Beyond Absurd – About Witness #8 (Dee Dee) Telephone Interview Trayvon Martin Family Attorney Benjamin Crump “I Did Not Ask Her Name or Address”….

Trayvon Banner

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

update  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.

Yesterday, Martin Family attorney Benjamin Crump appeared in court for a hearing, only this time he was not alone.   Now he is represented by legal counsel, Bruce B Blackwell – Attorney At Law, from Orlando.

Crump lawyer

The Defense is 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, still refuse to provide the specifics of her identity – such as her address.

So yesterday, 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 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 his 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?


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?   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 did Norm Wolfinger, the district attorney, send her a subpoena only 3 days after the phone interview?

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.

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.


This entry was posted in BGI - Black Grievance Industry, George Zimmerman Open Thread, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

588 Responses to Beyond Absurd – About Witness #8 (Dee Dee) Telephone Interview Trayvon Martin Family Attorney Benjamin Crump “I Did Not Ask Her Name or Address”….

  1. myopiafree says:

    If you (or Crump) commit a massive fraud against the Florida Justice System, can the State of Florida charge you with a crime, and force you to pay $1,000,000 damages – even if you are a lawyer??


    • howie says:

      No. He is a lawyer. They are expected to be ethical and truthful in anything and everything they do in order to be in the BAR. They can not deviate. The Florida Supreme Court is in charge of the Florida Bar. To be admitted is a real heavy responsibility. One can not mess around with it. Do not think they take it lightly. They do not. It is different from other states. But they will not intervene.


    • waltherppk says:

      If Crump has to pay a million dollar Bar fine, it won’t be coming out his salary doing lawyering as a work release attorney. Maybe he can get a job as an English teacher.


    • eastern2western says:

      yes, it is completely possible. do you remember the casey anthony case? Now that woman is facing suits from state and private citizens because she told the police a mexican woman kidnaped her child and the agencies spent thousands of dollars on searching for her child. Now, all these agencies wasted their money are sueing anthony for their expenses.


  2. ed greene says:

    If I was the state of Florida I would worry that every defendant that was ever before Lester or Nelson or indicted by Angela could not get a fair trial according to do constitution. They way the have favored state is unbeliavable. Nelson made a ruling that 48 hour rule with she completely forget about in yesterdays hearing. BDLR and Corey know that something is rotten in Denmark with W8 Dee Dee . They can not be that dumb to believe W8 Crump are truthful. If they Bondi or Scott have any brains the know the gig is up. Watch how many appeals are going to come up after this fiasco from convicted defendants. You got to know when to hold em and when to foldem. If you watched the entire hearing yesterdady MOM said malpatrice 2013.


    • ottawa925 says:

      Actually, the more I think about that Affidavit .. I’m no legal eagle, but the Judge DID make a decision the day of the hearing. She STOPPED the deposition. She should have asked Crump’s attorney when Crump was served notice. If they wanted to have the Affidavit serve in lieu of dep, they should have brought it by Motion asap after Notice, . I don’t know if the notice of dep to Crump is available to view to get the dates, but to wait till the day of the hearing with the dep scheduled the same day is just a ploy, and by stopping the deposition, she did EXACTLy what they wanted. If she deems the Affidavit sufficient, Mom/West need to appeal that decision, and to mention how it was brought to the Judge and she basically stopped the dep from going forward as Notice and from what I gather … AGREED to.


    • leander22 says:

      They way the have favored state is unbeliavable. Nelson made a ruling that 48 hour rule with she completely forget about in yesterdays hearing.

      Do we know how long in advance Benjamin Crump was informed about his deposition?. I would help us a lot if O’Mara published them on the gz legal site date they are sent out. But he doesn’t do that. Maybe to not show that they are occasionally canceled and a new one has to be sent?

      In any case in his Jan. 30, 2013 motion to continue, it is still a “planned deposition” only:.

      Benjamin Crump: Only recently Mr. Crump has identified that he intends to file motions attendant to his planned deposition and defense counsel was recently contacted by counsel who may become involved in the case representing Mr. Crump and his firm. Therefore, it is anticipated that additional litigation will be necessary to address and resolve issues surrounding Mr. Crump’s deposition.

      Notice “planned”.

      We can compare the advance notice of the dates for other depositions e.g. for David Lee and W #18 on Jan 23, 2013.It is dated 21, Jan, 2013. Thus two days in advance. The deposition of of W#4 and W#15 are dated Jan 17, 2013 and supposed to take place on Jan 18, 2013 thus one day later.

      If we assume that a similarly short notice was used for Benjamin Crump, how should he have adhered to a 48 hour advance rule, apart from the fact why should he be bound by a rule that only concerns the parties, in other words defense and prosecution?

      Thus no, in this context Debra Nelson does not show she favors the prosecution, since Benjamin Crump is not part of the prosecution, legally. And apart from the above he is not bound by the rules for the parties involved.

      As far as I can tell, what you and defense really want to know can be only be by accessed by deposing w#8. When did the father contact her? What did he ask and tell her, and how many contacts did she have with Benjamin Crump? All this should show on her phone records. Where whatever she says can also be verified. Which may well be the reason why they sticked to phone contacts beyond the meeting with law authorities in Sybrina Fulton’s house.


  3. ejarra says:

    Crazy question from a crazy idea. The premise may happen though.

    What would happen if DD was found to be a fake created by Crump. That there was more than one DD and that it was found out that she appeared for the sole purpose of an arrest and that she never was on the phone. Now because of that, the charges get dropped and Georgie and MOM/West get back all the money due to them from the state. If the state says that they would not have made the arrest without DD’s testimony, could they then go after Crump, if DD1/2 turn states evidence against him, both criminally and civilly. Would he then have to pay the state for both the states and the defenses expenses?


  4. leander22 says:

    Two points:
    Can’t DeeDee have been both 17 on 2/26/2012 and 18 on 4/2/2012? My birthday is on 31 of March. In the year I turned 18 I would have been 17 on the first date and 18 on the seconds. You don’t need two different people. People do in fact age as time passes.

    Concerning how State could have contacted DeeDee without Crumps help? Well why not simple dial the number on Trayvon phone records as his father had done? Crump probably handed in both the recording and the phone record, and FBI passed on copies to the FDLE in Florida. Easy really.

    Concerning a lot of the other points. Why would Benjamin Crump need her address, if she did not want him to meet her at her home? But only agreed to answer the questions about what happened that night on the phone with a number of people she was informed about present. Sounds strange? Well, she may have her reasons to not give out her address a friend was just shot on his way home, you know? And why should you trust everybody? I am not sure I would trust you.


    • howie says:

      Get witness 8 and put her on the front page. The whole page. Show her. Expose her BS we want to know who the heck she is. Why she can’t Pee? Who the heck is she that is the cause of this. No mercy.


    • mung says:

      I don’t know go ask Freddy, I am sure he will give you some sort of lame reasons why this shell game is acceptable.


    • sundance says:

      No. You cannot be “16” on March 19th 2012, and be “18” on April 2nd 2012.


      (3/21/12 Today Show w/ Crump, Sybrina, Tracy @1:40 “she is a 16 year old teenager”)

      Watch the video above. Crump talked to her March 19th. On march 22nd Norm Wolfinger sent her a supoenea. On March 23rd Angela Corey took over. On March 27th she was refusing to talk to authorities. On April 2nd she did. On April 9th the Grand Jury was cancelled…. (inference, she would not appear). On April 11th GZ was arrested using her sworn statement in the probable cause affidavit.


      • Lou says:

        good find Sundance. MOM may need to use all these clips to make a point. actually, not that it matters, notice how George’s pic is lightened. I remember the first time I saw GZ live, and I was like dang, this guy is not white.


      • leander22 says:

        Sundance, Lou et al, I am aware that you cherish that you adore at the altar of media mis- or disinformation. The problem is this is no evidence, only hearsay. People misunderstand occasionally and occasionally assume something, which it may or may not be. They also quite frequently misunderstand each other.

        For me the whole confusion surrounding the age of Witness #8 is resolved by Benjamin Crump’s affidavit. Did he ask for her age or simply assumed a lot of things? Things easily triggered by the male female combination. Most people assume a friendship between a boy and a girl is necessarily romantic and that in this context and age the boy tends to be older than the girl. Simply since girls are “more developed” at that age.

        I have made this argument before somewhere else. When I was DeeDee’s age I had a lot of friends, male friends mainly, since I was interested and playing lead guitar with others on other instruments. At that time there were no females far and wide to be found that actually were interested in founding a beat band. They, with a few exceptions, were mainly interested in clothes and dating males. My choice of friends at that point in time had to do a lot with looking for people that had the same interests: the arts, not only music. Age did not matter much in this context. Since I never looked for a husband or romantic affairs at that point in time. Never mind that my father always suspected it. Is Benjamin Crump a father and has got a daughter? Does this daughter tend to have boyfriends slightly older? One two years? Does he notice the same pattern in his daughter, niece their friends? Is he himself one or two years older than his wife?

        I have always considered this a possibly easy to explain accident. Does he write he asks her for her age? Would he age matter to him? He doesn’t have seemed to have asked her any biographical or personal data apart from this:

        Briefly determined that Witness 8 had been close with Trayvon and that she had been upset upon learning of his death (and, in fact, had been unable to attend Trayvon’s wake because she had to go to hospital);

        I am aware you believe you have evidence that this is not true. Notice at that age I did not go to funerals either. I attended my first funeral with 23, when my favorite aunt had died. Only at that point I realized why I may not have done so before, I had a complete breakdown. It is something very, very final. If you don’t stand at a grave you can much better cut out this finality from your mind.

        What may be legally significant though, is that DeeDee was only 17 at the time she talked to Trayvon on the phone. What I would be interested in, is this. Let’s suppose George is not released or acquitted on the SYG hearing or the trial, would you still like to have a go at DeeDee? Since she is the main culprit for you? If so, they better protect her identity at any of these events. And I am not sure if they can.


        • leander22 says:

          Sorry I didn’t close the blockquote. I am a bad proofreader. Preview option would be fine.


        • jello333 says:

          “He doesn’t have seemed to have asked her any biographical or personal data apart from this:”

          SO HE SAYS. I think the disconnect here is that you think Crump may just be a little disorganized or incompetent, while most of the rest of us think he’s simply a LIAR and SCHEMER. I take almost nothing he said in that affidavit as true. Some of it very well might be true, but I’m not assuming that. Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe he’s more than willing to LIE if it can in any way help him.


      • leander22 says:

        On April 2nd she did. On April 9th the Grand Jury was cancelled…. (inference, she would not appear).

        Not necessarily, Sundance, do you have more precise information concerning the SYG hearing? I was late when the case drew my attention, and thus I may be wrong about early reports or events. My impression was that there was no planned SYG hearing since it was either not considered necessary or alternatively investigations were still ongoing.

        I’d really appreciate more precise information on that point.


    • hooson1st says:

      valid points. But, would an attorney rush off and publicize alleged information from a “witness”, he had never seen, knew nothing about, verified nothing about, and assiduously avoided knowing anything about.

      Like Sundance says, this smells.


      • leander22 says:

        All he needed to know as an attorney, hooson1st, is that she was the last person that had contacted Trayvon by phone shortly before he was shot. That’s all he really needed to know. The publication was done as attorney for his client who feared the case would be closed down silently. He wanted to make sure she would be heard before that happened. That’s what he needed the publicity for. He also had to act according to his clients wishes in this context.

        He didn’t need to know more, neither did he need to verify anything. That would have been the task of FDLE where the case had ended at that point in time.


        • jello333 says:

          “The publication was done as attorney for his client who feared the case would be closed down silently. He wanted to make sure she would be heard before that happened.”

          Oh, but you forget one thing: Dee Dee most definitely WAS about to “be heard”. By a prosecutor (Wolfinger) and a Grand Jury. But for some odd reason, Crump, Tracy, Sybrina, and the rest wanted no part of that. In fact they did everything in their power to PREVENT that from happening… to PREVENT Dee Dee form “being heard.” Hmm… very curious.


    • libby says:

      “Can’t DeeDee have been both 17 on 2/26/2012 and 18 on 4/2/2012?”
      Well, they said she was SIXTEEN, NOT SEVENTEEN.
      and one cannot age two years in 11 months.
      And to prove you are who you say you are, you must tell us your name and your address…there were no threats against the martin supporters, the threats of violence have been made agaisnt George, his family and anyoen who dared stand up for justice for all


    • jello333 says:



  5. akathesob says:

    As a FloriDuh resident I personally feel George will never get his true day in a real court of his peers. This is one crooked good old boy state where all the players drool over Chicago Jesus every word.


    • howie says:

      You damn well got that right. I concur.


    • leander22 says:

      If I look at the Bush jun’s election, I certainly get the impression that is may well be a “crooked good old boy state” to a minor or larger extend. The question is how you define crookedness. Does it have colors, blue incidentally?

      Look Jeralyn Merrit as her blog name suggests is blue or a democrat, she is nevertheless firmly on George Zimmerman’s side. So maybe you shouldn’t worry too much and look for the better evidence beyond “Scheme Team”.

      Maybe there really is GPS data that perfectly well supports George Zimmerman’s story? Trayvon entered RTL at Taaffe’s house and at one point turned back and circled GZ’s car with his hand in his waistband. Then stayed at the T-section did not move for a time waiting for GZ to pass on his way back to his car. Imagine this data has the precision of let’s say 10 to 20 feet.

      Or alternatively that the time for the precise disconnection of DeeDee’s call can be uncovered by forensics with much more precision than the T-mobile connection data, which seems to add up and charge full minutes for every call instead of the precise connection time.


