UPDATE – Tugboat Hearing – Discussion Thread

update•  Judge Nelson Denied defense motion for bond adjustment – However, she did tell GZ he is permitted to talk to witnesses in the case (just not the Martin family – duh).

•The state will turn over the original recording of an interview of a girl identified as Trayvon’s girlfriend. The girlfriend, identified as Witness 8, is a key state witness: She says she was on the phone with Trayvon moments before the shooting, and her account largely corroborates the state’s theory.

•Zimmerman may re-depose Sanford police Investigator William Erwin, who the defense says was present when police played 911 audio for Trayvon Martin’s father. Police have said that Tracy Martin denied the cries for help in the audio were those of his son; however, the elder Martin has since disputed the police account.

•The state will alert the defense to any witnesses who say that they believe the cries were those of Zimmerman, who told police after the shooting that he was the one crying for help. However, prosecutors will not be required to tell the Zimemmerman team about witnesses who came to the opposite conclusion: That Trayvon was the one yelling.

•  The defense can demand additional documents from investigators with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice, who are conducting a civil rights probe. However, those agencies will be granted a 20 day window to file a legal challenge to those demands.

•  Nelson also denied a motion for additional Florida Department of Law Enforcement records. She told O’Mara to request the documents from the agency himself, and to re-file his motion if the FDLE doesn’t comply.

The case is currently set for trial in June, with hearings expected at least once a month before then. The next court date was tentatively set for Jan. 8.  A hearing is also expected in April for Zimmerman to argue he should be immune from prosecution under Florida’s the controversial “stand your ground” law.

Information from Jeff Weiner at Orlando Sentinel

Zimmerman hearing december

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ previous post below ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today at 9am all current and previous motions in the case of State VS. George Zimmerman will take center stage with Judge Debra Nelson.

Here are a couple of links to anticipated live streaming coverage.

http://cfnews13.com/
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/
http://www.wesh.com/

In addition Tru TV and multiple other Television Networks will carry the hearing live at 9am Eastern Time.   We will look for video capture as soon as possible following the conclusion of the hearing.

Please share your thoughts, opinion and analysis in the comment section.

Beasley – Beasley – Beasley – Beasley – Beasley – Beasley – Beasley – Beasley – Beasley !

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Ryan Julison, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

629 Responses to UPDATE – Tugboat Hearing – Discussion Thread

  1. menostupid says:

    Insession keeps playing a part of Double DDs interview with crump and i may not be able to hear WHAT shes saying but in my opinion, that’s not the same voice BDLR interviewed…

    Like

    • tara says:

      My husband and I totally agree with you. DeeDee #1 has a brighter higher-pitched voice and she sounds smart, she speaks rapidly and confidently. DeeDee #2 sounds like a 40-year old smoker and she can barely make a sentence, constantly needs to be prodded and coached by BDLR.

      Like

    • sundance says:

      I stick by my original 9 month old statement. 3/19 DeeDee IS NOT 4/2 DeeDee.

      Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        Sundance:

        I have previously mentioned that BOTH of them should be deposed. The subpoena that was issued before the grand jury was scheduled to meet and was then canceled SHOULD have an address on it but I have never seen it. IMO, that subpoena is significant.

        I cannot imagine that Don West has not figured this out. HE KNOWS

        So how do you think he will smoke BOTH of them out?

        Like

  2. diwataman says:

    Well, here’s my audio version. I missed a bit at the beginning because they started the hearing early.

    Like

  3. david says:

    OSTrayvonMartin ‏@OSTrayvonMartin
    “Absurd recording” may lead to exclusion of #TrayvonMartin’s GF as a witness in the case, #GeorgeZImmerman atty says in post-hearing remarks

    Like

    • tara says:

      Even though DeeDee was never a strong witness for the prosecution, she’s the best thing they’ve got and they will be seriously hurting without her. Zimmerman’s defense team is very smart. They’re in the offense position now, taking control.

      Like

  4. partyof0 says:

    It appears the state is getting a hall pass to have exculpatory evidence…then throw it away, burn or shred it and then come back in court with an answer that “we don’t have that evidence”. What the defense will get from FDLE will be nothing more than the same rcording they already have…or “a” phone with the same lousy reception….All the world is a stage…

    Like

  5. maggiemoowho says:

    Parks is going to be on InSession in a minute to talk about DeDe.

    Like

  6. minor4 says:

    Let’s keep in mind that if this case actually goes to trial or even an immunity hearing, the recording of DD will not be admissible evidence. She will testify live and be subject to cross examination. The recording at this point is significant to nail down DD’s testimony and possibly for impeachment down the road, and like O’Mara has said ..the circumstances of the recording may lead to the exclusion of DD as a witness at trial (and likely a motion in limine requesting that the prosecutors make no mention of DD or her statements in front of the jury).

    Like

    • knuckledragingwino says:

      The clear copy of the recording will no doubt be used for voice ID comparison to the BDLR deposition and different portions of the first interview. If voice ID confirms that two, women’s voices in the first interview or a different woman in the BDLR interview, then the foundation of the case is exposed as fraudulent.

      Like

      • treewig says:

        I have no idea if the person from the Crump recorded interview is the same person that BDLR interviewed, but I’m not sure it would matter much as far as the criminal case goes. Unless the prosecution used information from the Crump interview and put it into evidence, I’m not sure it affects their case at all, even if the initial interview is what caused them to move forward with the case. IF they haven’t referenced anything in the Crump interview in their APC or introduced anything from it as evidence, I don’t think it would change a thing as far as their case goes.

        Now if we are talking civil suits, if the person in the original recording is not the person that BDLR interviewed, then I’d think it would provide GZ with a quite a bit of ammo against multiple parties.

        Like

      • minor4 says:

        I’m pretty sure it’s the same person in the Crump interview and the BDLR interview. She just sounds more relaxed in her interview with Crump.

        I’d like to know more about DD’s subsequent meeting with prosecutors in August. There was no discovery turned over with additional statements or reports or anything.

        Like

        • Alexandra M. says:

          I respectfully disagree. I believe that the 3/19 Crump/Gutman recorded DD is NOT the same DD that was interviewed (*cough* coached) by Bernie DLR on 4/2.

          Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            Clearly there is disagreement among us here. For now, I am sticking by my original assessment quite a while back in that they do not “sound” like the same people to me. I listened to different versions of the Gutman/Crump tapes and compared them to the BLDR interview to come to that conclusion.

            Like

  7. froggielegs says:

    Parks on Insessions whining about the recording being their device.

    Like

  8. minor4 says:

    Parks is hedging and somewhat downplaying the significance of the recording. He is better spoken than Crumps. He also just implied that he was trying to get George arrested and the recording was part of that effort.

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Did he admit “in full disclosure” that he represents/ed DeeDee prior to 4/2/12 statement to BDLR?

      Like

      • minor4 says:

        Not that I caught.

        Like

      • maggiemoowho says:

        No. He didn’t say anything about representing DeDe at all. He said as civil lawyers and they did their own investigation and they have no obligation to MoM. He also said as civil lawyers they can conduct any interview they want and that any recording they did/do is their property and work product.
        I thought it sounded alot like witness tampering. What gives them the right to interview any witness in a murder trial,

        Like

        • Alexandra M. says:

          Well if that’s not playing fast and loose with professional standards and ethics….what is??!!!

          Like

          • tara says:

            I totally agree. He interviews what he knows is a crucial witness, records the interview, invites media to attend, then broadcasts selected portions to the public. Totally unethical. But at least I understand his motivation.

            The guy I can’t figure out is Bernie de la Rionda. Why is he so biased and emotional? Why is he so eager to obscure or hide the truth? Is he going to get a payout or something?

