Defendant’s Sealed Confidential Motion to Maintain Anonymity and Confidentiality of Certain Witnesses and other Stuff

Sealed Confidential Motion means you can’t see it but apparently it exists.

[Update June 4 2013 9:40 I just want to throw some thoughts from my comment below up here.

Why is this motion Sealed & Confidential? What’s in there the defense does not want you to see? I’m not so concerned right now myself with the part “to Maintain Anonymity and Confidentiality of Certain Witnesses”. My concern right now is why we can’t see this motion. Redaction has always been a part of this case so why not do that here?

I’m also wondering how they are going to deal with this at the hearing. Will it be handled in chambers? End update]

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/185-notice-of-hearing-for-june-6-2013

Update

Where are these?

MOTION TO COMPEL EXPERT WITNESS REPORT REGARDING SPEECH AND/OR SPEAKER RECOGNITION.

DEFENDANT’S 4TH SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY

http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CriminalDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=592012CF001083A

Update

STATE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

STATE’S 17TH REDACTED SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-cop-application-20130604,0,7772961.story

NOTICE OF FILING

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST

About these ads

67 thoughts on “Defendant’s Sealed Confidential Motion to Maintain Anonymity and Confidentiality of Certain Witnesses and other Stuff

  1. Who could those witnesses be?

    School cops?

    Homeless guys?

    A bus driver and passengers?

    Larry, Daryl, and Daryl from the 7-Eleven?

    Perspiring minds want to know!

    • Hasn’t the school stuff all been excluded? Does anyone know anything about anonymous witnesses? I tried looking it up and didn’t get much. Everything seemed to relate to organized crime and prosecution witnesses. Would they make this motion now if it was a character witness? They don’t even know if character witnesses will be allowed in. Maybe it was someone at the scene? The boy with the dog maybe, or John. A whistleblower of some kind? I love these mysteries

      • Hasn’t the school stuff all been excluded?

        There’s been a lot of misreporting of that.

        For most of the contested evidence, Nelson ruled that it couldn’t be mentioned in opening statements. Some media reports have confused that with ruling on admissibility, which Nelson mostly reserved until trial. Today’s media just sucks.

        I think she did say school records wouldn’t be admissible unless they were relevant to propensity for violence.

          • I was originally referring to the 3 individuals who entered the 7-Eleven after Trayvon left, and, due to the somewhat similar “scruffy” look, used the names of 3 characters from the show “Newhart” (the one where he’s an innkeeper and author and Henry Mancini wrote the theme song).

            It turns out I’ve been mis-spelling Darryl by omitting the second “r”.

            • yes I know but you have not caught on to my joke.

              There was a TV program in the 1980s situated in Vermont. It was the Bob Newhart Show.

              The line that continues to stick in my mind and bring a smile is: “I’m Daryl, this is my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl”.

              Older people like myself understand the reference.

              BTW I watched the Bob Newhart show when I lived for a short time in Fairborn OH. :)

  2. I’m hoping it’s actually DEFENSE witnesses who are concerned for their physical safety if they testify. And I hope if that’s the case, MOM/West takes every opportunity to drive home the point that not only are GZ and his entire family in hiding for well over a year, but anyone who dares to support GZ by providing evidence of his innocence is also in fear for his or her life, thanks to the ongoing fallacious, inflammatory, race-baiting statements of the Scheme Team.

    • Well I’m a pessimist and a cynic so I’m thinking it’s the other thing but I hope I’m wrong. But you know what would happen if it’s as you say? Bernie would turn around and try to do the same thing, he already has to some degree, pfft, like anyone from that side is under any real threat, what a joke.

    • I’m confused. This was a defense motion right? Doesn’t that mean it would have to be about a defense witness?

        • Could they be trying to keep secret the identities of witnesses they’ll be deposing, regardless of whether they’re defense or prosecution witnesses?

          And either way, isn’t it a little close to the trial date to be worried about identities which will have to be revealed when they take the stand?

          Could on of the witnesses be the underage girl?

            • The photos of TM’s pants was prosecution evidence. They never released those photos. In the first defense discovery dump, the pictures with the pants containing the grass stained knees were released by the defense as soon as they started releasing their discovery dumps. What’s the problem? I don’t understand.

          • Maybe for witnesses they aren’t sure they will have to use? Maybe there are witnesses about TMs character that don’t want their identity known if it doesn’t have to be. If character comes in then we find out their identities, but if it doesn’t then they can remain anonymous. Same with whistleblowers whose testimony may not be needed. Or who knows?

  3. Maybe it’s deedee. Maybe the state decided that they weren’t going to call her to the stand but the defense wants to. She was afraid of having her identity known before there was any reason to be

    • I think you keep missing the Sealed & Confidential part. Why is this motion Sealed & Confidential? What’s in there the defense does not want you to see? I’m not so concerned right now myself with the part “to Maintain Anonymity and Confidentiality of Certain Witnesses”. My concern right now is why we can’t see this motion. Redaction has always been a part of this case so why not do that here?

