Home » Uncategorized » May 10, 2013 – Open Thread

May 10, 2013 – Open Thread

iced teaAnyone wanting to discuss the George Zimmerman case, you have come to the right spot. I’d appreciate you sharing information that could help move the case to the goal of a full accounting of the truth.  Thank you to “Captain Long” for the photo.

In yesterday’s thread, you will find some news that broke:

Questions arose, does Angela Corey have jurisdiction of this case?  What started that conversation was the filing on the court website:  https://annettekblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/may-9-2013-open-thread/#comment-811

The defense yesterday filed a motion to allow the jury to view the scene in personhttps://annettekblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/may-9-2013-open-thread/#comment-843

Next a motion to compel Shellie Zimmerman to sit for a deposition was posted https://annettekblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/may-9-2013-open-thread/#comment-879

That was quickly followed by a motion to have an anonymous jury https://annettekblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/may-9-2013-open-thread/#comment-880

The deadline for the response to the State and Mr. Crump’s objections to having Mr. Crump sit for a deposition conducted by the defense was yesterday.  I expect sometime today, we will see the response.
Animated-ModernSign-Updated Defense Reply to State’s Response

Defense Reply to Crump’s Response

Lastly, today is the deadline for motions to be filed.  Anything other than the evidentiary hearing motion will be heard in court on May 28th.  I expect a Saturday date to be set between now and May 28th to hold the evidentiary hearing.

I am really enjoying this experience posting with you all.  You make moderating this site quite easy.  As always, for newcomers know that  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.  Together, let’s stop the railroading of this citizen’s rights.


141 thoughts on “May 10, 2013 – Open Thread

    • Was that you who got testy with SD at CTH about MOM? He usually does not let it go that far so the exchange the two of you had surprised me. I do not take positions on that issue but I see both sides.

  1. What a bummer. Yahoo is completely down.. no emails … nothing working.. I have never seen this before.

    • Jordan, I’m not taking up Wild Bill’s cause. If you’d like to repost the video you can.

      For those who may not be aware, I’m from another country, your neighbor, Canada. I’d really prefer to stay out of America’s politics. While I liked the message the Wild Bill was asking people to gather at George Zimmerman’s trial and answer back to the lies told, I was taken aback about his calling out the liberal biased media. I’m also concerned I heard no message about peaceful demonstrating.

      To be fully transparent, I see myself as a liberal here. In Canada we have six major parties, 3 stronger than the other 3.

      From my perspective in the George Zimmerman case, the media (all media) dropped the ball on this one. On all of the news sites I can point to inaccurate reporting. Printing what someone says and not knowing if its factual has hurt a great many people in the Zimmerman case.

      For those of us posting online, we have been subjected to some vile harassment. My friend on facebook who runs a daily discussion page is being cyber-harassed as we speak. In talking with a great number of Zimmerman supporters, you just can’t put us into one description. Our politics are different, our stance on gun control are different, the changes to the SYG laws that should be made are not agreed upon, a large portion of supporters are not racist but few are. You just can’t put us into one description. We are like the Zimmerman family, a mix and melting pot. The one thing we all do agree on, is based on the evidence the State has shown us, charges against George Michael Zimmerman should not have been brought.

      Had media (all media) done their jobs, we would know more about Trayvon Martin and his family. This case is about self-defence. The media has allowed the family who demanded the public’s help in bringing pressure to law enforcement, to hide, to lie and cover-up their side of the story. In a self-defence case, we are entitled to know the full truth of Trayvon Martin’s life.

      If Wild Bill is calling for peaceful protests, I may join him in his effort. I am cautious and wonder if he like so many others will try to take the George Zimmerman case only to further his own cause. Whatever that is. I do recall a website and the sale of merchandise being listed in his video. I shared it to give another’s perspective and I’ll leave it to each viewer to act or not act.

      • If Wild Bill is calling for peaceful protests, I may join him in his effort.

        He does NOT say otherwise and most of these people are respectful of laws and inherently peaceful. I would never expect them to be anything but peaceful UNLESS they are attacked.

        I love you but I disagree with your decision. It is the ONLY realistic attempt to take potentially useful action against the media who most certainly will be there.

        Notice this email that I received from a friend a while back:

        “I say the same thing as always, get organized and tell me what to do but don’t just yell at me for not getting it.”

