01-18 George Zimmerman Case – Open Discussion Thread

Use this thread as an open thread just for Zimmerman Case stuff. A place to just dump, collect, or discuss general information about the Trayvon Martin VS George Zimmerman Case.

“The sensationalized, fact-deficient coverage of this case has achieved the
desired results. The networks got their ratings. The politicians got their
talking points. And if it means innocent people get caught in the middle of the
racial enmity they’ve fomented, obviously it’s considered acceptable collateral
damage.
Congratulations, geniuses. Job well done. Jim Treacher, The DC Trawler

REMINDER – Please WATCH THE TONE and CONTENT of Commentary. Please be respectful, courteous and considerate of other readers and contributors. Please avoid hatespeak, angry rhetoric, vulgarity, personal attacks and condescension. If you wish to engage in vitriolic, racist, or bitter angry rhetoric, there are alternative sites on the internet more than welcoming to such considerations. But not here. Thank You.

About these ads
This entry was posted in George Zimmerman Open Thread, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

506 Responses to 01-18 George Zimmerman Case – Open Discussion Thread

    • eastern2western says:

      the question is how much is those records related to the case.

    • howie says:

      They might not. But they might open other avenues of destruction.

    • jordan2222 says:

      For them to get into the public arena, someone will have accidentally release them.

      • John Galt says:

        Or simply request them, like the Miami Herald apparently did.

        1. FERPA does not protect the privacy of deceased students.
        2. FERPA does not protect records of police / security units of educational institutions.
        3. Crump alleges sealing of the records, yet no one can find a case or court order pertaining to sealing the records. Crump has not produced a copy of any such order.
        4. Miami Herald published an article demonstrating that they were in possession of Martin’s school police records and Scheme Team did not allege violation of any court order.
        5. The 2012 Florida Sunshine Manual states at the bottom of page 79:

        In AGO 01-64 the attorney general, in interpreting the former statutes, stated that a
        felony complaint/arrest affidavit created and maintained by school police officers for a juvenile or adult who is a student in the public schools is a law enforcement record subject to disclosure, provided that exempt information such as active criminal investigative information is deleted prior to release. See now 20 USCS 1232g(a)(4)(B)(ii) excluding “records maintained by a law enforcement unit of the educational agency or institution that were created by that law enforcement unit for the purpose of law enforcement” from the definition of “education records.”

        • MJW says:

          I looked into the FERPA statutes a little, and found a number of school websites stating the FERPA does not apply to deceased students. One of the more succinct statements is:

          According to FERPA, the privacy interests of an individual expire with that individual’s death. Accordingly, the FPCO (Family Privacy Compliance Office) has determined that the disposition of records held by an institution pertaining to a deceased eligible student is not a FERPA issue but a matter of institutional policy and/or state law.

          There is a caveat, however. According to the comprehensive A STUDENT PRESS LAW CENTER white paper: FERPA and access to public records:

          Schools can also freely release information about students over 18 after their deaths, since the right of privacy does not survive an individual’s death. (The Department of Education has left some ambiguity with regard to a child who dies before reaching 18. Since the right to bring an invasion-of-privacy claim belongs to a child’s parents until the child turns 18, the Department may take the position that the FERPA privacy right remains with the parents even after the death of a minor child.)

          The paper cites, “FERPA letter ruling, Dec. 14, 1994, letter to Meredith Braz
          of Bates College from Dr. LeRoy S. Rooker, Director, Office of Family
          Policy Compliance.” Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a copy of the letter.

    • eastern2western says:

      personally, I believe his athletic records will be very useful in this case. The whole affidavit is built on the assumption that zimmerman was some how was fast enough and strong enough to beat a sixteen year old child. If the records show that martin was some kind of sports jock with years of mma training, then the defense should able to use it to dispute the whole serrino report of trayvon not having any type of advance martial art training, Nejame has a great point about the family was working really hard to prevent the records from release which is a great sign that the records are extremely important in this case.

      • libby says:

        Football is a contact sport (I have made note of this from the start).
        I tend to agree with your statement above in a bag way!!!!!!!!!!!

      • LouDaJew says:

        the records may reveal a lot. I still don’t believe the empty marijuana story that was published by Robles. the tardiness suspension is nonexistent because it’s not true and illegal under M-DCPS Code of Conduct. too many people had access to his attendance records and the Scheme Team knew that had to make something up to fit the bill (they tried the unauthorized area claim first). the screwdriver/jewelery story was true though because it came from M-DCPS school police or might have even been on official police record.

    • libby says:

      I have found that the vast majority of what comes out of this guy’s pie whole to be inadmissible to anyone’s cranium that has viable thought processes

    • boutis says:

      More politically correct parsing from lawyer number two. But NeJame says some the same things MOM says. Specifically that the school records are part of discovery, that said records may lead to other evidence, that the prosecution (and family) did not want them made available to the defense, if there is a big fat nothing in them why so freaked out, and that they may be inadmissible anyway unless the prosecution opens the door to use them.

      I think the prosecution has already opened the door to their use by claiming TM was a young child who was just wandering around in the rain on the night he was shot. The school records will be used to bring in other evidence that the defense already has, and the fight about admissibility of “prior bad acts” that NeJame claims everyone has in their background (baloney) versus State v. Munoz, 45 So 3d 954 (3 DCA 2010) which MOM cites on the GZLegal on 01/16/13 which addresses “a person’s reputation for violence may be admissible in a case, even if the person accused of the crime was unaware of the reputation.”. If someone has a propensity to violence it will show up in the records that leads to other records and witnesses.

      • libby says:

        And if they like to tresspass at school, maybe they tresspass at other places, also

      • treewig says:

        I think this post covers all the points very well. Most if not all of TM’s school records are going to be inadmissible as standalone evidence. However, if say the prosecution puts Sabrina on the stand and she says TM was a good student who never missed school and there is something in the school records refuting that statement, they should be able to bring those in.

        • LouDaJew says:

          it should be brought out before. you fight the Scheme Team’s dirtiness with equal dirt. if the records are going to be inadmissable, MOM is screwed. it’s a big gamble. the whole goal is to destroy the character of Trayvon Martin. Mr. Nice Guy won’t work. black racists don’t fight fair, and MOM has to understand this and respond accordingly.

          • hooson1st says:

            The so-called scheme team is not party to the present legal case. It is the State vs. GZ, and MOM has to address himself to that case.

            • Sha says:

              hooson1st : This is where I respectfully disagree with you ….. They are very much a party behind the scenes to this case.The Scheme team set out to destroy GZ’s life over a terrible tragedy.They made it about race and divided this country over it ! They put more value on a dollar than a life . Omara keeps saying if we need to have a talk lets have it ! Well lets have it ! This case has NEVER been about the evidence against GZ if it where we wouldn’t be having this conversation and there would be no State vs GZ. Omara has a chance to save GZ’s life and a obligation to not hold back from using every legal means in his power to kick the states butt and hold the Scheme team accountable for this mess they have made over the almighty dollar that they set this scheme in motion for. No one should be aloud to destroy people’s lives just for personal gain.

              • hooson1st says:

                Sha:

                Crump and Co are a factor behind the scenes, but not a party to the criminal proceeding, they have no standing.

                I do not believe that they set out to destroy GZ’s life, although I will agree that they have recklessly whipped up the flames of racial antagonisms, and have hindered the search for truth.

                I do not believe that they put more value on a dollar than a life. In particular, I believe that Trayvon’s parents would forgo everything in order to be able to have Trayvon back, even if his behavior had become problematic.

                From day one, the case has been about the death of TM, which at its core is the death of an unarmed individual at the hands of an armed individual (TM’s suspected martial arts capabilities notwithstanding).

                i agree that GZ’s account of the confrontation is supported by the available evidence, and is not contradicted. And I agree that political factors led to the assumption of the case by the State of Florida.

                MOM’s responsibility to defend his client does not include engaging in polemics.

                Holding Crump and Co accountable for their actions is an avenue of redress that can be entertained after this criminal case is concluded.

                I agree that no one should be allowed to destroy another person’s life just for personal gain. Proving all this in a court of law is not easy.

                • Serpentor says:

                  “I do not believe that they set out to destroy GZ’s life”

                  Whether that was their primary goal or not, it’s what they did, exactly. For that, all of them ought to be disbarred and sued into poverty…. IMHO

                • Sha says:

                  hooson1st: When I said they put more value on a dollar than a life….. I wasn’t talking about TM’s parents, I do believe they would give anything to have him back and at the end of the day no matter who was right or wrong they lost there son . I was talking about the Scheme Team and GZ’s life.

                  I understand how people could be up set with the fact that TM was a young person that was not armed against a older person who was, but the fact is GZ had a right to defend his life by what ever means he had to.

                  I also think your right it is not Omara’s responsibility to engage in polemics but it is his responsibility to give his client every fair chance in this world to get his life back.

                  • jello333 says:

                    I don’t even like the “armed” vs “unarmed” rhetoric. I think at the point it really mattered, NEITHER of them were armed… or perhaps BOTH of them were armed. What I’m getting at is the statement George made which caused some people to wonder what he meant. “At that moment, it wasn’t my gun, it wasn’t his gun, it was just THE gun.”

                    See, if George had been walking around holding the gun, and had it out when he encountered Trayvon, he would definitely have been “armed”. Even if while on the ground, he had grabbed his gun, and Trayvon grabbed George’s wrist trying to prevent him from shooting, and they struggled for awhile… yeah, I’d say George would have been “armed” at that point. But that’s apparently not how it went down. What happened was that the gun didn’t come into play AT ALL until Trayvon saw it. And then both he and George tried to grab it before the other one could. So the question is: At the moment the gun was exposed, as it was still in George’s waistband, WHO, if anyone, was “armed”. In my opinion, considering the circumstances, and the proximity of the two to each other and to the gun…. they were either both armed, or neither of them were armed. Access to the gun, and the immediate ability to USE that gun was pretty much a toss-up at that point. So looking at it that way, George’s “THE gun” comment makes perfect sense, and the “armed” vs “unarmed” argument becomes fairly meaningless.

                  • Sha says:

                    Jello: I agree with your point about the armed verses the unarmed. I feel the same way you do even about the statement George made.

      • rumpole2 says:

        NeJame has been a wet fish throughout this case.
        No doubt he sees his role as “legal commentator” as requiring he be PC and “see both sides”, but as I mentioned yesterday… the appeasement of the Prosecution/ Scheme Team side has become tedious to say the least.
        Neville, Peace in our time, I see both sides Nejame is perhaps also CYA Nejame because his legal “predictions” cover both sides, name both horses. It’s time he “put his money where his mouth is.

        • jello333 says:

          Funny you mentioned horses, because that’s partly what this is about. The “horse race”. The media in general will NEVER let one side of any conflict get too far out in front. That goes for cases like this, or political races, or anything similar. If one side has been having a really good run, and it looks like they’re about to totally bury the other side, then you can be certain that the media will try to bring a “balance” back to things. Whether it’s justified or not makes NO difference to them. All that matters is the horse race… that things stay close enough to maintain people’s interest… RATINGS.

        • janc1955 says:

          Plus ideologically, NeJame falls much more in line with The Narrative, if you know what I mean.

      • jello333 says:

        “If someone has a propensity to violence it will show up in the records that leads to other records and witnesses.”

        Yep, that’s what this is about. MOM and West likely aren’t especially concerned about getting the records themselves admitted in court. What they’re probably looking to do is use the records to lead them to OTHER stuff, that WILL be admissible. As you say, perhaps witnesses to (or documentation of) certain aspects of Trayvon’s behavior in recent years/months.

        • jordan2222 says:

          A “leak” or an accidental release would work just fine. At least the media would know another side to Trayvon, as if they don’t already. If the stuff we have learned about his past is true, there is no way that Crump could overcome that in the court of public opinion, especially if it came out in one huge release all at the same time.

          Maybe a few folks would be moved to make a few changes to that memorial and others would want a “refund” of their hard earned cash.

          I just don’t see any way that the truth can be completely suppressed even if it is never permitted to be used in court. Somebody is bound to start talking.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      The school records have (at least) two purposes:

      1. Identify other potential avenues of discovery, relating to Martin’s character
      2. Identify prima facie evidence of Martin’s character

      The latter absolutely is admissible, under Florida statutes. If the school records show that Martin has a history of assault, that information adds to the preponderance of evidence that Zimmerman was justified in his use of lethal force in self-defense. If the school records show evidence of aggressive behavior on behalf of Martin, that evidence refutes the caricature that the State has attempted to construct regarding Martin, in which the State has portrayed Martin as a frightened, young child.

      And the former could lead to admissible evidence. Say, for example, the school records relate an incident in which Martin punched a school bus driver. The defense could then depose that school bus driver. That bus driver’s testimony could also be admissible on the same grounds.

      (And, if by some remote chance, the bus driver says that Martin said something along the lines of, “Do you have a problem with me? Well, you do now!” before punching him? Let’s just call that a proverbial smoking gun for the defense.)

      • howie says:

        I am glad you brought that up. I am sure I heard DD say that she heard T-Con say that when I listened to the BDLR tape. That corroborates Zimmerman’s statements. I am positive I heard it.

        • tara says:

          She told BDLR she heard Trademark open with “Why you followin me for?” and then GZ said “What are you doin around here?”

          • Justice4All says:

            I loved this part of her interview :)

            Listening to BDLR repeat “Why yo followin me for?” was classic………LMAO

            • tara says:

              Whenever I read the transcript (on Talk Left, not sure there are others), I laugh out loud! The mumbling, the inability to remember even the most benign details, is quite hilarious. This is their star witness! No wonder Team Skittles engaged in pre-legal proceeding propaganda, if the facts had come out from day 1 this incident would have been properly labeled an unfortunate accident, just as Sybrina initially declared it.

          • howie says:

            She also stated she heard “you gotta problem” I heard it on the BDLR interview.

            • nomatter_nevermind says:

              You’re mistaken.

              I’ve listened to that recording many times, and I’ve read more than one transcript. I’ve been discussing it with folks on the TalkLeft forum ever since it was released. You are the first person I know who thinks they heard that.

              I did a round-up of what W-8 said she heard at the time of the confrontation. I did the transcribing myself.

              • howie says:

                I don’t think I know I heard it. I played it over and over. I posted it on an old thread here on CTH.

                • nomatter_nevermind says:

                  SAO interview of W-8, 4/2/12.

                  The relevant part is 10:27-13:12.

                  • howie says:

                    No the relevant part is at 16:00 I do not f*&k around and make stuff up!

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    At least 3 times she says she heard a “little” get off. What is a “little” get off? Every time I listen to this, I become even more baffled. This is much more than a con job.

                  • jello333 says:

                    You’ve never heard a “little get off, get off”? Wow Jordan. It’s that thing you hear when it’s a little bit drippin’ water, and you suddenly realize you’re ’bout to run from the back.

                  • ejarra says:

                    and that was before she heard the grass. God, I hope the jurors don’t wet themselves.

              • nomatter_nevermind says:

                I see now.

                That was when W-8 said Martin told her that the man ‘got problems.’

                15:50-16:31

                De la Rionda: Did Trayvon ever say the guy’s coming at me, he’s gonna hit me?

                W-8: Yeah. You could say that.

                De la Rionda: No, I don’t want you to guess. Did he ever say that?

                W-8: How he said it, he just [crosstalk]

                De la Rionda: No, no, I, do you understand? Did he say that or not? If he didn’t say it, that’s alright. I, I, do you understand? I’m not trying to get you to say anything –

                W-8: Now he got, the man got, he got problems. Like he crazy.

                De la Rionda: Trayvon told you that, or is that-?

                W-8: Yeah. The man looking crazy.

                De la Rionda: OK.

                W-8: And looking at him crazy.

                De la Rionda: When did Trayvon tell you that?

                W-8: When he was walking.

                De la Rionda: OK. But you didn’t mention that earlier. That’s why I asked you that.

                W-8: Yeah. Walking home –

                De la Rionda: OK.

                W-8: – to his daddy’s house.

                De la Rionda: Right.

                W-8: And [unintelligible] before he say he gonna run.

                Summarizing, W-8 was quoting Martin indirectly, using third person ‘he’. De la Rionda asked if Martin was speaking to W-8, and she confirmed that. W-8 said that this was before Martin told her he was going to run, so presumably while Zimmerman was still in the truck.

                • howie says:

                  OMG that is hilarious. Now is that an official certified transcript? Do you think BDLR would have the balls to put that in evidence and have it dissected by a pro? Imagine the cross and direct on it. The jury will find the state guilty. By reason of insanity.

                  • nomatter_nevermind says:

                    It is amusing.

                    I transcribed it myself. Not official, but I’ll proudly certify it.

                    I expect W-8 to testify. Her out of court statements would be used mainly by the defense to impeach her.

            • John Galt says:

              She said it in the Crump interview, too. You have to listen carefully. It sounds like “umgfub slubble urp gudda prob.”

              • howie says:

                I thought it was more like.
                Un dinhebe siay ubegbbaprgleb

              • rumpole2 says:

                “umgfub slubble urp gudda prob.” [BABEL FISH] “you gotta problem”

              • rumpole2 says:

                Listening to DeeDee has got to be worse than being forced to listen to Vogon Poetry.

                • howie says:

                  Wow. A power point for the jury like this would be great. It could teach them to understand the Miami dialect of the democrat base language. Could you imagine the embarrassment of a SA introducing this tape of DD as evidence in a murder trial? Or the cross examination of the witness? He will become the laughingstock of the legal community if he goes through with it. How about his direct? Good Grief. He will probably get sick unexpectedly. What if the jury burst in to uncontrollable laughter and spasms?

                  • rumpole2 says:

                    I have seen several Traybots post that they consider DeeDee a great witness… they can hear what she is saying quite clearly.
                    This only goes to confirm that they look at information… written, audio, video ….and simply make up what it says.
                    I guess if you can hear 4 accomplices and a cockatoo in the background of the NEN call… then you can hear DeeDee reciting the Gettysburg Address in her garbled mumblings.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    I doubt that DeeDee could even read the Gettysburg Address.

                • howie says:

                  Baez said jury selection will tell the tale. OK. How about this. In Fla. Juries are selected from DMV rolls. So ya get a Pakistani who works in a convenience store, A German guy from Munich, A lady from Macon Georgia, Anybody from Maine, and a Mexican, and a Redneck from Mississippi. Can you imagine? I can see it in the jury room. They play the tape over and over for weeks. This will not be like the movie with Henry Fonda. 12 angry men. Times have changed. And this is the star witness for the state. They have to use it or lose it.

                  • jello333 says:

                    Yeah, I can see them sitting in the jury room, starting deliberations. They start up the Dee Dee tape. They all sit there staring down at their notepads, with stern, serious looks on their faces. Listening intently. The tape ends, and they slowly look up, start glancing around at their fellow jurors, trying to gauge reactions. Everything is fine until one of them smiles. Just a little smile to start with. And then another juror smiles… then another, and another. Then one of them starts to laugh… then another… and another… till finally the whole room is literally falling out of their chairs, laughing uncontrollably.

                    It could happen.

              • howie says:

                I can see BDLR on direct now. OK DD let me refresh your memory please look at paragraph 122 line number 4. Do you remember saying. “Amma habdo wemt ta hoorsbiddle cahbah cuddah no pee pee.”

                • dmoseylou says:

                  Howie, I have got to stop listening to Chump and DD! I understood every word you just said.
                  ARRRGGGGH!

                  • howie says:

                    Somebody put up a test a while back about this. How you can understand gibberish. But on the tape BDLR is just classic. 20 years from now Law Professors will play it to crack up the class and show how not to do an interview. He has no idea what she is saying.

                  • rumpole2 says:

                    I have it as a poll… to check out who can readit (everybody it seems)
                    It’s in Members area (If you want to answer the poll)
                    http://www.randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=239#p4984
                    But I’ll paste it here

                    Only great minds can read this
                    This is weird, but interesting!

                    fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too

                    Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

                    i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it

              • rumpole2 says:

                Here is another infamous “Mumbbler”
                He seems quite articulate compared to DeeDee

              • libby says:

                I wonder if SIZZURP makes a person slur their words?

      • LouDaJew says:

        if they have the bus drivers name, and the bus driver is willing to testify I agree (just to keep the bus driver out of the media’s radar). if there isn’t a bus driver, MOM needs to come out swinging agianst these black racists.

        • nomatter_nevermind says:

          It doesn’t matter if the hypothetical bus driver is willing to testify. If his testimony is ruled admissible (which I doubt) he will be subpoenaed.

          • ftsk420 says:

            Why do you doubt

            • nomatter_nevermind says:

              Munoz v. State

              ‘Once the proper foundation is laid, the defendant may introduce evidence of the victim’s reputation or of specific instances of the victim’s conduct. See § 90.405, Fla. Stat. (2009). There are, however, important distinctions and evidentiary requirements between reputation evidence and evidence of specific acts admitted under section 90.404(1)(b). . . . The purpose of introducing the reputation evidence in a self-defense case is to show that the victim was the initial aggressor. . . . Because reputation evidence relates to the conduct of the victim, the defendant is not required to have had prior knowledge of the victim’s reputation in the community. . . . Conversely, the purpose of specific acts evidence in a self-defense case is to demonstrate the reasonableness of the defendant’s fear at the time of the incident. . . . Because the defendant’s state of mind is at issue, before the defendant may introduce specific acts allegedly committed by the victim, he must show that he had prior knowledge of these acts.’

              • John Galt says:

                It goes like this:

                MOM: Are you aware of Trayvon’s reputation for violence in the community?

                School Cop: Yes.

                MOM: What is that reputation?

                School Cop: He has a reputation for spontaneous unprovoked violence.

                Rebuttal:

                BDLR: Are you aware of Trayvon’s reputation for peacefulness in the community?

                DD: Yes, I have known about that ever since kindergarten.

                BDLR: What is that reputation?

                DD: Trayvon is a Momma’s boy who never fights.

                Cross

                MOM: Did you know that Trayvon punched a bus driver in the face?

                DD: I heard that.

                MOM: Did you know that Trayvon refereed fights at school?

                DD: Yes, he told me about that.

                MOM: Did you know that Trayvon’s cousin trained him to fight?

                DD: Yes

                MOM: Did you know that Trayvon liked to send out violent messages on Twitter?

                DD: Yes, I received those.

                MOM: Nothing further.

                • howie says:

                  No wonder MOM wants to go to trial. Now I understand.

                • howie says:

                  BDLR will be hiding under Corey’s dress and she will have to roust him out to take the floor.

                • nomatter_nevermind says:

                  If you have the school cop, and if there is evidence the assault on the driver was ‘spontaneous’ and ‘unprovoked’, the bus driver comes in. I expect the rest would be excluded as irrelevant.

                  • nomatter_nevermind says:

                    To avoid confusion, I think I should repeat that the discussion of the bus driver is hypothetical from the beginning. We still don’t know they are going to have a bus driver. There’s no actual evidence that there is a bus driver.

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    There’s no actual evidence that there is a bus driver.

                    No, there is actual evidence that Martin “swung on a bus driver”. To wit: a certain tweet referencing the incident (“why didn’t you tell me you swung on a bus driver?”).

                    Granted, it is unsubstantiated evidence; but it does exist.

                  • dmoseylou says:

                    justfactsplz :lol:

                  • howie says:

                    Can you imagine that. The state trying to exclude evidence that shows the defendant to be innocent.? Now. That is not the job of a SA. It is to seek truth.

                  • libby says:

                    Did you think the bus driver followed, profiled, stalked, chased, and provoked poor innocent trayvon?

        • libby says:

          Maybe THEY hid the identity of the bus driver who got jacked byNO_LIMIT_GANGSTA so he wouldnt have to hide from the black racist institutions like the new black pansies

    • sundance says:

      School records per se’ are not the important aspect. Nejame is talking about “traditional” school records, grades, activities etc etc. Other than attendance and/or internal discipline records that is not pertinent.

      In Miami-Dade, there is a specific and seperate “police force”, or “law enforcement unit”, a totally seperate entitiy in law enforcement specific to the school system. It is called Miami-Dade Schools Police Dept.

      It is it’s own seperate and distinct division within the law enforcement community.

      However, interactions within the school system are not only recorded in the M-DSPD system, they are also held in the school records of the individual within the interaction.

      That’s where Trayvon’s school records are VERY, VERY pertinent.

      It is within those contacts with the M-DSPD that much about Trayvons history is located. It is not a criminal record per se’, but more aptly the “incident reports” of his interactions with the M-DSPD where they were interceeding to stop unlawful student behavior.

      That is the gold mine of information. In those records the profile of Trayvon Martin is clear and absolute.

  1. eastern2western says:


    I agree with this guy right here. basically, zimmerman is guilty of snitching to the police and snitches like him get a beating in the streets. It is street justic they are talking about, not the the law.

    • libby says:

      The martins/fultons were demanding street justice, aka vigilante justice for GZ while they told the world how terrible they thought vigilante justice was.

      • tara says:

        Yes, incredibly hypocritical. Also, they chose to live in and raise their sons in an environment like that, knowing full well that their sons would inherit that street justice mentality … and that death was a possible outcome.

    • tara says:

      I love this guy!

      My husband grew up in a tough gang infested neighborhood, he totally understands it. Fighting, sometimes brual beatdown, was the routine way people handled disputes. Police were never called unless someone was killed, and then none of the witnesses would talk. It wasn’t because they mistrusted the police, it was because it was the culture of that environment to settle matters their own way.

      If this was Trademark’s environment, then it would make sense that he wasn’t inhibited when angered. If everyone around him settled disputes through physical fighting, then why wouldn’t he?

      • libby says:

        I LOVED this guy, too!
        just listened to his entire vid.
        What was his last line?
        (sorry to yell)
        “WE NEED MORE GEORGE ZIMMERMANS”
        This cannot be repeated enough.

      • ftsk420 says:

        It’s the code of the streets. Growing up I had more fights then I could count we handled everything on our own. Trayvon was 17 and grew up in a bad neighborhood I bet my last dollar he could fight very good.

    • Serpentor says:

      because after all, it’s just wrong to look out for your neighbors

    • ftsk420 says:

      People are real confused about snitching. Snitches get stiches if they snitch on their own Zimmerman didn’t snitch on his own people so it’s not really snitchin. If Trayvon would have told the school who’s jewelry it was that would be snitching.

    • jello333 says:

      This guy is a little off on a few of the details, but as for the general points he’s making…. he’s right on. Nice job. And of course if you read the comments after his video, most of them are either totally misrepresenting the evidence, or are calling him “Uncle Tom” and the like. Typical.

  2. rumpole2 says:

    Daily Daft Posts From Justarse Quest

    This one is classic… Teeto gets all the best lines :D

    “….we really don’t know what the prosecution’s theory is going to be.”

    Ain’t THAT the truth!! :D

    But Teeto manages to twist this into a positive?

    Sometimes they surprise even me with the mental gymnastics they will perform rather than admit the obvious.

    Random Topics
    http://www.randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=584&p=19992#p19992

    • nomatter_nevermind says:

      Teeto is a lot more perceptive than most of the prosecution’s supporters. They seem think ‘The dispatcher said stay in the truck’ is all the theory the case needs.

      • rumpole2 says:

        If Teeto is the answer… then it was a stupid question :D

      • howie says:

        That statement can not be used at a trial. The NEN never told him to stay in the truck. He will not be allowed to say it. In fact he will probly be ordered not to say it by the judge. Lack of evidence. He also has no evidence GZ chased him.

        • John VI says:

          Isnt that the whole point of the prosecution and scheme team poisoning the jury pool? All these evidence free statements are out there for everyone to see. All it takes is one juror that remembers “something different” from the news to contaminate the whole process by injecting these opinions in the jury room.

        • ftsk420 says:

          I took what the NEN said as a suggestion not an order.

          • Chip Bennett says:

            I took what the NEN said as a suggestion not an order.

            The NEN operator has no legal authority to issue orders.

            • howie says:

              If parsed it is just a statement of the operators opinion. Vague.

            • diwataman says:

              “If the 911 protocol across the country held to form here, they told him not to get involved. He disobeyed that order,” said Ryan Julison, a spokesman for the family.

              March 7
              http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/us-crime-florida-neighborhoodwatch-idUSBRE82709M20120308

              • libby says:

                And how do tards act when no one gets involved in a crime (no offense to actual retarded indivduals)? they get all upset when no one wants to get involved in a crime. of course, if someone gets involved, they get prosecuted and persecuted (and moronic pundits who dont have the intestinal fortitude God gave worms are quick to slaughter the reputation of heroic people who protect their neighborhoods when no one else will

            • libby says:

              And as noted in the above video, is trayvon martin representative of a cultural subgroup that ordinarily follows or ignores the instructions of law enforcement (recognizing that “we dont need you to do that” is far from an order)?
              So, African Americans who dont necessarily ordinarily have it as their cultural leanings to follows the instructions of law enforcement find it deplorable that George Zimmerman might have for a second not followed advice after having been given a direct instruction, “tell us where he went”.
              in other words, they wouldnt listen to the cops themsevles, but they blame GZ for not having done so. wow, cuz they claim they hate vigilantism while they engage in vigilante behavior. they claim they are agaisnt racism and they are the most racist cultural group in the country.
              African Americans may be in greater danger to speak up on behalf of GZ than any white person.

              • justfactsplz says:

                They are in more danger. The mother of the children that George mentored wanted to come forward in his behalf and he talked her out of it.

                • jello333 says:

                  I really, really admire that woman.

                  • justfactsplz says:

                    I do too. It would have been very dangerous for her to come forward. If it was safe for them to do so there are other black people who could attest to the fact that George is not racist.

            • jello333 says:

              Whether it was a suggestion or an order… whether it was vague or direct. Doesn’t matter. For a number of reasons. One of them being that no matter HOW we define what the dispatcher said and what authority he had, the fact is this: When the dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that”, George DID stop following.

        • jello333 says:

          Sean (the dispatcher) will testify FOR the defense. He’ll say that he in effect ASKED George to get out of the truck… albeit inadvertently.

          “Just let us know if this guy does anything else.” (TWICE)

          “He’s running? Which way is he running?”

      • treewig says:

        The APC contains similarly questionable language along the lines of the dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to follow Martin but that GZ disregarded the instructions and confronted Martin. We can thank the special prosecutor for much of what is regurgitated on sites like this.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        They seem think ‘The dispatcher said stay in the truck’ is all the theory the case needs.

        Well, I sure hope that’s the case that BDLR presents in the immunity hearing.

        First, Zimmerman had a legal right to be inside or outside of his vehicle, at any time he wanted.

        Second, Zimmerman reasonably followed inferred instructions from the NEN operator, when he exited his vehicle in order to maintain visual contact with Martin.

        Third, the NEN comment in question came after Zimmerman was already out of his vehicle.

        Fourth, what the NEN operator actually said was, “Are you following him? …We don’t actually need you to do that.

        Fifth, Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to do anything that the NEN operator instructed him.

        Sixth, Zimmerman committed no inherent crime by attempting to maintain visual contact with Martin.

        Seventh, the State has absolutely no evidence to prove that Zimmerman pursued Martin, much less did so with an intent to confront him.

        Eighth, the preponderance of actual evidence in discovery indicates that Martin successfully eluded Zimmerman, that Martin reached the vicinity of Brandi Green’s home, and that Martin, of his own volition, circled back and returned to the vicinity of the sidewalk “T” to confront Zimmerman.

        So, yes, by all means: I hope BDLR tries the “should have stayed in his truck” angle.

        • tara says:

          And let’s not forget the obvious evidence that GZ stopped following Trademark just as the NEN dispatcher suggested. If we take the prosecution’s claim as true, that Trademark was going back to Brandy’s apartment, then the shooting would have occurred closer to Brandy’s apartment if GZ had continued following Trademark.

          • John Galt says:

            “If we take the prosecution’s claim as true, that Trademark was going back to Brandy’s apartment”

            Look at the timeline. If Tryavon was going back to Brandy’s apartment, he would have been there. He was waiting in ambush for Z, just like Z told the cops.

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

            • tara says:

              I totally agree, Trademark had plenty of time to make it to Brandy’s. So if he really had gone there and GZ had followed, it would have been impossible for the shooting to occur at the T.

              And now I’m astounded that we’re evening discussing this point. Because it’s so freaking obvious! Trademark did NOT go to Brandy’s, and GZ did not follow Trademark past the T. GZ might have looked around in the vicinity of the T, that’s it, and who can fault him? As others have correctly stated, the dispatcher only asked GZ to stop following Trademark, the dispatcher did not instruct or even suggest that GZ return to his vehicle. That would be silly, wouldn’t it? In your own condo community, on property that you co-own, you cannot be out? You must be in your vehicle or in your condo at all times? Again, I’m astounded. The illogic and willful ignorance and gross misconduct of Team Skittles is way beyond what I could have ever imagined.

              • Chip Bennett says:

                As others have correctly stated, the dispatcher only asked GZ to stop following Trademark, the dispatcher did not instruct or even suggest that GZ return to his vehicle.

                Pardon me if this comes across as pedantic, but I believe it is important. The NEN operator did not ask Zimmerman to stop following Martin. His exact words were, “Are you following him? We don’t actually need you to do that.

                It’s not an instruction or a directive; it’s a liability cover. An instruction would have been, “please don’t follow him”, or “you should not follow him”.

                By saying, “we don’t actually need you to do that,” the NEN operator was simply uttering a CYA statement to help indemnify the police department in case something went down.

                • libby says:

                  thanks chip.
                  you word that well (and many other aspects of the case like cleaning up after messy trolls)

                • tara says:

                  In my defense, I deliberately used the term “asked” to imply that the request wasn’t a directive but rather a suggestion. But thinking more about it, “we don’t need you to do that” is equivalent to “it’s not necessary that you do that”. It’s not even a suggestion, it’s just information. The dispatcher was telling GZ that he COULD stop, not that he needed to.

                  The prosecution has NOTHING. Nothing.

                • jello333 says:

                  Yep. It’s sorta like, “If you wanna keep following him, that’s your business. But just don’t say I’M telling you to do that, because I’m not.”

        • howie says:

          He has too. It is all he has got to work with. He has to prove Zimmerman, left his truck, against Po-Po orders, with intent to chase down T-con and do him in, before the Po-Po, that Zimmerman had called, arrived.

    • TandCrumpettes says:

      Maybe its just me, but I think something is VERY rotten in Denmark when you can read all of the available discovery in a case and still not know what the prosecution’s theory is going to be. Not to mention that discovery is peppered with reports and summaries that spell everything out for you.

      • howie says:

        Not just you. Me too. The only evidence I have seen exonerates Zimmerman. All the state has been doing is trying to get the witnesses to contradict their original statements. Now. The state is clearly lying when BDLR repeats over and over that Zimmerman was told to stay in the truck. It is blatantly false. 100%. Never happened. That right there should be enough. There is not a shred of evidence. When the state has to openly lie in public. Repeatedly. Something is rotten. I listened to the NEN tape myself. He is never told not to get out.

        • rumpole2 says:

          So you don’t think that BDLR has a “cunning plan” to keep all his evidence secret until the last minute?
          He does seem to be able to get away with NOT releasing discovery by the due date. :D
          I think Occams razor needs to be applied for the dopes at JQ.
          1.The prosecution has not outlined their “theory” because they don’t have one (That would stand up in court)
          2. The State has not released the evidence that counter’s George and his supoorters, because there is no such evidence.

          To imagine the BDLR has a cunning plan up his sleeve a la Perry Mason with the private Dick bursting into court just before the case is lost with a star witness is not only silly and delusional… but would not be allowed under Florida law and rules of Discovery.
          “Trial by Ambush” is not allowed. Perry Mason would be out of work in Florida these days… I guess he could always usurp Teeto and be the Legal expert posting at JQ :D

          • howie says:

            I think he is doing the best he can with what he has. Next to nothing. I also think a lot might be Co-ordinated by the DOJ/Community Relations Service acting behind the scenes with some of the major players. That is why I thought the subpoena by Omara of the CRS was important. That could be why the hearing was cancelled. Ahhh Dunno. When they arrived on scene is when the train left the station it seems. I would like to see the results of the information. Who they were in contact with…etc. It might fill in a lot of the blanks.

        • TandCrumpettes says:

          Exactly. If you read discovery and come back scratching your head, “Gee, I dunno what they’re gonna do with that!” we have a problem.

      • howie says:

        The theory is the elements of 2nd degree murder. One of which is criminal intent. All of them have to be proven for a conviction. Or maybe even to get to trial. The lack of just one of the elements stops them cold. Somehow they have to twist the facts to prove criminal intent by Zimmerman.

        • howie says:

          Second degree murder cases often involve a death that allegedly occurred because of a heat of passion or act that was so dangerous is warrants a criminal action be brought against the Defendant. The classic example is the spouse who finds their partner having an affair with another person and immediately acts to kill either the partner or the partner’s lover. In order to convict a defendant in Florida of Second-degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
          The victim is dead;
          The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
          There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

          • tara says:

            But second degree murder requires intent, correct? For it to apply to this case, GZ would have at some point set out to kill Trademark for any other reason than self-defense, correct? And if the case goes to trial, the prosecution will need to prove that GZ did not act in self defense. There’s no freaking way they can prove this! All evidence supports GZ’s account. This is crazy!

            • howie says:

              The element is very clear. For their to be a crime at all there must be “criminal activity” a criminal act. There must also be a depraved mind..a criminal intent for a crime to occur. How the state can get there is the question.

              • tara says:

                Right. The race reason was shot down by the FBI investigation. And there is no history of him using his weapon to injure or even threaten any person he suspected of criminal activity in the community. What possible other reason could they come up with?

              • debfrmhell says:

                If they can’t “get there” they would always have the jury instruction of manslaughter to fall back on as a failsafe. It depends on how much they can muddy the waters should this come to trial.

                I seriously think they hoped for some kind of negotiation for a lesser plea and neither George Zimmerman or Mark O’Mara ever had that in mind.

                • howie says:

                  That is a sticky point. I don’t think they can bring the lesser charge. It would make the 2nd degree charge moot. There is not a jury instruction that would work in this case.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      I suppose our friend is forgetting a couple of key points:

      1. For the State to withhold exculpatory evidence would be a Brady violation
      2. For the State to withhold inculpatory evidence would be a violation of the State’s reciprocal discovery agreement with the defense

      So, if the State is hiding anything, they’re setting themselves up for failure.

  3. Sentenza says:

    Keep up the fight George.

    I’m up in Washington, and I’d be honored to have you in my state rather than that demented wacko from Florida that was trying to obligate people to run away from criminals.

    Stay strong.

  4. libby says:

    Rest in Peace Trayvon (May God forgive you).
    May God grant justice to all involved (including anyone percieved or thought to be white).
    God end the persecution of George Zimmerman (and all others wrongly prosecuted/persecuted).

    • hooson1st says:

      beee youuuuuu teeeeee fulllllll !!!!

    • Chip Bennett says:

      How ironic that I just said this, earlier in the comments:

      For the State to withhold inculpatory evidence would be a violation of the State’s reciprocal discovery agreement with the defense.

      Most… interesting. And I can’t wait to see those redacted documents!

      • partyof0 says:

        So…it still looks like this (I know nuthink’) Judge is biased since…most of us here are not even lawyers and think there should be some sort of sanctions/punishment for the prosecution….but we could wait till hell freezes over…

      • partyof0 says:

        Judge Nelson….you awake?….Get up Judge Nelson…GET UP JUDGE NELSON…TIME TO GET UP TO SPEED ON THIS HIGH PROFILE CASE!!!!…OK…if you’re awake now I’ll stop shouting…..Isn’t your JOB to see that the prosecution is doing everything they are supposed to do?…

        • hooson1st says:

          Judge Nelson’s job is not to supervise the prosecutors. The judge’s job is to adjudicate the matters that are brought before the court. MOM/West will bring such matters, as they need attention, at the next hearing.

          • partyof0 says:

            I just seems to me that the Judge is letting a lot of things slide….as in Discovery dragging on so long…AND the defense IS muted (by the judge) when the defense tries to explain the IMPORTANCE of aquiring the Discovery and of what’s in it…something the Judge should be aware of but she appears to be playing “dumb” about it…

          • partyof0 says:

            “The judge’s job is to adjudicate the matters that are brought before the court.”

            AND I would say…The judge’s job is to adjudicate the matters that are NOT brought before the court.

            • hooson1st says:

              It doesn’t work that way. :)

              • partyof0 says:

                So…if the Judge asks for “one thing” from say Crump….AND it is not in tune with what was asked for by the defense…i’ts well…”Defense…you should have made yourself clearer to me…too late to cry over spilt milk…when a Judge is basically a god up there…they SHOULD know requirements of a prosecution AND the defense…AND when they MUTE the defense when it is trying to explain themselves to the Judge…something smells bad in Florida…..just sayin….

                • hooson1st says:

                  No question that it can appear as though the judge is doing nothing.

                  But the judge’s job is not to tell the prosecution or the defense how to run their case, but to insure that the case is conducted according to the rules.

                  If the judges had to listen to everything the prosecution and/or defense wanted to say, court proceedings would drone endlessly far longer than they do already. That’s why you will judges tell the parties to submit briefs (in lieu of endless debating). Presenting a written motion or argument forces the parties to stick to the issues and the law and avoids needless speechifying and orations from learned counsel.

                  • partyof0 says:

                    OK…I just saw the frustration the defense (West) was having about discovery….he WAS cut off in trying to put forth explanations (as explained by you above)…but there has to be a reckoning sometime on this case…

                  • hooson1st says:

                    As frustrating as it can be, it plays to MOM’s advantage since airing this all out in front of the judge allows to judge to see how the prosecution’s angle of attack is flawed. This all has an effect.

      • howie says:

        If the defense is going to use it, it must be exculpatory.

      • partyof0 says:

        I CAN equate with Judge Nelson…I use to be a bench warmer too…

    • rumpole2 says:

      Thanks for the heads up.
      They are NOT going to like this in the Trayvon Zone… major advanced diminishing and denial to do here… third day in a row? And they are short staffed what with a lot of worker cretins having run away :D

      • howie says:

        Videos from Sams Club and Kohls? Wolfies letter? Hmmm. Which way is Sams Club from the 711 twards or away from the condo? Wonder if the stooges and T-con are in em? They must show something because the defense is going to use them.

        • LouDaJew says:

          was wondering the same thing howie.

          • howie says:

            I looked up the condos on Zillow. It gives real good satellite overhead. I think they might be away from the condo. BTW almost every condo in there is for sale.

        • partyof0 says:

          Gotta a 2nd you on that one….

        • “Which way is Sams Club from the 711 twards or away from the condo?”

          Sams club directly behind the 7-11, and Kohls is more or less on the way back to the condo, but it appears to me that the distance between the likely path to the condo would be out of range of the Kohls camera.

          • rumpole2 says:

            I have an interactive Google Map of GZ case locations -I have added locations noted in GZ Legal Suplimentary discovery today

            Kohl’s Car Park
            Sam’s Club
            Lake Edge Apartments

            http://www.randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=584&p=20010#p20010

            • Knuckledraggingwino says:

              At minimum, video evidence of TM at these locations would prove a leisurely, meandering path.

              My guess, the videos will dovument repeated attempts to buy codeine or DXM based cough syrup.

          • howie says:

            Maybe there are some from inside the stores security cameras. Somebody buying some cough syrup? Do any of the stores have it?

          • tara says:

            On the Google map I’m looking at, the Sam’s Club is farther from the condo community than the 7-11. If Trademark were returning directly to Brandy’s apartment, he would not pass the Sam’s club.

            • John Galt says:

              I think Sam’s sells cough syrup.

              • howie says:

                Ya have to be a member to shop.

                • tara says:

                  Maybe one of the three goons who visited the 7-11 after Trademark is a member. I would laugh my derrière off if the security video showed Trademark and the goons getting out of a car at the Sam’s club. Smoke billowing out of the car à la Snoop would be even better.

                • TandCrumpettes says:

                  That’s half true, I guess. I used to work there.

                  Yeah, you’re “supposed” to be a member, but Sams only cares about keeping the customer happy – therefore if you wind up at the register and have conveniently “forgotten” your card, the cashier (or CSM – we called ‘em COS) would have a courtesy card on-hand. Its easier to slide it and get it over with rather than risk the customer getting “angry” and filing a complaint that we (gasp!) made them go to membership services!

                  Now, if you’re using the pharmacy – you do NOT have to be a member. One would have to have a drivers license if they were buying what I call “meth medicine,” as you would at any pharmacy, but you don’t need a membership. So feel free to get all your drugs at Sams! ha! Or don’t….after working there, I kind of have a love-hate relationship with them.

              • eastern2western says:

                sams usually sell them by the gallon.

            • tara says:

              Just want to amend my post about the location of the 7-11. I can see now using Google street view that the 7-11 is very close to the Sam’s Club. Although the Sam’s Club is not on the direct path between the 7-11 and Brandy’s apartment, I see that it’s not as far as was indicated on the plain map. I’m looking forward to seeing the Sam’s Club video.

        • partyof0 says:

          Sam’s Club…~half a mile west of, Kohl’s…a little closer…~1200 or so feet NNE of Retreat View Cir…

        • justfactsplz says:

          Sam’s Club is behind and to the side of the 7-11. The 7-11 is on a corner.

          • Chip Bennett says:

            Hmm.. might the Sam’s Club security camera show goings-on at he side/back of the 7/11? If so, might those cameras have footage of Martin engaging in activities at the side/back of the 7/11? Curious…

            • rumpole2 says:

              If any of these videos show TM at all… surely that is clear evidence of the State withholding evidence? Brady offence or what ever?
              Is anybody keeping an eye on Bernie to make sure he doesn’t skip town?

              • rumpole2 says:

                Lets not get too excited… remember the Bank video.
                MOM may want to see what is on these videos… but not know of anything specific.. just wants to check. Maybe there is nothing of value.
                They will of course then be turned over to LIMPapa, Papapinhead and Trent so that they can make stuff up. :D

                • howie says:

                  He is entering them as evidence. He has already seen them and decided to use them.

                  • rumpole2 says:

                    He is NOT entering them as evidence.. just as Discovery… same as State did with clubhouse and bank vids

                  • jello333 says:

                    I don’t have a “reply” button under Rumpole’s comment, but this is in reference to that. Here’s what it says in MOM’s filing regarding the stuff he’s listing:

                    “Copies of tangible papers and objects that the Defendant intends to introduce into evidence in this cause”

                    So maybe it doesn’t mean exactly what it says, but it DOES say “introduce into evidence”.

                  • rumpole2 says:

                    K….. I could be wrong… that happened once before… early 70′s I think? :D

            • justfactsplz says:

              It is possible that Sam’s had a camera in that area. That area is a good area for ones to go and try to hide. It is not an area one would commonly walk or be in in my opinion.

          • howie says:

            From the 711 where Dman saw tm exit..the walkway he left on goes direct to a path across a vacant lot that ends up at the common area of the Lakes Edge Apartments. Then from the back of the Apartments there is a pathway along the lake that goes to the shortcut. It is very clear on the google earth in Zillow.

        • maggiemoowho says:

          Tracy said he took TM and friend/cousin to Kohls to by sweatshirts or jackets because they were going to the game. Part of the reason why I don’t believe that Big TM expected TM to show up at BG’s. What could be on a Kohls video though? Do they just want to verify the story?

    • HughStone says:

      I wanna to see the videos.

    • rumpole2 says:

      On a more serious note.
      MOM would not have picked this evidence out of the FDLE files unless it was evidence that favoured GZ

      So there is much for the prosecution and the Lynch Mob to worry about.

      Also… it is a farce that Judge Nelson required the Defence to go through FDLE files and hunt for stuff that the State should have supplied as discovery. It is the States job to collect evidence… all evidence. They have the resources and the link with FDLE to do that. Discovery is not suppose to be a game of hide stuff if you think you can get away with it.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        For the State to withhold inculpatory evidence would be a violation of the State’s reciprocal discovery agreement with the defense.

        (Also asserted by Howie.)

        A procedural question for our resident lawyers: would a “Supplemental Notice of Reciprocal Discovery” be used for exculpatory evidence, inculpatory evidence, either, or both?

        I ask because it is Brady that compels the State to disclose exculpatory evidence, and it is the reciprocal discovery agreement that compels the state to disclose inculpatory evidence. So, is a “Supplemental Notice of Reciprocal Discovery” used in lieu of alleging a Brady violation, or might it simply be a precursor?

        And is there any scenario in which the defense would highlight the State’s failure to disclose inculpatory evidence?

        • howie says:

          With Brady the rule the SA uses to be safe is this…”If it hurts give it up.” The inculpatory evidence rules are tricky and I don’t understand all of it. I think they can hold evidence if it is part of an “ongoing investigation.”

          • Chip Bennett says:

            I think they can hold evidence if it is part of an “ongoing investigation.”

            …which shouldn’t apply to evidence discovered in the FDLE investigation, right? Or is the FDLE investigation still “ongoing”?

            • howie says:

              Ahh Dunno. They don’t have to tell I don’t think. It is complicated and above my pay grade. But I think there are ways for the SA to hold inculpatory evidence. Unless it is asked for specifically by the defense. The rules of evidence and discovery are large and complicated.

            • jello333 says:

              I don’t think they can hide “inculpatory” evidence any more than they can “exculpatory”. That’s because of the “right to face your accuser”, and the things that relate to that. Almost any evidence you can think of involves a human, either directly or indirectly. Either a direct witness, or a person who has some background knowledge, or a person who provided a document, or even just a person who accidentally “found” something somewhere. Whatever, there’s always gonna be some person involved who has info as to how this evidence came to get into the hands of the cops or prosecution. And so no matter who that person is, the defense has a RIGHT to ask questions of that person. I don’t see any way to keep ANYTHING hidden, without violating SOME kind of rule, or even the Constitution itself.

              • howie says:

                There are all kinds of ways. It is the rules and how to use them. And all the precedents. That is how it works. Don’t forget. This case is an outlier. Normally the defense is just holding the states feet to the fire with a guilty client. But the reason to do that is just this case. This case is why we go through all of the legal procedures case after case and day after day with the real crooks. This case is the reason the constitution and everything else was invented. I hope you can understand that.

        • John Galt says:

          “A procedural question for our resident lawyers: would a “Supplemental Notice of Reciprocal Discovery” be used for exculpatory evidence, inculpatory evidence, either, or both?”

          Since MOM’s notice references Rule 3.220, I feel pretty confident in looking to that rule for the answer: “any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the
          hearing or trial”. Note that MOM’s notice contains the language from the rule.

          3.220
          (d) Defendant’s Obligation.
          (1) If a defendant elects to participate in discovery, either through filing the appropriate
          notice or by participating in any discovery process, including the taking of a discovery deposition, the following disclosures shall be made:
          (A) Within 15 days after receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit furnished
          by the prosecutor pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this rule, the defendant shall furnish to the prosecutor a written list of the names and addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant expects to call as witnesses at the trial or hearing. When the prosecutor subpoenas a witness whose name has been furnished by the defendant, except for trial subpoenas, the rules applicable to the taking of depositions shall apply.
          (B) Within 15 days after receipt of the prosecutor’s Discovery Exhibit the defendant
          shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to and permit the prosecutor to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material that is in the defendant’s possession or control:
          (i) the statement of any person listed in subdivision (d)(1)(A),
          other than that of the defendant;
          (ii) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the
          particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and
          (iii) any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the
          hearing or trial.

          http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Rules_Discovery.htm

      • hooson1st says:

        Discovery is a tricky situation.

        What looks innocuous to a prosecutor (who has determined the culprit ahead of time) can be exculpatory to the defense attorney. These kinds of tussles go on all the time.

        • howie says:

          Usually the SA is dealing with a guilty Defendant. In this case he is trying to convict an innocent man. 95% or so, of all the cases have a guilty defendant. I always wondered why Nifong hung on til the bitter end. I wonder how far they will push this cart of rotten tomato’s.

          • myopiafree says:

            Hi Howie – NiFong had to cover his fat behind – as will Bernie. They will “push it” – until the wheels fall off the cart – and the “fat lady” has to SING!!

        • jello333 says:

          I know how cautious you are about this, and don’t like to assign motives to people until you’re sure. But in this case, where we’re talking about some of the evidence Bernie has failed to turn over to MOM/West…. you don’t REALLY believe it’s an honest mistake or difference of opinion, do you? Bernie is like, “Hey, sorry about that. I didn’t really think it was important, and that it was something you’d be interested in.”

          You don’t REALLY believe that… do you?

          • hooson1st says:

            jello333

            Your opinion and my opinion here are influenced, in part, by our own experiences and observations.

            My viewpoint is colored by having seen high profile cases get screwed up by having “too many cooks handling the meal” as the judicial machinery flattens everything within its reach.

            I don’t know how many players are involved on the prosecution side, nor who is handling what aspect of their case, nor which pieces of evidence were brought in by whom.

            So I don’t know whether BDLR is intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence he knows will clear GZ. He may or may not. I believe that if he thought he had evidence to clear GZ, he would act accordingly as is his duty to do so and hand it over.

            As I read matters it is Corey who has ultimate control, and that may well be part of the problem.

            Once the prosecution has decided that they have their culprit, there is a tendency to discount evidentiary items that do not fit their narrative.

            This case went off the rails early on when racial politics intruded.

            • jordan2222 says:

              I have no doubts that BLDR is a puppet, controlled by Corey. Except to resign or ask to be removed from the case, he has very little choice but to do whatever she says. His interview with DeeDee was her idea and Bernie followed instructions.

              • jello333 says:

                Oh yeah. I hope Hooson didn’t think I was implying that this is all Bernie’s idea, Bernie’s plot. No, I realize he’s just playing “good soldier”. But that still doesn’t absolve him of his part, his GUILT in what’s being done. “Just following orders” doesn’t get it.

            • jello333 says:

              Cool, thanks for the reply.

      • John Galt says:

        “Also… it is a farce that Judge Nelson required the Defence to go through FDLE files and hunt for stuff that the State should have supplied as discovery.”

        Some DAs in other jurisdictions have “open file” policies where you can walk in and look at everything. Pretty sweet for the diligent defense attorney, as the prosecutors sometimes overlook stuff in their own files.

        • howie says:

          Sometimes they overload the defense with it. If it helps their case. If not….well pulling teeth is apt.

          • jordan2222 says:

            Consider for a moment that the State might have a video recording that proves Trayvon attacked George and have withheld it but since the Defense wouldn’t know that, how they could be expected to ask for it?

            To require the defense to “guess” at what the State might be withholding is absurd. Nelson’s order for the defense to check all of those files is simply nuts.

            • hooson1st says:

              If the State possessed such a video, it is highly unlikely that it would have been withheld from the defense at any point, and probably, would not have allowed for a murder 2 count to go forward.

              • libby says:

                The state possessed a high resolution color photo of George’s face and back of the head, but that didnt stop the persecution in the least

    • diwataman says:

      Okay so it’s for real now, lol, the dry spell has ended. And wow, very odd stuff on that list. I thought all that video had nothing of evidentiary value so what the heck is going on there I wonder.

      Oh man the stuff on that list is going to drive me nuts, lol. Speculation galore.

      • rumpole2 says:

        You know what they say… be careful about what you wish for… it might just come true :D

        • diwataman says:

          Sure but now I can start in on my other complaint such as this line here;

          “Once these items have been redacted we will post them to our website.”

          Yeah right, he still hasn’t put up all the stuff in the 9th supp. I’d rather he said nothing at all in that regard and just make it a surprise.

          http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/states-9th-supplemental-checklist/

          http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/missing-discovery/

        • howie says:

          Well if they have the T-con on video in another store besides 711 that would impeach the star witness..DD for one thing. It would blow the Crump narrative sky high. Fingers crossed.

          • John Galt says:

            Perhaps that topic was addressed during DD’s August visit.

            BDLR: Yeah, tell what happened as he’s talking to you when he’s leaving the store…on his way back home.

            Dee Dee: When he was leaving the store, he just told me that he bought drinks…and it about to rain.

            BDLR: OK, and then what?

            Dee Dee: It about to rain..he about to get to…inside a thing. It started raining.

            BDLR: It started raining, and did he go somewhere?

            Dee Dee: Yeah. He ran to the um…mail thing.

            BDLR: Like…I’m sorry…what?

            Dee Dee: Like the mail…like a shed…

            BDLR: Like a shed…like a mail area…

            Dee Dee: Yeah.

            BDLR: Like a covered area…

            Dee Dee: Yeah.

            BDLR: Because it was raining?

            Dee Dee: Yeah.

            BDLR: So, did he tell you that he was already inside, like the gated place?

            Dee Dee: Yeah, he ran in there.

            BDLR: OK…

            • howie says:

              That explains it. He was in a thing. Like a gated place. Like a shed. A covered area. Oh please give the jury that transcript. They will be in contempt for laughing so loud the crazed press awaiting outside can hear it.

            • myopiafree says:

              HHHmmm — DeeDee: Yeah, he ran in there.
              I wonder if DeeDee could tell us if he “hit the code keys” as he ran through there??

            • Sherpa1 says:

              What a terrible interview. Is this an indication of Bernie’s talents as a lawyer? Hope so!

      • howie says:

        Fun for the D-Man. The Wolfie letter. I think it was a complaint about….Crump? Also the videos. There must be some with T-Con in them or they would be useless. Or the Stooge’s. Maybe even from the inside of the stores. All of it is going in. For the defense. It is all pre-T-con attack. I don’t think the state will be able to dispute the T-con attack on Zimmerman. They have to attack Zimmerman’s actions before he was attacked. That must be where the dispute is.

        • diwataman says:

          Item letter “I” is just Wolfinger’s request for FDLE assistance.

