It is currently Mon May 19, 2025 4:44 am

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 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 50  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:13 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
I think she will deny both motions... and any motion for continuance.

Most of us have fallen into the "Optimism Trap" before every hearing


Image

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 287
Location: Las Vegas
I find Sybrina ever more despicable as this plays out. Trayvon wasn't living with her at the time of his death. She doesn't seem to even know who her son was at the time of his death. She couldn't be bothered traveling to Sanford for I forget how long after his death. But she could by-God get all up in The DeeDee's grill for coaching sessions or whatever in God's name she was doing with/to that/those females. Despicable, money grubbing ... ugh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:44 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Florida
Rumpole wrote:
I think she will deny both motions... and any motion for continuance.

Are you serious?! :TF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:34 am
Posts: 892
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Rumpole wrote:
I think she will deny both motions... and any motion for continuance.

Most of us have fallen into the "Optimism Trap" before every hearing


She can certainly try, but at this point, the eventual 5th DCA smack-down will reach epic proportions.

From what I gather in reading case law regarding discovery violations, a Richardson hearing MUST be conducted at even an implied discovery violation by the State. The defense has presented a motion that forgoes mere implication, and provides instead outright accusation. By case law and procedure, Nelson's hands are now tied.

This motion may have been a broadside to the State, but it also was absolutely across the bow of the SS Nelson. There is zero doubt about how the appellate court will look upon her actions from this point forward.

_________________
"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: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:35 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
I hope you are right Chip.

I would welcome being wrong myself. I have been wrong every time so far... but that was taking an optimistic view. :)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 287
Location: Las Vegas
chipbennett wrote:
Rumpole wrote:
I think she will deny both motions... and any motion for continuance.

Most of us have all fallen into the "Optimism Trap" before every hearing


She can certainly try, but at this point, the eventual 5th DCA smack-down will reach epic proportions.

From what I gather in reading case law regarding discovery violations, a Richardson hearing MUST be conducted at even an implied discovery violation by the State. The defense has presented a motion that forgoes mere implication, and provides instead outright accusation. By case law and procedure, Nelson's hands are now tied.

This motion may have been a broadside to the State, but it also was absolutely across the bow of the SS Nelson. There is zero doubt about how the appellate court will look upon her actions from this point forward.


And she forced their hand. I think O'Mara was willing to remain a "gentleman" about the outrageous behavior of the state providing she threw him the occasional bone. She couldn't even manage that. She forced MO'M into backing her into a corner. Not too freaking bright, that one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:44 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Florida
Rumpole wrote:
I would welcome being wrong myself. I have been wrong every time so far... but that was taking an optimistic view. :)

Please forgive me, but, I hope you are wrong, too. :83


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:47 am
Posts: 155
Location: Deland, Florida
Rumpole wrote:
I think she will deny both motions... and any motion for continuance.

Most of us have fallen into the "Optimism Trap" before every hearing


Image


Rumpole, that is so funny. You have got to share that pic with Ad Rem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:12 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
I did that pic at CTH already... I think she saw it

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:16 am
Posts: 710
I see RZ jr's tweets seem to be more important then DD's lies and the state's deceptive actions. The Trayvon supporters will never see past the original narrative, it's ingrained in their brains. Try as he might, RZ will never get through to them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:58 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
chipbennett wrote:
Rumpole wrote:
I think she will deny both motions... and any motion for continuance.

Most of us have fallen into the "Optimism Trap" before every hearing


She can certainly try, but at this point, the eventual 5th DCA smack-down will reach epic proportions.

From what I gather in reading case law regarding discovery violations, a Richardson hearing MUST be conducted at even an implied discovery violation by the State. The defense has presented a motion that forgoes mere implication, and provides instead outright accusation. By case law and procedure, Nelson's hands are now tied.

This motion may have been a broadside to the State, but it also was absolutely across the bow of the SS Nelson. There is zero doubt about how the appellate court will look upon her actions from this point forward.

Chip, I do hope you are right, but this is not the first time that MOM has accused the prosecution of hiding or not presenting discovery in a timely manner, which if the Judge was following law, she would have called for a Richardson hearing, automatically. That it may take a Motion seeking Sanctions is a reflection on her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:52 pm
Posts: 19
OK - my first post here - hope it comes out right!

It still seems like something is missing - why would DeeDee think to lie about her age? That just feels like Crump's influence - well, an older adult's, anyway - maybe it was Sabrina's idea to keep people away from DeeDee by virtue of her "youth".

But even if it was truly all DeeDee's idea, supposedly then both Crump and BDLR thought she was 16 until August - that means that both of them interviewed her without ID??? And Julison Gutman - that means he interviewed a 16 y/o without ID and written parental permission??? How could everyone be so unprofessional? Something still feels fishy... ie, maybe they weren't really in the dark..

And - since everyone now agrees DeeDee is a liar, what's to prevent BDLR from saying that she is lying NOW, that she did NOT tell them in August that she had lied about her age and the hospitalization, that she just told them the day that they told the defense?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:37 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Welcome to RT, lorac :give

Your post was perfect :)

You raise interesting questions. We still do not have the full story on Dee Dee.... but lets hope that MoM and West do... or at least more than we do.


(BTW you need a nice avatar pic... plenty of "lorac women" pics around if you would like that... but anything you want)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:44 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Florida
lorac wrote:
And - since everyone now agrees DeeDee is a liar

Well, just off the top of my head, there were either two DDs and the first one was 16 and Crump decided to use that info to keep everyone from checking up on her. Or, she was actually 18 and Crump just made it up because he didn't want anyone to find her, since she was lying for him. :TF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:52 pm
Posts: 19
Thank you for the welcome with the rose!

I'll look under instructions section for how to add avatar - I guess my wordpress one didn't follow me!

:81
:98

ha just playing with the little people in the smilies section


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:35 pm
Posts: 1056
lorac wrote:
OK - my first post here - hope it comes out right!

It still seems like something is missing - why would DeeDee think to lie about her age? That just feels like Crump's influence - well, an older adult's, anyway - maybe it was Sabrina's idea to keep people away from DeeDee by virtue of her "youth".

But even if it was truly all DeeDee's idea, supposedly then both Crump and BDLR thought she was 16 until August - that means that both of them interviewed her without ID??? And Julison Gutman - that means he interviewed a 16 y/o without ID and written parental permission??? How could everyone be so unprofessional? Something still feels fishy... ie, maybe they weren't really in the dark..

And - since everyone now agrees DeeDee is a liar, what's to prevent BDLR from saying that she is lying NOW, that she did NOT tell them in August that she had lied about her age and the hospitalization, that she just told them the day that they told the defense?

When you wrote Julison, did you mean Matt Gutman?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:52 pm
Posts: 19
Oh, yes, I did mean Guttman - thanks for catching that!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:50 am
Posts: 66
auscitizenmom wrote:
lorac wrote:
And - since everyone now agrees DeeDee is a liar

Well, just off the top of my head, there were either two DDs and the first one was 16 and Crump decided to use that info to keep everyone from checking up on her. Or, she was actually 18 and Crump just made it up because he didn't want anyone to find her, since she was lying for him. :TF

Apparently DeeDee told Crump that she was a juvenile. First page.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/mo ... covery.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 585
auscitizenmom wrote:
lorac wrote:
And - since everyone now agrees DeeDee is a liar

Well, just off the top of my head, there were either two DDs and the first one was 16 and Crump decided to use that info to keep everyone from checking up on her. Or, she was actually 18 and Crump just made it up because he didn't want anyone to find her, since she was lying for him. :TF


We know two things for sure:

1. At least one DD is a liar.
2. At least one DD is incredibly stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:58 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
lorac wrote:
OK - my first post here - hope it comes out right!

It still seems like something is missing - why would DeeDee think to lie about her age? That just feels like Crump's influence - well, an older adult's, anyway - maybe it was Sabrina's idea to keep people away from DeeDee by virtue of her "youth".

But even if it was truly all DeeDee's idea, supposedly then both Crump and BDLR thought she was 16 until August - that means that both of them interviewed her without ID??? And Julison Gutman - that means he interviewed a 16 y/o without ID and written parental permission??? How could everyone be so unprofessional? Something still feels fishy... ie, maybe they weren't really in the dark..

And - since everyone now agrees DeeDee is a liar, what's to prevent BDLR from saying that she is lying NOW, that she did NOT tell them in August that she had lied about her age and the hospitalization, that she just told them the day that they told the defense?

Not quite she told BDLR she was 18, so BDLR knew before August that she was not a minor. She told BDLR that she had lied about the hospital because Sybrina was there on both occasions. When Crump found out she was not a minor, my guess is on April 2, during BDLR's interview. No wonder the Scheme Team stop talking about her, they knew she had lied earlier.


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 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 50  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 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