At this time she is the prosecution's witness, this is why the Defense needs permission from the court to depose her, if she refuses, BDLR could just strike her as a witness and move on. Will the Judge compel a deposition from an unwilling ear-witness? Specially if such witness is not longer on the witness list, and whose testimony will not affect the case's resolution. DD could just fade away.

Deb and boricuafudd

Please visit the poll thread and register your vote... leave a comment so we have some record of the way people are thinking on this.

John McLachlan says:
March 3, 2013 at 1:24 am

Supporters of the prosecution of George Zimmerman have never acknowledged the implausibility of their claim that someone intending to commit a murder would first identify themselves to the police, then summon the police to the crime-scene and then murder their intended victim, approximately one minute before the police arrived.

When the police first arrived at the crime-scene, they saw for themselves and obtained unimpeachable forensic evidence and other eye-witness testimony confirming that George Zimmerman sustained injuries, consistent with being subjected to a violent assault. The duration of the screams heard in witness phone-calls to the police also indicate that this was a very prolonged, violent assault.

This evidence was, initially, suppressed by the prosecution, though was later released.

Initially, during their investigation of the death of Trayvon Martin, the police interviewed numerous witnesses, none of whom contradicted the defence claim that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, in self-defence, while Trayvon Martin was conducting a prolonged and potentially lethal assault, upon him.

Tracy Martin, initially, claimed that the screams recorded in the phone calls were not produced by his son.

Later, after consultation with his lawyer, he reversed this claim.

In an interview, Sybrina Fulton stated that she felt that Trayvon Martin’s death may have been an accident. This admission was later retracted, under advice from her lawyer.

The police asked Tracy Martin to provide access to his late son’s phone by means of the PIN access code. However, Tracy Martin’s response was that he would consult with his lawyer. After consulting his lawyer, Tracy martin refused to give the PIN access code for his late son’s phone, while simultaneously claiming that the police were not properly investigating the death of his son.

The police were directed by the mayor, to release evidence which established a timeline of events and included references to George Zimmerman being white and Trayvon Martin carrying Iced Tea.

Several days after the police released their evidence, the Martin family and their lawyers then claimed to have discovered a hitherto unknown ear-witness, whom they claimed was in phone contact with Trayvon Martin, prior to and during his fatal encounter with George Zimmerman.

The alleged witness discovered by the Martin family and their lawyers provides the only testimony which contradicts George Zimmerman’s claim of self-defence, if one only considers the witnesses’ original statements to police, made under oath and disregard the altered public statements which some have subsequently made.

The evidence introduced by the alleged ear-witness includes references to published recorded facts, later revealed to be erroneous:

George Zimmerman is hispanic, though he was described as white, on the police report.

Trayvon Martin was carrying a can of watermelon juice, shown in the evidence photos, not iced tea, as also recorded on the police report.

The testimony of the alleged ear-witness is consistent with an erroneous timeline for the sequence of events, which was subsequently revealed to be erroneous, by examination of actual phone call times and durations and recordings, rather than the times listed on the police event logs.

The police investigation of the phone discovered at the crime-scene became less urgent, when the unidentified decedent was identified as Trayvon Martin.

However, when the Martin family and their lawyers first claimed that Trayvon Martin was in contact with an unidentified girl-friend, prior to and during the early stages of his confrontation with Trayvon Martin, evidence derived from the cell-phone would immediately become more important.

Especially, after it became apparent that the alleged witness refused to make a formal statement to the police.

In the circumstances, where there was great public and political pressure upon the police to arrest George Zimmerman, the police would surely be expected to make every effort to discover incriminatory evidence and witness testimony.

The revelation that there was an alleged ear-witness heightened demands for the arrest of George Zimmerman.

The state prosecutor stated that the evidence given in public and broadcast on television interviews, by the mysterious sixteen year old alleged ear-witness was insufficient for the purpose of arresting George Zimmerman, and appealed for the alleged witness to come forward and make a statement to the police.

However, for many days, the alleged ear-witness refused to make the formal statement to the police, which was necessary for producing the probable cause for arrest.

In these circumstances, the cell-phone call logs and the cell-tower ping logs pertaining to the phone found at the crime-scene and George Zimmerman’s phone, would probably be made available to the police, under whatever judicially approved subpoena or warrant was necessary for the phone service supplier to provide this information. The political pressure upon the judicial authorities to grant approval for any information request from the police would have been of the highest possible.

By examining the phone call logs and cell tower ping logs, the police could have identified the address of the alleged witness and directly approached her, without resort to any public appeals or requiring the Martin family to detect that someone had been in contact with their son, prior to and during his fatal confrontation.

Even without cell-tower ping logs, but using only the call record of the phone found at the crime-scene, the police could have made direct contact with the alleged witness and arranged to visit her at her own house and take a statement.

The public presentation of the alleged ear-witness as a traumatized minor should perhaps have lead the police to send a black police-woman, who had prior experience in interviewing traumatized witnesses, in a sympathetic manner, once the alleged witness had been identified.

However, the police apparently did not proceed to make any effort to independently identify and interview the alleged newly discovered ear-witness, but seemed to rely on the Martin family and their lawyer to facilitate access to her.

The phones may also include GPS locations, with sufficient precision to permit confirmation or refutation of both prosecution and defence allegations, regarding the movements of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

One would expect that these would have been examined by the police, whenever they became available and used to confirm or refute the defence or prosecution narratives.

It must be assumed that at the initial stages of any murder enquiry or investigation of a justifiable homicide, a subpoena or warrant is certain to be granted, in most cases, to compel phone service providers to give any requested cell-phone call logs and the cell-tower ping logs, relevant to their investigation.

The cell tower ping logs would also reveal the presence of other potential witnesses or accomplices who were near the crime-scene, at the time of the fatal shooting, if they carried a mobile phone.

(The claim by Chad that, whilst at home, he was unaware of all of the activity in the street and did not notice the failure of Trayvon Martin to return, bearing the promised iced tea and skittles, is not wholly convincing. The cell-tower ping logs would also confirm or refute the claimed time for the return of Tracy Martin and Brandi Green to the Green residence)

The publicly disclosed discovery does not include any material released from cell-phone service providers to the police and prosecution.

Although investigation of the phone contents of all the involved phones may take some time, the call logs and the cell-tower ping logs should have been promptly available to the police, upon court-authorized subpoena and made available to the defence, at most, fifteen days later.

The fact that the prosecution has refused to release this material cannot be an oversight, since much of it should have been available to police since early in their investigation and must surely have been analyzed, prior to the deposition of the alleged ear-witness (W8) at Sybrina Fulton’s home, by BDLR, for the prosecution.

Why has the prosecution refused to release evidence, which law requires, should be made available to the defence and in this case should have been released nearly one year ago?

There are only a few plausible potential reasons to justify or require the prosecution’s refusal to release evidence.

One possibility is to allow the defence to make assertions which will be later revealed to be false, by forensic evidence.

Another possibility is because the evidence would permit identification of an alleged witness, initially claimed to be a minor, by the Martin family and their lawyers, but now revealed to be, or to have been replaced by or impersonated by an adult.

However, it is unlikely that the state would regard one particular adult witness of meriting special protection, when other witnesses, who were actual minors, were not accorded any such protection.

It should be noted that the prosecution has admitted that the state has no evidence which contradicts George Zimmerman’s claim of self-defence and the state made this admission, after being in possession of the testimony of the alleged ear-witness, whom they had deposed and whose testimony supposedly justified the probable cause of murder.

It should also be noted that the prosecution did not regard their case to be sufficiently robust to convince a grand jury that there should be an arrest and trial of the accused.

This implies that the state was aware that the testimony of the alleged ear-witness would not be sufficient to contradict the defence, despite, superficially at least, seeming to be incriminatory.

This suggests that for some reason, the prosecution is aware that the supposedly incriminatory testimony of the alleged ear-witness will be thoroughly discredited by the defence, possibly by forensic evidence, rather than cross-examination, or may never actually be presented to a court or jury. The state did not appear to regard their case to be strong enough to present to a grand jury, despite the incriminatory testimony of W8.

The most plausible reason for the prosecution to refuse to release the cell-phone call history and cell-tower evidence is because the forensic evidence reveals that the prosecution has knowingly used false testimony, in order to produce a false probable cause for arrest.

This is also possibly the reason for the false and fabricated charge of perjury against George Zimmerman’s wife, which was probably intended to pressure the defendant into accepting a plea deal.

Similarly, the refusal of the prosecution to release the results of their investigation of the memory contents of the phone found at the crime-scene, either video, pictures, texts or GPS locations suggests that this evidence may be inconsistent with the prosecution narrative, or reveal aspects of Trayvon Martin’s personality which lend credence to the defence’s allegation that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor.

It is impossible to believe that the judge is unaware of this.

However, the judge has still not compelled the prosecution to release this discovery to the defence.

Many of the presiding judge’s rulings are inconsistent with legal precedent and appear particularly biased against the defence.

There exists the possibility that several members of the apparent conspiracy are undertaking their actions at the undisclosed direction of the DOJ Community Relations Service (CRS).

Does the remit of the CRS extend to organizing or protecting a conspiracy to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of a private citizen?

The refusal of the prosecution to release the forensic evidence related to the phones to the defence and the refusal of the presiding judge to compel this, constitute strong evidence that the state prosecution of George Zimmerman was malicious and that all involved parties, including the state prosecutor, the presiding judge and possibly the Governor of Florida, are guilty of membership of a criminal conspiracy, which was intended to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of a private citizen.

The more visible roles of the Martin family, their lawyers and their media consultant in this conspiracy are actually of much less significance to the future of the rule of law, within the United States. Theirs is merely a criminal conspiracy which could never succeed and would probably not have been attempted, without the active assistance of state officials, acting in their official capacities.

Similarly, the de facto membership of this widespread conspiracy by media corporations and their employees: video editors, editors and corrupt journalists, is only because there has hitherto been no significant punishment for individuals or corporations for engaging in such behavior.

Unless those who hold and abuse public office, elected or appointed, throughout all levels of the respective departments involved are made to suffer genuinely unacceptable consequences, including long prison terms for individuals and substantial fines for corporations, then there will forever be the likelihood that politicians and state apparatchiks can hijack the institutions of government for the purpose of furthering a criminal conspiracy against law-abiding citizens, in contradiction to the requirements of justice or the rule of law.

If Dee Dee (W8) the alleged ear-witness truly was coached in her testimony but was not really in contact with Trayvon Martin at the time of his fatal encounter, as I strongly suspect, then there is a strong possibility that she could reveal the extent and some of the membership of the postulated conspiracy to procure a false prosecution, at her future deposition and may do so by recanting her previous testimony, in exchange for protection from the charge of perjury, for which she may be persuaded there is unimpeachable forensic evidence.

Hey, good to see you.

I'm not sure this will come about or whether it is a good idea.

But I have to say I'm surprised this is still going on. I thought it was going to be thrown out awhile ago.

My problem is that the timing for Zimmerman is a bit hinky. That 90 or so seconds. I think the Defense can explain away some of it but it will be a reach to explain it all.

And the other thing I want to point out is that both of those individuals had a legal right to be wherever they wanted to be in that complex. The challenge to the crime begins when both met up at that "T" intersection.

Deb, how do you parse these two statements together?

...and:


If Zimmerman had a legal right to be, anywhere in the complex, why is his explanation of where he went during those 90 seconds in any way material?

Because the Prosecution is going to go for "Intent" in regards to Zimmerman's actions. They have completely ignored whatever "Intent" there was on Martin's behalf. It doesn't exactly fit their narrative.

Are you saying that Martin had no right to be anywhere in the complex also?

There is no evidence that he was up to any wrong doing. He was a visitor to the RATL. He was reported for being suspicious due to the fact that Zimmerman had concerns over break-ins. Not only did GZ not recognize him, no witnesses, when shown the picture of his face by LE that night, recognized him either.

Isn't the timing what the state's case is really about? They don't seem to have anything else. As opposed to Zimmerman, they don't even have a credible witness. They can't say who threw the first punch and can only acknowledge that at some point in time Martin struck Zimmerman. They couldn't say that Zimmerman at any stage struck Martin.

IMO, when BDLR said that in open court, he made the case for self-defense right there. Do you disagree?

For months I lied to myself that it wasn't so but the writing is on the wall.
The State of Florida firmly believes that the welfare of the masses far exceeds the rights of the individual & that the U.S. Constitution is merely a piece of paper.