Author Topic: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY  (Read 11822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2013, 01:37:22 PM »
this is an image of the SW40VE that seems to have been obtained by TM. In his texts it was  mentioned sharing with another guy a .380 but looks like he got a SW40 instead.

http://www.woodburyoutfitters.com/v/vspfiles/photos/2621-2.jpg

I can't help but to notice the irony here... Did you use a 9 or a 40?

I haven't read all the texts, but I recall reading a remark that "his mom" had a gun.  Oh, just a funny notice, CNN's report calls the gun a Glock.  Reminds of that "Reporter's guide to handguns" (all of them are Glock), and the "Reporter's guide to assault weapons" (all of them are AK-47's).  Anyway, back to the subject, I don't think the gun in the picture is one of the street guns that Martin was texting about acquiring.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2013, 01:46:08 PM »
I haven't read all the texts, but I recall reading a remark that "his mom" had a gun.

I thought the same as well, but that was a read text, not sent.

SENT: U gotta gun??
READ: it my mommy but she buy for me
SENT: She let u hold it??
READ: yea
SENT: But she keep it??
READ: yea


Generally "hold it" means something like "maintain possession of it" though that's speculation.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #17 on: May 23, 2013, 01:57:00 PM »
I don't speak for TalkLeft, but she's stated that we can discuss the character traits introduced by a party as potential evidence. For myself, I will still exercise decorum when discussing character traits and limit that discussion to what's been proffered by a party.

Ms. Merritt has done a top-shelf job of making this site accurate, informative and respectful while maintaining a high signal-to-noise ratio. I would be ashamed to think that I proved myself unable to meet these standards in my own posts.

I suspect that she will provide some guidance in the near term.

Yeah thanks.

I'll wait until I get actual guidance from The Hostess before I say anything about this stuff though--I've had enough posts deleted for saying the exact same things as in this current release.

I don't know where the character assassination line ends and the evidence line starts.



Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #18 on: May 23, 2013, 02:01:49 PM »
I thought the same as well, but that was a read text, not sent.

Thanks for clearing that up / correcting my mistaken impression.  Still, we haven't seen any evidence that the gun in the photos is a street gun, purchased by Martin for himself or shared use with one of his buddies.

Street guns are cheaper than store bought!

Today's data dump put a big dent in the prosecution's public case.  I wonder, seeing all those W8 notes in the phone message summary pages, if the defense really cares about deposing Crump for purposes of the Zimmerman trial.  Maybe W-8 caused enough damage.  I still hope they get to depose Crump, as that is potentially fodder for any civil claim or potential criminal charge (as if the state would charge Crump for fabricating evidence and trumping up a trial).

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2013, 02:06:32 PM »
I don't know where the character assassination line ends and the evidence line starts.

It might be off-topic or it might be useful for illustration.

I think Person A demonstrated a history of violence because of [evidence] is an example of a respectful, accurate and informative statement. I think Person A is a common thug. Look at [evidence]. That just shows that Person A probably [wild speculation] is a character attack, speculative and doesn't really have any informative value.

Once again, this is just my opinion as I do not speak for this board.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2013, 02:19:55 PM »
It might be off-topic or it might be useful for illustration.

I think Person A demonstrated a history of violence because of [evidence] is an example of a respectful, accurate and informative statement. I think Person A is a common thug. Look at [evidence]. That just shows that Person A probably [wild speculation] is a character attack, speculative and doesn't really have any informative value.

Once again, this is just my opinion as I do not speak for this board.

Our hostess uses a much broader definition of 'character attack'.

I once got a post deleted and a thread locked, because I said I thought some information in the autopsy report suggested a history of smoking something. The context, and my intention, were unrelated to 'character'. The discussion was about how much running Martin would have to do for it to be plausible that he was out of breath.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2013, 02:28:33 PM »
I self-reported for guidance and I'll also start a thread in Forum Rules to avoid derailing this thread any further.

Offline paperboy05

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2013, 02:45:31 PM »
I thought the same as well, but that was a read text, not sent.

SENT: U gotta gun??
READ: it my mommy but she buy for me
SENT: She let u hold it??
READ: yea
SENT: But she keep it??
READ: yea


Generally "hold it" means something like "maintain possession of it" though that's speculation.

That's what confuses me. That whole discussion is about W8 owning/possessing a gun for protection because Trayvon doesn't want her to get shot.  :o

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2013, 02:49:28 PM »
The text exchange that stands out somewhat for me is the following on Page 10 of Report 1 at 02/23/2012 - 11:37:20AM:

READ: Did u throw dat card away?
SENT: naw ion wanna do it
READ: Bruh on sum real sh*t
READ: I ain't ya parent but gsh*t thro it away
SENT: Y u gonna knock my hustle?? If dats wat I wanna do nd uon like it.... tell me u nd agree wit it nd deal wit it


I'm reading card as a bank card. Any opinions?

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2013, 02:51:55 PM »
That's what confuses me. That whole discussion is about W8 owning/possessing a gun for protection because Trayvon doesn't want her to get shot.  :o
How do you infer the other party is W#8?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2013, 02:55:08 PM »
That's what confuses me. That whole discussion is about W8 owning/possessing a gun for protection because Trayvon doesn't want her to get shot.  :o

Not necessarily W8. Martin exchanged text messages with people other than W8.

Offline paperboy05

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2013, 02:57:02 PM »
How do you infer the other party is W#8?
Not necessarily W8. Martin exchanged text messages with people other than W8.
From Report #4: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/report4.pdf

Notations next to those "Send" messages indicate "W8". My assumption is that they were texts to W8.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2013, 03:02:35 PM »
I'm reading card as a bank card. Any opinions?

It's the only meaning that makes sense to me.  I think CTH has some speculation the remark revolves a SIM card for a phone, but I don't see that being a "hustle" or any particularly damaging thing to have around.  Not that a stolen SIM couldn't be trouble, they are, and pretty easy to trace what with cell tower records and the like.  But Martin had a phone that worked.

Oh, maybe it is a fake or stolen ID card.

Whatever it is, it's shady.  Shady enough that his shady friend urges Martin to ditch it.  I don't think being caught with fake ID is nearly as much risk with the law, as being caught with a stolen ID or stolen bank card.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2013, 03:15:37 PM »
Notations next to those "Send" messages indicate "W8". My assumption is that they were texts to W8.

They appear in Report #1 too.  I haven't sorted it out either, but have to say that your take follows the notations on the reports, plus the description of the reports (Martin cellphone extraction).

Offline paperboy05

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: DEFENDANT'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2013, 03:17:10 PM »
They appear in Report #1 too.  I haven't sorted it out either, but have to say that your take follows the notations on the reports, plus the description of the reports (Martin cellphone extraction).
Yeah, that threw me off right away too. It seemed like all of the texts were in report 1, and a couple of the other reports went more specific (?). For example report 5 highlighted the firearm texts.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking