Home > Uncategorized > BCClist diaspora, thread 5

BCClist diaspora, thread 5

Here you go…

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. wassointeresting
    March 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM

    Just following…..I was confused with those old comments, but realized you were just letting them out of the wordpress purgatory.

  2. onlyiamunitron
    March 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM


    Come on in, y’all, the water’s fine.


  3. bgesq
    March 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    diving in, please follow

    • bgesq
      March 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM


  4. wassointeresting
    March 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM

    Oh boy, right now on CNN.com, under the “This Just In” column of headlines, I see “Chief witness in Trayvon case lied” and then when you click on it, the headline becomes “Chief witness in Trayvon case lied under oath”

    And this is the sentence in the article that makes you go ‘huh’??? “The young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin when he encountered George Zimmerman lied about her whereabouts at another time, the prosecution told a judge Tuesday.”

    If I hadn’t been following this case all along, I would not know what the heck they are talking about and would walk away from this article thinking that she lied under oath about what she heard on the phone. Effectively now, MSM has branded her a liar. I really worry now if all of this attention is going to make her want to refuse to testify now. Ugh!!!

  5. March 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM

    I’m looking for a transcript of the audio between DD and Crump, but can’t recall who did one or where it might be posted. I’d appreciate a link if anyone has one.

    Did ABC news ever respond to the motion from the defense to produce ABC’s/Matt Guttman’s copy of the interview?

    • wassointeresting
      March 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM

      @Willis, Screamin Jay made transcripts of all (most?) witnesses here. Look for Witness 8’s folder

      His link along with others are compiled on bcclist a few posts ago.


      • March 7, 2013 at 3:40 PM

        thanks, that is what I was looking for. Googling it, I only found a cache of part of the transcript. Listening along to the recording, I think Screamin’ Jay did a good job of transcribing. It’s worth noting that no other blogger has bothered to duplicate his work. It’s at the heart of the case and yet everyone relies on what Crump says she said, etc instead of listening to the recording itself.

        This is the part that i find important to bear in mind:

        DeeDee: “he knew that he was on the phone to somebody so he was about to make a run for it from the back. cause somebody was following him very close with the car.”

        This is Dee Dee confirming that there was a car-to-pedestrian chase. BDLR didn’t pick up on that detail and he failed to ask her directly about this part of what her understanding was when he recorded his interview with her.

        This is in stark contrast to what GZ claims happened. If one believes GZ, the pair moved all the way from Taafe’s house to the T without GZ ever ONCE moving his car with Travon ahead of himself. It makes you wonder why George stopped his car at all once he “left the clubhouse parking lot.”

        And of course, the timing suggested by the NEN call agrees with the notion that GZ followed TM after the teen passed by his car, parked at the first bend of TTL in a spot where GZ also marked a map for SIngleton.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 4:09 AM

          I go back to Screaming Jay’s files and Tchoupi’s site almost everyday. The work they’ve done is invaluable to me.
          I could use a good link to your work. You’ve done great work with your images. I just don’t know where to find it.

  6. March 7, 2013 at 12:16 PM

    regarding the waiving of the April dates for an immunity hearing:

    upon reflection I think I may have some insight into MoM’s defense strategy

    It could be that his plan is to maneuver to “draw out” the prosecution so that they are forced to present a larger, more complex version of their case at the June trial in order to then allow the defense to employ what bloggers call “the Chewbacca defense.” (Look it up on wiki for a full explanation)

    here’s my thinking on this-

    It’s seemingly possible that the prosecution could present a very simple case against GZ if they so choose: they would only present a bare minimum of facts, such as “this man was arrested on the scene after some 911 calls were made, people heard a gunshot when cops arrived and he admitted shooting the unarmed teen. Here is the bullet from his gun, and here is the report showing we dug it out of the kid.” Then the prosecution enters into evidence to the court the NEN call recording and says, “here we have proof that the defendant thought the teen was up to no good (in his words) and that the defendant jumped out of his car and went after him on foot, admitting that he was following the youth.” It’s clear he found him eventually, and so we say he profiled, pursued and confronted the teen and then shot him. This is proof of murder in the second, as he exhibited a depraved mind when he exited the vehicle with a gun and pursued a kid who was walking home in the rain not breaking any laws. In this strategy, the prosecution deliberately leaves out the statements GZ made to police so that the defense might be forced to put GZ on the stand to assert the notion of self defense.

    What the defense would have to do to refute this line of attack would be to somehow introduce the notion that the defendant was not guilty by reason of self defense. I am not a lawyer, but it seems that anything less than either the defendant’s statements to SPD or GZ himself taking the stand would not suffice to assert self defense. And according to some, unless the state enters into evidence the SPD statements, then the defendant cannot enter them and must instead take the stand himself.

    My theory here is that MoM hopes the prosecution WON’T enter the GZ-to-SPD statements at first, during their turn to prove the case. If they don’t then MoM and the defense would have an opportunity to assert in a motion after the prosecution has rested that the state has failed to prove its case for a crime having been committed due to the “reasonable doubt” about what happened between GZ getting out of the car and his being placed in custody. It’s not a “this was self defense” defense – it is instead a “you didn’t prove your case” defense. After the prosecution presented such a case, there is a slight chance that the judge might respond to a motion for a summary acquittal on the grounds that the state has failed to prove their case.

    The reason the prosecution wouldn’t enter into the territory of parsing all the inconsistent and contradictory statements GZ made to SPD would be to simply cut to the chase and force the defense to put GZ On the stand to assert his claim of being not guilty by reasons of self defense. But if the state didn’t prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” to the judge – not to the jury – that M2 had taken place, they might get a summary acquittal on the grounds that the state failed to prove its’ case.

    Maybe I’m crazy, but could this be a strategy?

    Jerralyn Merrit is citing precedent for a Florida case where a motion for dismissal based on SYG type statutes was made in a recent Florida case. The narrative is that once the prosecution presented their case to a jury at trial, the defense then asked the judge to rule on the immunity issue before the defense presented their case to the jury. The judge in this instance declined the motion for immunity, but allowed and considered the defense to take that action. Then again after the defense had rested but before the jury was instructed on how to deliberate, the defense once again filed a motion for the case to be dismissed based on SYG immunity statutes. (Again this motion was denied, but they were allowed to present it apparently.)

    If the defense in the GZ case can act in a similar manner, they might be forcing the prosecution to go ahead and enter the statements to SPD on their own in the first half of the trial, and therefor introduce the concept of “was it self defense” without the defense needing to put GZ onto the stand and assert self defense himself.

    Then comes the “Chewbacca defense” which is a tactic wherein the party whose actions are in question releases a flood ofunralted and nonsensical information that is all over the place, confusing the issue by diluting the meaningful points with so many other distracting bits of data that the heart of the matter becomes obscured.

    But the general idea would be for the jury to hear the words “it was self defense” and “the state has not proven its case” a great many times, and then be given too much information to adequately process it all.

    • March 8, 2013 at 1:54 AM

      I see a problem for the prosecution in the Missing Minutes. There is not much evidence as to what happened. There is a lot more evidence about what did NOT happen.

      Starting right from the NEN call — it says nothing about where anybody was. What and where is “coming to check me out”? “towards the back gate” ? there are hundreds of possibilities for where GZ and TM went, stopped, turned back etc.

      It only makes sense if taken together with GZ’s statements, to show what could NOT have happened. That leaves what could have. The GZ statements are necessary for eliminating enough of the possible routes and timings. to leave only the one possible one.

      So I can’t see them at all leaving out the GZ statements. They will ALL be produced. The main point of them is not that GZ had so many versions, but that none of the versions matches physical evidence.

      This WILL introduce to the jury the concept that GZ claimed it was self defence. But it would do so in a way that makes it clear that it was not. So having heard 3 or 4 versions from him already, they’d be even less inclined to believe any 5th or 17th Chewbacca versions.

      • onlyiamunitron
        March 8, 2013 at 2:57 AM

        The only way the state keeps self-defense out of their own presentation is to not introduce any of George’s post-shooting statements.

        They can introduce the NEN call, and all of George’s various confused and confusing versions of what happened that he gave afterwards, but they don’t have much except George’s word for what happened after the NEN call hangs up except screaming and yelling which they haven’t been able to match to either combatant, and perhaps the young lady’s testimony that she heard the sound of body on body contact (but nothing definitive as to who first laid hands on whom), and they have to agree with George that he and Trayvon were on the ground struggling, ’cause other people saw it too, but I’m not yet seeing how they turn that into “Therefore there’s no possible way that the defendant was in fear for his life, therefore it’s murder and not self-defense.”

        Either way, I could see O’Mara keeping George off of the stand and then summing up to the jury “Remember, the burden of proof is on the state. Where have they proven this could not have been self-defense? How have they convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that this was murder?”


      • March 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM

        The state has this to place the people:

        Zimmerman: That’s the clubhouse…
        Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the—he’s near the
        clubhouse right now?
        Zimmerman: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.

        I wrote a long post about this, but lost it when my wifi dropped… suffice to say what I’m taking about here is a strategy where the prosecution uses ONLY the NEN call, the bulled and shell casing and the body to present an open and shut case – a guy on the phone to police station assumed he saw a criminal, drove his car after him and then hurried after him into a dark area, found him and shot him dead and admitted as much to police when they arrived to place him in custody standing near the body. It’s a dare for the defense to assert anything different, which they can only do by putting GZ on the stand.

        Unless the defense has a way to introduce the concept of self defense, they are going to have to somehow introduce “reasonable doubt” into what the prosecution presents as the narrative. And absent using George as a witness, I don’t see how they can do that. Anyone who speaks for him is a hearsay witness.

  7. blushedbrown
    March 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM


    Off topic….

    Have a question and thought maybe you can help me understand something.
    The photos taken of the back of GZ’s head, seems to me at least, an ear missing. I am not trying to be funny when I say this, but he has extremely large ears. In your opinion, don’t you think that by holding up the phone to his ear, you would see the ear pressed against his head, or at least the outline? He wasn’t at that much of an angle imo for it not to be included in the photo. Thoughts?????

    In the other photo taken in the police car, sort of the same thing, but you see a faint outline on the left. Thoughts????


    • March 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

      Take a look at this crude illustration. Although it seems like this is a photo of “the back of his head” its more like “the side and back of his head.” The right ear is simply rotated out of sight of the camera.

      where's the right ear?

      I’ve superimposed a globe onto the shot so you can see that longitude lines that describe the left ear have corresponding marks on the far side that are directly opposite and thus hidden. I am not a doctor however and the skull is not a globe – nor are our ears set on the roundest part of the skull, but I think the illustration should suffice to make the point anyway.

      As for the cop car photo, both ears are visible but the one that is only barely seen is obscured partly because the camera is held quite close to the face, which is turned somewhat. (I’m guessing that GZ is right eye dominant and is addressing the lens with that eye.) This close distance to lens is also why in part the nose seems so swollen. It’s swollen, to be sure but the photo is also suffering from “barrel distortion” due to a slight wide angle lens effect. The nose seems larger than the ears which are relatively far from the camera. Compare the car photo to the cop shop photos taken a bit later to see how the distortion effect seems pronounced with the cell phone cam in comparison to a “normal” lens used in the interior / cop shop pics.

      IMO there have been NO photos that were “photoshopped” in this case, and I’ve been a professional cameraperson for 25-plus years.

      • blushedbrown
        March 7, 2013 at 1:39 PM


        Thank you Willis. I will rely on your 25 plus years experience, for now till proven otherwise. 🙂
        Another question, if I may. I see letters, not abc news exclusive, but around the middle of the neck up along towards the phone. This is what I see, FB UCK 2 K ??? Not sure if you can clear that up to view better, but I would like to know your thoughts please. I don’t see why letters would be present along the head in this manner. If it was some sort of identification, for the picture wouldn’t that be at the bottom ? I am not sure about these things. I thank you for helping me to understand some basics of photography.

        • March 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM

          I don’t think what you are seeing there are letters, but rather JPEG compression arifacts of the shadow and his hairline that just happen to kind of resemble letters.

        • blushedbrown
          March 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM


          I understand what you are stating, but with that being said the letters look hand written as opposed to computer or camera generated data such as JPeg. But that’s just me, I will file this under my file of “undecided” for time being.

          Thanks a bunch. 🙂

        • ada4750
          March 7, 2013 at 3:05 PM

          This is fun … The back of the left year seems at -15 d, the middle of the head at 45 d, then the back of the right year is around 105 d. Don’t we see a very thin peace of it?

          Anyway, i ensure my follow-up.

        • March 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM

          When the ABC exclusive/ W13 iPhone picture of the bloody head was first put onto the internet, I dragged it into Adobe Photoshop to brighten the image hoping to see detail in the sidewalk so I could tell where he was positioned, hoping maybe the tan bag was visible or some such “landmark.”

          To my surprise this is when it became obvious this was a picture of a man holding what seems to be a cell phone to his ear and definitely not a man wearing handcuffs behind his back, either.

          I would suggest you also employ a photo editing program to examine the picture. Changes in contrast, “levels” and brightness can make details more readable. You can also “invert” the colors to view it like a photo negative which sometimes helps you discern hidden details.

          I actually see the “UC” letters you are talking about (not the rest…) but agree this is just a digital compression anomaly and not a tattoo or hidden message, etc. It’s his hairline and shadows…

        • blushedbrown
          March 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM


          Thank you. This site Rules!!!

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 7, 2013 at 11:34 PM

          It says Free Country


        • blushedbrown
          March 7, 2013 at 11:41 PM

          I don’t understand

        • blushedbrown
          March 7, 2013 at 11:42 PM

          no you are misunderstanding Not about the back of the photo, we were talking about the bloody head phone photo

          My other post is , What is going on with you?

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 12:33 AM

          I see letters too but like Whonoze says, it’s probably just an artifact. If I stare long enough I actually even see a stick figure of a dog before the word “BUCK”. But you wouldn’t see that because the dog looks to me like the drawings that my son makes. Amazing what our minds can do to fill in the gaps.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 1:02 AM


          Thank you.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 1:07 AM


          I see F U C K sorry whonoze for the language….again.

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 1:31 AM

          Subliminal message like Lindsay Lohan’s fingernails maybe?

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 1:33 AM


          You are amazing. Exactly like that.

    • March 7, 2013 at 1:49 PM

      I think it’s just the angle. The head doesn’t have to be that much off axis to hide the ear from behind and above.

      • blushedbrown
        March 7, 2013 at 1:55 PM


        Thank you. Trying to put side issues that I have lingering in folders, that I want to close out. Thanks again!!

  8. March 7, 2013 at 2:37 PM

    willisnewton :

    IMO there have been NO photos that were “photoshopped” in this case, and I’ve been a professional cameraperson for 25-plus years.

    willis, please take another look at the Wagner photo of GZ’s bloody nose in the cop car. I call your attention to two things in particular:
    1. (most importantly) the bridge of GZ’s nose between the eyes. It’s NARROWER in the Wagner pic and has an unnatural curve INWARD, in comparison to the cop shop pic, in a way that IMO cannot be explained by foreshortening, camera angle/perspective, barrel distortion* etc.
    2. The flare of GZ’s right nostril (the ‘injured’ side in the photo) which appears shifted toward the vertical. IMO swelling in the middle of the nose would not cause such a deflection.

    In addition, IMO the Wagner photo is not in the correct aspect ratio but slightly anamorphic, squeezed horizontally (approx 3%). Looking for something to check this on in the photo, I could find only the irises of GZ’s eyes, which should, I think, be perfectly round, but are in fact slightly oval, longer top to bottom than they are wide side to side. If so, this can’t be explained by a simple error in reducing the original for publication on the web, since the pixel dimensions of the photo released are an exact proper scale-down from an iPhone original.

    * IMO the iPhone lens does not have significant barrel distortion as I see no evidence of curved lines. So GZ’s nose look’s disproportionally larger than his ears simply due to perspective ‘distortion.’ The camera position is just so close to his face that the nose appears bigger because it is so much closer to the lens than the ears in terms of percentage of total camera-to-subject distance.

  9. amsterdam1234
    March 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM

    I have found the perfect video to shut up any GZ supporter.

    Two kids about Trayvon’s age and weight, obviously trained in mma, having a fight in a back yard. The fight lasts a bit longer than the altercation between GZ and Trayvon. One of the kid’s nose gets broken before they hit the ground. It bleeds a bit, but not profusely.
    The kids upper bodies are naked, so you get a very good view on the blood stains on both their faces and bodies.
    The fight ends with a very good view of a ground and pound position.