      I’m also wondering how they are going to deal with this at the hearing. Will it be handled in chambers?

      • Maybe they are afraid if the public sees the reasons why they want this witness to be anonymous that someone will be able to guess who the person is. They have to know how closely this case is being followed. There have been posts on some sites trying to guess the name of a redacted witness based on how long the redaction is. I imagine they have to included the reasons they are requesting anonymity in the motion. Maybe the only thing that wasn’t going to be redacted was the name of the motion and some legalese so they didn’t bother to post it. What can I say, I’m an optimist apparently.

  4. May be it is the girl TM’s cousin referenced putting on the bus after they sexually assaulted her?

    May be it is the First Double Dee Dee!

  5. Anyone testifying for the defense is automatically going to be targeted by the Scheme Team, the entire BGI, and Francis Oliver. Haven’t we read so much about the jurors, especially any black jurors being expected to convict GZ no matter the evidence. I’m quite sure that every juror will be held to account, especially now that Nelson won’t keep their identities secret forever. If the defense happens to have a black juror, or anyone willing to rule that GZ acted in self defense, they have a mark on their head already. Any witness speaking in GZ’s favor also has that same target on their head. If I witnessed the entire incident, the only way I talk is if I am assured that my testimony, and my future safety is protected.

  6. I remember in the OJ case there were so many blacks on the jury because they often work for the government and therefore can take the time off from work.

    -Mark Martinson

    • Marcia Clark wanted black female jurors because they are more likely to be victims of domestic violence and she thought they would sympathize with Nicole. She refused to use a jury expert to pick the jurors. One of her many mistakes.

      • I remember something to that effect was rumored. I don’t remember ever seeing a good reason to believe it. Clark denied it.

  7. Could someone who has an account in the talkleft GZ forum ask jeralyn about confidential witnesses and the law surrounding them, particularly having to do with defense witnesses? I don’t have an account with the forum. Leatherman said he has never heard of anonymous witnesses, but since there are anonymous witnesses for the prosecution in organized crime trials, he is obviously wrong.

          • There’s nothing wrong with that aspect as running and maintaining a blog takes time and money, it’s these claims like “Nobody else is going to write articles like this one.” and “I’m your ticket to Inside the Game.” that’s the kicker.

            • It’s more the whinyness that bothers me. He has hinted that he will have to stop posting if more donations don’t start coming in. That makes me think that he is not a passionate advocate for justice for trayvon, just someone trying to cash in on a tragedy.

            • ” “Nobody else is going to write articles like this one.” ”

              Well, I think I’m going to have to agree with him on that one.

        • Please keep the donations coming.

          There will be no free time between now and when the jury renders its verdict.

          Nobody else is going to write articles like this one.

          I’m your ticket to Inside the Game.

          Fred

          Laughing My Ass OffScreaming

          • I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.

            Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

            If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

            Thank you,

            • That’s a little tacky but not as bad and funny as this new one. Like I said though there’s nothing wrong with asking for donations nearly everyone does it who maintains a blog daily.

              • I get that, but it still seems like he is asking them to pay him to say exactly what they want to here. And the implication that he has some type of insider access.

                • Don’t we all pay for what we want? If you find value in something then you pay for it. No different there.

                  I laugh at these other claims though because they are just so absurd in that one is egomaniacal “Nobody else is going to write articles like this one.” and the other is just plain silly “I’m your ticket to Inside the Game.” both claims together bordering on megalomania, lol, I mean good grief I couldn’t imagine saying such things about myself, lol, especially in the context of asking for donations.

                • If the people fall for all the misinformation he spews, then they get exactly what they are paying for from him. He keeps feeding them bull, and they eagerly snatch up every morsel, so it’s symbiotic.

                  • Ignorance is bliss so some people WANT to be told what to believe to be a part of the “in crowd.”

        • What I think is sad is that one poster(that mention they have kids) said they would send their donation as soon as their SSDI check came in, and wish they could send enough for Fred to take Ethel out to dinner. Rather than responding with – thanks for thinking of us, but please spend the money on your kids instead. Ethel jumped in with “Gee thanks, we haven’t been out to eat in forever, I miss onion rings”. If they can make a living off blogging (or dumpster diving), more power to them. I just think it is pretty low to be taking money from someone on SSDI w/children.

      • I saw that. I like visiting leathermans site cause its funny. One of their commentators is claiming that he was responsible for discovering that the defense knew about the homeless/bicycle clips 8 months ago.
        I always like to know what the other side is saying.

  8. Maybe they have evidence of witness tampering or evidence being hiddenand don’t want to make the claims public until after they talk to the judge.

  9. A commenter in leathermans site thought that the confidential witness was sundance. Why the hell would they think that?

  10. Pingback: June 6th 2013 Hearing George Zimmerman | DiwataMan

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