The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yeah but he is lying on the stand.
He squirmed and said he couldn't tell (because he didn't want to admit he said no). Then he said it took him 20 minutes to determine. If he figured it out after 20 minutes then why didn't he admit to initially saying "no" if it took him 20 minutes to believe it was his son then he said it wasn't at the beginning right?

He is lying on the stand. He said "no" at first because it WASN'T his son. It is Zimmerman.

The guy was lying on the stand.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The state would then just bring in an expert to testify about HOW that drug affects a person. The most Trayvon would have done is laugh at George and ask him for something to eat.

Peace, man...

So no one has ever done a drive by while high?

Rappers don't sing about smoking and blowing people away? Tupac didn't smoke? Biggie didn't smoke? The people that killed those gentlemen didn't smoke?

It is different between psuedo hippie white stoner culture and hip hop culture.

I can't say why (i've always wondered), but it's true.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Trayvon Martin's Autopsy

I don't want to get into the details here, but I've been doing some research on these numbers and they are VERY low. I just HOPE the state looks into this because they will find that, while Trayvon has clearly used in the past, any effects were long gone.

NORMALly, I would leave a link, but I don't want to violate T&C.

edit on 7/8/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

If they are low it is because he had switched by his own admission on facebook, from cannibinoids to otc cough syrup. It is also worth noting that they do not test for DXM on a standard panel drug test. So Martin very well could have been under the influence of DXM.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

He did today and exactly what I told you was brought up. He heard the tape first and he said it wasn't his son.
He was squirming to avoid admitting that today.

I knew this and was explaining it to you. Maybe you can stop asking me the same question now that it's officially on record in the trial eh?

Again.. I never asked you anything regarding the father, just the mothers who testified. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I understand it, but you are asking the wrong question. Why are you asking about both mothers when one mother was in another part of the state and had time to understand the implication of giving honest testimony in this case. The father answered honestly at first because he didn't understand what it meant if he told the truth that it was ZImmerman. So he did tell the truth. Then later after conferring with his ex wife (the mother) he began to understand it benefited them to lie.

LOL.. and now I am officially caught up, after a page of commenting by myself. Hopefully I didn't murder this thread, but I had so much to say.

reply to post by FlyersFan

AHHHHH .. it goes back to Crump!
Martin father says that he never instructed Crump to say anything.
This goes to the question about the police 'cleaning up' the 911 tape ....
The defense is trying to get Crump ..... IMHO

Yes. Crump was deposed yesterday, and it was about more than Rachael.DeDe.

Did you hear the defense ask if he ever listened to a modified 911 tape?

There was a reason.

He perjured himself. Again.

More to come.

theconservativetreehouse.com...

This article was written by "Sundance", the writer that also uncovered the police cover-up of Trayvons' crimes.

Benjamin Crump Deposition Thread – (two videos to
understand) “the plan was”, and “the introduction to Dee
Dee”

There are two videos at the link that one should view to help them to fully understand the problem going on. They are not on youtube, and I am unable to find a way to link them.

(snip)

Crump is the family attorney, hired by Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton.

Benjamin Crump has also been assigned special status, as co-counsel of
sorts, for the prosecution, by Florida Judge Nelson when she ruled he
was not subject to deposition by the defense.

This is why O'Mara had to file the Writ of Certiori with the State, because of the judges' decision to asign him as co-counsel.
As I have stated in other posts, the DCA over-rode the judges' decision, allowing the Writ, thereby allowing the deposition.

There are many links in the following text block. If you wish to follow a particular link, please visit the article. This text follows an excellent defintion of "subornation of perjury". Worthwhile in and of itself to visit the link.

The documents are linked, they have obtained documents via the FOIA.

The practice of ″horse shedding the witness″ (rehearsing testimony) is
an example of such perjurious criminal conduct by an attorney.

Benjamin Crump has provided the court with an affidavit affirming the
recording he gave to the Zimmerman defense team was the full original
copy of the audio recordings he made. He did so in a successful attempt
to avoid deposition.

However, there was another recording device in the room
simultaneously recording his activity. That recording device was the
ABC news team who were present during Crumps interview with the
witness. [*Note - The defense team has requested the full ABC audio - It is
unknown if they have possession]

Exhibit “A” – In the ABC audio below you will hear Attorney Benjamin
Crump interviewing Witness #8 “Dee Dee”. This audio not only is better
quality than the audio Crump provided – but it materially shows the full
content of how the conversation was being captured.

Listen to this recently released audio, recorded by ABC’s Matt Gutman,
during the March 19th interview with Witness #8:

abcnews.go.com...

If that link doesn't work, try this one:

abcnews.go.com...


Link to the original, hard to find Crump interview of what is suspected to be the "real DeDe". It miraculously, and quietly appeared on the ABC news site just one week after the judge ruled against the defense. Speculation is, ABC did not wish to be called to testify. I do believe they are on the defense witness list I posted a link to in a previous message.


twitdoc.com...< br />
I am unable to verify this link, as I cannot use flash player on my phone. Not the required version, that is.

Link to Crump affidavit offered instead of tape, accepted by judge in place of audio. This prompted the Writ that the judge denied. The affidavit itself contains potenially queationable testimony. Compare the audio linked above to the affidavit.

Not only did Ben Crump misrepresent his action (ie. lied) in his
affidavit, he also painstakingly prepped the witness, rehearsed the
parts he wanted to record, gave her instructions on what to say (like
when to start in 3…2…1), and intentionally cut out his instructions and
interjections.

(snip)

But what’s factually evident is the ABC recording shows Ben Crump’s
affidavit to be false in its content and presentation. Benjamin Crump
through his attorney Bruce Blackwell is lying and misrepresenting to
the court.

(snip)

However, this material falsehood, of his impetus, within his sworn
affidavit, is the first example of him giving false testimony directly and
specifically to the court, and to the judge

Why is this SO important, you ask? Because it is this witnesses testimony that Angela Corey used to secure the Probable Cause arrest warrant for George Zimmerman, and to file the indictment. A Grand Jury would likely have returned a no-bill on lack of evidence, so it had to be done the way it way it was.

If, in fact, coaching, false testimony, perjury, and even a false witness can be proved, therr is NO CASE against George Zimmerman. If some or all of these allegations hold true, Crump may be disbarred or even arrested and fined. It is already fact from listening to the recording and the affidavit that false statements have been given to the court.

The court is already aware of the lies Rachael was caught in. But, what it it wasn't even Rachael on the phone, or this intetview with Crump?
 

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

You don't get the point.

A lot of people still do get their information from them. There are a lot of ignorant people that believe everything they hear. We know that so we need to do something to make sure they are getting accurate information. Politicians have been taking advantage of this forever.

I'm seeing this every time I discuss this case (specifically with liberals)..

They are determined to make this a racially profiled murder. More than one of these conversations started off them saying, "Who cares about the facts- Zimmerman was WRONG!"

They are still spewing the media-fed lie of last year; one friend still insists that 'poor lil' Trayvon' was but a little helpless child afraid for his life.

When I mentioned the Medical Examiner's testimony of his age, height and weight, they get quiet, and then try to continue to make the case for him:

"Well...hmmm....even if he was taller and stronger than Zimmerman, Zimmerman should not have got out the truck to follow him" (this is by far their MAIN argument)

I say, "Noooo...Zimmerman exited his vehicle to get the street names since Trayvon had darted off through the complex. It was only when he turned back around that HE was confronted by Trayvon".

"Well...hmmm....even if Trayvon confronted him, Zimmerman didn't have to shoot him."

"It was self-defense. This has been proven by his wounds, and Trayvon's LACK of wounds."

"Well...hmm...even if he fought him, blah blah blah..."

See, it never stops with them.

I don't understand why so many folks are jumping on Trayvon's side. I feel they fear being labeled racist and insensitive. White guilt. Fact is blacks kill blacks everyday through gang violence and you don't see the outrage you do in this case. Its is because white people are in fear of backlash. The evidence does not prove Zimmerman acted in malice or spite as the charges say. It is not a crime to follow someone. Assault is a crime hence the photos of Zimmerman with a broken nose. I hate to say it but young black guys have this tough attitude. They want to beat you up. Im in law enforcement and I see this no fear, tough, I am the man, I can take on anyone attitude. He jumped Zimmerman. Zimmerman shot him. End of story!

Following is a very important video, I believe, for all to see.
This brought tears to my eyes, her pain was/is real, palpable, and she has 1000 times more credibility than Trayvons' "parents".

In reality, she WAS Trayvons' parent, though labeled as his "stepmother", she took care of him 85-90% percent of the time until he was 17. "When he was sick, Tracy would go pick him up and bring him home, where we would get him well again."

"Trayvon wanted to live with us. He wanted to be with us". This woman was the one that raised him, saw him through good and bad, sickness and in health. By far, more a mother than Sybrina, who gave up her child at the age of 3.

Yet and still, the media continues to portray Tracy and Sybrina as the family, albeit divorced, that went through these struggles, literally nearly erasing this womans' existance. So much so, she was not even allowed to sit in the front row at the funeral, to be there to send her son home.

Tracy has quit speaking to her, she cannot bear to watch the trial. Does she believe George profiled Trayvon based on him being black? "No", but she does believe he did based on his hoodie and "thug" looking attire. She does not attribute it to race, though, and perhaps her unpopular view is why she has been delgated to a rank of "less than important", although it is obvious she was much, much more.

Racial issues in this case, no matter how much the "Martin Family" and Crump and Associates choose to argue otherwise, have been a more damaging factor, not only to innocent bystanders such as Alicia Stanley, but to entire communities. This is not to mention the damage wrought on the families, even what the "Martin Family" have brought down upon themselves.

Please do take the time, regardless of who you think is guilty or innocent, and watch this if you can. Perhaps then you can understand why people find Sybrina less than credible, aside from the lies she has told. Her honesty is touching.

Yes, she is on the defense witness list.

reply to post by Libertygal


Yes its a good video, it was one of the first videos i saw about all this - also why i have never had especially good thoughts about Sybrina,
She could really damage Sybrinas testemony and credibility as a loving caring parent, but also humanize TM bigtime - she a double edged sword for the defense.

For those that may be following the Crump story, and that listened to the ABC audio above of DeDe Rachael, here is a good link of the audio if the same conversation as was presented to the state. As you can tell by listening to it, it has been HEAVILY edited, with all the witness leading edited out. The audio is horrible, so having the audio from ABC is a blessing.

Directly below that audio link, there is another audio of Bernie de la Rionda, from the State's Attorney's office, and their interview with Rachael Jeantel. It is obvious this is the person that was on the witness stand in court. This is also the audio where she says, "You want that, too?" after being asked a question. Take from that what you will.

trayvon.axiomamnesia.com...

Keep in mind, these are NOT the video links on the page, they are two small audio links, partway down the page, labeled thusly:

MartinFamily Attorney Benjamin Crump – No date available (~15 min)

Florida State Attorney’s Office – April 2, 2012 Track 2 (~23 min)

Neither audio has been allowed in, as far as I understand.

Some things that were said in the original that did not get said in court: (not exact words, a close representation, but this is not transcribed - listen in the link in the post I provided above)

When asked how she knew Trayvon was running:

He was real out of breath. He was breathing HARD. He couldn't run no more,. I kept saying Trayvon run, run, but he said naw, and I knew it was because he was out of breath. He just told me he was gonna walk fast, but I knew he was tired.

No mention was made of grass, wet grass, or any grass at all.

She said towards the end of the call she felt guilty, very guilty, though she didn't explain why. You could feel the emotion in het voice then, and fairly much throughout the call.

You can hear, during the call linked in the post above, Crump trying to lead her to say things. At times, she would pause a bit, and say "aight", and then say it. Other times, she would pause, but not say what he wanted. At no time do I recall Rachael using the word, "aight".

In the audio linked above, MartinFamily Attorney Benjamin Crump – No date available (~15 min), you can hear Crump say twice, after having paused or editing the recording, say, "Now tell us in your own words...". As has been pointed out in another post, who's words is he implying she would be using, but her own?

In comparing the story to her testimony, it is already known she lied about going go the hospital and going to the wake. That seems excuseable and passable, as she admitted she lied in court.

However, nothing about the "creepy azz cracker" statement and n-word statement that were made in court never appeared any recording, the letter, or statement. She claimed in court she was protecting Sybrina on the letter, was "rushin it" with Crump, and Bernie never asked. Simply put, was she lying then, or lying now? There is simply no way to tell.

Other inconsistancies:

She stated Tracy was the person that called her the next day. Then, she got texts from Sybrina while at school. She spoke with her mother, whom she said was out of the country, and only speaks a little English. She testifies in court, "My plan was, I told my mother to tell them no, I didn't want to talk to them. Then, we had a three-way call. I kind of set the phone down, and when I came back in like two minutes, she had told them yes."

So first, the claim was made that Tracy was playing around with Trayvons' phone, and managed to crack the password. Then, the claim was made Tracy got the phone bill, and got her number off of that, and Crump daid, "Call her". Then, the claim was made that Crump tracked her down somehow.

Her plan? She told her mother what to say. Interesting, and no one asked her about this.

During her testimony, the first day, Crump's partner held a presser. He claims they were the ones that contacted Rachael. In fact, they take full credit for being the ones to track her down, specifically Crump. This happens to also be the day they make statements about this not being a racial issue, when they were the very ones that made it so.

Two interesting points about this video below, the media calls them out repeatedly on them making it about race, then backpeddaling on it, and then, an ABC news representative is there, and you can tell from the questioning, the reporter is aware of the DeDe interview conflict.



ETA - When asked "Is this your phone number?", she responds, "It is now." Bernie audio.

After silence gap, when recorder is started, ahe blurts out of no where, "It's a racial thing." Crump edited audio.

When asked in court if she thinks it is about race, she is questioned about who made her think that. She wouldn't answer.




This is the Crump presser where he claims Tracy was playing with the phone account, figured out Trayvon's password, and called her. (Rahael DeDe). He claims Tracy had called him, Crump, late Sunday night, and told him he had already called her.

Okay, so wow. I don't know how to say this other than to just come out and say it, so here goes.

(Deep breath)

It is no secret that I feel all the evidence and testimony so far has shown that George has been telling the truth.

Truth is what I seek, and truth is what matters. Regardless of anyones' opinions, the truth MUST prvevail.

So, for the first time, I have come across something that has caused me to take pause, to stop and think in a different direction.

There has always been some questions that I had that I felt were unanswered, that I had not yet heard or seen any reasonable explanations for. One of the things that troubled me was the gap in time from when George got off the phone, and Rachael saying Trayvon was close to his Daddy's house.

How did he get back to the T? Comments from Brandy and Tracy had added to the confusion, them saying he went to the store, came home, and was sitting on the porch. Why then, would he leave again with the Arizona and the Skittles? Remember, this was their words, not speculation, or someone elses words.It just didn't make sense.

The testimony of Rachael left a lot to be desired. She said he was almost home, he was right by his Daddy's house. She said I told him, "Run, run." He said, "No, I'm not gonna run. I'm gonna walk fast." She then goes on, "But I knew he was tired. He was out of breath. Then, after a couple minutes, I heard Trayvon say, "What you following me for?"

Now, if George had been following him, and the fight ensued then, wouldn't his body have been close to Tracy's house? If he was almost home, most assuredly after "a couple minutes", right?

So George said, "He circled around and came back.Circled what? Where? He must have been hiding in the bushes." Regardless of people fussing that there are no bushes, there are, just watch the re-enactment. But, what bothered me was, George said he walked past the T to look for an address. He never quite gets to the point where, and how he decides to turn around.

The next thing that bothered me was, during the re-enactment, when he spoke of Trayvon confronting him, he was standing on the upper part of the T. He said Trayvon yelled at him. Yelled what, exactly?

He says he turned around, and saw Trayvon, and as he was coming towards him, Trayvon said, "You got a problem?"

George says, "No", then starts looking for his cellphone. Why, exactly? What was so menacing, at that point, that caused him to look down for his cellphone, which happened to be in the wrong pocket?

Then he says Trayvon hit him. At this point, he is standing at the T intersection. I notice, he keeps looking around on the ground. At first, I took it that he was re-enacting, to a degree, his stunned confusion. The more I watched tbe re-enactment, the more it seemed to me, George was looking for signs. He would look at the ground, then up at the buildings. I thought this was strange.

Signs to familiarize himself with his bearrings, and you notice he creeps down the sidwwalk, saying, "I don't know, I stumbled, we wrestled or something, I don't know..." . All the while he is doing this, he is looking around, creeping further, looking at the cops. It was almost like he was looking at them to see if he was pushing it too far. Why, if he was telling the truth, not just walk to the correct location?

I think he felt uneasy going any further, feeling they would get suspicious if he got EXACTLY to the spot the body was. HE even seemed to be uncomfortable getting to close. This seemed odd. He then continues describing the fight.

Now. Many of the things that bothered me, they were feelings, intuitions perhaps, gut feelings, whatever you want to call them. Taking them on, one at a time, they were no big deal Small things that seemed out of place, that I would search for others that had likemindedness about it.. No one really did, or, if they did, they couldn't say it, or perhaps said it with such derision, or racism, or attacks, I wouldn't bother. The internal ignore got really good.

Regardless, I never saw any real, honest discussion that rang true with me about these things that almost seemed to haunt me about this case. That is, until now.

I watched a video, and, though it was slow and drug on forever, I gave it the benefit of the doubt. It had me intrigued. It was intelligent, well thought out, and up to a certain part, it complety agreed with the evidence and testimony so far. So, within the realm of believeability. It had me hooked.

In the middle of the video, there is about 9 minutes of video where nothing happens. They play some music. This only went on lend credibity, because they cut nothing out.

Now, I know there are other explanations for what this video shows about the car headlights, but what it shows about the path of George, especially, and Trayvon, it was stunning to me. Absolutely stunning. I had no choice but to give pause and to consider this speculation was a very real possibility.

reply to post by Libertygal


As I posted in another thread (and edited to work here).

This is not just Crump. This was an abuse by many people including politicians. The special prosecutor that falsified the arrest warrant. Then the fact that state officials tried to do police work they don't normally do and performed an improper audio line up IN THE MAYORS OFFICE barring police from being present and doing it with all the family in one room. It should. Have been mutiple similar audio clips with each Martin famiy member hearing it by themself and giving an answer to who they thought it was so it could be compared. This was OBVIOUSLY where they colluded to create a case out of nothing. Politicians and Martins family behind closed doors. Also that's where Tracy Martin changed his opinion about the voice. He said it wasn't his son at the police dept and never asked to hear it again. Then he heard it behind closed doors at the Mayors office (and after 20 listens said it was his son. Politicians and the Martins benefitted from the narrative constructed in that room.

This was a scam for financial and political game and people should be outraged. They tried to lock a man up for life and he's innocent. It's bad enough when it happens on accident.

Oh, but don't get me wrong Crump takes slimebag of the year. He seems llike an idiot, how did he pass the barr? If he can, I'm not so sure i'd have a problem.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I agree with all of what you said. They should have done it singly, line-up style. That is a no-brainer. I even have a news story from The Orlando Sentinel where Chief Lee gave them information after Tracy heard the tape, and said it wasn't Trayvon.

It also says the Sanford P.D. aporoached the Dept. Of Justice before Crump did.

After the message I just posted above though, I need some time to think, perhaps watch some more of the trial today. Obviously, some things are bothering me that have gone unanswered about this, and I really do want answers.

I have no doubts that Crump did what was alleged, though, and wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall in the Mayor's office that day?

Even IF the video up there is right, and that speculation is true, it doesn't excuse the nasty, sleazeball tactics that some people have taken to get things done. Not one iota. They are still scum and sleazeballs. They still, IMO, need to be brought upon conspiracy and collusion charges if an investigation proves the allegations true.

There is no room for corruption, I don't care how righteous anyone feels their cause is.

Here is that story.

reply to post by Libertygal


Someone wrote up this called the missing 2:30.

www.wftv.com...

Getting started on time this morning. The judge reversed herself and will allow the toxicology report in ... and all that goes with it. She probably went home this weekend and heard all the legal eagles saying how she made a major blunder by not allowing it.

We will all have to be careful with what we post today. "drug talk' ... big no-no here.

HAPPENING NOW ... more discussion about what will be allowed and what won't be .. Jury isn't in the room yet.

reply to post by roadgravel


WOW. Someone did a really good job about the 'missing' time thing.
And yes, Martin had plenty of time to get to the townhouse .. but he didn't go.

reply to post by roadgravel


I sincerely doubt that theory. I think SOMEONE would have brought up Trayvon approaching the car and speaking to Zimmerman if more than one person knew about it, as is implied.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by roadgravel

 

I sincerely doubt that theory. I think SOMEONE would have brought up Trayvon approaching the car and speaking to Zimmerman if more than one person knew about it, as is implied.

That could be true but only GZ and TM and possibly RJ would know. No guarantee that TM said anything about it over the phone.

GZ did mention it.

reply to post by Libertygal


Just more proof that the prosecutors were forced to bring a bad case to trial. If for no other reason perhaps than to show that they had no case.