and range of motion enough to get a contact shot with an angle.

          However, if they were both laying on the ground, then GZ can’t pull leftwards with his left hand because the ground prevents it. So the only position that allows a solution for the garment pull and the no angle shot, is if GZ is either over Trayvon or if they are both standing. GZ is Toast!!!

        • amsterdam1234
          March 4, 2013 at 6:13 AM

          W5, w16, w12 and w18 all said they saw GZ on top of Trayvon at the time or immediately following the shot.

          I think the prosecution can show so did Austin and w1.

          This is what w1 said she saw immediately following the shot:

          18:20 Batchelor: Did you go back to the window and look again?
          18:22 W1: Yes.
          18:24 Batchelor: Immediately after you heard the shot?
          18:27 W1: As soon as I heard the shot I went back and looked. And…
          18:32 Batchelor: What did you see?
          18:35 W1: I saw the body!
          18:39 Batchelor: Did you see anybody else?
          18:41 W1: I can’t remember seeing anybody else. At this time the light was on so you could see.
          18:49 Batchelor: A light was on?
          18:51 W1: There was a light on in the back. From what I remember, a light was on at the time. It wasn’t on before.
          19:04 Batchelor: What happened next?
          19:06 W1: Then I went upstairs. I told my sister, “I think somebody’s shot outside.”
          19:14 Batchelor: And the body as you’re describing it, that you saw immediately after the gunshot, how was it positioned?
          19:25 W1: Um. It looked like… I’m trying to remember… It looked like it wasn’t straight down. But it was down and it looked like the legs was like this. Sort of like in a running position. But it was like this.
          19:54 Batchelor: Are you describing a face down position or a face up position.
          20:00 W1: Face down.
          20:07 Batchelor: And you only seen, as you are describing, the body.
          20:12 W1: Right.
          20:14 Batchelor: Noone else at that point?
          20:17 W1: Noone.
          20:19 Batchelor: Do you know what the body, or the person, was wearing?
          20:27 W1: I remember a jacket, and sweat pants, and black sneakers.
          20:35 Batchelor: Do you remember colors of the sweat pants or the jacket?
          20:40 W1: Um. I think the sweat pants was gray and the jacket was a reddish color. Wasn’t bright red. But it was in the red family, I guess. Red kinda pinkish, maroonish kind of looking color.
          21:18 Batchelor: And who are you describing the clothing for?
          21:22 W1: It was the body. That’s the only… I didn’t see a second person. The only other person I saw was the cop.

          Selma sees GZ on top of Trayvon seconds after the shot. We know how long he stayed on top, because W18 describes in her 911 call when GZ got up. GZ was on top of Trayvon for at least 45 seconds.

          W1 was in the kitchen, which faces the back when she heard the shot, she must have looked out at the same time as Selma, which means GZ was on top. That explains why she describes the “body” as wearing GZ’s clothes, not all the way down on the ground and with the legs in a running position.

          I think that is the reason Austin only saw one person on the ground. Just like w1, he only saw the person on top. I don’t know if Austin would’ve been able to tell the color of the jacket. He was outside so his eyes may have been adjusted to the darkness better than the witnesses who were inside.

        • March 4, 2013 at 1:17 PM

          19:14 Batchelor: And the body as you’re describing it, that you saw immediately after the gunshot, how was it positioned?
          19:25 W1: Um. It looked like… I’m trying to remember… It looked like it wasn’t straight down. But it was down and it looked like the legs was like this. Sort of like in a running position. But it was like this.
          19:54 Batchelor: Are you describing a face down position or a face up position.
          20:00 W1: Face down.
          20:07 Batchelor: And you only seen, as you are describing, the body.
          20:12 W1: Right.
          20:14 Batchelor: Noone else at that point?
          20:17 W1: Noone.
          20:19 Batchelor: Do you know what the body, or the person, was wearing?
          20:27 W1: I remember a jacket, and sweat pants, and black sneakers.
          20:35 Batchelor: Do you remember colors of the sweat pants or the jacket?
          20:40 W1: Um. I think the sweat pants was gray and the jacket was a reddish color. Wasn’t bright red. But it was in the red family, I guess. Red kinda pinkish, maroonish kind of looking color.
          21:18 Batchelor: And who are you describing the clothing for?
          21:22 W1: It was the body. That’s the only… I didn’t see a second person. The only other person I saw was the cop.

          It’s seems to me like a magicians trick. Where a dark colored cloth is used to mask something from the audience. Against a black backdrop, anything hidden behind the black cloth would appear invisible from a seat in the audience.

          So then, what the witness is seeing is, Trayvon’s legs in light colored pants, in the running position another witness describes after GZ gets up. She also sees GZ’s red colored jacket, but not his dark blue colored pants. She’s looking at a composite of the two laying on the ground, with GZ laying on top. She’s describing a composite, made up of the lightest colored clothing the two were wearing. GZ’s red jacket and Trayvon’s light colored pants.

      • March 3, 2013 at 2:20 PM

        With there being an L shaped hole in one of the garments, my guess is the grip had to be nearby, as wrinkles from pulling tend to abate over distances. But, I would guess that you’re not going to get 4 to 5 inches of stretch from both garments, so the pull had to have shifted the garments positions on the body as well. As the grip and pull caused the seam at the shoulder to come forward from the top of the shoulder and come down.

      • amsterdam1234
        March 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM

        @lonnie
        She describes the pants as grey. GZ was wearing blue jeans. I think she is describing GZ’s pants. Blue would look more like grey than tan.

        Notice that she said “19:25 W1: Um. It looked like… I’m trying to remember… It looked like it wasn’t straight down. But it was down and it looked like the legs was like this. Sort of like in a running position. But it was like this.”

        Austin thought somebody fell and needed help. He saw the back of one person and heard someone screaming for help. He didn’t expect a 2nd person.

        Even John thought there was only one person on the ground at first:

        “And I opened the sliding glass door and looking out there, it almost looked like a dog attack by, or something like that, because there was a man vertically looking forward, on, like towards the ground, so if I’m standing at the glass door, I don’t know how to describe, it was pretty much like I was laying on the ground, directly in front of-, like directly in front of me on the sidewalk. So, I couldn’t really tell what was going on until I heard, “Help, help, help” yelled again, and then I noticed there was a guy in a lighter colored shirt or sweatshirt or what ever he was wearing, I think it was a red color or a white color, on the bottom of the person”

  14. bgesq
    March 3, 2013 at 12:50 AM

    follow again, please, i fell off between 3 & 4

  15. ada4750
    March 3, 2013 at 6:16 PM

    I just read the last M. Leatherman last post. I know i should talk about it on his blog but i don’t feel enough comfortable. I am quite amazed that in his opinion it is not important to prove that Trayvon did not reach GZ or to determine Trayvon’s position when GZ shot.

    I strongly disagree. If Trayvon has reached GZ for whatever reason it is then impossible to legally establish GZ as the initial aggressor.

    Also, even if GZ was the initial aggressor but was overpowered by Trayvon he could disputably be scared for his life. We can not surely establish that he had a depraved mind. But if he shot when he was not under Trayvon, there is no more doubt. He had no justifiable reason to scared for his life. This is why, in the first case i think GZ is only guilty of manslaughter (always with the assumption that he was the initial aggressor)

    I have to quit for a while. I hope whonoze will not be offended with my comment.

    • March 3, 2013 at 10:21 PM

      Wow, what a ridiculous statement. GZ overpowered by a 165 lb kid? A hulking 204lb adult? In fear of his life because a child came towards him? So why does he carry his gun everywhere he goes if he forgets about it when he’s in danger? Oh please, you’ve failed to make any sense. Hardly a wonder you don’t want to go talk about it on Leatherman’s blog.

      • ada4750
        March 3, 2013 at 11:14 PM

        @LonnieStar I made the assumption, if you read carefully, that if GZ shot when he was UNDER Trayvon. Now tell me, if you are under somebody, isn’t because you’ve been overpowered? Who made the cuts on GZ’s head? Angel Gabriel? Don’t get me wrong, i don’t put any blame on Trayvon. He fought for his life and was having the best over GZ if, of course, the assumption that GZ shot from under holds.

        This is killing me. In a debate like that we have to make plenty assumptions and then go for deductions. But some people wince over the deductions forgetting the logic behind them,

        This is why i don’t want to write at M. Leatherman blog anymore. It is almost impossible the write something a little bit against the current without being without being flooded by the reactions.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM

          “This is why i don’t want to write at M. Leatherman blog anymore. It is almost impossible the write something a little bit against the current without being without being flooded by the reactions.”

          It’s that darned being logical. Gets you in trouble every time.

          unitron

        • March 4, 2013 at 11:46 AM

          The trouble with logic is, if you hire more police and the number of arrest rises, logic leads to the conclusion that police cause crime. You need reason to break the loop of logical fallacy.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM

          “The trouble with logic is, if you hire more police and the number of arrest rises, logic leads to the conclusion that police cause crime. You need reason to break the loop of logical fallacy.”

          Confusing correlation with causation has nothing to do with logic.

          unitron

        • March 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM

          GZ lied to investigators regarding a killing. Once a jury understands that, he can be easily convicted on merely circumstantial evidence. His lies are as good as proof that he wants to hide things, serious things that occurred that night. If he were telling the truth about being attacked he wouldn’t need to lie about how they both moved from clubhouse to cut thru vicinity.

        • March 4, 2013 at 12:09 PM

          Exactly, and since lying shows partiality one cannot take the liars word for anything else. Most especially since they were there and could have observed things that their lies are designed to conceal. When they conceal real evidence, they also fail to confirm the statements of others and provide other materials that would corroborate and validate the truth of other witnesses and evidence. So, because of these effects, everything they say must be removed and ignored, unless it can be verified.

          Early on in this case, readers had to struggle with the data, because, to be fair, they had to give GZ’s words, statements, assertions and claims the benefit of being treated as true, unless they could be dis-proven by veritical material to the contrary. Once he proved himself a liar that equation changed, because he could not be allowed to continue to deceive by design to self serving effect. The hurdle of believing his words to be true until proven otherwise was gone and reversed.

        • nemerinys
          March 4, 2013 at 3:13 AM

          ada4750,

          First, I want to thank you for persistently wanting to parse and discuss the evidence.

          Second, going back to basics, what is, in your opinion and playing devil’s advocate, the evidence supporting Zimmerman’s statement/s that Trayvon assaulted him?

          Third, what is, in your opinion, the importance of Trayvon’s movements after running compared to Zimmerman’s movements during and after the NEN call?

          And, fourth, in your opinion, what are the possible weaknesses in Witness8-DD’s testimony?

          I genuinely want to know, because I think it’s good to examine the arguments for both sides.

        • 2dogsonly
          March 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM

          @ada4750 says “in a debate like this we have to make plenty of assumptions”

          No, not at this particular blog. We were well trained by Crick to NEVER make assumptions without citing evidence for said assumptions. Otherwise, it’s just thoughtless blabber and there are plenty of blogs (Leatherman’s is one) where you can opine away.

          Please do not let this blog deteriorate into “we have to make assumptions” and ” what I think” without first citing case evidence.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM

          To which Crick do you refer?

          unitron

        • March 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM

          Sorry I didn’t realize that you weren’t forwarding assertions. I guess people have become sensitized to the irritations trolls, who never back down no matter what, have caused.

          You are certainly right, that your speculation deserves a considered answer. Okay, but let me suggest something to you. If you go over to Leatherman’s blog and make it clear that you are not asserting the position, but have questions that need clarification, you’ll be better receive than to simply assume that your ideas will be received courteously.

          This is largely because we’ve all struggled for quite sometime disproving the things that you are bring up again.

          @LonnieStar I made the assumption, if you read carefully, that if GZ shot when he was UNDER Trayvon. Now tell me, if you are under somebody, isn’t because you’ve been overpowered? Who made the cuts on GZ’s head? Angel Gabriel? Don’t get me wrong, i don’t put any blame on Trayvon. He fought for his life and was having the best over GZ if, of course, the assumption that GZ shot from under holds.

          Okay, firstly, those who say GZ was under Trayvon have proved not to be very credible witnesses. So, that is measured against the ones who say or whose testimony suggests that the person on top wore red. Trayvon, very clearly did not have any red in his garments.

          The witness who asserts that Trayvon was raining down MMA style blows, has retracted his claims to the point where he now says he isn’t sure who was on top. But, his credibility is seriously damaged, because he very earlier on, asserted, with details supplied, something that never happened at all. He made claims that he did not see, and therefore had to have either made up or obtained from someone else. A person who is willing to do that kind of thing is not to be believed at all.

          Meanwhile, GZ’s assertions that he was being savagely beaten, are not borne out by the evidence. Trayvon cannot administer any kind of life threatening beating/assault, without getting some evidence of the described actions on the hands that he would have had to use. Thus those claims are merely self serving lies. They could not have happened without leaving evidence that they did.

          Next is the fact that while laying on the ground, GZ cannot achieve a shot with the characteristics that analysis of evidence shows. While he is laying on his back under Trayvon. His arms simply cannot move through the range of motions necessary in that position.

          While he can shoot Trayvon from that position on his back, he cannot possibly leave a wound and garments that show contact with the garments but intermediate range from the chest. The mechanics of the position claimed prohibits it. Trayvon would have to lean so far forward to get his chest over the gun, so that a straight in shot with no angle could be achieved, that he would have to prop himself up with his hands. In that position he would be so close to GZ, that his gun, in his hand, at the end of his arm, would be so high as to make tight contact of the muzzle with Trayvon’s chest. So there would be no evidence of intermediate range on any surface. And…

          Finally the evidence shows that the garments Trayvon wore, were not merely sagging under the force of gravity, but were pulled down and to the side. While GZ is on his back he cannot achieve a straight in shot from front to back with no angle, he also cannot pull Trayvon’s garments away from Trayvon’s body, because there is not enough room and he doesn’t have the range of motion he needs for his other arm.

          While the “mount” position makes for a nice story, in reality it is a very unstable position that is hard to maintain. Thus, it doesn’t not provide the stability for the kind of attack that GZ claims. Hardly a wonder then, that Trayvon’s hands do not display any evidence, that this claimed but improbable attack should have deposited.

          Thus, for these reasons we are forced to conclude that, whatever position Trayvon and GZ had in relation to one another, when the fatal shot was fired, GZ on his back, under Trayvon was not one of them.

          This is why we’ve abandoned the speculations and theories that suggest this hypothesis.

          If you go over to FL’s blog again and ask why they’ve abandoned these theories and have stopped dealing with these speculations, you will probably receive a host of courteous answers, along the lines I’ve laid out above.

        • ada4750
          March 5, 2013 at 6:38 AM

          @nemerinys Hello again. Yesterday, I answered quickly while doing other things. Sorry. There was few mistakes like will instead of will not.

          I want to elaborate a little about DeeDee’s silence. I think we all met incomprehensible behavior suddenly became clear after explanation (like me with my wife for example!). This could very well be the case with DeeDee. I can not believe that BDLR has not verified after the official interview with DD all the points I raised. This is why i believe she will perform well despite the bad appearance

          @LonnieStar. “Actually merely having injuries is not proof positive of either a fight or a struggle” I am speechless …

          The temptation is great to convict a person who lied about circumstantial evidence in a case even though no direct evidence is available to the heart of it. Is it morally correct? In this case, i am not sure. Maybe GZ lied about circumstantial aspects in order to ensure a faster end of the case.

          Note: DeeDee’s testimony and the GZ’s position when he shot belong to the heart of the case.

      • ada4750
        March 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM

        @nemerinys Thank you for the pacific words. They are truly appreciated.

        There is no evidence that Trayvon assaulted GZ neither the opposite except maybe DeeDee when she says that she heard “get of … get off”. But this is to slim. It looks like it is impossible to determine who actually started the physical confrontation. IMO (that’s on opinion!) the prosecution don’t need to determine that. It is sufficient to prove that GZ pursued and finally reached a Trayvon. The NEN call and GZ inconsistencies are good indications but i don’t think (an another opinion!) that it will be sufficient.

        You asked about the importance of Trayvon’s or GZ’s movements. Their only but crucial importance is to determine who reached who and this is why DeeDee’s testimony is so important.

        What are the weaknessess in DeeDee’s testimony? Well, it goes along with her credibility. If the jury think that her credibility is concrete, there is no weakness. But it will be the case. She will have to establish her credibility simply because the possibility that she made up the last part exist.

        It will begin by explaining her behavior after the drama. Many are saying that there was nothing suspicious. I don’t agree at all. It is highly surprising. I suppose the jury will be extremely attentive if this question is raised. After, she will have to be more precise about the “couple minutes” spent after Trayvon had eluded GZ. In particular, was Trayvon in movement or not and what was he saying to her if he was talking? And finally, it would help if she can give at least an indication why Trayvon did not go in.

      • ada4750
        March 4, 2013 at 12:06 PM

        @LonnieStar About the position of GZ when he shot. Are you saying that the discussion for this subject is over on FL’s blog? I really think that is premature and i am afraid that the expertise opinions bring by the prosecution will be confront by counter-expertise with the purpose to raise doubt in jury’s mind. Unless the prosecution has a real striking proof.

        There is of course no evidence that GZ was beaten but there is evidence that a struggle happened and that GZ had some injuries. That’s enough to claim self-defense if nothing else is known.

        Thank you Lonnie for your invitation. I will consider it.

        • March 4, 2013 at 3:08 PM

          Actually merely having injuries is not proof positive of either a fight or a struggle. We have only GZ’s word for it that a struggle ever happened. I don’t think GZ’s word is going to carry much weight with the jurors, because of what he did to the court during the bail hearing. And because of his several versions of the “fight” that led to the fatal shot. Without credibility GZ’s version of events will not be taken seriously. Once proven a liar, the jury will have a right to suspect that his evidence given as testimony is little more than a series of self serving lies, designed to cover the truth of the matter. So, no, I don’t think the SP is going to have anything to worry about, from the defense, as far as DD’s credibility goes.

          The defense hasn’t a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging DD’s credibility.

    • 2dogsonly
      March 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM

      @ada4750 says:” if TM has reached GZ for whatever reason it is then impossible to legally establish GZ as initial aggressor. I hope whonose is not offended with my comment”

      I am very offended with your comment. Not only are you proposing GZ was not the aggressor in spite of NEN call but you erroneously cite SYG by saying it is impossible to legally establish GZ as aggressor.

      Please whonose, make her establish particular evidence before giving opinions. She is coming across as a GZ supporter or maybe a troll.

      • onlyiamunitron
        March 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM

        Your definition of aggressor is not necessarily the same as that which the law and the court will be going.

        I suspect their’s will have a lot more to do with who first laid hands on whom.

        If you’re going to automatically equate anyone who trys to look at things from all sides with being “a GZ supporter or maybe a troll”, are you sure you wouldn’t be more comfortable over at Leatherman’s lounge?

        And it’s whonoze, with a “Z” (okay, technically a “z”)

        unitron

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 9:35 AM

          “as that (by) which the law and the court will be going.

          Stupid WordPress lack of preview mode, grumble, grumble, grumble.

          unitron

      • ada4750
        March 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM

        @2dogsonly

        1- I am not a she. ADA is a programming language. I use this nickname since a very long time.

        2- I am not a damn troll. I despise most of GZ supporters. It’s funny because they were saying the same on Leatherman’s blog when i stopped writing there.

        3- I try to not give opinion. I rather try to structure logically my comments with (yes) assumptions (or hypothesis if you prefer) and logical deductions.

        Like: If this than that. If that then something else. When i write IF GZ was under Trayvon then … Please don’t forget the if
        .
        4- You gave yourself an opinion when you wrote that the NEN call makes de facto GZ the aggressor. It is certainly a good indication but it is not a legal proof.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 4, 2013 at 10:18 AM

          The problem is that you are not logical. If you want to have a real discussion about the evidence, I suggest you take on nemerynis’ challenge.

        • ada4750
          March 4, 2013 at 10:24 AM

          @amsterdam I keep nemerysis for the dessert!

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 12:01 PM

          “1- I am not a she. ADA is a programming language.”

          Named, of course, for a woman, specifically one considered to be the first programmer, male or female:

          “Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace (10 December 1815 – 27 November 1852), born Augusta Ada Byron and now commonly known as Ada Lovelace”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

          unitron

  16. blushedbrown
    March 3, 2013 at 6:37 PM

    Part 1

    • blushedbrown
      March 3, 2013 at 6:38 PM

      part 3

      • 2dogsonly
        March 3, 2013 at 11:33 PM

        Thank you! It’s good to be back.

      • 2dogsonly
        March 3, 2013 at 11:34 PM

        Thank you Blushed Brown. Going to post it on my twitter(@puffytuffy)

  17. 2dogsonly
    March 3, 2013 at 7:37 PM

    http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/video/george-zimmerman-police-video-statements/
    Please go to 5:00mark or shortly after. He says” my wife called my friend Mark who was there and they drove over”. I believe Shellie was at her parents when “nice man who was eyewitness”( GZ’s words) called her. If this is accurate, then his friend, Mark, was at his home. GZ clearly tells Singletory his wife called his friend,Mark, WHO WAS THERE (my caps for emphasis). And they were at scene within 5 min.

    He also says his wife is a basket case.

    He also tells Det.Singletary the officers were suppose to take him to CSF and then trails away from this particular lie. This is his response to her asking if he had MRI or CAt scan. Instead of just telling the truth, he puts responsibility on cops. Then remembers the correct logical response of bad ins.

    Welcome back whonose! Hope you’re settling into your new home. Moving is no fun.

    • March 3, 2013 at 8:08 PM

      Hi 2dogs!

      Good to see you here!

    • March 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM

      Could the words “who was there” mean GZ is referring to Mark Odterman’s presence at the scene of the killing? Or do they mean GZ claims Osterman was “there” at GZ’s house without GZ and Shellie for some odd reason? The meaning seems unclear to me. To me the least likely interpretation is that “who was there” is supposed to indicate Osterman was at his own residence when he got a call from Shellie.

      What is the drive time/ distance from MO’s house to the RaTL.? Something has always seemed “off” about GZ’s narrative in this regard, as we have all seen in the W13/jon’s “bloody head” photo that GZ seems to be calling someone himself but never said who he tried to reach or did speak with. In addition there is doubt that GZ saw TM by Frank Taafee’s at all, this bringing up the question of a possible “tip off” person.

      I tend to think the “who was there” phrase is referring to Osterman’s being on scene post shooting but don’t yet believe GZ’s account of HOW he got there so quickly. At some point SPD had the gates blocked. When was this?

      • blushedbrown
        March 4, 2013 at 10:16 AM

        @Willis

        Per Osterman’s book he lived apprx 4 miles away. He writes that sometimes he would walk or bike over to their house. He also states he kept a key to their front door.

        I

        • March 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM

          Osterman may or may not be a credible person. HIs record indicates he is not. I he lived 4 miles away, according to google maps he’s at least TEN minutes away by car by my calculations. And I doubt he’s ridden a bicycle anywhere in the last ten years, judging by his physique. I do believe he may have had a house key….

          Of course GZ is probably inaccurate in saying MO was “there” in five minutes, but then again we just don’t know.

          It says a lot that no SPD officer mentions Osterman’s presence in any report. And I still hope the dashboard cam of Tim Smith’s cruiser can be entered in as evidence. It should show valuable info on GZ’s vehicle if it were recording as Smith approached the scene along TTL.

          On the clubhouse tapes there is a car that goes away from the scene on TTL around the time of the gunshot, IIRC. For all we know that’s MO’s car, or MO driving the ridgeline, who knows?

          Many things are possible. What GZ claims happened is not possible.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 4, 2013 at 11:15 AM

          @blushed
          I read somewhere that Osterman claimed Shellie called him at 7:30 pm. He met Shellie at the front gate, where she had to use her pass to gain entrance to the complex.

          I can’t remember where I read that part. Maybe you were the one quoting from his book?

          I am interested in that statement. Did he say anything about driving or walking into the complex? Cheryl Brown couldn’t enter the complex with her car. The police had the complex in lock down at 7:30 pm.

        • blushedbrown
          March 4, 2013 at 11:22 AM

          @Amsterdam

          Yes he wrote that he and his wife were walking their dogs, and a call came in about 7:30.

          >>>I am interested in that statement. Did he say anything about driving or walking into the complex?

          If you give me a minute, I will retyped an excerpt from his book for this question.

        • blushedbrown
          March 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM

          @Willis

          I need to correct the record, he wrote that Lake Mary is roughly four miles away from his best friends house.

          I apologize for that mistake.

      • March 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM

        “…Could the words “who was there” mean GZ is referring to Mark Odterman’s presence at the scene of the killing?…”

        No.

        If MO is at the scene, what’s the point/sense/need in getting a witness to call Shellie who then calls MO (who is already at the scene) and he then “drives over” with Shellie (who is somewhere else)???? how does that work? MO is in 3 places at once????

