Author Topic: Witness #8, Thread II  (Read 9875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2013, 11:57:34 PM »
She couldn't take it out of the bible at home, and carry it to the deposition in in her purse?

Of course she could have. But why should she? Is there something wrong with taking her bible to the deposition?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2013, 12:30:17 AM »
Clearly her recantation wasn't timely. As for manifest prospect of exposure, I haven't paid enough attention to the case to have an opinion. (If you want to argue either point, I would suggest doing it on the thread for that case.)

Clearly? O'Mara corrected any misstatements within a few days of the bond hearing.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2013, 12:32:27 AM »
Of course she could have. But why should she? Is there something wrong with taking her bible to the deposition?

Nothing except there was no point to doing so other than for effect. You can't see through such an obvious stunt? I'm not referring to taking a bible to the deposition; I'm referring to taking the so-called letter in the bible at the deposition. The point of that was clearly to suggest it was some kind of sacred relic instead of what it really was: a written witness statement that was hidden from the defense.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 12:43:23 AM by MJW »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2013, 12:44:54 AM »
Nothing except there was no point to doing so other than for effect. You can't see through such an obvious stunt? I'm not referring to taking a bible to the deposition; I'm referring to taking the so-called letter out of the bible at the deposition. The point of that was clearly to suggest it was some kind of sacred relic instead of what it really was: a written witness statement that was hidden from the defense.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2013, 05:33:55 AM »
To Trayvon's mother, that "letter" may well be a sort of "sacred relic", and there's nothing unusual about the kind of ladies who have bibles which are important to them spiritually carrying stuff in them.

For Bernie to do everything short of rent a billboard to make sure everybody in the known world heard about the bible?  That was the stunt.  The letter would have been the letter no matter how she brought it to the deposition.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2013, 06:13:59 AM »
To Trayvon's mother, that "letter" may well be a sort of "sacred relic", and there's nothing unusual about the kind of ladies who have bibles which are important to them spiritually carrying stuff in them.

I would attribute that to tradition or cultural artifact. Until very recently from a historical perspective the church - not the government - kept vital statistics. In the southern US (at least) there's a tradition of the family bible. There are blank pages incuded for the owner to record births, baptims, marriages and deaths - many of which happened at home. The bible would then be passed to the next generation to keep. Often people would include small keepsakes of the person or event as well. Sometimes they would include important family documents with the idea that the bible would be well cared for and safe from theft.

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2013, 09:16:37 AM »
I would attribute that to tradition or cultural artifact. Until very recently from a historical perspective the church - not the government - kept vital statistics. In the southern US (at least) there's a tradition of the family bible. There are blank pages incuded for the owner to record births, baptims, marriages and deaths - many of which happened at home. The bible would then be passed to the next generation to keep. Often people would include small keepsakes of the person or event as well. Sometimes they would include important family documents with the idea that the bible would be well cared for and safe from theft.
What you're saying is definitely true; about 30 years ago, I worked in my state's department of vital records, and a good number of the older records were compiled from church records and family bibles, particularly for the AA community.

However, this is a case in which a PR man was hired by the decedent's family before he was even buried.

IMO, the careful mention of Sybrina taking the letter from her bible is just more media spin.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2013, 04:44:27 PM »
In the discovery today, the cell phone records show W8 texted Trayvon at 7:08:03 -- almost 9 minutes before the gunshot at 7:16:55 (give or take a few seconds.)

She told BDLR she texted him after the phone went dead. It sure doesn't sound like she has much relevant evidence if her contact ended 8 minutes before the shooting.

Also, if any of the texts with Trayvon about fighting are between W8 and TM, then she has another credibility problem: She told BDLR Trayvon wouldn't fight.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2013, 05:06:40 PM »
In the discovery today, the cell phone records show W8 texted Trayvon at 7:08:03 -- almost 9 minutes before the gunshot at 7:16:55 (give or take a few seconds.)

She told BDLR she texted him after the phone went dead. It sure doesn't sound like she has much relevant evidence if her contact ended 8 minutes before the shooting.

I mentioned on the main board that the last received text doesn't tell us when the phone went dead (assuming the phone went dead), and if the phone went dead at say 7:14, any text sent after that would not have been received even though they were sent.  The text reports are from the phone, so wouldn't show texts hung up in the phone provider's queue, waiting to be delivered when the recipient's phone was available.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2013, 05:10:10 PM »
But the text from her shows on his phone as unopened at 7:08. That's the latest she could have sent it. She said she texted him after she heard the oral encounter between them and she heard his phone fall. She was yelling "Trayvon" and he didn't answer. She said she tried to call, no answer and she then texted. So how did she hear anything that happened in the last 8 minutes?
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 05:12:12 PM by TalkLeft »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #40 on: May 23, 2013, 05:16:46 PM »
But the text from her shows on his phone as unopened at 7:08. That's the latest she could have sent it. She said she texted him after she heard the oral encounter between them and she heard his phone fall. She was yelling "Trayvon" and he didn't answer. She said she tried to call, no answer and she then texted. So how did she hear anything that happened in the last 8 minutes?

The scenario that I think hasn't been disproven is that she sends a text at 7:08.  Martin's phone receives it but he doesn't open it.  She then calls him and talks to him, say from 7:10 to 7:14 (or 7:11 to 7:15, or approximately that time frame).  The phone goes dead at 7:14 and is unable to receive texts she sends after the phone goes dead.  The text she claims to have sent after the phone went dead is not received (and can't be received) by the dead phone.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #41 on: May 23, 2013, 05:35:07 PM »
I think my whole premise was off. I forgot about the 4 minute phone call at 7:12. The phone clearly wasn't dead before 7:08. Do you mind if I delete my comment and your responses so I don't confuse people? Thanks for them though.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2013, 05:37:48 PM »
I think my whole premise was off. I forgot about the 4 minute phone call at 7:12. The phone clearly wasn't dead before 7:08. Do you mind if I delete my comment and your responses so I don't confuse people? Thanks for them though.

I don;t mind at all if you delete those remarks of mine - here and on the main board.  Thanks for considered the argument and reconsidering your conclusion.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #43 on: May 23, 2013, 05:38:53 PM »
Have the official records of Tracy Martin's phone bill, with the all important last call (not text) on Trayvon's phone been officially released as part of some discovery document?

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8, Thread II
« Reply #44 on: May 23, 2013, 07:56:24 PM »
I think my whole premise was off. I forgot about the 4 minute phone call at 7:12. The phone clearly wasn't dead before 7:08. Do you mind if I delete my comment and your responses so I don't confuse people? Thanks for them though.

The time on that text message is curious, though.

There's a 1 minute call at 6:53 and another at 6:54, both from Trayvon's phone to North Dade, and maybe they're to W8,  then an incoming call at 6:54 which goes on for 18 minutes, which puts it ending at 7:12, and I assume that it was from W8, as I assume the 4 minute call at 7:12 was from her.  She's on a carrier that uses the T-Mobile network, so those calls show as "in network".

There's a 1 minute call at 7:04 which comes from outside the T-Mobile network, which I assume was Chad and that Martin did the "call waiting" thing to talk to him real quick and then went back to the 18 minute call.

So why, 4 minutes after that "call-us interruptus", and 4 minutes before the end of the 18 minute call, would W8 be texting to Martin?  Can you even send a text from a cell phone if you're in the middle of a voice conversation on it?

(I have a "non-smart" cell phone, and I'm old)

Like I say, I assume the 18 minute call was from W8, because the "sheltering from the rain at the mail thing" supposedly happens during her penultimate call, and she doesn't indicate that long a gap between it and the final call.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking