This thread has been developed to host an online discussion about the incident and circumstances of an anonymous sender of an email being sent to the treehouse, that had an impact on its’ owner Sundance.
We are not looking to find out who this sender is in the real life world, but who was it among us in their online identity and what impact did the vetting or not vetting have on the George Zimmerman case.
This is a work in progress. In order to get answers, we need to ask questions. Please don’t get offended if you get asked about any possible role you had in it. Simply answer honestly and let us move ahead. We are only as good as the information provided us and as we all know it is very easy to be misled online so caution is the driver.
Feb. 20th at 7:32am the Treehouse rec’d an email with the Subject: Confidential for Sundance.
(not sure if the author knows, but this exposes the information to 8 people we don’t know a whole lot about)
I was reading one of your blog threads on George, after all, and found it both curious and coincidental that you had a link for Jonestown in there.
Curious and coincidental because I found out yesterday that O’Mara has forbidden George to associate with me. Isolating him from friends and family like he’s a child. He goes along to meetings with George’s pastor also. We are deep in the jungles of Guyana for sure.
Also, I understand XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX redacted by SD XXXXXXXXXX. Symbolically what happened.
For so much fear and control to be happening, something big is going to go down. Keep up with the sunlight Sundance. Don’t give up. You have always been George’s guardian angel with the blog threads and exposing the truth.
PS. I am going to keep XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX with Shellie at least.
The redactions above were done by Sundance before forwarding the email to me and two other contributors at the treehouse.
A few days ago, Sundance dropped by our blog and provided more information and in typical fashion, conflicting information regarding this email.
In this comment (Oct. 4th at 2:49am) he writes
“Go back and look at the construct of what’s written up there ^^. You’ll note I never said who wrote the e-mail, and redacted their information at their request. It was not from Ken/Scott, I never said it was from Ken/Scott, I never inferred it was from Ken/Scott…”
However, in discussing the email with me on August 23rd at 12:31 am Sundance wrote to me:
“However, I do know, with absolute certainty, you pissed off Ken/Scott because you used information in a cc’d email I sent you and D-Man -after I told you to retain the confidence- but I don’t remember the content of the email I forwarded.”
This is the only email I ever received from Sundance in which D-Man was also copied. So why does he invoke Ken/Scott here? What does he mean? Ken has denied he was ever upset with me regarding this email.
Sundance, who really is suppose to be a blogger who is helping us sort out the truth in the George Zimmerman case has become just as mysterious and confusing as the media, lawyers and politicians surrounding this case. Most, if not all readers and participants here, were contributors to his site and we all had a goal to uncover the truth and stop the injustice and abuses being heaped on a citizen of the United States. Where was Sundance’s loyalty to us, the contributors, to uncovering the truth? Why does he always seem to leave more questions than answers? I invite you Sundance to have a honest discussion with us. You owe us that.
Also included in his Oct. 4th @ 2:49AM post, Sundance drops a tantalizing clue as to who the sender of the email was: “The actual email, at the heart of all this silliness, was written by minpin06′s biggest GZ fan. Who was, according to their presentation, a *close* (daily contact) friend of GZ, who used to post at TCTH.”
To: Diwataman, Chip Bennett, Annette Kelly
“An E-Mail rec’d from a person who knows what I just outlined above, yet they do not know my full awareness. (I am also protecting their identity).”
“a person who knows what I just outlined” “I am protecting their identity” – Doesn’t this convey he knows who the sender is and he is protecting them?
In a response to Unitron, on October 4th at 2:59am, Sundance wrote “I was openly soliciting opinion. It was shared merely as an FYI…. Nor did I vouch for the content as accurate, or establish a belief the “signing” of agreement thing made sense.”
One does not openly solicit opinion by writing – “Under NO circumstances can it be discussed, shared or forwarded.” I’ve never discussed the contents of this email with Sundance, Diwataman, Chip, or anyone else due to these instructions. It was Sundance who brought the subject here in August, opening the door to finally having a discussion about it.
Sundance absolutely conveyed he thought this material was explosive and that he thought it authentic by writing he knows this and the writer knows the same thing. Confirmation if you will. Now, he says it’s just silliness.
This email also did not come with instructions that I was to be totally convinced of its accuracy and authenticity or be banned from the site. However, when I posted on the O’Mara Feb. 23rd site, I received an email from dear leader accusing me of being wilfully ignorant.
Sent: February-23-13 9:56:25 AM
To: Annette Kelly (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Obviously I made a big mistake in corresponding to you – Lesson learned.
However, obviously from the comment you posted you just don’t “get it”, and it appears this is an intentional decision on your part.
I take exception to the tone and disparagement aimed specifically toward me, in my house, within the comment, and have deleted it from view. You show a keen disconnect from grace or mannerly behavior.
Farewell and following seas.
The TRUTH Has NO Agenda.”
Let’s be reminded here that Feb. 22nd was a scheduled court date for the case. The issue of Crump being deposed was on the agenda. If you read through the Feb. 22nd thread, we are all commenting how important this is to uncovering the truth. I write, it’s going to be a defining moment. Unknown to me at that time, Sundance has this email in his possession. Then he starts dropping hints in the early morning hours of Feb. 22nd that if this day doesn’t go well, he has some goods on O’Mara and if he has to disclose it he will. People start asking him to disclose it anyway.
I think one can infer, the day at court, did not go O’Mara’s way and Sundance thought that was by design because he was part of the pie, baked right in. So at 8:21pm that night, he forwarded the emails to Diwataman, Chip and I and constructed his Feb. 23rd post attacking Mr. O’Mara.
So, Who is the sender of this email that Sundance put so much trust and credibility in?
Recently, the members of George’s family and the defense team, have had a chance to review the email. In one case, someone else copied on the email sent it to a family member who was able to share it and it’s been posted on this blog so everyone has had a chance to review it. I got feedback from a source close to team defense that their best guess is the writer of this email was a person who became a friend of George’s after the shooting. They wrote a letter to the judge and O’Mara and George thought it best to distance themselves from the new friend. I’m told this friend is a woman.
The email talks about the writer contacting lawyers in Orlando and low and behold a new contributor shows up on the Feb. 23rd thread, talking about what Orlando lawyers think of O’Mara. By all accounts, this person and Sundance are the only two who have come up with people with an unfavorable view. From my research I’m getting feedback Mr. O’Mara is quite respected in the legal community in Florida.
In the email, the writer conveys that they have stopped posting at the treehouse and was grateful that the other contributors noticed their absence. So I did a search of comments at the site and found this:
It appears a contributor by the identity of Gbishop fell off the radar screen and was noted by some.
For those of you who have been reading the treehouse, you’ll know that GBishop started most threads with a really nice calming youtube song to give George and the family an uplifting start. He would wait for Sundance to post his open George Zimmerman thread and then he always tried to be the first one to post a calming (usually religious) song. Oddly, I can’t find those posts now. Did Sundance take them down? In the email, the writer talks about a tradition at the treehouse and they were glad to see it continue. I think this is the tradition the writer spoke of. There are only a few GBishop posts left at the treehouse. Here, she weighs in on that July 6th thread where Sundance can bite his tongue no more.
When I read on that same thread, GBishop’s comment about the homeless and poor, it reminded me of Rick Madigan’s comments on his blog. What do you think?
Some of you may have witnessed a recent conversation Sundance and I had about whether or not the treehouse called for people to not donate to the defense site. Sundance said that was untrue. Had I seen this post at the time it was made, I never would have participated there. How does one think O’Mara can be successful without support? Why did the family continue to be thankful and grateful to Sundance after a post like this?
It appears to me that this true supporter and friend of George’s played on Sundance’s known bias and used it to retaliate against Mr. O’Mara and it worked like a charm. In her email, she does convey that she wrote letters. Perhaps her letters to the Judge caused George Zimmerman to have to cut her off.
I remember Robert Jr. talking about how difficult it is for the family to socialize now with people they don’t know. George and company had to be very careful not to trust the wrong people or say anything that could be used against him. I can’t imagine the stress this family lives under due to absolute smearing of their family name.
Click here to download or open a word document of the anonymous email . How much weight would you give the details outlined in it? What would we have revealed if we all could have vetted this as we did other information that came to us in the case?