        MO claimed in his book that Shellie was at her father’s place (location unspecified and unknown) and he himself was at home, which is so close sometimes he even walked or cycled over. Looking at a map it is actually about 4 miles.

        Not a long time to drive that. Except when he got the call he and his wife were out walking their dogs, so he would have had to get home first, get the keys, start the car etc etc which could take twice as long as the actual drive itself.

        GZ was driven from the scene about 15-18 minutes after the shooting, and MO was well and truly there by then (as he stated he didn’t talk to the police or GZ “in great detail” which implies he DID talk to them a bit so he must have gotten there before GZ was taken away).

        When the police were checking number plates in the vicinity, I am fairly sure there were TWO vehicles there identified as “Zimmerman” which would imply at least Shellie was already there by then. This was fairly early on but I can’t recall the precise time. If this is right, it also indicates MO is right (in his book) about their having gone there in separate cars. But that doesn’t mean they came from 2 different places….you can drive “in convoy” from the same starting point.

        MO could have been at GZ’s house on his own, why not? I can see plenty of scenarios in which a close friend is left alone while the householder ducks out on some urgent errand (corner shop, neighbour or parent to borrow some equipment, a quick local hunting trip etc), even possibly something on behalf of the close friend.

        They just have to all insert the word “called” into their statements to obfuscate where everyone was, which they may regard as irrelevant or personal. It will all come out in a few months.

        I still believe MO went to GZ’s for some other purpose, casually mentioned having seen TM, GZ rushed out to have a look (or made an excuse to go shopping alone, to be able to get out to have a look) and MO was still at his place, waiting for him to get back. We’ll know soon. They released the bank video for a reason.

    • 2dogsonly
      March 4, 2013 at 11:30 AM

      Comment is at 6:24 46. GZ says ” ….called my wife who called my friend Mark who was there and they came over ….he doesn’t say …called my wife who called my friend Mark and they were here in 5 min. He says eye witness called his wife who then called his friend Mark “who was there.” The word “there”coupled with MO sticking to GZ like butter when the shit was getting really serious , letting him live at his home with his wife and child when GZ was too scared to return to his own home. Also, the bank photo, although that hasn’t been addressed in published court documents, so can’t address that ( thanks to crick’s training of show court documents or established work).

  18. 2dogsonly
    March 4, 2013 at 9:36 AM

    @ada’s Very first comment is this:
    “We can read at many places comments about the number of DeeDee (0, 1 or more) or if her account has been made up by herself or somebody else. Most of these comments imply Mr. Crump. This is totally absurd when we imagine the size of the risk this would mean for him.”

    Out of the blue and what the nutters are so desperately hoping for. So Ada high jacked conversation into a bit of CTH craziness. The fact she opines that what she just stated is absurd….is tricky dicky high jackey

    • March 4, 2013 at 12:36 PM

      Let us stop calling people trolls and hijackers.

      Ada’s first comment that 2dogs quotes says “[the idea of several DeeDees] is TOTALLY ABSURD…..”

      So how is that being CTH craziness? can’t anyone mention something said anywhere else, without being accused of being one of those others? we’ve ALL brought in rumours from elsewhere and sought evidence to dispute them (or used logic when evidence was not to be had).

      Let’s just keep to facts about the issue, and not dismiss people as trolls. Ada’s contributions so far have led to some very good examination of times and dates nobody here did before.

  19. 2dogsonly
    March 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM

    ada4750
    @ada4750 said:March 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM | #24 Reply | Quote
    “I am just saying that many doubt about her existence or claim that there is two DeeDee and in all cases they say that Mr. Crump is behind that.”

    That is her entire post. She’s a GZ supporter. I call her she because of “Ada” but regardless she is not in the least playing devil’s advocate..don’t buy it at all .

    • onlyiamunitron
      March 4, 2013 at 9:51 AM

      So you’re saying that it’s possible that the number of “Dee Dee”s is a figure other than 1, but only if Crump is not behind it?

      unitron

      • 2dogsonly
        March 4, 2013 at 10:56 AM

        @unitron asking ” so you’re saying it’s possible that number of DD is a figure other than 1 but only if Crump is not behind it?”

        @2dogsonly responds : not sure whom you are directing your question to in above.

        Of course, there is only one Dee Dee.

        Also referring to crick @bcc.list. He’s the one who trained me to first post link of evidence in court documents or what had been spelled out with tons of hard work. First and then follow with input.

        Sorry about misspelling whonoze.

        Just realized original bcc.list is reactivated.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 11:31 AM

          You appeared to be disagreeing with

          “I am just saying that many doubt about her existence or claim that there is two DeeDee and in all cases they say that Mr. Crump is behind that.”

          and I just wondered with which part it was that you were in disagreement.

          unitron

  20. blushedbrown
    March 4, 2013 at 11:43 AM

    @Amsterdam
    Excerpt taken from Osterman’s book

    Page 11 second paragraph

    From Rhinehart Road, Osterman took a right onto Oregon, the street leading into the Twin Lakes complex, and spotted Shellie’s car already at the gated entry. She swiped her resident’s card for entrance and the gate swung open allowing Mark to follow her inside. He then pulled in front of her to find a place to park a safe distance away from the site where the shooting took place. It wasn’t difficult to find. There were more than eight police cars at the scene with lights rotating, fire emergency vehicles had arrived and neighbors has gathered in large groups, some carrying flashlights as they stood on the lawns in between the rows of townhouses. As a policeman for the sherfiff’s department, Mark had been on crime scene sites before, but this one was eerily different. As Mark and Shellie approached on foot, you could hear bits and pieces of the neighbors’ conversations; whispers coming from out of the darkness as the steady rain continued to fall.

    End paragraph.

    Page 14 last paragraph

    With those possible scenarios, I suggested to Shellie that we go to their place neary and pick up a change of clothing for George. I knew if George was involved in a shooting, his clothing would be taken as evidence and examined for blood stains, gun powcer residue, etc. He would need another set of cltohing at the station. At this point, around 8:10 p.m., we had not seen the yellow

    Continued onto page 15

    tarp covering the body of Trayvon Martin, so we were not aware there had been a death as a result of the shooting.

    I find this statement false, Trayvon Martin was declared dead at 7:30 pm.

    I included this paragraph also because it had a specific time included. You guys here know the timelines forwards and backwords.

    I look forward to the discussion. Any other excerpts needed I will be more then happy to oblige.

    • blushedbrown
      March 4, 2013 at 12:13 PM

      Ooops some two typos

      *cltohing* should be clothing

      *backwords* should be backwards

    • onlyiamunitron
      March 4, 2013 at 12:15 PM

      “At this point, around 8:10 p.m., we had not seen the yellow

      Continued onto page 15

      tarp covering the body of Trayvon Martin, so we were not aware there had been a death as a result of the shooting.

      I find this statement false, Trayvon Martin was declared dead at 7:30 pm.”

      Just because he was pronounced at 7:30 doesn’t mean that everybody and his brother immediately knew about it.

      unitron

      • blushedbrown
        March 4, 2013 at 12:19 PM

        @Uni

        Several witnesses heard the EMT’s pronounce he was dead, while on the phone with 911. I do not find that statement by Osterman credible. He mentions all those witnesses talking, what do you think they were talking about, how nice the weather was that evening?

    • March 4, 2013 at 12:50 PM

      Emergency vehicles arrived 7.27, so they supposedly arrived after that.

      The steady rain did continue to fall, the shooting happened in the middle of the heaviest rain for an hour either side. But then it was not heavy rain (only 0.1 inch/hour) and everyone was standing around in it (no umbrellas shown on the TV shots from the time).

      Blushed, can you find where he says he talked to a cop near the crime scene tape, and was told it’s a “clean shooting” or some such? I think he said that happened quite early in the piece, NOT when they were leaving to get a change of clothes for George. I think he’d have known by then there was a death involved.

      • March 4, 2013 at 12:52 PM

        Don’t forget GZ himself reckoned he didn’t know Trayvon was dead until they told him at the police station.

        What a bunch of bulldust.

        • blushedbrown
          March 4, 2013 at 1:11 PM

          @Aussie

          Osterman talked to the officer about what happend, of course the officer told him the other person is dead, and then went on to tell him but don’t worry it was a clean shoot.

          Just because Osterman claims that he didn’t see the yellow tarp on Trayvon’s body doesn’t mean that he had no clue that he was dead.

          EMt took care of Trayvon first, the information was already out there by 7:30. Gz was treated aftewards.

          I call bullshitake also.