        I have no place to repost this video or I would., … except for here for other blogs.

        • If you have enough information on Wild Bill’s efforts and want to help him you can post the video here. I won’t moderate it. I may eventually join in his effort as well. For now, I need more information. I won’t stop anyone who does want to help him. I’m sure the man isn’t calling for violence but I’d like a reassurance.

          Here is the video Jordan and I are discussing:

          I leave each viewer to their own action/inaction.

  2. Reply to State’s Response

    Reply to Crump’s Response

    Nothing jumps out as “exciting” in the filings. In the reply to Crump’s response, O’Mara anecdotally takes issue with Crump’s contention that Crump was unaware that ABC was recording the interview, until O’Mara filed his motion for Nelson to reconsider her order to preclude O’Mara from deposing Crump.

    O’Mara also points out the inconsistent and circular arguments that Crump has made, where Crump’s conclusion doesn’t change even if the factor that Crump claims to direct the conclusion is reversed. If he is listed as a witness, he can’t be deposed, and if he is not listed as a witness, he can’t be deposed being one example of this. Another example is the disconnect between simultaneously being “non party” and “opposing counsel,” althougth that is (IMO) nothing but a technicality in affixing the labels. Technically, Crump is not a party to this action. He is a potential fact witness.

    • Thanks for posting that. I’m hoping to read it at lunchtime. Do you have any predictions on how long before we hear an answer? Is there a deadline the appeals court must observe?

      • There is no deadline. They may take as long or as short as they want. However, the courts are mindful of action below, and it is unusual for them to cause an inordinate delay. My over/under is 10% chance of a decision by the end of today, 50% chance of a decision by end of Tuesday next week, 75% chance of a decision by end of Friday next week, 99% chance of a decision by the end of Tuesday, the 21st.

    • O’Mara’s response to Crump seems to accept Crump’s position regarding the concept of listed witnesses and its applicability to witnesses listed by the defense. I don’t understand that, because it’s clear that rule is talking about prosecution witnesses, not defense witnesses.

  3. I have long respected MOM’s calm demeanor, both before the camera, in the courtroom and in the pleadings, in what is an emotional and highly politicized case.

    In the latest pleading, on the issue of jury anonymnity, MOM/West include as an exhibit a particularly well written CTH post. This is a casebook example of how to diplomatically respond to BDLR’s courtroom histrionics, to include the arm-waving, over the internet and CTH in particular.

    This is lawyerspeak for “you wanna complain about CTH? Here! Complain about this. With all due respect, of course.” 🙂

    • Hi!

      Yes it was posted but never ever worry about duplicating a post. If it gets posted more than once than the chance of it getting missed is smaller.

      If we have seen it before, we’ll just skim over to the next comment. If in doubt, please post.

      Some may recall Tara at the Last Refuge had been away for a while and came across the ABC clip. She posted it and apologized if it had been talked about before. I’m so glad she erred on the side of caution and posted it.

      Thanks so much.

      – Annette

      • I was just so excited seeing all the exhibits attached to the motion that I was beside myself! Now lets see the judge say she didn’t watch anything about the case online or in the media! All of it (at least all that is needed) is right there as part of the official court record now. And let’s see the critics of Mark O’Mara eat some crow (not cake). {{{V-ROOM!}}} {{{V-ROOM!}}}

        • I’m tempted to produce a substantive rebuttal to your taunt, but will refrain out of deference to Nettles and other reasons. However, I suggest that if you want the criticism of O’Mara to be tamped down, that taunting the critics is counterproductive to your goal.

          • My “taunt” goes back a long way- to when Nettles was banned from a certain Blog and I kept quiet to keep from being banned also. As a FL resident, I am a potential juror and yes, I can be objective- wish more people could/would.

            • I understand the history, and it’s not that I think your taunt is unjustified. It’s just that I think it is counterproductive to the goal of tamping down discussion that is critical of O’Mara.

              When sites are one-sided in allowing/denying certain types of criticism, the result is often dueling websites, where mutual sniping comprises a substantial part of the content.

  4. Here is my take on the defense reply to the state’s response to the DCA, for whatever it’s worth.

    Many saw the state’s response as being nothing more than “yeah, what Crump did was not what we would have liked him to do, but hey it’s Bennie, let the poor guy alone. We will protect him no matter what he says and does. According to the state, this petition does not belong here in this court because any denial of deposing of Crump could be addressed when appealed after trial. The defense claims that there is no possible way to measure what effect deposing Crump would have on the trial unless they are given the opportunity to ask him the pertinent questions now. If they can’t even ask Crump how he came up with W8 and when, how do they know if Crump didn’t manufacture W8 out of thin air. The state has also refused to tell the defense how W8 came to be, and when. Crump claims Tracy found W8 first, and had a conversation with her before calling Crump. NatJac claims that one of Crump’s investigator’s found W8 through phone records. On a side note, that reminds me of West saying that ping logs show TM far away from the path between the 711 and the RTL. The judge shut him down.

    The defense reiterates the section of the state’s response where they themselves address questions being asked during a hearing where the judge stopped questions by the defense and tells them that they can ask those questions of Crump during his deposition, which of course never took place.

    The defense addresses the state’s acknowledgement that Crump stated that every substantive statement was included in the interview, which now is clearly not true. The ABC portion of the interview shows that Crump did in fact discuss substantive information with DD when his recorded was turned off.

    Crump gave up any work product privilege when he had the Martin parents, and 2 members of the media present when he interviewed DD, which the state all but admitted to in their response.

    Both the State and Crump are claiming he is both a non-party and opposing counsel at the same time. He can only be considered one or the other for criminal trial purposes.

    • You and I both have identical issues. We are trying to think logically and use laws and statutes to support our logic as well as good old common sense. It ain’t working.

  5. With the state’s motion to compel Shellie to another deposition, can’t her attorney simply reply with a 5th Amendment response and tell them to hit the road. Can’t Sims invoke the spousal privilege.? She already took the 5th in the first depo. Just me I’m sure, but this is a retaliation against the defense for wanting to depose Crump, which could provide explosive info. under oath, or perjury charges against him.

      • I read that yesterday, but I am still wondering about Scott’s executive order. Have you seen anything? That is a huge issue in my mind.

        • Jordan, when I first brought that issue up yesterday, I thought it was possible that the reason Scott had not yet sought approval from the Supreme Court was that the courts might look at the 27.14 language as more of a formality. However, after reading through some of the case law, it seems that the courts do take those statutory requirements very seriously. The question is now up to Mark O’Mara and whether or not he wants to pursue that line of argument.

          Nettles, can you reach out to the blogger-liaison at the O’Mara Group and inquire? 😉

          • It’ll have to wait until the weekend, if you want me to do it. If anyone else wants to contact them, feel free and let us know so we don’t waste their time on repetitive emails.


          • I read the cases that were mentioned. No doubt in my mind that this is a serious issue and should be addressed but maybe MOM is saving it until after the trial in case of a conviction.

            If so, I wonder if the entire case could be thrown out since authority did not exist after the time limit.

            • What is at risk is the trial, not the case. It would be another way to get an effect similar to a hung jury, which is “no decision yet.”

              • I am concerned about a hung jury. Aren’t you? How would George ever mount another defense with no money?

                • I think the evidence that the state will be able to bring (not much – nothing directly incriminating, and inculpatory inferences can be countered with direct evidence), coupled with jury instructions, results in a very slim chance of a hung jury. Any holdout favoring the state will be relying on emotion, conjecture, and/or prejudgement bias. Maybe fear, too. Any holdout will be, IMO, an irrational person, not persuadable with reason. That sort of thing does happen.

                  • I hear you but my point is what would he do for money if that happened. Would he be forced to accept a plea? Scary stuff .

            • I believe that this issue is right now, and should not be saved for after a potential conviction. If the defense does not raise this issue now, then they are, in effect, acknowledging the authority of the existing prosecutor.

              • I sent an e-mail to Governot Scott’s office, and a similar message could be sent to Corey, Bondi, and the court. The governor is necessarily involved in curing the deficiency. It is a little embarrassing on their part, for not knowing and following the law, so they may want to pretend the problem doesn’t exist.

  6. If I posted this before, I apologize.

    I believe that the defense request that the jury view the scene to be more about the “ear witness” DD than anything else.

    In the BDLR interview, he asks her if she was talking to TM while he was at the store, she replies yes. Then he asks her if she was talking to him while he was on his way home, and she says yes. He then says to her, then tell me what happened, and DD replies that it was starting to rain and that he ran to the mail thing. She claims that the phone was actin’ up, but when she was disconnected, she called him right back.

    From the time stamp of when TM was at the 711, and the time that GZ calls NEN to report the suspicious person, a large amount of time had passed which DD says nothing about. She says absolutely nothing about her conversation during that time period.

    I don’t know what time the ping logs showed TM far out of the pathway between 711, and the RTL, but there is an indication that the time must have been between his going and coming, as they say he veered off the path between the two locations. DD doesn’t address that time period, and BDLR does not ask her about it, despite the fact that BDLR likely had the ping logs of TM’s phone before the interview.

  7. I made this comment yesterday at another blog:

    I suspect that people talk when they are summoned for jury duty. I know that I always did. Did the jury summons include a notice telling them to not tell anyone? I doubt it. That opened the door for others to know who they are.

    When a juror is selected and sequestered, they will “missing” for a while. Does anyone think that friends, neighbors, co workers or relatives, won’t notice that? IDK.. this is all getting scary.

    I doubt that anything could ever conceal their identities. People will figure it out and I think they will do that soon after the trial begins.

    • Weren’t thousands of jury notices sent out for other cases taking place now also, not just the GZ case?

      If juror’s family members, who know where they are, want to protect them from future harassment, they can say they are on vacation, or out of town taking care of a family emergency. If the jurors want to hide, they can find ways to do so, I would think. Then you will also find some that want the fame attached to be a GZ juror. Think about the money they can make doing interviews, writing books, and doing speaking engagements. They can move out of the area and still make big bucks while making money.

      Have any of the Casey Anthony jurors written books, or made money from sitting on that case? I haven’t heard anything about it.

      • IDK what the CA jurors have done insofar as books.

        Please also consider that some jurors will have to take time off from work and someone will know why. They are not sworn to secrecy nor are nosy neighbors, friends and relatives who love to talk… maybe even brag that they know one of the jurors.

      • pinecone (minpin)

        A few juror’s stepped forward in KC’s case, but they received such a beat down. Some claimed the “stated didn’t even know how Caylee died.” BUT, they heard Dr. G. state that after seeing hundreds of deaths by accidental drowning, she had never seen one that had duct tape placed on the orifices of a child and dumped in a swamp.” No books that I know of from jurors. They claimed the state didn’t prove their case.

        2 Cases in recent years in which jurors found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

        Adam Kaufman – charged w/second degree murder, found NOT GUILTY, another case imo, Prosecutors should NOT have brought. Jury foreman was a “Court Mediator,” the jury claimed State didn’t prove the case. (Prosecutorial misconduct imo)


        Timothy Davis Sr. – Former Fla. cop found not guilty in son’s death.
        Defense lawyers said Davis Jr. took his anger out on his father, and Davis Sr. only shot his son out of fear and self-defense.


    • That is a great point. Hopefully the defense will bring in the crime records from the RTL showing the increase in break-ins over the previous year. At first GZ was knocked for making so many 911 calls, but there were many others as well. Didn’t the olkder black lady who resided at RTL tell a reporter that the 800 lb elephant was that those doing the break-ins were young black males?

      • From January 1, 2011 to February 26, 2012 residents called police 411 times, 12 of those times was George Zimmerman. Had any resident been in GZ’s shoes and shot someone, they likely could have been labelled a nuisance caller. Truth be told, the neighborhood was high-crime for break-ins and burglary.

        Since becoming Neighborhood Watch volunteer in September 2012, GZ called police 4 times. The last call before the call on Feb. 26th was on Feb. 2nd to report a person matching TM’s description looking into the very house GZ witnessed TM standing in front of in the pouring rain; Frank Taaffe’s home.

        • …since the ‘Trevon’ letter surfaced that seemingly suggests TM was familiar with his way around the adjacent neighborhood(s)

          It’s be interesting to know about any break-ins and property crimes in those neighborhoods as well.

        • WOW great information there Nettles that I wasn’t aware of for example-

          “Feb. 2nd to report a person matching TM’s description looking into the very house GZ witnessed TM standing in front of in the pouring rain; Frank Taaffe’s home.”

          I hope and pray that that info is allowed at trial.

        • Holy Poop Nettles, 411 times is outrageous, I hope this is included in the Defense case as it seems the State/those that have convicted GZ, try to paint GZ as a nut for reporting suspicious activity r crimes in the past. This puts everything into perspective for those that only want to isolate GZ’s calls. I expect the State to bring this up in trial n GZ’s calls.

      • It would so George no good to bring up that point about how young black males were the ones doing the break-ins. BDLR would twist that to say “See? The defense’s own witness states that residents were suspicious of young, BLACK males. That’s how we know Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon!”

        • But if GZ called in another break-in possibility, based on the description of the possible criminal, it could also help in establishing his suspicions, which would have nothing to do with racism, no? The FBI already said that there is no indication of GZ as being a racist. Didn’t the NEN operator ask GZ if the suspicious person was white, black or hispanic. They may have asked the same question on his Feb. 2 call. Didn’t the 911 operator in the Amanda Berry case ask if the suspect was white black or hispanic?

    • Yet another reason why I do not use Twitter. I can never sign it. My username and pw NEVER are correct according to then even after I change it. Just plain weird. I do sometimes have the same issue with FB. They refuse to discontinue one of my older email addresses so I get notices at both places.

  8. Ok, so I just finished reading the new docs put up at gzlegal. IANAL, but if I’m understanding the situation correctly:

    Even if the DCA overrules Nelson and allows the deposition of Crump to happen… Nelson will be presiding over the deposition. So they’ll just be handing the reins right back over to the very same judge whose lack of good judgement, lack of impartiality, and lack of knowledge sent this to the DCA to begin with?

    Has anything actually been accomplished other than ticking this judge off…?

    • Assuming that they issue the writ, then yes, what has been accomplished is that Nelson is put on notice that the DCA is watching her. Any future rulings she makes will be subject to more scrutiny.

      • That’s how I see it also ackbarsays. If the DCA rules for the defense, and even if it enrages Nelson, there was still reason to go forward with the petition. It is much more important to get Crump under oath, than to worry about the tender feelings of the judge. The benefit far outweights the judge’s feelings. I’m sure the defense considered all those possible outcomes.

    • nivico- Can you please point to the section in the defense response which indicates that the judge will be present at Crump’s depo. if they rule to allow it? I read the document, but don’t remember reading anything about the judge being present at a possible depo. I may have missed it.

      • I need to start printing these motions and responses out so I can highlight them for later reference, lol. 24 pages of legalese between the two replies posted today is a lot to go back through to find a specific quote.

        MOM’s argument, if I understood it correctly, is that the judge can’t blanketly deny the defense the opportunity to depose Crump altogether citing privilege because clearly not everything he knows is privileged (which BDLR seems to be throwing back in his face in his motion to compel SZ to complete her deposition). MOM then explains, and I’m paraphrasing to the best of my recollection, that the judge needs to allow the deposition and can decide on a question by question basis whether it violates privilege or not.

        To me, it just seems like out of the frying pan and back into the same frying pan… Nelson is still going to block them from deposing Crump about important non-privileged matters, she’ll just be doing it piecemeal.

        • nivico- I remember the portions you are referring to. I believe that what the defense was saying, and which they have been saying all long was that if the defense gets into areas during the depo., Crump’s atty. can object, and then they can ask the judge to rule whether the questions were about attorney work product or not. They also include language about Crump giving up any claims to atty. work product with the DD interview as they had the Martin parents, and two media people there hearing the interview. I also remember Crump running to the media with parts of the interview, and we know Gutman bragged about being the only one with the copy of the interview. Then of course you have the part about Crump claiming that nothing substantive was said when his recorder was turned off which has been proven to be a lie by the short release of the ABC tape.

          I agree that the Shellie depo. is a petulant and rataliatory move by the master shyster BDLR.

          Just wanted to add another thought here. For the longest while I wanted nothing more than to see the defense be able to impeach DD as the state’s star witness. I would bet the state wouldn’t have fought that impeachment too hard. They truly could never have wanted to put her on the witness stand at trial. DD is like a grenade with the pin half pulled at any given moment. From what we heard from the defense depo. of her, she will be the true gift that keeps on giving. I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets really sick and really really needs to go to the hospital just in time for her taking the witness stand. I get the feeling she will never face the jury.

          • “They also include language about Crump giving up any claims to atty. work product with the DD interview as they had the Martin parents, and two media people there hearing the interview. ”

            In Crump’s own ‘affidavit’ he even mentions that he discussed the risk of losing privilege with Sybrina and Tracy if they got involved with (i.e. intercepted) Wit 8 before the police could speak with her…

            They were co-conspirators at that point, not attorney and client.

            • I forgot about that nivico, thanks for the reminder. Co-conspirators is right, or partner’s in crime.

            • That also brings up another question. If Crump wants to use DD in his civil lawsuits against GZ, or anyone for that matter, can’t the attorney for the other side bring up DD’s lies during the criminal trial?

      • Objections to any question will have to be decided by the Judge, in this case many objections are expected. Don’t recall where I read it but as has been done in other depositions. The judge is present to respond to the objections, at the time, so that depositions can move on and get completed.

        • Since the deposition wouldn’t be televised Nelson may feel she has far greater freedom in her rulings. I’m thinking she wouldn’t even have to file an official ruling to explain her denying the defense a specific line of questioning or specific question.

          As an aside part of me wonders if BDLR forcing (by way of asking questions related to her perjury charge) Shellie to take the 5th might be a cover for an expected Crump deposition and his pleading the 5th. His pleading the 5th is something I think would be inevitable. Many/most people would think pleading the 5th suggests guilt. Now Team Crump could just point to Shellie should there be fingers pointed at Crump.

          • Interesting point, and you may be right. The only distinction being that Shellie is facing charges, whereas Crump isn’t. That sort of distinction is lost many of TM supporters but, it is there.

            I saw the move to depose Shellie, as a squeeze play on part of BDLR, a reminder of Shellies situation, I don’t think BDLR expects anything of use from the deposition, in fact depending on how she answers it can help both her case and GZ.

            • Only confidential communications are covered by the spousal privilege.
              90.504 Husband-wife privilege.

              (1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife.

              (2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.

              (3) There is no privilege under this section:

              (a) In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse.

              (b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time against the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either.

              (c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made.

  9. Animated-XOXO

    There have been 2,000 comments submitted to this site to help George Zimmerman and 2,000 comments have been publicly posted. No moderation or deletion needed. Great job Everyone! Keep focussing on the case and what we can do to ensure George Michael Zimmerman gets as fair a trial as is possible.

    Thank you to everyone who chose to help AND not get out of my way! ♥

  10. Our friendly neighborhood Traynuts have spun BDLR’s motion to compel deposition into the ping logs from Shellie’s phone place her in the truck with GZ and BDLR wants to know Shellie’s role in the “conspiracy”

    • Megyn had a pretty balanced discussion about the recent motions, except that she kept saying that the Defense wanted to depose George’s wife. She finally corrected herself, and then she asked Guest #1 what she thought of the prosecutor’s chances of getting to depose Shellie. The guest said “Well, the problem for George Zimmerman is that the Defense listed his wife as a defense witness.” The other guest agreed.


      • It seems, imo, that most guest are unwilling to say that the prosecution is wrong on any point of the law. They always appear to side with the prosecution, even if they have to latter backtrack. I don’t know if that is because it is a safe fallback position, or what, but that seems to always be case.

        • Tweet from NatJackson to John Phillips
          @JohnPhillips Thank u. I hope @HLNTV uses you as an analyst during the trial. Viewers deserve a knowledgeable, fair & balanced prospective.
          5:39pm – 3 May 13

          This a blog written by this attorney last April. If you look at his Facebook page, some photos with the scheme team. So much for fair and balanced. Is this the type of legal commentary we can expect during the trial?


          BTW-I don’t post much, read daily…really love your site….

          • Thanks and Welcome! I watched this conversation go on between Ms. Jackson and Mr. Phillips. Natalie was trying to draw John into the twitter war going on between Modarres and Hornsby over Hornsby’s blog about GZ’s decision to forego the pretrial immunity hearing.

            Natalie worries I think that Hornsby will be the legal commentator and is hoping to get John Phillips in there.

              • I doubt he’ll get the job but he and Natalie are trying hard. The news outlets will want a defense attorney and a prosecutor. Each commentator will be required to give their side’s perspective.

                In today’s HLN segment, which I didn’t personally see, my friends posted that Vinnie P. was left tongue-tied when both his guests agreed it was likely George yelling for help.

                The State of Florida is about to do some serious damage to the trust its citizens have in the justice system in that State.

          • Conclusion-

            Both men had their issues and the media has sensationalized this case far beyond reality. At then end of the day, Zimmerman was NOT a police officer. He was an overzealous citizen and had no business acting as enforcer or upholder of the law. No permit or license gives anyone the right to hunt another human. Whether he intended to shoot Trayvon or not, he did. He did so because he elected to carry a firearm with him. Why? To protect a neighbor’s grill or other property? Unacceptable. It led to a tragic death. He initiated and instigated the confrontation. Self Defense or not, he killed Trayvon Martin, because he took justice in his own hands. The video of him at the police station impeaches his credibility- no grass or dirt stains on his clothes and no blood, swelling and minimal abrasions are present. Minor head swelling might confirm an attack, but he’s seemingly lied about the nature of the events.

            He should be tried for the killing of Trayvon Martin. He took the law into his own hands when he stepped out of his truck to find Trayvon. To do so, with a gun, was grossly improper.

  11. And the problem with DD, does anyone have any thoughts?

    Since we don’t have access to DD’s partial depo, we do know from West that
    “Francine” helped DD w/the letter & that she claims some of her text messages are missing.

    We know DD lied about the hospital, her age, & was “coached” by Crump. DD has exposed Sybrina for sitting in on her interview but we don’t know what else West/MOM unearthed. We do know her deposition is yet to be finished.

    Seems that DD continues to be quoted on the BLOGS I am reading as if she is still credible to the States case, but is she?

    Will BDLR use DD? Will the Defense use her as their witness? IF the Defense uses DD, could be State impeach her credibility? I am having a hard time understanding how DD can still be a credible witness to the State r Defense at this point.

    • I’m not sure that DD lied about her age. That may have been a Crump fiction.

      I vaguely recall that someone (in last hearing maybe) said that DD has been deposed twice. I took that to mean her deposition was finished. I could be misremembering.

        • When the state takes a deposition, especially of their star witness, don’t they have to ask her to provide some kind of ID before doing the depo. Also, I would be curious when the FDLE did the profile on her which would have revealed her age. Personally I believe Crump started the lie about her age to be able to keep her hidden, mostly from the defense. The state just went along with it until they knew the defense would eventually find out. Didn’t BDLR say to one of the defense attys. at a hearing “Are you sure she is a minor”? Easier to get it out there way back then rather than closer to trial.

          • DD’s was not deposed by the State, she had a sworn interview, and yes she has to provide proper identification. That is why BDLR redacted that from the transcript of the interview along with name and address.
            it was after that “are you sure that she is a minor” that the defense was given a partially redracted copy with her full name and age but address was still hidden.

            • Bori- Are you mad at me? It sure sounds that way. We never did agree to disagree. Can we agree to disagree on some things?

              I’m usually pretty careful about referring to the BDLR time with DD as an interview. I slipped up this time, sorry. I still question when the state got the FDLE profile reports on DD. They would have known DD’s age from those reports. Didn’t the FDLE and the state try to keep the profiles from the defense? Or was that just TM’s and George’s?

          • I’ve given depositions without identification, but the deposer knew me personally. Not sure what the rules are in Florida, but would hope some ID is required.

      • I don’t know if DD was deposed twice or not but I was of the impression that the defense wants to depos Crump first, and then go back and finish with DD. That way they can pick up more inconsistencies. That of course if Crump doesn’t take the fif.

    • Art- DD isn’t a credible witness which is exactly why she should be put on the witness stand at trial. It would seem that what was covered in the defense depo. plus the state and Crump interviews, can you imagine West or O’Mara crossing her on the stand? I don’t know if Nelson can deny allowing whatever she said in the depos. based on the fact that the state is highly dependent on her interviews with them. I’ll say again, DD is like a grenade with the pin half pulled. You never know what she will say if she hasn’t been told what to say or coached. The defense won’t coch her but will let her say whatever comes to mind. I don’t think they will ask her what TM bought at the 711, or if it was dripping water. They won’t ask what what the grass sounds like either.

      • pinecone – I was thinking the Defense would impeach DD BEFORE the trial, but you make the better point, DD could be discredited on the stand by the Defense. I too agree DD is half cocked, there is no way to predict what she will say, & if there are ANY inconsistencies in her testimony from the depositions, the Defense can make DD read back to the jury that portion that she is inconsistent with. (are you lying then or now?) Cindy Anthony had to read back several things during that trial. imo, DD seems low functioning, I doubt she will have the ability to retain any information Crump drills her on. Too, she can be ask “who helped you prepare for your testimony.”

        I too thought the Defense would finish DD’s deposition ONLY after they conducted one on Crump as you shared. (if the defense wins the appeal)

    • And let’s remember, without further verification, we have a phone belonging to Tracy Matrin’s cell phone account that was connected to an anonymous, pre-paid cell phone claimed to have been used by ‘DeeDee’ immediately before to the ensuing struggle. I refuse to believe the story of the ‘DeeDee’ call until forensic evidence, i.e., ping logs and/or GPS coordinates, corroborates the claimed location of all three phones: GZ’s, DD’s, and Trayvon’s during the evening in question.

        • When I say Tracy’s phone account, I mean it has yet to be proven which phone Trayvon was using during the alleged call. Said another way, several phones were part of Tracy’s master account with his provider (if I remember correctly) and it’s yet to be established (to me, anyway) who had which phone and where those phones were physically located during the ‘DeeDee’ call. I also think Chad may be involved in the cell phone circus, but I digress…

        • Ackbar, read analyst’s comment again. A phone belonging to Tracy’s account was supposedly connected to a pre-paid phone used by DD is what he is saying. I remember Crump coming out and waving the Tracy phone bill around, which was copied and pasted to only reveal certain calls, and claiming he had the smoking gun. I wonder if Tracy’s bill also included his call to DD that Crump claimed he did when he found her number going through his bill, and then called him later at night telling him of the explosive info. Or was NatJac correct that one of Crump’s investigators found DD from “phone information”? Crump has told so many stories, and in so many versions, it is obvious that he is trying to confuse everything and everyone, and in particular the possible jury pool.

  12. It’s odd that while it seems West is the one most determined to have at Crump it’s actually MOM that’s writing the motions/responses. West didn’t even sign them. I don’t recall having seen West’s signature on anything for quite some time.

  13. Bori- I am replying to your 5:54 reply to me down here as there is no reply button at your comment.

    Only confidential communications are covered by the spousal privilege.
    90.504 Husband-wife privilege.

    (1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife. CHECK

    (2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence. NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE THAT I AM AWARE OF.

    (3) There is no privilege under this section:

    (a) In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse. DOESN”T APPLY.

    (b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time against the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either. DOESN”T APPLY.

    (c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made. GEORGE HASN”T OFFERED ANYTHING INTO EVIDENCE ABOUT ANYTHING SHELLIE SAID.

    BDLR is claiming, in his motion, that Shellie was at the scene of the incident, at the SPD and watever else. In other words she was present at some situations. George asked someone to call Shellie right after the shooting, and to ask her to come to the scene as he just shot someone. By the time that Shellie arrived at the scene, George I believe was already in the back of the police cruiser, and handcuffed. Did they talk at all? I don’t know. Shellie also arrived at the SPD that night to bring George a change of clothes as his were being taken into evidence. Did George and Shellie have any communication that night? I don’t know. If they did have any communication, I would think it would be privileged as husband wife communication. Didn’t Shellie call Osterman before she arrived at the scene? I would think that Osterman would have advised Shellie to not ask questions etc. I could be wrong about that. BDLR is on a fishing expedition, and he knows that communication between George and Shellie, in the time period he is referring to likely would be privileged because of husband wife privileges. I could easily be wrong but, BDLR, as usual, is not being on the up and up as he never has been.

  14. Nettles, I don’t understand what the issue is with this blog template, or maybe with your settings. On other WordPress blogs, like D-Man’s and the CTH, when I enter a comment, the screen refreshes and takes me right back to where I posted the comment, no matter where it is in the list. On yours, when the screen refreshes after I post the comment, it takes me all the way to the bottom. It’s very difficult to follow a conversation and comment on it because of this.

    I’m not asking you to change anything – just wanted to give you feedback in case you have that conversation you were going to have about it – I assume that was with D-Man?

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s