O’Mara Crumpafies Video

“During the Tuesday, May 28th hearing, Mr. O’Mara misstated the nature of video from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone which was included in the Defendant’s 3rd Supplemental Discovery. He stated that the video showed “two buddies of his beating up a homeless guy,” when what happened was Trayvon Martin, along with a buddy, was videotaping two homeless guys fighting each other over a bike. Though it was unintentional, it is a particular concern to us because we are and have been committed to disputing misinformation in every aspect of this case, not causing it. For that, Mr. O’Mara apologizes.”


If this were any other case then so be it, not that big of a deal but as we know this seemingly simple error carries with it a larger significance in the George Zimmerman case. Why? Because this is a war of propaganda, it has been from the beginning.

Within days of Trayvon’s death, Tracy, Sybrina, Crump et al. and Ryan Julison formulated a fraud they would perpetrate, with the help of a sympathetic press, unto the American public. That fraud remains to this day and is multifaceted. The character and profile of Trayvon Martin was primary, he was to be infantilized and angelified and any truth that may be exposed were to be ignored or minimized. George was to be vilified and demofied. The great black struggle against the man, here mainly the Sanford Police and Wolfinger, was to be injected as the backdrop to make it a civil rights cause. And lastly the facts of the case were to be spun positively for Trayvon and negatively for George. It worked. They won. They still are winning.

 photo WhenRealityJustWontDo-Copy.jpg

Because of that we have the birth of new phrases like Don’t get Cumped or Cumpify it and Crump et al. have been labeled The Scheme Team.

Can the same be said of the other side? And by “the other side” I mean anyone appearing to be a GZ supporter. I’m sure one can find examples. However any attempt from the other side so to speak does not carry with it the same power, that is, a sympathetic press, a mob ready to riot and willing to satisfy white guilt ridden cowardly politicians. Any false claims or spin coming from the other side rarely reaches beyond the realm of a few blogs etc.

What is so very apparent is how willing the world is to jump on O’Mara for doing what The Scheme Team has always done. I expect nothing less. Did O’Mara really think he could Crumpify this tape and not be called out by the very same press that is sympathetic to the cause?

So what is the damage? Well only a week before going to trial we now have a press who will expose the Defense as liars.

George Zimmerman’s Attorneys Apologize for Mischaracterizing Evidence

“George Zimmerman’s attorneys today released a statement, backtracking on what they say a video of a fight found on Trayvon Martin’s cell phone shows.”

And with that a potential jury pool filled with people who will be even more skeptical then they might have been otherwise of O’Mara’s every word during trial.

Enjoy. Examine. Find the Truth.


Side Issues:

From the OS article above you’ll find this statement(my bold):

“On Thursday, in preparation for the anticipated release of the fight video, an Orlando Sentinel reporter drafted a story describing it, intending to publish it once the video had been made public. A web producer prematurely posted it to OrlandoSentinel.com Friday but quickly took it down after discovering the video had not been released. The story correctly characterized the video. After readers found a cached version of the story online Sunday, Zimmerman’s attorneys released their statement and decided against posting the video.”

How can they correctly characterize a video that was never made public?

Did the defense give Rene the video?

Does the OS have access to discovery that no one else does? If so what have they been holding back from you the reader all this time?

Regardless some of the discussion regarding the OS article that was removed took place at the treehouse:


At that time I took some screenshots of the Google searches:

1 os

2 os

3 os

Later we got a cache version and Nettles provided a screenshot of it:



There still remains the question though of what exactly the tape shows. If I learned anything from the 711 tapes it was that one ought to view these things in their entirety because you never know what you can find and also I think us adults can form our own opinions without the filters of the press and clearly the defense.

As far as the public is aware there are two videos on Trayvons phone as cited by O’Mara’s 3rd supplemental:


42 thoughts on “O’Mara Crumpafies Video

  1. I’d like very much to know how anybody at the Orlando Sentinel got a look at that video which has not been released for public viewing.

    Either the defense showed it to them, or the prosecution, or there’s another IT mole somewhere.

    I wouldn’t put it past the prosecution to take advantage of O’Mara’s “mis-statement” and invite the OS over for a private screening with free popcorn thrown in.

    Assuming that there aren’t two videos, one with 2 homeless guys and a bike, and another with a single homeless victim of 2 of Trayvons’ friends.

    And I’ve learned to only make very tentative assumptions where this case is concerned.

      • If anyone has access to that site let us know. If the case is the state specifically posted that video to their site, which as far as I’m aware they have not posted anything on for months, and they posted only that video then that would imply they did so specifically for the purpose of O’Mara’s misstatement regarding the video. I’m more inclined to believe she got to view it somehow when it was entered into the courthouse or she got it from the defense.

            • What’s surprising is that if it was put on that site that nobody has posted it online. Wonder why. Maybe there are rules about doing so until it becomes public? That would explain Rene wanting to wait to post the article until MOM put it online.

                • Were you a member when GZ’s school records and pic of TM’s dead body was released? Maybe they tightened the rules after that.

                  Anyway, as you said, if someone has access maybe they can confirm if it’s there or not. I’m gonna refrain from going too deeply into ‘it was a leak’ or some other conspiracy about how Rene got it until the more reasonable explanations are exhausted. I remember how people went off on the theory that the police station surveillance video was leaked to ABC and how that snowballed. Some still believe it was leaked and MOM even said it was in court.

                  • There’s no rules at all. Once they put it on the site it’s open to the public, you just have to pay to get it is all.

                    Rene has always had access of some sort because she often reports on things before they come out to the public and after right it has been filed with the court. It’s not some conspiracy it’s just the way it is. I don’t know if she just walks into the courthouse and requests stuff or whatever, who knows.

                    A “leak” implies a thing that could be nefarious, there’s nothing here in my blog that I’ve said to imply that she was “leaked” the tape. Either she got it from the state, court or defense. Nothing conspiratorial in that except for what I have brought up here in the comments to your comment about the State site in that if the State specifically set out to release that tape and that tape only which as I said implies they did it because of O’Mara’s statement. So I guess in that sense it could be conspiratorial but so what really, it’s just the state doing it’s thang.

          • Linking to comments doesn’t always take one to the comment itself. Best to include the text of comments along with the link. Given that, I have no idea which comments you have cited here are containing without taking the effort to click on each comment narrowing it down to the correct one.

            • Odd, it always takes me to the linked comment. They’re a bit redundant at this point but here ya go:

              Nettles18 June 2, 2013 at 3:07 pm

              “There are 2 videos from Trayvon’s phone listed but they are redacted. http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/174-defendant-s-3rd-supplemental-discovery

              It was given to the State and the court. The State can redact what they need and then the video becomes public. It appears that the State posted the video on their site (that people have to pay for access to) on May 31st. In Rene’s report dated May 31st she says it was made public that day.”
              Nettles18 June 2, 2013 at 3:33 pm

              “You may recall at the beginning of the Oct. 19th hearing they talked about an agreement that would allow a grace period that had been established with Judge Lester to ensure redactions were done to the satisfaction of both sides. Once both sides had a chance to further redact, it had to be made public.

              Charging the media and bloggers who wanted to pay for access to discovery was said to be about recovering the cost of the redaction process. I recall a number of media stopped paying for access, b/c quickly they learned the state didn’t have a case. They would build up hype and then produce nothing.

              This article talks about those who had paid for discovery got the mistaken release of GZ’s school records and the photo of TM’s body. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/george-zimmerman-records-mistakenly-released-684512

              Is that format OK or do you have a different preference?

              • Well, it’s like citing anything, quote the part you find is important to the topic then link to the source.

                The first link takes me to : “I am glad the reporters were cautious in reporting it. It will minimize the damage of it being wrong info. As it wasn’t overly reported, the misinformation didn’t spread too far.”

                It’s not so much my preference as I’ve noticed in the past something happens like that with linking WP comments. I’ve tried to get out of the habit myself of just posting the link without at least some text to be sure which comment it is.

              • “It appears that the State posted the video on their site”

                Well from all that I guess the key word is “appears”.

                How would anyone know though without Rene saying that is the case or without access to the site?

                • True, but it does seem to be the most likely explanation IMO. I suppose someone could tweet Rene and ask in the absence of anyone with access that can check directly..

                  • “I suppose someone could tweet Rene…”

                    Yeah well that someone aint going to be me, lolz. I don’t want to have anything to do with those people.

    • Still rushing to get the 1st post of every thread? I’m amazed. How do you do that? Are you even human?
      Closer to your question, isn’t it the answer in the apology itself?
      “A web producer prematurely posted it to OrlandoSentinel.com Friday but quickly took it down after discovering the video had not been released.”.

      Aren’t questions: why posting to the OS only? Is it something GZDefense does systematically? If yes, what is the nature of the relation betrween GZDefense & OS?


      Honestly, I don’t care about the relation MOM & Renee have. I care more about MOM misrepresenting the facts.

      • “Still rushing to get the 1st post of every thread? I’m amazed. How do you do that? Are you even human?”

        Co-incidence–I happened to sit down at the computer for a moment when the notification email came through.

        “Closer to your question, isn’t it the answer in the apology itself?
        “A web producer prematurely posted it to OrlandoSentinel.com Friday but quickly took it down after discovering the video had not been released.”. ”

        The story got prematurely posted to the web site, not the video.

        But in order to write the story, the OS had to have seen the video, which means someone had to show it to them, and I’m wondering who that someone was.

  2. I saw on HLN a snippit about MOM apology. Also it showed a black and white still of TM and 2 other teens. Is that suppose to be from THAT video or is it from the fight club video? TIA

    • There are 3 fight videos I know of.

      1) Where TM was supposedly referring. Which is where that still is from.
      2) The boxing match video where the two fighters are repeatedly told to go into the light.
      3) The homeless guys fighting over a bike video which we haven’t seen yet.

  3. I’ve changed my mind on how I think Rene viewed the video. I had opined that it appeared that State posted it on the paid site. I thought that because the defense told reporters the State has been given to tape, go look at it yourself and charactized what’s on it. That was Mr. O’Mara in the presser on May 28th. At the 2:35 mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p47a1uMHRo

    From the cached article though, once I read it closer, Rene reveals her source ”
    Video released today by the George Zimmerman’s trial attorneys…” It was dated Friday, May 31st.

    You may recall, there is a media tab on the defense website where information used to be posted for a few hours or a day before it was put on the main page. Diwataman, you and Rumpole had trouble finding one of my posts on the page and I told you guys it was in the media tab.

    Shortly after that, a log-in screen appeared and we all signed up for it and saw a couple of other tabs we hadn’t been seeing before. All the information they presented for the first gag order was there on a tab named Gag Order.

    After we all signed in, about a day later, I couldn’t get access to it anymore. I emailed asking why and was answered with a question. Why do you need access to the media tab. I responded because I’d rather see the information for myself instead of being filtered through the media first. I got a response it was something to think about.

    With seeing what has happened with the video, and given Rene’s initial cached report, I think she saw the video through the media tab of the defense website. I think they planned on making it public and when they did, Rene was ready with her story on it. But the webmaster jumped the gun and posted before the defense made the video public.

    It may have been news to Mr. O’Mara that what he thought the tape showed is not what is actually on it. I don’t know when the last time he watched it was and I think he may have got mixed up with the internet rumor of buddies beating up the homeless. Who knows. But after realizing he mischaracterized the video, according the Rene, they decided not to publish it publicly and put out their apology statement.

    Again, all speculation because I don’t know but I think the Court, State and Defense gives media a heads up about information coming out so they can be out front with their stories.

    I think Mr. O’Mara really did believe that is what the video showed and it looks to me that Rene didn’t give him a heads up that when she viewed it, that’s not what she saw. In her original story, she didn’t seek out a response from Mr. O’Mara about the conflict.

    • Well, that makes sense too and might explain a lot of things DMan questions. I wonder how many media organizations even know about the secret tab. AFAIK it’s never been announced publicly.

      • It wasn’t secret, it was there in plain view until we started realizing they posted some things there for a short-time before going on the main page. It went invisible after we all learned about it. I think that was in February but I could be wrong.

    • Well that is another option, it’ll probably forever remain a mystery.

      “It may have been news to Mr. O’Mara…”

      Maybe he’ll get up to speed on the facts of the case when the trials over, maybe he can read Jacks book or something, lol.

      Sleeping smiley face

  4. This is the most bizarre case in American jurisprudence. I am about to believe that there really is man behind that curtain who is orchestrating this “play.”

    Anyone care to guess what is next?

  5. How can you mistake a video of two homeless men fighting over a bike for two youths beating up a homeless guy? 2 (likely) older guys versus 3 guys (2 young and one likely older)?

    Somethings not right here.

    -Mark Martinson

    • You are not kidding. That is why I wonder if there is a reason he emphasizes miscatagorizing a video in the 3rd discovery instead of saying “We have no such video. I was mistaken”. Unless I am mistaken…

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