      • blushedbrown
        March 4, 2013 at 12:57 PM

        @Aussie

        No problem….

        From page 13 bottom

        I nodded to several of the officers on the scene that night because I recognized them from ten years before, when I was a Seminole County Deputy in the area that

        continued onto page 14

        includes Sandford, Florida. To one of the officers I said, ” I have his wife here next to me; the guy in the police car. His name is George and this is his wife. Can you tell me anything that happened?

        The Sandford police officer quickly answered, ” Oh, don’t worry about it; from what I’ve seen. its clean. ” This bit of “police jargon” meant, in the officer’s opinion, it was pretty clear what had taken place since speaking to witnessess, and there weren’t a lot of questions about the incident.

    • amsterdam1234
      March 4, 2013 at 1:05 PM

      Thanks Blushedbrown,

      I can’t get myself to pay money for an Osterman book. But I am glad you’ve got a copy.

      If Shellie called him at 7:30 pm and she waited for him outside the gate, they should not have been able to enter the complex in their cars. Cheryl Brown was a resident and she had to leave her car outside the complex and walk home.

      GZ was treated by emt’s after Trayvon was pronounced dead at 7:30 pm. He arrived at the police station at 7:52 pm. It is about a 14 minute drive to the police station. Smith must have left with GZ at 7:40 pm. Osterman claimed he saw GZ at the scene according to the interview he had with FDLE.

      What were they doing at the scene 20 minutes after GZ was taken to the police station?

      • blushedbrown
        March 4, 2013 at 1:30 PM

        @Amsterdam

        >>>I can’t get myself to pay money for an Osterman book. But I am glad you’ve got a copy.

        I understand.
        I rationalized buying it by telling myself, other people will not buy it and you can provide information for the case, to be disputed and or debunked. From a research point of view, ten bucks was ok to spend. 🙂

        >>>If Shellie called him at 7:30 pm and she waited for him outside the gate, they should not have been able to enter the complex in their cars. Cheryl Brown was a resident and she had to leave her car outside the complex and walk home.

        Exactly.
        Also according to that 7:30 timeline he gives, if it takes about 5-10 minutes to drive, they should of been able to see the EMT working on him. No mention of that in the book.

        Emt available time states 7:51.

        >>>GZ was treated by emt’s after Trayvon was pronounced dead at 7:30 pm. He arrived at the police station at 7:52 pm. It is about a 14 minute drive to the police station. Smith must have left with GZ at 7:40 pm. Osterman claimed he saw GZ at the scene according to the interview he had with FDLE.

        Apparently they got there alot sooner. If they finshed with him at 7:41, it only took about 10 minutes to get back to the station.

        >>What were they doing at the scene 20 minutes after GZ was taken to the police station?

        According to Osterman, they went to the house to get replacement clothing. I think what Osterman may have done, and this is speculation on my part, he hung around the crime scene and talk to witnesses and police, while she went to the house to get the clothes.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 4, 2013 at 1:47 PM

          >> I think what Osterman may have done, and this is speculation on my part, he hung around the crime scene and talk to witnesses and police, while she went to the house to get the clothes.

          That is what I think. The prosecution should ask witnesses on the stand if they talked with Osterman.
          Osterman could’ve known exactly what the witnesses had seen.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM

          There’s no point asking witnesses about Osterman unless he’s going to be called as a witness as well.

          Which side would call him, and why?

          unitron

        • blushedbrown
          March 4, 2013 at 2:22 PM

          @Uni

          Which side would call him, and why?

          OOO oooooo oooooo pick me pick me (hand raised in the air)

          I would have to say the State of Florida and the reason why

          Ostermans interview with Dr. Phil and his book and all that special time they spent together before and after the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

          🙂

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 4:26 PM

          And what would they expect him to say that would help to convict Zimmerman without adding unneccessary complications for the narrative they want to present to the jury?

          unitron

        • blushedbrown
          March 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM

          @Amsterdam

          Agreed.

          If I was Osterman, I would take advantage of all those loose tongues wagging, especially the cops on the scene. Its a courtesy thing to do from one cop to another to tell certain things. JMO

        • amsterdam1234
          March 5, 2013 at 1:29 PM

          onlyiamunitron :
          There’s no point asking witnesses about Osterman unless he’s going to be called as a witness as well.
          Which side would call him, and why?
          unitron

          He is listed as a category A witness.

        • blushedbrown
          March 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM
    • March 4, 2013 at 3:00 PM

      Sounds a bit strange… They’re saying that while the police secured the front gate from people coming in, the back gate was completely forgotten? Could be, I haven’t seen any mention of anyone covering the back (east) gate. This needs investigation, since “call my wife” could be a way of providing cover for Osterman pretending that he just got there by having Shelly open the gate for him, instead of him having already been there and merely needing help in crafting a story. We will see.

  21. wassointeresting
    March 4, 2013 at 1:02 PM

    The court has denied the defense’s motion to depose Mr. Crump now.
    http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0313/order_re_crump.pdf

    • blushedbrown
      March 4, 2013 at 1:12 PM

      @WSI

      thank you for posting !!! I will spread the good news!!!

      • onlyiamunitron
        March 4, 2013 at 1:15 PM

        Why is it good news? What could the defense get from deposing Crump that would prevent a conviction?

        unitron

        • wassointeresting
          March 4, 2013 at 1:28 PM

          Nothing, let Loree have her inner whoop of joy seeing the defense fume, because they missed getting Mr. Crump by “that much”.

        • blushedbrown
          March 4, 2013 at 2:03 PM

          @WSI

          This is going to be an interesting week.

          @ Uni

          C’mon let’s have a smile on your face today!!!

        • March 4, 2013 at 4:12 PM

          It’s good news in the sense that shows there I’d a reasonable judge on the bench who continues to make reasoned and sensible decisions

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM

          Yeah, but it means less information for us.

          : – (

          unitron

  22. bgesq
    March 4, 2013 at 11:43 PM

    very well written decision/denial by Judge Nelson- many of these motions are pure harassment. You can read in her decision how far below all reasonable legal standards the defense request for Mr. Crump’s deposition fell- it lacked any real basis

  23. wassointeresting
    March 5, 2013 at 8:10 AM

    Hearing’s on today at 9 am eastern time about the defense’s request to get DeeDee’s medical records. Link below courtesy of Loree/blushedbrown
    http://livewire.wesh.com/Event/Judge_to_hear_motion_about_recordings_in_Zimmerman_case

    • blushedbrown
      March 5, 2013 at 8:16 AM

      @WSI

      Ooooo, much faster. Yeah!

      • wassointeresting
        March 5, 2013 at 9:07 AM

        Holy cow, DeeDee never went to the hospital? Seems like the state confirmed that and there are no medical records.

        • blushedbrown
          March 5, 2013 at 9:10 AM

          well 3 motions down one to go

  24. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 8:26 AM

    I have audio

  25. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 8:28 AM

    Ready to roll.

  26. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 8:35 AM

    Do they realize they are on the air.

  27. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 8:49 AM

    Hahahah Tony Piptione is the courtroom Do you think he is looking for Papa.

  28. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 9:09 AM

    Boy oh boy, not good.

    • wassointeresting
      March 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM

      I would be really mad if the hospital story was an exaggeration of the truth (like she was just not feeling well that day) and in the end would hurt her credibility on what really mattered in terms of what she actually heard on the phone that night.

  29. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 9:16 AM

    Boom! I like this guy!

    • wassointeresting
      March 5, 2013 at 9:19 AM

      Wow, creepy huh? FBI’s profile of people include what kind of car their mother drives.

  30. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 9:21 AM

    Basically Trayvon has nothing in his record

    And your right creepy

    • wassointeresting
      March 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM

      Seems like those profiles have stuff a two dollar investigator could be paid to get.

  31. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 9:26 AM

    West is terrible, good lord.

  32. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 9:31 AM

    I think Judge nelson is fed up with West

  33. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 9:32 AM

    NO IMMUNITY HEARING

    • wassointeresting
      March 5, 2013 at 9:34 AM

      Well, O’mara confirm that no immunity hearing will be in April, but I think they’re going to try to start the “trial” as if it were an immunity hearing in June, if I understand Judge Nelson right.

      • blushedbrown
        March 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM

        @WSI

        I think its double talk from O’mara. If he isn’t using the dates then he is not going to pursue it. Judge Nelson set specific dates on this. IIRC she wanted the hearing 45 days before trial.

      • wassointeresting
        March 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM

        Yep, O’Mara just told the reporters that he’s not waiving the immunity hearing altogether, just that it’s not going to be in April. Are they just in recess now while Judge Nelson looks over the bios? I’d love to have her confirm today that they have nothing in TM’s record that would be relevant to the defense.

        • blushedbrown
          March 5, 2013 at 9:40 AM

          I think they are done for today. But I will keep the stream open just in case.

        • wassointeresting
          March 5, 2013 at 9:49 AM

          Look at Bob Kealing’s comments below the stream. He says “during break”. I think they’re just on a break and will be back.

        • blushedbrown
          March 5, 2013 at 9:51 AM

          Yep I think you are right.

    • wassointeresting
      March 5, 2013 at 10:37 AM

      Briefly back in court, the Judge gave the defense the FBI’s bios after redaction. Hearing is adjourned now.

      • blushedbrown
        March 5, 2013 at 10:39 AM

        @WSI
        Thanks I have nothing, no audio, nada

        • wassointeresting
          March 5, 2013 at 10:47 AM

          It’s streaming again now of microphones outside the court. Maybe the lawyers will make some comments soon?

        • blushedbrown
          March 5, 2013 at 10:50 AM

          @WSI
          Yep I got it, thanks sweetie.

  34. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 9:49 AM

    Ok what the hell is up with the no hospital visit? I will have to go back and listen to the depo with bernie. The state only confirmed that there are no medical records. They neither confirmed or denied that she went to a hospital. So does that mean she went to a clinic, and not being specific, or did she lie. I am not sure how to handle this???

    • ada4750
      March 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM

      BDLR: OK, what happened?
      Dee Dee: I didn’ feel good.
      BDLR: OK, did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere?
      Dee Dee: Mmmm…Yeah, I had high blood pressure

      That’s it that’s all. She did not say that she went to the hospital.

      http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/deedeestatetranscript.pdf

      • wassointeresting
        March 5, 2013 at 10:02 AM

        We can blame it on both Mr. Crump’s and BDLR’s interview styles. Who knows how the “hospital” got thrown in there. She never did say hospital herself. Yep, they’ll have to ask her at the deposition what happened.

      • wassointeresting
        March 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM

        Oh wait, I think this part of Mr. Crump’s interview might be hard to explain:

        Crump: So you had to spend the night in the 13:39 hospital?
        DeeDee: Yeah.

        I’m getting a sinking feeling about this. Even if she went to the emergency room and sat there for half an hour and decided to leave because she didn’t wanna wait, that’s gonna be hard to sell to the public now, because as you said, they tried very hard to put “W8” and “lied” together.

        • blushedbrown
          March 5, 2013 at 10:21 AM

          @WSI

          Ok, let’s assume the worst, that she didn’t go. Does that negate her phone records, her testimony that she heard a tussle, she heard an old man, whatch doing around here. Alot of what she says coincides with GZ statements and witness 11. Her testimony will be based on those records. Does her hospital trip no hospital trip possibly override everything else? I think I will chalk it up to a small bump in the road. I have to believe in what Gilbreath said, We have the body, gz statements and the bullet casing.

        • wassointeresting
          March 5, 2013 at 10:31 AM

          You and I know it doesn’t negate what she heard on the phone, but this has to be a big blow. Sure she could have been sick, but If a witness is proven to be embellish or outright make up things then the defense will try to make it such a big deal in order to put the key parts of her testimony into question.

        • blushedbrown
          March 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM

          @WSI

          You are correct.
          She didn’t shot Trayvon, GZ did.
          Same thing goes for GZ, he lied on several occasions, and I am in the mindset that his own statements are more damaging than what DeeDee said. He has no medical records of being in a hospital either.

        • wassointeresting
          March 5, 2013 at 10:45 AM

          True, if you were to consider GZ’s “lie” of saying that TM knocked him right to the ground at the T versus DeeDee’s “lie” of going to the hospital DAYS after the night in question, then what’s more damning? But it might just takes a tiny grain of bias in a juror’s mind to throw out her whole testimony based on this. It’s frustrating to think that if they had depo’d her months ago, she would have been able to clarify it. Makes it seem like the defense purposefully DIDN’T depo her in order to keep stirring up the dust.

        • blushedbrown
          March 5, 2013 at 11:12 AM

          @WSI

          Yes, it is frustrating, it could of been cleared up months ago. I agree with the “grain” but the grain is way bigger on the other side of it.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM

          “He has no medical records of being in a hospital either.”

          He also has no record of saying that he went to the hospital, or agreeing with someone else who said that he went, either, so apples and oranges.

          unitron

        • ada4750
          March 5, 2013 at 10:21 AM

          13:39 hospital? I suppose 13:39 are garbage characters.

          She was not under oath with Crump. But you are right it doesn’t look good,

        • wassointeresting
          March 5, 2013 at 10:24 AM

          @ ada, “13:39” is a time stamp inserted into the transcript. That was Screamin Jay’s way of lining up the transcript with the audio that’s all.

        • ada4750
          March 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM

          It’s starting to scare me. BDLR was not well prepared for the interview. He should have verify this before the interview. It feels amateurish and makes me afraid.

    • wassointeresting
      March 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      From Screamin Jay’s transcript
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS5ewIWFRyPJPGcLN9r1TmjHHd-AePIlG-5xuKYN2C8/edit?pli=1

      Interview with BDLR:
      **************************
      BDLR: OK. I’m not saying that they did. I’m just making sure the records’ clear on
      that….Um…you obviously found out about what happened to Trayvon, right? And at some point
      you ended up knowing that he was killed, right?
      Dee Dee: Yeah.
      BDLR: Were you able to go to the funeral or to the wake?
      Dee Dee: I was goin’ to go, but…
      BDLR: OK, what happened?
      Dee Dee: I didn’ feel good.
      BDLR: OK, did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere?
      Dee Dee: Mmmm…Yeah, I had high blood pressure.

      Interview with Crump:
      *************************
      Crump: Okay. Well, thank you so much and tell your mother thank you 12:07 and uh when his mom and dad they’ll call next week. Oh, I did want to say this. I understand that you can’t come to the wake because you had to go to the hospital. Can you tell me about that?

      DeeDee: 12:20 (Unintelligible) He ain’t call back and I thought, okay, hearing the phone on the grass, I thought it was a fight. And then the main thing. 12:33

      Crump: Say it in your words and say it loud and slow.

      DeeDee: I was in shock. I was really in shock. 12:46 (Unintelligible) 13:00 I couldn’t pee, that’s it.

      Crump: And why couldn’t you go to his wake?

      DeeDee: Because I was sick. (Unintelligible)

      Crump: 13:13 And what happened? Where did you go?

      DeeDee: (Unintelligible) 13:26 (Unintelligible)

      Crump: So you had to spend the night in the 13:39 hospital?

      DeeDee: Yeah.

      Crump: And so this made you so sick that you had to go get medical assistance.

      DeeDee: Yes. 13:53 It all comes down to last person talking to him. That’s not easy.

      Crump: And that’s when you realized at the day of his wake that you were the last person 14:06 talking to him and it just made you physically sick?

      DeeDee: Yeah.

      • blushedbrown
        March 5, 2013 at 10:00 AM

        @WSI

        Thank you!

    • ada4750
      March 5, 2013 at 10:00 AM

      This part of the hearing was a stroke of theater. It was only to put two words together W8 and lie.

  35. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 9:54 AM

    Like I said 45 days…. No immunity hearing there is no such thing as rolling the two together.

    Reposted from the Lounge

    The SYG statute requires the immunity hearing to take place no less than 45 days before the trial. That is why the judge reserved the last two weeks of April for it.

    She put MOM on the spot by asking him if he intended to use that time because she would use it for other litigants if he did not need it.

    He blinked.

    • March 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM

      MOM is simply trying to put as good a face as he can on what he has – a defendant who absolutely cannot ever take the stand. What we learned today is that GZ will not take the stand in his own defense before the actual jury trial begins, which speaks volumes about his credibility. It’s still POSSIBLE that after the prosecution puts on it’s case against GZ that the defendant COULD take the stand when the defense presents its’ case but it is almost guaranteed NOT to happen.

      It’s not required and a jury will be instructed NOT to let the fact that the defendant never took the witness stand prejudice them against him. Many if not most people facing similar charges never go on the witness stand. But it’s not good news for the defense, that’s rather obvious that they have signaled that they KNOW the defendant cannot face cross-examination because of the lack of credibility he will display.

      It’s been clear for quite some time that MOM would be a fool to put George on the stand. What we didn’t know is whether or not he has convinced George of this reality. It seems he has.

      • blushedbrown
        March 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM

        @Willis,

        Yes, you are on point, that was telegraphed loud and clear today.

      • amsterdam1234
        March 5, 2013 at 2:10 PM

        @willis

        I just don’t see how the are going to introduce self-defense if GZ doesn’t take the stand. I’ve been trying to think what the defense strategy will be, but they really don’t have much.
        If he doesn’t take the stand, the jury will hear him jump out of his car in the nen call, running after Trayvon. Next thing they will hear is w11’s 911 call, the screaming and the shot.
        They will hear W18 in her 911 call report GZ getting up and walking away.
        No looking for an address, no Trayvon jumping from the bushes, no head slamming, nothing.

        They have John and GZ had some cuts and bruises, but that’s about it. There are 5 witnesses that saw GZ on top of Trayvon, at the time or seconds after, the shot.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 5, 2013 at 4:04 PM

          They don’t have to prove self-defense, they just have to convince the jury that there’s reasonable doubt that the state has proven that it wasn’t.

          unitron

        • March 5, 2013 at 5:54 PM

          unitron points out the defense need only introduce reasonable doubt that the state has not proven M2. But that leaves out self-defense as a defense, really. It just goes to say, “my client did nothing at all, since you can’t prove he killed anyone. The jury must acquit him on the grounds that the state did not prove he murdered the youth.” THAT’S NOT SELF DEFENSE. That’s “you didn’t prove your case, so let him go.”

          At that juncture the jury can decide that maybe he isnt guilty of M2 but is guilty of manslaughter, I think.

          Do get an acquittal on the grounds of self defense, the defense side still have to INTRODUCE the concept of self-defense somehow. It seems to me that in order to do that, they have to cite the (inconsistent, contradictory, ommission-ridden and obfuscating) statements the defendant gave to the SPD. Anything else is hearsay, right? And when they do that, then the prosecution can poke holes in the veracity of the statements and say, whatever happened that night, it’s clear this man’s claims of self defense are not worthy, he’s a proven liar and the evidence doesn’t fit his narrative.

          but I am no lawyer. I could be all wet here. thats how i see it tho.

        • wassointeresting
          March 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM

          Sighhhh…..wish there were a lesser charge than manslaughter just in case, like a charge of stupidity, but then that’s not feasible as half of the people involved in this case would have to be thrown in jail….sighhhhh

          Me (who’s obviously not a lawyer nor care to be)

        • amsterdam1234
          March 5, 2013 at 7:58 PM

          @willis
          But they can’t cite GZ’s statements unless the prosecution introduces them.

        • March 5, 2013 at 8:52 PM

          Is that because the defense can’t introduce anything that the prosecution didn’t present? I am not a lawyer….

        • wassointeresting
          March 5, 2013 at 9:17 PM

          I don’t see why not. Isn’t it called reciprocal discovery?

        • amsterdam1234
          March 5, 2013 at 9:08 PM

          @Willis
          I am not a lawyer either, but I do know that none of the statements made by GZ can be used by the defense unless the prosecution introduces them or GZ gets on the stand. I am not even sure if the bloody photos can be entered as evidence by the defense. If GZ is not taking the stand, there is no one who can testify as to the cause of the cuts and bruises.

        • wassointeresting
          March 5, 2013 at 9:20 PM

          Wait, would it be more accurate to say that the defense CAN use GZ’s previous statements. It’s not as if they CAN”T introduce them. It’s just that when they do that, the prosecution then has a right to MAKE GZ take the stand, which of course they will. Correct?

        • March 5, 2013 at 9:53 PM

          No the prosecution can never “make” GZ take the stand.

        • wassointeresting
          March 5, 2013 at 10:15 PM

          Hmmmm, I guess the prosecution can’t make GZ take the stand initially, but if the defense enters his previous statements, doesn’t it open the door for the prosecution to call him as a witness to his own defense? If GZ refuses, then the defense has to throw out his previous statements as hearsay? In effect it’s the same as what was said earlier that the defense can’t use GZ’s previous statements unless he takes the stand. So then they wouldn’t even try to rely on his statements if they don’t want him to take the stand. Such a conundrum!

        • amsterdam1234
          March 6, 2013 at 4:43 AM

          @wsi
          The defense can’t enter them. Mom or West can’t testify. The moment they open their mouths and begin to cite GZ, BDLR will be on his feet, yelling “objection”, and the judge will say “sustained”.

          If the defense wants to enter the written statement or the audio and video statements made by GZ, BDLR will say ” objection” and the judge will say “sustained”.

          The defense needs someone on the stand, who was a witness to the events GZ claims happened. When GZ is the only witness to an event, he is the only person on the defense side who can testify to that.

        • wassointeresting
          March 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM

          @amsterdam, so it seems like GZ has to testify and hope his witty boyish (creepy too old man for his age) charm will win over the jury? Would not want to be in MOM’s place right now. It’s a no win situation.

      • March 6, 2013 at 6:50 PM

        Only GZ and Serino were party to those interviews.

        So only one or the other of them can introduce it. Otherwise it would be just hearsay, which is not allowed.

        If the prosecution enters and police interviews, the defence can cross examine the relevant police about it. They can ask for clarification, what they understood something to mean, are they sure they heard the muttered bits correctly etc etc

        Prosecution would have to introduce these, as they are part of a series of statements that DON”T MATCH known facts, ie introducing these is their way to tell the jury how many lies GZ told.

        IF the prosecution does not bring up the police statements, then GEORGE can. But nobody else. He would have to take the stand and tell what he told to the police. Nobody else can do it for him, because they were not there.

        Once he gives evidence, he can NOT plead the 5th when it comes to being cross-examined on things he just gave evidence about.

        The prosecution needs the police statements to show GZ lying. If for some strange reason they don’t bring these in, GZ could get on the stand and tell a brand new totally different story… and then it’s hard for the prosecution to cross-examine with ” but… but… but that’s not what you told the cops…..” If they bring these statement in, to start with, that closes off the path for GZ to make up yet another story.

        Essentially, introducing the statements would be the prosecution telling GZ’s self-defence story, taking the wind right out of his sails……….and in the same move destroying his story by showing how many different versions he had. After that, coming up with yet another version would be just extra nails in his coffin.

    • onlyiamunitron
      March 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM

      There is no SYG statute.

      Florida has a Justifiable Use of Force Law, which contains a Stand Your Ground provision and a separate Immunity provision, but SYG does not have to apply for immunity to apply.

      But even Capehart gets that wrong.

      unitron

  36. blushedbrown
    March 5, 2013 at 11:00 AM

    Reposted from the Lounge:

    The relevance of DeeDee or the state not producing medical records for the young lady imo is irrelevant.

    She did not shoot Trayvon.

    GZ did.

    His medical records are way more relevant then hers. He never went to no fuc*king hospital either.

    He was supposedly in a life and death struggle. His brother said he would need to spoon feed him. Yet he did not go any hospital.

    He DECLINED at the scene to be transported to a hospital. (Emt asked police asked)

    He DECLINED again at the police station. (multiple times asked at least three documented)

    He DECLINED again to be seened by an ENT( Ear, Nose Thraot specialist) by his own PA the next day on 2/27/12. (documented

    From Osterman’s book he said, “Wwe should stop by the hospital to get you check out. He DECLINED. GZ said “I just want to go to your house and get some sleep” (documented)

    So in conclusion, fuck West.
    🙂

  37. March 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    Comments thread here is broken…. in my browser todays comments are above a short block of comments from march 3&4. Go figure. WordPress is not perfect.

    I did not see the whole hearing. Would someone attempt to give a short summary please?

    • blushedbrown
      March 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM

      @Willis

      Trent has it up already, if you can bear with the commentary.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/stateoftheinternet

      • March 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

        I think Trent must have learnt because he is much more subdued of late; he has hardly said a dicky bird during his last two sets of court videos today’s included.

        • blushedbrown
          March 5, 2013 at 4:35 PM

          @gbrbsb

          LOL !!! Your right, he was not quite himself! I think he might of got feedback to temper the commentary see we can HEAR what is going on. He does a great public service by recording those hearings.

        • March 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM

          Still it would be nice for him to do his own press conference at the end, like the parties.

        • March 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM

          He’s quite a character. I’m glad he posts these things. I was able to watch it all, and it was entertaining. I don’t mind his comments like you say so long as I can still hear what’s being said.

  38. March 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM

    At the very start of the hearing, there was some back and froth between the judge and MOM about video from the FDLE, I believe. What was that regarding?

    MOM mentioned that some of the “tapes” or disks were blank or unplayable, but that the problem had been dealt with, if I heard correctly.

    I’m curious what was on the discs or tapes, if anyone knows.

    • wassointeresting
      March 5, 2013 at 11:45 AM

      @Willis, I think that was just one of the tapes from the Sam’s Club parking lot security camera. They got a blank tape, but the prosecution is working on clearing that issue up.

    • blushedbrown
      March 5, 2013 at 11:47 AM

      @willis

      I hope this shed some light on those damn videos……

      http://dothprotesttoomuch.com/2013/02/14/lets-go-to-the-video-tapes/

      • March 5, 2013 at 12:01 PM

        Interesting. I’m not sure this analysis is right, as there are many educated guesses here but it was worth reading, thanks.

  39. March 5, 2013 at 12:13 PM

    It seems the defense is seeking “social media” access via getting it from FDLE investigations as opposed to getting it directly from facebook and twitter, who of course would not comply with a request from the defense.

    Does anyone care to expand on what this all means and whether or not the defense are going to get what they seek here?

    I don’t read “The Conservative Treehouse” blog. Have and potentially relevant things from social media been put on the internet via “doxing” that, if obtained legally by the defense could be introduced at trial? I hear rumors but don’t know what to believe or not.

    This seems like a fishing expedition to me, but maybe there is something with actual relevance “out there” that the defense hopes to be able to include at trial… but I have no actual info regarding that supposition. I’d appreciate some clarification if possible.

  40. March 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM

    abc news radio weighs in with this report:

    http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/zimmerman-waives-right-to-stand-your-ground-hearing.html

    It’s worth noting that ABC News (the umbrella organization, not the radio division) has a vested interest in this aspect of the case since they also possess audio recordings of W8/Dee Dee that were made with Crump.

    They lead the story with the news that the defense seems to be waiving an SYG/ immunity hearing in April. They DON’T clarify that these hearings MUST take place 45 days before a trial, and instead are a bit unclear on what MOM is signaling. But nonetheless, the lede and headline are all about how the defense won’t go for SYG, essentially.

    I think the MSM is going to go down the line with that basic “take away” from this hearing. It’s certainly newsworthy.

  41. ada4750
    March 6, 2013 at 5:21 AM

    It’s quiet around here! On the contrary of some others blogs. I read diagonally. Boy, are they happy? Not without reason. There is a clip showing M. Crump in a press conference. He was saying that DeeDee was so sick she had to spend a night in the hospital. Ouch!

    At least, after that, nobody can anymore accuse M. Crump of coaching. But, even if it is hard to believe, there is still some accusers. This brings me to a next step. One of them wrote, few days ago, that he was doubting about the coaching, because it seems so poorly executed. They are not all totally idiots! He is even more right today. This fiasco should stop once and for all the rumors of coaching. The spot will be on and only on DeeDee.

    • ada4750
      March 6, 2013 at 5:47 AM

      I wrote yesterday that the lack of preparation BDLR worries me. I wrote that he should have checked before the interview. But maybe BDLR knew that there was no medical record and his question was worded to allow DeeDee a way to avoid a false testimony. Or if so, would it not been better to simply not address the issue.

      Anyway, maybe DeeDee is not that important because BDLR got some striking ballistic evidence or key informations from the cell phones. But if it is the case, when does he have the obligation to make those proofs public?

      • March 6, 2013 at 8:11 AM

        The prosecution has worked hard from the start to shield it’s trial strategy from the defense. One reason MoM put GZ on the witness stand in the first hearing was to obfuscate the defense stategy, we can say now that we know MoM is waiving the April dates for an immunity hearing. It seems obvious finally that he’s never going to put his client on the witness stand – the guy is simply not a credible person and a jury would see him as a liar were he to face cross-examination. But way back when, it was a worthy trick for MoM to let GZ take the stand for a self serving “apology” since at that time it forced the prosecution to show their cards a little. BDLR said at the time that the state has a witness to a “foot chase” and that GZ gave inconsistent and contradictory statements to SPD. He wouldn’t have had to say this if GZ had not been on the stand spouting lies that needed refuting. This move by the defense also served as a “sop” to GZs supporters who continued to believe for almost a year that GZ wasn’t afraid to testify and face cross-examination. In relaity, and I said so at the time- GZ lied on the witness stand that day and disqualified himself even further from any chance of ever giving sworn testimony in court. BDLR asked him “isn’t it true that you gave inconsistent and contradictory statements to the SPD already? (paraphrasing) ” to which GZ swore under oath “no..”.

        MoM is doing the best he can with what he’s got: a defendant who is likely guilty and cannot take the stand but has the advantage of having killed the only other full witness to the altercation who could accurately describe the start of the fight.

        Again keep in mind MoM has to prepare for however the prosecution might present their case and that takes time and money and effort. So BDLR has to keep quiet until trial, unless he wants to hand a huge advantage to his opponent. We won’t hear the state’s “best evidence” presented until the trial is under way. It’s true however that under the rules of discovery the porsecution will have shared the raw material with the defense before then. Things like the cell phone GPS type data will be given over in raw form and MoM will have to hire his own analysts to interpret the data, which in the end might be useless. But that’s how it works. Perhaps witness 2 will be the secret weapon of the prosecution- she initially claims to have seen a two person foot chase which utterly contradicts GZs narrative. But later she seems to have backed off a bit on her level of certainty. The defense can depose her if they dare but thus far has not.

        So many surprises still to come. The defense yesterday was fighting to get a “bio” from th FDLE that would tell MoM what prior criminal charges GZ has faced – something you would think GZ himself could provide his attorney, but possibly this was an admission that MoM doesn’t and cannot trust his own client to be truthful with him.

        So many surprises. Many things are possible; what GZ claimed is not possible.

  42. blushedbrown
    • March 6, 2013 at 12:46 PM

      I take it that this is Xena’s site? I posted a long message there in support of the conclusions of whonoze’s video. Not sure how much traffic she gets there but it’s nice to know there are more blogs out there.

      • blushedbrown
        March 6, 2013 at 12:52 PM

        @Willis

        Yes it is her blog. I contribute articles sometimes. When he released his video I had posted it there and on another site as well. His youtube site are on their blog role 🙂

        We love our Whonoze!!

        • March 6, 2013 at 7:35 PM

          Xena is a guy? I thought wit that name xena was a chick in a chain mail bikini. Whomever it is I’ve enjoyed their comments on leatheman law blog and am happy to see they host a blog.

        • wassointeresting
          March 6, 2013 at 7:50 PM

          blushedbrown said “Yes it is her blog”. So, Xena is a “she”. The “he” was referring to Whonoze, I believe.

        • blushedbrown
          March 7, 2013 at 7:28 AM

          @WSI

          Yes, you are correct.

        • blushedbrown
          March 7, 2013 at 7:30 AM

          @Willis

          You’re a funny dude! Chick in a bikini, at the mall!!! LOL!

        • wassointeresting
          March 7, 2013 at 9:14 AM

          @Loree, Not “at the mall”, in a CHAIN MAIL bikini. Still if I didn’t have one of those in my closet, I’d be offended by the comment….just kidding WIllis, I don’t have one…and I’m not offended, I used to watch Xena the Princess Warrior (OK, it was more my husband watching, but I was OK with it) LOL!

        • blushedbrown
          March 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM

          @WSI

          Oh my. I really need to buy new glasses! The type size on the thread is so tiny. I can’t see without my glasses. But I don’t need them to read. I guess I should just increase the zoom level when I post here. 🙂

          Anywho, I’m sorry I fudged the comment.

          Xena: IIRC she said she got the nickname because of the Xena the Princess Warrior’s bangs. She had bangs the exact same way, and of course her persona.

          Hmmm, bikini in closet. I have always been to self conscious to wear a two piece. My ass is huge. Those little strings would disappear and people would think I was naked. HA!

        • wassointeresting
          March 7, 2013 at 10:29 AM

          Bikini wedgie? I don’t even feel comfortable discussing the defendant’s ass, so I’m not even gonna go there with yours…..

        • blushedbrown
          March 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

          @WSI

          My huge laugh for the day!!! Thanks!!!

        • March 6, 2013 at 8:37 PM

          I plead insanity. (But not self defense. )

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s