            Like

    • recoverydotgod says:

      So now it should be just as important that the American public gets to hear those statements from an original, clear, full recording.

      ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
      Aired March 26, 2012 – 20:00 ET

      [snip]

      PARKS: I think it is. We’ve seen it often in criminal cases where a defense team will start trying to use various theories to try to put their position out there. In this case, it’s very important that the American public know that when you take those two 911 tapes and the statements from his girlfriend and the phone records, Anderson, it’s very clear that she was on the phone from 7:12 to 7:16 and the Sanford Police were on scene at 7:17.

      Those facts aren’t controverted. Mr. Zimmerman and his friends can say whatever they want to say. Those facts speak for itself. And America needs to focus on the facts. Not the innuendo that people may try to come up with.

      [snip]

      Like

  9. froggielegs says:

    Parks said he heard the original recording and he could understand what was being said by witness #8. So he just admitted there is a better recording.

    Like

  10. minor4 says:

    Based on BDLR’s screechings, apparently the state is no longer insisting that it was Trayvon screaming. Chipping away at probable cause …At some point, defense is going to attack the probable cause affidavit and arrest warrant. I need to go back and see which arguments in the pc affidavit have now been abandoned by the state.

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      I need to go back and see which arguments in the pc affidavit have now been abandoned by the state.

      I think the State has just said “bye-bye” to this bit from the PCA:

      During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice.

      (Though, again, I don’t think Sybrina’s testimony would ever have been admissible, to begin with.)

      Like

      • tara says:

        I’m looking at the affidavit again … it’s hard to believe that anyone with legal training and experience could have written such a piece of crap!

        Florida second degree murder definition: The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree

        How could Corey possibly conclude that GZ envinced a depraved mind? She stated that GZ told the dispatcher that there had been prior break-ins in the complex, and she could have easily verified that. And then there’s the fact that GZ called the non-emergency number to begin with, how depraved is a person who does that?

        I don’t know how this works, someone please explain it to me … if the GZ case were to go to trial and his defense successfully demonstrated that GZ did not meet the “depraved mind” criteria, could the jury drop the conviction down to third degree or convert it to manslaughter? Or would that require an entirely new charging process? If they only have second degree murder to consider, it seems it would be very simple for the defense team to convince a jury that GZ was in fact quite calm and controlled, tried to do the right thing to protect his neighborhood by calling the non-emergency number for assistance, and being beaten for at least 40 seconds until he felt the need to pull out his weapon and shoot his assailant.

        Like

      • howie says:

        §3 of the response of the state has the issue contested by them. It is a legal farce.

        Like

    • howie says:

      That will require a writ.

      Like

  11. minor4 says:

    I think InSession is going a pretty good job. They are broadcasting some of the strident anti-George Twitter and FB comments. Mike Brooks now saying there was no evidence at all that George was a flight risk or was going to run. Driving home the point that bail is not punishment.

    I think the motion to modify bail conditions was a bit of a stretch, and I dont think they expected to win this one. I think this was an opportunity for the defense to get some of the facts in front of the judge and into the public discourse.

    Like

    • diwataman says:

      To get some of the facts in front of the judge and into the public discourse? I think I’m going to disagree on that one.The judges hasn’t even listened to the 911 call from W11. What else is she ignoring that’s in front of her? There was nothing new for the public discourse aside from the Bernie thing about Serino.

      Like

      • minor4 says:

        The judge doesn’t review the evidence before trial though, so there would be no reason for her to listen to the 911 calls or anything else unless it was presented during a hearing. That doesn’t mean she is ignoring it — it just means it hasn’t been presented as part of a hearing. That’s why I say this motion was an opportunity to present some of the evidence to the judge — that’s the only way to have her consider it.

        As far as public discourse, I’m not just talking about what’s discussed here on on the web. O’Mara knew this hearing would be highly publicized, so filing these motions with all the attachments was a way to get media to take a look at what we have already known for a while. It seems to be working too based on what I’m seeing on TV. They are starting to report on aspects that we have been talking about for months.

        Like

      • minor4 says:

        Wait … what was the Bernie thing about Serino? I missed that.

        Like

  12. sundance says:

    This is the second time I have “tuned in” to Tru TV and “In Sessions”. STRAIGHT UP these folks are seriously STUPID. They fell from the intelligence tree and hit every stupid branch on the way down.

    How can anyone with any semblence of familarity NOT KNOW that ABC has a full recording of the original DeeDee interview. It was used on every TV station, talked about on every News Station, and sold as an exclusive by ABC to the entire planet. But to “In Sessions” this is a BOMBSHELL.

    I.will.never.tune.that.channel.again. EVER. They are stuck on stupid.

    Like

    • minor4 says:

      None of the media covering this story has a clue about the details of the case and what has happened. I’m not at all surprised that they didn’t know that Gutman has a recording, I’m just glad that they are now reporting it and reacting to it. Have any other stations mentioned this or had commentary on it yet?

      Like

    • rumpole2 says:

      😀

      How can YOU not have known how stupid the (and biased) the folks at “In Sessions” are!!!

      Like

    • froggielegs says:

      Normally, the channel drives me insane but, I have to admit I am enjoying watching it today only because they are more positive towards George today than any other channel. I guess it is giving me hope that maybe the media will start reporting truth about this case. Although I won’t hold my breath LOL

      Like

    • jello333 says:

      This should make you even prouder of this site. It’s becoming clear that other than the lawyers, the families (certain members), a very tiny handful of media people, and a few cops, YOU (and to a lesser extent the rest of us) know more about this case than anyone in the world. We must be patient with those who aren’t quite as quick on the uptake. 😉

      Like

      • waltherppk says:

        Yeah some of those people are a little “thick” huh…..tortoise and the hare …maybe they will “get there” …..eventually

        Like

    • John VI says:

      Talking heads, hired almost exclusively on thier appearance, shock you by thier stupidity?

      Im shocked thier handlers let them go off script on camera.

      Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      Then there is the Issue of DeeDee’s age. Has anyone in the media discussed, debated or even mentioned that MINOR discrepancy? PUN INTENDED.

      Like

      • Alexandra M. says:

        How suddenly “convenient” and utterly ridiculous……a certain PI$$ poor and mega-crap blog (dothprotest) has written that (paraphrasing) that “poor traumatized DD was only 17 when she was first discovered”. Suuuure……right (wink wink losers!). By their logic she’s now 18 and whoopee that solves one problem at least (as Bernie’s DD—-obviously a different person!) was 18. Could they POSSIBLY be MORE desperate and in CYA mode????
        So pathetic it’s unreal. I just briefly skimmed their “special needs”/ black racist!! rinky-dink website and (IMO) you can literally smell the forced-optimism in their “articles” and comments. Just saying,….. But SOME PEOPLE truly have their heads in the sand!! Hey guys over there—try not to be so OBVIOUS about it next time. You’re oozing with fear and apprehension and you know damn well the $hit is about to hit the fan. Better find some tarps to wear. 🙂

        Like

    • flawesttexas says:

      TruTV, and their forefunner, CourtTV, have some of the busiest corporate lawyers around. They are kept busy by their “legal experts” appearing on TV

      Like

    • Terry in GA says:

      With ABC and Gutman being direct witness to most of the initial reporting, how is it they aired as exclusive video the fuzzy version of the SALLE port? They seem to have been “inside” camp Trayvon but grappling for real evidence from investigations.

