Another intended victim to cover the fraud in the backstory of the Zimmerman Trial.
Jacksonville FL – State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
On the same day attorneys finished their closing arguments in that nationally watched trial, a state attorney investigator went to Ben Kruidbos’ home about 7:30 a.m. to hand-deliver a letter stating Kruidbos “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”
The letter contended Kruibos did a poor job overseeing the information technology department, violated public records law for retaining documents, and noted he was questioned in March when the office was trying to determine who had leaked personnel information obtained through a computer breach.
In an interview Friday, Kruidbos denied the allegations in the letter, which was written by Cheryl Peek, the managing director of the State Attorney’s Office.
He said he had acted in good faith about “genuine concerns.” He said he had been proud to work at the State Attorney’s Office and feared the letter would cripple his chances at finding another job to support his family, including a 4-month-old son.
“I don’t have any regrets,” he said, “but I am terrified about the future and what that will end up being.”
His attorney Wesley White — who resigned from the State Attorney’s Office in December and is a critic of Corey — said the firing was aimed at sending a message to office employees “that if they feel like there is wrongdoing,” they should not disclose it or seek legal guidance from a private attorney.
“If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead,” he said. “The State Attorney’s Office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but destroy their reputations in the process.”
State Attorney spokeswoman Jackelyn Barnard did not return phone calls or emails for comment.
Kruidbos, 42, had been on paid administrative leave since May 28 from his $80,892 job.
In January, he used computer software technology to extract photographs and text messages from the source file in Martin’s cellphone. Kruidbos was able to recover more information than the Florida Department of Law Enforcement obtained previously.
GETTING LEGAL ADVICE
Kruidbos said he became concerned that lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda might not have turned over Kruidbos’ report to defense attorneys. Kruidbos asked White in April for legal advice and described some contents of his report such as a photo of an African-American hand holding a gun, a photo of a plant resembling marijuana, and a text message referring to a gun transaction.
White then contacted one of Zimmerman’s attorneys and learned the defense had not received the report generated by Kruidbos. The defense did receive the source file from the cellphone and used its own experts to extract data.
Last month, Zimmerman’s attorneys subpoenaed both White and Kruidbos during a pretrial hearing on their motion seeking sanctions against prosecutors. Circuit Judge Debra Nelson deferred a ruling until after the trial.
Before Kruidbos’ name surfaced in the Martin trial proceedings, he received a pay raise for “meritorious performance,” according to a document dated May 16 in his personnel file.
But the dismissal letter written by Peek contends he did his job poorly as information technology director and said he should have asked someone in the office about his concerns regarding the Martin case.
“Your egregious lack of regard for the sensitive nature of the information handled by this office is completely abhorrent,” Peek wrote. “You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”
The letter said Kruidbos “apparently questioned the ethics” of de la Rionda, who has been an assistant state attorney since 1983. “His record as an honorable and respected attorney is unblemished and beyond reproach,” Peek wrote.
Kruidbos said the question of de la Rionda’s ethics “is not really my place to decide.”
He said he asked White for legal advice because he was concerned he could face “legal exposure” if the cellphone report wasn’t turned over to the defense before the trial started.
He said he did not feel comfortable posing that question to anyone within the office because the State Attorney’s Office had just conducted an in-house probe of whether someone was leaking personnel information. (read more)
How did The Kruidbos Aspect play out in the Zimmerman Trial ? This was the subject of the late night testy exchange during a proffer hearing on 7/9/13 between Don West and State Prosecutors / Judge Nelson.
If you listen closely to the Defense Expert Witness, Richard Conner, testimony you realize what he has found. The phone deletions were made around all of the attributes which would have affected the considerations in this case about character and reputation. Except for the porn pictures.
The reason the porn was not found by the person deleting was because of how they were hidden in the phone. The person deleting would not have seen them as images and would have needed an application to understand the “bit” file which was password protected also.
Conner is outlining a very specific educated thesis that the phone was scrubbed of damning evidence after death. Meaning somehow a person intentionally removed, “deleted”, the data.
Obviously, Mantai objects when Conner is going there with his explanations – but the implication is crystal clear. If the state of Florida retained custody of that phone – then someone from FDLE, or in association with the chain of evidence, deleted the data.
THAT DELETED data was the data missing in the State’s discovery to the defense until June 4th. And even after that time, the essential summary of data, which was included in a written report, was devoid of mention to this specific data file of deleted evidence.
What does this mean? It lends to only one Occam’s Razor explanation: The STATE prosecutorial team intentionally deleted, the data, then delivered a partial file with the non-deleted data, then at the last minute before trial (June 4th) delivered the full data set, but omitted the deleted data from the written report summarizing the entire “bin” file.
Essentially, the State hid the evidence – and Don West has the specific understanding of how and who has falsely presented the manipulated information. The State also falsely testified, pre-trial, to the data delivery and the process under which it was done.
Back in April – That’s what the Whistle Blower, Ben Kruidbos, was trying to tell them – but he was handcuffed in court explanation by the fact the Defense had yet to receive the manipulated data in the form the Whistle blower was describing it. It did not arrive until 6/4/13.
I have no idea how the Defense can, at this point, with this judge, get this level of deception to the light of day – it’ll have to wait until after trial. Unfortunately, according to Conner, the date of the deletion cannot be clearly identified. If they do pursue it, and I hope they do, the evidence (phone itself) will have a chain of custody.
That may narrow their search for the specific person. However, the actual download of the “bin” file probably does not have chain of custody – so while it may be possible to prove the construct of the deception, the actual person who did it may never be identified.
A Smaller issue also surfaced during that same late-night proffer hearing.
At the :15 second mark of this video, in response to the state now taking the position the phone data cannot be authenticated, Conner reveals that Trayvon Martin’s phone was actually a part of Sybrina Fulton’s family account plan.
Sybrina Fulton was the account holder.:
Meaning it was not, as previously stated by the Scheme Team, Tracy Martin accessing his own phone records on 3/17/12 which could have revealed “Dee Dee”. Another BIG lie.
Which begs the question: When Benjamin Crump passed out partial phone records to the media on 3/20/12, they included the name of the account owner as Tracy Martin. How is this possible on the printed detail if the phone was actually under the account of Sybrina Fulton?