It is currently Mon May 19, 2025 4:15 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 983 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ... 50  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:34 am
Posts: 892
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
DaMacMan I saw your comment over at her blog. She is insisting she is correct, that the interview was with MOM. This woman isn't really an attorney is she???

"DaMacMan,
Ill be the first to admit that I make mistakes, but I went back and re-read the post and I said on two different occasions that it was the defense attorney questioning her, and that was Zimmerman’s attorney. Why do you think it was the prosecution’s attorney?
"[/quote]

Caption of the audio recording in the OS article:

Quote:
An unnamed girl, the one identified by the Martin family attorney as Trayvon's girlfriend, told Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda what she heard on the phone with Trayvon.


Note also the last two paragraphs of the article:

Quote:
She was one of seven witnesses that defense attorneys deposed in South Florida late last week. That includes Trayvon's father on Thursday and his mother and half-brother on Friday.

It's not clear what they disclosed.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:16 am
Posts: 710
Darkman wrote:
I just went to her blog .. and posted there also, lol

It's still awaiting Moderation though, currently :)


I posted as well and also awaiting moderation. It will be interesting if she retracts her statement and admits she was wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 585
Darkman wrote:
OK .. She now realizes that she was wrong :)


Good job, folks. One Trayvon Warrior down. :91


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:28 am
Posts: 3672
This was posted by a Trayvonite at another forum - does anyone know if this is actually true? I haven't kept up as much as I should, but was it disclosed in BDLR's interview of DD? Variations of this have been posted in defense of the "DD Lied" accusations. (of course, there are also many posts denying that Crump lied)

Quote:
Are you aware that BDLR interviewed DD very early on and that in that interview she disclosed her age? It was released to the defense in the discovery quite some time ago.

Unfortunately, the defense team did not pay attention to that small detail and made noise about just now finding out her age a few hearings ago. Low and behold, they had the statement in their possession on which her age was there for them to see. They apparently didn't even realize it until it was pointed out to them at a hearing.

Nat tweeted about this when it happened joking that they'd finally read some of the discovery and realized her age. We also had quite a discussion on this board at that time too that it appears this was known all along what her true age was and no one had any obligation to set the media straight or online forums. All that mattered is what the court knew, what the SAO knew and what was disclosed to the defense. All of which had her correct age.

This was never hidden from the defense and it's no one fault but their own that they didn't read the details contained within the discovery documents.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:13 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
John_Galt wrote:
Good job, folks. One Trayvon Warrior down. :91




But it's like battling the Hordes of the Chinese army.... you think you have stopped the onslaught... mowed the last one down...

But the next battalion just appears on the horizon :13

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:51 am
Posts: 21
Location: Hugo, MN 55038
flgirl543 wrote:
DaMacMan I saw your comment over at her blog. She is insisting she is correct, that the interview was with MOM. This woman isn't really an attorney is she???


Yes, Malia Litman was a former trial lawyer for Dallas:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malia-litman

_________________
Macs rule, Windows drool (Sorry, that's the way it is)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:14 am
Posts: 103
IAmGeorgeZimmerman wrote:
Another Gem:
Quote:
They have no proof she lied and the state never said she lied. The defense requested her medical records and the state replied that there will be no medical records to obtain. The defense were not allowed access to her medical records and the issue is moot...


Do you think all these mental contortions sprain their brains? It's truly extraordinary what lengths some people will go to, in order to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Somehow the prosecution's profoundly reluctant, painted-into-a-corner admission that there are no medical records of hospital treatment of W8 is NOT an admission that she lied. Instead, there are presumed to be plenty of delicious, mouth-watering records in plain sight, but BDLR has taken on the role of a Seinfeld-style Records Nazi, sternly ordering "No records for you!" to those whom he has arbitrarily deemed unworthy.

Seriously, when you consider that these people all have the right to vote, the results of the recent election seem like a foregone conclusion. You can't fix stupid, and you can't stop it from voting, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:50 am
Posts: 66
Rumpole wrote:
John_Galt wrote:
Good job, folks. One Trayvon Warrior down. :91




But it's like battling the Hordes of the Chinese army.... you think you have stopped the onslaught... mowed the last one down...

But the next battalion just appears on the horizon :13


More like that 'Trayvon Warrior' will have to come up with a new theory that explains away the facts in an effort to hold on to their beliefs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:58 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Remote said
Quote:
This was posted by a Trayvonite at another forum - does anyone know if this is actually true? I haven't kept up as much as I should, but was it disclosed in BDLR's interview of DD?




This was discussed by MOM, the document they are referring had all identifying information redacted, so yes the information was there, just blacked out. Later the document was given to MOM, but this time did not have her address. The Defense had no idea that she was not a minor until that point. BDLR knew, never shared this, until forced.

How NatJatck morally justifies her lies, I am yet to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:47 am
Posts: 155
Location: Deland, Florida
Remote wrote:
This was posted by a Trayvonite at another forum - does anyone know if this is actually true? I haven't kept up as much as I should, but was it disclosed in BDLR's interview of DD? Variations of this have been posted in defense of the "DD Lied" accusations. (of course, there are also many posts denying that Crump lied)

Quote:
Are you aware that BDLR interviewed DD very early on and that in that interview she disclosed her age? It was released to the defense in the discovery quite some time ago.

Unfortunately, the defense team did not pay attention to that small detail and made noise about just now finding out her age a few hearings ago. Low and behold, they had the statement in their possession on which her age was there for them to see. They apparently didn't even realize it until it was pointed out to them at a hearing.

Nat tweeted about this when it happened joking that they'd finally read some of the discovery and realized her age. We also had quite a discussion on this board at that time too that it appears this was known all along what her true age was and no one had any obligation to set the media straight or online forums. All that mattered is what the court knew, what the SAO knew and what was disclosed to the defense. All of which had her correct age.

This was never hidden from the defense and it's no one fault but their own that they didn't read the details contained within the discovery documents.


I haven't seen anything in the discovery released to the public that tells Dee Dee's age. Her being a minor was a big deal to the scheme team and the prosecution. At one hearing where Omara was talking about her social media, Bernie mentioned how did they know they had the right girl and were they (the defense) sure about her age. I can't see the prosecution willingly releasing that kind of information.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 287
Location: Las Vegas
ftsk420 wrote:
So I contacted people magazine yesterday in regards to their 2013 year book they put out. It had an article on Trayvon Martin. One of the major blunders in the article was how George fired twice. I asked them if they check anything out before they print it I got no response.


Good work! Obviously, NO media outlet is doing independent research before they report the "news."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:00 pm
Posts: 288
Passing by Leatherheads. He writes a breaking heart piece about juvenilles being put in solitary confinement in adult jail and prisons. After the usual suspects express their horror, Leatherhead writes "most of them are 15 -17 year olds convicted of a violent crime" which leatherheads know are children. :45 :45 :45


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:28 am
Posts: 3672
Justfactsplz wrote:
I haven't seen anything in the discovery released to the public that tells Dee Dee's age. Her being a minor was a big deal to the scheme team and the prosecution. At one hearing where Omara was talking about her social media, Bernie mentioned how did they know they had the right girl and were they (the defense) sure about her age. I can't see the prosecution willingly releasing that kind of information.

Thanks for your reply, JFP! :42

I thought I had missed something in the BDLR interview of DD.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:28 am
Posts: 3672
boricuafudd wrote:
Remote said
Quote:
This was posted by a Trayvonite at another forum - does anyone know if this is actually true? I haven't kept up as much as I should, but was it disclosed in BDLR's interview of DD?


This was discussed by MOM, the document they are referring had all identifying information redacted, so yes the information was there, just blacked out. Later the document was given to MOM, but this time did not have her address. The Defense had no idea that she was not a minor until that point. BDLR knew, never shared this, until forced.

How NatJatck morally justifies her lies, I am yet to know.

Unreal! Thank you so much for this info, boricuafudd! This is a MESS!

What particularly incensed me was NatJack making a JOKE/laughing about this very serious misleading of the defense. Just when I think I can't be anymore disgusted. I can't tell you how I hope they pay dearly!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:48 am
Posts: 64
According to the defense's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence from Third-Party filed Nov. 30, 2012, W8's age was first revealed to the defense in September. It was edited out of the previous disclosure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:28 am
Posts: 3672
MJW wrote:
According to the defense's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence from Third-Party filed Nov. 30, 2012, W8's age was first revealed to the defense in September. It was edited out of the previous disclosure.

Thank you kindly for this, MJW! :NN3


(and :92 )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:22 pm
Posts: 176
This just in and it looks like DeeDee was deposed twice.

http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.c ... ee-erupts/


Rumpole
Just a friendly note, Jordan
You do have an hour within which time to edit your posts here
eg... add in missing link


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:14 am
Posts: 103
From the Motion to Compel cited by MJW above: "Her age was edited out of the interview in a previous disclosure."

Now, Remote and boricuafudd, I hope y'all are good and sorry for saying that NatJack lied when she said the information had been given to the defense earlier. Why, for goodness' sake, that's no more a lie than DeeDee lied when she agreed that she went to the hospital or somewhere. The information about W8's age was contained in the documents sent to the defense. Just because it was redacted doesn't mean it wasn't there, silly. :N2 OK, so they couldn't read it, but it was there!

(Rumpole, do we have a smilie for a dramatic eyeroll somewhere?)

edit Rumpole
Will :roll do?

Edit LMF: I was kinda hoping for one where the eyes roll round and round while the figure throws its head back and gives huge, exasperated sighs and then slaps itself upside the head...sort of a combination of :roll and :fish with a dash of :doh , a hint of :wall and just a soupcon of :WW . Oh well, I can dream, can't I? ;)


Last edited by LandauMurphyFan on Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:54 am 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
jordan2 wrote:
This just in and it looks like DeeDee was deposed twice.

http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.c ... ee-erupts/


The article from Jordan's link......

The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 23: 2013 AD: Mt. DeeDee Erupts
Posted by Mike McDaniel in The Trayvon Martin Case

In Update 22, “The Incredible Exploding Dee Dee,” I suggested that when Dee Dee was deposed by George Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, the information she provided had the potential to be even more harmful to the prosecution and to the members of the Scheme Team. The first part of the deposition was completed on Wednesday, March 20, and additional time was reportedly scheduled for Friday, March 22. This is, in itself, unusual. A full day is usually more than enough for such matters. That another day is required suggests strongly that far more relevant evidence is being unearthed. It is likely this information will be destructive not only to the prosecutor’s all but nonexistent case, but to the prosecutors, the Scheme Team–particularly Benjamin Crump–and others involved with them.
BBM
...More at link
http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.c ... ee-erupts/

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:57 am 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
So the blog just repeats what we already knew from yesterday's Sentinel article.

A further Depo was scheduled (by MOM)... but did it take place???

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 983 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ... 50  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group