      Like

  13. minor4 says:

    I’m still confused about what DD interviews and recordings exist aside from BDLR’s interview. The very first interview that Crump did over the phone …Gutman was there for that one? Then Gutman recorded his own phone interviews with DD subsequent to that first recording? Is that right? If so, I’m sure the defense will subpoena Gutman and all of his recordings and notes, unless there’s some very broad shield law in Florida.

    Like

    • waltherppk says:

      Yeah Matt Gutman is right in the middle of this mysterious business involving “star witness DeeDee” and West and O’Mara need to go after the “Gutman file” in earnest. Florida is the “sunshine state” and sunrise is long overdue on Gutman’s DeeDee file.
      Evidently BDLR and Brady violation apologist Judge Nelson are attempting to obstruct any connecting of the dots providing foundation for any subpoena leading to the Gutman file. It would be nice to have the redundancy of parallel confirmation of the existence of such a “Gutman file” through deposition and discovery information supplied by Crump, but such connecting of the dots there can be gotten from Gutman himself……..so screw waiting on Crump as a foundation prerequisite….just go after the damn Gutman file and backtrack it to Crump and Crump’s BS “defective recording” intended to obfuscate and complicate analysis. Crump hasn’t got anything to get anyway, except a speech impediment… and he could be sued for that I guess, but who wants it ?

      Like

      • rumpole2 says:

        I assume that West/MOM can subpoena pretty much anybody that they “think” will be of assistance in saving their client’s life/liberty?
        So why not just subpoena Gutman and his records?
        If he lawyers-up and fights it… that in itself will reveal something… and a battle to get him to cough up the goodies can ensue.

        Like

        • waltherppk says:

          If “think” equals “reasonably believe” (may lead to discoverable information) yes they can subpoena such information or documents to be produced and/or the custodian or creator of such records to be made subject to deposition or called as a witness. In discovery a very broad net may be cast by either the prosecution or the defense in terms of general investigation of anything either plainly relevant or which they may have reasonable belief my even lead to relevant information. Discovery is like a hunting dog sniffing the ground and the air and following its nose 😀 If it thinks it smells something interesting ……it generally does soon enough get hot on the trail following that scent to where discoverable evidence is located. The “Gutman DeeDee file” is like an elephant carcass rotting in the sun ….it stinks up the whole countryside, and the vultures are circling overhead, declaring from the sky above there the elephant lays waiting for the picking of its bones.

          Like

      • hooson1st says:

        I do not see where the Judge is a Brady violation apologist.

        Like

        • minor4 says:

          Nor do I. She ordered that the DD info be turned over, she granted a second deposition, and she would have granted the request for all info re: requests to identify the screams if BDLR hadn’t stated in open court that he agreed to turn over the info now.

          Like

        • waltherppk says:

          I say she is a Brady violation apologist for having already allowed the State to make departures from compliance with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.220 which governs discovery with very specific disclosure obligations, there being no valid reason for such departures from the rules which are settled law. Information which is helpful to the defense has been subjected to selective and calculated non-disclosure and delayed disclosure by the State. It is the State which has not been playing by the rules for the sole purpose of hindering the defense, and offering excuses or feigning ignorance or outright lying when responding to protests from the defense that the State is obstructing and hindering the defense in ways that do violate the rules and are therefore unlawful. The SAG Pam Bondi promised that no stone would be left unturned by the State’s investigation of the death of Trayvon Martin so it is entirely reasonable that the complete file which the State developed would have been in complete form already turned over to the defense. The defense should not be having to guess and request what part of the State’s most thorough investigative report has been selectively concealed and
          suppressed as if the defense was expected to be clairvoyant or required to conduct an identical investigation attempting to learn by comparison what things the State has failed to disclose and has concealed in order to hinder the defense. The State conducted a wonderfully thorough investigation which would be reasonably presumed to have included obtaining the Matt Gutman DeeDee file …….so where in the hell is it provided in the discovery material disclosed by the State ? Gee I think we missed it.

          Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      minor 4:

      This is from one of previous posts:
      This is DeeDee #2. It is her interview with Bernie. It’s the one in which she talks to the grass and claims he was rushing back to finish watching the All Star game that had not even started yet. She says he had gone to the store to buy some food for an imaginary little brother. When asked if GZ got out of car and chased TM she replies, “You want that too?” Ebonics is helpful to translate everything.

      http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-11-the-dee-dee-interview-kaboom/

      Here is Dee Dee #1’s interview with Gutman and/or Chump or someone or something and other stuff…..3 versions with discussion.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/dee-dee_trayvon_and_dj.html

      Like

  14. rumpole2 says:

    BDLR does not “get” the facts of this case (or he is pretending he doesn’t)….
    Judge Nelson does not “get” the facts of this case….
    Supposed legal analysts (ex lawyers) on Insession and elsewhere don’t “get” it….
    What chance a jury will get it?

    Like

    • minor4 says:

      I think it’s intentional on BDLR’s part. He’s sticking to the narrative and playing to an audience. Remember, the judge has only been presented very limited amounts of information so far, but that will change when there is an immunity hearing and it is all presented, and not just in piecemeal chunks.

      Legal analysts have not been very well informed either, but that seems to be changing a little bit based on what I’m watching today. I am hopeful that the tide is turning in George’s favor. If it gets to a jury, I think they will get it.

      Like

  15. froggielegs says:

    Ohh this guy on there is saying he hopes the civil case causes people to stop and say well wait, I recall this guy hunting down this child like a Klansman and now finding out that’s not the case. (paraphrasing here)

    Like

  16. ftsk420 says:

    Aww poor Bigboithemutt complaining that the news media is biased and must be payed by the GZ legal defense.

    Like

  17. rumpole2 says:

    Anybody seen an upload of today’s hearing?

    Like

  18. James F says:

    What happened to the big bomb that was supposed to be dropped on the defense today? 😆

    Where is the racist text from Zimmerman to Tracy Martin, Twitter Mutts? 😆

    Where is the defendant’s motion to seal the defendant’s emails, text messages and journal entries, Nutty Professor Leatherhead? 😆

    Like

    • diwataman says:

      They made such a big deal about it too. Normally I would say this must be embarrassing but given what else we have seen from these people I think the embarrassment part of their brain is broken.

      Like

  19. Justice4All says:

    Martin family and their attorneys used to appear at every single hearing until MOM played Crump like a fool and now mysteriously the scheme team has not appeared at either of the last 2 hearings.

    What scum the parents of Trayvon are for not making an appearance at these hearings.

    Like

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Justice – They are all afraid they will get “caught” the way Crump was – and forced to testify HONESTLY – about DeeDee and the Star-chamber they attended with Bernie-DeeDee. Now we need to hear from the WOMAN DeeDee – about that last 5 minutes she “heard” – on a dead cell phone.

      Like

    • Alexandra M. says:

      The fact that the schemers and TM’s family are quite conspicuously absent from the last two scheduled dockets is SOOOOO TELLING!

      Like

      • Justice4All says:

        I guess Sybrina could not find time to make it with her hectic schedule of sitting on her ass and milking out her co-workers vacation time.

        Apparently the scheme team no longer feels that the emotional impact of the family and their attorneys fist pumping and crying during the hearing is beneficial to their cause.

        Like

        • Vanya says:

          Her fake crying, they killed him and now they are going to kill his reputation, that alone she should be charged with fraud. She knew Trayvon was bad and violent and her going along with all this can not be chalked up to grieving. If I were her co workers I would be livid.

          Like

      • realitycheck says:

        How about this:

        https://www.wepay.com/donations/3819

        Check the note in the upper right hand side.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          Heh, apparently someone finally reminded them how Al Capone was taken down. Unfortunately for them, I think the damage is already done.

          Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          Donations are no longer being accepted. Thank you for your support!

          Like

        • yankeeintx says:

          Don’t forget they have a new “cause”.

          http://changefortrayvon.com/index.php/faqs

          “No member of the Martin Family or their attorneys will benefit personally from the funds raised. While we do anticipate some minor overhead costs for keeping everything running smoothly and tracking the evolution of this movement as opportunities emerge across the nation to reform these laws, we pledge that over 90% of the funds raised will go directly to support the mission of Change For Trayvon.”

          Note: Donations are not tax deductible, and they “pledge” that 90% will go to the mission, they don’t guarantee or promise to only take 10% for themselves. I’d also like to know if they consider flying all over the country, wardrobe changes, travel expenses and salary a “benefit”, or is that just a business expense?

          Like

    • Serpentor says:

      they’re too busy playing each other in chess

      Like

  20. Chip Bennett says:

    Sigh…

    A hearing is also expected in April for Zimmerman to argue he should be immune from prosecution under Florida’s the controversial “stand your ground” law.

    Is Jeff Weiner still so ignorant? Granting of immunity results from a successful claim, upon a preponderance of evidence, that the accused acted in self-defense. Immunity is not granted solely based on the SYG statute.

    Also this:

    [Witness 8] says she was on the phone with Trayvon moments before the shooting, and her account largely corroborates the state’s theory.

    Really? Really?

    DeeDee’s testimony, far from corroborating the “profiled, pursued, murdered” narrative concocted by the State, actually refutes that narrative, in a few critical ways:

    – DeeDee confirms that Martin successfully eluded Zimmerman
    – DeeDee confirms that Martin reached the vicinity of Brandi Green’s home
    – DeeDee confirms that Martin, far from being scared, actually refused to run or to go inside his home, and instead chose to confront Zimmerman
    – DeeDee confirms that Martin initiated the verbal exchange between Martin and Zimmerman

    Like

    • minor4 says:

      DD’s statement closely parallels George’s own statement. I don’t see how this helps the state at all. At this point, I think DD’s statements and the circumstances of her discovery and initial interviews are going to help the defense get the case dismissed and can be important for future actions against Crump and prosecutors.

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        Exactly. Dee Dee (and everything surrounding her) is gonna be helpful to the defense… and very destructive to the prosecution (including the conspirators).

        Like

    • rumpole2 says:

      Agreed
      I have been saying from early on that DeeDee… even if believed totally…. is NOT inconsistent with GZ’s version… so I am at a loss as to why that is a basis for the PCA??

      As far as for corroborates the state’s theory……
      What theory???

      They can’t say “profiled” any more… and even if GZ ran like the devil and was faster than TM (all implausible) once he caught up with TM.. the remaining circumstances prevail… TM punched GZ.. and got on top of him and beat him. So nothing has changed,, GZ shot in self defence.

      Like

  21. minor4 says:

    NeJame saying judge played it safe on the GPS ruling. Says it doesn’t mean anything. GPS is standard and almost unheard of to have motion granted removing GPS while person is on bond, slimmer because this is high profile. Noted O’Mara not too bothered by the denial.

    Like

    • John VI says:

      Of course Omara wasnt bothered. He got to enter into further evidence Georges good behaviour with regard to compliance, as well as to force BDLR to dance around his ” he lied to the judge / my client never testified” routine.

      Civil Case building.

      Like

  22. minor4 says:

    Legal commentary on InSession taking BDLR to task and criticizing his arguments in court today. Saying BDLR misrepresenting facts.

    Like

  23. Vanya says:

    After listening to that girl on the recording, she sounds like something is mentally wrong with her. If anyone at this point are killing his memory, its Sybrina, Tracy,and everyone who is sitting back letting this hoax go on.

    Like

  24. minor4 says:

    InSession interviewing O’Mara, suggesting that Sharpton and Crump should be included in defamation suit. O’Mara hints that they or others will be added once discovery gets started.

    Like

  25. LetJusticePrevail says:

    Ok, correct me if I am wrong, but the arguments and discussions surrounding an earlier motion to compel discovery seems to have gone something like this:

    Defense: We haven’t received everything from the prosecutor’s office
    Prosecutor: We have given you everything
    Defense: Well, you never gave us such and such until we asked for it, so we want a ruling from the court to compel the prosecution to give us “everything”
    Judge: I can’t tell them to give you something, if you can’t tell me what it is you want. If you want something, you have to give me a list of what you believe you has been held back

    ME THINKING: How can the defense tell you what they want if they don’t know what the prosecutor has? I thought the state was obligated to provide *everything*? Isn’t THAT what serves *justice* as we know it? But aside from what is *justice*, how in the world is what the judge said even logical? How can the defense *specifically name* something of which they have no knowledge? Isn’t that the same as writing the prosecution a blank check to hide evidence in hopes that the defense never learns about the mere possibility of it? Is that what the judge was saying? “Hey Bernie, go for it, dude. If you can get away with it, more power to ya, bro”?

    Ok, now to today’s discussion about the same:

    Defense: Your honor, here’s the list of what we want. You asked for a list, so here it is.
    Judge: Thanks for the list, but have you tried to get this evidence on your own. Did you go to the FBI and ask for this evidence?
    Defense: We talked to the FBI and they told us to talk to the prosecutor
    Judge: But did you GO there?
    Defense: Well no, but we can drive there and ask in person

    ME THINKING: Has the judge just sent the defense on a *fool’s errand*? Hasn’t the FBI given the prosecution a further means to act as a barrier between the defense and any evidence to which they are entitled, and did the judge not fail to address the same?

    Like

    • minor4 says:

      Well, since the FBI is not an arm of the state, the defense (in theory) has the same access to FBI files as the state. The state really doesnt have to turn over FBI info that they dont have. If the FBI doesnt turn over what O’Mara is asking for, he can request a subpoena and court order. Kind of like the Crump tape. The state had no obligation to get the original recording from Crump to provide to the defense.

      State has to turn over whatever exculpatory evidence it has and is required to marshall all exculpatory evidence from other state agencies, but that’s it.. That’s why the defense is taking depositions and conducting discovery.

      Like

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        Yes, agreed, and I understood all of what you say. My (poorly stated) question is this: Couldn’t the judge have simply requested that the prosecution submit requests for the information (the 2 files) to the FBI, since they have already stated they will only honor requests from the state?

        Like

  26. diwataman says:

    I just caught this from the hearing. Bernie says there’s other stuff on Crumps recording but doesn’t specify what it is other than “other matters than this case or just the recording of witness #8”. So now he is going to edit it and give it to O’Mara which she ordered to be turned over to them by Friday. Good thing Crump is protected by the State huh? Is Bernie going to be editing out the coaching?

    Like

  27. mung says:

    OMG when does it stop?

    Jun says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    It is also tough because the public does not have an unredacted copy to hear

    I do hear a voice saying something during the screams

    I also believe that the defendant perhaps howled like a wolf while the kid screamed and then Trayvon screamed again and then he shot the kid, and asphyxiated him

    Like

    • ftsk420 says:

      This topic about a voice came up a few months ago I believe it started on twitter. I listened to it a few times and I do hear something being said sounds like STFU which makes sense since we know TM was trying to shut George up.

      Like

    • dizzymissl says:

      OMG, that is hilarious.

      Like

    • TandCrumpettes says:

      Oh my goodness. Everybody knows his gang name is Tugboat, not TEEN WOLF.

      Like

    • Alexandra M. says:

      Bwahahaha…..that one is “certifiable”.
      Budding legal analyst JUN just so happens to go by “DJ Changster” and he clearly has plenty of free time when it comes to being a near-constant passenger on Fred Deadhead’s ship of fools. His website and YouTube channel promotes his…..um…. “Music” (if you can call it that!). Bottom line…..just another WACK fringe-dweller who is blindly supporting Trademark.

