Author Topic: Witness #8 (DeeDee)  (Read 111150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #375 on: August 24, 2012, 03:31:52 PM »
Would records show any pictures or video that might be on the phone?

Of course not.  Is any of that stuff listed as part of future discovery?  Do we know if anybody has been able to access that material?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #376 on: August 24, 2012, 03:48:50 PM »
Yes.

My question is still: why did Tracy feel he had to or needed to or should talk to an attorney (whether Crump or just his sister or sister in law (I forget)) before he turned over the PIN--otherwise, just say "I don't know the PIN"?

As Lousy1 pointed out, even if he didn't know it, he could almost certainly get it. If he'd been asked for the password instead, he probably wouldn't know it and couldn't get it. For all we know, he could have said he didn't know the PIN, the police officer may then have suggested how he could obtain it, and then he may have said he'd first need to talk with his lawyer. I'm not, of course, saying that's what happened; I'm just saying all we know is that Tracy Martin wouldn't disclose the PIN till he'd spoken to his lawyer. We can also be pretty sure he never did reveal the PIN.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #377 on: August 24, 2012, 03:51:44 PM »
Of course not.  Is any of that stuff listed as part of future discovery?  Do we know if anybody has been able to access that material?

Why "Of course not"? The discovery isn't listed till it's given to the defense. I don't see how we'd know what might be in future discovery.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #378 on: August 24, 2012, 03:52:19 PM »
As Lousy1 pointed out, even if he didn't know it, he could almost certainly get it. If he'd been asked for the password instead, he probably wouldn't know it and couldn't get it. For all we know, he could have said he didn't know the PIN, the police officer may then have suggested how he could obtain it, and then he may have said he'd first need to talk with his lawyer. I'm not, of course, saying that's what happened; I'm just saying all we know is that Tracy Martin wouldn't disclose the PIN till he'd spoken to his lawyer. We can also be pretty sure he never did reveal the PIN.

LOL. I know he didn't, and apparently never did.

I also agree with L1 that he could've gotten it.

My question is more hypothetical and probably out of bounds for this thread (and maybe the board at this time?): why didn't he?

Especially since later he'd be found criticizing the way the SPD handled the investigation, no thanks to his small part in impeding things.


What was he afraid might be found on the phone?


Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #379 on: August 24, 2012, 03:55:11 PM »
Of course not.  Is any of that stuff listed as part of future discovery?  Do we know if anybody has been able to access that material?

Ricky:

You asked why they'd want to actually access the phone rather than just seeing phone records (which are pretty dry and sterile, all in all).

I offered you a reason--maybe they were looking for videos or pictures.


Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #380 on: August 24, 2012, 04:03:50 PM »
Especially since later he'd be found criticizing the way the SPD handled the investigation, no thanks to his small part in impeding things.

I have no doubt that Crump was the source for the media stories that had Tracy doing what the police failed to do: checking Martin's cellphone contacts. The guy's got tons of nerve.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #381 on: August 24, 2012, 04:48:22 PM »
Some interesting analysis of the discovery by Diwataman. The FDLE actually printed the phone number of the prepaid anonymous phone DeeDee was using at the time. Crumps release of the barely blurred phone record confirm it. "Now, it should be now under my name." Why was she using an anonymous prepaid phone and is that why Team Martin had to hire a PI, to find out who was acually using that number at that time?

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/trayvons-phone-records/#more-594
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 04:51:12 PM by Redbrow »

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #382 on: August 24, 2012, 05:00:34 PM »
Don't a lot of people use those pre-paid phones?


Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #383 on: August 24, 2012, 05:08:13 PM »
Don't a lot of people use those pre-paid phones?

Sure they do, but don't they usually know where they bought the phone from? The phone number listed by FDLE shows Unlisted, Wireless, METRO PCS, INC. DeeDee claimed it was T-Mobile (after BDLR's leading). BDLR seems aware that it was her number in Feb but not necessarily her current number. Don't most people keep their same number for their personal phone?

Quote
BDLR: OK, what was your telephone number back in February of this year, 2012?

Dee Dee:  [Redacted]

BDLR: And is that a cell phone?

Dee Dee:  Yes.


BDLR: OK, and is that phone number under your name or under somebody else’s name?

Dee Dee:  Now, it should be now under my name.

BDLR: And do you know what the provider is…is it T-Mobile? Or do you know?

Dee Dee:  Yeah, T-Mobile…[mumbles]…I think.


« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 05:10:21 PM by Redbrow »

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #384 on: August 24, 2012, 05:57:38 PM »
I don't know if you can keep the same number on the pre-paid phones.

I have a couple of theories on the whole thing but...you know.


Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #385 on: August 24, 2012, 06:04:27 PM »
Why "Of course not"? The discovery isn't listed till it's given to the defense. I don't see how we'd know what might be in future discovery.

I think I said "Of course not" in answer to whether Trayvon's videos and pictures would be part of phone company records.  Am I wrong about that?  The reason to subpoena the records would be to find out it he was talking to somebody before getting killed.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #386 on: August 24, 2012, 06:34:07 PM »
I think I said "Of course not" in answer to whether Trayvon's videos and pictures would be part of phone company records.  Am I wrong about that?  The reason to subpoena the records would be to find out it he was talking to somebody before getting killed.

You said of course not, setting up a straw man. You ignored my response (and, since you were responding to my post, setting up the straw man and ignoring the response is a little dishonest).

I never said the videos and pictures would be part of phone company records. Of course they wouldn't. Even a blathering, gibbering moron knows that.

That might be why they wanted to examine the phone v. sterile phone company records.


Offline turbo6

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #387 on: August 24, 2012, 07:02:06 PM »
I'm sure this has mentioned before, but have they not just popped the memory card out of the phone and explored the pictures/videos whatever else is on it?

Offline jupchurch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #388 on: August 24, 2012, 09:29:46 PM »
Ricky:

You asked why they'd want to actually access the phone rather than just seeing phone records (which are pretty dry and sterile, all in all).

I offered you a reason--maybe they were looking for videos or pictures.

According to this reference, most cell phone companies don't retain the content of text messages.

http://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-response-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #389 on: August 24, 2012, 10:32:35 PM »
I think I said "Of course not" in answer to whether Trayvon's videos and pictures would be part of phone company records.  Am I wrong about that?  The reason to subpoena the records would be to find out it he was talking to somebody before getting killed.

I assumed incorrectly that the question that followed was rhetorical: "Is any of that stuff listed as part of future discovery?"  I thought you meant, Of course not, or we would have seen it listed as part of future discovery. I should have realized it wasn't, because the next question is obviously a regular question. Sorry about that.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking