kbp wrote:
We seem to be just about in agreement, but I'll leave open the option that somebody after 2/26/12 hid the files (v. delete entirely) because they were not certain if Cellbrite(sp?) or others in the mysterious chain of custody might have a copy of the entire data load.
Trayvon showed he was familiar with social networks, electronic communications and illegal activities which would associate him with likely sources that could have told him of the applications to hide files.
A somewhat related topic is the social network web sites (twitter...) in which everyone following the case witnessed somebody spoiling the evidence AND I never read of MOM making any effort to expose that or subpoena records for them ...and we know Mr. Pinky Ring knew about it!
liesel wrote:
Interesting info/posts, kbp. Moving slowly this morning. (And so was/is my computer -daughter came over last night for help studying for final; wore out computer
and me!) I probably need a lot more caffeine to fully absorb it all.
All of that being said, in true Trayborg™ fashion, I'll comment anyway.
About MOM issuing subpoenas for social media info. Those sites are notorious for not complying with subpoenas, or even local court orders to turn over info. It would have been a very time consuming and expensive process without great odds for success, imo. Even if he could have been successful, what would he have gained? Would MOM have gained
admissible info that helped exonerate GZ? Suppose MOM was able to obtain info that proved someone scrubbed TM™'s social media and whom. Was there any legal order in effect preventing his parents from cleaning up his accounts?
I would greatly appreciate seeing the scheme exposed and obstruction charges filed against all who played any role, no matter how small. I'm just not seeing how it helps get GZ acquitted. I'm not seeing how what Trayfamily™ did days and weeks after he died translates into admissible evidence. Probably just the lack of caffeine and info overload from last night with my daughter.
A sure way to fail is to not try! As for "his parents from cleaning up his accounts," you do not need an order to address violations of the law. Somebody hacked into those accounts to delete what cold/should have been evidence.
By March 20, 2012 we knew of DD and the PHONE conversation. Soon after we knew of the social media accounts disappearing. We knew Trayvon communicated with his parents. That's four phone records, at least two (four is better) ping logs, Facebook, Twitter… and whatever else there was we patiently waited for the state to MAYBE get and MAYBE share freely.
The DD story let us know that Trayvon was communicating with her while he was expelled from school and in Sandford for a number of days, so you want to go back in time as far as possible in the search for those records.
It never happened. MOM's case was prepared from information the state supplied …according to whatever schedule they chose. West complained that in his 30 years he had never went after anyone for sanctions on discovery violations and he did it SIX times in this case. Is there any blame on the defense side for having to seek sanctions because they did NOT subpoena the records themselves?
Also, they could have sought to recover the data from the phone immediately. This was not made an issue on the court's agenda, it was the defense begging the state to share …whenever the state had the information …finally.
The costs of such is an issue, but it is MOM who decided to NEVER again file to have George declared indigent, for if he had he could also seek funds to accomplish all that I have listed above. That is ALL in MOM's lap. He has time and time again said he has received nothing, however he holds the key to getting something.
Why MOM didn't seek to have the state pay for George's defense as donations ran short on covering all that should have been done I can only gue$$... my gue$$ i$ that hi$ hourly rate$ are about 5+ time$ higher and he hope$ to recover that from law$uit$ seeking to recover $uch …or maybe even take it off the top of whatever George get$ in any other law$uit$ (defamation...). He could not do that is the state paid him the standard hourly rate they pay. That said, I'll put the pinky ring back on his finger because he had personal objectives I believe got in the way of doing "all he could to protect George". He was not George's enemy, but…
Login
FAQ
Do not go gentle into that good night.