      Like

    • jello333 says:

      Ok, normally reading these things makes me mad. But this one just made me LAUGH. I’m sorry, is that wrong? 😉

      Like

  28. minor4 says:

    On InSession just now, the woman who interviewed O’Mara said there are references in Trayvon’s school records to his past commission of violent acts and O’Mara will seek to have those admitted. Anyone know anything more about this?

    Like

    • ftsk420 says:

      First I heard about it.

      Like

    • maggiemoowho says:

      I heard him say that also and my first impression was there must have been some acts of violence in TM’s records. What I didn’t understand is Jean Casarze said that she thought they could only bring those records into the case if GZ knew about TM having a violent past. MOM then referenced a case or law that might/would allow the defense to bring those records in.

      Like

      • boutis says:

        MOM also brought that up in his interview the other day on In Session with West. He said specifically that it would be admissible under Florida case law even if GZ was unaware of TM’s propensity which makes sense. It would be material if TM had a history of violent behavior. The prosecution has tried to make GZ look violent with the incident of “touching” the alcohol control agent which was a big dud. So MOM has brought this matter up twice in a matter of days and both times in press interviews. He is starting to push back hard and must have something in evidence to bring it up twice.

        Like

        • howie says:

          The character of T-con is admissible if it is relevant. That is in the statutes. I have posted it before. State v Williams is an oft cited source. T-con character will come in if it gets that far. As well as his associates if it is relevant. Relevancy is the test.

          Like

          • jello333 says:

            I think the test involves which person’s state-of-mind we’re looking at. The reason a “reputation for violence” wouldn’t help here, is because that just means that people thought of Trayvon as a violent person. And since George didn’t even know him, he obviously wouldn’t know about that reputation. George’s state-of-mind is what’s important. On the other hand, if we’re talking about specific instances of violence, esp. if they’re numerous, it’s TRAYVON’S state-of-mind that we’re examining. It doesn’t matter if George knows him or not; all that matters is if there’s some evidence that Trayvon may have been ok with committing a violent act.

            (I’m not 100% certain this is accurate… I’m sure any legal minds here will correct me if not 😉 )

            Like

        • jello333 says:

          I bet one of the interviews MOM has done that hasn’t yet been made public, started out like this:

          Q: Could you state your name, please?
          A: John Smith

          Q: And where do you live?
          A: In Miami.

          Q: What do you do for a living?
          A: I am… or, I was a bus driver.

          Like

  29. recoverydotgod says:

    Since Matt and Seni included quotes from the interview in their March 20th article.

    Trayvon Martin’s Last Phone Call Triggers Demand for Arrest ‘Right Now’
    By MATT GUTMAN and SENI TIENABESO
    SANFORD, Fla., March 20, 2012

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017#.UMeCnY7_TdI

    [snip]

    “He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run.”

    [snip]

    Questions begging to be answered:

    1. Who was making recording[s] of the “interview” in that room?
    2. From what recording[s] of the “interview” were quotes for the March 20th article transcribed?
    3. What were ABC News own interview guidelines for participating in an interview of “16 year old girl”?
    4. Were those guidelines [if any] followed for this interview. Why or why not?
    5. Who transcribed the quotes for the March 20th article?

    Like

  30. Vanya says:

    On that DeeDee tape, she says “Lord knows he was tired” wtf? Unless Trayvon had some disorder that is not being disclosed, he was not “tired”. And she heard some “old”guy? And why did she not go to cops as soon as she found out Trayvon was dead? When is anyone going to ask that??? Is that not important at all? That question could blow this whole thing sky high. Please, someone ask it to someone who can answer it!

    Like

    • minor4 says:

      That interview is remarkable for the complete absence of follow up questions by BDLR.

      Like

    • ftsk420 says:

      Well the Lord may know he was tired but Dee Dee sure didn’t. She heard some old guy? last I checked you can’t tell someones age by hearing their voice. She also said she heard a little get off get off could she have heard the screams also. Only person in my eyes that would say get off is George.

      Like

    • Knuckledraggingwino says:

      I suspect that Crumpy suggested to the Double Dee Dees a scenario in which GZ chased TM all the way from the 7-11 to the RTL in his Honda Ridgeline “truck.”. This would portray GZ as far more aggressive and make the idea of GZ catching TM seem more credible.

      How much you bet Crumpy drove one or both of the Double Dee Dees to Sanford to see the area to fabricate the narrative.

      Like

  31. Vanya says:

    Wait. So let me guess. No one bothers asking why DeeDee did not go to the cops as soon as she heard he died was because she did not trust the police? Or are we going to visually see at trial that this girl is mentally slow and wasn’t capable of putting two and two together? Is it going to turn into something like that? I am starting to really wonder.

    Like

    • ftsk420 says:

      What reason would she have for not trusting the police.

      Like

      • Vanya says:

        Because shes black? I am trying to figure out what Crump will argue, after all he is a civil rights attorney. He distrusts Sanford, so who knows. But really, why did she not go to the police after hearing he was dead? The only ACCEPTABLE explanation is shes mentally hindered and did not make the connection.

        Like

  32. TandCrumpettes says:

    Oh wait, I think I am confused about the DD recording. Crump told In Session last week that he turned it over to FDLE, yet today the judge said it must be turned over by noon tomorrow.

    Please don’t tell me Crump lied to Vinnie! ha! I don’t expect any less from him, but I wanted to make sure I got it right, right?

    Like

    • Vanya says:

      I think it has until tomorrow to be turned over to O’Mara- I could be wrong-

      Like

      • TandCrumpettes says:

        Yeah, so Crump lied again? He told Vinnie that he is no longer in possession of the recording…at all.

        And what is up with the constant reference to, “it was recorded on a recording device?” A “recording device” could be anything – phone, tape deck, notepad, VCR, Etch-a-Sketch…

        But no matter how many times the defense asks what recording device it was, the state always responds, “the recording device was a recording device.” Sheesh.

        Like

        • Vanya says:

          And remember at the last court date when Crump was talking in court and said something about the recording being recorded with the best equipment, or something to that affect, and West called him on it, saying, what??? I remember that

          Like

          • mung says:

            I think that was in reference to the FBI making a copy of said recording from the mystery device. He said they used the best possible equipment for the copy. Apparently the FBI only had an old Edison wax cylinder recorder available.

            Like

        • jello333 says:

          All the specifics and little details are important. But I think it’s the really broad question that people who don’t follow this case closely should be asking…. the question the MEDIA should be asking:

          “Why, if this witness is supposedly so crucial to the State’s case, are the State and their supporters the ones who are stonewalling on the tapes? You would think the defense would be the ones trying to keep the tapes from being examined, if they were so harmful to the defense’s case. But it’s just the opposite. So WHY is the State doing this?”

          Like

          • Sha says:

            jello333: Maybe there scared someone will ask the same question all of us have been asking all along. Why didn’t you call the police , tell your mom, call a friend , do something to make someone aware of what was going on if you just heard all that….

            Like

  33. akathesob says:

    This bunch have tangled such a load a BS they can not even tell what is truth and what is a lie. Bunch money seeking and race based haters. TM is a product of his environment and with that said nothing his family or followers have to say is even worth listening to.

    Like

  34. mung says:

    OK, I need help with a troll. Did MOM not say that he was going to use standard self defense at the immunity hearing because this was not a SYG case? I know I remember that statement being made.

    Like

    • sundance says:

      “Did MOM not say”? Is not a question. Re-phrase and resubmit.