  6. JW says:

    Can someone answer a question. So, the prosecution claims Dee Dee was on the phone with Trayvon before he was shot. All they seem to have is a phone bill with a number from a phone that Dee Dee claims is her number. Shouldn’t the prosecution have proof that Dee Dee’s cell phone actually belongs to her, the phone was in her possession at the time she claims to have been on it and she was actually e one talking to Trayvon? It seems everyone is taking for granted that what is claimed about Dee Dee is true. Shouldn’t the prosecution be required to prove everything?


    • hooson1st says:

      yes, but we are not at trial yet.


      • JW says:

        True, but nothing in discovery so far? It doesn’t make sense.


        • boricuafudd says:

          Not at trial yet, but everything in the discovery has taken for granted that DD was indeed on the phone with TM at the time in question. Even though, they did not know who she was, if the phone was hers, and it was in her possession at the time of the call, which so far we nothing concrete that they actually took place, in the first place.


    • myopiafree says:

      Hi JW, Yes the STATE has the OBLIGATION to do this research. But they refuse to do it – or release it to the DEFENSE. We noted from the beginning that the CELL PHONE WAS in “Safe Mode”. Which mean that is was NOT OPERABLE in the last 30 minutes. TM could not have been talking or texting in that time-frame. Further, when we finally got the thumb-drive data, six months later, it SHOWED that the phone was not working in that last 30 minutes, because nothing was recorded in that flash memory. But let us presume that it WAS WORKING. Then the (separate) Towers would have heard the “pings” from that phone and recorded the phone number, the time and the location. The STATE has a direct obligation to GET THAT INFORMATION FOR THE DEFENSE – AND TO PROVE THE DEEDEE (FAKE) STORY. Then did not do that. We can only suspect the worst – and most of it has been borne out by the “obstruction of justice” conducted by Bernie and Angela Corey.


      • JW says:

        Thanks for the responses. I would think they would not only need to prove these things about Trayvon’s phone but Dee Dee’s phone as well. Since cell phones are not like landlines and can be taken virtually anywhere.


  7. HughStone says:

    “Trayvon was on top of George MMA style” : John the witness.
    Case closed.

    MMA fighter dies after ground and pound.

    Refree stopped the match in 41 seconds.

    Michael Kirkham

    30-year-old Michael Kirkham competed at Dash Entertainment/King MMA “Confrontation at the Convocation Center” in Aiken, South Carolina on June 26, 2010.[5] His opponent Carlos Iraburo had Kirkham on the canvas seconds into his pro debut,[6][7] Iraburo then landed a few strikes to the head of his grounded opponent leading to a referee stoppage forty-one seconds into the match. Kirkham soon lost consciousness and never recovered.[6] He was pronounced dead two days after the fight.[8] An autopsy report listed the cause of death as “subarachnoid hemorrhage of the brain”.[9]


  8. tara says:

    I want to see the affidavit which states that DeeDee is 18. Surely they can black out her name, address, and other identifying info. I just want to see that “18” so badly….

    Another great article, Sundance.


  9. waltherppk says:

    Maybe a lawyer can explain these words:
    (In Lieu of Deposition or, ALTERNATIVELY, in Support Of Motion For Protective Order)

    Does that mean this:
    (To Spare Mr. Crump from Having to Plead the Fifth, Please Excuse Him From Answering Any Questions)


    • jello333 says:

      I think it means Crump wants the judge to say the affidavit is good enough, and so he doesn’t have to do the deposition. But even if she DOESN’T rule that way, they want her to consider something else: That for some other reason (probably because he’s a lawyer or something), she’s still not gonna make him do the depo. (And they want her to take the affidavit into account when considering that, too.)


      • waltherppk says:

        But the judge doesn’t get to choose what questions O’Mara may want to ask Crump.
        Neither is the leave of the Court required for O’Mara to subpoena Crump as is O’Mara’s right under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Crump is seeking special treatment to which he is not entitled under the law. What could happen is that Crump could demand that his deposition be taken in the presence of the judge so that objections to any questions could be ruled upon instanter by the judge during the course of the deposition of Crump, but I see no legal way the judge could simply quash a subpoena for Crump to give a deposition, since the judge has no crystal ball to tell her what may be the topics of inquiry by O’Mara.


