Author Topic: Witness #8 (DeeDee)  (Read 220396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2012, 07:08:09 AM »
I posted this in another thread discussing evidence, but think it belongs better here.  This is not a full recap of her account, but I like to use this section of her testimony one, because it covers the relevant parts to confirm or rebuke Z's SYG claim and two because its about the only part of the interview where BDLR allows her to continue her story without interrupting with leading questions.  She begins with TM leaving the cover of the mailbox thingy and noticing Z watching/following him and after evaluating the situation for a few minutes is deciding to run.

- she tells TM to run to his dad's house (IF TM ran towards his dad's house, this would be the same direction Z witnesses him running towards the back entrance)
- she says he ran and lost the man (this also matches Z's statement that TM ran and the implication that he can no longer see him while presumably standing at the top of the T)
- she says TM is now out of breath (if he started running from the T and sprinted he would reach the back of BG's town home in maybe 10-15 seconds and if he was at a full sprint for that long, he'd be out of breath for maybe 30 seconds.)
- she says he was scared because he's breathing hard.  (this is the first point she mentions him being scared and its after he lost the guy.)
- she says he's now by his fathers house.  (makes sense as it wouldn't have taken him too long to run from the T or area where Z was parked to reach his fathers house)
- after a brief explanation that he ran "from the back" and reiteration that he's by his fathers house, she says he "started walking back".  (its absolutely amazing to me that BDLR doesn't ask for any clarification of this statement as she has said he ran from Z and got to his dads house and is now walking back.  So if Z was behind him coming towards his fathers house, how can he be walking back towards him and be followed/chased by Z at the same time?)
- she tells him to run, he says isn't going to because he's right by his fathers house.  (seems he doesn't feel the need to run as he can just go inside if he wants and he's already relayed that he lost the guy.)
- after a couple of minutes, he says the man is following behind him again, she tells him to run but he says he isn't going to run and she says he can't run cause he's still out of breath (now its possible this could still fit into a possible narrative if Z went around the front of the buildings and came back through one of the gaps to reacquire TM, but does it make any sense at all that TM ran to his dads house, is out of breath, but decides to start walking back towards the T but he's still so out of breath and breathing hard that he can't run again after a couple minute rest?  We are supposed to believe that, but the "obese" GZ is supposedly chasing after TM for a couple of minutes while on the NEN call and is talking plain as anything?   Is TM really going to walk back to the T away from his fathers house if hes that scared and out of breath that he's still huffing and puffing several minutes later?)
- she then goes into the exchange of words and about how GZ's voice is deep, angry and out of breath (doesn't seem to me to match the tone of his voice and how he was talking to the dispatcher, but I guess he could have made his voice sound mean when talking to TM.  Not sure how he made it deeper).

After she finishes her narrative, BDLR asks follow up questions trying to get details and it ends up getting very confusing about what happened when.  Overall, the part of the narrative I reference above from just before running to the two meeting and exchanging words, fits pretty well with the narrative Z tells.  The one discrepancy would be that TM tells her Z is following him again.  This part gets enhanced/modified a bit when BDLR tries to get more detail as in followup Dee Dee relays that TM says "he's right behind me" and begins to whisper, which is right before TM starts with the "why are you following me".   I think its safe to assume TM's whispering was to avoid being seen or found (depending on your narrative) and if he's whispering, its more likely than not that Z doesn't see him or know where he is. 

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2012, 09:48:20 AM »
I posted this in another thread discussing evidence, but think it belongs better here.  This is not a full recap of her account, but I like to use this section of her testimony one, because it covers the relevant parts to confirm or rebuke Z's SYG claim and two because its about the only part of the interview where BDLR allows her to continue her story without interrupting with leading questions.  She begins with TM leaving the cover of the mailbox thingy and noticing Z watching/following him and after evaluating the situation for a few minutes is deciding to run.

- she tells TM to run to his dad's house (IF TM ran towards his dad's house, this would be the same direction Z witnesses him running towards the back entrance)
- she says he ran and lost the man (this also matches Z's statement that TM ran and the implication that he can no longer see him while presumably standing at the top of the T)
- she says TM is now out of breath (if he started running from the T and sprinted he would reach the back of BG's town home in maybe 10-15 seconds and if he was at a full sprint for that long, he'd be out of breath for maybe 30 seconds.)
- she says he was scared because he's breathing hard.  (this is the first point she mentions him being scared and its after he lost the guy.)
- she says he's now by his fathers house.  (makes sense as it wouldn't have taken him too long to run from the T or area where Z was parked to reach his fathers house)
- after a brief explanation that he ran "from the back" and reiteration that he's by his fathers house, she says he "started walking back".  (its absolutely amazing to me that BDLR doesn't ask for any clarification of this statement as she has said he ran from Z and got to his dads house and is now walking back.  So if Z was behind him coming towards his fathers house, how can he be walking back towards him and be followed/chased by Z at the same time?)
- she tells him to run, he says isn't going to because he's right by his fathers house.  (seems he doesn't feel the need to run as he can just go inside if he wants and he's already relayed that he lost the guy.)
- after a couple of minutes, he says the man is following behind him again, she tells him to run but he says he isn't going to run and she says he can't run cause he's still out of breath (now its possible this could still fit into a possible narrative if Z went around the front of the buildings and came back through one of the gaps to reacquire TM, but does it make any sense at all that TM ran to his dads house, is out of breath, but decides to start walking back towards the T but he's still so out of breath and breathing hard that he can't run again after a couple minute rest?  We are supposed to believe that, but the "obese" GZ is supposedly chasing after TM for a couple of minutes while on the NEN call and is talking plain as anything?   Is TM really going to walk back to the T away from his fathers house if hes that scared and out of breath that he's still huffing and puffing several minutes later?)
- she then goes into the exchange of words and about how GZ's voice is deep, angry and out of breath (doesn't seem to me to match the tone of his voice and how he was talking to the dispatcher, but I guess he could have made his voice sound mean when talking to TM.  Not sure how he made it deeper).

After she finishes her narrative, BDLR asks follow up questions trying to get details and it ends up getting very confusing about what happened when.  Overall, the part of the narrative I reference above from just before running to the two meeting and exchanging words, fits pretty well with the narrative Z tells.  The one discrepancy would be that TM tells her Z is following him again.  This part gets enhanced/modified a bit when BDLR tries to get more detail as in followup Dee Dee relays that TM says "he's right behind me" and begins to whisper, which is right before TM starts with the "why are you following me".   I think its safe to assume TM's whispering was to avoid being seen or found (depending on your narrative) and if he's whispering, its more likely than not that Z doesn't see him or know where he is.

Thanks for bringing this over into this thread.

The things that BdlR didn't ask her about, such as the passing of a couple of minutes, were things I don't believe he wanted the answers to.  IMO, of course, but if the State was trying to gather enough evidence to pursue the serious charge of Murder in the Second, De La Rionda needed her to say as much as she did to get it.  Crump most certainly knew what the State needed and I feel she was coached extensively.  If she had gone any further it would have been counterproductive.

Her version is just so sanitized that it begs for additional questioning.  I imagine that MOM will gain a lot of ground with Dee Dee on the stand.  Without her, the State loses its case.


I freely admit I am suspicious of anything that has been "Crumped" but the fact that this young woman, who was so very close to Trayvon Martin since kindergarten,  would not come forward on her own tells me that she didn't really want the entire conversation known to LE.  She would do that only if she thought she was protecting her friend, TM.

I also think that she talked to someone prior to the dates cited by Crump.  SPD asked for access to Trayvon's phone from Tracy Martin within a week of the shooting and he refused to do that without consulting his attorney, Crump.  That forced the State to pursue a Search Warrant, IIRC, and ate a valuable chunk of time.  I never understood why Tracy Martin wouldn't help in this part of the investigation.  He easily could have looked at his records online for calls made around the time of his son's death.

Again, just IMO.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2012, 11:16:16 AM »
I recall reading an article (I think it was Radar online fwiw) that said Crump had talked to Dee Dee the day after TM's funeral.  Now they make this claim from a source "close to the family", but they do not name the source.   I recall the article said it was Crump that alerted her that she was the last one to talk to Trayvon before he was killed.  I haven't seen anyone else report this, but if this is true that Crump had already found  Dee Dee and talked to her, then that could be why Tracy wanted to consult with him prior granting them access to TM's phone records.

Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2012, 03:48:36 AM »


I don't find DeeDee to be a credible witness. She has motive to lie and her story has holes in it.

Offline dragon ash

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2012, 04:13:32 AM »

I don't find DeeDee to be a credible witness. She has motive to lie and her story has holes in it.

Hmm.

I don't find George to be a credible witness. He has a motive to lie and his story has holes in it.

You can not refute either point. Note that I'm not saying that DeeDee is or isn't necessarily a 'credible' witness, but I hope you see my point.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 04:20:24 AM by dragon ash »

Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2012, 06:41:59 AM »
Hmm.

I don't find George to be a credible witness. He has a motive to lie and his story has holes in it.

You can not refute either point. Note that I'm not saying that DeeDee is or isn't necessarily a 'credible' witness, but I hope you see my point.

Of course, I don't consider anyone who has "skin in the game" and motive to lie that credible but DeeDee's testimony seems to be all the prosecution has and her story is flawed bigtime. I didn't mention Zimmerman's testimony because this thread isn't about that and I didn't want to stray off the topic.

Offline dragon ash

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2012, 06:57:09 AM »
Of course, I don't consider anyone who has "skin in the game" and motive to lie that credible but DeeDee's testimony seems to be all the prosecution has and her story is flawed bigtime.

1) Actually, it's not all the prosecution has, and 2) by your thinking George isn't credible either. He has by far the biggest motive to lie of anyone involved in the case.

DeeDee's rather.....um, tenuous grasp of the English language suggests to me she would be a horrible witness regardless of her testimony. That her testimony is all over the place is only icing on the proverbial cake. I don't see how the state can -not- call her, but they'll do what they can to keep it very short and narrow in scope.

Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2012, 07:11:44 AM »
1) Actually, it's not all the prosecution has, and 2) by your thinking George isn't credible either. He has by far the biggest motive to lie of anyone involved in the case.

DeeDee's rather.....um, tenuous grasp of the English language suggests to me she would be a horrible witness regardless of her testimony. That her testimony is all over the place is only icing on the proverbial cake. I don't see how the state can -not- call her, but they'll do what they can to keep it very short and narrow in scope.

I think I stated already that George would have motive to lie and in my opinion not very credible. I felt that way going in so it is no surprise his account isn't perfect. To stay on topic I am focusing on DeeDee's testimony which I find to be problematic as it is conflicting. I really don't see anything else of susbstance the prosecution has.

Offline dragon ash

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2012, 02:53:36 PM »
I think DeeDee is a nightmare witness for both the prosecution and the defense. For the prosecution, she comes across as very....unsophisticated, is the nicest way I can say it, and to be blunt about it, I don't think it will play well to the jurors if the associate Trayvon with her. Given her poor English skills it's impossible to decipher what she may or may not mean, and if you have no idea what she's going to say on the stand, you can't put her on the stand.

The defense can't be all that happy about putting her on the stand either - you look like you're beating up on some unsophisticated kid (what is she, 16?) when the key takeaway will be 'she didn't see anything and couldn't really hear anything'. There's no real upside, and the last thing you want to do is have her go off on her 'I heard Trayvon say 'get off, get off' or something.

Since she's a minor, I suspect 'her parents don't want her to testify', (wink wink), and the two sides will agree to a statement that will be read in court, and will basically say not a whole lot of anything.

Re the whole 'walk back' thing - I thought we had already established that a) if George had no obligation to go back to his truck, neither does Martin. And if b) if George can be scared about saying his address out loud because Martin was near by, Martin can be scared about leading the crazy guy that's been following him the last five minutes, including chasing after him on foot, directly to his doorstep.

Either way, her testimony is unreliable as hell and I can't see anyway the prosecution calls her.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2012, 03:58:12 PM »
I find pretty much all of DeeDee's testimony and how she was questioned...suspect, at best... I don't think any part of her testimony is reliable.
 

You now don't have any evidence about Treyvon's state of mind because you just threw DeeDee under the bus. You must agree the case should not have been brought. So where did you get the crazy man reference to Zimmerman?

Please produce some evidence that hasn't already been patiently and scientifically disproved by other commentators. ( Wind from running sound etc ) that shows that Zimmerman was chasing after Martin. Justify the word please. 

So you contend that Martin had just two choices lead Zimmerman ( who he had just put far behind himstance ) directly to his home or go confront him? Why do you think Martin was afraid? There are lots of reasons to run besides being afraid.

Can't think of any other options than going back and slugging Zimmerman. Go around to the front door. Move to public place? Call the cops or his parents?

.

Offline dragon ash

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2012, 01:51:22 AM »
You now don't have any evidence about Treyvon's state of mind because you just threw DeeDee under the bus. You must agree the case should not have been brought. So where did you get the crazy man reference to Zimmerman?

Firstly, cite for the need to have any evidence of Trayvon's state of mind at the time?

Secondly, I most certainly do not agree that the case should not have been brought.

Thirdly, damn near every piece of 'evidence', including (particularly) the statements from George himself, are a damn sight short of being 'scientifically disproved'. Please produce one item of evidence, other than Martin being dead from a gunshot wound and George admitting he shot him, that is proof about -anything- George has said that night.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2012, 01:53:25 AM by dragon ash »

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2012, 04:57:16 AM »
Thirdly, damn near every piece of 'evidence', including (particularly) the statements from George himself, are a damn sight short of being 'scientifically disproved'. Please produce one item of evidence, other than Martin being dead from a gunshot wound and George admitting he shot him, that is proof about -anything- George has said that night.

They're a great distance away from being "scientifically disproved" - for one reason, you rely on words that do not exist (to further this example, as I've pointed out before, Mr. Zimmerman never said in the re-enactment when EXACTLY Mr. Martin walked by him.. was it before he was on the line with dispatch? Was it after? We don't know because he doesn't say. Yet you continually insist on your narrative that Mr. Zimmerman claims he was on the phone when Mr. Martin passed - this is not "scientific" it's speculation.) Another reason would be relying on definitions of words that are not definitions of the word (ie: "near" does not mean "at" and "at" does not mean "near").

Just because you're ignoring the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Take, for example, the injuries to Mr. Zimmerman - keep in mind that he didn't need injuries to claim SYG/Self-defense.

Offline dragon ash

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2012, 05:40:41 AM »
Mr. Zimmerman never said in the re-enactment when EXACTLY Mr. Martin walked by him.. was it before he was on the line with dispatch? Was it after? We don't know because he doesn't say. Yet you continually insist on your narrative that Mr. Zimmerman claims he was on the phone when Mr. Martin passed - this is not "scientific" it's speculation.) Another reason would be relying on definitions of words that are not definitions of the word (ie: "near" does not mean "at" and "at" does not mean "near").
Yes he does. He says specifically that he a) drove past Martin, b) dialed the non-emergency dispatch, and c) when his call went through he parked at the Clubhouse.

He's clear about this because he even says 'they asked me where I was, and I said the Clubhouse and gave them the address for the Clubhouse'.

He goes on to say that while he was at the Clubhouse Martin walked past him and turned right on TTL. This has to be while he's on the phone with the dispatcher, because according to him he parked after his call to dispatch went through.

Now - this is all obviously a lie. The dispatcher doesn't ask for Zimmerman's location at the start of the call, Zimmerman volulnteers it, with the Clubhouse as the 'best' address. The dispatch later confirms the actual Clubhouse address (1111 RVC, vs 111 RVC), and Zimmerman isn't asked a thing about his location until 3:21 in to the call - long after George is out of his truck and Martin is out of sight.

It's one little aspect of a four-minute call that seems to have little direct bearing on the case...and yet George is lying about it. I wonder why that is. If we can't ignore the little lies, why should we assume the big points aren't also lies?

Just because you're ignoring the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Take, for example, the injuries to Mr. Zimmerman - keep in mind that he didn't need injuries to claim SYG/Self-defense.

I'm not ignoring the evidence, I'm discounting it as proof that George should have been afraid for his life. A reasonable person looks at the evidence and sees signs of a scuffle that should have ended a scuffle. It should not have ended with one kid dead with a hole in his chest. Otherwise, fights in every junior high school in america should end up with one of the participants justifiably dead.

Now - as I understand it Florida does things a little bit differently from other states in terms of how self-defense is handled. It is my understanding that usually, self-defense is an affirmative defense: The defendent has to prove it was self defense. The jury must be convinced it was most likely self-defense (I can't recall if it was the same 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard or not).

In Florida, however, all the defendent has to do is show any single shred of evidence and claim it as evidence for self-defense, and he can then claim self-defense and now the prosecution must -disprove- the claim. So the burden shifts from the defendent to the prosecution.

Obviously this works best if the defendent has some knowledge of the laws and standards involved. Now, if we only had some evidence that George had any sort of familiarity with law enforcement....

I fully expect George to be acquitted, but only because of the way the law is in Florida, not because of a preponderance of evidence for his innocence.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2012, 06:26:12 AM »
If we can't ignore the little lies, why should we assume the big points aren't also lies?

Now - as I understand it Florida does things a little bit differently from other states in terms of how self-defense is handled. It is my understanding that usually, self-defense is an affirmative defense: The defendent has to prove it was self defense. The jury must be convinced it was most likely self-defense (I can't recall if it was the same 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard or not).

In Florida, however, all the defendent has to do is show any single shred of evidence and claim it as evidence for self-defense, and he can then claim self-defense and now the prosecution must -disprove- the claim. So the burden shifts from the defendent to the prosecution.

I think there is one state, Ohio, that operates the way you consider the "normal" or "correct" standard of proof for deciding a self defense issue, that "the jury must be convinced it was most likely self-defense."  (See Ohio 2901.05 Burden of proof).  The other 56 states, including Florida, provide defendant with a self defense instruction if defendant has evidence that his action was self defense, and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was not acting in self defense.

All states have self defense being an affirmative defense, which simply means it is up to defendant to assert he was acting in self defense, and it is up to defendant to produce evidence that the action was taken in self defense.

Jeralyn has covered this in her posts on the main board.  Do you read the main board?

Separately, on your principle for rejecting a person's account because they get details wrong, nobody measures credibility that way.  If I smash your face, and you get my shirt color wrong on recollection, that's a pretty normal error, and it doesn't make you a liar about getting your face smashed.

Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2012, 06:27:41 AM »

One aspect of DeeDee's testimony I find phony is her stating TM was scared. I really don't buy it because of TM's actions. Three things in particular strike me as actions that contradict someone who is scared.

1) TM passed by GZ in his truck. From the 911 call it is clear TM does this. Looking at an aerial view of the neighborhood it seems to me TM would have had other choices yet he chooses to pass by GZ's truck.

2) TM had plenty of time and opportunity to make it home but he chose not to go. Serino seems to be under the impression TM was hiding somewhere but TM knew he has lost GZ because Dee confirms he did. Again, looking at photos it is easy to see how wide open the area is.

3) TM confronts GZ. Whether TM asked GZ why he was following him or TM asked of GZ had a problem TM is the first to speak. The area where the struggle started looks open so it seems TM had to have approached GZ. That is not the actions of someone who is afraid.


Her testimony just doesn't ring true to me.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking