The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by riffraff


I could not agree with you more. I did a bit more looking. I know the conservativetreehouse site has been linked to before, but I do not follow it. Here is an interestng bit I found there, which it seems they "outted" the whole suspect DeDe thing some time ago. Complete with supporting docs, for anyone who wishes to peruse.

It is becoming more and more clear that DeDe is not Rachael, and this link only provides tons more. Sustenance to prove it. In my opinion, the recordings only prove it to those who turn a blind eye. Who ya gonna believe? The media, or your own ears? The videos I linked above are definitive to any remaining doubters.

Read this, and weep. Weep for our lost rights, that our government will go so far as to construct a persona to convict what appears, by all rights, an innocent man, based on racial outrage. Because, that is what it is looking more and more like this has come to. Why no Grand Jury? That is so obvious now, isn't it? A GJ would have discovered this. Corey had to take the case to keep it OUT of the GJ hands, it was the only way it could go forward.

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with all the statements at the link. I do think a real DeDe exists, but for some reason, her identity is being protected, and Rachael is taking the fall for her. Where are the handwriting experts?!

(Now, before people start screaming about guilt or innocence, if Zimmerman was truly guilty, why would the STATE PROSECUTOR have to lie and create a false persona, who Rachael took on as hers on the witness stand? It requires a presumption of innocence, and that lying was necessary to attempt to obtain a conviction. There is no other reasonable excuse to create said persona.)

Prior to the deposition BDLR admitted the interviewee never went to the hospital;
He claimed she lied. He covered the lie with another manufactured lie about her
reasoning was being because of guilt for not attending the funeral, and because
Sybrina was present during both interviews 3/19/12 and again 4/2/12.

How could Sybrina be in front of Dee Dee during the 3/19/12 ABC/Crump phone
interview, and yet be “ashen-faced” in front of Matt Gutmann at the same time?

She couldn’t. That lie (about reason) was merely to provide cover for the initial
hospital lie.

During that defense deposition the issues lies about the Crump narrative began to
surface. The person who appeared for the deposition was 18 (now 19), she was
never at the hospital, she did not author the 3/19/12 statement (Francine did), and
she travelled to Jacksonville with “Francine” in August 2012.

Further the person at the defense deposition claims not to know who “Francine” is,
nor does she know her last name.

Yet she sat with her on 3/19/12, and again travelled to Jacksonville with her in
August 2012.

The simplest explanations are usually the most accurate.

described during his 3/20/12 presser was a fictional character, a Keyser Soze per
se.

The 16-year-old present during the 3/19/12 ABC/Crump interview who Crump
introduced, and who Matt Gutman followed up with, and who Sybrina described as
having met at her apartment after talking to her mother, was not the same person
as the 18-year-old who showed up to be interviewed by Bernie De La Rionda on
April 2nd.

The defense has met the 18-year-old who said:

….when questioned about her phone being in her name:

“yeah, well, I think it should be now”

…..when questioned about *hearing* the encounter with Zimmerman:

“oh, you want that too”

That person, that 18-year-old, who gave her statement to the State under very
suspicious circumstances of 4/2/12, which led to the arrest affidavit issued by
Angela Corey…. that person is more than likely the witness Bernie is seeking
protections for not putting in the courtroom.

Who did orchestrate this? Better yet, like you said why? Is this why DHS is loading up? I am nauseated at the thought that today, my government is doing what I thought only other governments did.

We have said from last April forward the ”Character” defined, explained and
identified by Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, called “Dee Dee” would
NEVER reach a courtroom.

Why? Because the construct of the narrative she represents is fictitious.

“Dee Dee”, the 16-year-old minor child, puppy love, who was on the phone with
Trayvon Martin for 6 hours and 40 minutes (400 minutes), who never contacted
anyone post shooting, and who was unknown to both Tracy Martin and Sybrina
Fulton prior to March 17th 2012, and who was taken to the hospital during the
funeral dates because she was so overcome with grief, is, in actuality,
Keyser Soze.

That assembly of deliciously constructed media talking points, that was given the
identity of Dee Dee - is 100% BOGUS !

…… AND here’s where it gets blood boiling – THE STATE KNOWS THIS !

theconservativetreehouse.com...

I found the full, unedited video of Tracy Martin and his girlfriend talking to the media. Please, note the date and such of this video. Remember how the media claimed poor Trayvon's body sat in the morgue, unidentified, for 3 days?

A bonus, they interviewed the witness John, whose testimony has not changed one iota, about Zimmerman being on the bottom, and Trayvon being on top.