    These are the questions I asked the GZ supporter to answer.

    How do you explain that there was no GZ blood on Trayvon’s hoody?
    Why weren’t there blood smears on GZ?
    Would you agree the voices of the kids watching the fight were male voices, but clearly younger voices?
    How do you propose GZ could’ve removed his gun from inside the waistband on his right hip, aimed and shot Trayvon, while Trayvon was on him in the mounted ground and pound position?
    Why did none of the witnesses hear the hitting sounds you can hear in this video?
    Why wasn’t the kid on the bottom making these terrified screams we hear in the 911 call?
    How would this fight be different if one of the fighters was 11 years older and 45 lbs heavier.

    None of my questions have been answered yet. I did get a lot of “you don’t get it”, ” this is different” and ” you are stupid”. I must have struck a nerve or rather the reality of this video must have struck a nerve.

    Here is the video.

    • ada4750
      March 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

      @amsterdam1234 Good example. Reminds me some of my youth. Much more important it makes realize how difficult it must have been screaming so loud in the lower position and also highlight the absence of blood on Trayvon.

      But I think there is way too much emphasis on the weight difference. The difference in fitness is also very important.

      In your opinion, how GZ got his injuries?

      • amsterdam1234
        March 7, 2013 at 6:46 PM

        Weight is very important in these kinds of fights. They have very strict weight classes In competition. Trayvon had a bullet in his heart 40 seconds before this fight ended. Fitness would not have been of great importance.

        I don’t see how GZ could’ve had the blood on his face during struggle. The blood would’ve been smeared and all over Trayvon’s hoody. No GZ blood was found on his hoody.

        I think GZ was hit on the nose by his gun caused by the recoil.
        He shot with only one hand, and that hand was not his dominant hand.

        • ada4750
          March 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM

          Imperfect example but …


          Laraque (red t-hirt) was one a the toughest (if not the toughest) hockey fighter. He retired two years ago at this friendly match. So he was a little overweight and must have near 100 pounds over G. St-Pierre.


          I was more talking about the injuries on the head of GZ.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 7, 2013 at 7:01 PM

          I don’t know how he got the injuries on his head. I do know he didn’t get them because Trayvon slammed his head into the ground.

        • ada4750
          March 7, 2013 at 7:08 PM

          I absolutely agree with you. They don’t come from head bashing. They most surely come from the struggle though. Probably from the hedge of the sidewalk.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 7, 2013 at 7:13 PM

          The edge of the sidewalk or one of the sprinkler heads or covers.

  10. March 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

    If the Wagner photo is stretched wide on the horizontal plane, why then would the pupils be elongated vertically as you say? Seems contradictory.

    I dont know if Wagner has an iPhone or not. But any wide angle lens that is not constructed with multiple elements will have some barrel distortion. But I do agree the nose appears large due to proximity.

    W13 had an iPhone 4. Dunno about Wagner, does anyone? It was a “personal” phone tho I think. Granted, Wagner had all the time he needed to alter the photo (he waited several days to turn it in, which is sloppy police work), but I don’t see any material benefit from his so doing, nor do I suspect he has the motive or technical know-how to care to alter it. For all I know he may be a racist cop but I doubt he is a diabolical photo-manipulator. It seems far-fethced to me.

    Some aspect ratio shifting is clear between B+W and color versions of the Wagner pic, but that can be attributed to vagaries in printing and scanning the document.

    I sympathize with your suspicions about the photo, there seems to be a lot of weird things about it if you stare at it for a long time but we’ll have to agree to disagree that the Wagner photo has been significantly manipulated. Were I so inclined, the best a “bad actor” could hope to do with that photo is boost the saturation to make the blood look more prominent.

    I’m be interested to know what you consider as an original source for the Wagner image however. The idea that the aspect ratio might have been “squashed” has me curious.

    • March 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM

      The Wagner photo was taken with an iPhone 4. It still shows in the image data tags and EXIF data on the released version. The iPhone only takes photos in its native resolution, which is 1936 x 2592. The released image is 650 x 870. We don’t know if Wagner gave the SPD a file of the original 1936 x 2592 camera image or not.

      And I said the photo seems squeezed horizontally, not stretched, making his head seem a bit skinnier. So no contradiction with the irises.

      I’m eventually going to make a video demonstrating the distortions I see in the Wagner pic. To that end, I’m not only going to compare it to the cop shop pics, but I got someone to dress and groom themselves to resemble GZ and had a friend with an iPhone 4 take pics of the model sitting in a car at night from a similar angle and perspective as the Wagner pic. There’s no anamorphic distortion in that pic, the irises are round, and while the iPhone camera’s color fidelity is lousy to begin with, the chroma on the Wagner pic is definitely boosted in comparison with the mock-up images. I also shot mock-ups of the model from an angle and distance similar to the cop shop photos. Comparing all 4 photos (2 of GZ, 2 of the model) the nose bridge looks normal and centered midline in the face in all except the Wagner pic, where it appears narrowed and off-center to Zimmerman’s left side. My hypothesis is that someone moved GZ’s whole right eye-socket toward the right side of the photo to make the swelling look larger, and the nose more crooked, but wound up with something anatomically impossible.

      I can’t imagine Wagner himself having the Photoshop skills to do the necessary compositing, and also to add the necessary blending to obscure the manipulation in a magnified view of the photo, nor the file-hacking skills to open the photo in a hex editor and manipulate the EXIF data. Nor does it make any sense to me that anyone in the SPD would go to to the length of manipulating the photo just to create a false impression of GZ’s injuries. But there it is. When the color version was first released, and people were opining that it had been Photoshopped, I was more than skeptical, especially since most of the ‘evidence’ of manipulation they were citing was stuff easily explained by angle, perspective, a crappy image sensor etc. And, as a general rule, I don’t do conspiracy theories. But then Tzar on FLLB got me to look closer at the nose — he was talking about “the distances from the epicanthic folds” or some such, and I thought that sounded knowledgeable enough about facial anatomy that he might be onto something. And I concluded that, yes, the particular weirdness of that photo cannot be explained by any accident of photo technology i know of (and I know a LOT about this stuff).

      Add that to the fact that JohnW6, who had no opportunity to speak to GZ after the shooting, somehow changed his account from the “wrestling” he described in his 911 call to the “strattle” position MMA-style beatdown he related to Ayala and Serino. It seems to me that unless that is what he actually saw (and I think Amsterdam has argued pretty convincingly that it could not have been), someone had to have fed him information, or lead him to answer questions in a certain way, that got his statement to line up with GZ’s account, The only people who could have done that were members of the SPD (seemingly necessarily including Timothy Smith). Ayala and/or Smith also fed bad information to Serino when they briefed him after he arrived on the scene. Put all these things together and something definitely smells rotten in the City of Sanford.

      (History has shown us that where there are conspiracies, they are rarely related to the commission of bad acts — I don’t believe for a second that GZ had any sort of plan to kill someone, and was aided by some hidden accomplices — but most often to covering up telling mistakes…)

      • blushedbrown
        March 7, 2013 at 5:12 PM


        God bless the soul who is willing to do do this experiment with you.
        That hex stuff, you’re talking about, IIRC,Dave did an article on the subject of how easy it is to change some data on a photo. I am not sure if it the same thing you are talking about, it’s all Greek to me. 🙂

        Be right back with the link.

      • amsterdam1234
        March 7, 2013 at 8:00 PM

        I share your reservations. I find it hard to imagine who could’ve/would’ve altered the picture, but there is something not right with that nose. Technically I don’t think it would be that difficult. I think you can hide any changes by making a new hd photo of the altered picture on the same device the picture was originally taken. That would probably mean that the only exif data you would need to change is the date time stamp and probably location. I was experimenting with that a while ago, but I got distracted.
        It would make it almost impossible to proof that the picture was changed. That is probably why I got distracted.

  11. blushedbrown
    March 7, 2013 at 5:18 PM


    Not sure if relates to the topic but you can have a looksee for thy self. Have fun.

  12. blushedbrown
    March 7, 2013 at 11:02 PM


    Hey what’s going on? Is everything ok?

    • onlyiamunitron
      March 7, 2013 at 11:44 PM

      I’m okay, how’s by you?


      • blushedbrown
        March 7, 2013 at 11:47 PM


        You are being coy. You know what I mean.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 12:00 AM

          For some reason I’m not getting notification emails for D5.

          Did you see the link to the picture of Z’s jacket with the brand name on it?

          As for what’s going on, I finally (after all these months) got a straight answer out of Nef about why she shows up under more than one name, and otherwise the usual suspects are inserting themselves in between me and people I’m talking to, and posting back and forth to each other calling me the usual nasty names and devoting lots and lots of posts to accusing me of being a troll.

          Interestingly, the goal of an actual troll is to post something that gets people all riled up and posting all sorts of outraged replies so that he (or perhaps occasionally she) can sit back and laugh at their wasted efforts, kinda like the boy who cried wolf.

          So in effect, they’re trolling themselves.

          But no, I’m not laughing at them.


        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 12:03 AM


          I understand all that, but is it worth all the trouble you put yourself through. Make me understand.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 12:18 AM

          Well, Mountain and Racer are going to be like that no matter what I do or even if I don’t do anything (they go back into old threads to complain about me), so I give them all the thought they deserve.

          It just bugs me that almost a year later people are still getting the same details wrong in a way that suggests to me that they haven’t really “done their homework” on familarizing themselves with the case.

          Totally OT, but check our this performance.

          Lloimincia Hall Floor Exercise Jan 18 2013 @ Alabama


        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 12:26 AM

          Whoa yeah, unitron, totally off topic, but may not. Like that tumbling girl, are you trying to say you march to the beat of your own drum?

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 12:54 AM

          “Like that tumbling girl, are you trying to say you march to the beat of your own drum?”

          Hadn’t thought of it that way, but I suppose so.

          Only with no sense of rhythm.

          : – )


        • bgesq
          March 8, 2013 at 12:16 AM

          @onlyIamunitron: I’ve seen much of that stuff tht you’re talking about over at L’s column and imo, it’s in poor taste on their part- i think it has something to do with reinforcing their “group.” I know it’s hard, but you shouldn’t take it to heart- it’s really so rediculous as to be laughable- at least that’s how it looks to me, and probably to others. Sometimes they do get a good dialogue going over there, but when they start that “troll” nonsense, it’s just silly and immature- no?

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 12:41 AM

          I am a poster of both blogs. I only want peace amongst us. I know you, Uni can work a person’s last nerve to no end, but that doesn’t make what you are doing or what they are doing. right. It has become hurtful for me to see the behavior from both parties. Tears are falling right now while I see the hurtfulness that people are doing for the sake of just being right. If the point of being totally right with information on the case, please please open a blog so I can contibute. It would be an outstanding idea for you to open a blog where only fact based information is allowed and no speculation.

          I don’t know how many times I have to send emails to all parties involved to take the high road. I can not help the matter if no one helps me, but I will keep trying to my fingers can not type no more.

          I will not choose between them or you or anyone else here for that matter. The matter that is most relevant to me, is the Murder case of Trayvon Martin.

          This is paramount, the other side issues are nothing compared to the lose of one’s son being killed on a rainy night walking home. The pettiness that is coming from everyone is beyond me. I don’t understnd the nonsense and I just can’t take it anymore. For the love of God, I know that you can change your approach if you lead to the high road others will follow.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 1:03 AM

          If you go back in the professor’s archives a bit less than a year ago and start reading forward, you’ll see that it was a good place to discuss the case, and that the “groupthink” only started taking over later, beginning slowly in September and then snowballing.

          I guess I’m just stubborn about not letting myself be run off by a bunch of people who mostly got there later than I did.

          Like around September and after.

          Although a few were there even before me.

          But you’ll see a lot of names in the early days that you don’t see there anymore.


        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 1:45 AM

          unitron says “I guess I’m just stubborn about not letting myself be run off by a bunch of people who mostly got there later than I did.”

          Yep, you are stubborn 🙂 But guess you gotta be and have a thick skin to take it. I asked you the other day if you remembered playing well with others in school. Well, some blogs are like a school yard. I’ve heard you lament multiple times about the way things were back when. Well, you graduated, went away, and then the new kids on the block showed up and peed on the four corners of the yard. It’s tough to come back and say, hey, I was here, because they’ve set up shop and don’t care. Take a deep breath, and let it go. There are bigger fish to fry.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 3:27 AM


          People visit blogs for different reasons. Some visit to exchange information, others visit for social purposes. For most of us it is combination of the two and both are necessary for a succesful blog.
          In other words, we all fit somewhere on that spectrum. I felt most at home at bcclist because I liked the way we shared information there. But the social atmosphere at Leatherman’s adds a certain continuity and cohesion that is missing on bcclist. So I get the best of both worlds by visiting both. I go there when I want to find out where people are and what they are up to, I go to bcclist if I want to get into real analysis.

          Ps: for know I consider the diaspora and bcclist to be the same. But I suspect that may change at some point.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 3:38 AM

          Well whonoze is still on top of things here, but no longer mass emailing seems to have other stuff to handle so that bcclist is pretty much on autopilot at the moment with the most recent thread getting pretty long, so probably better to let it lie fallow for now.

          But 8 to 10 months ago Leatherman’s was a good place to discuss the case from the various different angles and we had a lawyer on tap.


        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 7:36 AM


          We still do have him on tap. He answers those legal questions posed to him about the case from time to time. I am learning a lot from him, I enjoy that very much.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 7:44 AM

          “We still do have him on tap.”

          Over there, not over here, where the vitriol and the insults and name-calling haven’t started up yet (knock wood).


        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 8:20 AM



        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 3:34 AM

          @ wsi
          That is so true.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 3:35 AM

          @ unitron
          Yes I meant now not know.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 4:01 AM

          That seems to be the nature of blogs. I’ve been a contributor of the Daily Kos since 2004 and I’ve seen it happening over and over again. New people started crowding out the old group. People would start complaining things used to be better. Factions would form, pie fights would break out. Eventually the pie fights would turn in to a meta war and end with an exodus of a group of long term users. Most eventually return.
          And then the cycle would begin again.

          First time I found it very painful, now I just lay low for a while and spend time on other blogs.

  13. bgesq
    March 8, 2013 at 12:54 AM

    @blushed: I wholeheartedly agree- the focus is, and sholuld remain:Trayvon and the unjustified provocation of a CHILD walking home from a store- that event is scarey, incredible, and way more important than the petty squabbles. I just hate to see attacks on people who have contributed so much to getting to the actual truth and facts- all that stuff is totally unproductive and it should stop.

    • blushedbrown
      March 8, 2013 at 12:57 AM

      😥 😥 😥

      • bgesq
        March 8, 2013 at 1:19 AM

        @blushed- very sorry- dont cry- hopefully justice is happening- and soon!

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 1:22 AM


          Thank you, its hard not too, but I will try.
          Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

      • amsterdam1234
        March 8, 2013 at 3:30 AM

        I am sorry I must have missed something. Anything I can do?

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 7:27 AM


          Thanks Amsterdam.
          You’ve explained it perfectly in your previous post.
          I have a better understanding and I feel somewhat better.


        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 7:44 AM

          I am glad to hear that. I forgot to mention that you do add cohesion and continuity to our side of the blog world, and it I do appreciate that.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 8:21 AM


          Thank you. I appreciate you saying that to me. 🙂

  14. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 1:19 AM

    I’m going to dig into some evidence, I have to get some material for a post. I bid everyone a good night and sleep well. Tomorrow make someone you don’t know smile.


    • amsterdam1234
      March 8, 2013 at 7:40 AM

      I have another MO request. Does he say anything about driving their cars away or which cars they drove to the policestation?
      Maybe we should start another google doc file system. One where we can add doc containing stuff we’ve typed out.
      I want to know how much time he spend hanging out with the boys. Car tags for the 2 honda’s was done at 8:33 and 8:47. Chief Lee was logged on scene at 8:40.

      • blushedbrown
        March 8, 2013 at 7:42 AM

        Give me a minute. 🙂
        To make a cup of coffee. Be back in about 3 minutes.

      • onlyiamunitron
        March 8, 2013 at 8:01 AM

        “Car tags for the 2 honda’s was done at 8:33 and 8:47.”

        14 minutes between running the two tags?

        Was it the same cop doing it?

        Did he/she run a bunch of others as well?

        Wasn’t there one on a different truck that came back “unlisted”?

        (although I’d never heard of an unlisted, as in the police don’t get to know to whom it belongs, license plate before)


        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 8:21 AM

          The officer was Mike Bernosky. He ran two car tags, both came back as cars belonging to residents.
          I think I’ve read somewhere that the officer said he checked cars on both sides of the cut-through. I’ll see if I can find that later.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 8:24 AM


          IIRC both tags came back to Zimmerman. I can dig up the audio clip if we need it.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 8:25 AM


          Sorry, forgot to include this… yes the same officer ran the tags.

      • wassointeresting
        March 8, 2013 at 8:07 AM

        Osterman writes about after they did their chores like walking the dogs and what not:
        “It was now around 9:20
        p.m. when we pulled out of the gate in my Ford 2-door
        headed downtown to the Sanford Police Department on
        13th Street.”

        He says Shellie was at the police station for about 6 hours and he was with her for the most part except when he left “briefly” to go home because Sondra couldn’t clean up dog vomit from the carpet. He continues writing:

        “I rushed home, quickly cleaned up the mess on the carpet,
        and then changed cars for the trip back to the station.
        I thought our larger 4-door Ford Fusion would be more
        comfortable for transporting both Shellie and George.”

      • wassointeresting
        March 8, 2013 at 8:12 AM

        Oh another thing, Osterman wrote that they left the scene at around 8:10pm and 15 minutes later “the patrol car with George in the back seat left for the short ride to the Sanford Police Station”

        I’m not sure how any of Osterman’s timing in his book jives with the actual evidence as he might be just making up approximate times based on memory.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 8:45 AM

          Did loree and you do a switcheroo?

          I don’t take him at his word, I suspect most of it is self serving, but combined with other information we’ll put this puzzle together.

          We know George arrived at the police station at 7:52. The car tags came back at 8:33 and 8:47. I don’t believe for a second that he waisted an hour and 10 minutes helping Shellie pack GZ’s underwear.
          Bill Lee is registered on the contamination log at 8:40 pm.
          I also see no reason why Shellie would’ve left both cars near the scene. So in my estimation they didn’t leave the crime scene before 8:33.

          I am kind of interested in his car switch story. I disregarded the idea that the guy at the bank was MO, based on the car he was driving. I have to take another look at that video.

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 8:57 AM

          I was just being a butt-insky and tried to save Loree from typing all that, but she did it anyway.. But it’s useful to read the text of the book she provided anyway, if for anything to get the context, not so much the actual times and whatnot. They didn’t just pack underwear, he helped her walk the dogs. I guess they didn’t wanna come home with dog poop in the house. Very curious that they’re so concerned about at such a time.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 9:03 AM


          Exactly. This is me thinking of how I would of approached it.

          Leave immeditely to the police station if it was my husband.
          Hell with the dogs for right now, he is more important. I can come back and deal with them later.

          Packing suitcases, for what??? It could of been done and decided that later. Most important would be the status of what’s going on and to be there for the husband.

          But that’s just me.

        • March 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM

          How the heck does he know when the patrol car left if he wasn’t there?

          Reminds me of the old joke; guy asks a gal on the subway where he should get off to get to the Flatiron building. Gal quips, “it’s easy, just watch me and get off two stops before I do.”

          I don’t know if his times match anything, either since his friend is a rotten liar and he’s sticking up for him.

          Seems to me that if MO and Shellie “left” it may have been with her in the Ridgeline and he in his own car. But MO doesn’t say, does he? “When in doubt, leave it out.”

          More questions than answers here. Osterman is (semi) intelligent enough to know that the person to put in a good word with will be the highest ranking official on the scene, not some cops back at the station who won’t let him see his buddy anyway.

          I’ve always assumed Osterman had enough time and leeway to coach GZ briefly before he was questioned. Osterman admits he spoke to GZ when he was questioned by the FDLE, I believe.

        • March 9, 2013 at 6:59 PM

          yeah, if he’d left the scene already, how would be know what time George was driven out??? making it up.

  15. onlyiamunitron
    March 8, 2013 at 3:46 AM

    Looks like the impersonator has been booked for another series of performances in the lounge.


    • wassointeresting
      March 8, 2013 at 7:33 AM

      Whoa that is so creepy. How can you swat that fly off your tail?

      • onlyiamunitron
        March 8, 2013 at 7:55 AM

        “How can you swat that fly off your tail?”

        I wish I knew.

        I still haven’t figured out how it’s being done yet.

        Apparently one can have more than one WordPress.com user name, or what I refer to as an account, attached to the same email address, but when you go to pick that user name, it refuses it if someone else is already using it before it ever gets to the part about asking for your email address.

        Or at least that’s how it treated me when I tried to sign up as unitron, so I’d have thought that anyone else trying to sign up as onlyiamunitron would be blocked from using that name, but someone’s apparently found a way around that obstacle, although with an account other than mine because my avatar (so far) only shows up when it’s really me, and when it’s the imposter/impersonator they get a generic one.

        Until you figure out that impersonation is being done, it can create some very confused and confusing conversations.


        • March 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM

          I don’t know if all you folks know this, but as the blog owner WordPress will show me not only your handle, but the email address you signed up with on every comment when I log in to the ‘comments’ page. So I would assume Prof. Leatherman can see the same info for his blog as well…

        • March 9, 2013 at 7:12 PM

          It won’t let you SIGN UP for a new account with a user name they already have registered.

          BUT when you go to post, once you are logged in, it lets you change that name. On some blogs anyway, might depend on settings done by the owner or maybe on the theme being used. On Leatherman I can change my name to just Aussie. Here it doesn’t let me. Loree has the same issue here.

          So the guy might be signed up as xyztroll205, but he can change it before submitting the post. The overtyped names are not checked for uniqueness, only the one registered name is.

          True Fred can see your emails, but if you (and the fly) are no longer being moderated, he’d not look, unless you specially ask him to.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 9, 2013 at 8:03 PM

          “It won’t let you SIGN UP for a new account with a user name they already have registered.

          BUT when you go to post, once you are logged in, it lets you change that name.”

          In just two sentences you have explained what Nef spent about half a year not being able to get me to understand, partially because of the difference in her wording, but mostly because it would never have occurred to me that even WordPress.com would be guilty of such atrocious coding.

          Not even after I discovered the avatar trick.

          It’s like they put up a sign that says “Come on in, the trolling’s fine.”

          Many thanks.


  16. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 7:49 AM

    Yes he does mention the car he drives, let me get there.

    • wassointeresting
      March 8, 2013 at 8:15 AM

      @Loree, are you hand typing the text? Did you get the hard copy of the book? The electronic copy is much easier to search.

      • blushedbrown
        March 8, 2013 at 8:26 AM


        I like HARD copy. LOL

      • blushedbrown
        March 8, 2013 at 8:27 AM


        Old school in that regard. Books must come where I can feel the pages.

      • blushedbrown
        March 8, 2013 at 8:28 AM

        Hand typing… YES.

  17. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 8:01 AM

    Starting with last sentence, bottom page of page 14 and going into page 15 MO Book:

    At this point, around 8:10p.m., we had not seen the yellow tarp covering the body of Trayvon Martin, so we were not aware had been a death as a result of the shooting.
    I could see the anxiety in Shellie’s face at the thought that George could be held overnight, or even arrested. I tried to reassure her.

    “Shellie, the most important thing is that George is alive and well. If he is arrested, we will work it out later when we get further information.”

    She methodically moved toward our cars and we left to gather the extra clothes. As we walked, I strongly encouraged her to pack a bag for she and George, so both would be prepared to spend the night at our home.

    I offered our home for two reasons. If George was arrested or charged after questioning, I didn’t want Shellie to be alone should she receive that word. I was also concerned for her safety. The shooting may have sparked anger in friends or family of the victim. I didn’t want her to be by herself in their home, in case some person or persons sought some “street justice.”

    Fifteen minutes after we left the scene of the shooting, the patrol car with George in the back seat left for the short ride to the Sandford Police Station. The video of his arrival at the station would be played again and again as the public became aware of the shooting. To most, at first glance, George had no apparent injuries when he exited…

    • onlyiamunitron
      March 8, 2013 at 8:27 AM

      “At this point, around 8:10p.m…”

      “Fifteen minutes after we left the scene of the shooting, the patrol car with George in the back seat left for the short ride to the Sandford Police Station.”

      It’s been the better part of a year, but I thought I remembered them pulling into the police station with George in the back seat (still want to know why his seatbelt wasn’t fastened) a few minutes before 8:00 PM.

      Maybe one of the time stamps somewhere was an hour off, but Martin was pronounced at 7:30 PM, which freed up a medic or two to go clean up Zimmerman, at which point I thought they took off for the station with him right then.

      What would be the point in keeping him at the crime scene for another hour?

      I’m not asking that last of anyone in particular.


      • wassointeresting
        March 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM

        I think the “8:10” time refers to when they decided to leave the scene of the shooting.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 8:49 AM

          “I think the “8:10″ time refers to when they decided to leave the scene of the shooting”

          And if George was driven away 15 minutes after that, that’s 8:25, which is about half an hour later than I had thought he arrived at the police station after a 10 minute or so patrol car ride.


        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM

          And that’s why we don’t trust or can’t use Osterman’s account for anything.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 9:01 AM

          “And that’s why we don’t trust or can’t use Osterman’s account for anything.”

          Perhaps there’s some extremely fine print in the book somewhere that says:

          “For Entertainment Purposes Only”

          or the standard fiction disclaimer “Any resemblance to any person living or dead…” etc.


        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM



          That’s funny.

          Damn. let me check.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 9:06 AM


          Yes but it puts him in a bind, doesn’t it? Because of the timeline.
          His book was entered as state’s evidence. Everything he said in that book can be used against him in a court of law. Did I just say that? Ha!

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 9:25 AM

          “Everything he said in that book can be used against him in a court of law.”

          I wouldn’t think that those times matter at all. Just because he wrote them down in a book doesn’t mean that he’s more accountable for those facts than he would be if he was just verbally interviewed and says “I think I left the scene AROUND 8:10 and I think George left like 15 minutes later” How would he know GZ left exactly 15 min later when he wasn’t there?

          I think what the state will use the book for is what GZ told him about the shooting. That’s most critical. Of note, you remember the nuthouse had published an unedited version of the book? I compared it to the published version. The following is a sentence that Osterman wrote in GZ’s voice in recounting to him what happened.

          Unedited version
          “For a brief moment I had control of the guy’s wrists, but I
          knew when he felt the sidearm at my waist”.

          Published version
          “For a brief moment I had control of the wrist, but I
          knew when he felt the sidearm at my waist with his leg.”

          Two wrists became one wrist, and all of a sudden he knew TM felt the gun with his leg. I wonder if it was a cop or the editor that helped him fill in these details. Ha!

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 9:36 AM


          I heard of a version out there for the CTH group, but I have never gotten a chance to view, but WOW.

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 10:23 AM

          “the CTH group” You’re just too nice Loree. I’ve been known to chide others about name calling but I’ve always reserved the right to call TCTH the ‘nuthouse’ because it’s just plain nuts what they write over there. I realize now that perhaps individuals with clinical psychological problems may take offense to being associated with them! There’s always the “outhouse” but then perhaps individuals without proper sanitation facilities would also take offense. Oh well, I’ll take your lead and stick to TCTH.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM



          I personally do not want to offend truly insane people either. Think of it this way, its less letters to typ. 🙂

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM

          “I realize now that perhaps individuals with clinical psychological problems may take offense to being associated with them! ”

          Okay, now that was definitely worth the price of admission.

          On a more practical note, just call ’em the treehouse.

          Everybody will know who you mean.


        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 11:34 AM


          Eh, too many letters. cth, lower case is just fine too. Double meaning. HA!

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 8:55 AM


          I think your right. Ok so the timeline is:

          7:19 photo taken called wife
          7:30 Trayvon pronouced dead
          7:30 per Osterman book this is the time Shellie called him
          7:41 EMT perform care
          7:51 Emt available for next available call
          7:52 Arrive at police station (IIRC on time)

          8:10 Per osterman did not see yellow tarp

          9:20 per Osterman book pulled up to cop shop with two suitcases in tow along with Shellie in a Ford 2 door

          Is this correct?

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM

          I can’t confirm any of the times other than what I just wrote from looking at Osterman’s book. Oh, and 9:20 was when they pulled out of the gate of RATL to head towards the cop shop.

          From your time line, it would seem that Osterman actually hung out for a good 10-15 min after GZ left, while in his book, he says that he (Osterman) left the scene well before GZ did. Is this perhaps a fudging of the times to cover the fact that he spent time talking to cops at the scene when his best buddy was already gone, and thus would not have any business hanging out? The book is entered into evidence, so I’d like to see him get grilled on that point.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 9:19 AM


          I think he is going to get the grilling of a lifetime. I think if GZ pleads the 5th. The can get alot of information through Mark, by his book and the Dr. Phil interview.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 9:23 AM


          Shellie was at her Dad’s house per Osterman. He states in his book that she was on her way to the scene when she called him. She got there before he did.

          I hope they got the swipe records at the gate.

          Daen I lost my train of thought, need more coffee, brb.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM

          Wow allright.

      • amsterdam1234
        March 8, 2013 at 8:55 AM

        Yes, they arrived at the police station at 7:52 or 7:53. Smith left with GZ at 7:41:25.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 9:03 AM

          “Yes, they arrived at the police station at 7:52 or 7:53. Smith left with GZ at 7:41:25.”

          Sounds like Mark O should have asked Santa for a new watch.


    • March 9, 2013 at 7:42 PM

      “… The shooting may have sparked anger in friends or family of the victim. I didn’t want her to be by herself in their home, ..”

      yeah, sure!

      At this stage Trayvon has not been identified, and is believed to be a random non-resident thug. So how would his friends or family know what happened? and they “may have” become angry? or perhaps maybe not??

      And anyway how would they know where GZ lives??? THAT is paranoia pure and simple.

      Apart from the paranoia, it is a good and decent thing to put someone up for the night (or a day or two) to give them a chance to talk out a traumatic event.

      • blushedbrown
        March 9, 2013 at 8:08 PM


        I agree with the one or two day thing. But putting their 10-year old daughter in the mix was a bad decision, imo. Friends; I don’t care how close you think you are with them, should not supercede the health, protection or well being of your own child. Putting them up for six weeks, subjected the little one, to ask some very tough questions. Why where they watching the news while she was around? She actually saw her parents scared, and so was she. There was tension there, so she felt that tension. I don’t think they made the right decison at all.

        From reading the book, I got the sense from Sondra’s writng that she was getting increasely uneasy about the two there in her house. I think she second guess herself about the whole thing early on in the book, even though she did not put it in words. JMO

  18. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 8:10 AM

    Top page of 16
    the patrol car. There was no visible bleeding or bruising, only one clip where an officer check the back of George’s head briefly. The video would unleash the first murmurings that the shooting could be more than a simple case of self defense.

    As if in a fog, Shellie did the necesscary things before she left home in Twin Lakes for the night. I helped her walk their two dogs, an older Basenji named “Leroy” and their younger Rottweiler by the name of “Oso” Spanish for bear. Shellie then phoned her father and mother to give them the grim news, Of course, she was emotional as she recounted what se knew of the events that evening. I then waited while Shellie packed two separate suitcases; one for George and one for her. It was now around 9:20 p.m. when we pulled out of the gate in my Ford 2 door headed downtown to the Sandford Police Department on 13th Street.

    Shellie and I entered the station and took seats in the lobby not realizing that we would be sitting there for the next six hours with absolutely no word about George. I watched Shellie go through a roller coaster ride of emotions. At times she was calm, even producing a smile or two as I tried to distract her from the heaviness. Then her countenance would change as fear gripped her once again. For Shellie, what we didn’t know was worse than what we….

  19. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM

    top of page 17

    did know. Worry would often overtake her and fresh tears would fill her eyes.

    I left Shellie’s side briefly after calling Sondra to let her know both George and Shellie would be spending the night. Sondra had been ill that day and rather light-headed as a result. One of our dogs had been sick as well and had thrown up on the carpet. Sondra asked me if I could come home and clean the carpet if we were going to have overnight guests. She just didn’t feel like she could do it. I rushed home, quickly cleaned up the mess on the carpet, and then changed cars for the trip back to the station. I thought our large 4-door Ford Fusion would be more comfortabel for transporting both Shellie and George.

    My job remained one of comfort and encouragement to our friend during these long hours, Friends… best friends – that is what we called George and Shellie Zimmerman. I couldn’t help but think of how my wife and I become so close to this couple. So close, that we saw them as our younger brother and sister.

    • March 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM

      Sorry, I can’t help it…

      ** begin snark **

      Osterman had to clean up the dog vomit to make room for the dogshit.

      And what’s with the car brand and model references? Is MO trying to get Ford into bankruptcy?

      **end snark**

      • blushedbrown
        March 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM


        You silly man. 😆

        His wife (Sondra) who was so ill, could not clean up the vomit from their dog. So he dashed home lickety split to do a man’s job. LOL

        The dogshit possibility is form Shellie’s dogs. So once again Mark doing a “man’s” job walked her dogs too.


        Mark is the offical pooper scooper.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM

          I forget to add, who does that, leave a crying bewildered wife where her husband is in custody to go clean up vomit????

          I call bullshit on that one.

          I think he left so he could talk to his wife privately about what was going on.

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM

          Nope, shellie wasn’t a crying bewildered wife. GZ told Singleton she was “sooo mad”.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 11:29 AM



        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 11:23 AM

          @Loree, there’s a story in chapter 4 of Osterman’s book about the gun and his dad. I know you’ve read it, but for others: At 17, Mark was cleaning a rifle and accidently/on purpose (i.e. pulled the trigger but didn’t check to see if a bullet was in the chamber) discharged it while it was pointed up at the ceiling, and the bullet richocheted off the ceiling, fragemented and a piece of it hit his father in the chest “between the left nipple and the sternum”. His father just got up went to the bathroom, came back and checked around and said something like “oh good, it didn’t hit the TV” When you talk about what these people, who are soooo comfortable with guns, worry about, it seems like another world, eh?

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 11:33 AM

          OMG yes. I thought the same thing, I said WTF?

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM

          “Mark is the offical pooper scooper.” Which Mark? Both long-time best buddy Mark O. and counsel Mark O not only share the same initials, they apparently got the same duties of cleaning up after GZ.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM


          Coffee out of nose, and whoa is that strong. Thanks WSI!!!

        • March 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM

          Osterman leaving the cop shop to “go clean dog vomit” is a CYA move, possibly. He knows that there may be video of the waiting room, or that the desk sgt may be called to testify that he left at some point and returned.

          We don’t have any PROOF that he went home, and for all we know he went to a secret meeting of the Rothchild’s trilateral conspiracy KKK mind-control group with the alien corpses fmo Roswell…. but he admits he went _somewhere_ because he is covering his Arse, IMO.

          It seems pretty clear as well that he stayed on scene after the patrol car drove away with George, and it also seems clear he is NOT on the “contamination log” or whatever it’s called and he should be.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 11:47 AM


          I agree, its bullshit.
          But wait there’s more the wife allegedly confirms this in the book.

          page 21
          The only information Mark had at that time was that George had evidently shot someone in self-defense. At my request, Mark dashed home to help with a mess on eof our dogs had made on the carpet. I had been sickly all day and didn’t feel like I could clean it up, but knew it needed to be done before George and Shellie got to our place for the night.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM


          Ummm what is CYA?

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 12:59 PM

          Come on, now, everybody knows you can’t have a proper diabolical international world-wide global conspiracy which leaves all other conspiracies behind in its dust without the Knights Templar, the Masons, and the Illuminati.

          With a light sprinking of Rosacrucians and Opus Dei for seasoning.


          (who expected a much higher quality of paranoia from you, and who now suspects that they have gotten to you and that before long you’ll be just another pod person, saying nice things about the United Nations and talking about what a fine job they do at the Federal Reserve)

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 1:08 PM

          (Robot walking)

          Take Me to Your Leader.

      • March 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM


        “Osterman had to clean up the dog vomit to make room for the dogshit”


      • March 9, 2013 at 7:35 PM

        Typical giveaway of a ghost written book. Full of unnatural and unnecessary detail, researched stuff to make it look authentic, instead of which it looks just researched and therefore fake.

        Many years ago there was a book, supposedly true story but later admitted to be a hoax, about a woman looking for her kids in the Middle East somewhere. Right there on page one she gets out of a cab and pays with a 50 (local money) note, described in detail, size shape colour etc. FAKE. Someone who’s really seen such a note would not remember that much about or, NOR consider it worth “showing off” their knowledge. I only kept reading to find further evidence of it being a phoney.

        I suspect the same would apply had I bothered to enrich MO with the price of one copy, except I knew in advance it wouldn’t be heavy on facts anyway.

  20. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM

    amsterdam1234 :
    The officer was Mike Bernosky. He ran two car tags, both came back as cars belonging to residents.
    I think I’ve read somewhere that the officer said he checked cars on both sides of the cut-through. I’ll see if I can find that later.

    Where??? If you find that piece of information about an officer checking both sides, please post.

    • amsterdam1234
      March 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM

      In the first dump police report p16 Narrative Santiago
      “I asked another patrol officer to run the vehicle tags parked along the road on both sides of the incident”

      • blushedbrown
        March 8, 2013 at 10:19 AM


        thank you, I remember now. I think it would be of good use for me to go back and reread everything, as massive as it sounds, I do tend to forget little tidbits that are pertinent.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 8, 2013 at 10:25 AM

          I was thinking about reading everything again too. We know so much more and have more context. I just want to read it again with the knowledge I have today.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM


          We have alot more pieces of the puzzle. Lookit, we have videos by Whonoze, LLMPapa, case evidence, timing, etc. It would be a great to go back and discuss what we have now and look at the whole picture again, with a renewed knowledge of everything.

          We only have a couple of more months to go. The only thing missing now is the reciprocal discovery evidence and the list of experts to be used from O’mara and the state. He hasn’t entered much as far as discovery from his side.

          It would give us something to do and keep our knowledge sharp.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM

          “I do tend to forget little tidbits that are pertinent.”

          Just don’t forget that it was an NEN call, and not 911.

          : – )

          : – )

          : – )

          : – )

          : – )


        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 11:30 AM


          You are such a pain in my ass. 🙂

  21. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 8:59 AM

    blushedbrown :
    I think your right. Ok so the timeline is:
    7:19 photo taken called wife
    7:30 Trayvon pronouced dead
    7:30 per Osterman book this is the time Shellie called him
    7:41 EMT perform care
    7:51 Emt available for next available call
    7:52 Arrive at police station (IIRC on time)
    8:10 Per osterman did not see yellow tarp
    9:20 per Osterman book pulled up to cop shop with two suitcases in tow along with Shellie in a Ford 2 door
    Is this correct?

    7:27 emt arrive on scene per discovery dump # 1
    7:40 patient contact per discovery dump 1
    7:51 Emt availalable per discovery dump 1

  22. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 9:10 AM


    >>>I don’t believe for a second that he waisted an hour and 10 minutes helping Shellie pack GZ’s underwear.
    Bill Lee is registered on the contamination log at 8:40 pm.

    YES!! I am certain he hung around and gathered information, from the local cops and Bill Lee. Remember that interview he did, and he said something to the effect he wouldn’t or Billy Lee wouldn’t know who he was in a supermarket line.

  23. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 9:15 AM

    Imagine this scenario:

    Oh Mark George was invloved in a shooting, Ok I’m on my way. Click.
    Arrive at the scene, well Shellie why don’t we go on to your house and get some clothes for George. Oh alright, while your at, it let’s pack some suitcases, this might not be over. I’ll protect you, come over to our house. Oh alright. What about the dogs? We can walk them, you know what’s funny Shel, when you called I was walking my dogs, too. Oh mark that is so weird. Ok So before we go and check on Geroge lets make sure you are packed, and the dogs are walked and then we will go. How’s that sound. We can take our time, George is not going to be charged, Bill Lee told me so. OK you know best.

    • amsterdam1234
      March 8, 2013 at 10:05 AM


      • blushedbrown
        March 8, 2013 at 10:22 AM


        As silly as it sounds, it’s not that hard to imagine because of what he writes. I mean really? Would you have us believe that you spent that much time walking dogs packing suitcases when your best friend: your husband just killed someone?? I don’t get them.

        • March 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM

          I’ll say it again, like George, MO’s attempting to cover his arse but worried about what is known by others.

          Keep in mind also however that he’s likely working with a ghostwriter, whom he doesn’t fully trust with everything he knows. There may be a bit here and there lost in translation.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 12:19 PM


          The way it’s written its from both of them, not from a third party per se at least IMO. WSI can explain better.

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM

          I don’t think they worked with a ghostwriter. Those are for celebrities who don’t wanna write the book themselves and can afford to pay. Most likely what they had was an editor from the publisher who helped them check grammar, maybe gave tips on organizing the chapters, and gave advice on how to make it “interesting” or “readable”.

          The parts that I suspect the editor had a hand in writing was the paragraph on the back cover, because that’s what supposed to make people wanna pick up the book and buy it (ahem). But this editor must have been working on too many bad detective novels….

          “The sound of a single shot cut through the quiet, rainy evening and a lanky, black teen, Trayvon Martin, fell to the ground. The shooter was someone Mark and Sondra Osterman spoke with daily. He played Santa for their daughter, treated his wife with preciousness, often ate at their table, and shared their joys and sorrows. The Ostermans are George and Shellie Zimmerman’s best friends. They were the first people Shellie Zimmerman called on that tragic February night in Sanford, Florida.”

        • March 8, 2013 at 6:49 PM

          If you are saying that it is written as though authored by both Ostermans, then it’s very likely only one of them did the actual writing, probably the female Osterman. I haven’t read it but a careful examination of the grammar might give it away.

        • blushedbrown
          March 8, 2013 at 6:56 PM


          Two distinct writing styles. I will post a chapter of hers and a chapter of his. Just checking in real quick m aybe by late this evening I will have it for ya! Give me a liitle time, ok ….

        • wassointeresting
          March 8, 2013 at 9:32 PM

          Regarding the Osterman book, the back cover as I had mentioned is written in the third person, as is the introduction (the style of which is also similar). Within each chapter of the book, the text is clearly marked by “Mark” or “Sondra” and written from each of their point of views. I believe it is written by them. There are parts where they “quote” GZ, that sound a bit off though.

          ***** Then, Shellie and I flanked George as we walked to
          my car which was parked along 13th Street. I mentioned
          to George that we thought it wise for them both to stay
          in our spare bedroom for the night. I then, added, “And,
          we probably need to stop by the hospital and get you
          checked out.”
          He immediately declined the hospital stop, “I just want
          to go to your house and try to get some sleep. For some
          reason, I am bone weary and almost have to sleep right
          now.” I understood. ******

          “For some reason, I am bone weary”????? WTF???

        • blushedbrown
          March 9, 2013 at 11:27 AM

          Chapter 3 pg 51 & 52
          Hiding the Most Hated Man In America


          Although I consistently tried to encourage George, I, too had a forbodeing, perhaps based of experience in law enforcement, that the incident on February 26th at The retreat at twin Lakes housing addition was not going away anytime soon.

          By Thursday, March 1, the local Orlando press has jumped on the story, and like a break away avalanche, newspapers, magazines, and talk shows around the country began to clamor for more details. Because of the way in which the story was presented from the beginning, the racially charged elements had people picking sides quickly.

          Even though the Zimmermans and Sondra and I didn’t realize the extent of the media coverage at the time, we all agreed from that first night to tell no one the couple was staying with us. George and Shellie’s parents and siblings were the exception, along with the Sandford police, of course. Not even Sondra’s extended amily, nor mine, knew we were keeping the Zimmermans during those first hours and days following the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

          I would recall the words of the officer from the Sandford Police Department after George’s first interview at the station. “There could be some media attention in the coming days, however, please remember, you do not have an obligation to talk to anyone.” I knew he was advising that speaking to the media might only create more fodder for the newspaper or news outlets hungry for details. So, we agreed to “lay low,” to not be seen or heard, optimistic that the press interest would die down eventually and we could get back to our normal lives soon. What a field day the press would have had if they knew GeorgeZimmerman, the focus of the biggest story to come out of Sandford, Florida, was staying with friends only blocks away from the shooting.
          End page 52

          @ Willis

          Mark’s chapter ends on page 61. Sondra’s words for this same chapter starts at the bottom of page 61.

          I choose this particular chapter so you can see the distinct writings, thoughts from each person. The other reson I picked this chapter in particular is something Sondra’s writes and I would like to know if you and WSI can find what I am referring to so we can discuss. I thought it was an eye opener, but it is JMO.

          I hope this helps along with the discussion of the Ostermans and the role they play in the case.

          Under same chapter heading, Hiding the Most Hated Man In America


          Toward the end of that first week following the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Mark and I thought it would be nice for George and Shellie to get away from the stress for a little while. We helped to make plans for them to drive to Tampa, stay in a nice hotel, relax and truly get some rest. We were all very naive to think that when they returned everything would have blown over and the media would move on to another story. We really believed that soon George and Shellie would be moving back to their home to get on with their lives. We could not have been more wrong.

          The media firestorm surprised all of us. I bristled at how the media got the details of the events from that February night so wrong; it seemed like the driving force of the misinformation was the attorneys for the Martin/Fulton family (Fulton is the last name of Trayvon’s mother). The family was demanding answers regarding the death of their son, and they deserved answers. However, during their quest for answers, they racially divided the country by baseless accusations. The ooutcome left people confused, and seeking justice for suspicions based on lies and hate.

          We couldn’t escape the press coverage. The shooting was the lead story for every newspaper and magazine. Every news show featured segments and updates on the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sandford, Florida. We caught the television footage of the rallies led by the Martin/Fulton family, the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackso, Congresswoman Corrine Brown, and the NAACP. The congresswoman from Miami/Dade County, Frederica Wilson, said many outlandish things. You may recall she is the one that wore the huge hats. Astounded by the racial tensions these protests produced, I prayed they would woon cease. Then, on Friday, March 23rd, we learned the leaders of the New Black Panther organization announced they had raised $10,000 in bounty for the capture of George Zimmerman “dead or alive,” and I literaaly shook with fear. I didn’t beleive my ears.

          Do we really live in a society where a group of people can go on national television and admit they have a bounty on another human being’s head? I had to explain to our daughter that not all people are good, and even adults do bad things. She asked me directly, “Is “Georgie going to be killed or arrested?”

          I struggled to find the words to allay her fear that someone she adores could be in such a terrible palce. Tension in our home was at an all-time high as George felt attacked by dark and menacing forces. Every day, there was a possibility that it would be discovered that we were hiding George Zimmerman, the out-of-control neighborhood watch captain who killed an innoocent teen making his wasy back home from the convenience store. I imagined people with guns coming to our door to take George away, or seeing him hurt before our eyes. Were we being watched? Would someone wait for us to leave and assault us with questions about George and his whereabouts? All of us felt the pressure of being prisoners in our own home during this time. But we were adamant and committed to protecting our friends for as long as possible.

          We have two dogs, and George and Shellie had on dog staying with us. Their other dog was being kept by Shellie’s father. It was necesscary to take the dogs out for bathroom breakds and also for walks. Each time we left the house, we were constantly looking over our shoulders, hoping no one recognized it was George Zimmerman walking his dog in the neighborhood. As tensions over the case grew around the country, tension in our home rose, too. I knew George was becoming more and more depressed and very afraid.

          Breanna, our ten-year-old daughter, had never been exposed to prejudice until media brought it inot our home. For the first time she was hearing words like “nigger” the f-word and “coon.” (Later CNN admitted doctoring George’s 911 tape to make the word “punk” sound like “coon.”) She asked waht these words meant as she was hearing them from the media and from friends at school: some who had attended Mr. Sharpton’s rallies. I was shocked and angry that I would need to explain such words to her at such a young age.

          Her chapter goes on to page 69.

          Please excuse any typos, I was trying to get this done as quickly as possible for ya!!

          Open for discussion.

  24. March 8, 2013 at 1:32 PM

    On another note, the judge signed the subpoenas for facebook and twitter regarding Dee Dee and TM’s social media postings.

    • wassointeresting
      March 8, 2013 at 2:03 PM

      Kinda thought she already did that? Or that she had agreed to it in a hearing, but I guess it’s official now.

      • March 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM

        What’s in the social media postings anyway? I assume they’ve mostly been “doxed” or hacked or whatever kids to day call this stuff. I’ve heard various rumors third hand and it all sounded very innocuous to me. But now that it’s going to be available “above board” more or less (facebook is a shitty corporation IMO and if they give over this stuff they are losers, too) I suppose we can discuss this all without feeling dirty.

        But maybe I have it all wrong. How do people here feel about this issue and what it says not only about the case, but about society in general?

