Benjamin Crump – Attorney and Manipulative Liar…. The Modern Al Sharpton

What Tawana Brawley was to Al Sharpton – So too is Witness 8 To Benjamin Crump

Benjamin Crump 2 Sharpton-JacksonAl Sharpton

RdG outlined the evidence of yet another obvious lie by Benjamin Crump we had previously missed:

When Crump filed his affidavit he claimed he never had contact with Witness 8 following the initial 3/19/12 telephonic interview with ABC et al:

Crump Scheme 1.4

However, the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement contradicts that claim.

April 2 - BDLR interview DeeDee

Previously we had shared – – – Each week when the participants in the prosecution of the State of Florida VS. George Zimmerman speak we are astounded that no-one in the legacy media finds enough courage to factually investigate this case.

Crump Presser

“her [Witness #8] testimony, her sworn testimony, connects the dots; Completely connects the dots of this whole thing; Her testimony completly destroys George Zimmerman” – Benjamin Crump March 20th Press Conference

Specifically, the fraud that is the storyline around Witness #8 “Dee Dee” the supposed girlfriend of Trayvon Martin.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Natalie Jackson and Benjamin Crump

Natalie Jackson and Benjamin Crump

Initially she was sold to the media on March 20th as a 16-year-old girl, a minor, a sweetheart, who was devastated at the tragic loss of her 17-year-old “puppy love”. A girl who was on the phone with Trayvon when he encountered George Zimmerman. Benjamin Crump played an audio recording of her statement proving his claims. The media ran with that story, and, for the most part, actually still does.

The prosecution then used her *tender age* as a shield of anonymity to protect her from the ruthless hounds of media interest. (Watch Video)

The State of Florida argued before Judge Lester that her minor status meant she needed additional protections. This, despite the fact she never once contacted law enforcement, never once called Trayvon’s Mom or Dad, and was essentially non-existent until Trayvon family attorney Benjamin Crump discovered her and presented her story to the world.

Indeed, even Trayvon’s Dad, Tracy Martin, and his Mom, Sybrina Fulton, supposedly had never heard of this “girlfriend”.

But yet she was on the phone with Trayvon for 400 minutes on the day he died? She was devastated, so much so she was hospitalized and could not attend the funeral. Yet, no-one in the family knew her?….. or so the story was sold.

ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager’s life. Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said.

Trayvon’s phone logs, also obtained exclusively by ABC News, show the conversation occurred five minutes before police first arrived on the scene. Crump said the girl’s identity was being withheld because “her parents are gravely concerned about her health and her safety.” Her parents asked that only an attorney be allowed to ask her questions. (link)

However, incredulous as it may seem, as the actual case against George Zimmerman was presented in legal discovery, it is revealed the woman who talked to the State prosecution on April 2nd, who gave a sworn statement, and who framed the Probable Cause Affidavit for arrest, was not a minor at all. She was, on April 2nd, according to them, eighteen years old. C’mon, seriously? This thing stinks worse than rotten eggs.

Sabrina Fulton - Tracy Martin - Benjamin

So did the Martin family just make up a story to hide her, or was there something more sinister about it. Was the March 18, 19th Dee Dee who swore a story to Benjamin Crump, and ABC News’s Matt Gutman, the same person as the April 2nd Dee Dee who swore a statement to the State of Florida?

After the state initially used her minor status to hide her identity; And after the state sought to hide her address when requested by the defense; And after the numerous conflicting descriptives; And after listening to her sworn statements; And after listening to her recorded interview with Ben Crump…… We have asserted it was not.

The March 20th (16-year-old) DeeDee that Crump used to create his “media evidence”, was NOT the same (18-year-old) person who talked to the State of Florida on April 2nd.

But, anyone would say “no-way”, “c’ mon”, “obviously they’d get caught”…. right?

Not. So. Fast.

Earlier this year, Martin Family attorney Benjamin Crump appeared in court for a hearing, only this time he was not alone.   This time he brought legal counsel, Bruce B Blackwell – Attorney At Law, from Orlando.

Crump lawyer

The Defense was still trying to get to the bottom of who exactly Dee Dee is, and the story of her that was presented by Ben Crump that obviously does not match the witness descriptives now given by the State of Florida;  Who, by the way,  refused until April 2013 to provide the specifics of her identity.

However, in April they were forced to deliver her for a deposition.

As the defense tries to unravel the enigma that is DeeDee, and get answers to this mysterious March 19th “telephonic interview”; The one that framed the entire construct of the media narrative, Ben Crump shows up in court with an attorney, on the date of his previously scheduled deposition, to file a brief and avoid being deposed.

However, within the actual Supportive Motion for a Protective Order (ie. he ain’t talking) presented to the court – the evidence of the false story that is Dee Dee is EVEN MORE painfully obvious.

Crump Scheme 1.1

In the motion to protect himself from deposition, attorney Benjamin Crump is claiming that on March 19th when he interviewed the bombshell witness #8, DEE DEE, he never asked her for her full name (surname) or address? (page 6 – item #18)



This is just one angle to obfuscate and avoid the potential for liability form the fraudulent affirmation of a supposed witness? “I didn’t ask her name or address”? This is ridiculous.

Or is it?

It certainly looks like this is his approach at presenting “plausible deniability” for the fraudulent story. If he didn’t know her name or address, then how can he be sure the person who showed up for the April 2nd statement with the State Prosecution is the same person – after all, he tried to claim he only met her once?

Alas, there is evidence to prove that is not accurate.   Benjamin Crump was there, in Sybrina Martin’s apartment, on April 2nd 2012, when Witness 8 talked to the State prosecutor, Bernie De La Rionda.


You should refresh on exactly what Benjamin Crump said about DeeDee on March 20th. This is a portion of the CNN transcript:

[...] We took another step in this — what has been a daily journey for the past three and a half weeks. Mr. Martin, on Sunday evening, was working with his cell phone account, trying to figure out Trayvon’s password. And he looked on it, and he saw who the last person was that Trayvon Martin talked to while he was alive.

He called me late Sunday night and told me that he had called the young lady, and he told me, and I was just utterly shocked when he told me the time that they talked. They had talked all that day, about 400 minutes, starting that morning to the afternoon. Like many teenagers do, they talked on the phones. And all his family and friends knew Trayvon would have his ear plugs in his ear and he would have his phone on the side of his pocket. It was no different that day. His father and mother talked about, a lot of times, they would wake up and he’ll be on the phone talking to his friends.

Well, what George Zimmerman said to the police about him being suspicious and up to no good is completely contradicted by this phone log, showing, all day, he was just talking to his friends. And in fact, he was talking to this young lady when he went to the 7-11 and when he came back from the 7-11. I’m going to get into that in detail because her testimony, her testimony that is shown on these phone logs, connects the dots. Completely connects the dots of this whole thing.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s really important to note, and you can follow along because we now have the 911 calls. And we have Zimmerman’s call to the phone, the police dispatcher. And you can follow audio, every account now. Never, in any account, other than George Zimmerman, this neighborhood association loose cannon, does anybody say that Trayvon Martin was up to no good, that he seemed high or anything and in fact. This young lady details it completely, the tone of the conversation and the nature of the conversation, and what was happening the last minutes of his life. I will ask you — her parents does (ph) not in any way want to reveal her identity. She is a minor. Her parents are very worried about her. She is traumatized over this. This was her really, really close personal friend. They were dating. And so it’s a situation where to know that you were the last person to talk to the young man who you thought was one of the most special people in the world to you, and know that he got killed moments after he was talking to you, is just riveting to this young lady.

In fact, she couldn’t even go to his wake she was so sick. Her mother had to take her to the hospital. She spent the night in the hospital. She is traumatized beyond anything you could imagine. And we all were teenagers, so we can imagine how that is when you think somebody’s really special, and you call it puppy love or whatever you want to call it. Then suddenly and tragically, this is taken away and you have, unfortunately, a first-hand account of it. So I will ask you again on behalf of the family and on behalf of the young lady’s family if you would please respect their privacy. She is a minor.

Now, details. That day Trayvon Martin, 17 years old, three weeks, weighed about 140 to 150 pounds soaking wet, as his mother says, and that’s with his shoes on, leaves to go to the store to get some snacks before the NBA all-star game is about to start. His little step-brother asked for him to bring some Skittles back and something to drink.

He is talking to the young lady, as he walks to the store. The phone records show — you get copies of these phone records, they will show you the times the calls were made and how long he was on the phone. And it is without any doubt that he’s on the phone the entire time during the day. especially when he is going to that store and coming back.

You will see that he goes to the store talking to her. And then when he comes back he’s talking to her. This is what she relays. And I’ll share with you some of the audio. We’re going to turn this over to the Department of Justice and their investigation because the family does not trust the Sanford Police Department in anything to do with the investigation.

She relays how he went to the store. When he came out from the store, he said it was starting to rain, he was going to try to make it home before it rained. Then he tells her it starts raining hard. He runs into the apartment complex and runs to the first building he sees to try to get out of the rain. He was trying to get shelter. So he tries to get out of the rain.

And unbeknownst to him, he is being watched. He is a kid trying to get home from the store and get out of the rain. That’s it. Nothing else. So, he stands under that apartment building for a few minutes, the rain kind of dies down. He then goes, and he has his hoodie on because it’s raining and he goes back to walking. And he goes back to talking to her again. You’ll see the phone calls when it came in at 6:54. He then says, I think this dude is following me. And she talks about how he kind of slows down and he’s trying to look in the car like, I think this dude is following me. And she tells him, baby, be careful, just run home. She tells him that.

And you remember from the 911 tape, Zimmerman tells the police, oh, he’s coming at me, he’s looking at me, he’s checking me out. He had no idea who this man was who was following him. So he starts to run and then what do we know from Zimmerman’s 911 call that you heard the recording, Zimmerman gets out of his car and pursues him.

How do we know? One thing the dispatcher says, are you chasing him, and he says yes, and we hear him breathing hard. And they said we don’t need you to do that. And Zimmerman says OK. But as the dispatcher asks Zimmerman where can we — where will you be, where will you be in the truck, you remember his answer. He says just call me on my cell phone. He had no intention of getting back in his truck, doing what the police instructed him to do. He kept pursuing Trayvon Martin.

How do we know? Because this young lady connects the dots. She connects the dots. She completely blows Zimmerman’s absurd defense claim out of the water. She says that Trayvon says he’s going to try to lose him. He’s running trying to lose him. He tells her, I think I lost him. So, he’s walking and then she says that he says very simply, oh, he’s right behind me. He’s right behind me again.

And so she says “run.” He says, I’m not going to run. I’m going to walk fast. At that point, she says Trayvon — she hears Trayvon say, why are you following me. She hears the other boy say, what are you doing around here. And again, Trayvon says, why are you following me. And that’s when she says again he said, what are you doing around here. Trayvon is pushed. The reason she concludes, because his voice changes like something interrupted his speech. Then the other thing, she believes the earplug fell out of his ear. She can hear faint noises but no longer has the contact. She hears an altercation going and she says, then suddenly, somebody must have hit the phone and it went out because that’s the last she hears. (full transcript here)

But he never asked for her full name and/or address?

Oh, it gets better: (page 7)

Crump Scheme 1.2

So he got permission from her, AND her family (yet, according to 4/2 sworn statement she was *NOT* a minor) and questioned her about legal representation, but did not ask for her last name or address? Seriously?

Crump Scheme 1.3

An interview in a non-disclosed “South Florida” location, with unnamed “certain other family members”, and consent from a witness and her parents that you did not ask the last name or address of? Seriously?

Crump Scheme 1.4

#33 This one is insufferably creationary for plausible deniability of the FRAUD.

Benjamin Crump wants you, the defense and the court to believe that after the March 19th interview with “Dee Dee”, the devastated, minor child and puppy love of Trayvon Martin, he never spoke to her EVER AGAIN.


Well, if that is true, then how exactly did the State get in touch with her? AND why would FDLE be claiming Crump was present when W8 arrived on 4/2/12?

Perhaps we should go back to what Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, was saying on March 27th [one week after Ben Crump introduced Dee Dee] Again, on CNN:

PAM BONDI, FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, Piers, first let me tell you. I’ve spoken to Trayvon’s parents. They are amazing, sweet, kind people. My heart goes out to them. I’m actually friends with their attorneys Ben Crump and Daryl Parks. They’re wonderful lawyers who are representing them.

What my — I have no legal role as attorney general in the state of Florida. That authority is left to the state attorneys. But what I did do was I discussed with the governor the appointment of Angela Corey, a special prosecutor in Jacksonville who’s well removed from the case. She’s absolutely excellent. And the Florida Department of Law Enforcement are now involved in the case.

The reason, Piers, I can’t comment on “Stand Your Ground,” whether that applies here because there are too many unanswered questions. And, you know, that’s why the family is rightfully upset. When you have an innocent 17-year-old boy walking home with Skittles and an iced tea and he’s killed, you have to have answers, not questions. And that’s what we need in our state.

MORGAN: Yes, I mean, look, I am encouraged by what you’re saying. It’s good that a senior lawmaker in Florida is saying all this, but in the end, you know, I remain like many people absolutely bemused that somebody can shoot somebody in cold blood, an unarmed young teenager.

And so, I mean, I just think with your legal training and your legal background on what appears to be a very empathetic attitude towards this case, it might be quite powerful for the attorney general of Florida to say publicly, you know what? This guy should be arrested. He should be interviewed under caution and he should, if necessary, face charges. But he should be at stage one of the legal process of being under arrest.

BONDI: Well, what we’ve done is appoint a special prosecutor. And that’s what she’s doing. Conducting a thorough investigation because we need to get Trayvon’s girlfriend to cooperate which I don’t know if was happening previously. And they may have had good reason for that. But she’s cooperating now. And again, a thorough investigation is being done to ensure that justice is sought for that family.

But you can’t make an arrest until you interview all the witnesses, Piers. Nor do you want that to happen because a speedy trial could run. And — then that’s — we don’t want that to happen. And all I can tell you is we have a great prosecutor on the case. We have great law enforcement agencies. The Department of Justice is looking at this. (Full Transcript)

On March 27th, when Pam Bondi made this media statement, the Martin Family and attorney Benjamin Crump were in Washington DC attending Congressional Hearings.

But four days earlier on Friday March 23rd, only 3 days after Crump delivered the story of Dee Dee, the media were reporting that Norm Wolfinger had subpoenaed her. This was the exact same date that Angela Corey took over as the State Special prosecutor.

If Benjamin Crump did NOT know Dee Dee’s full name and address, and she had NOT talked to anyone else, then how exactly could Norm Wolfinger, the district attorney, send her a subpoena only 3 days after the phone interview ?  Obviously he couldn’t.

And if “justice” was the quest of the Martin family, as Ben Crump repeated ad infinitum, and he was providing information to secure the arrest of George Zimmerman, which he outlines as the primary motivation in this motion to the court, is it really credible to claim that he never knew of her name and/or address?

……and once known, he never sought to talk to her again? EVER?

Crump Scheme 1.5

So here’s the story they want you to believe. Benjamin Crump “officially” introduces DeeDee on Tuesday March 20th,. But, according to him, he does not know her last name or address.

Somehow two days later, on Thursday March 22nd Wolfinger subpoenaed a person named DeeDee, without a last name or address, to attend a Grand Jury already scheduled to seat on April 10th.

[...] Trayvon’s girlfriend has been told that the Florida State Attorney’s Office has prepared a subpoena for her to appear in front of the grand jury. She has hired a lawyer to advise her and make sure that her rights are protected. Her attorney has told prosecutors that she is ready to appear and is looking forward to telling the grand jury what really happened on February 26,” a source close to the situation tells

But wait, the next day, on Friday March 23rd District Attorney Wolfinger was replaced with State Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.

Yet, according to Pam Bondi on Tuesday March 27th DeeDee (no last name) was still refusing to be interviewed.

On Monday April 2nd someone who Ben Crump had never seen, or talked to after March 19th, presumably with a first and last name, became State Witness #8 of “oh you want that too” fame, and was present with him in Sybrina’s apartment.

She, this former 16-year-old girl, now an 18-year-old woman, was interviewed in another undisclosed South Florida location, with undisclosed witnesses in participating in attendance.

She was interviewed by State Prosecutor Bernie DeLaRionda who, for confirmation, asked if the previous information about her phone and carrier was indeed correct:

BDLR: OK, and is that phone number under your name or under somebody else’s name?

Dee Dee: Now, it should be now under my name.

BDLR: And do you know what the provider is…is it T-Mobile? Or do you know?

Dee Dee: Yeah, T-Mobile…[mumbles]…I think.

Stanley McDaniel has the entire transcript outlined with informative perspective. Suffice to say that given all of the, well, “revelations”, much about this is just brutally false.

This latest manuever by Benjamin Crump, …’I don’t know her full name or address, and I never talked to her again’, etc…. it just further outlines the absurd construct of this prosecution.


About these ads
This entry was posted in BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Conspiracy ?, Day By Day Trayvon Lies - The Story, George Zimmerman Open Thread, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Racism, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

250 Responses to Benjamin Crump – Attorney and Manipulative Liar…. The Modern Al Sharpton

  1. LOu says:

    come on she’s a minor chile who suffered so much she had to go to the hospital.
    MOM needs to get the original of Crump stating that made up story, and post it on GZ Legal.

    • doodahdaze says:

      Note the motions in limine filed by the state. I have been reading them and trying to figger out what they are all about. It looks like they will claim they acted in good faith and did not know…sound familiar. But they should be able to keep going because they thought the evidence was good at the time. They cite Leon. Is it possible they are throwing Crump under the bus? Now I don’t know. But something is fishy. Stay tuned.

  2. doodahdaze says:

    I am going to guess. The SA has coughed it up to the defense. They would have to at this late date. I think they would. It is only a couple weeks to trial and the SA would have to cough up anything they have that would hurt. Even they would not dare not to. They can not keep the defense in the dark if they have any evidence that would hurt their case. Even good or bad SA will do this. Now they will try to get motions to stop the defense from using it. They can’t hide it forever.

  3. eastern2western says:

    dd st0ry is becoming too complicated because it is simply a lie to cover another lie.
    there was never any last minute phone call between dd and trayvon. an audio witness is created because there is nothing else. Once it is created, crump created a mythical 16 year old because it simply fits the trayvon’s age. However, it blew up in their faces because they could not find any 16 year old who was willing to risk jail terms as a fake witness. Thus, the creation of a fake 16 year old was just for the media and the media eat it up like cotton candy.

    • eastern2western says:

      the most convenient aspect of an audio witness is that it does not have to be physically present during the crime in order to testify. another thing is no one can examine the content of dd’s testimony because she is the only living witness of her conversation between trayvon. thus, her story is for ever flexible because there is nothing to argue against her.

    • doodahdaze says:

      I think cracker is right. They prolly will not call #8. Because I have been looking at the state motions in limine. They things they want the TC to do. Now I have learned so much about the law from the privilege of participating here. These motions include one about jury nullification. Imagine that. The dreaded right…or non-right of a jury to say…The heck with this! According to the motion the jury must toe the line set forth by the trial court. This case has it all.

      • FrenchPug says:

        That wound be a shame. I would LOVE to see wit 8 on the stand just for entertainment value. I love stately mcdaniels Manors post about the deedee interview. It’s informative and hysterically funny.

      • Did anyone post this today? An article by Jack Cashill about Chip Bennett and the Treehouse and the DeeDee lie.

        • FrenchPug says:

          Not that I saw. Great find, it’s an interesting article.

        • myopiafree says:

          “Bennett had been following Zimmerman’s travails from the beginning and commenting on the Treehouse since June 2012. A chemical engineer by profession and a logician by avocation, the 35-year-old Bennett believes “one hundred percent of the evidence in discovery supports Zimmerman. I don’t think there’s been a single bit of evidence that convicts.” As the June trial approaches, he strongly believes that Zimmerman will be acquitted. On this point, he has more faith in the judicial system than many of his Treehouse colleagues.”
          Chip has been great. But equally, and obviously Sundance, Walther, and many others have pointed out that the tower “Ping Logs” (Should have been available in one week), are like the missing DNA, in the NiFong case. I think Bernie will have another “arm waving” episode, when this fact is pointed out to him.

    • ctdar says:

      DeeDee was made up by Crump in order to make the pieces fit and put the fear of God in GZ so he would take a plea thsn subject him to civil suits.
      Every case past & present that Crump has taken lead on should now be under total scrutiny. He didn’t start his life of schemes with the GZ case….no way.

      • John Galt says:

        “DeeDee was made up by Crump in order to make the pieces fit”

        Like a 3 year old trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle, the pieces were bent, deformed and jammed in place haphazardly. I think BDLR will now sweep the mangled and discombobulated W8 jumble into the trash.

  4. auscitizenmom says:

    I think the difference between Tawana Brawley and Witness 8 is that Tawana was at least real.

  5. maggiemoowho says:

    DeeDee’s travel “buddy” and the Mom who signed the consent for ABC/Gutman needs to be deposed under oath.

  6. coreshift says:

    And he just might end up getting away with it.

  7. ackbarsays says:

    I note that you made a mistake I made the first time I tried to go to Mike McDaniel’s blog. It’s Stately McDaniel Manor, not Stanley. My Macbook still has the wrong name in the history and it tries to ho there every time I start typing the web address in.

  8. ….and someday, when the smoke has cleared, Crump will run for President and have his own talk show.

  9. waltherppk says:

    DeeDee W8 = Tawana Brawley = Crystal Mangum BDLiar = Mike Nifong
    No? Produce the ping logs and GPS data associated with the phone of W8
    that shows differently. Of course that should have been substantiation provided
    as attachment to the probable cause affidavit, or at the latest provided within 15 days
    of arraignment, but hey better late than never if the law or the constitution means anything …..
    Oh wait, that is a pretty big “if” already ignored with regards to this “special” case huh, just
    like the Grand Jury and some other issues of due process got oopsied and replaced by error.

    Whaddaya need with a stinking constitution, or law, or a presumption of innocence when you got a pink cowboy hat and a big mouth?

    • doodahdaze says:

      If there is one thing this case is…it is “special.”

    • justfactsplz says:

      We can kiss truth and due process good bye if they get away with this. The ramifications of the bigger picture of this kind of corruption is truly disturbing.

    • Lou says:

      W8 could have been on the phone with Tracy. although W8 was actually the daughter of who was on the phone with Tracy.

      I still believe W8 is real, and influenced Trayvon to assault GZ with the bottom of his Watermelon Juice can. I’ve never seen anybody cause those types of bruises to a nose with their bare fists.

      • waltherppk says:

        One of the things that really bothers me about this case is myself knowing that had I been in the shoes of the accused, faced with the exact same situation of a stranger moving quickly towards me in the dark even without also hearing threatening language from them, they would have been shot by me several times even before any battery began. On closing the distance to “danger close” in those circumstances, I would have been pulling the trigger, not talking or reaching for a phone. So every argument about the extent of injuries as being too much emphasized as a significant factor for argument is entirely irrelevant to me personally, since I know what I would do. Most firearm owners are disinclined to engage in hand to hand combat as a first response, and that happens only after running out of ammunition. There seems to be a really bizarre misconception by the general public what threat level constitutes an assault to a reasonable person, and what level of response to such assault constitutes lawful self defense. The wrong ideas that too many people have about common sense and polite interactions with other people particularly in an environment of darkness where it is one on one, is an absence of situational awareness that will get them killed, leaving their estate and next of kin to do all the complex legal analysis about why that damn fool got shot dead. Self defense is not something which must be a last resort and last ditch effort to protect oneself, and that is not what the law says about self defense. It is better to be polite to other people and not make stupid false moves that can get another person reacting defensively to a perceived threat. Because once that somewhat nuanced threshhold for action has been passed, that person who reasonably believes they are threatened has a legal right to use deadly force. They don’t have to wait to be a victim of a battery first before making up their mind to shoot, and most never would wait that long. Based upon a lot of the opinions expressed by ignorant people, it is recognized that the lack of manners and lack of survival conscious common sense they show themselves, when they declare how much they identify with the deceased, then they are saying loud and clear they are stupid enough to get themselves killed the same way for equally stupid threatening behavior to which anyone could legally respond using deadly force. There must be a “stupid gene” that many people have just inherited.

        • rumpole2 says:

          Wise words, Walther

        • Lou says:

          most African Americans I know have a chip on their shoulder. they are generally rude because of the long gone past. they think being polite is giving in to the white man, so they continue to be loud and obnoxious. in the end, we’re all equal.

          • waltherppk says:

            Yeah there seems to be an attitude issue involved there that is like a mugger wanting to engage in the “sport” of swapping licks to see who wins “the fight”. The miscalculation about that attitude is there is another different and probably even more valid “attitude” that says it is really inconvenient for me at the moment to risk being incapacitated by your first blow in a “fight” in which I choose not to participate, so in the alternative I will simply shoot you as many times as I think is sufficient to end this “discussion”, all of which takes about 1 or 2 seconds.

        • Redrider says:

          When I took my CWP class here in Fla I also took a Self Defense class they taught us not to let them get any closer than 21 feet before shooting.

          • waltherppk says:

            Self defense is definitely not an an arms length transaction negotiated to a mutually agreeable outcome with an adversary whose undisclosed business interest may involve sending you to the hospital or the undertaker as a customer. There is generally no luxury of time allowing for negotiation.

          • John Galt says:

            Yeah, if you wait until the perp sits astride, bouncing your head off the sidewalk, it sort of defeats the entire purpose of “self-defense.”

        • myopiafree says:

          Hi Walther,
          Nice – but in George’s case, TM was right THERE. He was sucker punched by TM who was playing the, “Knock out” game. Hell, GZ could have been killed by that first punch – and we never would have heard about George. But then that “first punch” did not work, TM figured he had to “finish the job” – after all, he thought that George was “un-armed”. But there’s the rub …

  10. dizzymissl says:

    Crump will just say he gave the phone number to them and they were the ones who got her last name.

    • FrenchPug says:

      Wasn’t her account a prepaid cell? Is there usually a name associated with a prepaid cell? Years ago I bought my daughters prepaid cell phones and I didn’t put them in anyone’s name. I just loaded in the minutes and that was it.
      Also does anyone else find his choice of the word “riveting” to be bizarre, in explaining how wit 8 felt. A lot of what he says about her is really awkward sounding and rambling.

      • arkansasmimi says:

        got to thinking about the cell number thing. Now days you can take your number with you, as they adv. Could you do that with prepaid? I was wondering if this is what was ment by in her name now, carried the phone number.. just wondering, I never have used prepaid and unsure how they work.

  11. FrenchPug says:

    I don’t know if Brawley is a fair comparison. I think with her the grand jury concluded that she probably manufactured the evidence herself. Deedee seems more like she’s being used by crump and co to further their agenda. It doesn’t seem like she came up with this herself. Deedee hasn’t tried to cash in on her 15 minutes of fame. Brawley seemed like a manipulator , while deedee seems manipulated. Plus it seems like their is a chance that at least at one point sharpton believed Brawley. I think it can be hard for a person, particularly a man, to challenge an alleged rape victim.

    • doodahdaze says:

      What kind of lawyer is Mr. Bennett? What is his area of law practice?

    • Unicron says:

      Stupid as Crump appears, I have no problems imagining him being quite manipulative both to Trayvon’s parents, and Deedee “we gots to do this here ’cause they ain’t even gonna ‘rest him if we don’t! This is just about justice for Trayvon, we juss wanna get this in front of a jury, that’s all” etc

      Or perhaps higher level manipulations are left to Natalie Jackson, whom I have nothing but contempt for… but, who is OBVIOUSLY quite a lot more intelligent than Crump.

  12. hooson1st says:

    Sundance – at your best here!

  13. jordan2222 says:

    Sundance: You may recall that I once asked you about that subpoena for witness 8 to appear at the grand jury. You thought it was a good point and I figured you might try to obtain a copy of it even it was not delivered to witness 8.

    I have brought it up several times but others did not seem to consider it to be significant. I think someone mentioned that it never was actually completely since they soon realized the GJ would not convene. IDK.

    Surely a copy of that subpoena exists. Where is it now?

    You are making a great case for your arguments about DeeDee and it has now become a sort of “who dunnit” mystery. Many of us wait in suspense.

    If you were to write a mystery novel related to this case.. even if just for fun, I would buy that book and suspect a lot of others would too, and not just visitors to this site.

    So what is the real deal with that subpoena?

    • jordan2222 says:

      Did I do or say something out of line? My post is being moderated?

    • sundance says:

      I do not believe it was ever filed. The construct comes from Wolfinger being questioned about the “new witness” discovered by Crump, and her unwillingness to talk to SPD.

      Wolfinger said he would issue a subpoena for the 4/10/12 Grand Jury. However, he was dispatched the next day by Bondi and replaced with Corey, so I do not think any Subpoena was ever actually filled out.

      On March 27th Bondi told the media that Team Crump’s witness was uncooperative prior to that exact moment 3/27/12. Supposedly Crump sent the Feds information about her – at least that’s the story he was selling at the time.

      However, as we know a person described as her interviewed on 4/2/12 by FDLE and BDLR.

  14. jello333 says:

    Anyone know if the DCA publishes their decisions ONLY on Fridays? It’s obvious they’re working on them, and completing them on various days leading up to the day they actually publish them. So I find it a little weird that they save a bunch of them, and then release them all just once a week. Or maybe that’s just a formality? Maybe each ruling becomes “official” on the day it’s finished/signed, and maybe the DCA contacts the lawyers involved… then it’s up to those lawyers if THEY want to announce a ruling has been made before it’s physically places on the DCA’s site.

    But if not, I guess we have to wait till Friday to hear anything.

    • cboldt says:

      Most on Fridays (or last day of the week when Friday is a holiday); in some weeks, one or two or three is/are filed on a Wednesday; “Citation Opinions” (ruling and cite, no discussion) on Tuesdays.

      • jello333 says:

        Interesting…. thanks

      • jello333 says:

        I don’t know why, but that “Citation opinion (ruling and cite, no discussion)” struck me as funny. I can see…

        “I’m 12 years old, and everyone tells me how mature I am for my age. But the other day I went down and tried to vote in our local election, and they told me I couldn’t. I don’t think that’s fair. Can you help me?”

        “Sorry, but no. See U.S. Const. Amend., XXVI…. fool”

      • dizzymissl says:

        So this week might be Thursday?

        • cboldt says:

          I don’t think this Friday is a holiday. Monday, the 27th is. IF the 5th DCA follows it usual pattern, the most likely day for a decision to come out is Friday the 24th, and it is possible a decision will come out Wednesday the 22nd. In past weeks (I checked through about 8 weeks), some weeks had zero Wednesday releases, and other weeks has 1 or 2 out of 10 to 20 (roughly, just working from gut feel and memory).

          If the DCA wants to bury the news, Friday works much better than Wednesday.

  15. recoverydotgod says:

    How could Crump id who he spoke to if he never knew her last name or address. The only way he could is if the original interview was a video interview not just a phone interview.

    And vice versa. How could W8 id Crump any other way?

    • rooferx says:

      It’s nothing more than an anonymous phone call in a court of law.

    • sundance says:

      He never wanted to id the person Matt Gutman was supposed to listen to. That’s the point….. Create plausible deniability – just in case.

      I mean think about it put yourself in the shoes of the Crumpster: I want to talk to you, but I don’t want to know your last name. I need to ask your parents for permission, but don’t actually tell me anything that provides a trail of permission. Only I am allowed to ask questions – all others must just sit and listen. I say she went to the hospital, no-one else heard that (See Gutman reporting). I say she is 16-years-old. Ok, ready ” one, two, go”….

      • LittleLaughter says:

        All of his plausable deniability creations were bound to have been aquired from his many sessions with good ole Sharpton. I can see Al pointing out all the many ways Crump needs to protect himself first.

      • recoverydotgod says:

        Yes. IMO plausible deniability seems like why the 3/19 interview was handled the way it was.

        Just like you told Mr Tracy and Miss Sybrina [paraphrase from ABC clip released earlier this year] – seems connected to plausible deniability as well.

        It was interesting for BDLR to mention Crump so late in the 4/2 interview of Witness 8 [around the 17 minute mark listening to the audio]..[.transcript from the statelymcdaniel] link.

        BDLR: OK, OK. Alright. Now you previously, you were called by Mr. Crump, Mr. Benjamin Crump that was here earlier, and some attorneys called you up, right?

        Dee Dee: Yeah.

        BDLR: You remember talking to them on the phone?

        Dee Dee: Yes.

        BDLR: And did you attempt as best you could to tell them the truth too…about what happened? Do you remember talking to them at all?

        Dee Dee: Yeah.

        BDLR: OK, did they make you any promises or trick you in any way?

        Dee Dee: No.

        BDLR: OK. I’m not saying that they did. I’m just making sure the records’ clear on that….Um…you obviously found out about what happened to Trayvon, right? And at some point you ended up knowing that he was killed, right?

        • recoverydotgod says:

          It was also interesting to me, that immediately following this section where BDLR mentions Crump “that was here earlier” BDLR asks about hospital/wake [see statelymcdainel transcript and state evidence audio].

          • tara says:

            Right, very important. Why would Bernie ask W8 to recall that Crump was present if W8 had never interacted with Crump that day?

      • John Galt says:

        “I need to ask your parents for permission, but don’t actually tell me anything that provides a trail of permission.”

        Exactly. Crump has recorder, but doesn’t turn it on to document obtaining permission. Only selectively turns it on to capture coached statement. Turns recorder off during coaching.

        • recoverydotgod says:

          And then in an amazing stroke of luck on 4/2 witness is 18…no permission needed for anyone to be there at the 4/2 interview beside the state and the witness….I would think.

  16. Pingback: News: Another Terrorist: Obama | Pitts Report

  17. arkansasmimi says:

    ROFLMBO!!!! Leatherheads traybots are slacking!!!! Tide be ah turning WOOO HOOO!
    I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.
    Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.
    If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.
    Thank you,

    • Lou says:

      maybe they are realizing that Traycon was VIOLENT after Angela Corey’s limine. remember, no speaking about (fake) gold grills or past fights. LOL

    • FrenchPug says:

      I don’t want to silence them forever. I think they are very funny. A little while ago they thought someone from the zimmerman side was coming after them somehow. They had a safety post up and blamed zim supporters for any computer problem they were having. I enjoy reading their insane attempts to reconcile the states case with reality. I even enjoy reading them trash the treehouse. You wouldn’t believe the stuff they come up with.

      • arkansasmimi says:

        Some of the stuff is off the roof crazy lol I honestly think they use multi sign on names. lol

  18. LandauMurphyFan says:

    Ahh, but Sundance, that ol’ plausible deniability… OK, so FDLE members confirm that Crump and his merry crew were at the (redacted) location (presumably Sybrina’s residence?); that the TrayParents gave statements to unspecified DCSAO members; that the redacted witness eventually agreed to be escorted to Sybrina’s residence; and that she too gave a statement to unspecified DCSAO members. But the report doesn’t specifically say whether or not the Scheme Team were in the same room as the DCSAO members when any or all of these statements were given. So couldn’t Crump just say that he and his cronies were present while his clients were giving their statements, but then they went into another room before W8 even arrived, so he neither saw her nor spoke to her?

    OK, so it’s not very plausible, but could that pass for deniability?

    • unitron says:

      Maybe the April 2, 2012 W8 was Crump in drag.

      No one’s ever seen them in the same place at the same time, have they?

  19. CCG says:

    Sybrina Fulton is the only one on record (as far as I can find) that saw both W8’s. In SF’s interview with BDLR on 4/2/12, SF tells about calling W8, then sometime in March, W8 being dropped off at SF house with unknown black female, talking to W8 outside alone, bringing W8 home. SF also says she spoke to W8 mother. So, SF not only saw the first W8, but also knows where she lives since she brought her home. Isn’t it possible, sometime between this visit and the phone interview, it was decided to substitue the 2nd W8 for the 1st W8? Is it possible W8 gave SF the “letter” during this visit and said that was all she would do? So began the creation of W8-2? Could W8-2 be the unknown black female who accompanied W8-1 to SF house? Did this unknown black female also “help” with the letter?

    • LittleLaughter says:

      I mentioned in an earlier thread that Sybrina had seen them both and I questioned what she may have been asked in her depo concerning that. She was deposed long after she met dd several times, so I wonder if mom/west had put that together prior to her depo. She is in on the fraud up to her eyeballs. That day she says she met her and walked around outside Sybrina’s appt, I think she was likely trying to convince dd to help the cause.

      • tara says:

        We’re supposed to believe that she had this private conversation with DeeDee and W8, so private that they had to go outside of her residence!, but they never once spoke about DeeDee’s phone call with Trademark. (laughing)

  20. Pitbull says:

    Filing of Bar Complaints and Criminal complaints against Crump, Corey, BLDR, Bondi, and other Schemers?? And judicial complaint against Nelson ?? Who in Fla. Is actually doing this NOW? Now, not later, is the correct time to put severe pressure on ALL the racketeers in the corrupt system. I do not expect a published answer here at the Tree House, but all thecriminals who hold law degrees in the Fl. Government need to know that the hell that they have put GZ and family through over a fictional racist concocted Crump crime, which they willfully endorsed, …. they need to know that the wrath of God is headed directly at them. They are worse than the Taliban! Unleash Hell via excellent Bar and criminal complaints. Do it for GZ !

    • disgustedwithjulison says:


      Any complaints filed at this time to the Florida Bar will be met with a form letter saying that they don’t do anything until all the dust has settled in the criminal…and perhaps any civil cases to follow. As far as Nelson goes…there is Judicial review boards….but again, if she has CRS potentially instructing her to tamp things down and BGI threatening her, the Judicial Review Board will empathize with the political pressures placed on her and give her a pass. Technically, the legislature has judicial review as part of checks and balances….but none of the politicians want to upset the judiciary for potential fear of future retribution — so they do nothing.

      Making up a witness as Crump appears to have done should be an automatic game misconduct and stripped of his license. However, Crump will lawyer up for any response he has to make to the Florida Bar. The lawyer can spew lies all over in any response to a Bar complaint and that lawyers word will be taken over a complainant’s. I know…been there done that. The Florida Bar would be better called, “The Attorney Protection Society”. The only thing that would potentially work is if a group of lawyers filed a formal complaint against Crump for inventing a witness to commit fraud as well as violate George Zimmerman’s civil rights. While MOM and West should lead that charge one day….they won’t….it’s against the code.

      Yes, the Bar occasionally reprimands attorneys to show they are doing something…..but do you really think they are going to touch Crump? Racism accusations will fly out of the gate and they would back away from this debacle as ‘forces from up high’ would demand a pass be given to old Crumpster. Common citizen complaints will have no effect on Crump’s future.

    • From the Florida Bar Association:

      How to File a Complaint Against a Lawyer

      The Attorney Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) handles client complaints and can resolve some problems via mediation before a complaint is filed. To speak with an ACAP representative, call the ACAP Hotline at 1-866-352-0707.

      ACAP provides more than 24,000 requests for assistance a year. The Attorney Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) webpage has a detailed consumer pamphlet, frequently asked questions and the complaint form.

  21. Chip Bennett says:

    I know that the State will try to offer some scenario regarding what happened, and that scenario will ostensibly meet the three-pronged test for second-degree murder. But, without Witness 8, what actual evidence does the State have to prove their scenario is correct.

    A scenario is not legally sufficient, and the jury instructions will read accordingly. So even if Nelson fails to acquit due to lack of evidence, and even if the jury fails to acquit on self-defense, and convicts on second-degree murder, that conviction would absolutely get overturned on appeal, if the State fails to produce any evidence.

    Without Witness 8, the State simply has no evidence about what happened after Zimmerman hung up the phone with NEN, and before the witnesses’ 911 calls began. (Well, there’s GPS and ping-log location data, but the State is mysteriously withholding that evidence; I can’t imagine why…)

    • doodahdaze says:

      I think the state evidence exonerates Zimmerman.

    • rumpole2 says:

      Sounds good Chip… but I do fear anything could happen at trial.
      Selection of the 6 will be critical.. and fraught with danger.
      As you say… some comfort in contemplating “appeal” to fix things if all else fails… but that could involve a lot of time and misery for George and his family.

    • waltherppk says:

      The state is not the only entity in possession of the ping logs and GPS data. Assuredly there exists as a matter of ordinary diligence in investigation of the case, a report of analysis of that key forensic evidence done by a bona fide licensed and court certified expert about what is no BS forensic evidence. It is not only mysterious why the state has been withholding from publication that report of analysis of that key forensic evidence, but it is also equally and probably more mysterious why the defense has not published such information.

      That missing report of analysis of the phone forensic evidence especially the ping logs and GPS data is a HUGE issue of “nondisclosure” in terms of publication of discovery materials for public scrutiny of what that evidence shows. It really doesn’t make sense why that report of analysis by an expert has not been published by either the state or the defense a year ago. It is possibly the most KEY evidence in the case which has been withheld from publication, so it is a very good unanswered question
      WHY has such report of a qualified expert not been published?

      • John Galt says:

        “WHY has such report of a qualified expert not been published?”

        Hiding behind Lester’s order regarding confidentiality of phone records?

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Hiding behind Lester’s order regarding confidentiality of phone records?

          It wouldn’t surprise me.

          That said: a ping log is not a “phone record”, and not subject to confidentiality under Florida sunshine laws. (See also: the Casey Anthony trial.)

          • waltherppk says:

            Evidently the aforementioned analysis of an expert and the phone forensics data has been deemed by those in charge to be unworthy of the “sunshine” of publication for public scrutiny. So it inevitably comes back to the very good question …. WHY ?

          • myopiafree says:

            Hi Chip –
            You are so correct. All the police had to do was call the phone company and ASK FOR THEM. That is open “RF communication” – not subject to “control”. The police get the phone number by calling 911 on that phone. The phone company could have come back with two answers – for the last 10 minutes. 1) We have ping-loge phone record for that John-Doe phone – probably was not working or 2) Yes, here is the tower “Ping Logs”. They would show the number MAKING THE CALL, and the number called. They show the length-of-time for each call. With that information, all the Sanford Police had to do – was CALL THAT NUMBER AND ASK THAT PERSON (PERHAPS DEEDEE) who she was talking to. (I doubt that it was DeeDee – but we will never know.) Further, if it was 18 year-old DeeDee, they would have scheduled an INTERVIEW, to establish more details. It would not take three weeks to do this. Further, if she had spend the day (400 minutes) talking to her true-love TM, that would have been there also. So, where are the records?

            What the hell is wrong with the technical side of the Sanford Police Department?

            • waltherppk says:

              Precisely. Why is everybody involved in the case being drama queens about mundane forensic evidence that would usually be right there and right up front and center stage key evidence in ANY homicide investigation? None of the whole story adds up. Not one little bit does it add up.

            • waltherppk says:

              I read all the police reports, and then said to myself umm hmm, oh really ….okay Serino and Company …you guys have had your fun with the “iced tea” and we are good sports getting it that you guys have a sense of humor. We have all had a good laugh, but now it is time for business. So what is the real story on the phones, not what is in the reports published for public consumption ….but you know ..the real story. Tell us the real story.

        • waltherppk says:

          Confidentiality doesn’t wash except for publication of the raw data unredacted, and doesn’t apply to the report of an expert having analyzed the raw data, nor would it apply to intelligently redacted raw data which violated no ones privacy rights. Confidentiality is a bogus argument and an excuse for not publishing the information either way or both ways. The information could be published if anyone wanted to make it known. So it is reasonable to believe that the parties involved for whatever reason want to withhold that information from publication, leaving everyone to wonder WHY.

          • partyof0 says:

            Sometimes I think that it is conceivable that everyone is in on this…George not by choice…but by circumstances and the mob mentality he has to face…there is just too much that doesn’t make ANY sense

          • jello333 says:

            Here’s something that MIGHT make some sense, if we assume both the Prosecution and the Defense have this info. MOM/West are keeping it hidden from the public because they also wanna keep it hidden from the people they’ve yet to depo. And since (because of the Sunshine Laws) the Defense is supposed to release the info to the public, Bernie COULD complain about it, and say that MOM/West are violating the rules in that regard. But (assuming the data is helpful to the Defense) obviously Bernie and the State want to keep it hidden even more than MOM and West do, so…. so of course Bernie’s NOT gonna complain. So, for the time being at least, both the Prosecution and the Defense have their own personal reasons for trying to keep things under wraps.

            • auscitizenmom says:

              Thanks, jello. We keep coming back to this point where the info should be released and isn’t and I think your explanation makes the most sense I have read.

            • waltherppk says:

              None of that answers the question why the information would not have been used at the bond hearing, and in a motion to dismiss, and at an immunity hearing ….none of which has happened, and all of which are arguably more important than some “master plan” kind of strategy involving pretrial depositions for a trail that should never occur. In that regard, it still doesn’t make sense why the information would be withheld. Something is afoot alright and the phone forensics are right smack dab in the middle of whatever it is that’s afoot.

              • jello333 says:

                Good points (as I’ve said to you before). I’m not sure of the answers to that either (though I’ve got theories ;) )

                • jello333 says:

                  (Except I should say that I do NOT think the Defense had this info as far back as the 2nd bond hearing. I think they’ve only had it, assuming they DO have it, for a relatively short period of time.)

                  • waltherppk says:

                    But why would the defense no make an expedited effort to subpoena the ping logs and GPS data for the phones as material forensic evidence key to the conduct of due process from the very earliest proceedings in the case? Even a novice investigator and a junior varsity attorney should have recognized the key nature of the phone forensics as material evidence for substantiating the claims of the accused and for rebuttal and impeachment of the entire prosecution theory. The phone forensics is not something that would just be overlooked in importance and put on the back burner by either the state or the defense, not from the earliest part of the investigation, but would have been something of interest like a rabbit to a hound dog, they would have been after it. So the entire nonchalant and plodding approach and the indifference to such key evidence is incomprehensible. It flat doesn’t make sense any way you try to turn it and rationalize it why there would be such a conspicuous “jedi mind trick” like these are not the droids you are looking for …move along ..with regards to the phone forensics. Bull crap those are precisely the “droids” we are looking for, and every nut and bolt of them should be put under a microscope …like yesterday and a year ago.

                  • jello333 says:

                    Alright Walther, you did it again. Every time I think I’ve come up with something fairly reasonable, you come up with a counter argument that makes me question myself. I just don’t know. Hopefully when all is said and done, we’ll be able to say “Aha! NOW it makes sense.” But maybe it won’t. I just don’t know. But anyway, never think I’m arguing with you about this stuff…. I have great respect for your views on things, esp. where the phones are concerned.

                  • waltherppk says:

                    When I look at a “story” where things don’t quite add up like they should, it makes me suspicious that the entire story is a fictional propaganda construct, a “story” which has been manufactured to serve some psy ops agenda. It makes it even more a suspicion when there is an obvious use of propaganda within the larger scheme, and that definitely is occurring with this case, where the propaganda conspicuously serves a BGI agenda. It becomes a valid question is this just a tragedy of convenience which has been exploited or is the entire story a staged fictional construct being played out by reality show actors. It seems too surreal, like a truth stranger than fiction story that is just a little too weird in certain aspects to even indulge in that suspension of disbelief. I keep coming back to a sense of incredulity about this case, saying no way, this just isn’t for real, this some kind of psy ops scam, like an IQ test for anybody who believes it, and anyone who does believe it is real flunks the test. It is like one of those science fiction scenarios where a human is kidnapped by aliens and put into an artificial “natural habitat” for the human specimen, who gradually figures out that something is not quite right about their “world”. Somebody tell the zookeeper the charade is over for this “case”.

                  • auscitizenmom says:

                    Gee, that is exactly how I have felt, but couldn’t put into words.

                  • waltherppk says:

                    It is like the twilight zone, the case from another planet. I look at the case and feel alienated, like yeah on their planet I reckon it must work that way, so I wonder what color is the sky on their planet and how many moons does it have.

                  • jello333 says:

                    Maybe you’re right, it’s all just a crazy game to watch our reactions. But even moreso to watch George’s reaction. You seen “The Truman Show”? Yeah… maybe we’re all currently immersed in “The George Show”. Scary stuff.

                  • waltherppk says:

                    Another persistent impression I have about the ping logs and GPS being known versus being kept unpublished is analogous to that scene in the Matrix where Morpheus meets Neo and Neo gets to choose between the red pill and the blue. The red pill is knowing what the ping logs and GPS data show, and the blue pill is the bliss of ignorance and illusion and a return to the fictional construct. I’ll take the red pill thank you. But a lot of folks seem to be quite content with the blue.

                  • unitron says:

                    “It is like the twilight zone, the case from another planet. ”

                    I postulated a while back that parallel universes had collided and the Zimmerman who can be heard getting out of his vehicle with alacrity when Martin runs got swapped for one who was asked for an address before having done that rather than the better part of a minute after.

                  • waltherppk says:

                    Also we recognize the “pod people” from Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, and they are all drones conjoined in a hive mind like some Borg collective, all having serial numbered identities and these are the “trayvon warriors” all doing some weird incantation of “group think” like cult groupies wearing a habit that is a hoodie, smiling with gold grilles in their mouths and showing a gleam in their eyes that is dollar signs, while you can feel their hand moving towards your wallet.

                  • waltherppk says:

                    @unitron There was no inflection in the voice of the accused while getting out of his vehicle which would indicate cheerfulness about making the followup response to the dispather, but it sounded more like frustration and resignation about another long gone runner of whom he might catch a glimpse from the intersection of the tee in the sidewalk, if he hurried to that vantage point in time to see him making tracks in the distance towards the South. As for mental confusion about sequence, well having ones head banged on a sidewalk could do that for anyone, and cause worse confusion also.

                  • unitron says:

                    He may not have sounded cheerful getting out of the truck, but he certainly sounded like he wasn’t wasting any time in doing it, and trying to maintain a visual better explains the urgency than a sudden desire to go over to RTC for an address for which he hadn’t yet been asked.

                    Which is why his post-shooting (and post-“getting banged in the head”) statements are more consistent with each other than they are with the NEN call.

                    I believe he’s telling it as he remembers it, but under the circumstances, some of his short term memories may not have gotten “solidified” as would have otherwise happened, and so there are discrepancies between the sequence he remembers and the order in which things actually happened.

                    Hence my alternate universe joke.

                    As I’ve indicated elsewhere, he should have retained the advantage of the truck’s mobility and headlights, and driven down to the back gate ahead of Martin. Just as legal, and a whole lot more wise.

                  • waltherppk says:

                    It was my guess that he couldn’t see clearly that the subject turned the corner or kept going towards RTC, and that his telling the NEN operator that the subject ran towards the back entrance was a guess, more than a visual. I think he mentally filled in some blanks later and things got jumbled.

    • LandauMurphyFan says:

      A scenario is not legally sufficient, and the jury instructions will read accordingly.

      Didn’t I read somewhere on here that the jury’s decision in the Casey Anthony case agreed with her lawyer’s opening statement (and possibly his closing statement – I can’t remember), even though there wasn’t a shred of evidence to back up the scenario he outlined?

      As Rumpole says, an appeal could fix things if all else fails (and I think that’s how Nelson and the persecution justify their unlawful behaviour to themselves – “Let’s pacify the mob and leave it to the appeal court to put things right”), but meanwhile that’s more time and more misery for GZ & his family. And more money being spent, too.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Didn’t I read somewhere on here that the jury’s decision in the Casey Anthony case agreed with her lawyer’s opening statement (and possibly his closing statement – I can’t remember), even though there wasn’t a shred of evidence to back up the scenario he outlined?

        The evidentiary standard is different for prosecution and defense. The defense needs only provide reasonable doubt regarding the accusation; the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

        I didn’t follow the Casey Anthony trial, so I can’t speak with any certainty; but I assume that the defense would have had to have provided some modicum of evidence for such an argument; the evidentiary standard is bare minimum.

        In the Zimmerman case, the defense has far more than a bare-minimum, modicum of evidence. They need only present the photos, the medical report, Martin’s ME report, the police statements, the EMT statements, and the witness statements, and claim self-defense.

        The prosecution must then disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, before ever trying to prove second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the big problem for the prosecution, because there is simply no evidence to prove how the altercation started, nor is there any evidence to prove that Zimmerman was a physical aggressor, either initially, or in response to Martin’s initial physical aggression.

        That’s why the SPD failed to charge Zimmerman initially – as expressed on the stand by Gilbreath. There’s simply no evidence to contradict or to refute a self-defense claim.

        • cboldt says:

          The contradictory evidence is Witness 8 and Sybrina. Witness 8 for the propositions that Martin was frightened, and the implication that it was Zimmerman’s initiative to close distance to within arms reach. Sybrina for the proposition that Martin was screaming for help. Not saying those pieces of evidence are credible, but the “Martin screaming” contradicts the self defense claim, and the “Zimmerman closed distance” claim is used to suggest and conjecture that Zimmerman was the agressor.

          Those two witnesses are the only thing the state has, that SPD did not have. The state is contradicting SPD based on Witness 8 and Sybrina, is another way to look at it. I doubt SPD would have reversed itself if it had Witness 8 and Sybrina.

          • jello333 says:

            Once again, if this gets to trial, and if Sybrina is put on the stand, this is what MOM/West need to do:

            When they’re questioning her about who was screaming on the 911 tape, they need to ask her if she was upset. Real upset, REAL upset? And then they play a video from the 2nd bond hearing, when the tape was being played for Robert Sr. Have it split screen, showing the reactions of RZ and George (both looking really upset) on one side; and the reaction of Sybrina on the other. Sybrina is not only seemingly conversing with someone next to her, but also has an almost bored look on her face… “Oh god, how many more times they gonna make me hear this stupid tape?”

            Let the jury decide if any mother who REALLY believed those were the screams of her son, would act as nonchalant as Sybrina did.

          • sbguy says:

            Zimmerman was clearly intimidated by Martin during his conversation with dispatch when he thought Martin was approaching him to “check him out”. So we’re supposed to overlook recorded evidence of his fear of Martin and believe that he intentionally tracked Martin down to initiate a confrontation? (I know that’s not what you are saying.)

            I guess Zimmerman would be better off not having the recorded conversation with dispatch, but instead a “witness” who could sort of swear in somewhat of an affidavit . . . but not testify . . . that he was “scared” when some man was coming over to check him out. Because after all, reasonable people can disagree as to what the elevated level of anxiety in his voice and his asking when patrol would arrived indicated with respect to his emotional state at the time. Right?

            • doodahdaze says:

              He should have worn google glasses and recorded it.

              • sbguy says:

                No way. If this case proves anything, it’s that the power of suggestion carries much more weight than hard evidence to certain influential judges, SA’s, media, and the public at large.

                • sbguy says:

                  {forgot to insert wink}

                • doodahdaze says:

                  Right. That would be thrown out. Too exculpatory. Irrelevant. They would have a Frye hearing and decide that Apple is an unproven technology along with Google. Neither one paid enough tax. Inadmissible.

            • jello333 says:

              Exactly right. Just from knowing something about George’s personality, from knowing how he handled past “suspects” that he was watching, and especially (as you say) listening to how his voice changes at various times on the NEN call, it’s OBVIOUS that George had NO intention of trying to catch up with Trayvon, or having some kind of up-close-and-personal encounter.

              • sbguy says:

                I’ve never seen that angle get much attention in discussion of the case (with the caveat that I’m not a regular here). But having discussed this case on general topic message boards, I can tell you this is the point where a Trayvon “supporter” ignores that argument and says something like, “an armed man got out of his vehicle to pursue an unarmed child.” I usually sigh if I don’t have the energy to bang my head against the wall.

                The tape is apparently useful inasmuch as it can be edited to suggest that GZ profiled TM. The part where GZ sounds as though he is intimidated by the prospect of coming into contact with Martin is evidently as useful as the part where dispatch asks GZ to identify Martin’s race.

      • janc1955 says:

        LMFan: Yes, the jury’s decision (per the jury) took into account Baez’s opening statement, which was pure fiction, and which he never backed up with one shred of evidence.

  22. Chewbarkah says:

    “I mean think about it put yourself in the shoes of the Crumpster: I want to talk to you, but I don’t want to know your last name. I need to ask your parents for permission, but don’t actually tell me anything that provides a trail of permission.”

    Getting formal permission from parents to interview their child sounds sounds like standard attorney CYA. But parental permission without identifying the actual names of those giving the permission, and the child being permissed, would have no legal meaning whatsoever. Even Crump can’t be that incompetent. (So, if Crump actually went through the “permission exercise” without names, it was just to coax W8 into talking). If Crump knew the parents’ names, he likes would have at least a clue of their child’s name. Either the whole parental permission thing is a lie or he knew W8’s name. Or both.

    I think Crump probably was present with W8 on 4-2-13, but the FDLE statement per se is not airtight evidence of same. Crump started out with the group, but the State ends up talking to W8 elsewhere. Whether Crump was at the final location with W8 is not stated.

  23. Andybinga says:

    Always found it so strange that after Sanford released the GZ calls to police and the 911 calls on Friday March 16 that by Monday Crump had a Dee Dee statement. Pretty obvious Crump tailored Dee Dee’s statement from the info released by Sanford.

    One of the many mistakes Crump made is that he assumed GZ followed Trayvon to Brandy Greens house.

    • waltherppk says:

      You got it. If the GPS data shows the movements of the accused East / West / East contemporaneously with the GPS showing the movements of the deceased South / North ……..then the whole prosecution theory is explicitly blown out of the water.

    • Amen!

      One of the key factors that helped me form an opinion on this case was the physical location of all of the evidence including Trayvon’s carcass that was at the top of the Tee rather than near Brandy Green’s apartment where TM wasallegedlyjust sitting on the porch.

      • tara says:

        Indeed, after all of Trademark’s runnin runnin runnin (and bein tire to boot!), he only moved 3 feet. Good luck Bernie trying to get a jury to accept that.

      • dexter says:

        Hell, at a leisurely walking speed of less than four miles an hour, Trayvon would have been home before George got off the phone.

        • jello333 says:

          It’s even far more ridiculous than that. If he had kept running from the moment George said “He’s running” — even if only jogging — Trayvon would have reached Brandi’s place before George even reached the ‘T’! THAT is how much of a head-start Trayvon had, and how preposterous it is to believe George chased him down and caught him.

          • myopiafree says:

            It is even more un-reasonable. This was deep-dusk becoming darker in a light drizzle. When one man checked – he could hardly see 20 yards away. All TM needed was a fast walk, and he would have been invisible when George got to the “T”. In a trial – this could be spelled out in video formant.

            • tara says:

              In his call to the non-emergency number, George didn’t want to give out his address because he didn’t know where Trademark was and, obviously, didn’t want Trademark to hear his address. So it must have been very difficult to see in that area!

  24. Chewbarkah says:

    “One of the many mistakes Crump made is that he assumed GZ followed Trayvon to Brandy Greens house.”

    If the State puts W8, any W8, on the stand, her sworn BdlR deposition puts TM back at “his Dad’s house.” That leaves the State to explain why TM did not enter Brandi Green’s house and end the whole affair. He ended up in a tussle with GZ far from Brandi Green’s, but rather close to GZ’s truck. Either W8’s testimony is shown to be worthless or TM deliberately went back to confront GZ.

    When the Scheme Team concocted a script for W8 on a framework of facts gleaned from published SPD information, and had a W8 persona deliver those lines over the phone for the Crump interview, was info about GZ’s whereabouts known publicly?

    • John Galt says:

      Brandi and Tracy both stated that Trayvon was on the porch. So maybe Trayvon left his weed on the porch before going back to attack GZ, which made them think that the altercation started near Brandi’s house, which evolved into “he right by his father house”.

      • waltherppk says:

        Wonder if the GPS data for the phone of the deceased is still “missing” for 2-26-2012.
        Now why would that key evidence be “missing” ???????

        • waltherppk says:

          Wait …phone not working ? Here let me bang the phone on the “grass thing” a few times and see if that will get it working again. Wow listen to that, the phone isn’t working, but you sure can hear “the grass thing”. So the phone isn’t working at all, but at least I got “the grass thing” working again. What is the GPS location for “the grass thing” ???? Oh wait, now the grass thing is not working …here let me bang on it with my dead cell phone and see if I can’t get the grass thing working again.

      • tara says:

        I think people have theorized this before … maybe Chad, who told investigators he was blissfully aware of the goings on because he was (conveniently) in a front bedroom (conveniently) playing a loud video game (conveniently) with headphones on, actually saw Trademark at one point on Brandy’s back patio, and when Brandy and Tracy finally came home the next morning he told them what he had seen.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Maybe it was brought up early on, but I don’t remember much discussion about the internal inconsistency of Chad’s testimony; to wit:

          Chad claimed that Martin went to the store to get snacks for watching the NBA All-Star game. Yet, Chad failed to hear any of the goings-on in the neighborhood, because he had his headphones on playing video games.

          Martin was shot a bit before the opening tip-off of the NBA All-Star game, which means that the crime scene processing and witness canvassing was taking place during the All-Star game.

          So: why was Chad playing video games, instead of watching the All-Star game?

          • ftsk420 says:

            Chad is FOS no way he didn’t know something was going on right outside. I never believed he heard nothing or saw nothing all those emergency vehicles with lights flashing. How do you not know a helicopter is hovering over the complex.

          • mung says:

            Because Trayvon wasn’t there to change the channel for him? Because he couldn’t start watching the game without his Skittles? Because the whole thing was made up?

          • treewig says:

            Or that Chad and W8 said TM went to the store (1.5+ miles round trip) to get snacks, yet didn’t buy a single thing for himself (just Skittles supposedly at Chads request). He didn’t even spend any significant time scanning for snacks. Went to the fridge, got his watermelon juice and a quick trip to the snack/candy isle for Skittles. Spent more than half his time in the store at the counter and didn’t buy a snack for himself.

            • jello333 says:

              I think MOM/West have now deposed Chad, right? As for a minor being deposed…. are they allowed to have a parent/guardian present? Basically what I’m wondering is if they questioned Chad, was Brandi sitting there with him?

          • analyst1961 says:

            Not to parse too deeply, but Chad claimed they were already watching the NBA game before TM left for the store (p. 39 of 284).

            And I agree, Chip – the headset / video games story is completely bogus; unless you can’t watch the rest of the game without Skittles. Chad needs to find himself on the witness stand…

            • ftsk420 says:

              The story was Trayvon left during half time when in reality he left before the game started. When this goes to trial the defense has to drill into the heads of the jurors that George did nothing wrong by leaving his truck. Just about everyone I speak to about this case always goes back to the truck he never should have got out of the truck. I personally think that is one of the biggest hurdles for the defense.

              • analyst1961 says:

                I don’t disagree. My comment was mainly to highlight Chad’s implausible and self-serving statements to O’Steen.

                • tara says:

                  Indeed! “Later in the day, Chad and the Victim were watching the NBA Basketball on TV. The Victim wanted a snack and said he was going to the store. Chad asked the Victim to get him some Skittles. The Victim left and was gone for a while. Chad called the Victim who said it was raining and that he was on the way back. The Victim never returned home.

                  The basketball game started after Trademark was killed So obviously Chad’s statement to the detectives is BS. I suppose the Persecution will scoff at the discrepancy, they’ll say Chad and Trademark were watching a pre-game show.

                  I totally agree with Chip, how odd that Chad was upstairs in a bedroom with headphones on playing video games when the basketball game he and Trademark had planned to watch was about to start.

                  Chad advised that the reason he didn’t hear any commotion or shooting was because his bedroom as at the front of the residence. Chad was playing games with his headset on.

                  • analyst1961 says:

                    Which leads me to wonder: was Chad already so engrossed in his headphones and video games when he called TM to check on his snack, i.e., did he go right back to his video console and never think again about TM or call again, or even look outside? Even before he went to bed? Just completely missed the cacophony? Ugh…

                  • nomorebsplease says:

                    Nobody asks where trayvons snack is…17 year olds do not walk to stores for a snack they will forget to buy. Drill this home. How all of these stories defy human behavior.

          • jello333 says:

            Aw c’mon, Chip! I guess I’m gonna have to quit reading these comments via email (chronologically), or at least wait till I’ve caught up to make any comments of my own. Because just a minute ago I said pretty much what you said…. and I asserted that the thing about NBA game vs video game is “rarely mentioned”. And now you go and make me a liar. ;)

        • jello333 says:

          And something that’s rarely mentioned: Chad was so into his video game that he forgot all about the NBA All-Star Game that he was so looking forward to watching with Big Bro Tray.

    • tara says:

      I have always thought that the location of the shooting will kill the Persecution’s case. W8’s added details that Trademark had been “right by” Brandy’s apartment only helps the Defense.

      • Cyrano says:

        The prosecution will argue that he didn’t mean that he was right in back of Brandy’s place, but that he was nearby. The defense can then argue that he didn’t mean that GZ was actually following behind him, but was following in a general sense, in that he had got out of his car, and was walking in his general direction, which supports their contention that he was hiding close to the buildings watching GZ. When GZ gets to the T he says “He is getting close to my ass”. Shortly thereafter he confronts GZ.

        • tara says:

          The Persecution will argue a lot of things, but any sane juror will be thinking “yah, right”. Runnin runnin runnin scare running tire can’t run no more walkin then runnin. Good luck to the Persecution.

          I just realized, the Persecution NEEDS W8’s testimony. The Persecution needs to establish that Trademark was afraid and he was pursued. The evidence in no way supports this claim. Only W8’s testimony can support it. And she was the one who said Trademark was “right by” Brandy’s apartment and that he had been runnin runnin runnin.

          Bernie, hi. You’re popped.

  25. tara says:

    Crump had probably not spoken with DeeDee after his Mar 19 interview. But his big error was writing referring to her as “Witness 8″ in his I-don-wanna-talk-about-it affidavit. Witness 8 is the 18 year old.

    Crump, dude, you’re popped.

  26. tara says:

    Just wanted to point out that the Mar 23 Radar Online article about the subpoena not only states that DeeDee was a “minor”, it also implies that Radar Online knows her name:

    The 17-year-old was on the phone with his girlfriend as Zimmerman began to follow him, and because she is a minor, isn’t disclosing her name.

    It would be really great if Radar Online could be forced to cough up that name and we’ll see if it matches W8’s name.

    • mung says:

      Since we now know she isn’t 16, they should release the name. Unless the name they have is of a 16 year old.

    • hooson1st says:

      add to this the high likelihood that Natalie Jackson is Radar’s source, and it raises many more questons.

      • tara says:

        I’d bet $1000 she is. She has been proven to supply misinformation to other media, and Radar Online has another Trademark article full of errors from a “source close to the situation”.

    • dizzymissl says:

      Maybe Radar is holding the info until closer to the trial so they get more hits.

  27. ftsk420 says:

    Crump says he used multiple cell phones why use a cell phone at all why not use the landline in the private residence.

    • jello333 says:

      I said this a couple days ago. I mentioned something I joked about several months ago, but now I really think it’s about as plausible as all the other bizarre stuff that’s come out in this case: What if ALL of them (including DeeDee) were in the same house, just in different rooms?

  28. Chewbarkah says:

    Tara: “I just realized, the Persecution NEEDS W8′s testimony. The Persecution needs to establish that Trademark was afraid and he was pursued. The evidence in no way supports this claim. Only W8′s testimony can support it.”

    Note that the charging affidavit relies 100% on information from W8 in regard to anything allegedly illegal by GZ, (except an easily impeached claim by Sabrina that it was TM’s voice yelling help). How can the State proceed with a prosecution completely based on testimony of a Witness they can’t even put on the stand? BdlR, Nelson, Corey, Bondi, et al., each must be praying for someone ELSE to terminate this case before their ultimate humiliation. They have embraced a tar baby (absolutely no racial connotations intended), and are so deservedly stuck.

    [What is the secret to getting this system to reply to a particular comment? -- I have tried everything obvious without success].

    • ftsk420 says:

      After reading Crumps words seems the case is based on the fact George profiled Trayvon as “Asshole who always gets away” something about “Fucking Punks” and pursued him. Since the nen operator told George not to follow shows George was following Trayvon.

      • partyof0 says:

        Of the 40+ calls that GZ made previously…how many of those “assholes” actually got away….was it half…1…2…3…75%…or what? Did GZ ever get his bike back?…probably not…AND so if the NEN operator says, “let us know what else he does”…can he do that without seeing him?

        • Cyrano says:

          Good points, Party. The people who are truly to blame for TM’s death have totally escaped notice during this fiasco. Why isn’t some “Concerned” reporter digging up the names of the perps who had put the neighborhood on edge. These people should be found and have their noses rubbed in it. And, more importantly, any judges who they had come before for priors. Because they were allowed to run rampant, TM is dead.

          • auscitizenmom says:

            I think that is an excellent suggestion. I doubt anybody has any interest in doing that, but if they really wanted “to make sure this doesn’t happen again” they need to expose those things.

            • janc1955 says:

              I maintain the people primarily responsible for TM’s death are his parents. Where exactly were they as their third-time-suspended son with a troublesome background they are privy to even if we’re not, was wandering the neighborhoods of Sanford unsupervised?

        • tara says:

          “let us know what else he does” is exactly the response by the Defense to the preposterous claim by the Persecution that George should have remained in his vehicle. That plus the fact that following someone is not illegal.

          I’m 100% certain that the dispatcher told George that it wasn’t necessary for him to follow Trademark for GEORGE’s safety, not Trademark’s. Put the dispatcher on the stand and let’s find out why he issued that advice to George.

          • jello333 says:

            Not only that, but it seems pretty obvious from the context of the last couple minutes of the call, that Sean thought Trayvon was long gone…. just as George did when he said, “He ran”. And not only did Sean not tell George to “stay in the truck”… not only was he not concerned about a possible confrontation once George stopped “following”… but he never even hinted at George to get BACK IN his truck.

          • unitron says:

            ““let us know what else he does” is exactly the response by the Defense to the preposterous claim by the Persecution that George should have remained in his vehicle. That plus the fact that following someone is not illegal.”

            No, it’s not illegal, but staying in the truck and saying “he ran out of sight” would have been letting them know what else he did or if he did anything else.

            Even “He’s running? Which way is he running?” could have been answered as well as it was while remaining in the truck.

            Not illegal does not always mean well thought out.

            Staying with the truck would have meant retaining the advantages of the headlights and of mobility and he could have gone south down TTL past the Long Oak/Live Oak/whatever intersection and turned east toward the back gate and gotten there ahead of Martin.

            It may be preposterous for the state to claim that getting out on foot or “following” that way was illegal, but it’s not preposterous to question whether it was wise.

            Fortunately for George, he only has to defend the legality of his actions and not the wisdom.

            “I’m 100% certain that the dispatcher told George that it wasn’t necessary for him to follow Trademark for GEORGE’s safety, not Trademark’s. Put the dispatcher on the stand and let’s find out why he issued that advice to George.”

            Not just for George’s safety. The police don’t need anyone else out there wandering around in the dark while they’re looking for Martin. Remember, they have a description of sorts of Trayvon’s physical appearance, but not of anyone else’s in the neighborhood, so the fewer possibilities for confusion, the better.

            • partyof0 says:

              GZ had some 40+ experiences of which to rely on to surmise what he should do. There are more than enough woulda/coulda/shoulda scenarios that he could have done that night…see fred-leatherhams site. But…why are they called “Neighborhood Watchmen” instead of “Neighborhood Psychics” if they can do all this without “observing”?

            • partyof0 says:

              I brought this up in another thread regarding the NEN (or even a 911) Dispatcher…Suppose you were on the phone with a Dispatcher and you were confronted by a vicious dog…Can the Dispatcher advise you AT ALL in this scenario…if the dispatcher tells you to stand still…you might get mauled…if he tells you to run…you might get mauled. So, to cover their rears, most any advice would be/is only a suggestion, not a command, to avoid liability in probably any case…AND even a suggestion, or lack thereof, could set them up for some kind of liability nowadays. JMO

              • unitron says:

                If it’s a vicious dog…

                …I’m stayin’ in the truck.

                : – )

                • treewig says:

                  Good point and I know it was somewhat in jest and not all encompassing, but what if the dog scooted away, but you were in an area where your kids play all the time. Would you risk getting out to try to follow it to keep from harming others later?

                  • partyof0 says:

                    Good call Treewig…that’s an even better scenario…but it wouldn’t have to be your kid/kids…but anybody’s kids. The point is, if a dispatcher is not aware of how dangerous a situation is…the dispatcher could inevitably give the “wrong” advice, if he was allowed to give advice. I would like to know whether they can give advice in a situation and not set themselves up for a lawsuit if things go south…I would think some lawyer would be lurking around for a chance at that.

                • tara says:

                  The reason I don’t like the vicious dog analogy is because it doesn’t take into account the prior break-ins and thefts in the complex. Dogs did not do that. Humans did that. Humans who looked and behaved like Trademark. It’s pretty obvious George was keeping an eye on Trademark because he thought Trademark was going to steal something or break in to someone’s home.

              • Chip Bennett says:

                Suppose you were on the phone with a Dispatcher and you were confronted by a vicious dog…

                If confronted with a vicious dog, my first response would not be to call 911. I would first get safely away from the dog (or shoot* it if I have to), and then call 911, either to report the vicious dog, or the shooting.

                * Not advisable in the District of Columbia

                • partyof0 says:

                  Good Dog story….looks like the hero just has to take out a home loan to pay all his fines and fees and everything will be just dandy. You’d think that the law could have just said “get rid of the guns” and we’ll leave it at that…

              • partyof0 says:

                The emphasis was more on the situation…not the dog…where a dispatcher, really not knowing how bad things are, can’t possibly advise w/o the situation becoming more dangerous then it already is. But maybe advise is better than…”uhh…uhh…you’re screwed buddy…”

            • partyof0 says:

              Good thing the dispatcher that night wasn’t a “Self Appointed Neighborhood Night Dispatcher”, or Crump would be all over that too.

        • Terry in GA says:

          Has anybody else noticed that virtually all of the witnesses in RTL referred to the recent problems with a rash of break-ins to homes in the community. That was the reason all of them gave for not wanting to go outside to check and see what was up with the yelling.

          Also, the many prior GZ calls to NEN were because he was a devoted volunteer who was diligent in his concern for the safety of the residents. Even one of the responding officers mentioned in his report that he recognized GZ as the neighborhood watch person with whom he had met previously.

          Even today, over a year later, the probable cause affidavit is totally bogus, a complete sham that borders on criminal (according to someone with far more expertise than me) and even the exculpatorty evidence at that time was clearly sufficient to discredit any probable cause to disprove GZ self defense claims. False claims in a sworn affidavit charging murder are just one very apparent reason why our justice system has very little credibility. Any idiot knows that a legal system which enacts a specific law to presume innocence to a claim of self defense in order to provide immunity from any further charges without proof to overcome the justifiable use of deadly force is a greater burden than anything even remotely shown in this case.

    • janc1955 says:

      Chewbarkah: As long as you see a Reply link below the comment and click it, you’re responding to the comment. Problem is, if others have already responded to the same comment, their replies will show up before yours, and if there are several, yours will appear well below the original comment.

  29. eastern2western says:

    a perfect example that disputes reich’s central bs. In his report, he claims the high pitch screams must be trayvon because his young age which lacks the development of an adult vocal cord. well, this interview shows the 14 year old jayden has already developed into a very adult vocal cord. In 3 more years, his voice will become much similar to will smith because the apple does not fall far from the tree.

  30. With this new knowlege of Crump’s machinations, can we answer better some key DeeDee questions pertaining to the June trial?
    1. Was the Withess #8 interviewed by Osteen, de la Rionda, West and O’Mara on the phone with Trayvon Martin shortly before he died?
    2. If the answer to 1 is no, was anybody on the phone with TM shortlly before he died?
    3. Assuming the answer to 1 is yes, is her account of what Trayvon said to her over the phone more or less accurate?
    4. Under the same assumption as in 3, was her account of what Trayvon said to her, a fabrication devised either by herself, from reading newspaper and TV reports or devised by somebody else and agreed to be used by her?
    5. If the answer to 4 is yes, how much of DeeDee’s narrative orginated with Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton?

    • tara says:

      1. Someone was on the phone with Trademark, but apparently the phone was prepaid and had no name attached. The 16-year old girl Crump interviewed on Mar 19 said she was the person who had spoken with Trademark. The 18-year old woman (Witness 8) who Bernie interviewed on Apr 2 said she was the person who had spoken with Trademark, and she told Bernie that “Now, it should be now under my name“.
      2. If you believe that the phone records ABC showed in a news report are valid (I do), then yes someone was talking to Trademark shortly before he was killed.
      3. Only certain people on Team Skittles will ever know the answer to this question: the person who had spoken with Trademark (who may or may not be the 16-year old girl), Crump, Nasty Jackson, Daryl Parks, Sybrina, Tracy, Matt Gutman, certain politicians, Bernie, etc.
      4. Same answer as for #3. And keep in mind, Sybrina and Tracy had both spoken to the 16-year old girl before her Crump interview. She wasn’t exactly a pristine witness, and it’s possible she wasn’t even the person who had been on the phone with Trademark.

  31. tara says:

    I’m re-reading Crumps pathetic press conference transcript and yet another lie pops out:

    One thing the dispatcher says, are you chasing him, and he says yes, and we hear him breathing hard. And they said we don’t need you to do that. And Zimmerman says OK. But as the dispatcher asks Zimmerman where can we — where will you be, where will you be in the truck, you remember his answer. He says just call me on my cell phone. He had no intention of getting back in his truck, doing what the police instructed him to do. He kept pursuing Trayvon Martin.

    In addition to Crump’s “chasing” lie (we all know the dispatcher said “following”), Crump lies about the portion of the conversation regarding how the police will contact George when they arrive at the condo complex. Here’s what George and the dispatcher really said:

    Dispatcher: Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
    George: Yeah.
    Dispatcher: Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?
    Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then they go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck.
    Dispatcher: Alright, what address are you parked in front of?
    Zimmerman: Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address.
    Dispatcher: OK, do you live in the area?
    Zimmerman: Yeah, yeah, I live here.
    Dispatcher: OK, what’s your apartment number?
    Zimmerman: It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible]
    Dispatcher: OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then?
    George: Yeah, that’s fine.
    Dispatcher: Alright George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …
    George: Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?
    Dispatcher: OK, yeah, that’s no problem.

    The dispatcher never asked George if he would be in his truck. But Crump claims that he did anyway, and then Crump uses the non-existent statement to draw a conclusion about George’s intent.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Crump, you are so popped.

    • eastern2western says:

      even if we accept dd’s story verbatim, she still can not answer who started the fight and who was winning the fight in the moments before the gun shot. In a self defense case, what matters most is the events which occurred before the gun shot that caused Zimmerman to pull the trigger. If the prosecution can not prove Zimmerman was in perfect control and was not in fear for his life in the moments before the gun shot, it can not dispute Zimmerman’s self defense claim. Of course, reich will prove Zimmerman’s guilt because he has special trained ears.

      • tara says:

        DD1 said that Trademark initiated the verbal confrontation.

        Bernie, PLEASE put your star witness on the stand. I’m taking a vacation day from work that day, I’ll make a big bag of popcorn and laugh my *ss off watching the charade implode.

      • If the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was committing the crime of illegaly trying to detain Martin, than Z loses his self defense claim. The trouble for the prosecution is that the evidence for that doesn’t rise to that level. It is just some weak stuff like getting out of the car unneccesarily is evidence of intent to catch and detain Martin.

        The other tack they can take is to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmernan provoked the conflict and also show beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have withdrawn safely from it instead of shooting. DeeDee might help with the first one but the second looks pretty hopeless.

        I haven’t an inkling of a third approach.

        • I should have put in that if the prosecution has GPS data to show that Zimmerman really did chase and catch Martin who was trying to reach home, then it’s is a whole new ballgame. The fact that I forgot to consider that in the above pretty much sums up my estimation of its possibility.

        • jello333 says:

          “If the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was committing the crime of illegaly trying to detain Martin, than Z loses his self defense claim.”

          Actually, he still doesn’t. It’s true that he would lose his right to claim “stand your ground”, but that’s not an issue in this case anyway. As for run-of-the-mill self-defense? Even if George did something wrong or illegal to start it, once he explicitly “gave up’ (by screaming for help, and trying to get away), he STILL had a right to self-defense, as long as his fears of death or serious injury were reasonable.

          Of course I don’t believe for a second that George “tried to detain Trayvon”, but just for the sake of argument, even if he did the Prosecution would STILL have a tough job ahead of them.

          • I based my opinion that illegally (meaning forcibly) trying to detain Martin would invalidate a self defense claim by Zimmerman on:
            776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
            (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;

            Of course it is pretty easy to get confused by the baroque convolutions of 776 so I may be mistaken,

            • jello333 says:

              No, you’re right. Except there’s an “unless” in there. Sections 1(a) and 1(b) apply.

              776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

              (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

              (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

              (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

              (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

              • John Galt says:

                Right, 776.041 still applies even if GZ was the initial aggressor. But an initial aggressor legally defending himself pursuant to 776.041 can’t get 776.032 immunity.

                • This is why Crump has made such an issue about GZ supposedly should not have gotten out of his car. By any sane standards, GZ was not the initial aggressor unless he he shot TM without provocation, drew his gun to assault or detain TM without any threat from TM, physically assaulted TM, or attempted to restrain and detain TM. By making voicing so much indignation about GZ profiling TM then exiting his car and attempting to observe where TM had ran to, Crump is attempting to redefine what behavior constitutes being the initial aggressor. The consequences of GZ being convicted in this case will essentially make it illegal to even observe criminal behavior and call the police.

                  This is why I believe that the citizens of Florida should retaliate by defundingthe police and the courts who have made themselves absolutely worse than useless.

          • janc1955 says:

            O’Mara needs to make a federal case out of the fact that GZ called LE as his first reaction upon seeing suspicious-acting Trayvon in his neighborhood. His intention was to get LE there before another potential criminal azzhole got away. If his intention was to take matters into his own hands, the very last thing he would’ve done was arrange an audience of cops to witness his cold-blooded murder of an “unarmed teen.”

      • jello333 says:

        And I suspect DeeDee is of far less value now than she was even back when she gave her first statements. Something we need to keep in mind:

        We’ve been looking so closely at everything that girl(s?) said, that it sometimes seems like it happened just yesterday. But in fact, nearly everything we know about her and what she said is from A YEAR OR MORE AGO. Only the depo with MOM and West has been recent. And so just imagine what all may have gone on in DeeDee’s (either of them, if there’s 2) life over the previous year. Her early statements may very well seem like the prehistoric past to her. is it possible her story had drastically changed by the time she got around to talking with MOM and West? I think that’s pretty likely.

        We. Shall. See.

        • John Galt says:

          Every time that W8 communicated her statement (March 19 letter, March 19 Crump interview, April 2 BDLR interview, August 2 disclosure of hospital lie), radical inconsistent changes were made, even though she was lead and coached extensively. I have no doubt that her recent deposition contains even further inconsistent radical changes, particularly as she was subjected to adversarial questioning, rather than coaching and softball leading questions.

          “We. Shall. See.”

          I would be surprised if BDLR served up W8 for destruction at trial.

          • jello333 says:

            “I would be surprised if BDLR served up W8 for destruction at trial.”

            I would be STUNNED. But if need be, MOM and West will call her themselves. Though of course she STILL won’t show up. Or, I guess I should say, not unless she has hired a lawyer who has some common sense, and wants to try to keep this girl from going to jail for her part in the conspiracy.

            • Knuckledraggingwino says:

              I think at this point it would be impossible for BDLR, Corey, Bondi and Scott to credibly argue that hey were unaware of the deception. Given the fact that the prosecution continued in spite of the probability that FDLE flew both of the Double Dee Dees to Jacksonville for whatever purpose, it is impossible to deny that they had knowingly and intentionally perpetrated the fraud themselves.

              I suspect that both of the Double Dee Dees’ lawyers are now having conversations with West and MoM to testify against Crump and BDLR in return for being indemnified for civil liability.

              • cboldt says:

                Civil immunity is probably trumped by the state’s promise to prosecute them for lying under oath, even though the lie is one that favored the state.

  32. Is it strange that DeeDee’s lawyer hasn’t uttered a peep in public? I wonder if this person in now involved in delicate negotiations to prevent his or her client from getting into big trouble.

  33. Given the lack of a current thread on the pending DCA opinion, I’ll make these speculation here.

    The DCA has already reached a decision.

    The DCA has ruled in GZ’s favor.

    The DCA has rendered an informal opinion that goes far beyond granting GZ the right to depose Crump. The DCA is just as aware as we are of all of the BS with the Two Double Dee Dees. This has probably motivated the DCA to take unofficial notice of the cell tower ping logs, the bonafide phone records, toxicology report, and Tm’s school records. Now that SD has discovered that FDLE put both oftheDouble Dee Dees on the same flight to Jacksonville, there is no plausible deniability about being aware of Crump’s fraud. The DCA knows that without massively corrupt rulings from Nasty Nelson which it will overrule on appeal, GZ will be exonerated. This case is toast.

    DCA has informally communicated its official and unofficial decisions to the Prosecution and the relevant Florida officials. They are now having discussions on how to defuse the ticking time bomb that Crump created when he threatened riots. A trial that leads to acquittal will provoke riots. A carefully orchestrated charade that gradually releases the exonerating evidence and exposes Crump’s fraud will defuse it. Right now they are probably negotiating an immunity deal that protects Crump, BDLR, Corey and Bondi in return for their cooperation.

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi –
      I can only HOPE you are correct in some of these statements. I am a devout pessimist. I think they will rule in support of Nelson.

    • doodahdaze says:

      I doubt they would touch that with a ten foot pole. They will either send a PCA if bad news or an opinion if they go in favor of the defense.

    • doodahdaze says:

      Other evidence in the case shows theTcon brought drugs with him to Orlando from South Florida. Velly interesting. What evidence?

      • coreshift says:

        One theory is someone told the defense. Maybe someone the defense deposed already. Another is something was found on TM’s phone saying that. Maybe a text message. Considering it’s phrased as evidence and not testimony I’m going with the latter. I’m open to alternate theories.

        • cboldt says:

          Evidence is the broader term. It includes testimony (testimonial evidence) and forensic evidence. I wouldn’t read a narrowing into the term. Could have been deposition testimony from whichever player, dealing with his tweet about getting high with Trayvon.

          • coreshift says:

            Ahh, thank you. I guess I knew that, but was overanalyzing in an attempt to figure out how the defense knows.

            • cboldt says:

              I’m not saying forensic evidence is precluded either, and if they have both a tweet and an admission at deposition, then they have both kinds of evidence. The easist habit for the lawyers to get into is just use the term “evidence,” and if there is any question or issue about what it is or what kind it is, they can deal with that later.

      • John Galt says:

        The Three Amigos from 7-11 ?

    • John Galt says:

      Magic software salesman wants $3,300 for a two hour deposition.

  34. tara says:

    I have a question. I know someone asked it before but I cannot find the answer.

    We all know W8 was a crucial element of Angela B Corey’s PCA:

    During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn’t know why. Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman who didn’t want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. [...] Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.

    Corey would not have been able to mention that Trademark was “scared” and “being followed through the complex” or had been “confronted” by George if it hadn’t been for W8’s statements to BDLR. (I’m compelled to correct Corey’s technical error: W8 stated that it was Trademark who initiated the verbal confrontation, W8 merely assumed that George had initiated the physical fight with because she heard “a bump” and she heard “the grass”.)

    Because Corey’s PCA was absolutely reliant on W8’s statements, is there any way possible that the Persecution could avoid calling W8 as a witness??? Is there not some kind of rule which requires them to call any witness whose statements comprised a PCA???

  35. Eoghan says:

    Natalie Jackson an attorney working with Ben Crump gave a public statement after the Zimmerman aquittal and said that it is not right that a black kid can’t walk home from a store without getting shot. First of all she makes it sound like Trayvon Martin was just walking home minding his own business and Zimmerman just came up to him for no reason and blew him away with a gun. It is dishonest to make a statement like she did and for her to fraudulently frame what actually happened the way she did. Trayvon Martin wasn’t just walking home as her statement suggests, he was malingering around in the rain looking in peoples windows according to Zimmerman, then hid in bushes to jump out and ambush him. Then Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and sucker punched Zimmerman breaking his nose while continuing to pummel his face and bash his head against concrete. And lets not forget that he said “Your going to die tonight.” Yeah, right, Natalie he was just walking home minding his own business when he was shot for no reason, and he did absolutely nothing wrong. This is just intellectually dishonest and ignores all of the facts. Not to mention the fact that he had 4 minutes to go home and chose not to when he was 30 feet from his home. He instead chose not to go home but sit in the bushes waiting to ambush Zimmerman.

    It is beccause of people like Natalie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ben Crump, and Jessie Jackson who fraudulently framed Trayvon as the victim that this case ever even went to trial and that this train left the station. Natalie Jackson, Ben Crump, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson should be ashamed of themselves for their race baiting and for propelling this sham of a trial. They are all a complete disgrace and they tried to railroad an innocent man. They will forever known as the race baiters that tried to railroad George Zimmerman an innocent man and put him prison. And if you think that it was only the black individuals I mentioned that were involved that is not true. Congresswomen Corrine Brown a black women got the ball rolling and went to the Dept. of Justice to speak with Attorney General Eric Holder and to ask him to appoint a special prosecutor to the case. Even the President who is very close to A.G. Eric Holder chimed in and made comments about the Trayvon Martin case. This was a vast conspiracy by several people who were all black. Not only that but A.G. Eric Holder would not prosecute the Black Panthers who stood outside a polling location and commited a hate crime by yelling the word cracker at elderly white voters while intimidating them with clubs. But if its a black person like Trayvon Martin he can get involved and hire supervisors for protests in Florida and appoint a special prosecutor. And the President doesn’t say a word or make any comment on the Black Panthers commiting a hate crime on white voters by calling them crackers and intimidating them, but he can make a statement about Trayvon Martin and the Trayvon Martin case without any problem.

    This was a conspiracy of gigantic proportions initiated by black attorneys, activists, television personalities, and government leaders. Blacks will never be seen as equals or equal in intelligence because of this giant racist miscarriage of justice that they tried to perpetrate. A group of white attorneys, activists, t.v. personalities, and governement leaders never would have done this to a black man in our present day. This was a giant conspiracy of reverse racism intiated by blacks to target a half white man (who looked as if he was of 100% white ancestry). All these black individuals did by engaging in this conspiracy and corrupt unjustified trial is reinforce the idea that blacks are aggressive, show poor judgement, and are prone to involvement in criminal activity.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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