Very frustrating when speech must be "correct" and not necessarily "true" these days. Jimmy "the Greek" was a major lesson in the need to be "politically correct," not true, or face huge consequences.

The only thing I can say about those two pictures: It IS what it IS.

Defense responds to Mr Blackwells' response to the motion to reconsider the deposition of Ben Crump:

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/defendant_rep.pdf

_________________
Figures never lie, but liars sometime figure.

O'Mara doesn't have his head screwed on straight because he IS a prog.

Daily Beast is covering it with prog spin. Anybody who outwits a prog is a racist.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... riate.html

Thanks for posting the link, LetJusticePrevail -

I don't understand how Judge Nelson will be able to get out of reversing herself, but from what we've seen, I don't doubt that she will. I must say, MOM has really nailed her in this one.

This makes for an excellent quote!

Good job, keep flogging the waiver horse.

'Good job, keep flogging the waiver horse"


I will, but you KNOW it is the "Impeach DeeDee Pony" that I really want to back in this race! Without any bio info on DeeDee, or even a way to previously identify her, it looks like the defense has no way to find a witness who can build any foundation to impeach her on truthfulness. Perhaps this partially explains BDLR's long standing efforts to "shield" her identity by withholding her address and true age for so long.

_________________
Figures never lie, but liars sometime figure.

Quote of the day (from Zimmerman response to Crump):

"Counsel's attempt to use a Mobius strip of logic to dissuade this Court from addressing the non-work product nature of witness Crump's testimony is circuitous by design and woefully flawed".

We need that translated to jive and ebonics.

That's what I think too. That is precisely why her story has never seemed truthful to me. First she claims to hear a confrontation and then her actions after the phone went dead seem ridiculous at best.

I have always thought that the lies were to make her story seem credible, because without the phony hospital story her behavior doesn't jive with the story she told.

It is kind of funny to see them react like Pavlov's Dogs. It is like dangling bait in front of hungry fish. LOL

The only comparison I saw was when family members tried to bolster the images of the boys by using lies and exaggerated descriptions. It reminded me of the "majored in cheerfulness" meme that was peddled about Mr. Martin.

Is MOM implying that there might be 2 DD's?
First he alludes to the "cloak of secrecy" surrounding DD and Crump's Interview. The issues with the recording and unintelligible they are, asking about the issues surrounding the interview. MOM asserts that Crump was the first one to have interactions with DD, under what circumstances she was found and whether his interactions properly influenced her recollections. Now the juicy parts, MOM wants to know how DD came to the attention of the prosecution, whether she was ever identified by Crump, why she was hidden from the FDLE, and why was the recording handed to the FBI.

Re-reading this it almost seems as if he doubts the DD that was interviewed on April 2nd. What do you guys think? Am I reading too much into this?

Can you imagine what it must be to be on the receiving end of a barrage of information from people like this? At first it would be funny, but the obsession is something that has to give someone pause.

I don't know. To me, he just knows that the DD story is untrue and he is trying to get on record the various problems with the way the interviews came about and the way they were conducted.

Probably some of it is also to put another piece of doubt into the public as to how the case evolved.

From CTH.....



Zimmerman Case Stuff – Defense Files Reponse To Crump etc
Posted on March 27, 2013 by sundance

George Zimmerman’s defense team [ both of them ] filed a reply to Benjamin Crump’s response regarding deposition. Essentially outlining the initial claims in the first motion for reconsideration – with clarification that ‘protected work product’ inquiry is a standard that cannot be met in advance of the question(s) being asked.
(......)
More Stuff: Robert Zimmerman Jr. is reportedly going to be on Piers Morgan tonight to discuss the controversy he created with his tweet picture:

...more at link (including comments)
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... crump-etc/

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

I absolutely agree with this. But it has been declared so by the presiding judge. They are stuck with it now. That makes me giggle.

Once again: Nelson did not rule that Crump was opposing counsel in the current case before the court, but rather - and explicitly, as per her written order - that Crump was opposing counsel in an inevitable civil suit to be brought against Zimmerman.

_________________
"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)

No...but Nelson is now on record as believing that anyone who may at some point represent a client who may at some point engage in civil litigation with Mr. Zimmerman is opposing counsel. THAT WILL come back to bite in this criminal case. She didn't say Crump is part of the prosecution team, BUT by placing Crump in the position of opposing counsel in order to protect him from deposition, she has commemorated for the record Crump's role. How very unfortunate for Mr. Crump to be caught doing what he does best. It's one thing if someone is just a witness or a relative to one of the parties involved in litigation. To be counsel should elevate the standard of conduct. She can't back out of it now.

Any interview conducted in the August 2nd/3rd trip would not have been a deposition. If it were a deposition, the defense would have had the right to be present. If any interviews were recorded, the recordings would be discoverable by the defense.

Since I haven't been around for awhile what is the general opinion here on this case, mine is an unpopular one and bannable by the she-devil at justicequest if expressed but I think Trayvon was a punk thug and sucker punched GZ and then tried to wail on his head after knocking him down. I believe GZ shooting him was self defense and this never would have been the circus it's become because of everyone playing the race card and political correctness by the DA.