        Then there is the trail strategy aspect of this all: could this just be a way to intimidate W8/ Dee Dee into refusing to testify? Is this all a bluff by MoM, or a sop to the treehouse types who are his revenue source? Or both, or something else? Is there a legal way MoM can use this material to suggest ANYTHING to a jury?

        This is a complex topic and I’m just going to bull my way into it, so I hope I am not offending anyone here. I get the feeling that Trayvon was a normal kid of 16/17 and by that I mean I bet he smoked weed and got high however he could on occasion but was no drug dealer or thug. Just a regular kid.

        There is no “recipe” for “Lean drank” by the way that I’ve ever seen documented, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn if Trayvon had gotten off on cough syrup a few times. The idea that skittles and Arizona watermelon drink is somehow “standard ingredients” for imbibing cough syrup with is ludicrous. If you want to get “crunk” the stuff is sweet enough as it is. All the skittles in the world won’t make it go down much different.

        We know from toxology reports that Trayvon wasn’t high on anything that evening, so none of it means anything as far as the criminal code is concerned.

        I think Dee Dee may have been a friend but slightly removed from reality herself, wrapped up in her own world and possibly it was her mother who floated the story about her missing the wake because of a medical condition. The truth is hard to get at in these cases and what’s presented in court will be different than what a fly on the wall would see.

        These are just my opinions and I’m curious what others think. Again, I hope I’m not offending anyone by speaking plainly here.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 8, 2013 at 5:15 PM

          “Again, I hope I’m not offending anyone by speaking plainly here.”

          Nah, if you wanna do that, you gotta go over to the lounge.

          : – )


        • ada4750
          March 9, 2013 at 4:48 AM

          No offense in my case, on the contrary. What you say about DeeDee may certainly be true, like many other assumptions.

          The mystery surrounding DeeDee annoys me. While maintaining anonymity, was it not possible to explain frankly the reason for her silence?

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM

          “…was it not possible to explain frankly the reason for her silence?”

          I don’t know that she owes anyone an explanation.

          I’d like to hear some explanation from her “handlers”, though, who seemed to just be pulling stuff out of thin air about her.


        • March 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM

          Nelson signed the subpoenas knowing full well they are valueless… FB operates under Federal law which means they can laugh at a State subpoena. They already said so last time — they want Federal paperwork and it better be coming from law enforcement or they won’t play.

          Also in such cases they would expect to be told the accounts to produce details for….no way they would know which account belongs to which real person, if they didn’t use their exact right details when they signed up (as most people don’t). The last thing they’d want to be doing is producing the wrong one and then having that person sue them for breach of privacy.

          The only value of these would be a chance to smear the witness a bit more.

          DeeDee? having a friend killed moments after losing his phone connection to you is not the kind of reality most people experience…and I imagine it takes a bit of adjusting to. To then go to a wake full of that person’s relatives, none of whom you’ve met before……….plenty of reason for ” I can’t face it, I can’t face them, I’m feeling sick….”

  25. blushedbrown
    March 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM

    Papa latest

  26. March 8, 2013 at 6:48 PM


    “I don’t think they worked with a ghostwriter. Those are for celebrities who don’t wanna write the book themselves and can afford to pay.”

    Well, maybe maybe not, as according to Wikipedia’s entry for ghostwriter it can also be:

    “A consultant or career-switcher may pay a ghostwriter to write a book on a topic in their professional area, to establish or enhance their credibility as an ‘expert’ in their field.”

    So could fit Mark Ostermam although methinks it especially fits the new “let’s see if I can jump on the band wagon”, Mr Knox!

    • March 8, 2013 at 7:31 PM

      Mind you, I forgot to say, from the bits I read I don’t believe MO could have had a ghost-writer, much too boring, except for an editor for the text you note! Interesting about that text is that he says “…Trayvon Martin, FELL to the ground.” contradicting GZ’s story somewhat… but suppose that’s why it was an editor and not the horse’s mouth!

      • wassointeresting
        March 8, 2013 at 9:42 PM

        Spot on, the main text was boring, but then again, if the editor had written any more of the book, he/she would have become a ghostwriter and it would have turned out totally like a fiction novel. The boring parts at least gave some semblance that it was just plain Mark and Sondra talking about their best friend.

  27. March 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM

    Regarding “the silence of Dee Dee” (which is a myth, she’s braving incredible hatred to speak out at present)

    If you are black, female, teenager whose friend was killed while you were on the phone with them, and the admitted killer not arrested, what would YOU do? We don’t know what she told to whom when until we know she spoke with Ben Crump.

    I am not a member of a minority in my community so I don’t pretend to know how she is supposed to think and act. But, knowing the history of black people in the Americas, and in the southern states of the USA in particular by growing up in the south and studying history, I can certainly imagine she discounted the idea of the efficacy calling the Sanford Police Department.

    • ada4750
      March 9, 2013 at 10:30 AM

      It is not a myth! I do not blame her. But it would have helped a lot in the media if some explanations were provided.

      • wassointeresting
        March 9, 2013 at 11:21 AM

        @ Ada, what “silence of DeeDee” are you talking about? Her not speaking with Mr. Crump until she was found by the family? Or the silence of the media regarding her, and on what subject specifically? Or her silence since being called a “liar”?

        • ada4750
          March 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM

          @wassointeresting and untiron The first one. Explanations should have been done long time ago. Somehow, i really feel that she owns explanations. But this is personal. I guess i will give DeeDee a break and think about something else until the trial.

        • March 9, 2013 at 12:56 PM

          Perhaps Dee Dee didn’t say much because she expected the adults involved to do the right thing first. Perhaps she was traumatized but silent, like a whole lot of survivors of a private trauma.

          And on the topic of W8, it could be that the state did not produce hospital records for her because they didn’t bother to investigate the claim, and just don’t possess them for that reason. This doesn’t mean “Dee Dee lied,” it just means the defense asked the prosecution to produce some “evidence” that the prosecution never sought and wouldn’t have. Keep in mind the prosecution was never under any obligation to seek out hospital records regarding W8 – it’s not really germane to the case how she felt AFTER having a phone call. What matters is what she heard WHILE she was on the phone with her friend.

  28. March 9, 2013 at 10:14 AM

    onlyiamunitron :
    “Again, I hope I’m not offending anyone by speaking plainly here.”
    Nah, if you wanna do that, you gotta go over to the lounge.
    : – )


  29. onlyiamunitron
    March 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM

    Re:W8 and perjury.

    I do not have any reason to think or believe that the young lady has deliberately lied about anything.

    I am not convinced that she has been at all times well served by some of the adults who have recently become a part of her world.

    During her interview under oath, or whatever it’s officially called, with BDLR, Bernie asked her if she had to go to the hospital “or somewhere”.

    How do you commit perjury when handed a loophole big enough to allow you to have spent the weekend at Walt Disney World and still answer his question in the affirmative?


    • March 9, 2013 at 7:13 PM

      I’m of the same view. I await further info before tarring DD of anything. There may be a logical explanation to it all; for starters as you note BDLR’s question was way too open and Crump seems to have not been very on the ball either making more than one mistake with her. Who knows, but best to see what she has to say first before judgement.

  30. March 9, 2013 at 3:13 PM

    Does anyone know if the defense ever got the ABC News/ Matt Guttman recordings of W8’s interview with Ben Crump? They have not made them part of any reciprocal discovery that I can tell. And additionally, if they have gotten them, when if ever might the public get to hear them?

    • blushedbrown
      March 9, 2013 at 3:45 PM


      I haven’t heard of anything. The Fl website has nothing and GZlegal has nothing up. It has been of a dry spell on the document front. (sigh)

      • March 9, 2013 at 4:31 PM

        I’m going to laugh my buttocks off when the defense finally does hear/release the ABC News version of the Crump interview since even in the incomplete and poor quality audio version tells us that Dee Dee speaks about the car-to-pedestrian case she heard about from Trayvon as it was happening. Crump’s version seems to have a missing section when he failed to re-engage the recording after calling the girl back to try for better reception, because this section rejoins a conversation already in progress.

        I’m guessing the ABC News sound person was professional enough and also not distracted and that he or she managed to get the whole conversation recorded in audible quality.

        When Crump and Dee Dee speak about the car-to-pedestrian chase on the Crump-owned version, it’s clear they are revisiting an earlier point that was covered in the missing portion.

        For all the squawking the defense has done about this recording, getting it is going to bury them.

        This is why I suspect the defense may already have this ABC recording and are sitting on it. It’s dynamite, and not in a way that is favorable to the defense.

        • March 9, 2013 at 4:34 PM

          car to pedestrian case = chase*

        • blushedbrown
          March 9, 2013 at 4:40 PM


          When do they have to start listing their reciprocal discovery? It’s driving me crazy. Ugh I should ask the Prof.


      • March 9, 2013 at 6:02 PM

        Discovery is done by both sides by “gentleman’s agreement” more or less. “in a timely fashion” is the traditional saying, and that usually just means that by the time of the trial it all better be handed over or else one side or the other can score points with the judge. If you think about it, there isn’t really any set way that you could name a time frame since all cases differ. If you ask a lawyer I’m sure they have better anecdotes to talk about it all.

        (I hate lawyers, personally. But they have their world and I try to stay in mine for the most part.)

        • blushedbrown
          March 9, 2013 at 6:05 PM



          last line, very funny. Lol

    • March 9, 2013 at 7:23 PM

      ABC recently, and without fanfare, released a 5 min + clip of the Crump DeeDee interview, which just happens (although they do not note this) to contain exactly the material Crump failed to record. Over at TalkLeft, they are calling this clip proof that Crump coached DeeDee into perjuring himself, and calling for the Defense to re-introduce their subpoena to depose him, etc. etc.


      • wassointeresting
        March 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM

        @whonoze, thank you! I hadn’t heard that clip. And what coaching are they talking about? At the end there, DeeDee even tried to correct Mr. Crump. He was only trying to get what she said earlier on tape. Couple of details were more clear. She said “another” apartment. We’ll have to see what she meant by that. Also there’s a clear foot chase that she was aware of while on the phone with TM.

        • March 9, 2013 at 8:09 PM


          “And what coaching are they talking about?”

          I thought exactly the same, but like kids, it’s probably best not take all their illusions away ‘cos they sure are elated thinking she was coached!

      • onlyiamunitron
        March 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM

        I just call it proof that we need to amend The Constitution to prevent Crump from touching a piece of audio equipment ever again until at least several days after the end of time.


        • wassointeresting
          March 9, 2013 at 9:23 PM

          @unitron, Mr. Crump irks you doesn’t he? That comment had me laughing! Does this mean you come to terms that he may be an incompetent audio technician, a bad interviewer and/or not the most likeable media spokesperson, but not the diabolical mastermind of a conspiracy to coerce witness testimony?

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM

          I have never said that he tried to coerce or otherwise influence testimony.

          Muffle it into unintelligibility, maybe.

          But seriously, I’ve never accused the young lady of being untruthful or anyone else of trying to get her to be untruthful.

          I am curious as to how her “handlers” seem to early on come up with all sorts of details that appear not to actually be factual.


        • wassointeresting
          March 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM

          @unitron, Oh I know you’ve never outright accused them of that, but I just remember you ire when you found out about her age and it led you to be highly suspicious of her “handlers”. By the way, I wish that term “handlers” wouldn’t be used. It reminds me of “animal handlers” but even “handlers” of athletes and politicians imply “coaching” and “spinning”. So by using that term, it kinda makes it a foregone conclusion that she was coached and her story was spun.

        • blushedbrown
          March 9, 2013 at 9:47 PM


          agreed, me no like term handlers ……

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 9, 2013 at 10:03 PM

          I did put it in “quotes”.

          I can’t really call them her representatives, or her spokespersons, as they are serving as someone else’s attorneys, and it would be a conflict of interest.

          But so far they’ve been her only conduit to the public, the purveyors of her official image, as it were.

          (granted, some kind of counter-narrative to the treehouse bilge was needed)

          (I kind of wish she had immediately gotten her own lawyer)

          I don’t care about her age.

          I’m just very negatively impressed with those who kept beating the public over the head with it, especially the legal minor status, when they had it wrong.

          How are we supposed to trust anything else they say?


        • wassointeresting
          March 9, 2013 at 10:26 PM

          Ok you did put it in quotes, but if they’re not her representatives, then they’re not her handlers or anything at all. I’ll concede that Mr. Crump used terms to paint an overdramatic picture of youthful innocence, words like the iconic “skittles”, “puppy love”, “girlfriend” and yes “16 year old”. He didn’t know this girl, talked to her once before the interview, and filled in a narrative about their relationship that he didn’t know anything about. In a recent hearing, Judge Nelson said that Mr. Crump can’t be deposed for his impressions, whether right or wrong. Yes, he was the one who brought her to the world’s attention and perhaps had some responsibility to get his facts straight, but what he got “wrong” doesn’t matter, does it?

          Yes, I wish she got her own lawyer, but then why should she have to shell out any money, if she had any? I think she (or or family) actually thought she was getting some protection by insisting that her interview be with a lawyer (I believe that’s the story, that she initially didn’t want to talk but then would only do so with a lawyer).

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 9, 2013 at 10:32 PM

          If you want to come up with some “official” phrase to describe their relationship to the young lady I’ll be happy to use it, but I fear it wll have be long and filled with lots of disclaimers.


        • wassointeresting
          March 9, 2013 at 10:43 PM

          Mr. Crump was her interviewer and ABC News was the exclusive broadcaster of that interview. How’s that?

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 9, 2013 at 11:11 PM

          Except all of the “turns out not to have actually been factual” stuff he and his associate were spouting to the press wasn’t part of the actual interview with her, so you need a term or phrase that better indicates their status as presenters and crafters of the image of her the public came away with.


        • wassointeresting
          March 9, 2013 at 11:34 PM

          Nope, whatever image made or crafted (whatever you might believe it was) by others does not need to incorporated into a term to describe the relationship. By analogy, Sean Hannity interviewed GZ and subsequently represented GZ in a certain a more favorable light than other news organizations. So what do we call Hannity? Just the news guy who likes GZ.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 9, 2013 at 11:41 PM

          But if everyone who knew Zimmerman was keeping quiet from day one, except Hannity, and that was all that Hannity was talking about in public, it would have been seen differently.

          I can’t help but wonder if you are not trying to see in me a dislike, disrespect, disdain, distrust, and general ill will for and towards the young lady that simply does not exist.


        • wassointeresting
          March 10, 2013 at 12:00 AM

          @unitron, no I actually do get, understand and believe you DON’T “dislike, disrespect, disdain, distrust or have a general ill will for and towards the young lady”. Remember this conversation started by me just asking you if Mr. Crump irks you. I have just noticed that you, if not dislike, greatly mistrust Mr. Crump and associates (by others, I have to assume you mean the media consultant hired early in the case?), correct? I’m just nit-picking with you about terms such as “handlers” because I feel that when you use them, other people who aren’t so aware of your comment history will think that whatever mistrust that you have of Mr. Crump is an automatic mistrust of DeeDee.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 10, 2013 at 1:03 AM

          Actually, having read an article about his involvement in this matter written by that media consultant/PR guy, I’m much more favorably disposed towards him than towards Crump or is her last name Jackson?

          Although i admit part of my irkitude with Crump is the dog’s dinner he made of the recording.


        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 4:32 AM

          Crump represents the Martin family, not DD. He is a lawyer who was making his case to the public, just like the lawyers that were representing GZ at the time, were making statements to the press that wouldn’t hold up if scrutinized the way Crump statements were.

          At the time Crump was doing his media blitz, it looked as if GZ was not going to be indicted.

          All the noise about Crump and DD, is media stuff. It doesn’t have anything to do with the trial.

          Crump is not a witness, so what ever he said about facts of the case are irrelevant.

          What is important is DD’s statement to BdlR. I haven’t heard any material differences between her statement to Crump and BdlR. She uses different words to describe the same things.

          I was not familiar with the concept of a mail shed. We can’t know how Trayvon described the spot where he was taking shelter, to DD. When she was talking to BdlR, she said “the mail thing” and BdlR replied something like ” you mean the mail shed?”. Is that coaching? If next time DD says mail shed instead of mail thing, is she lying?

          If we compare that with w6, who did make material changes to his statements, I wonder why we should just accept the DD is liar agenda pushed by the defense and the media.

          W6 said in his first statement, he saw a black man with a dark hoody on top of a white man wearing a red sweatshirt, throwing blows mma style, while the person on the bottom was screaming for help.
          This changed in the next statements to, couldn’t tell the race of the person on top. It was to dark to see his hair or if he was wearing a hoody. The guy on the bottom was wearing a lighter colored shirt either white or red. I couldn’t really see the guy on top hitting the other guy. I couldn’t hear something hitting something. I really can’t tell who was calling for help.

          And the media is screaming perjury, because DD may have or have not seeked medical attention instead of going to Trayvon’s wake/funeral. Give me a break.

          And please do me a favor and stop referring to DD as “the young lady”. We don’t use descriptive language like that for the other witnesses. Call her DD or w8.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 10, 2013 at 4:54 AM

          I have been referring to her as “the young lady” from the very beginning, before we knew what witness number she had been assigned, and back when other young ladies with online presences as DD or Dee Dee or something along those lines were being stalked and harrassed and “outed” by some of the more unsavory persons seeking to take an active role in this case, persons with whom I most certainly did not wish to be mistaken for or in any way associated.

          I have always known “young lady” as a quite respectful and respectable way of referring to someone to whom the term could be applied.

          So are you saying she’s not young, or that she’s not a lady?

          As for Crump, as far as I’m concerned he and others associated with him (but not the young lady) lied to the public, and in doing so lied to me.

          And I further reserve the right to criticize his abominable audio technical skills and stupidity in not turning over the actual recording duties to a skilled and knowledgeable professional if he intended to make any of the recording public.

          He should be as embarrased as I should be if I were to walk into a courtroom and attempt to argue a case.


        • wassointeresting
          March 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM

          Agree with most of your post. However, I think unitron calls her “young lady” because he’s old, not being disrepectful here, he admitted to being of advanced age recently. I don’t see a problem with that as terms as “young man” has been used to describe TM, and I much prefer that than “child”

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 10, 2013 at 6:23 PM

          I’m not old, I’ve just been young for several decades.


        • wassointeresting
          March 10, 2013 at 6:33 PM

          My apologies, and I can remember when I thought 40 was old. Ha!

        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 5:27 AM

          I am not denying you the right to criticize Crump’s recording skills. It just isn’t relevant to the case.
          You may not like Crump’s style, that is not relevant to the case either. I just think you are spending a disproportionate amount of time writing about Crump’s and DD’s relability and trustworthyness.

          I would take your complaints more serious, if you would spend as much time complaining how hurt you are by GZ’s lies, the exaggerations by counsel of the defendant, and the altered statements of the other witnesses. Since your complaints are only about Crump and DD, it appears as if you are picking on them.

          About “the young lady”. We used to refer to w18 as the teacher, w13 as the asian guy, and w6 as the mma guy. We stopped doing that once we knew what their witness “names” were. I am suggesting it is time to pay the same respect to DD.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 10, 2013 at 6:12 AM

          Okay, for the duration of this post, I will refer to a certain female person who would not be thought of as being of advanced years as W8.

          When did I ever complain specifically about W8?

          When did I ever disparage the reliability and trustworthiness of W8?

          A criticism of Crump or Jackson is a criticism of them.

          It is not a criticism of their clients or their clients’ late son or of W8.

          It is a criticism of them and they do not get to hide behind their clients or their clients’ late son, or behind W8.

          No sacrosanctness rubs off on them or is transferred to them by osmosis.

          And now, having referred to Crump’s interviewee by the cold and impersonal term W8 several times, I almost feel that I have been disrespectful of her.


        • onlyiamunitron
          March 10, 2013 at 6:19 AM

          And furthermore, I consider W8 to be in a quite separate and distinct class and category from all of the other Ws.

          They only heard a stranger get killed.

          And the nastiest of the things said about any of them is quite mild in comparison to the treatment received by W8.


        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 8:13 AM

          You can refer to her as Dee Dee. If you want to know why it is not ok to call her “the young lady” I suggest you take a women’s studies class at your local community college.

          One of the reasons the press and the defense is getting away with treating Dee Dee the way they do, is by putting her in a seperate class. Like I pointed out, w6’s changing statements are way more significant than those that Dee Dee is accused of. If she is referred to as another witness, there should be less ambiguity about how she should be treated.

          I suspect that the main reason GZ was not arrested at first, was because of W6 statement that he saw Trayvon beating GZ and GZ was the one calling for help. That is significant.

          As to Crump and the other attorney, they are advocates for the Martin family. Osterman, Taffe, RZ jr, and GZ’s black friend whose name I have forgotten, are advocates for GZ.
          One of the reasons I liked it better on BCClist, is that we had very little discussions about those advocates for GZ. We know they are biased just like Crump is. But we also know that it doesn’t matter wat they have to say about the case. I’ll make an exception for Osterman since he was at the crime scene that evening. But I am not going to claim hurt feelings, when I’ll find out Osterman was less than truthfull.

        • bgesq
          March 10, 2013 at 1:08 PM

          @amsterdam1234: not important, but the forgotten name is Joe Oliver

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 10, 2013 at 6:26 PM

          “You can refer to her as Dee Dee. ”

          No thank you, I do not care to do that.


        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM

          Thank you. Why don’t we disect Joe Oliver? He made some pretty outrages statements on tv. Crump is as relevant Joe Oliver, but the defense wants it to be about Crump and if possible they would love to get Al Sharpton back in the picture again, because that is what gets their base riled up.

          I don’t believe most of GZ’s supporters give a damn about him. It is the racial aspect that gets them animated and O’Mara knows it.

    • March 9, 2013 at 7:44 PM

      ABC released a 5 min section (or maybe all they have) of the interview yesterday or the day before. Thought everyone was aware but now I think of it not even the lounge has referred to the recording which is clear as a bell. Certainly TalkLeft, Diwaiter and other like minded are literally full of themselves over it, claiming it proves DD is a liar. Myself I din’t see it that way, but then I would be considered biased.

      • March 9, 2013 at 7:46 PM

        Ooops, sorry late repeat, my comment came in here and not under Willisnewton where I replied, and on top I have just seen whonoze comment above with link!

      • wassointeresting
        March 10, 2013 at 12:16 AM

        @gbrbsb, good try on your effort to get the Leatherman crowd to talk about the ABC tape, but no one’s interested over there huh?

        • March 10, 2013 at 12:48 AM

          Ha Ha Ha… is yours a kind leg pull or a mean one? I just thought they might like a laugh at least with all the goings on… no go!

        • wassointeresting
          March 10, 2013 at 1:01 AM

          I’m being kind of course, I thought you were wanting to get more discussion on the details of the audio, but that no one over there has the patience to listen to it closely. Maybe willis and amsterdam will chime in tomorrow.

        • March 10, 2013 at 1:10 AM

          I thought so, but it’s just I got a somewhat scathing lecture over there of why it was not of any interest when all I was asking was that a regular post the link in case anyone wanted to listen!

          Just noticed that she does say she heard “What you talking about”. Just two thoughts:

          1) if it was Trayvon could it have been his answer to GZ’s questions about the rest of the gang? (my theory, GZ was trying to get info on the burglarising gang from Trayvon)

          2) If it was GZ saying it, could it be he thought Trayvon was talking to him when he was talking to DD.

          I really must go to bed!

        • March 10, 2013 at 12:48 AM

          Forgot to say thanks WSI, at least someone saw my link!

  31. March 9, 2013 at 9:14 PM

    And what coaching are they talking about?

    Leftwig at TalkLeft says: “The clip shows [Cump] rewording a witnesses statement and asking her to repeat his version. I don’t see how the state can possibly use this witness given this new information.”

    He is referring to this exchange:

    Dee Dee: Trayvon come and say the man look like he about to beat him. So I say “Trayvon, go [unintelligible] home!” He say he was, he was by his house. And I like, “OK, run to the house!” And [unintelligible] Trayvon say he ain’t gonna run. So Trayvon like walk. I say “Walk faster!” He say he walking faster, but the man walking faster. And then, I [unintelligible], I come and hear, and Trayvon come and say, “Why you following me for?” And this man, the man, he come and say, “What are you talking about?” And then like, next I hear, and then, just, somebody just like pushed Trayvon, [unintelligible] pushed Trayvon, on the ground, because, Trayvon had a headset, [unintelligible]. And then, if his headset is [unintelligible] tell Trayvon, “Go, go home, go home!” And I was like, [unintelligible] was keeping score. And then, I don’t know what happened, the phone just shut off.

    Crump: OK. I’ma, I’ma hold for a second. I just want to ask the part about the [unintelligible], when you say you heard the other person, [unintelligible], you know, like you told Mr. Tracy and Miss Sybrina there, when you say he loud, it was like, “What you doing in here,” and stuff, and [crosstalk].

    Dee Dee: Yeah, and then-

    Crump: Uhnhuh, go ahead.

    Dee Dee: And then, it’s, the man come and say “What you doing around here?” And then, the man, Trayvon come and ask him, “Why you following me for?” And the man come and say “What you doing around here?” The next thing I hear, like, it look like, somebody just, like push Trayvon to the floor, because, because his headset like, fell.

    So they’re making a big deal about the fact DeeDee said the man said “What are you talking about?” and then Crump asked her to start over and say “What you doing in here.” They seem to be missing the point that Crump appears to be correcting her to match one of her earlier statements — one which she may have made again in the unintelligible parts of the recording previous to this point in the interview. That is, if Crump is putting words in her mouth, they are probably her words, and he is just reminding her to be consistent in how she puts things, which is the kind of ‘coaching’ ANY attorney would give to ANY witness.

    • wassointeresting
      March 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

      @whonoze, did you write up that transcript or did that just come from Talk Left? If the latter, then can you please listen closely to the part where she supposedly first said that the other man said “What are you talking about” because I don’t hear that. It sounds more like “What’re doe-ing here?”, kinda short-hand for “What are you doing here” Your thoughts, please?

      • March 10, 2013 at 12:44 AM

        I just cut and pasted the transcript from TalkLeft.

        At approx. 3:24 of the clip, I hear exactly what the transcript says: “And this man, the man, he come and say, “What are you talking about?” ”

        Not that I think this has the significance the TalkLeft Zimmies attribute to it, or any significance at all.

        • wassointeresting
          March 10, 2013 at 12:55 AM

          Huh, but it makes less sense than “what’re you doing around here”, unless it was supposed to go like this:

          TM: Why are you following me for?
          GZ: What are you doing around here?
          TM: What are you talking about?

          But I know that DeeDee only attributes one statement to each of them, so that’s not right.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 10, 2013 at 1:13 AM

          Whether Zimmerman said “What are you doing around here”, “What are you talking about”, or “I don’t have a problem”, he seems to have aggravated the situation by giving a non-answer answer in a situation where he should have defused things by being very open and forthright.

          I’m just not seeing the brain power or quick-wittedness there for any of these elaborate conspiracy or instantly conceived coverup scenarios being proposed by some.


        • bgesq
          March 10, 2013 at 1:17 AM

          @wassointeresting: It may be that DeeDee initially spoke to Sabrina Fulton and Tracy Martin before they started taping and that’s what Crump wanted her to repeat- but at 3:24 it sounds like Travon said “what are you following me for?” and GZ replied “what are you talking about?”- as if to deny he was following,and/or that he even knew what Travon meant by asking that- then, the second time she said it, she told the version she had stated earlier- that GZ answered “what are you doing around here?”: But you’re right, he may have said both things- maybe Trayvon asked him twice and got two different answers- I’m sure that MOM or West will cross examine her on this point and then we will hear fully what she believes was said.

      • March 10, 2013 at 12:56 AM

        “…listen closely to the part where she supposedly first said that the other man said “What are you talking about” because I don’t hear that.”
        After all the comments on TL about it I couldn’t hear it either but I am so tired I put it down to audio confusion caused by sleep deprivation… I’ll see what everyone’s heard tomorrow!

    • wassointeresting
      March 9, 2013 at 10:54 PM

      I would think the “coaching” part that the Talk Left people might be referring to is near the end when Mr. Crump tells her to start over with one part saying “I thought I lost him and then he caught up”

  32. March 9, 2013 at 9:21 PM

    Another matter I think the ABC clip helps clear up is DeeDee’s reference to Trayvon taking shelter from the rain at an “apartment,” which has led some people to speculate this refers to the apartment complex just West of RATL. However, it is clear to me from the context of DeeDee’s uninterrupted narration here that what she refers to as the “apartment” here is the spot where Trayvon saw Zimmerman watching him, while GZ talked on the phone; the spot where TM “put his jacket on” and ventured into the rain to try to get home; the spot from which the man began to follow him. So, given what we know from the security videos and the NEN call timeline, she MUST be referring to the mail shed when she says “apartment” in the Crump interview.

    • wassointeresting
      March 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM

      DeeDee first calls the place where TM stopped a “plaza” I think and then corrected herself by saying it’s a shade at another apartment. By “another”, I think she means it’s somewhere other than TM’s apartment, but she was not quite calling it a mail shed here, like she would later on in BDLR’s interview.

  33. March 10, 2013 at 12:46 AM

    By “another”, I think she means it’s somewhere other than TM’s apartment.

    FWIW, I concur.

  34. March 10, 2013 at 1:56 AM

    wassointeresting :

    I have just noticed that you, if not dislike, greatly mistrust Mr. Crump and associates.

    Atty Crump’s affadavit reveals him to be a somewhat shifty character, as he says he knew ABC had its own recording device present during the Interview, but adds, “I have no knowledge as to whether that device was ever successfully used to record any portion of the lnterview,” Given that he also says he didn’t give ABC a copy of his recording, where does he think ABC got the soundbites that were played numerous times on national and local newscasts? Or was he living under a rock, and totally unaware of the news coverage of his own major press conference?

    But in saying that Atty Crump is ‘a bit shifty’, I don’t think I’m saying anything other than ‘he’s a lawyer who brings litigation in civil court.” I think he knows where the boundaries of ethical conduct are, and pushes the envelope for the sake of his clients, taking every advantage he can. However, I don’t think he’s stupid enough to go over the line and suborn perjuy, or commit any other serious misconduct that would threaten his career, over any single case, no matter how high profile.

    That said, if I don’t stand exactly with unitron on the subject of Mr. Crump, i can nevertheless see a certain amount of merit in unitron’s assertion that Crump’s strategies regarding DeeDee may not have served “the young lady” as well as they might.

    • wassointeresting
      March 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM

      True, this pre-trial speculation regarding Mr. Crump’s role in obtaining her testimony and dissection of her words to the syllable has not served her well. The other side would also argue that GZ’s treatment in the media has also been harmful to the defendant. In a perfect world, I wish that they could come up with a group of jurors that spent that last year in a bubble, and they’ll be able to see the evidence without ever hearing the word “liar” (regarding the defendant or witnesses).

      • amsterdam1234
        March 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM

        Do you really believe that the facts surrounding DD matter? I don’t understand why we have to promote this sideshow presented by the defense and cheered on by GZ supporters.
        I was given the link to the abc audio clip by a supporter, with the words ” the prosecution’s case is crumbling. Now what do you say?” So, I listened to the audio and heard nothing new. That is a fact. That is why they are trying to make Dee Dee’ s unintelligible “what are you doing around here”, into “what are you talking about”, because there is nothing new.

        For cryin out loud, they swear they heard punks.

        Why are we even paying attention to this? Why aren’t we digging into what Osterman was doing, hanging out at the crime scene until at least 8:33 pm?

        John changed almost every detail of his initial statement. If there is one witness who needs to be scrutinized, it is John.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 10, 2013 at 6:26 PM

          “Do you really believe that the facts surrounding DD matter? I don’t understand why we have to promote this sideshow…”

          You mean the one occurring in the circus tent erected by Crump and Co.?


      • amsterdam1234
        March 10, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        Let me correct my statement. I heard something new. I heard DD correcting Crump when he was overstating the number of minutes they talked to each other that day. DD said they started talking around 10 am. That Trayvon called her earlier, but she was about to go to church or in church at that time and she called him when she got back from church. So much for thug Trayvon and his thuggish girlfriend. She is in church at 9 am on sunday morning and when he went out to roam the streets, he went to 7 eleven to buy candy.

        • wassointeresting
          March 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM

          @amsterdam, you said in your other comment “Do you really believe that the facts surrounding DD matter? I don’t understand why we have to promote this sideshow presented by the defense and cheered on by GZ supporters.” I don’t see where discussing a recorded interview of a witness is a sideshow.

          But now, thank goodness you found something interesting in the tape. I understand your initial reaction, but remember just because something is being examined by the GZ supporters doesn’t mean it isn’t worth a look here. And we can’t really be selective about what we “want” to see or hear either if we want to really know the truth can we?

        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM

          I said I listened to the audio, and found no new evidence in the audio. I don’t shy away from inconvenient facts, but this reminds of the so called “balanced news reporting”. The both sides do it crowd.
          I have to keep an open mind, but that doesn’t mean I can’t call bullshit when I smell it.

          I don’t hear DD say “what are you talking about”. I hear Crump saying ” can you repeat that again, so I can record it right”. Is that coaching.

          If you find something significant in that recorded conversation, let me know and I’ll reconsider.

        • wassointeresting
          March 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM

          @amsterdam, of course, open minds are always appreciated. 🙂 Trying to find something significant is exactly what I thought you guys could help me out on. As I mentioned before, I couldn’t and still can’t hear “what are you talking about” and I still hear “what’re doe-ing here?” which is consistent with “what are you doing around here”.

          A potentially significant thing, if I’m hearing right is that I think she said “the man was about to BEAT him”. She talks about this when she was describing how the man was walking faster. There are two meanings of “BEAT” 1) to go punch him, and 2) to overtake him in the footchase. I think she meant the latter, because in BDLR’s interview, he asked her if the man said he was going to beat TM and she said ‘no’.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 4:17 PM

          I took a deep breath and tried to articulate what is making me so angry.
          It is not the recording, I was just as frustrated that Crump recording was such lousy quality. What is upsetting me is that we’re not discussing the recording, but the talk left ct about the recording.
          So if I was reacting a bit to harsh, my apologies.

        • wassointeresting
          March 10, 2013 at 6:12 PM

          @amsterdam, ah OK, this discussion started because Whonoze mentioned the talk left comments. I just saw it as a starting point to discuss what can be interpreted in different ways.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

          I think she was kind of hesitant wen BdlR asked her, she said “you could say that”

          BDLR: Did Trayvon ever say, ‘The guy’s coming at me…he’s going to hit me?”
          Dee Dee: …yeah…you could say that.
          BDLR: Now I don’t want you to guess. Did he ever say that?
          Dee Dee: How he said it? He did say…
          18BDLR: No, I want…do you understand? Did he say that or not? If he didn’t say it, that’s
          alright…I, I…
          Dee Dee: He got…the man got…
          BDLR: Do you understand, I’m not trying to get you to say anything…
          Dee Dee: He got problems…like he crazy.
          BDLR: Trayvon told you that…
          Dee Dee: Yeah, the man looking crazy.
          BDLR: OK.
          Dee Dee: And look at him crazy.
          BDLR: When did Trayvon tell you that?
          Dee Dee: When he was walking.
          BDLR: OK, but you didn’t mention that earlier. That’s why I ask you that.
          Dee Dee: Yeah…walking home…
          BDLR: OK.
          Dee Dee: …to that house.
          BDLR: Right…
          Dee Dee: And right before he say he’s going to run.
          BDLR: And he’s saying the guy looks what?
          Dee Dee: Crazy…
          BDLR: And did you say “what do you mean…”
          Dee Dee: …and creepy.
          BDLR: And did you say, “What do you mean by that?”
          19Dee Dee: I said….because he said this dude is like watching him…like watch…
          BDLR: OK, so that’s what he meant, the guy keeps watching him.
          Dee Dee: Yeah.

        • wassointeresting
          March 10, 2013 at 6:18 PM

          @amsterdam, thanks for reminding me about DeeDee’s hesitant response to BDLR when asked if Trayvon said if the man was going to beat him.

          That reminds me, if DeeDee said the word “BEAT” in her interview with Mr. Crump, but it wasn’t audible or recorded except by ABC, then how did BDLR come to ask her about it in his interview way back when. Did BDLR get to hear ABC’s full version early on I wonder? No conspiracy theory here, just wondering if BDLR had access to what we thought was held tightly under wraps by the news organization.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM

          I think it was just a standard ticking the boxes question. I believe BdlR began this sequence with ” did Trayvon say he was going to hit the guy?”

  35. wassointeresting
    March 10, 2013 at 9:26 AM

    wassointeresting :
    unitron calls her “young lady” because he’s old…

    Forgot to put in my smiley face :), and a virtual elbow jab at unitron.

  36. March 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM

    Having just heard this once now, it’s clear once again that Dee Dee is talking about the car to pedestrian chase after Trayvon leaves the mail shed. No one really picks up on it because they don’t understand yet the significance but it’s there. I’ll try to make a transcript.

    As to why ABC released this clip with no accompanying news story, I’m going to assume it has to do with the way the news organization is choosing to respond to the subpoena from the defense.

    I don’t have any specific info to offer but as a theory I’d say that ABC news gave in to the subpoena and that within 24 hours after they posted this clip, they turned over the full recording to the defense. They would do this in order to retain the image that ABC news protects its’ sources and is not engaged in the business of rolling over for the government or third parties who demand a reporter’s notes/ recordings. By releasing the recording themselves they have the fig leaf of saying, “this material was ALL previously broadcast anyway, so complying with a request to release something to a third party was NOT a case of ABC News failing to protect a new source. ”

    If ABC hopes to ever retain a reputation as an organization that protects news sources, something they have to do in order to GET news sources to talk to reporters, then they have to go through this kabuki theater tactics to save face. It’s perfectly understandable to me.

    What we now can reasonably guess is that the defense has the whole ABC news audible version of this interview and they have not made it part of any reciprocal discovery ie, public. One wonders what they are hoping to delay/ obscure / hide. I would guess that it is the totality of the interview – that this is a seemingly credible witness who heard some very damning things about the defendant’s behavior and that she knows things even the prosecution doesn’t seem to have made public yet – things like the car to pedestrian chase that are going to send the defendant to prison for a long, long time.

    • amsterdam1234
      March 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM

      Hi Wills,
      I remember sending a very nasty tweet to Matt Gutman back in May. I thought it was so inappropriate for ABC to just release snippets of the interview, especially since the snippets were out of order.
      They should just release the entire recording. I don’t think protecting sources applies here.

      • March 10, 2013 at 5:28 PM

        I agree that protecting sources doesn’t really apply here but as a giant news organization they do have to adhere to some broad guidelines to maintain appearances that they will “always protect sources.”

        Of course, if they had simply done a credible job of reporting the story in the first place they would be protecting Dee Dee a lot better than she’s being protected at the moment from a defense directed smear campaign that the MSM is buying into in some regards. But take note: relative few people are paying attention to this case at all at present. Whatever “news” about “Dee Dee is lair, she never went to the hospital” is not getting a great deal of traction or airplay. Yes, the defense floated the idea and yes the defense got some media to parrot the claim, but it’s not a major story at all. And it’s likely to be bigger news when the tale gets reversed, or superseded by the introduction of the actual “Dee Dee” in the form of her taking the stand at trial or otherwise going public with a fuller version of her tale.

        I can’t over-stress the importance at present of the prosecution wanting to shield their trial strategy, and the lileyhood that the martin’s understand this and are willing to endure some more mud slinging if it helps to reach the goal of the prosecution having the upper hand as the trial begins.

        But also keep in mind that callous news editors and television producers are looking at the big picture here. The more they can play this whole matter up, the more eyeballs they can keep glues to what is being sold to the public as a case that might break either way – “guilty or innocent.” I’m guessing the intelligent gatekeepers of MSM control know that this loser is most likely going to prison, but that so long as they play it as a cliffhanger the better for the ratings.

        As for Matt Guttman, he knows that relatively few are following the story at present, but come time for the trial to begin, if he has “dynamite” material that he has held from publication he stands to “scoop” the competition, as well as the fact that he is trying to keep up an “exclusive” pipeline to Crump and the Martins if he can. It’s to his benefit to hold onto whatever “exclusive” materials he has for as long as possible. At present, that seems to include the same material that Crump made available to the defense but of course his material is audible whereas Crumps sounds like hammered dog shit, to use the vernacular phrase of professional soundmen. By VERY QUIETLY releasing ONLY the parts that Crump forgot to record, ABC news has done two things: they have demonstrated that they “protect their sources” and they have managed to hand onto some dynamite sound clips that no other network has access to in any usable / audible form – at least until the time that the defense gives it to the prosecution in the form of reciprocal discovery – at which time it will be clear that ABC News does NOT protect its’ sources from a state court’s subpoena, but few will take notice because it will be a busy time for other news with the trial about to begin.

        When the trial comes, the Martins of course have no benefit to gain from going exclusively with one reporter or one news organization at all. But at the time of Dee Dee’s initial appearance it’s worth noting (as Amsterdam already points out) the Martin’s were trying to make sure the entire affair wasn’t swept under the rug. GZ was a free man and no one knew for certain if he was facing a credible investigation or not. They were happy simply to have a junior reporter like Gutman agree to work on the story since he worked for a national news organization.

        Every party here is reliably and understandably acting in their own best interest. But like a duck, everything appears smooth on the surface while underneath they all paddle like hell to get ahead.

      • onlyiamunitron
        March 10, 2013 at 6:29 PM

        “I remember sending a very nasty tweet to Matt Gutman back in May.”

        I’m looking for my shocked face.

        I know I’ve got it around here somewhere.

        : – )


  37. March 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM

    re ABC new audio of crump and dee dee, “the missing part” :

    BTW there are programs such as MP streams clip (?)that allow one to make a file from streamed media such as this audio. I hope that someone can archive this soon and share it as a MP3 file with others. I’m busy/ technically challenged today but if no one posts this to YouTube soon I’ll try to do the work and host it someplace.

    And regarding TalkLeft and the group think that goes on over there…. i’ve been ignoring them and their “conclusions” for many months now. it’s clear they are living in a fantasy land.

    regarding the MSM: is anyone actually surprised at how the corporate media tends to screw things up? Watch MANUFACTURING CONSENT, the documentary and read up on Judith Miller, “Curveball” and the NYT.

  38. March 10, 2013 at 5:45 PM

    The date on the ABC News website for this audio clip is 2/28/2013. can someone help me place this in context of other dates in the total timeline? Like I said above I am assuming this was posted in relation to their compliance with a subpoena from the defense.

    When was the whole bruhaha with “deposing Crump” fought? When was the subpoena served? etc.

    • amsterdam1234
      March 10, 2013 at 5:56 PM

      Best place to check is gzlegalcase. All the filings are in order and have an easy to read description.

  39. March 10, 2013 at 6:12 PM

    January 18th was when the defense sent a motion to the judge to ask the court to allow a subpoena to be served against ABC to produce the Guttman-made version of the recording of the call between Crump and Dee Dee.

    I’m uncertain how long the court would have taken to rule on this and when ABC would have received it and how long they would have to comply or be found in contempt of court, but the next date we seem to know about is February 28th, when they “broadcasted” the missing 5 minutes.

    I stand by my theory of why ABC released this so quietly and when. Jeralyn over at Talk left has her own theory that this five minutes is the ONLY recording that ABC has. Her idea is that Crump borrowed Guttman’s phone for this portion of the call and that Guttman had set his phone to record the call. I don’t buy that for several reasons, mainly the one where Gutman would have been sitting around while amazing news was transpiring NOT recording it all and somehow relying on Crump to supply him later with a copy.

  40. March 10, 2013 at 6:39 PM

    @ amsterdam – I get what you are saying about the BDLR version of the “beat” comment.

    As usual, once we have all the materials and can place them in chronological order it’s often difficult to see the full context and meaning of what’s transpiring. It’s also important to always keep in mind the individual motivations of each person involved in an exchange.

    According to Crump’s written statement to the defense arguing against his being subject to the defense deposing him, there was an “initial” conversation that was not recorded. We can’t know how detailed that was, but according to this document this initial conversation did not contain any material that was not later covered in the ABC attended session.

    Now, put yourself in the martins shoes for a second. Obviously they communicated somehow with Dee Dee, possibly through the intermediary presence of her parents/guardians even, but they spoke to someone and got some things understood before inviting ABC news into the picture. Otherwise they might have been walking into a situation where very bad things might have come to light about their son’s behavior.

    I’m not saying “dee dee was coached” by this, but I am saying only a fool would call someone and have a 100% cold conversation with them before inviting national news to report and record it.

    I’m wondering the genesis of how Crump seems to understand the car-to-pedestrian chase aspect since the FIRST time Dee Dee seems to POSSIBLY speak of it, she’s mentioning only in passing that the guy (GZ) was “really following” Trayvon. Later in the conversation, when they are essentially wrapping things up is when Crump mentions the car chase and Dee Dee seems to confirm it.

    this is from Screamin jay’s transcript of the Crump-controlled portion of the recording. Time stamps are thrown in where he made his notes as he transcribed.

    Crump:  And did you know that police said they arrived on the scene at 7:17 pm and that when they arrived he was already shot?

    DeeDee:  So far that’s what the man said.

    Crump:  OK. Because the records show us that you called him at 7:12 pm. And, so,

    DeeDee:  Yeah. And I called him again.

    Crump:  So, at some point when he was following him in the car, and Trayvon was trying to see who this guy 09:02 was following in the car, apparently the Zimmerman man was on the phone with the police. And so, between that call and your call we pretty much have a lot of 09:15 audio of what took place.

    DeeDee:  he knew 09:28 that he was on the phone to somebody so he was about to make a run for it from the back. cause somebody was following him very close 09:41 with the car.

    Crump:  OK. I’m going to put you on hold for a second. I think we’re pretty much finished. I know that they sure appreciate you. I’m going to put you on hold for just one second. Okay?


    Now, to me that is just going to be more fuel for the CT crowd at TL to say she was coached on this point of a car chase, but that’s unimportant to me. Let them have their groupthink.

    I see this as an instance of Crump ALREADY possessing an understanding of an element that he’s not focusing on, but nonetheless one that he’s mentioning as though he and De De have previously discussed this. Do you follow what I’m saying?

    This makes me thing the unrecorded “initial conversation” was in-depth, which is understandable. Perhaps this conversation was one between Tracy Martin and Dee Dee, with Crump present or not present, I just don’t know but someone got the basics from Dee Dee before Gutman was ever present. It’s only common sense to think so.

    • amsterdam1234
      March 10, 2013 at 7:09 PM

      I don’t doubt that there was some preliminairy conversation. Sabrina met with Dee Dee prior to the interview. Page 37 second dump. Sabrina said that during that meeting Dee Dee didn’t tell her what Trayvon had said but it seems logical to me that Sabrina would’ve known what Dee Dee was going to say.

      I don’t see anything wrong with that. The SPD should’ve talked to Dee Dee long before that.

      • onlyiamunitron
        March 10, 2013 at 7:16 PM

        “The SPD should’ve talked to Dee Dee long before that.”

        If we are to believe what we have been told, her existence and importance to the case was only learned of on the evening of March 18th of last year and Crump interviewed her on the 19th and did his press conference about it on the 20th.

        To have talked to her long before that would have required a time machine.


        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 7:35 PM

          Read page 37 second dump. Sabrina met Dee Dee before the interview. Tracy and Sabrina did the hard work. As I’ve said over and over again Crump is irrelevant to the case. There is no mystery how they found DD. The defense could’ve read all about it in the discovery. It is Tracy who noticed the call and Sabrina who contacted and pursuaded DD to come forward. Sabrina told the state all about it on April 2nd.

      • March 10, 2013 at 7:26 PM

        thanks amsterdam. You are the cadillac of superbowls.

        “SPD should have talked to Dee Dee before that”

        exactly. Except of course Tracy didn’t trust them with the code to his son’s phone, not that he knew it anyway. But if they had been less sloppy and had a better reputation and probably a better manner when dealing with a parent in shock, Tracy may have helped them get the phone records quicker. Instead, the family chose to instead ask the Feds into the case and share the results of their own investigation with them, which is completely understandable given the history of the USA, black people and small town police.

        It matters little anyway. What’s going to count is what Dee Dee has to say on the witness stand. Again let me opine that the defense counsel would be foolish to attack her on cross-examination – they will only make he more sympathetic to a jury. She ear-witnessed the staking of her friend seconds prior to his murder and then has had to endure a hate campaign and a smear campaign for her trouble.

        If you simply listen to her tale, she’s so much more credible sounding than Zimmeman. Yes, he’s calm and clear and seemingly careful when he gives his false narrative, but he’s never truly “natural” when he speaks. He’s building a castle made of sand, bit by shifting bit whereas Dee Dee continually says whatever she knows in response to any question without hesitation. She’s never guarded or circumscribing her thoughts. If she had a false narrative to present she’s hardly capable of pulling it off so glibly.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 10, 2013 at 7:47 PM

          Tracy and Sabrina did the hard work. Police doesn’t want to move, you have to do your own investigation, and that is what they did. My admiration for those 2 people is immeasurable.

