Not according to someone who claims to be close to the case…
Let me start by reminding everyone that we do not have all of the Discovery as of yet so there’s no harsh judgement about speculations being made about this case, at least not from me, as it progresses as long as it’s stated to that effect. I have been wrong about many such speculations but I try to maintain and express a sense of speculation when I’m talking about any aspect that is not certain. It’s often done with just a word or a phrase i.e. “I believe”, “I think”, “could be”, “possibly”, etc. If I’m certain about something, the language tends to reflect that i.e. “I know”, “it is”, etc.
But sometimes, sometimes my friends, there’s speculations made without the speculative language, or even with more certain language. This is why we created the word assumption and where we get the phrase “Assume makes a Ass out of u and me”. That was actually how I was taught in school to spell assume, perhaps you were as well. There is of course other areas related to this; induction, deduction, epistemology, logical fallacies, etc. that I’ll spare as of now but it’s important to study these areas if one embarks on a course of knowledge.
Finally there are folks who take something that is not know to be certain but expresses it in a way that is absolutely certain. They may not be lying mind you, they just really really really believe. Then there’s the more nefarious counterpart; the liar. The liar in this regard is normally easy to spot because they are highly resistant to discussions contrary to their claims and no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary of their claim they continue on as though their original claim is the fact.
So when I started out this post by saying “Not according to someone who claims…” one should be aware that 1) I am not the one making the claim and 2) the word claim is typically defined as something stated without evidence. With that in mind you should be already prepared to take the information that follows with a grain of salt as they say, that is, to read it with speculation.
So let me describe the claim now, and link you to the source of the claim and then I will go over information regarding the claim itself. The claim is that the cell phone we know as listed in the evidence as Object Marker #7, Evidence Tag DMS-7 (T-Mobile “Comet” Phone with a little sticker of a heart on it, Model #U8150-A) is not Trayvon’s phone. The source for that claim is an internet user known as OdessaGirl. You can find her claims at http://disqus.com/OdessaGirl/ once there, click Activity then load all of her comments. Throughout those comments you will find the claims made about the phone along with other interesting information.
That phone that was found did not belong to Trayvon. His phone was not in Sanford. The phone that was found belonged to a child and was not listed in Trayvon’s belongings. Parents often take away “screens” to punish a child for doing something wrong, like school suspension. It took a court order and three weeks for authorities to get his phone.-OdessaGirl
Let me state; everyone, including myself, I have ever heard or read that discusses this case and has ever addressed the phone, Object Marker #7, has assumed it was Trayvon’s phone but not without good reason. The good reasons for believing it was Trayvon’s cell phone is because it was marked as Object Marker #7, Evidence Tag DMS-7 and described as Trayvon’s phone. That, as it may turn out, may have been an assumption made by police but even there we may have a problem. So let’s go over what we have from the Discovery.
First let’s look at page 6 of the First Discovery Documents known as the 183pdf and how the phone was listed into evidence;
As we can see the brand of the phone is T-Mobile and the model is #U8150-A. A Google search reveals this particular model is also known as “Comet”.
From the Property Narrative the phone has been marked as Object Marker #7 and as we can see from the photo, Marker #7 is in fact a T-Mobile phone and looks exactly like the back of other photos online of the particular model.
I am not concerned about the owner section, as that may be because Trayvon may not have been identified at the time the officer was logging that information. I do not consider the owner status as indicating that only that phone was not know who the owner was because as we can see form the discovery other items, such as the First Aid Kit and White Bag do not have owners listed as well.
Finally take note of the Evidence Tag DMS-7. That will allow us to track it through most of the rest of the discovery.
Here on page 41 of the Second Discovery documents, known as the 284pdf, we find the Property and Evidence Chain of Custody with DMS-7 listed.
Now let’s look at the Officer Joesph Santiago’s Offense Report report on page 16 and 17 of the 183pdf. Note that in Santiago’s descriptions regarding the phone he never refers to it as Evidence Tag DMS-7. However, he does describe that he noticed a black cell phone near the area of Martin and later he describes that on Feb. 28th he had CST Smith take the cell phone to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office(SCSO). From the Evidence Chain we see that on the 29th the SCSO is in possession of DMS-7. On March 2nd Santiago asked Sgt. Ciesla to recover the phone from the SCSO and again we see the corresponding activity from the Evidence log and described as DMS-7.
Santiago then goes on to describe the phone as a T-Mobile and that he had contacted Tracy Martin for the pin number to the victims cell phone.
Given the information so far then I think a safe assumption is that DMS-7 is Trayvon’s. If it were not I would think that when Santiago contacted Tracy about the phone he would not have responded that he would have to talk to his lawyer first before giving him the pin number to the phone. It seems to me he would have said something to the effect that the phone is not Trayvon’s phone.
However, perhaps Tracy did not know Santiago was talking about the phone in police custody. Perhaps all Santiago said was that he would like the pin number to Trayvon’s phone in order for them to access it when they do get his phone.
It took a court order and three weeks for authorities to get his phone.-OdessaGirl
If this is the case then what has happened here is that it appears the police assumed the phone tagged as DMS-7 was in fact Trayvon’s and so we in turn took it as such. Now I’m not so sure about my assumption as the description of the conversation between Satiago and Martin is a very limited description and we are assuming Tracy is aware that the pin number Santiago is asking for is for Trayvon’s phone the police think they have in custody.
On page 215 and 216 of the 284pdf we find DMS-7 has moved to the Federal Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) on March 20th and received by Jackie Blue for fingerprint analysis. We again find the corresponding activity from the Evidence Chain on 3/20 to the FDLE by JDB (Jackie Blue assumed).
Here DMS-7 is describe as a cell phone belonging to Martin. But can we say with certainty that cell phone the FDLE is now looking at is in fact Trayvon’s? I’m not so sure. If it’s true that it took a court order and three weeks to get Trayvon’s phone the date on the report would be cutting that rather close. And given that they describe the tag as DMS-7 I would assume it’s the phone that was found at the scene. I don’t think they would remove that phone out of the bag and replace it with Trayvon’s actual phone. I would assume they would apply a new evidence tag to Trayvon’s phone.
On page 119 of the 183pdf we find the results of the fingerprint analysis for DMS-7.
No latent print examinations were performed on Exhibit DMS-7 per information received from Special Agent Supervisor David Lee.
What’s that you say? No latent print examinations were performed on Exhibit DMS-7 per information received from Special Agent Supervisor David Lee? Why not? We don’t know why as of now because that’s all there is folks. There’s nothing else official as of now that goes into this phone deal or why prints were never done. One possible explanation is that DMS-7 was found to not be Trayvon’s phone and positively identified by the Serial Number as being the little girls phone as OdessaGirl is claiming and so there was no need to do a latent print examination on DMS-7.
As of now I’m still I’m on the fence on this one. OdessaGirl appears credible to me but read her comments for yourself and decide. Here are a few other comments I found interesting.
In regards to Mary Cutcher;
She also did not like George because he said something to her about leaving her dog poop laying around. There were specific rules concerning cleaning up after your dog.
In regards to where Trayvon was living at around the time before going to Brandy’s;
Actually Trayvon was living with neither parent at the time but with a friend across town from the mother.
In regards to Trayvon’s drug use;
[When talking about possible lean drink use]
Yep. There was also something found at the scene from what I have been told that is not listed in the evidence released.I can’ t say yet who has it but it will definitely come out at trial.
And lastly for now…
Most information that is not publicly out there I am careful about. I have said all along there is a big problem with the DeeDee call. Remember that one when it comes out. I won’t take bait and let something out I should not let out…Next month I will post on here before it is released to the puplic how I know George. I will tell about an event that is going to happen and when it happens you will know that I am being truthful. Standing up for my friend has caused a lot of backlash and ridicule but I would do it all over again. What kind of friend turns their back on their friend when the going gets rough? Not much of one in my book. You have tried to portray me as living in fanasy land and having dual personalities. You don’t know me. I don’t know you but I have come to some conclusions about you. You like to heckle people. If I were not being truthful about knowing George I sure wouldn’t be on here taking all the heat I do.