BDLR (State of Florida) Motion To Avoid State Witness Absence Prejudice In Zimmerman Trial…..

bernie walk like an egyptianjudge nelson 2

Multiple motions filed by the State of Florida last week are coming to light today.   One of the more interesting motions is the “State Motion Regarding The Calling Of A Witness“.

witness discovery

In essence BDLR is filing a motion, in advance of the case even starting, asking the judge to deliver an order, to stop the defense from using the absence of witness testimony to show the weakness in the State’s case.

The motion itself is predictive in nature – meaning the State is predicting the Defense will use a non-called witness against them.    Which begs the following question:

What witnesses are optically so valuable to the State’s case that their absence would prejudice a jury?  

The list of STATE witnesses holding such a risk value in absence is quite small:   Witness #8 aka. Dee Dee obviously tops the list;  Followed by Sanford Detective/Lieutenant Randy Smith, and/or, Sanford PD Detective Serino;  Then possibly Police Chief Bill Lee.

The risk of Serino or Smith cuts to the arrest affidavit and lack of substantive probable  cause.  OR, perhaps, because both have knowledge of Miami-Dade School Police Department records of Trayvon Martin they obtained during the victimology report assembly. (which they never used)

Former Police Chief Bill Lee perhaps a risk because of his continued claim that no evidence had ever surfaced which disputed the outline provided by George Zimmerman.

However, the more interesting, and far more likely potential non-witness, to provide the GREATEST risk, and who was key to the state’s case in April 2012, is Witness #8, Dee Dee.

Excerpt from affidavit Dee Dee

We have  said from last April forward the “Character” defined, explained and identified by Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, called “Dee Dee” would NEVER reach a courtroom.

Why?   Because the construct of the narrative she represents is fictitious.

“Dee Dee”, the 16-year-old minor child, puppy love, who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin for 6 hours and 40 minutes (400 minutes), who never contacted anyone post shooting, and who was unknown to both Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton prior to March 17th 2012, and who was taken to the hospital during the funeral dates because she was so overcome with grief, is, in actuality, Keyser Soze.

That assembly of deliciously constructed media talking points, that was given the identity of Dee Dee – is 100% BOGUS !

…… AND here’s where it gets blood boiling – THE STATE KNOWS THIS !

Earlier today we were asked  by someone closely following the case, and not attached to the defense team, to describe how, or even if, all of the known inconsistencies can be reconciled.   Given over a  year of following this case, yes, I believe they can;  And here is my explanation of how:

Keyser Soze (the character presented by Crump) is a collective figure of partial person(s) associated with the storyline of Trayvon.

On March 19th the now famous phone call with “DeeDee” took place.   Tracy, Sybrina, Matt Gutman et al, were on the phone on one end – A 16-yr-old (Francine?) and an 18-year-old woman, who became Dee Dee, along with a parent of the described 16-year-old were on the other end (with other unknown entities).

Crump claims in his affidavit to have parental permission for the call, contact and recording.

Matt Gutman wrote that he interviewed the 16-year-old on at least two other occasions, after the initial 3/19/12 phone call.

Francine wrote (as affirmed by DeeDee in the defense deposition) the statement that stemmed from the call.   Dee Dee signed it.   This is the statement the Scheme Team used to kick off the narrative and demand an arrest.

The Scheme Team refused to allow “Dee Dee” to talk to Sanford Police authorities.  Instead attorney Benjamin Crump claimed he would only present her to the “federal authorities”.     Sanford DA Norm Wolfinger then said he would issue a subpoena for Dee Dee to appear at the scheduled April 11th 2012 Grand Jury hearing.

Wolfinger was taken off the case the next day and replaced by Special Prosecutor Angela Corey at the behest and appointment of Florida State Attorney General, and Benjamin Crump friend, Pam Bondi.

Corey appointed Bernie De La Rionda to pursue the case against Zimmerman as lead prosecutor.

On April 2nd, in Miami, after some delay in location, the 18-year-old Dee Dee was picked up by the state investigators and delivered to the apartment of Sybrina Fulton where she gave a sworn statement.

On April 10th in Jacksonville, Angela Corey announced she would file charges against George Zimmerman.  He was arrested on April 11th, 2012;  Coincidentally the same date the Grand Jury was supposed to be impaneled (Corey cancelled that GJ on April 9, instead deciding to file 2nd degree murder charges without a Grand Jury).

After arrest, and during the following few months, Bernie De La Rionda argued in front of Judge Lester, to protect (with prejudice) the identity of Witness #8 “Dee Dee”, because she was a minor.   Judge Lester agreed and ordered all of her identifying information to be sealed.   The State even refused to give the defense her address or identifying characteristics of her personage.

Sometime in June/July BDLR became aware of inconsistencies in the claims by Dee Dee during the April 2nd 2012 statement in Sybrina’s apartment.

Some of the known inconsistencies are:  Aged 18, never in the hospital, did not actually author the statement of 3/19/12.

On August 2nd 2012, the State flew Dee Dee, and the girl known as “Francine” to Jacksonville for further inquiry.    (*note* To date no information has been provided to the defense about this meeting – we only know of its existence from the detective notes in the discovery who transported W8, along with W8 saying she was accompanied by “Francine”)

Whoever Francine is holds enough weight such that the State of Florida would pay for, and expect, their appearance during this August 2nd meeting.

More than likely this is when BDLR found the construct of Keyser Soze.

After the August meeting, and after Judge Lester was removed from the case, during a hearing with newly appointed Judge Nelson, BDLR questioned Mark O’Mara referencing his frustration with the still unknown identity of Witness #8 by saying “are you sure she is a minor”?

A seemingly ridiculous question from the same BDLR who argued previously, albeit to a different judge, to protect her identity based on her age.

Eventually, after much consternation, delays, obfuscations, and judicial stupidity by Judge Nelson, BDLR presented a person he identified as Witness #8 for deposition.   However, he protested any video recording of the deposition itself – such that five+ hours of delay were encountered while they sought to get Judge Nelson to affirm the appropriate.

Prior to the deposition BDLR admitted the interviewee never went to the hospital;  He claimed she lied.  He covered the lie with another manufactured lie about her reasoning was being because of guilt for not attending the funeral, and because Sybrina was present during both interviews 3/19/12 and again 4/2/12.

How could Sybrina be in front of Dee Dee during the 3/19/12 ABC/Crump phone interview, and yet be “ashen-faced” in front of Matt Gutmann at the same time?

She couldn’t.   That lie (about reason) was merely to provide cover for the initial hospital lie.

During that defense deposition the issues lies about the Crump narrative began to surface.  The person who appeared for the deposition was 18 (now 19), she was never at the hospital, she did not author the 3/19/12 statement (Francine did), and she travelled to Jacksonville with “Francine” in August 2012.

Further the person at the defense deposition claims not to know who “Francine” is, nor does she know her last name.

Yet she sat with her on 3/19/12, and again travelled to Jacksonville with her in August 2012.

The simplest explanations are usually the most accurate.    The person Crump described during his 3/20/12 presser was a fictional character, a Keyser Soze per se.

The 16-year-old present during the 3/19/12 ABC/Crump interview who Crump introduced, and who Matt Gutman followed up with, and who Sybrina described as having met at her apartment after talking to her mother, was not the same person as the 18-year-old who showed up to be interviewed by Bernie De La Rionda on April 2nd.

The defense has met the 18-year-old who said:

….when questioned about her phone being in her name:

“yeah, well, I think it should be now”

…..when questioned about *hearing* the encounter with Zimmerman:

“oh, you want that too”

That person, that 18-year-old, who gave her statement to the State under very suspicious circumstances of 4/2/12, which led to the arrest affidavit issued by Angela Corey…. that person is more than likely the witness Bernie is seeking protections for not putting in the courtroom.

It is the absence of “that witness” that provides the greatest risk of prejudice.

witness discovery

Advertisements
This entry was posted in BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Conspiracy ?, Day By Day Trayvon Lies - The Story, George Zimmerman Open Thread, M-DSPD, Police action, Trayvon Martin, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to BDLR (State of Florida) Motion To Avoid State Witness Absence Prejudice In Zimmerman Trial…..

  1. LOu says:

    so who will the Prosecution use to counter George’s claims? I’m guessing they will call a lot of so called “experts”. this is ridiculous. something must be done to move this case out of state etc. I’m not sure how or if that can be done. the Prosecution will use Crump to go on TV talking about Trayvon’s minor child girlfriend etc. MOM will be too busy to counter his claims.

    Like

    • ytz4mee says:

      It is the State that has to lay out, and prove their claim.

      Now that he has waived his pre-trial immunity hearing, George doesn’t have to prove anything.

      Therein lies the problem for BDLR.

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        ++++ As worried as we sometimes (rightly) get about this case, we should always go back to the basics…. a defendant’s Constitutional rights. Yes, we know there are people involved in this who think that document is no more important than a sheet of toilet paper, but in the end, they will NOT prevail. Unless every trial judge, every juror, every appeals court judge, every SCOFLA justice is corrupt, and despises the Constitution, this will turn out right in the end. Let’s just hope for George and his family’s sake that the “end” comes sooner rather than later.

        (And then after that, we of course embark on the much broader battle… holding the criminals accountable.)

        Like

      • unitron says:

        Could the pre-trial immunity thing be a “please don’t throw me in that briar patch” maneuver?

        Like

    • jello333 says:

      A lot is riding on the upcoming DCA ruling. Yeah, I know technically it’s only concerning Crump’s depo, but the domino effect of a correct ruling could be massive. Especially if the judges go beyond just a narrow ruling. How amazing if they (in effect) say to Nelson, “We will be watching you closely from now on.”

      I don’t know, but even just regarding the Crump depo, and the questions his actions in this case have raised, I think the judges of the DCA are taking this very seriously. A wrong ruling would set a seriously dangerous precedent, that could affect hundreds of defendants for decades to come. I think they have to know that. And so here’s a prediction:

      The Petition is not being decided by, and the ruling will not involve only the standard 3-judge panel. Considering the precedent potential of this, I think it’s being looked at by ALL the judges (I think there’s 10 of them)… “en banc” as they call it. Will it be unanimous? I don’t know. I suspect it’ll be close to unanimous, though maybe one or two “concurring in part” opinions to go with it.

      (I’m sure even DMan hopes I’m right about this one! 😉 )

      Like

  2. ytz4mee says:

    I have yet to see anything presented by the State that supports their capias.

    Nothing.

    What I have seen is the abuse of the power and resources of the State in concert with a derelict media to threaten, harass, intimidate, bully and verbally bludgeon a defendant into entering a plea and giving up his rights.

    This is still America, and a defendant has a right to confront his accusers.

    Release the DeeDee.

    Like

  3. howie says:

    One rule is that the state can not question a witness if the state knows the witness is going to lie. I doubt if they can call one either. This case is so plus ultra it will go in to the textbooks. Of course the TCJ can do whatever she wants. It can not be appealed until after the trial. I still think the important thing is the writ for now. I wonder if they are getting cold feet on calling up DD.

    Like

    • ytz4mee says:

      Without the DeeDee, they have nothing.

      Ergo, it substantiates the allegation of malicious prosecution.

      Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        Maybe they will not call Gailbreth. He spilled the beans at the start.

        Like

        • 22tula says:

          Without DeeDee there is no time line? Or is there?
          If Trayvon was afraid, why didn’t he just return to Brandy Green’s house and tell his Father or Chad. Why would Trayvon start a fight knowing that his love ones were at home waiting for him? Why would Trayvon start a fight when he was an invited guest in that community? Why would Trayvon start a fight, after circling the man in the truck, who was on the phone and was possibly calling the police? Why? It doesn’t make sense.

          “Tracy Martin’s 911 Call To Report Trayvon Missing”
          2 audio links below
          http://globalgrind.com/news/trayvon-martin-father-tracy-911-call-report-missing-sanford-police-george-zimmerman-details

          Audio 1 – Tracy Martin said that the last time he saw Trayvon was at 8:30 last night.
          @ 01:42 What was Trayvon wearing?
          @ 1:59 background voice, said that Trayvon was wearing Jordans.

          Audio 2 – When asked, Tracy Martin said that he had a nephew, but Trayvon was not at his nephew’s house.

          Was Tracy’s nephew the last one to see Trayvon?
          Audio 1 – was Tracy’s nephew, the background voice that mentioned the Jordan sneakers? Did Tracy’s nephew drop off Trayvon at 7-11? Did Trayvon have permission to stay at Brady’s place? Where was Chad? Did Trayvon have a key to Brady’s place? If he did, then why didn’t he just go home, and turn the lights out,( assuming that he was afraid of the man or the cops) and just wait until the coast was clear?

          Like

          • Springstreet says:

            Good questions! Tracy was told (by a voice I previously assumed was Chad) that Trayvon was wearing RED Jordans … but, doesn’t the 7/11 video AND death scene photos show Trayvon wearing TAN sneakers (and tan pants)? AND, Tracy described (with the same unidentified help) his son wearing khakis slacks … BUT, didn’t George later say that the person HE identified at the cut-thru was wearing stone washed (blue) jeans? AND, Tracy told the police HE had a nephew up here (Sanford) and Trayvon had not been to his house … BUT, how would Tracy know this (and the fact that Trayvon came in the “back gate” and had exactly $22 in a wallet not found at the crime scene) unless Tracy was talking with this same eye witness, car driving nephew … who didn’t want his big ex-gang banger uncle to know HE was (one of two drug dealers) first “chased” on Retreat View Circle … wearing blue jeans and red Jordans?

            Like

            • IAmGeorgeZimmerman says:

              this begs the question, were there 2 chases at two apartments involving 2 “crackers” and 2 martins??

              Like

              • 22tula says:

                They need to question Tracy Martin, Brandy & Chad Green, Chad’s Father and Tracy’s Nephew Stephen.
                He was wearing khaki shorts? Oops! Correction slacks. Jordans tennis shoes – white & red. Khaki, tan, stone washed (blue) jeans = light colored pants. Jordan tennis shoes could be white with red trim. Maybe at the last minute,Trayvon decided to change his sneakers because of the weather.
                My guess, and it’s only a guess is that Tracy and Brandy arrived home,(Brandy’s place), late Sunday Night from their convention. Maybe they saw police activity in their community or maybe not. But it was no concern to them because Chad was staying with his father and Trayvon was staying with his cousin Stephen.
                Monday – Going back to Miami.
                Tracy Martin gets up early and makes the call to Trayvon, to let him know the time he will be there to pick him up. No answer. Tracy then calls his nephew Stephen, to let him know, the pick up time for Trayvon. Stephen says Trayvon isn’t here. What do you mean Trayvon isn’t there? says Tracy.
                Well, says Stephen, I dropped him off at 7-11/Brady’s place last night at around??o’clock.
                Tracy Martin has a flash back of seeing police cars at this complex the night before. Tracy tells Stephen to get his butt over here. Stephen arrives at Brandy’s and he and Tracy try to figure out what happened and the whereabouts of Trayvon. Then the phone calls begin.

                I didn’t realize that this was discuss again on February 27, 2013.
                https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/02/27/day-by-day-the-trayvon-martin-fabrication-deconstructed-february-27th/

                Brady Video – They were sitting on the porch? In the rain?

                Brandy Video – sitting on the porch… In the Rain? Oh, you were home.

                Like

  4. LOu says:

    if they used Witness 8 in the Affadavit, they must use her in this case to be cross-examined. one would think that. the Affadavit is null and void if W8 is null and void or vice-versa.

    Like

    • ytz4mee says:

      I fail to understand how the State declines to call the “Star Witness” who “blows Zimmerman’s self-defense claims out of the water”, and then prevents the defense from pointing out they declined to call their own “star witness” who was the entire basis for the charge sheet because it would have “no probative value”.

      I get dizzy just trying to follow BDLR logic.

      This isn’t his first Orange Blossom Special, it’s just the first one he’s actually been challenged on. Poor BDLR can’t handle the truth.

      In addition to the gross abuse of state power and privilege, it further infuriates me that I am paying levies to support this monstrosity.

      Hi Bernie (waving) …. you disgust me.

      Like

  5. Chip Bennett says:

    Call the State’s bluff. Challenge the PCA. File a motion for dismissal.

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      writ of habeus corpus.

      Like

    • ytz4mee says:

      That would take courage.

      And preempt any valuable grandstanding and emoting about how black males are mistreated in the Just-Us system for the worldwide media.

      You act like this is about George or something.

      *snort*

      Like

    • coreshift says:

      Does it seem likely that anyone is going to just dismiss this case at this point even if the PCA is shown to be complete garbage? I think most everyone here agrees GZ should never have been charged. I think we also agree he should have won immunity, but we also know Nelson (or any non-retired judge) would never grant it. This has been scheduled for trial, and I don’t think anything is going to stop it at this point. Still, it would be interesting to see what excuses they come up with not to dismiss. But it would also be nice to see some of the shenanigans exposed in open court and in front of the media.

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        “Nelson (or any non-retired judge)”

        Nah, there are some decent ones out there. It would take courage and morality, no doubt… but a little of that still exists.

        And I feel the same way about seeing all this exposed. While it would be great to just have the case dismissed, it’s a near certainty that if that happened, most of the Scheme would not be exposed. So while I still hope this won’t go to trial, that’s at least one good thing that could come from one.

        Like

    • LetJusticePrevail says:

      Chip, after seeing a paper done about the success rate (and risks involved) of motions for dismissal, I think it would be a very poor decision for O’Mara to file for one. A motion for a directed verdict (Judgement of Acquittal) would be the preferred route. Try reading this:

      http://www.law.stetson.edu/lawreview/media/rule-3-190c4-a-rule-meant-to-be-broken.pdf

      It’s lonnnng and dry, but VERY informative on this subject.

      Like

    • sundance says:

      Chip, here’s another approach. Instead, of asking for a dismissal, West could take the prior “Open Court Question” approach I was mentioning about Crump being Co-Counsel.

      During the next hearing find a way to directly ask BDLR if he stands by the substance of the initial Probable Cause Affidavit. Just ask him – on the record, if anything has changed the States Position from their prior capias filing.

      Again, I think the best approach toward a manipulative narrative deconstruction is to ask questions of the people who assemble the manipulations.

      “is the previous capias still your formative keystone for the case built against my client”?

      Then just shut up and listen.

      Like

    • canadacan says:

      That’s what I’ve been waiting to hear

      Like

  6. HughStone says:

    So the matt gutman interview CD that MOM submitted in exhibit, is the 16 year old? Or the 18 yr old?

    Like

  7. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    Correct me I’d I am wrong, but doesn’t the Bill of Rights give a defendant the right to confront their accuser?

    Like

  8. Sharon says:

    At some point, is BDLR perhaps pleading with his minders along the lines of, “You cannot expect me to continue along these lines. Please, I beg of you…..”

    Like

  9. LittleLaughter says:

    So BDLR doesn’t want to call DD to testify (shocker…NOT); can’t the defense call her? I really don’t see how the State can get by with arguing that the defense has no right to bring up what WAS the State’s star witness, whether by calling her to the stand themselves (defense), or by questioning why the State wont. Or both.

    Like

    • cboldt says:

      If Bernardo doesn’t call Witness 8, and O’Mara does call Witness 8, then O’Mara can argue to the jury that Bernardo was hiding something by not calling Witness 8.

      Like

    • John McLachlan says:

      Suppose that the alleged phone call between Dee Dee (W8) and Trayvon Martin never took place.

      If this were the case, then the phone forensics and the cell-tower ping-logs automatically impeach the testimony of Dee Dee (W8), regarding the fatal encounter between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, in its entirety.

      The state could not call Dee Dee (W8) to testify in support of the prosecution narrative, at all.

      Her testimony could provide no evidence regarding the circumstances of Trayvon Martin’s death and could neither confirm nor refute George Zimmerman’s claim to have shot Trayvon Martin, as a justified act of self-defence.

      Under such a circumstance, could the defence call upon Dee Dee (W8) to testify, if her testimony pertained to being coached, in order to provide false evidence, used to justify a false arrest and malicious prosecution?

      Her testimony may be of relevance in possible civil suits, by George Zimmerman, against various parties, or, in criminal prosecution against several of these parties, but would it be admissible in the trial of George Zimmerman, for murder?

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        If nothing else, she is major part of the probable cause affidavit. So I’m almost certain that that would allow the Defense to call her to the stand, regardless of what the Prosecution wants. If the Prosecution objects, then MOM/West will then point to the PCA and ask if the State no longer stands by it. If they say NO, then that would likely bring an instant motion for dismissal. Or, at least it COULD… it’s possible, though, that the Defense might at that time not yet be READY to end the case… they might have more stuff they want to present first.

        Like

        • sundance says:

          jello, I’m with you on the PCA value to Dee Dee deconstruction.

          If Gilbreath is on the stand, all O’Mara needs to do is have him read for the record, the actual PCA itself (which he wrote). When Gilbreath hits the words “friend” and “she” just ask him who is this friend – who is she? …. and start from there…

          Presto – Dee Dee is introduced.

          Like

  10. cboldt says:

    Without getting into which witnesses the state has in mind, this motion is superfluous (before competent opponent and judge) or a routine reminder, in that it merely recites the rule of Haliburton v. State, 561 So.2d 248 (Fla. 1990). If O’Mara 1) doesn’t avail himself of his power to call Serino, then 2) argues that Bernardo’s failure to call Serino implies that Bernardo is hiding something, there is a problem with the trial. Bernardo offers a reasonable cure – if O’Mara screws up thusly in closing argument, the judge can tell the jury that O’Mara could have called Serino, so the jury would consider that O’Mara is hiding something, too.

    Bernardo might as well move the court for an order than O’Mara not attempt to elicit testimony that is hearsay. O’Mara already knows the rules of evidence, he doesn’t need an order from the court.

    I don’t think Bernardo is signalling anything that O’Mara doesn’t already know, and the only thing O’Mara is precluded from (motion or not, he’s precluded, period) is the “1-2” scenario involving argument to the jury. He’s not precluded from calling Serino or Witness 8, or any other witness that Bernardo may be trying to hide from the jury.

    Like

    • Knuckledraggingwino says:

      But which of the Double Dee Dees will MoM and West call?

      Even more fun is tracking down the Francine that wrote the Double Dee Dee’s affidavit and accompanied her to Jacksonville.

      Like

    • ytz4mee says:

      If that is the case, then the reason for BDLR’s motions is pure grandstanding and to generate gossip for the media complex.

      The question is … why?

      Why does BDLR want to take up space and newspaper columns with superfluous motions?

      What does BDLR *not* want taking up space and newspaper columns?

      BDLR is afraid of something and is trying to control the message.

      Like

      • cboldt says:

        This motion is “okay,” in that it isn’t legally out of line or anything. At least one of the others is irregular, but won’t amount to a hill of beans of trouble to the defense. I think he’s just putting on a good show for his homeys, and as you point out, the press will certainly help with that task.

        Like

      • jello333 says:

        The upcoming DCA ruling (and subsequent circus surrounding Crump’s depo)?

        Like

    • jello333 says:

      Thanks, that’s what I thought. Pretty much what I said in the other post, only in a less formal way: If Bernie is afraid to call a certain witness, MOM can’t point that out to a jury if he is ALSO afraid to call that witness. But if MOM does call the witness, all bets are off.