        • March 10, 2013 at 8:15 PM

          I agree that the parents are admirable figures. But I think Serino would have pursued the lead that led to Dee Dee had he for instance, found the phone in a state where it was unlocked.

          Someone should have asked Chad what the code for the phone is. Little kids often want to borrow the sibling’s smart phone to play games and watch YouTube and so they know the codes, whether they are supposed to or not.

        • March 10, 2013 at 9:12 PM

          And by “someone” I mean Tracey Martin.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 10, 2013 at 9:20 PM

          I would have been just as happy with it having occurred to the police to ask Chad for the unlock code or password or anything else he could have told them about Trayvon and his telephone.

          At least it would have gotten the idea out there.


        • March 10, 2013 at 10:01 PM

          That’s what works in my house – when in doubt about anything electronic, ask the resident ten year olds.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 11, 2013 at 1:02 AM

          They could’ve subpoenaed the telephone records.

        • March 11, 2013 at 4:59 AM

          In hindsight, I suppose the SPD could have sought a subpoena for the phone records, but originally they wanted to access the phone only to identify the body with. It wasn’t until later that anyone learned he was talking on the phone when he died. George made sure of that.

          The person who stowed away the headphone/earbuds did sloppy police work as well.

          If you have a dead body in a “john doe” situation, it’s not immediately apparent that the phone is going to tell you anything about how they died.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM

          Can you take a look at this clip at 1:27? I think what we are looking at is the truck parked on the bend, but you can see a little behind it and it looks like another car.

  41. March 11, 2013 at 5:05 AM

    In hindsight, I suppose the SPD could have sought a subpoena for the phone records, but originally they wanted to access the phone only to identify the body with. It wasn’t until later that anyone learned he was talking on the phone when he died. George made sure of that.

    The person who stowed away the headphone/earbuds did sloppy police work as well.

    If you have a dead body in a “john doe” situation, it’s not immediately apparent that the phone is going to tell you anything about how they died.

    • amsterdam1234
      March 11, 2013 at 6:19 AM

      If you don’t look for it, you are not going to find it. The fact that he brought his headset with him, may have alerted them to the fact, he may have had an opportunity to use them.

      The headphones are listed as being found on or near his body. There was a family photo taken with Trayvon just 9 days before he died. I can’t find the good copy right now, but Trayvon is photographed standing from his left side. You can see his phone is attached to his waistband or belt. He is wearing wired earplugs. I assume that is how he carried his phone the night he was killed. In fact Dee Dee said the phone hung up when Trayvon started walking away from the mail area, about the same time GZ said ” he has his hand in his waistband”.

      It would’ve made sense that Trayon wore his hoody over the wires of the headset. So the headset could’ve been both next to his and on his body, when they found him.

      • blushedbrown
        March 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM


        You are correct. He wore his headset wires under his clothing. The picture you are referring to is in this link. If you scroll down to the last picture, it clearly shows the headset wires under his shirt.


        • amsterdam1234
          March 11, 2013 at 8:28 AM

          Thanks, that was indeed the picture I was referring to.

        • blushedbrown
          March 11, 2013 at 8:29 AM


          YVW 🙂

        • March 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM

          That’s NOT a cell phone on his belt. What you are seeing are silver-colored belt loops on a “webbing” style military-inspired wide belt. Look closer.

          Also, I see no headphones. I see a black necklace in some pics and in others the drawstrings to a hoodie.

          Or maybe I’m missing something. Which picture are you referring to exactly? The group shot shows a webbed belt with the distinctive double row of belt loops.

        • wassointeresting
          March 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM

          @willis, you’re right, what looked at first glance to be a cell phone is part of his belt. However, you can clearly see he has an earbud in his left ear with a wire going down into his shirt. Talking about the picture where he’s stand up and looking at the camera with his head turned to his left.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM

          The last picture of the set. He is wearing white earbuds and thin wire comes down from the earbud. I think the phone is sticking up from behind the belt.

        • wassointeresting
          March 11, 2013 at 12:04 PM

          Off the top of anyone’s head, was it apparent in the 7-11 video which side pocket TM kept his phone? That is, did that video show him touching one side or the other when he answered “hello” in the video, I can’t recall and don’t have the link handy. Being right-handed, I would guess that TM would have it on his right side. Just a guess. Regardless if that’s his phone in his left pocket in that picture, it’s more important to know that he wore his earphones inside his shirt as per the earlier discussion.

        • blushedbrown
          March 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM


          here you go…….

        • wassointeresting
          March 11, 2013 at 2:37 PM

          Thanks Loree! From that vid, I can see the wire hanging down but I can’t tell if it’s entirely on the outside of the jacket or just partly hanging out of the top of the neck of his hoodie.

        • blushedbrown
          March 11, 2013 at 2:48 PM


          Let me see if I can find a better vid


        • blushedbrown
          March 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM


          forward from 23:05 four camera views…….

        • wassointeresting
          March 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

          Mercy buckets again Loree. Exactly at 23:09 to 23:10 in the bottom left camera view, as TM was leaning forward digging into his pockets, you can see something hanging down. Would you say that that’s just a long draw string from his hoodie?

        • blushedbrown
          March 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM


          Hold on let me get the video up again brb….

        • March 11, 2013 at 12:32 PM

          I see the earbuds in the last photo, the one with the belt. But IMO those are dark earbuds, not white. The white circle is light reflecting off his skin or else possibly a silver accent on the earbuds, but I lean towards the former and not the latter explanation. The wires appear dark grey or black. But yeah, on this occasion he’s wearing them under his shirt which is worth noting. What MIGHT be a wire coming out of his left pocket next to the back of his hand is also visible. I’d like to see the original picture, full resolution before I have an opinion.

          Most right handed people hold a phone in the left hand when dialing, but after that it’s uncertain what they do. .

          Because he’s wearing his earbuds under his t-shirt on this occasion doesn’t mean he wore them that way on the night in question however. But it would be nice to know. What do others think is visible or not visible in the 7Eleven video? It’s too poor for me to tell.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 11, 2013 at 1:34 PM

          I couldn’t tell from the video, so I checked a video that shows the clock and checked what time it was when you hear the ” hello”. That was at 6:24 pm. I checked the phonerecords. A call starts at 5:09 pm and lasts for 81 minutes, next call begins at 6:30. So it doesn’t seem Trayon answered his phone while at the store.

        • blushedbrown
          March 11, 2013 at 1:38 PM


          dropped call maybe????

        • amsterdam1234
          March 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM

          A dropped call shows in the phonerecords. That is why they are such a nice timing device. So it looks like there was another dropped call at 6:30 pm, and an immediate call back at 6:30 again. But none while Trayvon was in the store. Maybe a bad connection.

        • blushedbrown
          March 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM


          I’ll go with that….

        • amsterdam1234
          March 11, 2013 at 1:58 PM

          According to the phonerecords Trayvon was talking to DD for about an hour before he left for the store and that call lasted until after he left the 7 eleven. If he put on his hoody before he left for the store, it would make sense to just put it on over the wires.

  42. March 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM

    TalkLeft is a bubble. FLLB is a bubble. IMHO, comments on both sites consistently ignore the fact that the case will be interpreted and ultimately decided by a jury made up of people who have not been following the evidence and discussion thereof. We can say that Mr. Crump’s interactions with DeeDee are irrelevant, but jury members may think otherwise. They may (or may not) find the Defense attacks on Crump do undermine DeeDee’s credibility. In line with the comments above, I agree the Defense would be foolish to attack DeeDee directly at trial, because that would tend to make her appear more sympathetic to the jury. However, it seems to me that they understand that, in their attempt to blame everything on Atty. Crump. If they can plant a serious suspicion in the juror’s minds that Crump was playing DeeDee like a fiddle, and BdlR was merely following Crump’s lead, they will have a leg up, at least, in their attempt to impeach DeeDee’s credibility.

    I have been saying for some time that the Prosecution needs to anticipate this, and work to inoculate DeeDee against such a strategy once they get her on the stand. This woud require the Prosecution to ask DeeDee the sort of questions the Defense might raise, but in a friendlier context, on their own terms, and with DeeDee prepped to give reasonable answers.


    (hypothetical) BdlrR: In one of your statements you said you heard the man say, ‘What are you talking about?’ but other wise you’ve said you heard him say, ‘What you doing around here?’ Can you explain that for us?

    (hypothetical) DeeDee: I just didn’t remember it right that one time. The man said “What you doin’ around here?” I’m sure of that.


    Anyway, I do not want this forum to be a bubble. I want us to consider the fact that jurors may not see things the way that we do, and think about how the evidence and testimony might be presented, and how it SHOULD be presented, in order to lead to a fair and just outcome at trial (assuming there will, in fact, be a trial…)

    • amsterdam1234
      March 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM

      How do you suggest they are going to attack someone who is not on the stand?
      Defense can ask questions but they can’t testify to a conspiracy theory. They can ask DD if Crump told her what to say. She will say no. That’s about it.

      I don’t hear Dee Dee say “what are you talking about”? But we do have another witness that said she heard arguing “what are you doing” . Either way it doesn’t come close to “I don’t have a problem”.

      If they have a good argument on TL or FL fine, but here they are trying to proof their ct through this 5 min clip, that really doesn’t have anything new in it.
      What evidence is there that Crump fed her the information? She corrected him when he said they’d been talking since 8 am that morning.

      The only thing that may be new is that DD said Trayvon thought GZ may want to beat him, because GZ looked crazy. BdlR should be happy with that, because when she said that in her interview with him, he’d thought she said something new.

      I think Willis is right. The prosecution will lay out the case and have DD on as one of the last witnesses. Most of her testimony will be backing up other evidence.

    • amsterdam1234
      March 11, 2013 at 11:51 AM

      I am quite sure that both Sabrina and Tracy will be testifying before DD. They will testify how they found DD and how the interview was organized. They were there. Is the defense going to accuse them of lying too?

    • wassointeresting
      March 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM

      “I do not want this forum to be a bubble”

      Cuz arguing with people in a bubble could just end up like this….

      • blushedbrown
        March 11, 2013 at 5:08 PM



        You are a riot! Laughing all the way to the kitchen….. hahahahahah

  43. blushedbrown
    March 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM


    Diaspora 6?

  44. blushedbrown
    March 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM


    From camera named 4 door frame com, I see when he leans forward
    @18:23 timestamp 2 strings dangling, he raises his left hand up
    to answer the call, he says hello, he says hello again, but raises the mouthpiece
    with his right hand.

    • wassointeresting
      March 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM

      @Loree, Ok, but what’s your conclusion, Earbud wire inside or outside of clothing?

      Above, Amsterdam said ” It would’ve made sense that Trayon wore his hoody over the wires of the headset. So the headset could’ve been both next to his and on his body, when they found him.”

      Well I think in the end, whether the wire was inside or outside the shirt, it could have been still hanging from somewhere and thus still considered “both next to and on his body”.

      @Amsterdam, cover your ears (or eyes), I just have to mention that the arbor-resident folks had used the report of the earphones in the pockets as their “hard evidence” that TM was not on the phone and in preparation of going to beat up the poor innocent watchman. Yeah, baloney.

      • blushedbrown
        March 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM


        >>>Above, Amsterdam said ” It would’ve made sense that Trayon wore his hoody over the wires of the headset. So the headset could’ve been both next to his and on his body, when they found him.”

        I believe Earbuds and phone were close to his person, then the hoodie over the shirt. He pulled out enough wire to answer calls but not to get wet, it was looking like rain or raining when he went to the store.

        Phone was found laying on ground without earbuds, reasonable deduction the wires for earbuds was under his sweatshirt/hoodie.

        Now you have me thinking about somethings.

        Amsterdam will not close eyes or ears. 🙂

        • amsterdam1234
          March 11, 2013 at 6:06 PM


        • blushedbrown
          March 11, 2013 at 6:07 PM

          amsterdam1234 :


      • amsterdam1234
        March 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM

        I don’t mind reading about their theories. It is kind of interesting to read what they come up with. It fits with the image they have of Trayvon as this tatoed, golden teethed hulk.

        I am not particularly thrilled about nasty attacks on the GZ side either. I don’t like the personal attacks, the nicknames and all that stuff. I also don’t believe that there was some grand scheme behind this murder. What I liked about bcclist is that we didn’t do that. Sometimes people would even get reprimanded when they would engage in that kind of behaviour.

        So I don’t see why we would accept Crump and Dee Dee bashing here. Let’s face it, the driving theory on TL is that Crump has concocted this false narrative about poor GZ. He either has created DD or at least created a different story about what happened that night. In one day he and DD were able to fix their story to fit the nen call.

        They are convinced something nefarious is hidden in those poor quality recordings, and finally ABC has come to their senses and released the tapes that will set George free.

        So do we accept that premise? I don’t. And if you beleve that theory is bullshit, there is really nothing interesting in picking apart DD’s statement for minor changes in the words she used.

        • wassointeresting
          March 11, 2013 at 6:32 PM

          @amsterdam, “Lol I don’t mind reading about their theories.”

          Good. Hey, I was just jiving with you following the previous conversation, and giving a heads up in case those other “theories” may be hot buttons for you. Kinda like when QETNO used to go in her colorful rants every time I mentioned that RZ Jr was in the news again…..

          “So do we accept that premise? I don’t. And if you believe that theory is bullshit, there is really nothing interesting in picking apart DD’s statement for minor changes in the words she used.”

          I do believe the TL theory is BS, but it does not follow that there is nothing interesting in the differences in DD’s statements. Of course, to those on the other side of the fence, they are hell-bent on “picking apart” her statements for the purpose of impeachment. Here, I think the purpose is to define what parts of her statements (as we do with any witness statements) are consistent and can be matched up with other evidence. ALL witnesses are people and not likely the say the same things when asked to recount the story multiple times. For example, we previously discussed ad nauseum I think her use of the term “couple of minutes” and what that might mean. First, determining what DeeDee actually said is not picking apart but just trying to get her actual words down.

          You know we are not judging DeeDee here, but as Whonoze mentioned in his post, anticipating what the defense might do (in their desperation even), such as with those differences in her words, is something the prosecution will have to do, and thus on some level worth examining here.

        • wassointeresting
          March 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM

          I forgot to put the word “potential” before “differences in her statements” because I’m not saying that there are any differences that are of importance, just things that need clarification.

  45. March 11, 2013 at 5:14 PM

    amsterdam1234 :

    How do you suggest they are going to attack someone who is not on the stand? …They can ask DD if Crump told her what to say. She will say no. That’s about it.

    I don’t care to speculate, but I’d guess they’ll figure something out. I’m sure they won’t ask DeeDee such a broad question that can be answered with a simple ‘no’. BdlR will probably ask her that on direct, but the defense is not going to argue that Mr. Crump (or anyone else) directly told her what to say. Rather, I’d guess they would ask a series of more specific questions in the hopes they can establish that Crump et al led her (perhaps unwittingly on her part) down certain paths that suited his preferred narrative more than ‘the objective truth,’ (as if there were such a thing…).

    My point is that the Defense is not just going to lay down and roll over. They’re going to throw whatever they have at DeeDee if she takes the stand, no matter how bogus WE think it is. The Prosecution should not count on the jury seeing things their way, and needs to be prepared for anything the Defense might bring against DeeDee (or any of the other witnesses, for that matter).

    • amsterdam1234
      March 11, 2013 at 5:59 PM

      I think it is overstated what they can do during trial. They are trying to have their trial now, in the court of public opinion. I’d rather not help them by adding energy to that cause.

      • blushedbrown
        March 11, 2013 at 6:01 PM


    • amsterdam1234
      March 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM

      I think the defense better be carefull. They are defending an overweight 29 year old man that ran after a 17 year old with a loaded gun, and killed him. Bullying DD won’t help improve the image.

      • March 11, 2013 at 7:10 PM

        I agree that attacking Dee Dee on the witness stand might backfire spectacularly for the defense. She might also tell them in no uncertain terms where to “get off” if you know what I mean. Her friend was killed by a man who will be seated not far away in the same room. If she gets emotional or becomes “rattled” by the defense’s lawyer’s manner or questions I’m not worried that she will somehow “spill the beans” about anything nefarious. So long as she tells the truth, everything will be fine.

        • amsterdam1234
          March 12, 2013 at 2:53 AM

          I think so too. She may be a surprisingly strong witness.

  46. blushedbrown
    March 11, 2013 at 6:01 PM


    OK New thread please. 🙂

  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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s