      Like

      • mung says:

        Ok didn’t MOM make it quite clear that this was not SYG and that he would go into the immunity hearing with traditional self defense? Not only is the troll trying to tell me that MOM is doing SYG, but that I am wrong that it is an immunity hearing and it is called a SYG hearing.

        Like

        • partyof0 says:

          I understand what you are saying mung…and yes I agree that I too understood he was using self defense (a part of SYG…which was devided in to parts) one where there is no ability to retreat…can’t link to the statute though…

          Like

          • Chip Bennett says:

            nd yes I agree that I too understood he was using self defense (a part of SYG…which was devided in to parts)

            You’ve got that backwards. SYG is a part of the self-defense statutes. It is the self-defense statutes that are broken into sub-sections, one of which is SYG.

            Like

        • tara says:

          The attorney for the man who shot and killed unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin said Monday he’ll seek to get the case dismissed using a traditional self-defense argument and not the state’s “stand your ground” statute. Mark O’Mara, who is defending George Zimmerman against a second-degree murder charge in the fatal February shooting, said the traditional self-defense approach is appropriate because the facts suggest his client couldn’t retreat from a beating Martin was giving him.

          http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/13/zimmerman-defense-lawyers-wont-argue-tand-your-ground-in-florida-shooting-case/

          Like

          • mung says:

            Thanks. The troll is now trying to tell Justthefacts that she should go to the GZlegal site to get informed. Because I am sure she knows nothing about that site or what is going on with the case 🙂

            Like

            • tara says:

              By the way, IF GZ had started the physical fight, he would be ineligible for SYG but he could still claim traditional self-defense if he felt his life were in danger and he were unable to retreat. But I don’t think this is why O’Mara is using traditional self-defense.

              We know that Trademark initiated the verbal confrontation, both DeeDee and GZ agree about this. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude then that Trademark also initiated the physical fight, and GZ has stated that he did.

              Like

              • Knuckledraggingwino says:

                We know with absolute certainty from the complete absence of bruising on TM’s carcass except for n TM’s knuckles as noted in the autopsy that GZ didn’t strike TM, ever. The absence of bruising and undamaged clothing (except for the contact range gun shot) supports GZ’s contention that GZ did not use any type of physical for e to restrain TM. The significant injuries to GZ’s face and the back of GZ’s head in conjunction with the significant bruising on TM’s knuckles conclusively prooves that TM assaulted GZ.

                This is why Parks essentially repudiated the statements by the Double Dee Dees by suggesting that GZ was chasing TM through the RTLs with gun drawn and thus giving TM justification to use force to defend himself. However; in physical altercations where a gun is drawn, the gun becomes the focal point of the physical altercation as the person who doesn’t have the gun attempts to either gain control of the weapon or at least deflect the muzzle from themselves to avoid being shot. The complete absence of TM’s DNA on the gun and the dearth of GZ’s DNA (IIRC, only a small quantity of DNA either GZ ‘s or inconclusive) combined with the nearly complete lack of injuries to GZ’s hands and arms and only one small cut and minor bruising on TM’s hands, makes it extremely improbable that a physical struggle for control of the gun occurred. (note, GZ stated that he fired when TM reached for the gun. GZ did not say TM grabbed the gun.)

                Like

                • tara says:

                  You’re absolutely correct that we know that Trademark assaulted GZ, but for a stand-your-ground defense it would have to be established that Trademark also initiated the physical fight.. We only know that Trademark initiated the verbal confrontation, but we don’t know who initiated the physical fight. It’s theoretically possible that GZ pushed Trademark, didn’t cause injury but technically initiated the physical fight in which case he would be ineligible for SYG. Why even go there when traditional self-defense is sufficient GZ only needs to establish that he feared that his life was in danger and he wasn’t able to retreat. This should be relatively easy to establish with the evidence you mentioned.

                  Like

                • howie says:

                  State evidence exonerates the defendant if proven. Somehow I can’t get past that.

                  Like

            • justfactsplz says:

              You saw that too. Unreal. That troll must be Freddie visiting another site as they think they know so much about the law.

              Like

        • Sha says:

          Mung: It might be called a SYG hearing ……. but MOM is using traditional self defence because he said George did not have a chance while on his back to retreat . In order for George to have a SYG defence he must have a chance to retreat.

          Like

    • jello333 says:

      Yeah, he said that. I don’t have the specific reference, but he said it more than once. The reason being, SYG involves an ability to escape or “withdraw” from the situation. George clearly didn’t have that ability…. therefore, he doesn’t need SYG. It’s not like he couldn’t use it if he wanted… it’s that he doesn’t NEED it. Basic, traditional, universally-recognized, self defense is all he needs. Fortunately the “immunity” granted in the hearing covers that just as much as the so-called SYG part.

      Like

      • tara says:

        Absolutely agree with you. GZ doesn’t need SYG because traditional self-defense is sufficient. Not sure if this is O’Mara’s reasoning, but traditional self-defense allows GZ to have initiated the physical fight. I don’t think GZ did, but if his defense can’t prove that he didn’t then with a traditional self-defense it’s completely irrelevant if he did or didn’t. He couldn’t retreat, that’s all that matters.

        Like

      • howie says:

        It was a homicide, and it was justified.

        Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Well, carry of some sort, and not until SCOTUS ultimately hears the case.

      And we all know that Illinois isn’t going to pass a shall issue law, either.

      Like

    • tara says:

      Not quite a done deal:

      Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who was defending the state’s prohibition of concealed carry, remained silent on whether her office would appeal Tuesday’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. “The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented. That time period allows our office to review what legal steps can be taken and enables the Legislature to consider whether it wants to take action,” Madigan spokeswoman Maura Possley said.

      Like

  35. tara says:

    USA Today has a new article about Trademark. Author is a black female, I was hoping for the best but got the expected. She glosses over the fact that Trademark’s father left him in Brandy’s apartment the night of the shooting and didn’t attempt to look for him until the next morning:

    Trayvon had been suspended several times during his school years, usually for minor trouble. His last suspension, for having marijuana residue in a bag, led his father to take the teen from Miami to his home in Sanford, Fla., for a few days as punishment. It was there on Feb. 26 — 21 days after turning 17 and five days into a punishment designed by his dad to set him straight — that Trayvon was shot by Zimmerman. The next day Tracy Martin, who had hoped the trip to Sanford would help his son learn a lesson away from the comfort and friends of Miami, explained to a dispatcher in a low and somber voice that his son was missing. Less than an hour later, he identified his body.

    Tracy Martin let his son walk to a nearby 7-Eleven. Hours later, he was on the phone with police reporting him missing.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/11/trayvon-martin-profile/1761373/

    No mention that father ran off with mistress to Orlando in the early evening leaving Trademark home alone with Chad. No mention that father never called Trademark to check up on him. No mention that father claimed to have returned home that night yet didn’t notice the police presence, flashing lights, yellow tape, etc. No mention that father was unconcerned that Trademark wasn’t home because Trademark had stayed out all night on previous occasions. No mention that father went to bed when Trademark wasn’t home. No mention that Chad was apparently blissfully unaware that a shooting had occurred “just yards” (according to Matt Gutman) from mistress’ apartment. No mention of any details that might paint this family in any sort of unflattering light.

    Like

    • partyof0 says:

      I thought that he EVEN called Juvie FIRST…before calling to report him missing…

      Like

      • kathyca says:

        yep, I’ve said this a bunch of times. He first had Brandi call juvie and then called the police (the sheriff’s dept. iirc) specifically to see if he’d been “picked up.” Only after those two calls did he do the missing persons call.

