Author Topic: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12  (Read 22203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #90 on: April 01, 2013, 10:42:34 PM »
If it wasn't her 'nickname', the explanation for its inclusion makes no sense.

Even the nickname would be potentially identifying, so it might be redacted.

As I said previously, I think the length of the redaction makes it unlikely to be a nickname. And as I also said, I'm perplexed because I see no explanation that fits all the apparent facts. I'm hoping the defense reply might give some clues (or better yet, spell it all out).
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 10:51:58 PM by MJW »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #91 on: April 01, 2013, 10:48:00 PM »
Are you sure they aren't talking about the Colonial Village front gate and videos thereof?

Colonial Village doesn't have a gate.

ETA: In a Google Earth street view, no cameras covering the entrance are evident. AghastInFl may be able to give us a more definitive answer.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 10:52:41 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #92 on: April 01, 2013, 10:49:46 PM »
Quote
If it wasn't her 'nickname', the explanation for its inclusion makes no sense.

I wouldn't bet the farm that its inclusion actually does make sense. I'm not certain BDLR didn't toss it in on the theory (as advanced by the Orlando Sentinel reporter)  that because it's more or less consistent with W8's other versions, it corroborates her account.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #93 on: April 01, 2013, 10:56:08 PM »
As I said previously, I think the length of the redaction makes it unlikely to be a nickname.

A nickname doesn't have to be short.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #94 on: April 01, 2013, 11:01:29 PM »
To distance himself from her, and hence any problems that may turn out to be associated with her.

In his affidavit, Crump made a point of saying that he didn't know her last name. I assume he had some reason for that.

Quite possibly. But did he suspect she would be a problem before the interview and so started protecting himself back then? Or did he do it after the fact in his affidavit? Ether case would seem to indicate he did something unethical and possibly illegal. Of course, this all assumes that Sybrina would inform him of the letter. Can't imagine why she wouldn't.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #95 on: April 01, 2013, 11:02:45 PM »
A nickname doesn't have to be short.
Someone wanting to hide their identity wouldn't use a name, nick or otherwise, that others might identify with her. So again, back to why the redaction?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #96 on: April 01, 2013, 11:04:45 PM »
Someone wanting to hide their identity wouldn't use a name, nick or otherwise, that others might identify with her.

They might if they were lazy, or not very smart.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #97 on: April 01, 2013, 11:06:24 PM »
But did he suspect she would be a problem

Wouldn't you?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #98 on: April 01, 2013, 11:08:02 PM »
I don't recall any videos from Colonial Village being mentioned in discovery.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #99 on: April 01, 2013, 11:14:35 PM »
Wouldn't you?
Not if I believed she was the real deal.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #100 on: April 01, 2013, 11:18:03 PM »
A nickname doesn't have to be short.

Nicknames are usually short. The redaction covers a space of around 15 written characters. What are some 15 letter nicknames? "Rumpelstiltskin," perhaps?

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #101 on: April 01, 2013, 11:21:00 PM »
They might if they were lazy, or not very smart.

Smart enough to think of writing (not lazy) out an 'affidavit' to try and avoid talking to anyone as well as smart enough to think she should hide her identity, but not smart enough to realize she might be identified by a nickname? Do you think that likely?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #102 on: April 01, 2013, 11:23:04 PM »
Smart enough to think of writing (not lazy) out an 'affidavit' to try and avoid talking to anyone as well as smart enough to think she should hide her identity, but not smart enough to realize she might be identified by a nickname? Do you think that likely?

Sure, although it's more likely she was asked to write the statement.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #103 on: April 01, 2013, 11:28:15 PM »
Sure, although it's more likely she was asked to write the statement.

And also asked to sign the statement with a fake name?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
« Reply #104 on: April 01, 2013, 11:32:34 PM »
And also asked to sign the statement with a fake name?

De la Rionda implied that was her idea.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking