Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)

[DebFrmHell]

Yes.  ABC only preserved 5 minutes.  The rest was erased, trashed, whatever.

Just sent Seni T and Matt G a little tweet to tell them my opinion.  Disgusted with "Journalistic Integrity"

[RickyJim]

Didn't Gutman interview DeeDee own his own on some other occasions(s)? 

[cboldt]

Just sent Seni T and Matt G a little tweet to tell them my opinion.  Disgusted with "Journalistic Integrity"

My mental process automatically translates "Journalistic integrity" to "imbued with prevarication."  Nothing, and I mean NOTHING that the press puts out is an accurate portrayal of reality.  On the plus side, I think the public is getting close to the attitude the Russian people had toward Pravda and Izvestia.

I hope ABC loses millions of dollars in an upcoming defamation suit.

[DebFrmHell]

My mental process automatically translates "Journalistic integrity" to "imbued with prevarication."  Nothing, and I mean NOTHING that the press puts out is an accurate portrayal of reality.  On the plus side, I think the public is getting close to the attitude the Russian people had toward Pravda and Izvestia.

I hope ABC loses millions of dollars in an upcoming defamation suit.

That may be true for the people following this case but what about the rest of it.   

[unitron]

Yes.  ABC only preserved 5 minutes.  The rest was erased, trashed, whatever.

Are you quite certain, regardless of what they actually wrote, that the defense did not mean "only presented" rather than "only preserved"?

For them to have destroyed the rest, but published the part that shows Crump was inaccurate about the gaps containing nothing of importance, seems bizarre.

There's no way that does not raise the question of what would the rest of their recording reveal about how truthful Crump was or was not, and whether they destroyed the rest because of any pressure Crump brought to bear.

If the defense really thought ABC destroyed the rest of the recording, I don't see them not going off like an atom bomb about it.

[MJW]

If the defense really thought ABC destroyed the rest of the recording, I don't see them not going off like an atom bomb about it.

I agree. Until more information comes out, I think it's best not to jump to conclusions. If ABC did destroy most of the recording, they might be guilty of tampering with evidence. It's also somewhat difficult to believe every single copy of the recording would be destroyed. I hope some clarification is made soon. The whole ABC situation is very mysterious.

[vegas]

"If ABC did destroy the recording, they might be quilty of tampering with evidence". That would be great.

[cashmere]

Hi - I apologize for asking something that is likely already answered somewhere on this board, but can someone help me understand why Judge Nelson has denied Crump's deposition?  I believe it has something to do with Crump representing the Martins who likely will bring civil suits against Zimmerman, but I just don't understand the details and why this may be a conflict for Crump.  Any assistance helping me understand more about our legal system is appreciated.  Thanks!

[TalkLeft]

I have a new post up on the cert petition at the main site here.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Didn't Gutman interview DeeDee own his own on some other occasions(s)?

I believe so.

I don't think those interviews are mentioned in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. There's no reason for them to be, unless there is evidence that Crump was present for at least one of them.

More on W-8 II thread.

[nomatter_nevermind]

I have a new post up on the cert petition at the main site here.

The link doesn't work. I took the liberty of replacing it.

[MJW]

The statute for tampering with evidence is:

918.13 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.—
(1) No person, knowing that a criminal trial or proceeding or an investigation by a duly constituted prosecuting authority, law enforcement agency, grand jury or legislative committee of this state is pending or is about to be instituted, shall:
(a) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing with the purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation; or
(b) Make, present, or use any record, document, or thing, knowing it to be false.
(2) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Are you quite certain, regardless of what they actually wrote, that the defense did not mean "only presented" rather than "only preserved"?

It could be an error of some kind, but this one doesn't seem likely.

I don't think it is exactly true. As I mentioned here, on 3/20 ABC aired a variant of 'put his hoodie on' that is probably a missing piece of the Crump interview.

I don't see what relevance it would have. The context is of supporting the claim that Crump is the only available source of the information. If ABC has it, it can be subpoenaed. It doesn't matter if it's been aired or not.

If the defense really thought ABC destroyed the rest of the recording, I don't see them not going off like an atom bomb about it.

They are going after Crump at the moment. They may be lining up some ducks before going after ABC.

The whole ABC situation is very mysterious.

If the recordings have been destroyed, including the Gutman interviews, that might explain why there still has been no hearing on the matter. Jeralyn mentioned that in the recently linked blog post.

[unitron]

"It could be an error of some kind, but this one doesn't seem likely. "

When was the last time you heard of a news organization doing something like this?

[MJW]

If the recordings have been destroyed, including the Gutman interviews, that might explain why there still has been no hearing on the matter. Jeralyn mentioned that in the recently linked blog post.

If I were the defense, and ABC destroyed evidence, I'd be doing everything I could to force them to admit in in the court record.