GZ Case: Latest Notice’s of Depositions

1 - Copy


ntd_31313 – Copy

2new - Copy

ntd_31413 – Copy

3 - Copy

ntd_31513 – Copy

Deposition List

Looks like someone owes me a cake, one of many to come, he-he-he.
jello-2 - Copy


366 thoughts on “GZ Case: Latest Notice’s of Depositions

  1. Does anyone else see where Notices state DD was on the phone? Trying to get the story out too fast, seems to be the reason for so many errors.

        • All of the people who were depo’d Thurs. and Fri. had a generic “Signature Court Reporting” and “will be recorded by videotape by Ron Fleming Video Productions, Inc.”

          The W8 notice includes the Specific reporter’s name and purpose is to “take depositions, and a video recorder.” NOT video’d by Ron Fleming.

          Hmm… I can understand having more than one reporter / Video person, but this W8 notice specifically does not list a videographer —just “and a video recorder”…Hmm
          Does that mean an anon. recording person video’d it, or was the VR sitting in a Best Buy box in the corner in case W8 made a run for it and they got her great escape on tape… Weird, just weird.

          • I took it being generic on the W8 Notice, due to the Def trying to keep it as confidential as possible. I would bet it was the same video company and same Court Reporter. IMHO.

      • Poor dear “Laura @003Laura”

        See, dear “Laura,” she was to be deposed in the same office as everyone else. It’s the FDLE Miami ROC on NW 111th Ave. Face to face. Videotape ready and running.
        “Oh! what a tangled web we weave
        When first we practise to deceive!”
        — Sir Walter Scott, 1808

      • Once again the “LOL” in the tweets/posts of the malinformed. They are not laughing, they are very angry. And Laura in particular will be even angrier when she learns that she was mistaken. Pathetic ignorant people.

    • I think that Stutzman suffered from the problem faced by most people who try to communicate if the limited format of texting and/or tweeting. I believe she was trying to include the detail of “girlfriend who had been on the phone with Trayvon on 2/26”, but failed to make her point clearly. I don’t seriously believe that she was trying to say that the deposition was taken over the phone. I wonder if witness 8 was asked her address, and if she actually provided it? If she refused, I wonder if the defense team had a PI in place to attempt to determine that address?

      • I bet the def team know a whole lot more than public realizes. OR I would hope so. I would loved to have been a crack on the wall. Wonder who deposed her? Hope it was West ๐Ÿ™‚

        • The ol’ Good Cop / Bad Cop routine. Works every time.

          Hope they brought a box of Kleenex and an airlines barf bag.

            • It’s a good thing that that she has trouble peeing with an all day deposition. I wonder if she had to hold it during her 500 minute phone call. LOL

            • I hope MOM/West broke her and spewed all the lies she has told, more importantly, I hope she was extensively about being contacted by Crump or Tracy and how that played out.

              LOL, despite the prepping she probably rec’d, imo she doesn’t seem bright enough to have retained the answers she was instructed to give to many questions.

              I hope she was asked if Gutman PAID her for the interview in any capacity such as licensing fees or other perks since MEDIA can’t pay directly for interviews, but they all pay, or any monies exchanged hands for her “exclusive” Gutman promoted on ABC in any capacity.

              • I think it was very wise of MOM/West to take her depo before Tracy and Sybrina. They could not coach her on what they said before her, and demand that she stick with their stories, not like she was capable of memorizing anything anyway.

                I find it fascinating that MOM/West included wording that may indicate that they in fact did learn something from DD which could dispute what Crump has previously claimed, yet again. I just have a sneaking feeling that she spilled some kind of info., albeit unintentionally. Many have long considered DD to be the gift that keeps on giving.

            • Maybe its because he waived being there on March 5th? Could it be he has to be in court every so often? just wondering I dont know.

        • The Orlando sentinel article linked above says:

          “Zimmerman’s attorneys did not finish questioning the 19-year-old woman, his office said, and will schedule another session.”

          The notice says it starts at 9:00am. I wonder what time she showed up. Is there a chance she didn’t show and phoned in at 4?

          Deja vu to April 2 when they had to find her in Broward?

          • Is it the state’s responsibility to insure that DD show up, and on time for a deposition? If it did happen that she didn’t show up until much later, is it the state that could be held responsible for the reason for another deposition? The judge has not been very lenient with the defense in second depositions, or in any deposition of Crump at all. Do they have to ask permission of the court for a second deposition?

            • The witness is served with a subpoena instructing her to appear for the deposition. If she doesn’t show up, law enforcement can arrest her and compel her to appear and the court can find her in contempt of court.

                • Pam Bondi said on March 27th the witness wasn’t cooperating. Perhaps they made the subpoena out to c/o Crump to serve it on her. Perhaps she wasn’t coming forward. I theorize she only came forward on the promise the Grand Jury would go away.

                  Crump started complaining about a Grand Jury the next morning on the today show (March 21st). I think he knew his witness wouldn’t come forward to testify at one.

                  She may have been told it was likely no more statements from her would be needed if she just gave that one to BDLR on April 2nd and that they could make the Grand Jury go away.

                  Radar Online must have had a good source b/c they posted at 12:30pm the next day, that W8 had talked to prosecutors. Note in the article, W8 was left with the impression she wouldn’t need to testify at a Grand Jury.

                  • I mentioned this before- In his interview, you can hear Crump tell her something like “OK, We just need to get this one thing done and it will be over.” To me, that suggested that once she completed that interview, she would be done, and nothing else would be needed of her. The way he kept thanking her at the end, from himself, Tracey, and Sabryna, also suggests (to me anyway) that her part in this was over.

                    • Agree completely. Which is one of the main reasons I think there are 2 Dee Dee’s. They went back to #1 to break the bad news (that she’d need to make more appearances) and she (or her parents) freaked. “NO WAY… we are DONE.” So…. gotta find another Dee Dee… enter #2.

          • Ha! Thanks, see my comments here re. that… we seem to be thinking along the same lines. That being that this wasn’t just your typical depo that “ran long”, and so needs to be completed later. I’m thinking more they got a VERY uncooperative (alleged) Dee Dee on their hands, and are now trying to figure out the next step to take.

  2. Anyone else feel sympathy for Dawn Roscher, Court Reporter? I have a feeling it was one of the most difficult transcriptions she’s ever done.

  3. I’m re-reading Crump’s affidavit. I’m sure some or all of this has been discussed before, either here or elsewhere, so I apologize for the rehash.

    I find it so odd that Crump admits he didn’t know DeeDee’s address or last name at the time he interviewed her (page 8, paragraph 18), and yet he claimed he was given consent from DeeDee’s “family”/”parents” to interview her (page 10, paragraph 19, item m, and also page 10, paragraph 22). How could he confirm that the people consenting to the interview were really DeeDee’s “family”/”parents” if he didn’t even know her last name or address?

    In paragraph 24 Crump claims that he didn’t know if Matt Gutman and Candace Smith were recording the interview. Did he not feel some obligation to ensure that Gutman & Smith had also been given the required consent by DeeDee and her “family”/”parents” to record the phone call since he was the person who arranged the interview? And wouldn’t Crump himself want to know whether or not HE was being recorded? He was a participant in a phone conversation, Gutman & Smith would need his consent to record the conversation even if they were all in the same room.

  4. I’m thinking this might be important…. regarding Crump’s knowledge of DeeDee’s hospilization, in his affidavit on page 8 it says:

    19. Before conducting the Interview, I reached out to Witness 8 by phone and made a preliminary inquiry, during which I:
    h. Briefly determined that Witness 8 had been close with Trayvon and that she had been upset upon learning of his death (and, in fact, had been unable to attend Trayvon’s wake because she had to go to the hospital);

    So he’s admitting right there that the hospital lie came from DeeDee herself, not from Tracy or Sybrina. And since Crump was not DeeDee’s counsel, the information is not privileged, correct?

    • I find the timing of the reconsideration motion interesting, MOM filed the motion after he deposed DD and Tracy but before he deposed Sybrina on Friday morning.
      Reading from MOM’s motion pg.15(g): It is of the utmost importance for the preparation of the defense to know if Witness 8 has been affected in any way that may influence her testimony,..

      Something DD said has given the impression to MOM that she was coached by someone, the implication is that the someone is Crump.

          • Tara, I totally agree.

            Over here it is also called perverting the course of justice.

            I suspect Crump is up to his eyeballs in something that stinks real bad.

            • I don’t think W8 is bright enough to be coached. She has a few talking points and that’s it. She told BDLR something to the effect “do you want that too?”

              That being said, I bet Crump wishes that he had taken her to the police to be interviewed.

              • I agree W8 is not bright enough. BUT is the girl being interviewed the girl who might have spoken to Trayvon Martin either on the day that he was killed or within the last 3 days before he was killed. Now that is the real question.

              • Crump did not want her to be interviewed by the police. It would mean she was swearing out a false statement.

                This is all part of the set up. DeeDee was a lie from the beginning.

    • FYI Tara, hope your getting paid what you should be ๐Ÿ™‚ according to the Leatherheads, you ABC ha ha. AND the very Racist Blackbutterfly Xena wants to make sure the article from CTH and the TARA MOTION gets sent to the Pros! Is that not too flipping funny!!!!

      • Oh geez, am I being discussed on the nutcase web sites? Fabulous. I’m sure they’re on overdrive now trying to get all of my personal info so that they can harass me.

        • Not giving props to them just letting you know lol On Thread about CHump depo. Ment to say A treeper works for ABC, according to THEM its a known proven fact. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • Oh I see. Well I’ve wondered too if someone sympathetic to George’s plight is responsible for the mysterious appearance of that ABC recording. Someone who has access to the web page code of an old article and knows how to add a link.

          • Sounds like they’re not so happy with Tara for finding that ABC clip. Nice… I wonder what they’re gonna do when things REALLY start to blow up? Are they really so blind they can’t see what’s coming down the track?

          • I didn’t need any confirmation, but there it is. They are VERY angry. Uncontrollably. Lashing out at random people. Poor things, every development in this case supports the defense. Must be tough for them.

    • Just want to add that Crump is careful to state that DeeDee didn’t attend the wake but says nothing about the funeral. Remember, uncle Ronquavis told Nancy Grace that they met DeeDee at the funeral, a “formal meeting”. Wasn’t Crump at the funeral? He’s careful to state in his affidavit that on March 18 2012 he learned of Trademark’s phone calls with DeeDee, but he doesn’t state that he first learned of DeeDee’s existence on that date. He’s careful to state that he did not talk to DeeDee after the phone interview, but I can’t find any statement indicating that he had not spoken to her PRIOR to the interview. This would be important, I think.

        • The reporter (Jen Hager) that wrote that ROL article, was a guest of Jane Velez Mitchell and she quotes DeDe’s parents as saying this: Transcript is from 3/23/12:

          “It`s also important to remember that she was never questioned by the Sanford Police Department, even though her parents reached out to the police department and said, “Our daughter was on the phone with Trayvon when he was shot.” They never requested a follow-up interview. They never even returned their phone calls. This is absolutely outrageous. ”

          Where did this statement come from? Where or from Who is this lady getting this info.

          • This is crazy! Below I included text from that ROL article, the “source close to the situation” claimed that DeeDee was “extremely fearful” of the Sanford Police Dept. But that very same reporter told Velez-Mitchell that DeeDee’s parents reached out to that very same police department?

            I remember Matt Gutman gloating, criticizing the police and investigators for not having interviewed DeeDee before he started getting into her head. Sounds like Jen Hager graduated from the Matt Gutman course on journalistic ethics.

            • Do you think Jen may have talked to DD, she does say they withheld DD’s name. I can’t wait to hear what DD had to say to MOM/West.

        • What??? I’ve read this article several times and now that you point out the info it seems to be in glaring contradiction to Crump’s claims.

          From Crump’s affidavit: On March 18, 2012, our continued vigilance bore fruit and I learned for the first time that, based on phone records only then recently made available, Trayvon was having a conversation on his cell phone – with, as I would later learn, the young lady whom the State now refers to as “Witness 8” – in the crucial minutes before Trayvon [was killed]

          From the Radar Online article: “The day after his wake [i.e., the day of the funeral] , Trayvon’s family attorney, Benjamin Crump, who had been conducting his own extensive investigation because cops had determined the shooting was in self defense, told Trayvon’s girlfriend she was the last person to talk to him,” a source close to the situation tells RadarOnline.com

          Well, we know that Radar Online article is pretty f’d up, because it says “George reviewed Trayvon’s cell phone bill” and in one place Trademark’s name is misspelled “Trayvan”. Apparently accurate reporting isn’t Radar Online’s forte. But it does seem really odd that they, or their “source close to the situation”, would claim that Crump talked to DeeDee on the day of the funeral. I wouldn’t doubt it. His affidavit doesn’t state when he first spoke with her.

          • She give a lot of detail about the hospital visit. I’m thinking her source is Matt Gutman, the reporter is Jen Hager and she seems chummy with MG in her tweets. Just guessing though.

          • Radar Online article also contains this gem:

            โ€œTrayvonโ€™s girlfriend just wants justice, period. She was extremely fearful of the Sanford Police Department and was scared of retaliation for cooperating with the investigators,โ€ the insider says. โ€œHer mother is very protective of her and will make sure she is safe. Itโ€™s tragic that this teenagerโ€™s life has now been changed forever, and the innocence of her youth is essentially gone.โ€

            Are they claiming that an 18 year old young woman from the Miami area is “extremely fearful” of the Sanford Police Department? Seriously? Is this Crump’s excuse for not sending her over there to talk to police before he tainted her?

          • Then there was the info put out by Nat Jac that it was Crump’s investigators that found DD. Crump himself, in a public presser, said it was Tracy who was looking at his phone bill, and found the last call to Trayvon’s phone. He called the number, and found that it was a young lady who provided the bombshell that blew GZ’s self defense out of the water. So who was it really who found or talked to DD first?

                • Nettles:

                  I missed not seeing your contributions after the CTH dustup.

                  I admire your handle on the evidentiary items in this case.

                    • I must have missed something on CTH. I heard that someone pissed off CTH admins by supporting O’Mara. Nettles, you don’t need to answer of course, but was it you? I’m an O’Mara supporter. I think he’s doing his best job for George. He will have some personal gain as well, but I have never thought it was his primary motivation.

                    • Oh I’m sorry to hear that! Seriously. You were one of the best contributors, and that’s saying a lot because the level of discussion there is so high. ๐Ÿ˜ฆ

                • DeeDee was at the funeral, I’m sure that’s when they found out that she’d spoken to Trademark before he was killed. But it took them two weeks and a PI to figure out how to get the call log from Tracy’s own online account. ๐Ÿ™‚ #rocketscience

                  • It took two weeks to get the police to release enough information that the alleged ear-witness could be coached without being impeached by unimpeachable evidence.

                    The errors of fact in the reports given by the police to the Martin family and their lawyers are duplicated in the testimony of the alleged ear-witness.

                    I am a strong supporter of the theory that there are two Dee Dees, because I believe that the original was actually 16 and the latter version was 18 because the original’s parents would not permit her to be placed at risk of prosecution.

                    If the original had been in contact with Trayvon Martin near the time of his fatal encounter with George Zimmerman, Dee Dee would almost certainly have declared so, if she had attended the funeral.

                    This fact would have immediately become public, unless there was an early decision to coach her testimony.

                    This would require keeping her existence secret, otherwise, her testimony might be impeached by known facts which would no longer be released by the police to the public or the Martin family.

                    • I could have written that as it so exactly my thoughts, too. I have one bit of clarification. I believe that DD1 was very close to Trayvon; close enough to risk her giving an interview to Crump to get George arrested. I also believe that it possible that she may have been on the phone with him that day. I distrust the amount of time and I don’t believe she was talking to him too much longer after he started running. If he was hiding and waiting to ambush George, which I firmly believe, he would have stopped talking as that could have given away his position. I wouldn’t be surprised that his last words were, “I’m gonna put a beat on this guy who been follin’ me. Later.” Then hangs up.

                      If you were DD and those were his last words, would you tell anyone that? Or would you keep mum?

                      I vote for #2.

        • maggiemoowho says: […] Also, Jahvaris also said he met DD at the wake or funeral. (I have to find the interview)

          I think this is what you are looking for. But as far as what Jahvaris said about DeeDee at funeral all I can say is with this crew who knows what’s what. I wouldn’t put any money on the accuracy or truthfulness of any of them.

          Ronquavis Fulton:

          Grace: Do you know this girl he was talking to on the phone that evening?
          Fulton: No, but I met her at the funeral.
          Grace: You did…did you have any opportunity to talk to her?
          Fulton: No, not personally…just like, just a meeting, just a formal meeting.

          @ 40 mark

      • I heard somewhere that DeeDee had been approached by Crump at the wake, or it might have been the funeral, and was told then that she was the last person to speak to Trayvon.

        Now of course this could be the cover-up story because each story seems to have its own nuance. None of the stories actually match. If any of it was true then the details would not change so dramatically.

    • I’ve always been suspect of that Radar article. I was just reading the transcript of her interview with Velez-Mitchell. . She seems not to know what she’s talking about

      There was one call George made to 911 because a 7-year-old African- American little boy was acting suspiciously. This is absolutely ridiculous.

      From the 4/22/11 call by George about a 7 to 9 year old walking on Oregon Ave:


      • Absolutely SICK the way they’ve twisted everything, esp. re. “racism”, and that’s a great example. And look how they refuse to admit George’s involvement in the Sherman Ware case. And the fact that he tutored two black kids. The mother of those kids even wanted to come forward to defend George, but he asked her not to, for her own safety. George is not only NOT a racist, he’s quite the opposite (whatever that word might be).

      • Jeralyn that is a good pick up… because I could imagine George making contact regarding a 7 year old walking around on his own, out of regard for his welfare.

  5. So is it possible that these depositions will be made public or would we have to wait for the trial?

    And sorry I’m not up to speed but what does Diwataman get e-cakes for? Curious!

    • Several people have made bets with DMan about various things. I’ve got three going: One for whether Dee Dee gets deposed; another for whether ABC/Gutman may have been cooperating with MOM/West behind the scenes; and one for whether this will go to trial.

        • Yep. But still waiting for solid evidence on a couple. Did Dee Dee actually show up last week? It looks like a “probably” at this point… but I need more evidence. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Have ABC and/or Gutman cooperated with MOM and West behind the scenes? Some things point toward yes, some towards no. And as for this going to trial. I know DMan thinks that one is totally in the bag, with the withdrawal of the immunity hearing dates next month. But I have other things in mind!

          So yeah, as of right now DMan appears to be in the driver’s seat. If he demands a cake right now, for the Dee Dee depo, I’ll probably go ahead and pay up. But if later we find out it DIDN’T take place in person, then he’ll owe me TWO for that little transaction. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  6. What have you done to Ian?!!!

    Ok, Dman… you MAYBE win. But I’m still waiting on confirmation. All we have in those notices is what was scheduled. “will take the depostion of W8″… WILL take. But if it turns out she really was there, then yeah, we’ll have to start working out the details of the great cake exchange. But do NOT assume it’s gonna be 3-0. Even if this turns out to be right about Dee Dee, I think I’ve already won one with the ABC/Gutman bet… another one that we’ve yet to see confirmed. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • lolz. They didn’t get no Gutman tapes cuz if they had they would have used it before but they file a motion nearly two weeks after Tara found the video. NO CAKE FOR YOU!!!

      • That’s a good point. They must not have had received that recording directly from ABC or anyone associated with the Persecution else they would have filed their motion much earlier. The recording was available on Feb 28, it appears. I was actually hoping that you sent your audio compilation to them. The ABC clip on its own is interesting, but when you placed it in the gap of Crump’s clips it became downright incriminating. I’ll never forget the moment I reached the overlap point in your compilation, right after “1-2-3”. My jaw must have dropped down to my chest and I remember yelling out loud (probably scared the neighbors!). The developments of this case never cease to amaze me.

        • I emailed the ABC clip to the defense within 10 minutes of your posting Tara. They acknowledged receipt just after midnight on Mar. 7th. I don’t understand the stance of not communicating with the defense if something that could help them is revealed. That they should be left to luck to see a post of significance leaves too much to chance if you are a defendant up against these charges.

          I saw your post about how sick it made you to think of the luck it’s taken to uncover this. I share that feeling with you. Discovery should not work this way and I want to know why the State of Florida didn’t have all this locked down a long time ago.

          Diwataman’s compilation inspired a group on facebook to do a transcription of all the clips and we sent that to the defense.

          Someone at ABC wants the truth to come out. I wish Matt Gutman had shown that when he was involved last March.

          • Once this case is over, a comprehensive investigation needs to be done on this. You have the Prosecutors, acting as Defense attorneys. You have political pressure applied to have 2 respected, career public servants, resign or step down, to allow for interested parties to, possibly suborned perjury in other to get an amenable result. All of this done very publicly and the tacit approval of the press and citizens. I have 4 nieces and nephews that live in Sanford, that could be considered White Hispanics, could this happen to one of them, if they are in the wrong place at wrong time?

            • That is an interesting take because I have several cousins in Michigan that can be considered White Hispanic. If they went to Florida could the same happen to them?

            • They practically destroyed a man and his family. I forgot about all of the collateral damage, careers all but ruined. All for the insatiable BGI.

          • The posting of the clip might not be about bringing the truth out. I may be about covering one’s butt. The way they edited the March 20th article, it’s not like they were wanting it to be seen. It’s like they slid it in there and perhaps wanted to argue it was there all along to avoid their responsibility in the false reporting.

            IMO, Matt Gutman watched this girl be coached. The abrupt end of clip 6 tells me they didn’t want her talking about what she thought the next day when she learned he died.

            Crump wanted to narrate she first learned she was the last one to talk to him the day of or the day after the wake. How does that make any sense giving what she said she heard the night of the shooting? Was he just trying to smooth over the fact that someone who is said to be so close to him, didn’t bother to attend his final service.

            • I think you did the right thing, I remember reading the article an listening to the recording it was a smaller clip, never would think to listen to that again. By chance Tara did, you are right it does appear as if someone is trying to cover their butt. Regardless the information is important and the Defense was entitled to it, it should not have to beg for information, someone’s life is at stake.

              • The admission of the prosecution that W8 lied (West said it and the prosecution did not flap their arms or object) was a come to Jesus moment for the media companies. They are staring down the barrel of the Beasley Boys lawsuit gun and know they cannot get out of them. All they can hope to do is mitigate damages which are ongoing. The news (I say that sarcastically) divisions have to answer to corporate presidents, board of directors and stockholders. They are going to demand to know what the heck they were thinking and if it was stupidity or malice (or both) involved. Gutman and his “helpers” are still employed while ABC tries to brazen this out but they won’t be by the time this is settled. NBC fired people which is an admission of culpability so they are the first target of lawsuits.

            • I don’t know if you will see this, but I was wondering about the Schedule Nazi, and the March deadline for the final witness list. Wasn’t that deadline based on the contingency that an Immunity Hearing would be held in April? Since that hearing was cancelled, would that not also mean that the deadline for the final witness list would now be 30 days prior to the June 10th trial, instead of 30 days prior to an April 26th immunity hearing?

          • Nettles, thank you so much for sending that ABC recording to the defense. If they did not have it already (and I’m thinking they didn’t), then you helped them. I saw that transcription by the way, it’s awesome!

            • I suspect they already did have it but I didn’t want to take a chance. I’m hearing several of us sent it to them. I’m so glad you posted it.

              I copied that link on March 1st for something I was working on and didn’t listen to the recording on the site b/c I thought I had already heard it before. ABC switched recordings and in doing so, I think, proved Mr. Crump was inaccurate in his affidavit.

              Thanks for the comment on the transcription, that was a painful exercise but all of us working together have come up with a pretty good idea of what was turned into FDLE and what so far wasn’t.

              There’s no question in my mind that W8 was coached that day and members of the media witnessed it and didn’t report on it. Matt Gutman called it “prodding”

          • Could that someone at the ABC (not the Aussie version) be someone much higher up in that chain than Gutman… perhaps a lawyer?

            If and when all charges are dropped against Zimmerman or he is found not guilty, then ABC will be on the list to be sued for damages by the Zimmerman family. The ABC must be aware of that possibility. So… what if it was a programming manager or something like that who had the tape cuts and has provided that information via their website?

            There are all sorts of possibilities. Matt Gutman must know he is also in big trouble because of his own role.

            Rene Stutzman on the other hand is simply a lost cause – nothing exists between the ears.

    • According to CTH: “Zimmermanโ€™s attorneys did not finish questioning the 19-year-old woman, his office said, and will schedule another session.”

      This is from the latest post on The Conservative Tree House; if true and I have no reason to suspect it is not, then this too is quite big since they had all day to depose her as she was the only one scheduled for that day and starting at 9:00AM.

      • Actually, that quote is originally from the Orlando sentinel, Rene Stutzman. SD had just highlighted the comment….

      • Next motion we’ll see in the coming days will be for a continuance. If granted, that’ll give them more time to collect all the incriminating evidence (discovery!) that the State and Crump have been hiding. If not, if Nelson denies the motion, then we’ll see a demand for a Richardson hearing.

      • Or other possibilities is they cut it off intentionally after a few minutes. Either she took the 5th over and over, and they realized they’d have to do something else to force her to talk more later; or they just asked her a few prelim. “identifying” questions, and plan on investigating and then coming back later. Either way (for MANY reasons), they’re gonna need to ask for a continuance of the whole case before long.

        • I would guess she said she was sick. She may have very real health issues and/or it may be an excuse she uses to get out of situations. Either way a continuance is going to be necessary whether the judge wants it or not. The state cannot accuse and prosecute someone for murder and then not let them depose the main ear-witness. I would suggest she bring her nurse or doctor with her for the next deposition if she is ill. She is not going to get out of it forever.

          Or she refused to answer anything. LOL.

  7. IMHO, Double Dee Dee #2 just a spilled her guts to the defense. She already admitted lying under oath about going to the hospital. The perjury trap set for Shelly Zimmerman must make her and her attorney aware of her peril. I would wager there have been ongoing negotiations between Double Dee Dee #2’s attorney and Beasley to indemnify her in return for rolling over on Crump. BDLR can’t prosecute her for perjury because he is so obviously complicity. Among the info Double Dee Dee #2 might have revealed is the identity of Double Dee Dee #1 who will be deposed in the second deposition.

    • I really hope you’re right, and I think that’s what WILL eventually happen if the girl is actually grilled face-to-face. I’m just not sure it’s happened YET. I still have my doubts that much at all happened last Wednesday, but you never know. DMan thinks I’m being noncommittal about the Dee Dee Cake because I’m a cheapskate… but actually, I WANT to lose this particular bet. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • I posted this at CTH, bringing it over here.

        Absolutely prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. AND every person of the Scheme Team, including DeeDee. She / them are as guilty as the big players. She has blood on her hands, as do $ybrina and Tracy. The least involved player is as guilty as those at the top. They went with this Scheme with eyes wide open and people DIED. DIED, FOR BLOOD MONEYโ€”that has been the big prize from day 1.

    • I think Shellie Z. and her attorney need to consider who they can sue for discrimination. Clearly, Shellie has been discriminated against since she was charged with perjury and The DeeDee has not. I think it’s obvious the State of Florida is discriminating against white women married to white Hispanic men.

  8. I just realized something. The motion to reconsider includes an exhibit listed as a “recorded statement by sybrina fulton”. It dawned on me that the statement is listed as being in dvd format and the notice of deposition mentions she was videotaped. Do you think the defense has her lying about something on video and are using it to go after crump?

    • David, the recorded statement was not from the Deposition from the defense as the Motion was filed before her Deposition even started. I am guessing it is one her statements made on TV.

  9. According to the rules of deposition, http://www.countyjudges.com/articles/96discov.htm#XXX.%20CONSTITUTIONAL%20RIGHT%20TO%20A%20DEPOSITION, which category should Stephen Martin be in and why? I have ruled out Category B and C because C witnesses cannot be deposed by defendant unless placed in one of the other categories and B witnesses can only be deposed by the defendant only with the leave of court and after showing good cause. I donโ€™t recall the deposition of Stephen Martin being objected to so I am assuming he is a Category A (which is all that is left) witness. His statement was that he didnโ€™t see TM anymore after dropping him back to the townhome early Sunday Morning after going to the 7-11. What does he know that would make him a Category A witness, if indeed he is in that category?

    • Unless I have Stephen mixed up with somebody else, I think he both said that he would swear on a stack of bibles that Trayvon was the one screaming on the 911 call and that he and Trayvon were practicing boxing the night before. I guess then he has something for both sides.

      • I have video of stephens tweet on feb 28 after 6 am. Said cracker got mad cause he got the bangas put to him by a young nigga. I can reupload vid if asked to. Btw in march 2012 he showed photo of night before in garage stating he was high as f. Said trayvon was with him and slapped box night before. So whose garage was it? And if he was high maybe trayvon was which explains the three stooges and phone calls nobody wants to verify that we see on 711 tape etc. also chad said skittles were for him during an interview but also said trayvon wanted a snack. Odd how trayvon forgot his snack and met three blunt buying stooges then insteas of rushing home hangs out and puts a bangaz to a narc. I mean a cracka the nigjt before he would go back home.

    • Would him being present at Crump’s Dee Dee #1 interview make him a Category 1? If so, that could be it. But if not, then yeah…. you may be onto something.

  10. On the case docket page, two sealed envelopes have been added to the list.

    According to an article written by Rene Stutzman, of the Orlando Sentinel today, this is the biographical profiles Judge Nelson ordered released to the defense from the FDLE files. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-fdle-profiles-20130321,0,315978.story

      • ejarra – I just read your comment @ the Sentinel, I wholeheartedly agree, this incorrect reporting of known facts has gotten tiresome, hopefully you calling her out will embarass her and she gets the information on DD correct. At least they aren’t still reporting, “she is a minor, fragile, had to go to the hospital, couldn’t pee, etc.”

        I bet Sybrina/Tracy are sweating the bios being released to MOM/West. I guess Sybrina/Tracy aren’t going to be able to testify that Trayvon’s home was stable. This in addition to all the school records on TM will discredit that testimony.

      • Nettles18 – I still don’t understand WHY so much of this information is under seal. In Casey Anthony’s case, EVERYTHING was released in the case. Humiliating & embarrassing information was released on all in the case especially of her family INCLUDING bankruptcy, foreclosures, employment terminations, etc. The Sunshine Law allows very little to be with held from the public and anything withheld can be challenged.

        The only reason I can think of is because the MEDIA hasn’t demanded it & this case doesn’t have the National Media reporting on it daily as it was in Casey’s case. Too, maybe TM being 17 yrs, old may have something to do with it.

        • art tart: I agree with you that the media has no interest in getting this information. Otherwise their lawyers would be standing in front of Nelson like they stood in front of Judge Perry, demanding discovery.

          • janc1955 – I think your right, IF the media had more interest in this case the Media Attorney’s would be lined up with their Motions waiting to be heard. Geez louise, remember during Casey’s trial how rabid the Media Attorney’s were to get everybit of information? There has been a noticable shift in the reporting in this case, alot of misinformation especially by Crump/Handler’s, has been exposed, the media has moved on to report on Jodi Aripas. Too, there is still a tremondous amount of reporting on Casey Anthony by the National News Media. Go figure.

            Richard Hornsby was on w/Trisha at “webslueth’s” in Jan. 2013, he pointed out that the evidence has caused some people to move on including the media. Closer to trial, I assume there will be more interest and more reporting.

      • And wait for the Twitter people’s heads to explode. One of them was angry at Rene for even reporting this, because, “FDLE already spoke, they [MOM and West] r not entitled.” She apparently thinks FDLE will once again refuse to give it up. Well sorry… but looks like they already HAVE given it up.

      • Hi nettles & all,
        I am locked out of Orlando Sentinel website again because I won’r “subcribe” (pay) just to read about GZ case. I used to be able to clean out cookies and get in, but that no longer works.

      • …woulda been nice for the defense to have received this info BEFORE the depositions, lol.

        Thanks Judge Nelson… better late than never, I suppose.

  11. Motion for reconsideration was NOT filed before Sybrinas deposition. It was filed the very same day. Sybrinas deposition was started at 9am.

  12. I posted at CTH, but thought I would repeat here:

    I posted on this before and someone else here had commented agreeing with me it being inappropriate. Whatever.

    At Close Range: The Curious Case of Trayvon Martin, which was held on yesterday at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

    Charles Blow was the keynote speaker, but there was a whole hose of blowhards that talked.

    You can see the video here:


    Scroll down a bit and click on: โ€œClick Here to See the Videoโ€

    I would suggest you skip over the first couple of blowhards and slide it over to 00.22.00.

    So this is what goes on while you and I are posting away at The Tree House.

    • If you want to skip over all the blowhards and go right to Charles Blow slide it over to approx. 02:53.40 where a woman wearing purple is introducing him.

      • I thought the discussion (the Charles Blow section) on “journalism today” was interesting. I agree with most of what he said in that regard. He talks about opinion based journalism. One lady who asked him … what’s wrong with it? meaning she likes it, kinda threw Charles off, but he was right on the analysis just wrong that people do not read sources that are on the other side of what one tends to believe. I for one do not read only conservative news sources. I think I’m an average person, so I believe others are doing exactly as I do and read everything. Then think for myself. Charles seems to think we are doing otherwise. I think he grossly under estimates the average news junkie like me. Lots of news junkies out there … tons !!! BTW, for what this was advertised, they talked very little about the Martin case. Another thing I agreed with him on was his statements about Sharpton. Being a news person now AND a black activist. He said he was walking a fine line by wearing both hats.

        • I am not bothering to watch it… but your comments are extremely interesting.

          I agree that Sharpton is walking a fine line.

          Besides he is already responsible for the death of an Australian Jew as a result of his actions at the Crown Heights riots.

          Sharpton is bad news and he should have been charged and jailed over the riots that he has caused.

          One can only dream that one day it will be reality.

            • I think it’s promising that he (Mr. Blow) appeared to have listened. Toure on Piers Morgan on March 31st was livid that Zimmerman’s side was even given a voice. This was in reference to Robert Jr. being on the show the day before.

  13. Subject: Liars – should have good memories.
    Since we know that DeeDee is being deposed over the next week, I bet that Omara-West will hammer away about the lies she told. I think that will “finish” DeeDee as a witness for the prosecution. The most obvious lie was her “hospitalization” requested by Crump (to meet HIS STORY – about how “broken up” she was about Trayvon’s death). The other fib was saying that Trayvon told her that he was “putting his hooding up – because it was starting to rain”. Give me a break – no “teen” says that.

      • Oooh, I just noticed this at the bottom:

        Note: Jack Cashill is currently working on a book for WND Books, โ€œIf I Had A Son: Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman.โ€

        I will buy that book even though I’m sure I know pretty much everything that will be in it. ๐Ÿ™‚ I’ll buy it and leave it somewhere.

  14. A friend asked the legal team about reciprocal discovery and when can we expect it. She got a reply “when the time is right”. She was also told some other stuff would be out today. Keep your eyes peeled.

  15. Any responses to the filing to reconsider the deposition of Crump. Crump must be crumping his pants right now about having his affidavit exposed as perjorous. Ditto for Tracy, Sabrina and the rest of the crew. Everyone must be worried about someone else making a deal with MoM, West and Beaseley in return for civil immunity. BDLR’s obvious complicity ensures that the don’t have to worry about criminal charges.

  16. Truth be told I have not been following this mess for the last number of months and never really committed, all that I learned early on, to memory
    but doesn’t this –> “…or somewhere” <– give BDLR and Dee Dee an out so to speak in terms of the 'hospital'

    BDLR Interview of Dee Dee:

    BDLR: Were you able to go to the funeral or to the wake?
    Dee Dee: I was goin' to go, but…
    BDLR: OK, what happened?

    Dee Dee: I didn' feel good.
    BDLR: OK, did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere? Dee Dee: Mmmm…Yeah, I had high blood pressure.

    • Prediction: DeeDee will say that she never meant to imply that she had gone to the hospital. De la Rionda asked her if she’d gone to the hospital OR SOMEWHERE, and she was answering in the affirmative that she’d gone somewhere (other than the funeral) because she’d had high blood pressure.

      • She can say that, but Crump said it, Sybrina said it, and BDLR was inquiring about it. They all thought that she had gone to the hospital. That did not appear out of nowhere, either she said it or someone made it up, in which case is up to her to correct it.

    • It was a coached question. I would not describe that as an out. If anything it would seem to dump BDLR right in the middle of all the scheming. He must be having a hard time with the bricks he is passing right now….

        • I am an outsider and I can figure this out.

          Angela Corey is also part of the plan.

          However, I am starting to think that the new Assistant is there to dismantle the case since he was the one that gave the game away about no hospital records.

          • He’s not new. That’s John Guy. He is prosecuting Shellie Zimmerman. He’s also the person who stood up in court and told the Judge that the State had given everything they had from the FBI and FDLE files. That was on Oct. 26th. Just before court on December 11th, the State sent the defense a whack of FDLE files they had in their possession for months (9th Supplemental) http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/component/content/article/12-discovery/118-state-s-9th-discovery, when we learned of the shenanigans of the April 2nd interview with W8 and that she came to Jacksonville in August. But were they done? NO! When the defense went to look for themselves, they found a bunch more things on Jan. 9th and filed this reciprocal discovery list on Jan. 18th http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0113/defendant_supplemental_discovery.pdf and were the games finished? No! The video-tapes were blank. A fight ensued over the biographical information and just this week, the FDLE was ordered to give the bio information to the defense.