      Like

    • John McLachlan says:

      Perhaps the motion is intended as a signal to those who believe the prosecution narrative, that the evidence which supports this narrative does not exist and that consequently, the probability that the prosecution can prove their case to a jury is substantially less than the media, by their dishonest reporting, have led the public to believe.

      Having exagerated the evidence of George Zimmerman’s guilt and raised public expectations that he would be righteously convicted, at trial, the supporters of Trayvon Martin may have their expectations lowered, by gradual assimilation of teh fact that the prosecution case was speculative and supported only by manufactured evidence, now revealled to be false.

      Like

      • ctdar says:

        After prosecution presents such a weak case because they did not call certain “key” witnesses, can Defense request motion to dismiss with prejudice since Prosecution did not prove the charge and therefore not have to present their side ?

        Like

  11. IAmGeorgeZimmerman says:

    could lester had been reprimanded instead of removed? can he be currently reached for comment? Id love to hear what he makes of this/all of the recent antics……….would he have made the same kind of comments about the state as he made about gz…if he were judge today? and since hes not judge today, now what does he think of the case?

    Like

  12. IAmGeorgeZimmerman says:

    do we need to start keeping track of which of coreys lackeys writes which motions and look into their associations as well?

    Like

  13. eastern2western says:

    if nelson decides to enforce all of these motions, she just basically give O’Mara a script to read.

    Like

    • cboldt says:

      Not by a long shot. In fact, Bernardo may have filed a bunch of “gimmies” just to get some positive press when the state wins its motions. Everybody likes a winner!

      Like

  14. cboldt says:

    Just to broaden the horizon a little bit, the Haliburton rule that limits/allows argument plays if Bernardo calls Sybrina to ID the screamer on the 911 call, but doesn’t call Robert Zimmerman, Sr., and then O’Mara calls Robert, Sr. There seems to be quite a bit of attention on identification of the screamer.

    Like

    • jello333 says:

      Now I know they can’t do this, but oh how I wish they could:

      Show a video of the 2nd bond hearing, where they played the “scream” tape for Robert Sr. Split screen it. On one side, show Robert’s reaction as he’s listening to it… looks like he’s pretty shook up (as does George, who looks about to cry). On the other side, show Sybrina sitting in the gallery… nearly emotionless, maybe almost like bored or aggravated, “Oh not again, gimme a break” kind of look. Just let the jury compare and contrast those two.

      Like

  15. disgustedwithjulison says:

    Wouldn’t it be fun, if the 16 year old DD actually exists, for MOM to call both DD’s as witnesses for the defense. Holy-Bat-Clown-Show would take place and how would the state’s case be totally exposed as a fraud……bring on the 16 year old DD. Guttman has to have her information in order to do the extensive interview he did. West and MOM could have a lot of fun with questioning one right after the other while BDLR would knowingly have to sit in his own soiled chair and watch.

    Like

    • sundance says:

      I have always been amazed that the defense seems to overlook the Gutman aspect. If it were up to me personally Gutman would be deposed. Perhaps he has been, who knows?

      But if Matt Gutman has been deposed, or even questioned, then I would have almost 100% confidence that GZ would win at trial.

      The defense has video of their Dee Dee they deposed. They could easily show Gutman her pic and ask if the same from his interviews.

      Like

  16. BertDilbert says:

    BLDR hands in photo: Looks like prosecutorial martial arts in progress.

    Like

  17. Unicron says:

    I’ve decided to make a video that is a compilation of Crump’s creative pronunciation of words. I was going to appeal to anyone who wants to help me find some of his gems. If you can think of any great ones, or any at all, maybe you can link me to the video and provide a time stamp? So far I’ve only just started and I have one where he says “we’re hopeful an arrest is intimate” when he meant imminent. Within the last month there was one where he said “jurispoodence” instead of jurisprudence and there was another good pronunciation within that same video… I am having trouble finding that one again and I’d enjoy that one in particular.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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