Home » Uncategorized » May 6, 2013 – GZ Open Thread

May 6, 2013 – GZ Open Thread

GZ Daily Discussion

Links to New Information Posted in Comments today:
Motion for Evidentiary Hearing: https://annettekblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/may-6-2013-gz-open-thread/#comment-511

Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time: https://annettekblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/may-6-2013-gz-open-thread/#comment-518

Orders from 5th DCA – https://annettekblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/may-6-2013-gz-open-thread/#comment-549

Orlando Sentinel Article on challenging experts: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-voice-experts-20130506,0,7663818.story
Anyone wanting to discuss the case, you have come to the right spot. I’d appreciate you sharing information that could help move the case to the goal of acquittal.

Constructive criticism of the legal team is allowed and will be valued. If your feedback is of things that should, could, would help the team to get the acquittal then feel free to share it. If your feedback is to mock, ridicule, vent or post unfounded accusations, please do so somewhere else.

Racist comments will not be tolerated. If you’d like to share something privately, you can email me at nettles@bell.net

Thanks for participating. Let’s do this!


93 thoughts on “May 6, 2013 – GZ Open Thread

    • Mike McDaniel always writes great logical and knowledgable pieces. One of the things that stood out for me, as I have not watched the hearing, was the section concerning BDLR claiming that “O’Mara didn’t think the DD funeral lie was a big deal.” Mike quotes the section where BDLR claims that. Then he also quotes West in saying that that was a lie, and that he was there when O’Mara got that phone call, and that O’Mara was very angry when he heard that from Guy.

      It’s beginning to get more than a little difficult to tell just who the O’Mara detractors are, and they aren’t only TM supporters. There has been mocking and ridicule that O’Mara didn’t think the admission of the lie was a big deal. Literally some have gone over to believing BDLR rather than the defense. This is getting absolutely pathetic.

  1. In this post from yesterday:

    May 5, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    You are absolutely correct. SYG sounded good at the time but we can how that did not work out and yes, it has been interpreted differently in different parts of the state. They just recently reviewed it but made no changes. Lawyers lobbied to eliminate the civil immunity portions.

    there is no “reply” button (although there may be one in an email notifying you of the post if you get those), but the date just below the poster’s name is “clickable”, and if you right-click, and then click “copy link location”, you can then paste it into a text editor like Notepad and get this:


    Then you can do the same thing with another post that does have a reply button (easier if it’s a post on that same page) and you get something like this:


    Then you can edit it to point to the comment to which you really want to respond, like this:


    Then you can highlight all of that, right-click and click “copy” and now it is in the clipboard waiting for you to paste it somewhere.

    Open up a new browser tab and paste it into the address bar/URL box and hit enter, and it should give you a reply box for the comment that didn’t have a reply button because it was nested too deeply.

    Just tested it–it seems to work.

  2. Courtesy of Coreshift, here is the radio interview Robert Zimmerman Jr.

    (Jordan on the black strip, you’ll see a “click to play”, you should be able to hear it)

    • I read a good portion of that AJ, and I am astounded that BDLR is still a prosecutor. This is a must read to see the massive corruption that goes on in Fla. courts, and it proves that BDLR is less than human, and the ultimate example of evil run amok.

      BDLR coached the state’s star witness in a murder trial on what he wanted him to say in his state deposition. He asked the witness to include the word “nigger” when the witness was knowingly lying in the deposition, on the demands of BDLR. When the witness tried to recant his testimony, and said that he was coached and told what to say by BDLR, BDLR then threatened the witness that if he didn’t say at trial, exactly what he said in the dposition, that BDLR would charge him with perjury.

      BDLR also told the same witness that he was going to have him put in the same cell of another defendent up on murder charges. BDLR told the witness that he would need him to also come forward and lie about what the other murder defendent supposedly told him while in jail. BDLR promised the witness a lighter sentence if he cooperated with him in lying about other defendants.

      The above case was exactly what is happening to GZ in that the lower court judge worked in definance of the defense, and in support of the state, BDLR.

      And BDLR is still a prosecutor unbelievably, with no punishments or penalties. Fla.s judicial system is very seriously effed up.

      • Not defending Bernardo, as I think he is capable (and guilty) of what is alleged in that appellate brief, but keep in mind that you are seeing one side of the contention. I suspect that de la Rionda escapes consequences because he is careful to do his thing in a way that limits the evidence against him to a “he says, she says” argument.