            John Guy is very much a part of the games and why the Judge didn’t make him answer about when he became aware that the hospital misrepresentation was a fact, only she can answer.

            • thanks for filling me in on John Guy’s little games.

              So we will just have to see what happens next. Will Guy admit to more of the shenanigans or will he continue to play ring around the rosies?

              As for prosecuting Shellie Zimmerman, he better be ready to explain why the Persecution removed some of what she said from the transcript.

                  • I reasonably believe the state received a comprehensive forensic evidence review and analysis from the FBI going further into investigation of the case than the state did on its own. I believe the FBI would have certainly reported its findings to the state, and the state is lying if the state is denying this. A federal lawsuit may be required next.

            • The judge is still very much in the referee mode, and not in an interlocutor mode. Judges have a lot of leeway in this stage.

              All MOM can do is do his best, catalog the missteps in case of a need for appeal.

              One difficulty in assessing these matters from the outside, such as on this site, is that there are many facts to be known which are known to both the prosecution and the defense which would cut down immensely on the speculation (of us who don’t know) going on in websites interested in this case.

              With reference to Guy and the hospital misrepresentation matter, a lot of the explanation can often be summed up in the reality that prosecutors and defense counsel look differently at the same fact or piece of evidence. What a defense counsel deems exculpatory a prosecutor will deem irrelevant. That’s the nature of the beast.

              For purposes of the court, what counts is what is said under oath. The only thing we have here is W8’s response to BDLR’s inexplicable compound question.

              What do W8’s hospital references, made away from BDLR, to the extent that we can accurately ascertain them, tell us about the fatal confrontation between GZ and TM? Nothing.

              What does it have to do with W8’s credibility? Everything.

              Almost everyday in almost every court in America, prosecutors use witnesses with credibility problems far worse.

              • It will be interesting to watch Judge Nelson in her rulings now the pressure is off of her to make a decision in an immunity hearing before trial. I suspected she may have been thwarting the defense to a degree to justify why she wouldn’t grant immunity. Now that she is off the hot-seat, perhaps she will put Mr. Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial back where it belongs, top priority.

                I agree with your comments about two sides looking at the same piece of evidence and judging it’s importance differently. In the case of the hospitalization records though, the defense specifically asked for these as early as August 23rd. They followed up with a signed mailed letter on September 19th and never got a response. They filed a motion and it got scheduled to be heard on March 5th and late on the evening of March 4th, John Guy phones Mark O’Mara to say there are no records. This indicates to me the State hid what they knew for 6 months. When the prosecutor is hiding information it’s a sign that all is not well in their case.

                Mike McDaniel, of Stately Manor blog has issued another update on the case for anyone interested in reading it.


                • nettles:

                  Your point on the records is well taken.

                  Part of it depends on when the State learned of the “no hospital records”. We have to keep in mind that the State is looking at this from their own viewpoint. It may be that they at the time of MOM’s original request and subsequent letter, they had not looked for it, and were not ready to look for it until they were good and ready to do so.

                  In that is what happened, then i would chalk up to (what I have seen a lot of) plain old prosecutorial hardball.

                  Did the prosecutors have a legal obligation to inform the defense that they had not yet looked for the records (if that is indeed what the status was back in Aug-Sep)?

                  The prosecutors have their own game plan and their approach and they instinctively are not going to do the defense’s job for them if they don’t have to. I don’t necessarily agree with the tactics but that is what goes on all the time.

                    • Remember, back then, Aug-Sep last year, the issue of W8 and the hospital was irrelevant to the case as the prosecution saw it. Plus you had the problem of BDLR’s compound question to W8.
                      If you look at her answer, she could have simply said “yes, I went to the hospital”.

                      But she did not. One interpretation on the face of it is that she avoided agreeing that she went to the hospital. Why avoid answering if possible? Because, now she was under oath. BDLR erred in not following up for a precise answer, but that was symptomatic of his entire approach in this interview. The interview was not aimed at what the witness knew and how she might know it, but seemed geared to confirming under oath elements that the prosecution wanted to incorporate into its theory of the case.

                      Ideally, a prosecutor does not want to meet a prosecution witness before that witness appears before him/her at trial. This is not the case here. It is an example of too many legal cooks in this prosecutorial kitchen because politics had intervened in the judicial process.

                      But the hospital did not seem to be BDLR’s focus as concerns W8. His focus was that she was so traumatized by the incident. And is seems evident from the entire interview that he was having trouble getting coherent answers from W8.

                      If BDLR’s lack of a follow-up question to precise the matter of the hospital was intentional, then he is a “bery bery bad” BDLR.

                    • I agree with you that the interview was clearly not an investigative interview it was a confirmation interview. I would characterize Mr. Crump’s interview of W8 the same way. Both interviewers already had the information they wanted to extract from the witness and they for the most part told her their understanding and asked if it was correct.

                      A full and complete accounting of how each interviewer got this information prior to their respective interviews with W8 is in order to ensure GMZ gets a fair trial. This is why I think Mr. Crump should rightfully be deposed by the defense.

                      We know that W8 came to meet with prosecutors on August 2nd and 3rd. Twenty days prior to the defense’s first request for verification of hospital records. This may have been the vetting of the witness and it won’t surprise me at all to learn it was at this time the State learned this witness had credibility problems. http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/1112/discovery9/fdle_reports_august.pdf

                    • Not only was she not vetted properly but the ineptitude of the interviews are highlighted. They got her to say what they wanted, and forgot to actually investigate what was said. It looks like gross ineptitude or corruption, maybe both.

                • thanks for the update nettles! i wouldn’t rule out an immunity hearing just yet though. depending upon the court’s ruling for deposing trump, we may see an interlocutory appeal, or a motion for a continuance (i would expect at least one of these based upon extenuating circumstances) and perhaps the motion for immunity once it can be clearly established such that no reasonable judge would deny it. And even if she did, there could be an appeal of that.

                  the defense has lots of options at this point. They are like sharks smelling blood! They know something is amiss and they are methodically overturning every stone to find the snakes crawling out from underneath.

                • this is a great piece by McDaniel:

                  Translation Into Colloquial English: โ€œIf I heard anything Dee Dee said during the multiple times when the tape was turned off, I donโ€™t remember a single word. I donโ€™t remember I word I said. I donโ€™t remember a word she said, or anyone said. Iโ€™m just like Sgt. Schultz: I know nothiiiiing, nothing!โ€

                  Comparing Crump to Sgt. Schultz–CLASSIC!

              • great analysis!

                DD has a credibility issue, but no risk of a perjury prosecution. BTW, perjury defendants are almost never found guilty. The defense simple has to convey to the jury, and believe me, she definitely wants a jury, that this is a case of malicious prosecution. Shellie can make the same argument as DD–at the time she answered the question, she answered truthfully. Since money was pouring into the PP account, she had no idea how much was in there when the question was asked.

  17. ROFLMAO….comedy gold from Leatherturd: Nevertheless, I do believe that Oโ€™Mara has a conflict of interest between his desire to use this case as a vehicle to fame and fortune and his obligation to represent his clientโ€™s best interests. Playing the race card, demonizing the victim, misrepresenting the facts to the media, and trying this case in the court of public opinion are not helping his client.

    • Gee I wonder where the idea came from that the pinky ring wearing lawyer for GZ is looking for fame and fortune, over the best interests of his client. Trying to remember where I heard similar accusations before.

      • hey, where are all you sleepheads this Saturday morning? Can i really capture all recent comments on the RHS? I know it is rainy (at least here in Sunny Fla) but it is almost 11 a.m.!

        I kind of wish Dman would start a daily thread that we can all comment in each day, no matter what. It is kind of hard to keep track of the multitude of comments. Can you do that D’Man?

        Now if only we could get Chip and John Galt, the transition would be complete. SD could get together with Leatherturd and have a hating MOM contest! GMAB!

  18. The mental midgets are so invested in the fantasy of DoDo “not lying” that NBCEDITpapa has made a video called “or somewhere”

      • Comments AND ratings disabled on the video. Oh my, Mr. Papa, why are you and your buddies so scare? Why are you too embarrassed to allow people to comment on your videos…. or to even rate your videos? If this is how you’re acting NOW, what might we expect in the coming weeks as your world REALLY started to implode? Mmm….

      • As I posted above: Prediction: DeeDee will say that she never meant to imply that she had gone to the hospital. De la Rionda asked her if sheโ€™d gone to the hospital OR SOMEWHERE, and she was answering in the affirmative that sheโ€™d gone somewhere (other than the funeral) because sheโ€™d had high blood pressure.

        • ackbar: I agree that DeeDee will make that claim, and with the assistance already provided by BDLR (during the 4/2 interview) she will have “plausible deniability”, even if we DO know better. Even though that will save her from the accusation of lying under oath, she will later be outted by Sybrina or Crump who BOTH made very specific and detailed references to the “hospital story”. The sad thing is, THEIR claims were not made under oath, and will also be irrelevant to the proceedings at hand. She either lied to them, too, or THEY lied to Bernie to begin with, causing him to ask that very question. One way or the other, she will probably escape this, even if only by the skin of her teeth.

        • Well,wait a minute now. It was Crump very early on stating she went to the hospital. He’s on video stating that. So who told him that? If that was Crump’s narrative that he put out to the public, where was her correction to that when asked by BDLR. You can’t have it both ways so to speak. It’s the State/Crump side that told public she went to the hospital. Plain and simple.

          • That is the problem with hearsay.

            – in the old days, a party pastime would be to get a group of people together, whisper a phrase in one person’s ear, then have that person relay to the next, and so on, and the see what the last person says was phrase. Invariably it would something quite different (especially if drinks were around) –

            But that is the danger with hearsay. It is likely (just a guess) that Crump heard the hospital business from someone else and barged ahead because it fit his purposes (which seems to be a Crump traydmark).

            for ottawa –

            It was W8’s job to answer the questions put to her by BDLR. It was not her job to correct anything that anyone else said elsewhere. Her lawyer likely told her to be brief and just stick to the question asked.

              • IDK about the interview with BDLR, but I suspect she did in the interview with Crump, that was part of the reason, she had to stay on speaker phone, so that whoever was with her could advise her. What I am finding interesting is that the Scheme Team, stopped mentioning DD in April or May.

                Whereas, before they would mention DD as prove that GZ was lying, then the talk was about how GZ story did not match, how GZ was the best witness for the prosecution, how Trayvon had every right to Stand his ground, etc.

              • If (s)he was there, (s)he was never acknowledged by BLDR while doing introductions and (s)he must have sat there like a potted plant, because you never hear another voice on the tape.

                I say no, besides remember they had to go and find her, I acn’t honestly see that happeneing if she had a lawyer.

                So based on those observations, I’d say that she had no representation during the interview.

              • My guess is that she did not have a legal advisor with her during the interview, she is witness and not a subject. But since we are led to believe she did have legal representation, that is what they should have told her, if they hadn’t.

            • her answer was more of a YES, then a NO, because she ended with cause she had high blood pressure. Even the Prosecution dude (Guy?) termed it “misrepresented”. From Merriam-Webster:

              1: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair


              • I do not think that Guy represented where the falsehood came in. It could have been, and was likely, what she had told investigators without being under oath. I do not think that Guy said that the lied in the BDLR-taken statement.

                  • Oh,the misrepresentation was about the hospital, and who knows what else. If I understand correctly, Guy told MOM that he didn’t have to file a request for hospital documents because there weren’t any and that she had lied about going to the hospital. But it is not clear the Guy was referring to the BDLR interview as being a lie, but to the whole hospital situation outside of sworn testimony.

                    My point is that she lied about the hospital bit, but I do not consider her reply to BDLR’s compound question to be a lie. It is not that I am splitting hairs, it is that that is what the legal profession is all about and will do with this.

                    • I the distinction you are making is whether it is perjury or not, the response was a lie, if she had not said anything about her health, then perhaps. Yet, the manner she answered, with a reference to her blood pressure, meant that she understood and answered affirmatively.

                • I don’t mean to be difficult .. but what “investigators” are you talking about. The girl prior to Crump making the “hospital statement, had never talked to law enforcement. There are no law enforcement reports to my knowledge with any statements by her. Just statement to Crump and then what a month later to BDLR.

                  • On March 27th Bondi was still complaining about the lack of cooperation from her, despite numerous requests. I believe DD did talk to anymore prior to the 4/2 BDLR interview.

                    • no, it was Tracy (as the story goes) that found her number on the phone bill. He told Crump about it. There was NEVER any law enforcement present when she gave her statement to Crump. What a month later, BDLR “INTERVIEWS” her. Defense has since from the scheduled deps has now taken her dep.

            • “It is likely (just a guess) that Crump heard the hospital business from someone else and barged ahead because it fit his purposes (which seems to be a Crump traydmark).”

              Hi Hooson, I see it’s not just at the Treehouse you’re in your super cautious, benefit-of-the-doubt mode! ๐Ÿ˜‰ Me? I think the hospital story, along with much more, came directly out of Crump’s fertil(ized) imagination. (Don’t worrry… I remember you saying you won’t mind eventually being proven wrong.)

              • I rarely learn anything by being right. It is only when I am wrong or make mistakes that the learning takes place.

              • Where the story originated is not important, DD didn’t corrected it. This is what I am writing about for my next post on my blog. The DD story got pick-up by the Media, it became part of the template for the story. Even as the family was distancing themselves from DD, like she never existed. They knew she was not 16, probably that she did not go to the hospital as well, but as NatJack boasted on her tweet, is not their job to correct the record for the media.

                • Sabrina told BDLR in her statement on 4/2/12 that DD told her she went to the hospital. So I’m not sure DD can say she didn’t mean to say hospital in her interview with BDLR.

                  • You have a good point, but the situation that W8 found herself, i.e, under oath, was different than talking to Sybrina.

                    I agree that the fake hospitalization story originated w/W8.

                    And we do not know the circumstances of that conversation with Sybrina, nor Sybrina’s accuracy in relating conversations. The investigators have a far better idea.

                    Could it be that Sybrina wanted to know why she didn’t meet W8 at the funeral and W8 may have been too embarrassed and therefore made up the hospital story? I don’t know.

                    The hospital story is irrelevant to GZ’s innocence, It is relevant, potentially, to W8’s overall credibility.

                    I suspect that under cross-examination that W8 will be a good witness for GZ.

          • That’s the thing, Ottawa – LEGALLY, she CAN have it both ways. She could tell Crump and Fulton anything she wanted to, and then say something entirely different under oath. Only what she says under oath (that can be proven a lie) is grounds for charges of perjury or obstruction of justice. Now, I’m not saying I agree with that strategy, just saying that will be the strategy. Just like Bill Clinton saying “no” when asked “is there a sexual relationship” with Monica Lewinsky, and then later saying “it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.” He was actually legally accurate when he said that, because the lawyer asking him that question should have followed up with “WAS there a sexual relationship?”

            In the case of DeeDee, the lawyer asking her the questions didn’t really want to know all the answers. If he had, he’d have asked questions like this:

            “What hospital did you go to?”
            “How long were you there?”
            “Did you see the doctor?”
            “Were you admitted?”
            “What course of treatment was prescribed?”
            “When did you leave the hospital?”
            “How did Mr. Crump come to find out that you had gone to the hospital?”
            “Did you speak to anyone else about what happened with Trayvon that night prior to Mr. Martin and/or Mr. Crump contacting you?”
            “Did you post anything about Trayvon on social media after hearing what you heard on the phone?”
            “Did you find it odd that Trayvon never called you again after the grass thing that night?”
            “Did you find it odd that Trayvon stopped posting to social media after the grass thing that night?”

            etc., etc., etc..

            • Like Shellie Zimmerman, W8 should be allowed her day in court to defend herself before being labelled a liar. How many days must we count before a charge of perjury is laid against her?

              Isn’t that the way America wants it now. Someone alleges a crime and arrests should be made to sort out the facts? I’m pretty sure that’s the way it went down in the George Zimmerman case.

              • I agree that if DD was facing charges she should be allowed her day in court, as Shellie. The things is she is not facing charges, She is an unknown entity whose’s possible lies have led to 2 people being jailed and many others attacked.

                Whoever she is may never face any charges for perjury, but the damage is done.

            • and who put her under oath thus far? Crump (I didn’t hear that she took an oath, nor did I see anything she signed stating ANYTHING she said was under oath. Same with BDLR. Have you seen anything that says the BDLR/W8 interview was under oath? Anything she said about Trayvon wasn’t under oath either. Wasn’t there a person or two that stated SHE WAS at the funeral/wake? The point is: No matter what she said, it will be up to defense to discredit her. Conflicting stories helps to do that. And it doesn’t matter whether the story was hers or contrived by Crump. Defense doesn’t have to prove anything … all they have to do is discredit. They WILL be able to do that with W8 IMO.

  19. I came across this transcript posted at Talk Left that was submitted by Mr. O’Mara of the Feb. 26th transcript of GZ and Det.Singleton’s interview. GZ describes waiting to be connected to non-emergency and puts on a map where he initially called NEN and where he was when he moved his truck and where he was when Trayvon circled the car. See page 18/24 onwards. Det. Singleton instructs George to mark car here and mark where he lost sight of Trayvon and where he came back out of the darkness and circled the car on a drawing.

    Has anyone seen this Drawing in discovery? If so can you point me to it please?

  20. DD can claim anything she wants to, DD could have stepped forward at ANY time and corrected her statement, she CHOSE not to. Crump/Sybrina/Tracy/Gutman prompted the lie and she watched the lie being promoted in the National Media.

    BDLR didn’t know it was a lie, I don’t think he is that stupid, he knew MOM/West would ask for the hospital records, DD was such a mental midget she didn’t realize she would be caught imo. For nearly a year DD has let this lie stand, lying by omission r misrepresentation if that is going to be her claim isn’t going to get her very far as being credible. Was she lying then or lying now? She could have come forward as soon as she saw Crump/Team promoting the mis-information if that is what she is going to whine.

    imo, this still leaves DD with no credibility. We all expect DD to just LIE some more.

    • Her credibility was in question from day 1. She never contacted police. That, in itself, is suspect and requires an explanation. Again, astounding that Crump nor BDLR investigated why in their respective interviews.

      Why the press didn’t press for answers on the reason she didn’t came forward presents a great example of how the national and local press let the public down in this case.

      • Aren’t the answers to those questions quite obvious? Crump and BDLR had no interest in discrediting or even vetting their own witness. They only wanted to use her to corroborate the narrative they had already formulated. The press was no different. (Hope that doesn’t sound “snarky”… it’s not intended to be)

        • It is because of the efforts so many netizens that the inconsistencies in W8 have been uncovered and publicized on these forums in a way that the prosecution could not ignore forever. That applies as well to so much of the surrounding evidence in the GZ/TM case.

      • I suspect she didn’t call the police because she wasn’t on the phone or heard TM say that he was going to get the guy.

        She told BDLR that she felt “guilty” because she couldn’t help TM. I think it will be combination of sickness, guilt and not trusting the police that she’ll use to justify not contacting the police.


    • Hi Art – What DeeDee will be subjected to by Omara – is intense cross-examination. As I understand it – she did not take the 5th. The problem now is that if she lies now – she will be caught. I don’t know if she will “fess up”, and just state that she “fibbed” for Crump, and thought she was fighting for a “worthwhile cause”, by her fibs – but her inconsistencies, and her talking about “the game”, and “TMs little-brother Chad” are all indications of Crump-coaching. I would truly like to have a transcript of her testimony. It should blow Crump’s lies wide open.

  21. The Dog Pound leader had this new video featured. Would this be a person on the Witness List. Here is the video on youtube:

    • What is the point? The NW program was started in September, 6 months after whatever Papa is saying. The neighbors choose GZ for the program. Grasping at straws again.

      • I don’t think that’s a papa video as it’s on the user’s “SanfordWatch” youtube channel though it sure does seem like one. I think the point is supposed to be that George is a big bad bully racist. Sure that’s one way to see it, of course another way to see it is that black people, or at least these black people, take everything they perceive as a negative against them as a “black thang”, that’s what I got out of it anyway.

      • I don’t think that’s a Papa video, but doesn’t matter, that’s what they are holding up as some kind of evidence.

    • What people have to remember is that there were and still are a lot of break ins in that neighborhood, for whatever reason. Much more than you’d expect. So I think Zimmerman was just trying to do his best by staying vigilant. There’s no shame in that and it’s not ‘vigilantism’. This guy was a new face and Zimmerman was just inquiring. And notice this guy says that Zimmerman wouldn’t tell him who he was, but when he heard that a neighborhood watch captain had shot someone he instantly knew it was the guy who questioned him, before he’d seen any pictures. So logically Zimmerman must have told him that he was neighborhood watch. The only problem I think it poses is that it people will say that it shows Zimmerman doesn’t mind approaching suspects and asking them questions, so it’s reasonable to assume he was the one who confronted Trayvon that night. But this guy wasn’t a “suspect”. Zimmerman didn’t call NEN to report him as suspicious like he did with Trayvon. I think he just saw a new face and wanted to get to know who it was.

      • They don’t want you to WATCH, QUESTION, CARRY A GUN, again … police can come anytime you want, but 9 times out of 10, they are gone when police arrive to investigate. They want to take away all ability by law abiding citizens to keep themselves safe. Police swear to protect and serve, but it’s more like 20% protect and 80% serve. 20% when they do arrive on time and catch them in the act or there is a hostage situation. Most punks have it planned to hit and hit quickly and then outta there. Police show up AFTER it all happens. More and more you will see cases like this or similar, where citizens are forced to protect their neighborhoods, or just allow themselves to become victimized. A woman couldn’t even take her baby for a walk in a stroller. AND yes, this particular neighborhood is PRIME for illegal activity. I would never myself move into an area such as this gated community. Too many ways to hide and duck from surveillance. I assume this community has to pay some kind of association fees. One would assume it would include video surveillance, yet it does not. The cameras, which would eliminate probably 60% (cause cameras like this are not good at night) of the problem. They have cameras today that could keep this community under good surveillance. That ALONE would help to eliminate it from being a PRIME target.

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