Another bonus is a bit of testimony from Tracy Martin. He speaks as if he were home when Trayvon went to the store, same as Brandy, when she said, "he was bored, he was visiting and didn't know nobody around here. He went to the store and came back home. He was sittin on the porch, and some man killed him."

Wow. Just. Wow.

mash.network.coull.com...//www.youtube. com/embed/w47eL_jTieI%3Fversion%3D3%26rel%3D1%26fs%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26wmode%3Dtransparent&mobile=true&referrer =http%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2013%2F02%2F27%2Fday-by-day-the-trayvon-martin-fabrication-deconstructed-february-27th%2F


If that video link does not work, it can be found here. Sorry, I cannot find a way to link this on my phone, but the site implies it has been youtube scrubbed.


theconservativetreehouse.com...

It is in the comments section, third comment down.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

I did not claim that earlier. You just make up info as you go.

I didn't say you did. I was using you in its plural form, responding to your use of the term "we". Not that hard to understand if you check the context.

reply to post by Libertygal


Is it not possible that distraught parents might make mis-statements when discussing a traumatic event? Is it at all possible they were both referring to where Trayvon had been the last time they saw him, before they went out somewhere leaving the 2 of them alone for the day? Do you have ANY evidence - other than these far from conclusive comments - that the 2 were at home when it happened, and specifically that either of them saw Trayvon before he went back and allegedly attacked Zimmerman? I eagerly look forward to your detective work on this matter.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


As I said in a previous post black people (nobody calls them coloured anymore, that's considered offensive btw)

You're giving me advice on racial politics? Hilarious.

For the record - amazing that I even have to write this - yes, I am aware that calling someone 'coloured' is an outmoded term. Which is why I didn't do it.

do have a term which insults white people to an equal extent as the n word. That is superflous use of "racist." An atmosphere has been created where everyone is terrified of being called a racist. It can actually hurt someone to be called a racist publicly. It's used superflously without thought to hurt people, create doubt in them and put them on the defensive. It isn't exclusive to black people, but ironically when used against a black person, not always but in many cases they will laugh it off whether true or not because they have the "that's impossible mentality" you expressed.

Your grammar here is hard to follow (what is the "that" you refer to that is "superflous"[sic] for example?) but as far as I can see you are asserting that cracker is as offensive as 'n-word'. And even FlyersFan disagrees with you on that one.

And once again - how is it that you don't read what I write? - I haven't said it is impossible for black people to be racist. My point is more subtle and nuanced than that. Perhaps a little too much, given the medium.

Edit -- okay, on the 3rd reread I get it. You're saying that black people calling whites 'racist' is as bad as whites calling blacks ''n-word''. You're beyond help.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Is it not possible that distraught parents might make mis-statements when discussing a traumatic event? Is it at all possible they were both referring to where Trayvon had been the last time they saw him, before they went out somewhere leaving the 2 of them alone for the day? Do you have ANY evidence - other than these far from conclusive comments - that the 2 were at home when it happened, and specifically that either of them saw Trayvon before he went back and allegedly attacked Zimmerman? I eagerly look forward to your detective work on this matter.

edit on 1-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

Do you mean other than the missing persons phone call placed by Tracy the following morning, when, asked by the dispatcher, "When was the last time you saw Trayvon?", to whit he replies, "About 8, 8:30 last night."? So... either he lied, or, he saw his son dead. One or the other. He sure did not sound distraught on that call. He thought Trayvon had been arrested.

Nope. Nothing but the video posted so people can make their own decisions. People can still do that, right? Listen, and watch the video, and decide for themselves.

I stated an opinion. Last time I checked, that was still allowed, too.

However, do remember, Rachael testified in court that Trayvon was back home, as well.

It is now a statement of fact from the star witness Trayvon was home, and went back out looking for Zimmerman.

For those interested, the most recent in your face media lie about the Grand Jury indictment still be played out for the public.

news.yahoo.com...


Sealing this text in case it gets scrubbed, or, creatively edited. It was on Drudgeport, but carried in Yahoo News, and flushed along many media outlets.

The killing became a national story after Sanford police refused
to charge Zimmerman with any crime, saying they had no
evidence to counter his self-defense claim. Forty-four days later a
Seminole County grand jury indicted Zimmerman on second
degree murder charges. If convicted, Zimmerman, an aspiring
police officer who served as a neighborhood watch captain, could
spend the rest of his life in Florida state prison.

And here is the original author:


By Patrik Jonsson | Christian Science Monitor – Sat, Jun 29, 2013

reply to post by IvanAstikov

You are posting a lot of 'what ifs' and 'could bes' and a lot of things that official ignore statements to police. It's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Reasonable doubt has been established. (understatement)
The only hope the prosecution has at this point is to show the bullet entered Martin from behind.
Or that the gun powder shows the bullet was shot from farther away ... like 5 feet.
Other than that .... LOTS of reasonable doubt has been established. No murder 2 conviction.

Never mind .. it's not worth it. :shk:

Originally posted by Libertygal
Do you mean other than the missing persons phone call placed by Tracy the following morning, when, asked by the dispatcher, "When was the last time you saw Trayvon?", to whit he replies, "About 8, 8:30 last night."? So... either he lied, or, he saw his son dead. One or the other. He sure did not sound distraught on that call. He thought Trayvon had been arrested.

Why would he be distraught? He didn't know his son was dead at that point. He obviously couldn't have seen him at that time, so maybe you have your own theory on why he lied and what relevance it has to his son being killed by Zimmerman? He couldn't have been plotting anything at that moment, as he didn't even know what had happened.

Originally posted by Libertygal
Nope. Nothing but the video posted so people can make their own decisions. People can still do that, right? Listen, and watch the video, and decide for themselves.

I stated an opinion. Last time I checked, that was still allowed, too.

However, do remember, Rachael testified in court that Trayvon was back home, as well.

It is now a statement of fact from the star witness Trayvon was home, and went back out looking for Zimmerman.

edit on 1-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

She didn't testify that he was back at his home. She couldn't possibly know that unless Trayvon had told her specifically, and he didn't. He said "by" or "near" the house, and those terms are extremely subjective.

reply to post by FlyersFan


When I start using "what if's" as desperate as libertygal's, I'll start worrying. Maybe you want to take a stab at what they could possibly have been plotting before they even knew Trayvon was dead?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Maybe you want to take a stab at what they could possibly have been plotting before they even knew Trayvon was dead?

Not a chance. I'm just sticking to what the facts are that are coming out of the trial.

www.wftv.com...

Broadcasting note .... Court will start at 9:00 am this morning instead of 8:30
This station has been broadcasting the trial without commercials or commentary interruption.
There is a live blog feed .. you can write in and the news folks give highlights.

I thought they weren't going to allow voice recognition experts... There seems to be one testifying now. Any insight on this? Did I misunderstand something?

Witness #23 - on stand. Dr. Nakasone. FBI Quantico. Sr. Scientist. Research and Development activities for speaker recognition systems. Voice related forensics. Gunshot analysis. Lots of experience. Court just declared him an 'expert' witness. This is a defense witness that the state has called. He previously stated that it was impossible to know who was yelling on the 911 call.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I thought they weren't going to allow voice recognition experts... ]

The voice recognition people that the prosecution wanted to put on did not meet the courts requirements to be considered 'experts'. So the court did not allow them (two of them I think). This person is FBI and is considered 'expert' and able to meet the courts requirements for 'expert witness'.

Before you ask ... no, I don't know what the court requirements are.

reply to post by FlyersFan


So, he's going to testify that you can't tell who the voice is. And the prosecution is calling him to take the steam out of the defense calling him? (I read that on the blog.)

If he can't prove that it was not George yelling, he equally can't prove it was him. That does not help the defence.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

When I start using "what if's" as desperate as libertygal's, I'll start worrying. Maybe you want to take a stab at what they could possibly have been plotting before they even knew Trayvon was dead?

And your remark about Trayvon being forced to one knee wasn't desperate?

It wasn't only desperate, it was absurd. Witnesses have placed Trayvon straddling Zimmerman, yet, you can't handle that, and pull something out of thin air about him being forced to one knee to explain the dirt on his pants in the death photo.

Smh.

Btw, in the video I posted where the girlfriend said he went to the store and came home and was sitiing on the porch, they obviously knew Trayvon was dead. This was not before they found out.

PROSECUTION EXAMINATION OF WITNESS -

Blog feed from WFTV states that the reason the FBI said that they can't get the voice analysis is because cell phones can't capture the voices. (That's blog feed. Not testimony)

Testimony now states 'far field of voice' weakens the signal for analysis. Poor signal to noise ratio.

He received recordings of this case in CD form to analyze. Followed procedure to analyze.
2 min 34 seconds of recording. Describes what we have all heard ...

He can't analyze voices that have other voices over them.

Dismissed most of recording as unable to analyze because of this.
2.5 seconds of screaming standing by itself and able to analyze.
Final conclusion .... 2.5 seconds 'not fit' for being able to be subjected to voice comparison.

Also - distances and use of cell phone make this 911 call a difficult far field recording.

Also - to guess the age of a voice on a recording is 'complicated' and often mistakes are made.

** MY NOTE -
Looking forward to Sorreno taking the stand. That will be telling (which ever way it goes).