          Not seeing those other videos always bothered me. I hate tooting my own horn but if it wasn’t for me viewing the 711 tape closer the three stooges may have not been considered so who knows what else could be found.

          • howie says:

            Interesting. I wonder if they will be released? I remember when you found the Stooge’s but have not heard anything lately. Also the blond girl customer that was outside.

          • rumpole2 says:

            You did GREAT with that. :D
            And….. it was that evidence that brought ME to CTH…. so you get the blame for me being here as well :D

          • rumpole2 says:

            Oh noes…. more surveillance videos means more Papapinhead finding imaginary playmates, and……
            Think of poor Trent… he has to go through them all frame by frame taking notes and shouting “Zimmerman is a F******** A$$hole” working out his own unique timeline nearly drove him insane with the Clubhouse tapes you know :D

          • jello333 says:

            Don’t know if you remember, but just a few days before you did the 7-11 video stuff, I said something here like, “I bet Trayvon got that $40 from some kind of ‘transaction’ between the time he left the store and the time he ran into George.” I had NO idea if he had met up with anyone else during that time (and the 3 Stooges weren’t yet known of). But then the video came out, and you found the little details about the blunts, TM standing outside, etc.

            I don’t know, but it was just kind of a special moment all the way around.

        • libby says:

          45 minutes is plenty of time for tagging (grafiti) buildings

      • AghastInFL says:

        Item K.) instantly reminds me of your conversations with OdessaGirl… and the insinuation of more to come. Will we now revisit previous supposition long repressed?

        • diwataman says:

          I would actually think item “K”, the SPD case file, would cover more of that. What I’m looking for is the document that says the serial number of that phone found at the scene is registered to this person. That ought to be in the SPD file.

        • Knuckledragingwino says:

          Either the subpoena request produced exculpatory evidence that has been withheld illegally or the subpoena was never enforced. Either result is a huge problem for the prosecution.

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        “The dry spell has ended”.

        Boy, is THAT a mouthful!

        I see that Mark O’Mara has requested a Subpoena Duces Tecum for ABC to produce “any and all videos and recordings in regards to Ben Crump’s interview of witness 8″ !!!

        It is on his website as I type this.

      • nettles18 says:

        Perhaps the investigators were looking for a 12 year old Trayvon and didn’t spot the 17 year old Trayvon on the video.

      • jordan2222 says:

        I think I will wait for you to figure all of this out. I still do not understand how the State can get away with withholding evidence and not be punished. That is just plain crazy. I feel so incompetent and uninformed.

      • nomatter_nevermind says:

        I’ve been thinking that ‘nothing of evidentiary value’ could mean one of at least three things.

        1. Martin isn’t on the video.

        2. Martin is on the video, exactly when and where we expected him to be.

        3. We got the videos in the first place trying to find out who the John Doe was. Now that we know the identity, we don’t care what’s on the videos. We still have to watch them, or pretend we did.

      • sundance says:

        D-Man, way back then the 7-11 video stuff was first being outlined, I told you the prosecution would not follow the trail because it was irrellevent to them. However, it would not be irrelevent to Don West…..

        West is outlining behavior and activity, and using a complete timeline of the subjects in/around Trayvon during that time from when he left the condo, to when he encountered George. The prosecution was only focused on Trayvon himself. West is focused on the people who interacted with Trayvon and the reason for thier interaction.

        That is where the 3 stooges value is so important.

        The law enforcement community does not see any purpose in talking to them because they consider any actions taken by them and Trayvon to be irrelevent. Don West does not hold the same ideological limitations – nor should he.

        These “releases” are all Don West’s investigative bits and pieces that he intends to use…. and yet, he is still holding back the most delicious aspects.

    • jello333 says:

      “The notice cites several items found in the records of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement that had not previously been disclosed or furnished to the defense.”

      So yet MORE unethical, more ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL activity by Bernie and Corey? Maybe there’s some reason for waiting to go after these scumbags. Maybe it’s best to let this play out first, and THEN go after them when it’s all over. If so, fine… we’ll be patient. But at some point, these freaks MUST be held accountable!

  5. Trayvonites are losing their minds because lolevidence. Do they actually think that there was not going to be any reciprocal discovery? This afternoon is going to be fun.

  6. Teinoh says:

    O’mara just added subpoena duces tecum for ABC to gzlegal site.

  7. Pingback: O’Mara Breaks the Dry Spell «

  8. LetJusticePrevail says:

    Interesting new development: Mark O’Mara has posted on his website a Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum on ABC and all of its affiliates to produce any and all recordings and videos in respect to the interviews of Witness 8 by Ben Crump and Matt Gutman!!

  9. LetJusticePrevail says:

    Moderators: Are my two most recent comments in the “Sin Bin” for any particular reason?

  10. eastern2western says:

    the martins made trayvon into some kind of nba fan, but they never showed any pics of him in a basketball uniform. If the defense find any thing on the new tapes of trayvon was not in a hurry to watch the all star game, then the dd narrative will be put into serious doubts.

    • sundance says:

      There are numerous tweets from Trayvon Martin saying he did not like Basketball… His language was a little more crude than that, but he clearly shared his distain for the sport. fyi…

      • eastern2western says:

        usually, an nba fan has nba merchandises and wear them proud and loudly in photos. The only photos we have seen trayvon in are football photos and they are probably before he was in high school.

    • howie says:

      He is the next in line. Good ole Matt. But didn’t he also have a black female assistant from Howard University, school of racial profiling?

    • sundance says:

      Interesting, and expected.

      What is more consequential than the reciprical discovery sent to the prosecution from West, is the stuff NOT included. West is holding back…. “3 Stooges” specifically.

      West found the video’s of the Kohls, Sam’s, etc etc. to be useful not in the location of Trayvon, but in the location of our pals the stooges….. The evidence West is sending the prosecution is the stuff to draw a timeline of their location and specific activity that aligns with the location and Trayvon to tell the story….

      • jello333 says:

        Aha! I’m reading through this thread in order, so I’m just now seeing this. But upthread I suggested just this. So THANK YOU for the confirmation, SD.

        • arkansasmimi says:

          Trying to catch up again…Wouldnt it be kinda funny if CHAD was in one of the videos? (havent read the GZ pg stuff, just reading posts here)

  11. justfactsplz says:

    Oh yeah, we are getting somewhere now. Watch and weep scheme team.

  12. art tart says:

    It seems if MOM/West had an investigator, the bus from TM”s school that passed through Sybrina’s neighborhood dropping kids off could have been followed and the bus driver located. As someone that worked in the school system many years, they cover their a$$, the bus driver could be reassigned to another bus, but bus driver’s are paid for w/tax payer dollars.

    Of course it is late to do this now, it should have been done last spring imo.

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Art – Good thought! But the Bus drivers are “political” also. They probably told her that they would SUSPEND TM (as punishment) if she kept her mouth shut. The probably assigned her to a new bus route – to keep her quiet. Worked for the School System.

      • eastern2western says:

        bus drivers are just wage earners too. If they were ordered by the court to tell the truth or risk jail terms, they would not risk jail terms just to be pc.

        • ottawa925 says:

          Still … we apparently by what we’ve seen on twitter are led to believe there was an incident. If the incident was documented and in those records, then someone will have to speak to that incident .. whether school or bus driver or both. It would be like getting held up in the supermarket parking lot. Police report is made. Later, the person who made the report could not deny MAKING the report. If it was nothin … why call the police and make a report?

          • libby says:

            Ah, but how the incident is documented says a lot.
            if the case of violence is documented in a way that allows him to avoid a record of violence, this is important cuz the traybots have claimed for months there is no record of violence in trayvon’s past.
            Also,
            everythign the traybots accuse George of they have been found guilty of. they claimed he used his family influence to get off (when it is possible brandy’s influence was used to hdie trayvon’s history of violence-perhaps in conjunction with new guidlines in the schools to hide violent kids’ history).

            • ottawa925 says:

              True. If this incident indeed did happen, someone confronted someone. If the bus driver confronted Trayvon, then I’m sure they would have been repremanded for that, perhaps even being fired (schools always on the watch for parent outrage, especially with minority students). However, if Trayvon confronted …

              Again, if incident is true … somebody confronted somebody, and if it was enough to make a report then the details of the incident must be investigated.

              With all this gun control clamor .. a teacher should have a duty to PROTECT the other students from students that are either too violent or cannot be controlled or reject authority on school grounds. They are in serious need of intervention for behaviorial problems. Too many kids getting away with violent behavior and there are no serious attempts to corrrect that behavior. I think this is a big problem in America today. Everybody passes the buck after parents show no interest in the development of their child. Here you take em … no … you take em, while police statistics are kept nice a tidy clean for the politicians. We’ve got to push to stop police from hiding the crime. And stop the insanity of protecting the perp kids, while they pose a danger to the rest of the damn community. Oh, we don’t want him to have a felony at 17, or 18. Too BAD !!! They should have thought about that before they did it, or their parents should have had taught them to know better. The nation is raising an army of thugs, and they do it to themselves by voting for the Dems who want to keep them stupid, keep them down, depend on crime and handouts for your existence, and let them learn from the thug culture which pervades our nation. Too much hiding of stuff going on. Start prosecuting these kids as adults, and let them fill the prisons to the brim. We will be a nation of prisons.

              ^omg what a rant … lol … sorry.

              • thefirstab says:

                Ottowa – don’t apologize, it needs to be said… over and over, again and again. I feel the same way. And just so there is no misunderstanding, this is not about race or economics.. I have seen this behavior across the board. The parents are enablers, as are many others in authority.
                The only thing I don’t necessarily agree with is throwing them in prison., Dealing with this this is for better minds than mine.

                • ottawa925 says:

                  thefirststab, I realize my statements were harsh. I from time to time watch Scared Straight. It is amazing to me that some of these kids, despite their being scared chitless by the experience, return home and still do the same stuff. I don’t have the answers. But I do know that whoever it is … school, hospitals, law enforcement … whoever … must protect the public from dangerous ppl. It’s pretty simple. How can you know someone is dangerous and just turn your back and walk away? There are no avenues to suggest what we should do about such kids. Over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock and never have a father figure in their life. The Mothers struggle to earn a living and when these kids … both boys and girls … get old enough, they start runnin roughshod over the mother. A woman alone can only do so much. I don’t claim to have the answers, but I DO KNOW that the law abiding public must be protected from kids that are a known problem. You have students that verbally and physically abuse teachers. When did this become acceptable. You have kids that mouth off to law enforcement. When did THAT become acceptable. or number ONE, have no respect for their parents. We live in a society that has rules and regs. Some we like, some we don’t, but nevertheless, it’s in place to provide fair treatment to all and a safe environment for all. When you see a kid begin to have problems with authority figures, you better do a heads up. I myself at my age have problems with authority, but I’m too old to take a beating by cops or knock myself out cause I don’t like what somebody says or does that has power over me. Whoever they may be. You gain wisdom as you get older and know when to keep your mouth shut and sit down. it’s a rough world out there …

  13. eastern2western says:

    the defense also needs a copy of the politano confession. thank uncle joey for the good cop routine because he probably charmed the pants off crumpl and made him forgot about the camera that was sitting in front of him. thank you uncle joey.

    • hooson1st says:

      Notice that Mr. Crump does not answer the question.

      • rumpole2 says:

        He confesses to editing though… he must have edited something.. so he had to have an original that he failed to supply when ordered to.

      • eastern2western says:

        He confessed to the question. He said, ” it was a bad recording and they had to stop, rerecord just to get it right.” that is a confession.

        • nomatter_nevermind says:

          A confession of what?

        • How would he have know it was a bad recording? Did he stop to listen to the tape to see how well it was capturing the audio? Did he have a sound guy? That does not make sense!

          I guess what he means is that the witness was not saying what she should have, and therefore he had to re-wind the tape to overwright the “bad” audio with the “good” audio. Does he say “this is take 2″ or “this is take 27 anywhere”?

          • John Galt says:

            “How would he have know it was a bad recording?”

            He probably realized that all the prodding would sound bad.

            “ABC was there exclusively as an attorney for Martin’s family prodded her”

      • hooson1st says:

        From the Crumpspeak playbook – anytime that Mr. Crump answers a question starting with ” Remember, I want to be clear now…” don’t expect an answer to your question.

        • libby says:

          remember, I want to be clear, but to do so would mean incriminating myself, so I am gonna have to lie through my entire testimony

      • libby says:

        He did admit to not knowing how to use a phone, though.

    • hawkhawkhawk says:

      “Remember, and I wanna be clear about this. When we’re trying to record this device..”

      Record this device? Maybe Crump’s words just came out wrong or it was possibly a slight slip that what was handed over to FDLE was in fact the edited recording of the original(audible) recording. It does seem to me, what many people have already mentioned, that the original recording was damaging to prosecution. It’s likely he recorded only portions of the original(12 min worth) to hand-over claiming it was the original while also mentioning “it’s a bad recording” & “and we go back and re-record” as a cover-up.

      • John Galt says:

        Yes, he may have recorded snippets of Gutman’s recording.

      • eastern2western says:

        what gave him the right to improve the recording of the first dd interview? he is either an officer of the court or an attorney of the prosecution. By telling politano he tried to improve the quality of the recording is a clear confession of evidence manipulation.

        • John Galt says:

          The police interview report also documents tampering with Austin’s testimony.

          • LetJusticePrevail says:

            And what about witness 18′s testimony? She was interviewed on 3/16 by an investigator hired by Natalie Jackson! If there was nothing going on there, why did she feel compelled to meet with the Investigators from the FDLE in the office of her attorney? What is SHE not telling us about the 3/16 interview?

  14. howie says:

    Lakes Edge Apartments is right next to the 711. Between 711 and Twin Lakes Condo.They are getting a video from there. I wonder if that is where the Stooges live?

    • John Galt says:

      Does it have an awning where you can pack a blunt out of the rain?

      • howie says:

        Yes in the pool area. It is directly between the shortcut and the 711. You can see it in the arial photo.

      • howie says:

        There appears to be a path to take behind there to get to the shortcut from Lakes edge Apartments. along the lake.

      • ottawa925 says:

        John, that’s another thing. DD’s description of where Trayvon went to get out from under the rain. TO ME, it sounds like she was TOLD what to call it in the interview, but could not remember when going through the story. If I remember correctly, she refers to it as “mail thingy” or “mail thing”. Why not just say, he found cover from the rain. Or he was looking for shelter and found it at the clubhouse. Someone told her to say “mail”. Why she did not say what I propose she should/could have said is because Crump wanted her to provide a LOCATION. The mail thingy. I doubt Trayvon told her “mail thingy”. “Thingy” or “Thing” was a substitute for the word she was told to say, but could not remember. That’s my theory and I’m stuck with it. lol

        • partyof0 says:

          Reports called it a “Kiosk”…I believe….but…she couldn’t remember that word (the actual word that Trayvon said to her that night)…she probably had to ask Trayvon what a Kiosk was when she originally ask…that is…one of the many times she asked Trayvon…”where you be now”…so TM had to explained to her what a kiosk was…”It’s a mail thingy…but it’s raining right now and I have to put my hoody on now…I’ll let you know when I take my hoody off my head…if it stops raining or I get too hot…but I will let you know too when I move out from underneath the mail thingy if it stops raining …but…THEN….I’ll have to tell you what my next move is…but right now I’m looking around at a security lamp………so on and so on and so on…..

          Well you know how 400 minutes of talking goes….what the normal teen does everyday…

          • ottawa925 says:

            I don’t think Trayvon knew Kiosk either. Can I be honest? I never heard of that word till you told me. In my neck of the woods we probably would have referred to it as an overhang, canope, awning, roof,

            • jello333 says:

              Trayvon didn’t tell Dee Dee ANYTHING about where he was taking shelter. No “mail thing”, no “shed”, no “place with an overhang”, no nothing. Along with 90% of the other stuff Dee Dee claims Trayvon said to her, it was all contrived by the Scheme Team in an attempt to sync with the then-known information.

        • howie says:

          I can see it. Uhhh. DD I am going in to the mail thing now. It is like a shed and has a roof…Now I put up my Hoodie cause wet things are falling out of the sky. Come on. What a lame hoax. Amos and Andy could not be worse than this.

    • nomatter_nevermind says:

      The Lakes Edge video is the subject of a report (67/284). I’ve done a photoset on it.

      • ottawa925 says:

        I noticed you had 7-11 and Jeweler. I presume Jeweler is an actual jeweler where they sell jewelry? no? A jeweler does not have security cameras on outside? in this day and age? next to a 7-11 that draws all kinds of ppl?

        • nomatter_nevermind says:

          Yes, it’s an actual jewelry shop. I don’t know if it had a camera. I don’t recall seeing any mention of it in the discovery.

          • eastern2western says:

            most jewelry shops have an interior camera.

            • ottawa925 says:

              If they get away however, and a car is used, an exterior camera could catch the license plate and description of car. If I was a jeweler .. I would have both. Cameras are pretty inexpensive these days, and insurance companies like to hear you have them.

              • nomatter_nevermind says:

                I should have mentioned that the picture is taken from a Google Earth street view that was made in April of 2011. By February 2012 the jewelry shop might have become something else.

        • nomatter_nevermind says:

          I had forgotten how I knew it was a jewelry shop.

          The storefront sign is legible in the lightbox version. You can see it better in fullscreen mode (click on bar at upper right).

          BUY – SELL – REPAIR
          JEWELRY

          The last two letters of ‘REPAIR’ are obscured by some leaves of a nearby tree.

  15. partyof0 says:

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who has thought this…but the Prosecution is stonewalling with discovery in an attempt to…at the last minute…dump as MUCH irrelevant information on the defense so that the defense will have to go through all of this pile of nonsense to try to pick out themselves what is pertinent and what is not…Is this a routine tactic by prosecutors??

  16. tara says:

    I was just re-reading the vomit-inducing Esquire profile of Trademark and his parents. Esquire stated that Tracy once took Trademark “to feed the homeless“, but Tracy refused to name the organization “probably because they were Masons and the Internet is full of people who still think the Freemasons are an international conspiracy.” Seriously? Wouldn’t it be far more likely that Tracy refused to name the organization BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED? Esquire talks glowingly about Tracy’s relationship with girlfriend Brandy but fails to mention that Tracy is still married. Esquire also stated that “they” (Tracy and ex-wife? Tracy and wife? Tracy and mistress?) were going to buy a car for Trademark because in January he had taken the written driver’s test online. So why didn’t Trademark have a driver’s license? He had no ID on him, that’s why he was stuck in the morgue unidentified for more than 12 hours.

    Most disturbing though was the claim that Tracy saw Trademark on Sunday. Esquire stated that on Sunday morning when Trademark and cousin Stephen woke up, “Tracy gave [Trademark] a couple boxes of clothes he didn’t want and [Trademark] helped him carry them out to the car.” Esquire even included some dialogue between Trademark and Tracy … “When are we goin’ home?“, “We’re going home tomorrow.“, “A’ight, man.“. But Tracy told investigators that the last time he saw Trademark was on Saturday night after Chad’s football game! (See page 40 of the 284-page collection of discovery docs.)

    For those of you who are wondering what route Trademark used between the 7-11 and the condo community, apparently cousin Stephen (“Boobie”) knows and he provides some clues: “Or he’s walking Trayvon’s last walk, which he did for real a couple of days after Trayvon passed. He walks out of the house down that empty street, past the clubhouse and through the shortcut and down the grass path along the side of the road.” Not all of the detail we would like to have, but the mention of a shortcut implies that he wasn’t walking along the roads the entire way.

    http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/trayvon-martin-1212-2

    • tara says:

      I’m looking at page 145 of the 284-page set of discovery docs, a crude diagram of the evidence at the scene with some measurements. I wonder why Trademark’s phone is so far away from his body, about 9 feet away if I’m reading the diagram correctly, and maybe 40 feet south of the sidewalk T? But GZ’s keys & flashlight were right by the T. Has anyone been able to speculate how the objects are in those locations ? I can’t imagine that GZ would have dropped his keys & flashlight there for no reason, and he did say it was there that Trademark initiated the physical fight. But according to DeeDee she heard Trademark verbally confront GZ just before it sounded like his phone fell, so was Trademark 40 feet south of the T when he yelled “Why’re you followin me for?”

      Did Crump have access to this diagram before he conducted the DD interview? And did Crump have access to GZ’s account of the incident before he conducted the DD interview?

      • eastern2western says:

        It is very likely a rush job because dd’s story does not match with circumstantial evidences.

      • John Galt says:

        “Has anyone been able to speculate how the objects are in those locations ? I can’t imagine that GZ would have dropped his keys & flashlight there for no reason, and he did say it was there that Trademark initiated the physical fight. But according to DeeDee she heard Trademark verbally confront GZ just before it sounded like his phone fell, so was Trademark 40 feet south of the T when he yelled “Why’re you followin me for?” ”

        My speculation is that it happened pretty close to how Z related to the cops (see reenactment video).

        If we want to believe DD, then I guess we could speculate that Z saw Trayvon, dropped his keys and flashlight in excitement, walked quickly up to Trayvon, exchanged words, pushed him, somehow causing the phone to fall. After which Trayvon punched and mounted Z. This of course requires ignoring the distances and timeline pursuant to which Trayvon would have already been home, unless he was waiting to assault Z. And we must also believe that DD heard Trayvon say “get off, get off” about the time another witness saw Trayvon on top of Z, beating him MMA style.

        • hooson1st says:

          “But according to DeeDee she heard Trademark verbally confront GZ just before it sounded like his phone fell, so was Trademark 40 feet south of the T when he yelled “Why’re you followin me for?” ””

          And bear in mind that, thanks to the bungling by Mr. Crump and who knows who else, DeeDee’s account was likely already influenced by what she had been told and heard, prior to, her account given to Gutman and later to BDLR.

          • John Galt says:

            I agree, except substitute “tampering” for “bungling”.

          • ottawa925 says:

            Who said “Why you followin me for?” first … George or DD? George made his statements to police (Serino) almost immediately when he he gave a statement as to what was said. THAT statement could have been fed to DD very easily. The statement is almost the same by both. George I believe said it FIRST. In fact, virtually GZ recounted could have been fed to DD and just changed up to make it SOUND like GZ was aggressor which IMO doesn’t anyway. Very hard to prove you HEARD who the aggressor was in this incident.

            • boutis says:

              This is where the evidence and statements collected SPD being leaked to Crump comes in. Who had access to what and who was it being passed on to. This is why the city manager and the mayor, as well as any SPD employees meeting, phoning, or emailing with the Scheme Team and any of their auxiliary operatives and passing info gets very interesting.

              • ottawa925 says:

                Well, video of those interviews between Serino and GZ were released to media. Were the videos released before DD gave her interview with Crump? My point in saying this is that they didn’t necessarily have to be leaked in secret to Crump, but were put out there by media. Anyone could take GZ’s statements and then re-arrange in order to make their case for Trayvon. What GZ SAID (his statements to Serino) should have remained under wraps until and after ALL interviews with witnesses were OVER. Each witness not knowing the story told by GZ, or any other witness. Everyone gets locked into their story and you see how it all stacks up. That’s how they knew they could create a DD. Again, until we see solid proof she was on the phone with him …. but perhaps she was because then why would prosecution be working on her interview so hard? They could just disprove she was ever on the phone with him and not knock themselves out on the rest.

                • nettles18 says:

                  Here’s a good window into what Police had shared with Tracy when they put DD’s narrative together. Tracy recounts to the reporter what he was told George Zimmerman said to police. So bear in mind, they had this information and the calls to construct the story.

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tracy-martin-recounts-police-version-of-son-trayvons-death/2012/03/28/gIQA6MKhhS_story.html

                  There’s a fine line police have to walk to not give out information b/c it could jeopardize it but there is a need to tell the grieving family something. In hindsight, way too much information was shared with the family. I read in discovery when GZ phoned to see how the investigation was going they shut him down and said they couldn’t comment on an ongoing investigation. They should have done that with the family too, but Crump applied way too much pressure to allow a no comment.

                  • ottawa925 says:

                    Nettles, thank you for that video.

                    Can someone remind me:

                    1. Date Crump did interview with DD
                    2. Date BDLR did inteview with DD.

                    Thanks in advance.

                • jordan2222 says:

                  I think we have two schools of thought here. One does not believe she talked to him in the minutes before before the altercation. The phone records and ping logs should end that discussion. O’Mara should have that information by now and hopefully we will all know before the next hearing but isn’t it the State’s responsibility to prove conclusively that the conversation occurred? This is yet another absurdity.

                  • howie says:

                    I think she was talking to him. That is my hunch. He was talking to somebody. These kids really do spend 24/7 on their phones. You see them everywhere holding their phones out and following them around. Oblivious to the world. I think she corroborates Zimmerman. Of course her hearsay is not total recall and such and is coached and biased. There is no way she would tell the 100% truth and go against her fellow blacks. Who knows. The unveiling will be not what we expect anyways.

                • nettles18 says:

                  Can someone remind me:

                  1. Date Crump did interview with DD
                  2. Date BDLR did inteview with DD.

                  1. March 19th
                  2. April 2nd

        • lovemygirl says:

          On the phone, the headset may have disconnected early on but the phone fell from the holder on his pants later?

        • justfactsplz says:

          This is what I believe: The phone that was found forty feet from Trayvon was not his phone!

          • jordan2222 says:

            You have never wavered about the issue of two phones so I am left to speculate that you know something that the rest of us don’t. What you have consistently said makes sense to me, even it doesn’t to some others here.

            MOM did NOT answer my question about “the other” phone. In the context of his reply, there must be a reason for that. Otherwise, he would have just said, “no.”

            The defense examination of “one of the phones” should now be complete according to what he said.

            I suspect DMan knows more than what he has posted. Is there something else you know that you can share?

            This entire thing is baffling. Isn’t it? Someone is lying.

            • justfactsplz says:

              “Someone is lying.” I would say more than one, Tracey and Crump, maybe more. It is baffling that it is taking so long for evidence to get into Omara’s hands. Things I have known for a long time have and are coming to light. For ex ample, when they said George had no injuries and the video was shown at sally port, I knew he had injuries, and eventually that evidence did come out. I came to know certain things from a couple of reliable sources and I have no reason to believe that these people would lie about the evidence. Follow what is out there now and is coming concerning phones. I believe the phone at the scene will be proven to not be Trayvon’s. I believe it was very hard for investigators to get their hands on Trayvon’s phone, that someone tried to erase things from his phone, and that forensics experts were able to retrieve some of the erased information. If this evidence does not come out then I fear someone has messed with this evidence because at one time early on it did exist. The things that have happened in this case I once would have never believed it could happen in America. Nothing would surprise me now. If there was proof that Trayvon was talking to Dee Dee on that heart sticker phone found at the scene, Tracey would have gladly handed over the pin number to investigators.

    • lovemygirl says:

      I see the typical “proof” that GZ must have attacked TM.

      “He had to put his hand on Tray ’cause Tray would definitely defend hisself, Stephen says. If somebody’s puttin’ their hands on you, you defend yourself. They been taught this ever since they been goin’ to school. Don’t start nothing, but defend yourself.”

      • John Galt says:

        “If somebody’s puttin’ their hands on you, you defend yourself. They been taught this ever since they been goin’ to school. Don’t start nothing, but defend yourself.”

        I wonder if they teach “ground and pound” ?

    • libby says:

      TRESSPASSING is a crime !

  17. howie says:

    Now. What if any of these videos has a picture of little Chad in them?

  18. eastern2western says:

    people who believe zimmerman had any size advantage because he was fatter do not have any common sense at all. In running, the lighter guy always will win because he is carrying less weight. In the case of zimmerman vs trayvon, it is practically impossible for zimmerman to even know where trayvon went because he was talking to the cops while trayvon had a two minute start before him. If this farce ever arrives to a trial, I want to actually hear how the prosecution manage to explain how did zimmerman managed to suddenly appeared out of no where when he clearly had already lost him.

    • lovemygirl says:

      I believe they are relying on W#2′s original statement and will say GZ went South after hanging up, found TM and chased him back to the “T”. That is all I can think of.

      • eastern2western says:

        yes, the shadow witness.

      • eastern2western says:

        If they are going to use shadow witnesses, then they should also enlist the help of trent sawyer because he is the number one shadow expert in the world. I feel sorry for the delusional fool. Kid claimes all of the moving cars are from zimmerman accomplices, but moron probably does not even realize a lot of cars came in and out of the housing complex after the shooting. major failure.

        • ottawa925 says:

          arey ou kidding “enlist the help of trent sawyer” … he’d sit on the stand and yell at the Judge … “Leave Britney ALONE !!!!”

    • John Galt says:

      “I want to actually hear how the prosecution manage to explain how did zimmerman managed to suddenly appeared out of no where when he clearly had already lost him.”

      Fast walked him down, if we believe DD. Yes, according to DD, the 5’8″ big old white dude walked the 6′ + kid down.

      Trayvon run for it. And then the man, and then he say he lost the man, and then the man come, and then Trayvon say the man was following him. [:14] And then Trayvon ask Trayvon run. And Trayvon say he ain’t gonna run like that. He gonna walk fast from the back. And the man was just following him [unintelligible] like walking to him like fast [:26] like when Trayvon walking fast he was walking fast [unintelligible] like he getting close by him, he getting close by him. [:32] I say run and Trayvon say he’s not going to run. [:36]

    • ottawa925 says:

      and DD/W8 says in her recounting that Trayvon TOLD HER he gave GZ the slip.

  19. eastern2western says:

    the whole narrative of trayvon being in fear of zimmerman is complete bs. trayvon was at least 6’3” when he was alive and zimmerman was about 5’8”. basically, zimmerman is a midget comparing to trayvon and he would probably get his ass kicked if he ever tries to run towards trayvon.

  20. eastern2western says:

    bringing al sharpton into the case is another sign of failure because everything that man touched had turned into turd.

  21. tara says:

    I’m sorry, I’m sure you all discussed this somewhere, but for my benefit and the benefit of others who haven’t yet seen it …

    In the 10th supplemental, on page 41, Serino wrote:

    “[Trademark] was a high school student with no criminal background. When asked as to his propensity towards violence, his father, Mr. Tracy Martin, states his son was a well-mannered, non-violent child. A local Miami Gardens Police Department background check revealed one field contact conducted in November of 2011. Martin was a guest of [Brandy Green] who resides on Retreat View Circle, and he had been sent there by his father due to having been suspended for ten days from his high school in Miami Gardens for possession of cannabis. He had been in Sanford for seven days prior to this event.

    Three things bugging me here. First, a “field contact” in Nov 2011. That’s a police visit to Trademark’s home, correct? Maybe my family is unusual, but the police never came to our house, ever. Also the mention of being suspended for possession of cannabis, I thought Team Skittles was claiming he’d been suspended for some non-drug reason? Graffiti? And then the thing about Trademark being in Sanford for seven days prior to the shooting … Tracy Martin told investigators that he dropped Trademark off with Brandy halfway between Miami and Sanford on Tuesday (see pg 40 of the 284-page discovery docs). Trayvon was killed on Sunday. That wouldn’t be seven days. I wonder where Serino got the seven days thing from, an initial interview with Martin? I’m going to have to dig for that.

  22. lovemygirl says:

    Speaking of liability, the two “experts” that analyzed the 911 tapes and concluded it was not George (ABC hired them I think) have to be near the top of the list for causing GZ harm. If they had concluded it was likely GZ then this case would have taken a much different public relations turn.

    • brutalhonesty says:

      I still cant get over the idea that a 47% match to gz proves its not gz while a 0% match to tm proves it is tm…..47% is approx 50% which is 1 of 2 which is a given as its either tm or gz.

      • jello333 says:

        And under the circumstances — seeing how the two voice samples used (the NEN call and the “scream” tape) are SO different — a 47% positive match seems VERY HIGH. So I think their conclusions were exactly the opposite of what they should have been.

    • howie says:

      They are probly already broke and a waste of time.

  23. brutalhonesty says:

    global grind is at it again:
    http://globalgrind.com/news/mark-omara-george-zimmerman-attorneys-reveal-evidence-they-will-use-details

    They show omaras just released reciprocal discovery and present it as if 1 we saw it and know what any of it means 2 it is the totality of the defenses case…….then they ask “is this enough to keep gz out of jail”.

  24. brutalhonesty says:

    randy hahn proves our racism? ok, then doesn’t this prove alot about them, given robert/george admonishes hahns comment whereas jftm embraced plies support?
    http://whatthehayell.com/2012/03/27/offensive-py-crcker-tshirt-picture-trayvon-martins-killer-sale/

  25. eastern2western says:


    sabrina fulton has absolutely no shame at all. The defense is slowly exposing trayvon as the attacker, but she still ignorant enough to bring her team of lawyers to ask florida voters to appeal a law that gives them the right of self defense. and they are still keeping that exact same narrative of martin was killed for walking home and still ignore the whole punching zimmerman’s face until bloody pulp, I hope the defense will soon expose all of them as fradulent leeches and the florida bar will evoke crump and park’s licenses.

    • jello333 says:

      Every time I see pictures of them, or any of the “events” they’re involved in, it’s almost 100% black people. And so all I can think, and I don’t think it’s unfair at all, is…. they’re a bunch of RACISTS.

      • howie says:

        No, you don’t understand. The only people who can be racists are white. It is impossible for a black person to be a racist. Just because they are black. The term no longer means what you think. Just ask them. You have to learn the new PC language.

      • eastern2western says:

        actually, there is a token white guy standing some where in the back.

    • eastern2western says:

      I personally can not believe the audacity of this woman who is still hanging on the narrative it was completely zimmerman’s fault and he does not deserve to defend himself because he called the cops and followed orders, she has no shame and her stupid lawyers are still trying to sell their fraud to the public.

    • justfactsplz says:

      I too hope they are exposed for what they are. They are too stupid to realize George is not using the Stand Your Ground Law. It is all about law suits, trying to repeal the SYG Law. How they can get up in front of microphone knowing what is about to be exposed about their son and them is beyond my comprehension.

    • stobberdobber says:

      What does Newtown and Aurora have to do with Stand Your Ground? Why would Crump even dare to mention those incidents? What an ARSE!

  26. ottawa925 says:

    I just want to say that I think a good long list of robbery/murders by black 17 year olds (like in today’s opening thread about the soldier and wife shot and killed) should be apart of the defense strategy to the jury if it gets that far. All you hear from the bots is how Trayvon weren’t doin nuthin. Not recognized as a member of the community, a hoodie, acting strange, and wandering around in the rain looking at houses, …. yes, a reading of recent robbery/murders by black teens around Trayvon’s age would be in order to drive home why ppl have become so aware of their surroundings, and to drive home that it is NOT impossible for black teens to commit these types of crimes, and that it is in fact, out of control, making it imperitive for ppl to notice suspicious activity in their community.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s