  10. arkansasmimi says:

    Paragraph 34 (bottom of pg 11 top of page 12) to me says, that after talking to DD, Chump and Trayfam decided that the benifits of telling the world about DD were greater than the risks. Chump decided to give his Interview and tell everyone including media that he found DD, yet supposedly DD didnt want her ID known. Actually IMHO, he already has went against what “DD and her parents” wanted by going to the Media. (IF you believe Chump to start with)


    • jello333 says:

      Yeah, that’s part of one of Multiple Dee Dees theory. Crump had promised Dee Dee #1 that he’d only use her statement for the bare minimum necessary, and she’d never have to worry about the whole world hearing about her, let alone having to ever testify in court, etc. And so once it became obvious they weren’t gonna keep their promise, Dee Dee (and her Mom?) freaked, and told Crump to get lost.

      Oops! We’re gonna need another Dee Dee!


    • sundance says:

      So it was only when Tracy Martin was looking over his son’s phone bill about three weeks after Trayvon’s death that he noticed the call. He didn’t dial the number, according to Julison, the Crump spokesman, but turned the phone over to the lawyer, who contacted the girl. Crump, needless to say, did not inform the police. Instead he went to Matt Gutman of ABC. According to Julison, Gutman was chosen because he’d done some good — i.e., sympathetic — reporting, but the spokesman insisted there was no special reason to select him.

      Read more:


  11. justfactsplz says:

    Also I remember reading on Radar online that Dee Dee was hospitialized the day after the wake,is that right? If so Crump could have met her at the wake. She was so distraught to find out she was the last one to talk to him. Crump told her that.


  12. eastern2western says:

    this case will forever be teach in law schools as the worst example of witness handling. Lets begin the lessons.
    1) when an attorney finds a critical witness, call the cops and let them handle it. Using race can not be a legal excuse to shield the witness from authorities.
    2) when conducting an interview with a witness, always have an officer of the court present. This could be a court reporter or an attorney. However, the best rule is still number one.
    3) when conducting an interview, always do a face to face interview. do not use telephone, skype, internet or what ever.
    4) what ever activities that are involve during, before or after the interview, it is always smart to have them documented by video recordings. Not some cheap ass audio recorder.
    5) If all else fails, do not bring a lawyer with you on the day of your deposition which will make you 10 times as guilty, especially when you are already a lawyer.
    6) the final resolution is burn your bridges and blame everything on your clients. Let me remember the politano interview, crump said it was tracy who found dd, tracy spoke to her first and tracy who arrange the interview. clearly, crump is setting the martins up as the cushions.


    • jello333 says:

      “crump said it was tracy who found dd, tracy spoke to her first and tracy who arrange the interview”

      Early on when Crump was first saying that, it seemed like he was just wanting to give Tracy the credit, to make him look like a hero in the public’s eyes. But now it’s clear that was NOT his reason. As you say, he might need to throw Tracy under the bus at some point in the near future.


      • boricuafudd says:

        Or consequently you might say that Crump suspected something and gave himself an out, right of the bat.

        “Your Honor, I have been misled!!” said Crump


        • jello333 says:

          The 1st Annual Florida State Under-the-Bus Tossing Contest

          First up, Tracy Martin. His toss… and there goes Dee Dee!

          Now Ben Crump….oh, Tracy is looking pretty uncomfortable under there!

          And the crowd goes wild with their chants of ‘Bernie! Bernie!’ Oh, nice toss… and yes, Crump is indeed crumpled!

          Oh, and here’s Little Angie Corey, looking lovely as usual. Look at Bernie’s arms flap as he goes under that bus!

          So it looks like Angie will be coming to the Winner’s Circle. Uh, but wait! Here comes Pam Bondi and Rick Scott…


  13. Rich Branson says:

    Sad day for America. You have the liars and schemers that make up the “scheme team”, and they have the “thugs of America” to threaten riot and back them up. The fix is in, and the list of conspirators is long, from Obama and Holder all the way down to ambulance chasing ghetto lawyer Crump. There’s so many signs that an intelligent person can see, that point to this being a matter of corruption at the highest levels, one of the innocuous signs I’ve noticed is the fact that Sanford Mayor Jeff Triplett and City Manager Norton Bonaparte took part in the Justice for Trayvon event the day of the last hearing. I mean to any sane person with two brain cells to rub together this would be a major tell. The mayor, attending a “Justice for Trayvon” rally, the day of a hearing? Really? Helllo!! McFly!!!! This is unbelievable. The amount of evidence now available all showing that this violent thug attacked a law abiding citizen who was trying to make his community safer and the Mayor is part of the charade??? I send out a hearty good luck to MOM and the defense team, because I think they are definitely gonna need it. Sad day for America when the thugs and the brainless libs rule the country.


  14. arkansasmimi says:

    ADMINS you have Mail… If you see this lol getting close to 600~


  15. jordan2222 says:

    Almost 600 comments. Holy cow.


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s