        That said, clearly, Bernardo is not interested in a search for truth an justice, and I suspect that he’d agree with that characterization. His function is to get convictions, it’s the judge’s function to regulate trials so the end result is truth and justice.

        • “it’s the judge’s function to regulate trials so the end result is truth and justice.”

          You are kidding right? You can’t be serious! Nelson is seeking truth and justice? Thanks for telling me, I wasn’t aware of that.

          As to your defense of BDLR, which you claim is not a defense, you are quick to point out that what is written is only one side of the story. Don’t condemn poor Bernie, who only wants convictions at any cost, because a state’s star witness gives details of how he was coached, and then threatened by the prosecutor that he would be charged with perjury if he didn’t repeat what he said in his coached deposition. Gee, I wonder if a grieving family member was in the briefs case was sitting next to him when he was deposed, crying her eyes out, along with a slew of the victim’s ambulance chasing attys. I’ve always been curious why Shellie was charged with perjury, even after offering a source to answer his question on the paypal account. Bernie and the judge had no intention of getting that information, it would have negated their forthcoming charges against Shellie. Even before that bond hearing, Bernie already had the Zimmerman’s bank account info. They got it from the bank even before George was charged with murder.

          Anyone who reads several pages of the brief, and that has been paying attention to what BDLR has been doing in the current case, can see that BDLR has an established MO. Hide or withhold evidence, coach the state’s star witness (DD) lie through your teeth in court, and piss and whine and moan when facts are thrown in your face by the defense. Some of the accusations against BDLR in the brief have been on display in the GZ case, almost identically. That goes a long way in who appears to have more credibility.

          IANAL however, I’ve read several pieces and comments by various attorney’s, which I understand you to be, and the opinions vary as greatly as there are flavors of sodas. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Everyone comes with the own prejudices, and yes that includes me.

          • Heh. I wasn’t defending Nelson either. I was just summarizing what I speculate is Bernardo’s view of the roles of the players in the criminal “justice” system.

            As for my “not defending Bernardo” intro, it probably wasn’t necessary, but what followed was a caveat that what was being presented was an unanswered accusation by the other side. If I’d just laid out the caveat, my remark could have come across as defending Bernardo.

            I happen to share your opinion and bliefs relating to Bernardo. I think he is a liar and a cheat. He’s the perfect person to have in charge of this prosecution. I doubt he is the only available cheating liar in the state’s employ.

            • Thank you for that cboldt. Here I thought you were defending Nelson in ascribing to her such lofty goals such as truth and justice. Haha. And yes, you are so correct that BDLR is not the only one in the so-called justice system that is willing to lie cheat and steal his way to convictions. Isn’t that how prosecutors are rated, by their number of convictions. I guess Corey increasing her and BDLR’s retirement benes was timely done before they really went off the legal reservation in railroading an innocent man, and to the point where they destroy the credibility of the Fla. justice system blatantly and for all to witness, except Crump of course. Thanks for the clarification.

          • FWIW, technically, I’m not an attorney. I have a J.D., graduated with honors over a decade ago, but my work in the legal system is primarily as a technical expert and educator. I do no litigation, and other than the US Patent Bar, have not taken or passed any bar exam.

            • Good for you, you didn’t willingly throw yourself into the shark tank where no one would have been able to tell the difference between the moving objects.

        • “de la Rionda escapes consequences because he is careful to do his thing in a way that limits the evidence against him to a “he says, she says” argument”

          Case in point, his August interview with Wit 8… where are the transcripts or any record whatsoever of that second interview where she confessed to lying?

          • IANAL, but unless it was some kind of sworn statement type thing I don’t think the state has to tell anyone what was said. At least I remember reading something along those lines.

            • Lawyers are free to meet with their clients and discuss the case. If the information isn’t written down, it isn’t discoverable. Depositions are designed to be formal fact finding / discoverable actions, with witnesses under oath, court recorders and a printed record of the testimony.

              I believe that the August 8 meeting came to the attention of the defense via the taxi-logs prepared by FDLE, as it recorded it’s time spent shuttling a witness to and from the Ft. Lauderdale airport.

              The absence of being a sworn statement does not prevent discovery. Any fact statements that are written, photoed, videod recorded, audio recorded, etc. are discoverable. For an expert, any notes, calculations, and written opinions and reports are discoverable; as well as the scientific / technical basis that is applied to the facts.

  3. Does anyone have any thoughts if GZ will testify during the trial, or, will that decision be made during the trial? I googled it and only find references to April 2012, I couldn’t find anything for 2013.

    • I think he won’t, but the ultimate decision is always made at the very end of presentation of evidence. He would be the last witness. O’Mara and Zimmerman will decide, after the rest of the case has been presented, whether to upside of Zimmerman testimony outweighs the potential downside. By this time, they will have some sort of read on the jury by its reactions to the state’s presentation, and to the defense’s presentation.

      I think the defense can put on a more than adequate “reasonable doubt” case by cross examination of state’s witnesses, as well as producing rebuttal witnesses.

      • cboldt – my thoughts on GZ taking the stand are along the same line as yours. They can wait until trial to make that decision.

        TM supporters continue to claim GZ doesn’t stand a chance in hell if he doesn’t explain WHY he took the life of TM & only GZ could do that. We know from KC’s trial, that isn’t always the case, Baez actually testified for KC in his opening statement, he laid out what would have been her testimony if she had testified & there is NO cross on an opening statement, KC could have never with stood testifying & getting a beat down by Ashton, but that is a different case.

        There will be a lot of sympathy for Sybrina, imo she will cry during the audio of the VOICE heard on the 911 call, though Mrs. Z too will be sympathetic, it’s hard to over come the sympathy the mother will get that buried her son.

      • jordan2222 – Baez tried everything, he & ALL of KC’s 5 other attorney’s made the National Media Blitz including her parents & their mantra was: JUNK Science! JUNK Science! JUNK Science! We will never know how many experts worked for the Defense Team. WHY? Because if their testimony would not support Defense Theory, they weren’t used.

        There was so much DNA testimony in that trial & so many experts, transporting the dead body left evidence, the air samples were too contested. One thing highly contested was the “death band” that can be found on a hair follicle.

    • coreshift – thanks for sharing the link, does anyone know if this is the evidentiary hearing in which MOM referred to in the Court Hearing before Judge N cut him off that would take a “fair amount of time?”

      IF the Defense can find an analyst that supports its GZ’s voice, WHY would Judge Nelson grant this as she has granted very little. DENIED! DENIED! DENIED!

      • LOL! I overlooked the link @ GZLegaleze on the MOTION to argue the science.

        I remember one of the arguments in KC’s trial on a new science used only once, Baez argued at one point, DNA was new to Trials @ one time, now it is the legal standard. Ironically Jeff Ashton, a young prosecutor was one of the first Attorney’s to argue for the use of DNA & it was admitted..

    • That’s exactly what I thought, it doesn’t mention Crump. Could it be that the defense may have gotten word if Crump response was or wasn’t going to be allowed in some other way? I don’t know where the claim originated that they wanted an extension because of Crump’s response. Anyone know where that originated?

      • I’m certain that they want the extension because of Crump’s response. Not naming him in their motion for extension (except that they say at the end that it was copied to Blackwell) had to be for some strategic reason.

        Also, I’m sure that O’Mara has a response ready that he can submit today should he hear back from the DCA that his motion for extension has been denied.

        • Excellent point ackbarsays, O’Mara does have until midnight tonight to respond if he is denied, providing that he has that info. from the court today. I also feel certain that the delay is in response to Crump’s request to respond, and the response.

          I was laughing when I read a comment somewhere that Crump’s reasoning for the response was not even accurate legal knowledge as Crump is not a witness on the prosecution list, and is therefore a party that is in fact eligible for deposition because of his material knowledge of W8. He is not protected from deposition because the defense listed him as a witness on their list.

          • That was my initial comment on D-Man’s blog the other day regarding Crump/Blackwell’s take on the provisions of 3.220(h)(1)(A):

            (A) The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category A witness. After receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged. The prosecutor may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the defendant to be called at a trial or hearing.

            The part in question is in section A. “After receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged.” Crump’s “proposed response” makes the argument repeatedly that when O’Mara finally listed Crump as a witness on the defense witness list, it rendered moot the defense motion to depose Attorney Crump because, since he is now a “listed witness” the 3.220(h)(1)(A) authority to depose him no longer exists.

            This is a clear mis-reading of that section. When that section talks about unlisted witnesses, it is clear that it is speaking of witnesses unlisted BY THE PROSECUTION. Why do I see that, having not gone to law school, while the high-priced attorneys that Crump is employing read it differently?

            • I agree, using his logic the Defense would not be able to depose anyone if listed as a witness by the prosecution. Novel concept though, I wonder if Modarres came up with it. It ignores the reason for the for rule, IMO, that is to prevent undue access to witness from the prosecution, using the court to mediate the contact.

        • i really hope that MOM finds a way to include BDLR’s ranting response on the motion for sanctions; that the judge did nothing to stop this nonsense speaks volumes about Nelson’s ability to control her courtroom.

          • You may be right. I hadn’t thought of that. The defense may not be preparing to respond to Crump at all, thinking that by not responding to him, they are signaling to the DCA that they don’t think it proper for him to respond. Instead, they may actually want the extra time to include BDLR’s courtroom antics and the judge’s refusal to do anything about it in their response.

            • ackbarsays- The original Writ, the the DCA chose to take up, was concerning Nelson’s denying them the opportunity to depose Crump. Do you really think that the defense would tack on a complaint about BDLR now? Because the original Writ had nothing to do with BDLR, wouldn’t that require a completely separate Writ, as it has to do with a completely different person and circumstances. IANAL but the court is giving them an opportunity to reply to the state’s response, and now obviously Crump’s response, which is completely separate and apart from whatever happened in the lower court on 4/30.

              • A point of terminology. O’Mara filed a petition, not a writ. O’Mara is asking (petitioning) the DCA to issue a writ. Writs issue from courts (I’d say always, but I’m sure there is some exception, somewhere, where a writ issues from an agent other than a court).

                Not being critical, BTW. Just trying to be helpful. As far as what O’Mara will include in his reply, it’ll all be about Crump being deposed, and O’Mara will address the arguments raised by the state as well as arguments raised by Crump. De la Rionda’s conduct is irrelevant to the issue of Crump being deposed.

  4. Rene Stutzman’s Article on the defense challenging the science of voice experts.

    “In a new motion, defense attorney Mark O’Mara wrote that those unnamed experts may be using phony science, so the judge should hold a hearing, listen to evidence about how they did their work then decide whether to allow them to testify at Zimmerman’s trial.”


    • I am absolutely shocked that Rene Stutzman has a large picture of GZ’s bloody face at the top of her article. Is it possible that the tide is beginning to turn?

      • “I am absolutely shocked that Rene Stutzman has a large picture…”

        By which you really meant that the editors of the paper, and not the reporter, did that, right?

        About the same time they were deciding on the headline and how much of what she actually wrote to include, and whether to move any of the paragraphs around.

        • Allow me to correct my statement unitron. I’m shocked that the Orlando Sentinel has a large picture of GZ’s bloody face posted on an article by a pro-TM writer. Is it possible that the tide is beginning to turn?

  5. One thing I don’t like about blogs is its hard to find what you are looking for. Some days we have more time than others. In order to help you find the comments that brought news for the day, I’m going to start posting the comment link at the top of the day, under the picture. Therefore you can go right to who brought us the news, and what is was.

    Hope that helps when time is pressing for you. Keep in mind, I work a full-time job. During the week, there will be times when I’m unresponsive.

    Together, we’ll make this work. Justice for George Michael Zimmerman is coming.

    Thanks to all who part of levelling the field to help George fight these charges. Here is the donation tab for anyone in the position to help out financially. http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/

    • Thank you for providing this blog for us Nettles. Yes, we know you have a full time job, you are on O’Mara’s payroll right? LOL

    • Nettles – one minor quibble with this blog template. It drives me crazy how the replies are not indented as far as the comment that they are attached to. Is there any way around that?

      • I’ve taken a look at the options. It appears I have the option to decide up to 10 nested comments. I’ve got it set a 7.

        The original comments seems to be “centered” on the panel and then the first reply is over to the left-side of the original and the nesting begins. When I unclicked the nesting option altogether, the reply buttons disappeared totally. So I put it back.

        • Do you have an option to left-align parent posts and let them go all the way to the right if they’re long enough so that not so much screen width is wasted?

          Otherwise you might as well fill the space with static ads and help offset the bandwidth bill.

  6. Not sure where I saw this linked to today, but I wanted to preserve it here. I honestly can’t believe that this girl still has this on her page today.

    • The family is aware of the truth, they always have been. Part of the initial uproar was that they felt that GZ was given preferential treatment, that he was not detained, some stories even suggested that GZ’s gun was given back to him at the police station.

      IOW the basic he is white so the police did not do their job, back to the pre-Civil Rights, Jim Crow days of law enforcement. Today even though the prosecutors have never outright claimed racism was a driving force, TM use the word “profile” to assert the same.

    • I’d love to see this in response to Crump’s petition:

      Before we begin with the substantive portion of our ruling, we feel the need to address Respondent Crump’s thoughts about rule 3.220(h)(1)(A) in regard to his current status as a witness listed by the defense and his contention that this the referenced rule prevents the defense from deposing him. In order to be as succinct as possible, we can best summarize our response as follows:


  7. OK, how smart am I? The link to the donation site is now permanently on the menu bar for when you need it! Last update we got, the team was running a $10K deficit.. Every donation helps.

  8. We have gone full circle in the Zimmerman case. It started with Traynuts threatening and harassing and as the state’s case collapses at an ever escalating rate we are right back to the threats and harassment by the Traynuts.

    • Does that surprise you? Not me. Didn’t Crump put out the word at the media awards event that the decision in this case will be a signal if the country has moved in the right direction or not? I’m paraphrasing of course. Crump sent out his minions with his message. They congregate in a heartbeat, or less. We always knew that the agenda and activism would start again closer to trial. What will Scott and Bondi do now?

      • Didn’t Crump put out the word at the media awards event that the decision in this case will be a signal if the country has moved in the right direction or not
        That was truly out of line and sounds almost like it was intended to set up riots .

  9. Reply to cboldt’s comment at 5:22-

    “Lawyers are free to meet with their clients and discuss the case. If the information isn’t written down, it isn’t discoverable.”

    In the context of the discussion, BDLR was NOT DD’s lawyer. He was the PROSECUTOR who was working to get a conviction at any cost. Didn’t you earlier state that BDLR is only about getting convictions? He was not free to discuss anything with her in a non-recorded, paid for by tax payers dollars, trip to Jacksonville, with security people to accompany her to and from. BDLR was not DD’s lawyer, just as Crump made sure to state that he was not DD’s lawyer either. What am I missing here cboldt?

    • Does DD have an attorney? It seems that DD has just been floating along through the system, depending on Crump and the state to speak for her. If DD had an attorney, surely that attorney would have been present when she was deposed by the defense. It appears that DD has no personal personal representaion. DD actually has been a wild card who has just been talking with no legal advice. She has consequently been a gift to the defense.

      • Good question. I wonder if her “friend” is a lawyer.

        Many witnesses go with no lawyer. All a witness has to do is tell the truth, to the honest best ability. See, for example, Witness 6. No lawyer that I am aware of. The fact that Witness 8 is heard first through a lawyer (Crump) is a red flag.

        • If Francine, mentioned by West in the hearing, is in fact Francine Ward, a friend of Natalie Jackson, is the Francine mentioned, yes in fact she is an attorney, and black. I only mention her race because supposedly DD was accompanied to the BDLR interview by a black unnamed female. From what I’ve read about Francine Ward, she lives in CA. but, she may have a license to practice law in Fla. Again, DD apparently showed up at the defense depo. with no lawyer.

          • I haven’t paid too close attention to this and have to go back an review the hearing but did I hear that this “friend” helped her write her draft of the letter and also “escorted” her on her trip to visit with BDLR on August 2 and 3rd. Do I have that right? Such a close friend to help in April and go on a trip in August and W8 can’t remember her last name?

            • Or perhaps was never told her last name. Can’t take a chance on connecting the dots after all. Only Crump is capable of connecting dots that he wants connected.

    • Prosecutors are free to meet with witnesses too, although acting the role of investigator AND prosecutor has pitfalls, such as opening the prosecutor up to being deposed on account of being an investigator. That said, the general rule about discoverability is that fact material is discoverable. If it’s written down (factual claims), turn it over. In order to get at verbal exchanges, opposing counsel has to rely on questions at deposition. “Did you ever discuss this case with the prosecutor?” to start, and then “What was discussed?” Deponent has to answer truthfully. So, I ought to modify that “not discoverable” to “easier to hide.” If both the deponent and the investigator/prosecutor are working in cahoots, it is impossible to obtain evidence of their recollections.

      In the April 30 hearing, Bernardo was sort of arguing that whatever he learned at the August meeting with Witness 8 (in particular, that she didn’t go to the hospital) wasn’t discoverable, therefore his failure to disclose it could never be a discovery violation. As a backup argument, the contents of that meeting aren’t recorded anywhere, and since he implies he has turned over all of the written and recorded stuff, he’s fulfilled his open book discovery obligation, and therefore his failure to disclose that he was told that Witness 8 lied is not a discovery violation.

      • cboldt, you have now convinced me. I won’t say of what, but I’m sure you can figure that out.

        When legally trained people give so much credit “seemingly” to well this is just the way the justice system, lawyers, or prosecutors work, that spells the downfall of the justice system in the US. You post as though this is just another normal case on another normal day. Your seeming defense of the prosecution and their antics, whether you mean it that way or not, and in particular BDLR, is telling. You can fool all the masses all you want.

        BTW, I’m curious. Why do you follow all my comments and post replies mostly to me? I would be flattered if I wasn’t so suspicious.

        • You mistake my remarks as giving any sort of credit. I view the remarks as clinical of how things work and are supposed to work; and the system, FWIW, depends on basic honesty. When basic honesty goes away, no system will work.

          I’ll make a conscious effort to avoid replying to you from now on. Without reviewing each post, my guess is I replied to you in the past because I thought you had interesting and valid questions.

          • “You mistake my remarks as giving any sort of credit. I view the remarks as clinical of how things work and are supposed to work; and the system, FWIW, depends on basic honesty. When basic honesty goes away, no system will work.”

            Your clinical views of how things work and are supposed to work as so foreign to the GZ case, it’s like comparing apples and watermelons. There has been nothing about this case that can be considered normal, honest and by the books. Due process has been thrown out. We are watching unethical, the laws don’t apply to me, and all around sleazy players in this case. Clinical views of how things should be don’t exist. Yes, I agree, basic honesty is a very necessary element in the criminal justice, or any legal or judicial situation but, they also have been thrown out the window in the GZ case. At this point, no matter the outcome of the case, the nation, or those paying attention, have already seen a legal system run amok. Clinical views on the law, and how it should work doesn’t exist in any way with this case. It has been jaw dropping.

            BTW, with respect to prosecutors being able to talk with anyone they wish, I don’t believe is correct. Mike McDaniel covered this aspect, plus I did some other research, and it’s clear BDLR gave up his prosecution immunity from deposition when he himself interviewed W8, while the case was still in the investigative stage. Just because he had Osteen in the room at the time, or so he claims, he still conducted the interview which was recorded. In the recorded interview, Osteen’s voice is never heard. Had DD been found and interviewed by the investigators, police or some other law enforcement officials first, while the investigation was developing, BDLR only then had free reign to talk with her as much as he wanted, as long as there was some record, tapes or certified transcripts available of the conversations or interviews. By not doing it by the laws on the books, he gave up a good amount of his prosecutorial immunity.

            • Minpin, understand your frustration as I share some of the same. But, DD is a prosecution witness category A, and they can and so talk to her at any time. They do not have to inform the defense, when they talk to her or the substance of those conversation unless something exculpatory is said. Which is what happened this time, when DD informed BDLR about the hospital. BDLR should have informed the defense of that information, he know impeachment evidence is exculpatory.

              The I forgot excuse is lame, and BDLR should be ashamed for even saying something so stupid, he represent the State, and his duty is to deliver Justice. The thing is the State has decided that to deliver justice they have to convict GZ, and they are going to do their darndest to accomplish that. It is, why we are all talking about this case, a year later, why we get frustrated at the machinations of the State.

              Yet, ask any lawyer, even MOM and you will see that this is not unusual, tragically it happens all the time, only difference is that this case the world is watching. You must remember also that 90% of the time the accused is guilty of something so their actions, to them at least, are justified.

      • Is there any way O’Mara can put Bernie on the stand to ask him about the August ’12 W8 interview before W8 ever takes the stand and without her being able to hear what he says, and then put her on the stand and ask her about that same interview and see if she remembers anything differently from ol’ Bern?

        And do pay-per-view for a live feed from a camera focused on BDLR’s face the whole time she’s on the stand?

      • I have a sneaking suspicion that they went to all the expense and trouble of flying her in for a second interview because they had since found out that she had lied during the first (recorded) interview…

        So where does it leave the defense when a prosecutor deliberately conducts a covert interview specifically because he doesn’t want the exculpatory information to be easily discoverable…?

        IANAL, but it is my understanding that everything the state does in the course of its investigation has to be transparent and documented in some manner… otherwise we end up exactly where we are now, not knowing what was was said and not knowing what the state knew or when they knew it. Add to the mix a judge who without batting an eyelash refuses to even make the prosecutor divulge that information, and you’ve got a situation where a defendant’s Constitutional rights can be trampled on with impunity.

        • you’ve got a situation where a defendant’s Constitutional rights can be trampled on with impunity.

          I think not being able to depose Crump violates his rights since he cannot face the most vicious accuser of them all.

    • Thanks Art, you beat me to the posting of the link, interesting information, but it sort reinforces what information I had gathered, that any voice experts attempt to decide who is on the tape would be suspect.

      • Bori- I am replying to your above comment down here as there is no reply button above.

        Here is the article at Mike McDaniels site that I was referring to- “The Dee Dee Interview- Kaboom


        Here is the relevant part of the article I was referring to-


        “One major issue is that—unlike TV and the movies would have us believe—prosecutors NEVER interview suspects (I believe Mike means Witness here). They commonly meet witnesses only just before a trial begins, and then, only to introduce themselves and tell the witness when they can expect to testify and to put them at ease. They do not discuss the details of testimony with witnesses.

        This is so for two primary reasons:

        (1) If a prosecutor interviews a suspect or witness, they have made themselves a witness. The defense can call them to the stand to testify about their interview. This is what those involved in the criminal justice system call: bad.

        (2) It is important that the testimony of a witness be untainted. No prosecutor wants to open themselves to the charge of tampering with a witness—which is a crime—or in any way trying to influence their testimony. Defense lawyers routinely ask witnesses about this on the stand, and at the slightest hint of influence, raise a stink, which judges and juries tend to take very seriously.

        Interviews are done by police officers. If a prosecutor wants to clarify a given issue, or obtain additional information, they have this done by a detective who writes a supplementary report containing that information. Prosecutors do not do it themselves.”


        Not that I don’t give others credibility but, because of Mike’s years in law enforcement, and having done and experienced witness interviews firsthand, I put faith in what he has written.

        No prosecutor wants to be charged with “tampering with a witness.” The prosecutor usually meets the witness not long before trial. If a prosecutor wants to clarify an issue, or needs to obtain additional information, he has a detective do so, and the detective submits a supplementary report containing that information. Prosecutors do not discuss the details of testimony with the witness until they are actually on the witness stand at trial.

        Because of having read this information at the McDaniel site, and knowing that BDLR did in fact interview the witness in the investigative stage, and with only a non-party, non-law enforcement officer having interviewed the witness before anyone else had a crack at her, namely Benjamin Crump, it was easy for me to believe the brief linked by AJ, in which a prior defendant claimed that he was coached by BDLR in what to say in his deposition, including using the n word. He was then threatened that if he didn’t carry his lies to the trial, he would be charged with perjury.

        I have no doubt that this is BDLR’s MO. If this is in fact what happens to defendants across the nation on a regular basis, then we are farther gone as a nation than I would have believed. I am not naive enough to believe that games aren’t played with the judicial system, but this issue is blatant and in your face evil, and Fla. seems to be an especially egregious judicial/legal he1lhole.

        • I thought of Mike McDaniel’s thoughts here when we heard Mr. West tell the court on October 19th, that BDLR’s deposition isn’t scheduled “yet”. His conduct makes him vulnerable for one too.

          • OMG Nettles, I forgot about West’s comment that they weren’t ready to depose him “yet.” Could that questioning take place in the actual courtroom during trial? From McDaniel’s writing, it does seem possible that BDLR will be called to the witness stand at the most awful time for him. He will be disgraced before the nation. I would think that they would put much focus on the unrecorded W8 interview when she was flown to Jacksonville, with no recording of what was discussed. That’s when DD lied about the hosp., and the jerk conveniently forgot about a very important detail.

        • Not disputing your point about the interview, that was in my opinion morally and ethically wrong, whether O’Steen was there or not. I feel the actions of the State from the beginning were atrocious, and obviously were against GZ, This was clear during the interview with W8, having Sybrina sit next to W8, it was plain on April 20th when the lead investigator had not even reviewed GZ’s medical records.

          The State made up its mind that GZ was guilty and has acted with that determination ever since. My point referred to after the charges were filed at this point W8 is the prosecution’s witness and they are entitled to communicate with her, to check testimony, to go over points, etc. They have an obligation that if some possible exculpatory evidence is unearthed to reported to the Defense, this they failed to do, whatever the excuse this was wrong. Had W8 been listed as a Defense witness, then they would have to ask the court permission to speak to her, but she was not listed as such.

          I am not excusing the behaviour or conduct of BDLR, or prosecutors as a whole, I find him to be a little man, with no ethics and a win at any cost attitude. This works fine most of the time because most of the people who actually go to trial are guilty, the problems come in when as in this case, the accused is innocent IMO.

          This is a very simple case, GZ shot TM who perished as a result, GZ claims self-defense and there is evidence to corroborate that. The prosecution has to prove otherwise, had it not been for the addition of race and SYG law, this case would never had gone beyond the initial investigation, now that it has they are in a pickle how to prove a wrong conclusion, without conclusive evidence to show that it was not-self defense.

          BDLR is going to try to convince the jury that GZ is lying as such his claim of self-defense is in doubt. Now that BDLR has climbed the first hurdle, now he has to prove that GZ acted with all the elements of 2nd degree murder. To him, imo that is his job, prove guilt, justice left the building long ago, when GZ was charge.

          • ” My point referred to after the charges were filed at this point W8 is the prosecution’s witness and they are entitled to communicate with her, to check testimony, to go over points, etc.”

            Bori- With all respect, you have missed my point by a mile. If you have any other information about prosecutors interviewing witnesses, and not exposing themselves to charges of “witness tampering” I would love to hear them. If you have any laws that point to prosecutors having open season on witnesses, even after the defendant has been charged, please post links for that info. Are you really arguing that the prosecutor can talk with the witness, any time they want, and that that doesn’t open the prosecutor to deposition as a witness, or possibly to be chaged with witness tampering? I love your posts, and your digging into the facts and legal issues. I do question your position on this issue though. As I said, I respect McDaniels positions and opinions as he has walked this path before. If you have something, anything, please provide links to acknowledge what you are claiming. I know that you have been claiming to have attorney’s that you are consulting with, however, as I have pointed out the legal community has been all over the map on many of the issues.

            In short, please provide us with any links you may have to prove that BDLR has the right to talk to DD any time he chooses to. If you do that, I’ll drop the issue and give you five stars for uncovering what appears to be conundrum between the posters.

            • Barring an order from the court, the attorneys can communicate with witnesses as long as they are willing, if represented by an attorney you would talk to him/her first. That does not mean you can coach or intimidate the witness that is illegal and a felony. I will point you to this:
              Well, on what grounds do you think it is unethical? Specifically, what rule
              of the bar or court prohibits this? http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/solosez/solosez_11_thread_1_contacting_a_non.authcheckdam.pdf

              “it will look unethical” Why? Why would it “look” unethical?
              I do it all the time: I’m involved in probate case, decedent had been
              evaluated by two psychiatrists and I’ve talked to both of them prior to
              their deposition. I also talked to the attorney who drafted the will prior
              to his depo.
              I’m not suggesting “coaching a witness” by telling them what to say; but
              “anyone should really like to avoid even the suggestion of appearing to do
              so” is different than actually doing it. You’re a lawyer; you’re not
              caesars wife; you’re an advocate and your job is to handle the case. This
              means you need information.
              It’s one thing to ask “did the other attorney contact you prior to this
              deposition”; and if they did you can ask “what did you say, what did he tell
              you, what did you talk about”? And if asked, they’d say something to the
              effect that Mr. Jones asked about the circumstances of the psychiatric
              evaluation or the drafting of the will; if asked whether I told or suggested what they should say, they would have truthfully answered NO, in fact, Mr.
              Jones emphasized that we were to tell the truth.
              If I think witness is potentially hostile I won’t talk to them prior to the
              depo, but I’ve yet to see a lawyer locally who won’t talk to at least some
              potential witnesses.
              Ronald Jones, Florida

              Also from the Florida Bar Journal, it talks about pros, cons of communicatine with witnesses this time, specifically while providing testimony which to me would be more critical;


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