        Like

    • treewig says:

      Tracy didn’t know the address of the place he was staying, yet this author believes the place was Tracy’s?

      Like

    • James F says:

      “No mention that father ran off with mistress to Orlando in the early evening leaving Trademark home alone with Chad.”

      Tracy Martin didn’t run off that early evening, he actually was not there at all that weekend. He was at the mason convention all weekend and he and Brandy only saw the boys for an hour or two during the football game saturday evening. The boys spent the rest of saturday night alone. Brandy popped in briefly sunday morning but not Tracy. The boys spent the rest of that Sunday unsupervised and alone.

      Like

      • tara says:

        Where did you get that information?

        Like

        • James F says:

          In the discovery. Brandy’s statement on page 32 of 284 and Tracy’s statement on page 40 of 284 where he states “the last time he saw the victim was on saturday night after the football game.”

          Like

          • tara says:

            Do you have a link? I’m having trouble finding the document.

            Like

          • tara says:

            Found it! OK. According to BDLR’s interviews with Tracy, Brandy, and Chad, here’s the timeline:

            Wednesday: Tracy met Brandy halfway between Miami and Sanford and he dropped off Trademark with Brandy. Trademark spent the night at Brandy’s apartment.

            Thursday: Trademark spent the night at Brandy’s apartment.

            Friday: Tracy went to Orlando for a convention and got a hotel room at or near the convention center. According to Chad, Brandy dropped him and Trademark off at an NBA event at the convention center, but according to Tracy they all attended the event. Tracy, Trademark, Brandy, and Trademark’s cousin all spent the night in the hotel room.

            Saturday: All were at the hotel/convention center most of the day. That evening Chad had a football game. Chad’s coach took Chad to the game. The rest showed up later to watch the game. Trademark’s cousin met them at the game. After the game, Trademark, Chad, and Trademark’s cousin went back to Brandy’s apartment. Brandy and Tracy went to the hotel.

            Sunday: Tracy and Brandy claim that they returned to Brandy’s apartment, but Chad doesn’t mention it. Tracy and Brandy claim that they went out to eat that evening and returned at 10:30pm and found Chad home but Trademark nowhere to be found.

            I don’t think the author of the USA Today article has any idea what happened, and I don’t think she wants to know because it will taint her image of Tracy as the devoted father who took Trademark to Sanford as “punishment”. Yah, dropping your kid off with the mistress, taking him to a convention and basketball event, then letting him fend for himself is some kind of strange punishment.

            Like

            • James F says:

              Tracy does not state that he returned Sunday morning, only Brandy claims that. It seems clear that Tracy stayed in Orlando and Brandy met him there before going to the all star game there.

              How could Tracy have returned to the apartment Sunday and not seen Trayvon? He stated in his sworn statement that the last time he saw Trayvon after the football game on Saturday night. This is confirmed in his ‘missing person’ call where he states he last saw Trayvon at around 8:30 on Saturday night.

              Where does it say “Tracy, Trademark, Brandy, and Trademark’s cousin all spent the night [Friday] in the hotel room?”

              Who is included in ‘they all’ who were allegedly at the hotel on Saturday? Chad and Trayvon are not specifically mentioned. Brandy also claimed ‘they all’ went to the NBA event Friday night but according to Chad, it was just himself and Trayvon.

              Why would Chad’s coach drive an hour to pick up Chad in Orlando for his football game in Sanford? I think it makes more sense that Chad was in Sanford saturday before the game, which means he was probably there with Trayvon, while Brandy and Tracy were at the mason convention in Orlando.

              Like

              • tara says:

                OK, Tracy said that he and Brandy were back at the apartment Sunday, not necessarily the morning:

                Tracy advised that on Sunday, they were back at Brandy’s apartment

                Like

                • tara says:

                  By the way, just want to add that I too am incredulous. These stories just don’t fit together well. At least one person is lying, perhaps all three. Chad’s version seems most honest. He doesn’t even mention seeing Tracy or Brandy on Saturday night or Sunday.

                  Like

                • jordan2222 says:

                  At the end of the day, I do not see how any of this has any legal benefit to George UNLESS someone was in that apartment and was somehow involved in the incident.

                  Like

            • Alexandra M. says:

              So much for enforcing behavioral consequences and restrictions. 😦
              Heck….just stuck your head in the sand, Tracy (you too Sabrina). Maybe Trayvon will magically avoid prison someday (NOT). Oops too late. He clearly picked the wrong man to assault now didn’t he?

              Like

            • ejarra says:

              You left out a juicy part, where as part of the punishment Tracy gave him $75 to $100 on Sat. for pizza. I had said months ago that it was babysitting money (money for watching Chad). By Sunday night he only had $40.15 (plus one thin dime found by the ME). Pizza must really be expensive in Fl. Stephen, the cuz, bragged about getting high that Sat night and staying over @ Brandi’s with Trayvaon and Chad. So how did Trayvon spend up to $60 in one day with no car?

              Like

    • howie says:

      No mention he thought his kid would show up in the back of a cop car.

      Like

  36. AghastInFL says:

    Anyone notice the picture at the Orlando Sentinel? Is the gentleman alongside George known? or a random citizen caught unawares?
    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-gps-hearing-20121211,0,2988038.story

    Like

  37. Sentenza says:

    At what point are the Martins going to be liable for the behavior of their child?

    Like

    • I think I’ve posted before that since Trayvon was a minor his parents would probably be legally responsible for compensating George for his medical expenses and pain and suffering (IANAL). It wouldn’t go over well with the public if George tried nor do I think he would. Bigger fish to fry.

      Like

      • waltherppk says:

        Technically the parents are liable to George for the cost of the bullet.

        Like

      • jello333 says:

        That’s what I think. Even though Sybrina and Tracy are obviously part of the Scheme Team, and they know what they’re doing is wrong, George and MOM/West will probably not try to go after them. Tracy could probably even be criminally charged, if the whole truth comes out. But no, I very much doubt that those two will be targets, even of civil action. As long as it eventually becomes clear to the PUBLIC that they were both involved, that’ll be enough. Oh, but then of course they’ve got the IRS to worry about… forgot about that!

        Like

        • Alexandra M. says:

          Just my opinion, but Tracy and Sabrina NEED TO FLIP and turn Defense witness. Not later….but NOW!

          Like

          • Vanya says:

            If they were smart they would and chalk it up to grief. But really, they knew he wasn’t going to college, and they knew he had been bad for years. Maybe they truly think no one should have ever provoked their violent son. But they have made a lot of money. His crypt says “Good Job” on it.. I find that odd.

            Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            My opinion:

            At some point, SOMEONE is going to fold. It will be someone from Crump’s team or from the State. By State, I am including the SPD and/or public officials.

            That person will be the smartest, dumbest, strongest, weakest, or maybe the one who is most fearful of losing the most important things to them, like a family. I doubt that honor will have anything to do with it. If there was any honor among this crowd, this would have ended long ago.

            Then, CYA games should begin among the other players. After all that has happened, it will be nice to watch the dominoes fall.

            Like

            • If you’re including the SPD then I think Serino has already “flipped”.

              Like

              • jello333 says:

                I’d like to think that too. But the guy is… what’s the word?…. an enigma.

                Like

                • Maybe. It does seem like before George was arrested he was playing both sides of the fence. But now, with Baez’s involvement, I don’t think Serino is on the State’s side in this. Serino did take a lot of abuse about how he handled the case. We’ll see.

                  Like

                • jello333 says:

                  No, I agree. I’m just not 100% sure. But if I had to bet, I’d say yeah… Serino is gonna be a big help for the defense before this is over. Especially if what we hear about him telling the FBI(?) about being pressured to file is correct.

                  Like

  38. howie says:

    Well sounds like I did not miss anything. Appears the judge should be on the TV show….Hoarders. Can’t even get it together to rule on motions. This is not normal for a circuit judge. Oh well. What next another month of stymie. The defense wants to move with its investigation. The judge is roadblocking them. I actually think she may be incompetent.

    Like

    • jello333 says:

      I’m wondering if this could legally be done: Can a lawyer contact a judge (in person, via phone, email, whatever), WITHOUT MAKING IT PUBLIC, and express their concerns over how the judge is handling things? I mean, of course they’d probably have to do that with the other side (in this case Bernie) apprised of what’s going on. But could MOM write and tell the judge he thinks she’s not reading the motions closely enough, and is in effect enabling the foot-dragging by the prosecution? And maybe even announce his intentions to go over her head if she doesn’t start showing more interest in the proceedings. Yes, I understand that could anger the judge, and so it might not be a good strategy, but I’m just wondering if it’s even ALLOWED by the rules of conduct or whatever.

      Like

      • hooson1st says:

        I think that that would be considered an ex parte communication and I think that is a general rule that one party to a proceeding may not contact the judge independently, but must inform the other side or something like that.

        Like

        • kadar says:

          What about an amicus or something like that?

          Like

        • jello333 says:

          Yeah I know. That’s why I said, “of course they’d probably have to do that with the other side (in this case Bernie) apprised…”

          But assuming they did that, so it wasn’t ex parte…. then what?

          (I’m trying out italics on “ex parte”. If it doesn’t work, don’t laugh at me. 😉 )

          Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          Acting as my own attorney, I once wrote a letter to the judge. I found it very quickly that not only can you not do that but you can also be charged with several different crimes. Think of it like bribery.

          Like

      • captainronmexico says:

        Sending a letter to a judge, even if copied to the other side, is quite frowned upon (if not illegal) in most jurisdictions. Sometimes non-controversial letters, for example re basic scheduling, are sent. No ethical lawyer would do what you are suggesting, IMO. Crump probably has a template saved in his office software.

        Like

    • hooson1st says:

      I had different impression, and do not feel that the judge was roadblocking the defense.

      Like

    • LouDaJew says:

      I thought she was incompetent at the first hearing. I wonder if she’s a drinker. she seems very lost.

      Like

  39. anwtex says:

    Incredible.

    Natalie Jackson ‏@NatJackEsq

    Decided NOT 2 go 2 hearing or give a media comment. Call me when SYG hearing & trial starts.
    REFUSE 2 HELP THEM STAY N MEDIA 4 FUNDRAISING.

    1:01 PM – 11 Dec 12

    Like

  40. So, who are all the people that gave post hearing interviews or commentary?

    Like

  41. captainronmexico says:

    On the ridiculous blog that I will neither name nor link to:

    “Tomorrow (today) is motion day in the Trayvon Martin murder case and one of the more interesting motions is the defendant’s motion to seal his text messages, emails and journal entries until both sides can review them. O’Mara claims release of the evidence will “adversely affect the proper administration of justice in this case, and may make it impossible to find an appropriate jury unaffected by this information.”

    Late to the news today – was such a motion even filed? Simply a fever dream? Did the “professor” just flat out make this up?

    I couldn’t even read the comments over there without starting to drool.

    Like

    • howie says:

      I think it may have been another Blondeshell.

      Like

      • Alexandra M. says:

        Drooling idiots and total wanna-be “legal scholars” (cough, cough XENA the narcissist, anyone? LOL).
        Ship of Fools. The dumb leading the dumb. Strangest thing…..whenever I go and peruse that inane website I’m overcome with the small of marihuana and patchouli oil!!!! 🙂

        Like

        • Alexandra M. says:

          By the way, Mr. Fake-A$$ “professor”. We’re thrilled you have been I officially BANNED from Washington state!!! Good riddance. 🙂

          Like

        • jello333 says:

          Hey! No badmouthing the smell of marijuana and patchouli. 😉

          Like

          • dmoseylou says:

            I am seriously offended by the Urban Dictionary definition of patchouli oil. I may have been a flower child of the 60’s, but I was Never dirty. (Except that one time at an outdoor concert, in the rain, when I slid unceremoniously down the muddy little hill we were sitting on the top of. Not my fault!!!)

            Patchouli Oil
            Hippie perfume.
            http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Patchouli%20Oil

            Like

            • jello333 says:

              Never seen that. Yeah, pretty stupid. But of course it’s written by someone who has the “dirty hippies” caricature implanted deep in their brain.

              Like

            • jello333 says:

              “Except that one time at an outdoor concert, in the rain, when I slid unceremoniously down the muddy little hill”

              And I assume if that happened just outside of Bethel, NY in ’69, you would have mentioned that. 😉

              Like

  42. Alexandra M. says:

    One last quick thing to add:
    One of your pets, Malisha must have been named about the word Malicious.
    As in, malicious prosecution.

    Like

  43. Is someone hunting rabbits?

    Like

  44. On twitter the Trayvon cultists are thinking that the information Baez gave to the prosecution is somehow going to help the state (mention of murder 2 charge). I laughed. I really don’t think Baez likes FL prosecutors, and if the letter he sent to Nelson is any indication he doesn’t like BDLR in particular.

    Like

  45. ottawa925 says:

    I am not sure why Judge gives … FBI and who was the other one (FDLE?) umm 20 days to object to the defense coming over to look at evidence. I remember the Judge saying GO THERE to inspect, and make a list of any thing that you think SHOULD BE there that isn’t. That’s another way of saying … make list of what they are hiding. According to MOM, the FBI would only allow docs to go through the state’s attorney’s office. Is that a law or something? That when FBI is on a case with a State’s Attorney that they can only provide docs to the State? I didn’t know that. And I really don’t think 20 days are necessary to file an objection. At this rate, we should finished with this case at about the same time Obamacare kicks in.

    Like

  46. anwtex says:

    “On Being A Black Lawyer” has just released the names of those chosen for 2nd Annual Power 100 list, a comprehensive catalog of the nation’s most influential black attorneys working in government, academics, and both the public and private sectors.

    “…without further ado, we present our 2013 Power 100”

    Benjamin Crump – Parks & Crump

    http://www.onbeingablacklawyer.com/wordpress/the-power-100-2013-honorees-announced

    Like

    • dmoseylou says:

      THE NEWS MAKERS
      Benjamin Crump
      Sunny Hostin-CNN

      THE DEANS
      Dean Joanne Epps – Beasley School of Law Temple Law School
      —-
      Yep, Crump is a news maker….wonder if he will be booted off of the list when his lies and treachery are exposed in the blazing sunlight.

      Good to see that the Beasley School has an honoree.

      Like

  47. ejarra says:

    Video via D-man

    @ 42:56 BLDR says W9 claimed that George said derogatory remarks about black individuals-LIE

    @ 49:01 BLDR, “He could have stayed in the car when the Police said don’t follow him.” LIE

    I needed to listen to this agian to make sure I heard it correctly this AM.

    Like

  48. ottawa925 says:

    from the Goofs:
    http://www.onbeingablacklawyer.com/wordpress/the-power-100-2013-honorees-announced

    Now how many lawfirms are forced because of that big push for “diversity” that happened about six years ago, lawfirms absolutely had to go through diversity training, and most large/very large lawfirms diversify in hiring via ethnicity and race. Yet these ppl get away with an ALL BLACK firm. Somebody white should apply for a job there as an attorney, and then sue them for not being considered because they are white.

    Like

Comments are closed.