I am with you on this Rumpole. I started to say that I didn't think she gets it, but then that is not correct. I believe she does get it and is going right along with the program. I think the entire prosecution lacks integrity and she is just a part of that prosecution.

If BDLR were to say she is lying now, he would be admitting that his "star" witness is a liar and nothing she says can be believable.

The State cancelled the 4/2/12 hearing? Or the Defense? I just tweeted to find out. That is very interesting...

Maybe the extra time is needed for fitting BDLR, Crump, Tracey Martin, and Ms. Candy with GPS location ankle bracelets. They probably ought to turn in their passports.

It's 30th


See calendar
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=747#p21249

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

Good one waltherppk (hopefully I did it correctly this time.)

It looks like the defense added another motion related to this.

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

The previous one was.

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

Evidently BDLR objected to the videotaping of the depo of #8 so they had to delay for 5 hours.

Thanks Risefrombelow (nice avatar pic)

From GZ Legal Site

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/di ... -discovery


DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS


on 26 March 2013.
The following DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS has been filed with the Court:

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/mo ... s_fees.pdf

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

Now, why on earth would BDLR object to a video recording of the Witness 8 deposition?

What do you have to hide, Bernie?

_________________
"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)

Glad to help. You can probably just delete my post since you made a nicely formatted one. No need to clutter the thread with it. I'd try to format it better myself, but I barely figured out how to add a tweet.

It is not clear in the motion... but I assume that the Deposition did eventually proceed.. and was video taped.

The revolving Dee Dees game should be at an end if they finally have managed to capture one on video tape


Next.....

A clear photo of "Big Foot"

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

Nah... you can have bragging rights on the scoop

I do like to include link to the GZLegal site... see what is in and around the motion.

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

I would further presume that a five-hour delay is the reason that the Witness 8 deposition had to be continued.

_________________
"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)

Remember, she's jus' a minor chile.....no, wait......

Maybe they actually believe their own lies?

hmmmmm....this is getting good! Getting ready to pop some popcorn!

Pulling up a chair!

Good question. Maybe #8 complained? If so, why wasn't it done through her council? I'm guessing she didn't have council with her. Which, IMO, seems very odd at this point.

EDIT: Unless I missed it there was no mention of #8 having council in either motion. I think it would have been mentioned.

ME/ aka DFH
Why is BDLR doing the objecting and not counsel for W8? Does she not have representation?

Someone needs to embed me...more...

Hold the pop corn.... hearing is not for a month now with 4-2-13 cancelled.

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

Ummm, maybe he wanted to hide the fact that Ms. Sybrina was going to sit beside DeeDee again. For moral support in the face of aggressive whiteys and stuff. And 'cos the pore chile wuz scare uh da camera.

I'm curious, tho. In a case like this, where (a) the persecution has been clearly advised in advance as to how the depo will proceed, and (b) the defense can show legal references confirming that such procedure is fully legal (and possibly even standard practice?), and (c) the defense is willing to cease and desist from recording if the court so rules and to destroy whatever has been recorded at that point...and yet still the persecutors argue that the video recording can't go ahead even tho they fail to provide any justification (legal or even moral) for their stance...what would happen if MOM just said, "Look, sonny, sit down and shut up. You've wasted enough of my time and GZ's money. We're just gonna go ahead with the depo and roll the camera, and if the judge don't like it, we'll hand the recording over to her. End of story."

What would/could BDLR have done?