Author Topic: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)  (Read 33007 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2013, 11:10:01 PM »
I'd also use the destruction of evidence as a basis for demanding a deposition of Gutman.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2013, 11:11:14 PM »
When was the last time you heard of a news organization doing something like this?

The way that Gutman, Crump, and W-8 have intertwined, is like nothing I have seen before. To the best of my knowledge, we have been in uncharted waters ever since that bizarre interview on 3/19/12.

ETA: If someone at ABC deliberately destroyed evidence, I would think there was something damning there. Maybe evidence of a more serious felony?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 11:17:35 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2013, 11:13:55 PM »
The link doesn't work. I took the liberty of replacing it.

Thanks very much. I had put quote marks before and after the url which you do on the blog but not in forums.  I fixed the link in my message too.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2013, 11:15:07 PM »
I'd also use the destruction of evidence as a basis for demanding a deposition of Gutman.

I should add that this is hypothetical. I'm not yet convinced ABC destroyed any evidence, though the motion does make it sound like they did.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #34 on: April 04, 2013, 11:23:05 PM »
I don't think ABC did anything wrong by not preserving it. There were no charges filed and no case pending when the interview conducted on March 19. There is no obligation for the media to  to keep or turn over  statements of people it interviews it connection with an event that I can think of.

But if they didn't preserve it, it was erased, which is the same as destroyed.


Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2013, 11:27:22 PM »
There were no charges filed and no case pending when the interview conducted on March 19.

There was an investigation.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2013, 11:31:09 PM »
I'd also use the destruction of evidence as a basis for demanding a deposition of Gutman.

Gutman isn't on the defense's most recent Witness List.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2013, 11:34:13 PM »
I don't think ABC did anything wrong by not preserving it. There were no charges filed and no case pending when the interview conducted on March 19. There is no obligation for the media to  to keep or turn over  statements of people it interviews it connection with an event that I can think of.

But if they didn't preserve it, it was erased, which is the same as destroyed.

But why not destroy all of it?  They saved a certain kind of damning piece of "coaching" and unceremoniously put it into their videos section.  I haven't checked since it was first discovered so I don't know that the small segment hasn't been removed by now.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2013, 11:49:44 PM »
I haven't checked since it was first discovered so I don't know that the small segment hasn't been removed by now.

It's still there.

It wouldn't matter if they took it down. It's on YouTube.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #39 on: April 05, 2013, 12:12:13 AM »
I have it saved on my computer, along with ABC's other news reports on Witness 8 and many Crump interviews. I also have the transcripts many obtained of them from Lexis.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #40 on: April 05, 2013, 12:34:22 AM »
I have it saved on my computer, along with ABC's other news reports on Witness 8 and many Crump interviews. I also have the transcripts many obtained of them from Lexis.

I love you...  you are the bestest ever!  Can you share some transcripts?  Have you noticed I have my hand out.  A lot.   :-[

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #41 on: April 05, 2013, 01:57:37 AM »
I don't think ABC did anything wrong by not preserving it. There were no charges filed and no case pending when the interview conducted on March 19. There is no obligation for the media to  to keep or turn over  statements of people it interviews it connection with an event that I can think of.

But if they didn't preserve it, it was erased, which is the same as destroyed.

I think "destroyed" fits if ABC purposely erased evidence. Erasing destroys the evidence.

If ABC did erase the recording, we don't know when they did, so we can't know whether it was before the the charges were filed or the case was pending. In any event, 918.13 applies when "a criminal trial or proceeding or an investigation ... is pending or is about to be instituted." There's no question an investigation was pending, and given Gutman's breathless reporting, he can hardly deny he was aware that the interview was potential evidence.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2013, 03:25:20 AM »
Here's the 5TH DCA's eDocket for George Zimmerman. The latest filing has yet to appear.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2013, 06:09:05 AM »
As I opine elsewhere, for an outfit like ABC, nowadays tape is cheap and so is hard drive space, and what they had was better than evidence, it was something no other network or news outfit had.

Either this is misunderstanding, or they were in some serious legal danger if it drove them to try to make their recording as if it had never happened, and that would only further raise the quesion of why they quietly posted the segment they did.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2013, 06:38:43 AM »
I think "destroyed" fits if ABC purposely erased evidence. Erasing destroys the evidence.

If ABC did erase the recording, we don't know when they did, so we can't know whether it was before the the charges were filed or the case was pending. In any event, 918.13 applies when "a criminal trial or proceeding or an investigation ... is pending or is about to be instituted." There's no question an investigation was pending, and given Gutman's breathless reporting, he can hardly deny he was aware that the interview was potential evidence.

O'Mara moved for a subpoena to ABC, with that motion being presented on 18 January 2013.  I haven't yet searched for a Court order on that motion, but my intuition is that O'Mara's assertion that ABC only preserved 5 minutes comes from formal reply from ABC.  They can't produce what they don't have.

How much legal trouble to ABC flows from that is yet to be seen.  The presumption woks against ABC, more particularly, the presumption is that the missing information is exculpatory to Zimmerman, in some fashion.  For example, by casting doubt on Witness 8's credibility.  If ABC deliberately destroyed the evidence, it stands to reason they are in less trouble (even if found guilty of destruction of evidence) with the evidence missing, than they would be if the evidence was produced.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking